I notice a lot of games get flack for being "only" 8 or 10 hours long. I disagree. If a game is not incomplete or doesn't feel like it is missing something, what is wrong with 8-10 hours? I know the reason I have yet to really delve into Zelda TP is because its freaking 50 hours long, and I just don't have that kind of energy to put into ONE game, no matter how good.
I would rather in that time play 5 different, great games that I can enjoy, get into, and finish in a reasonable amount of time. I know everyone wants value for their buck, but for me, the time to play games can be harder to come up with than the money.
That is why I am thankful that most of the great games out their are not 40 hours. I am glad those games exist, but I don't understand bashing shorter games as if they are inherently flawed because they don't require you to treat them like a second job. Anyone else agree?
In my expeirience short games are al lot more intense. Also it is satisfying beating a game in a day or two.lycrof
Agreed. I just get bored with a game that is 30-50 hours. Sometimes it seems that they just put in a bunch of content for no reason other than to make the game longer.
These games are ment to ingage people in the story from the very begining focusing on a single story arc in order to make it most effective. Like Gears, not the longest game in the world, but loved playing through the story and have done it many times, due to the fact u get into the plot from the begining and know whats going on.
I have tried to play Zelda again but just got boared, and have stoped about 1/2 through, it just didn't keep my interest.
So when Shigsy comes out to reiterate his - and in his eyes, your - desire for shorter games, as he did this month by claiming "there are fewer people who are interested in playing a big role-playing game like Zelda", it's only natural that it 'furrows-up' the brow of disconcerted gamers who can only see game prices going up, up and away. But the thing is, Miyamoto is bang on - it's just that his message is muddled
One of my favorites, and a game that remains one of the best of all time, is Super Metriod. It's a game that packs a lot of excitement in a few hours. Not to mention one of the strengths of the game is because it perhaps *the* speed running game. To complete a game as fast as possible!
I notice a lot of games get flack for being "only" 8 or 10 hours long. I disagree. If a game is not incomplete or doesn't feel like it is missing something, what is wrong with 8-10 hours? I know the reason I have yet to really delve into Zelda TP is because its freaking 50 hours long, and I just don't have that kind of energy to put into ONE game, no matter how good.
I would rather in that time play 5 different, great games that I can enjoy, get into, and finish in a reasonable amount of time. I know everyone wants value for their buck, but for me, the time to play games can be harder to come up with than the money.
That is why I am thankful that most of the great games out their are not 40 hours. I am glad those games exist, but I don't understand bashing shorter games as if they are inherently flawed because they don't require you to treat them like a second job. Anyone else agree?rpawloski2458
Then maybe you should stick to cell phone games. Just kidding.
Seriously though, I think paying $60 plus bucks for only 8 hours of entertainment is outrageous. I can see your point with 50 hour plus games. However, too short is a problem too. Why not make games that magic 20 hours? It seems to be perfect for most people. Its not too long where you need to devote your life to it, but it is long enough where you can enjoy it and feel that you got your moneys worth.
[QUOTE="rpawloski2458"]I notice a lot of games get flack for being "only" 8 or 10 hours long. I disagree. If a game is not incomplete or doesn't feel like it is missing something, what is wrong with 8-10 hours? I know the reason I have yet to really delve into Zelda TP is because its freaking 50 hours long, and I just don't have that kind of energy to put into ONE game, no matter how good.
I would rather in that time play 5 different, great games that I can enjoy, get into, and finish in a reasonable amount of time. I know everyone wants value for their buck, but for me, the time to play games can be harder to come up with than the money.
That is why I am thankful that most of the great games out their are not 40 hours. I am glad those games exist, but I don't understand bashing shorter games as if they are inherently flawed because they don't require you to treat them like a second job. Anyone else agree?HuhJustaBox
Then maybe you should stick to cell phone games. Just kidding.
Seriously though, I think paying $60 plus bucks for only 8 hours of entertainment is outrageous. I can see your point with 50 hour plus games. However, too short is a problem too. Why not make games that magic 20 hours? It seems to be perfect for most people. Its not too long where you need to devote your life to it, but it is long enough where you can enjoy it and feel that you got your moneys worth.
Actually, that is a great point. What is it that makes game length so extreme? Its either 50 hours or its 8. Why not 15-20? That seems to be the best of both worlds.
One thing I notice is that people keep bringing up price. "60 is too much for a 10 hour game." But games have actually gone down in price. We payed 40-50 per NES game 20 years ago. Adjust for inflation, and you were paying at least double by comparison. Through in the "greatest hits" lines and used games, and games are cheaper than ever. And those old SNES and NES games were no more than 8-10 hours long, and they didn't have online either.
So maybe the problem is that games don't need to be longer... they need to be more replayable.
i prefer long games but in the end it all depends on the game itself. a FPS cannot do being 50 hours while a RPG would be weird if it was olny 10 hours long, im surew they could manage but it doesnt suit a RPG.
i prefer long games but in the end it all depends on the game itself. a FPS cannot do being 50 hours while a RPG would be weird if it was olny 10 hours long, im surew they could manage but it doesnt suit a RPG.reyad-u
I agree. I am all for some long games. But I hear 10 hour games get bashed on these forums all the time. "Gears sucks cuz I beat it in like 8 hours." So what? How much longer could a game like Gears really be and still be fun and fresh? An RPG should be 40 hours or more, but my point is that a game isn't flawed if it is "only" eight hours long.
[QUOTE="omgimba"]Paying 60$ for something that is only 8 hours long? Thats 7,5$ an hour..= simply stupid..actionquake
But going to see a movie at a theater is roughly 7-10$ for maybe 2 hours of entertainment. Not that much difference.
Itsover twice as much according to your own figures! $60 for a game that lasts less than 10 hrs with no mulitplayer (even worse if its very linear with limited replayability) is a disgrace.
I actually felt that that tp should have been shortened. I completed it at around 40 hours and it felt stretched. the same with wind waker and the triforce hunts. For some games, a short quest is what is needed. Whether you feel the game delivered in terms of length is how you view the games ending. Halo 2 for instance left me feeling cheated. metroid, like i had accomplished something. If for instance, the games leaves you in the knowledge that a sequel will be coming i.e. gears, then you are probably more likely to fell "cheated" out of your money than you did with wind waker.
depends what genre it is.a game like gta is a prime example because its a game with a complex inter weaved story ands its always exciting to find out whats coming up next.
depends what genre it is.a game like gta is a prime example because its a game with a complex inter weaved story ands its always exciting to find out whats coming up next.k-diddy66
Complex interweaved story?
This is why games are shorter... Kool - Aid drinkers.
A game may take 8-10 hours to beat, but that doesn't mean you've gotten everything out of it. There are difficulty settings, hidden items (dog tags, orbs, etc.) to find, and so on. But, games like New Super Mario Bros. that take like 5 hours to beat and cost 35 bucks when there are games out there for the same price that are 6 times longer is ridiculous.
I actually felt that that tp should have been shortened. I completed it at around 40 hours and it felt stretched. the same with wind waker and the triforce hunts. For some games, a short quest is what is needed. Whether you feel the game delivered in terms of length is how you view the games ending. Halo 2 for instance left me feeling cheated. metroid, like i had accomplished something. If for instance, the games leaves you in the knowledge that a sequel will be coming i.e. gears, then you are probably more likely to fell "cheated" out of your money than you did with wind waker.samusarmada
Thats a good point. Simply padding a story for the sake of increasing its length is daft. There's no reason why a story can't be a reasonable length and still be strong.
Spending $60 every few days doesn't sound fun.out0v0rder
You beat me to it bro took the words right out of my mouth. When I send my money I would like it to last more than a day. I like huge games that last because to me that is called good value for my money. Now if the short games were $20 - $35 then I would be okay with that imo that would not be a rip for a new short game vs a massive epic for $60.
A game may take 8-10 hours to beat, but that doesn't mean you've gotten everything out of it. There are difficulty settings, hidden items (dog tags, orbs, etc.) to find, and so on. But, games like New Super Mario Bros. that take like 5 hours to beat and cost 35 bucks when there are games out there for the same price that are 6 times longer is ridiculous.
majadamus
I'll agree to some extent, but games like New Super Mario Bros is an exception. Normally it would only be me playing the game. With Mario Bros my wife and son will actually pick it up and play so overall it sees more playtime then some of the longer games that only I play. It basically boils down to "Do I feel like I'm getting my money's worth?"
IMO GeOW was the perfect length. I played it for about 4 days after work, beat it, then played online. I almost never finish games, so it was nice. Plus the game has intense action throughout. Plus i can play it on different difficulty levels if i want to. But online play is really where replay shines.
And i definitely got my money's worth with Gears. I played it online everynight from November to June. Now thats what i call stretching $60.
Short games are fine as long as they have some replay value to them. If there is online game and new content to unlock, then the game may be worth the price. I've been playing DragonQuest VIII for over 80hrs now. I'd say I've gotten my moneys worth with this game.
I notice a lot of games get flack for being "only" 8 or 10 hours long. I disagree. If a game is not incomplete or doesn't feel like it is missing something, what is wrong with 8-10 hours? I know the reason I have yet to really delve into Zelda TP is because its freaking 50 hours long, and I just don't have that kind of energy to put into ONE game, no matter how good.
I would rather in that time play 5 different, great games that I can enjoy, get into, and finish in a reasonable amount of time. I know everyone wants value for their buck, but for me, the time to play games can be harder to come up with than the money.
That is why I am thankful that most of the great games out their are not 40 hours. I am glad those games exist, but I don't understand bashing shorter games as if they are inherently flawed because they don't require you to treat them like a second job. Anyone else agree?rpawloski2458
I don't think I could agree ore I fell the same way about TP. it's as is you took the words right out of my mouth.
Log in to comment