^^ Wow sometimes I wonder if PS3 development in some ways is the cause for games tending to be short. I mean look at their exclusives such as Motorstorm and Heavenly Sword, not to mention games like Dirt, Stranglehold, Vegas, GRAW 2 are getting delayed as well as the Orange Box. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but what about high profile games such as GTA IV and MGS 4 that were pretty much guaranteed to meet the holiday release?

I guess its the developmenttimefor thePS3 being difficult to develop for, that's whythe exclusive gamesare too short. As a matter of fact UT III is doubtful for its Nov release date according to Mark Rein in an interview this week or last I think.

D3s7rUc71oN

It was never realistic to believe MGS4 was coming this year, and both the PS3 and 360 versions of GTA IV were delayed.

The other games you mention are all multiplatform, and none were delayed for problems with the PS3. In fact, DiRT was held back so it could be optimized for that system, and as it turns out, it is indeed the best version. The reason why Heavenly Sword is short is because the developers wanted it to be that length, and that's the long and short of it. Given the polish and refinement we see in that game, it probably took a massive amount of effort just for those 6 hours, but I don't think that has much of anything to do with the PS3 (especially based on what I've heard from interviews with Ninja Theory).

I already have one.

But I might actually cry if an FF VII remake is actually coming.

For anyone interested, Namco Bandai has also confirmed this game for the PS3; it'll be on display at TGS next week.

I already picked up Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, but that's not a next-gen JRPG...perhaps Eternal Sonata will fit the bill for me, too.

Length is absolutely relevant in determining a game's value. We just need to look at it in a different light.

Right now, popular thinking classifies length as how long it takes to play through the game a single time, when in fact, it should be thought of as how much time you will spend with a game, total. Put it in that light, and there's no excuse for a full-price game not to land below the 30-60 hour range. If a game really is just six hours - one play through and you're done - there's absolutely no way it justifies a $40-60 price tag.

DarkCatalyst

Well, I'll just have to completely disagree with that, outside of the subject in this thread.

What something is worth is hardly a universal fact. It's very possible someone could get to the end of HS and be completely and totally satisfied; not even regretting, but actually relishing his/her purchase. You can't say that would never happen, and you should never force developers to make games longer just because the price of the game is $60. That is crucially flawed thinking, and one that would only lead to unnecessary length, which in turn would adversely affect games. Then length really would be a problem, only in reverse.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in rewarding achievement, accomplishment, and quality. I give my money to developers who not only entertain but also impress me. I own several very short games that I paid the full sticker price for, and I never regretted a penny of that purchase. I own them because they did something special; something I'd rarely find in any other game, or in some cases, something I'd never find in another game. I believe HS has the finest voice acting in game history, and for that reason alone I believe it's worthy of being in my collection. That's a landmark achievement, which should be rewarded. Is it worth $60? No, not by itself, but the entire package is just vibrant with flash and panache. It's a presentation that is not often topped in the game world. I deem that worthy of recognition, and many others should, too.

Perhaps it's not worth $60 to everyone, but it is worth $60 to someone. I guarantee you that. And even if it's not, to completely dismiss a game due to its length : price ratio is downright absurd. At that point, you only care 100% about the money, and not a whit about the game itself.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]I suppose all that makes sense. And considering that, I guess I'm just at odds with the GS review format...although I'm not even sure that's accurate. Like I've said, I think the Value category is important (we should have one at PSXE, IMO, but we do have a Replay score to give out), but I think Replay and Value are two different things...value indicates something outside the actual quality of the game. That's why I have a problem with it impacting the actual score.

But if GS intends to include that, then I understand what they're doing. I just don't agree with it, I guess.Skylock00

Again, I fully understand what you are saying, and yes, you are correct in saying that length, if the pacing and design is cohesive for that length, should be irrelevent to the quality of the game, so long as the length of the game doesn't create poor design elements, either in adding filler, or otherwise.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying. But I'm glad for the good replies in the thread, because I wasn't really sure what people would say... I think we all understand one another, but it was kinda hard for me to get my specific point across because I agreed with what everyone said. I just had a different take on it. :)

Yeah I understand. Why were we even having a disagreement? I read your sites review and thats practically the same way I would review it, may not agree with the score (but thats yet to be determined) but the agree on most every point you made so far according to what I have played so far.

dvader654

Thanks. No real disagreement; I was just trying to understand exactly what you were saying. :)

In regards to GS, it's always been that way, since "value" was a catagory in the old scoring system which contributed to the score, and I'm certain that it is still a factor in the current scoring approach.

I agree that the game's length is pretty much irrelevent to the game's quality if the length doesn't cause anything negative to the game's design, but in the case of GS's reviews, the added variable of 'value' to the score makes factors like the game's length and pricing important, given that the reviews here are as much about purchase recommendations as they are about pure quality of the product in and of itself.

I simply feel that your stance regarding the purpose of a review is different than GS's stance, as evidenced by this statement you made:

From what I've heard, more or less, one of GS's main intents with their review scores and reviews is to act as a purchase recommendation to the reader, and is why 'value' is not only a factor mentioned and talked about in the review, but an aspect of the game that can either positively or negatively affect the score given different circumstances, like game length, features/modes, price, and so forth.

It's merely a difference in philosophies regarding the role/purpose of a review.

Skylock00

I suppose all that makes sense. And considering that, I guess I'm just at odds with the GS review format...although I'm not even sure that's accurate. Like I've said, I think the Value category is important (we should have one at PSXE, IMO, but we do have a Replay score to give out), but I think Replay and Value are two different things...value indicates something outside the actual quality of the game. That's why I have a problem with it impacting the actual score.

But if GS intends to include that, then I understand what they're doing. I just don't agree with it, I guess.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="CodeMunki"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

dvader654

Since when? That's ALL it should be. Reviews are not designed around capitalism and consumerism; they're supposed to deal with the product in question. Outlying factors shouldn't be having an impact on an evaluation of the product's quality, although they CAN be mentioned in the review. That's my whole point.

I have to disagree with that. When reviewing any game, those factors must be taken into account. How many times have reviewers complained about cash-ins? There's certainly precedent for that. Here's something more recent.

If a game is a questionable purchase based on amount of content, then the score should be docked a few points. When dealing with the product in question, all facets must be addressed in a review. Why should game length be excluded from graphics, gameplay, and replay value? It doesn't make sense to exclude length and value of purchase from game reviews. We as consumers should be demanding more for our money, especially with new titles coming out at $60. Six hour adventures don't cut it anymore, not without damn good reasons to replay it.

All of that is valid. But NONE of it has anything to do with a game's QUALITY. I'm a purist in that sense. The graphics, sound, and all that have a direct impact on the quality; all the components of a game come together to dictate that quality. Length is only a positive or a negative if it directly impacts the experience. If we finish the game, and the story and gameplay was neither too long or too short, it matters not at all how long it actually was; doesn't matter if it was 2 hours or 200 hours. I understand completely about getting bang for your buck, and as I've said multiple times before, it SHOULD be mentioned in reviews. In that way, I totally agree that the Value score is important.

But I repeat- it means nothing, NOTHING, in regards to the actual quality of the game (minus the preceding exception). And that's what reviews should be about: the evaluation and nothing more. Anything beyond that is compromising the manifest intent of the review. Whether or not we should buy it is a latent intent of a review. Important yes, but not the primary purpose. And I think that's the point.

I'm starting to understand what Fathoms is getting at. In my eyes and many others a game as short as HS may not be worth a buy, but that doesn't mean when you rent it or play it somehow that the quality of the game is diminished just cause you didn't find it worth the money to own it.

That's basically the long and short of it, yeah.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="AlwaysSoft"]

Yes, I've never seen anyone just disregard MGS's story the way you do, Dvader. Perhaps you've been spending a little too much time around these "It's all about the gameplay!" elitists that tend to pop their heads up every now and then and become oh so annoying.

I don't think games have been "all about the gameplay" for quite sometime.

I pretty much agree with Fathom's word for word. I play MGS for the story, and I play SC for the gameplay. In fact, if you were to ask me what the storyline was in any of the previous SCs, I honestly could'nt tell you, even though I've played through all of them and enjoyed them immensely.

Now granted, if MGS's gameplay were complete trash, there's no way I would play through a hunk of junk for it's story, but I think you are a bit mixed up when you talk as if MGS's priorities lie in the gameplay. I think very few, if any, have found MGS games to be some of the most memorable experiences theyv'e had because of the gameplay.

dvader654

No read most any review of a Metal Gear and its the gameplay that gets praise, thats why its such a success. Metal Gear has always had excellent gameplay, they have always been excellent games in every way from boss fights, the vairety in situations, the variety of weapons. The story adds to the complete package but its the gameplay that makes the game what it is.

Sorry but the reason I play games is to PLAY games, thats how its been since I was a kid and how it will be till I'm old. If it has a great story great but if not thats fine too. All that matters to me is that I am having fun PLAYING the game. I don't understand how so many can just bypass that, it makes zero sense to me.

Whatever your reasons to play games are your reasons but simply know that mine are to have fun playing a game, its as simple as that.

I don't think anyone is "bypassing" the gameplay, here. This is an interactive medium, after all, and as long as you do more interacting than watching, the gameplay will always be the most important. But I believe you're wrong about those MGS 3 reviews; I've read many that gave much higher praise to the storyline than to the gameplay. Take me, for example. As I said, I play and love both franchises, but both for different reasons (just like AlwaysSoft), and there's a darn good reason for that.

In comparison to SC, MGS's gameplay is over-complicated, not as fluid, and even clunky at times. It's also nowhere near as realistic, although I'm not saying SC is the pinnacle of a spy simulator. When I play SC, I get beautifully molded controls that are mapped extremely well to the controller, and I never feel as if I'm battling the control format. In MGS, in order to carefully target a foe with my rifle, I have to hold down two buttons, gently press another (halfway to aim and all the way to supress the trigger), and that's just plain silly. Yes, I did like the gameplay very much in MGS; I wouldn't have played it if I didn't. But there is no way on earth the gameplay stood out for me over the story, which was downright awesome from start to finish.

I understand what you're saying about playing games for fun, and having fun because we're playing. I totally get that. But there are those of us who get a great deal of enjoyment from fantastic stories, and often remember them more than the gameplay. I will always remember that scene in FF VII where Cloud was laying Aeris to rest, but I have difficulty remembering the boss fight that directly preceded it. And I adore the gameplay in FF VII; I think it's the greatest RPG ever. But without that story, it wouldn't have been half as memorable. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make.

The whole MGS vs SC is a whole different argument so I don't want to get into that here. I know what you mean about MGS controls but I got used to them and basically the style of game that MGS is, is more to my liking than the style of game SC is.

Anyway, yeah i can agree with you that story can help enhance a game, its doing so with HS. With certain genres story is very important to the point where it becomes a main aspect of the game, but to some I don't think its that nesessary. I'm not against, I love a great story mixed with my game. The issue is when people start to demand it or put the story ahead of the gameplay. My brain doesn't comprehend how someone can not like, say RE4, cause the story was dumb, who cares. If you didn't like RE4 cause you didn't enjoy the gameplay thats fine, but if you use story as your reasoning I cannot understand that at all. I see a strong story as a positive to a certain extent butI don't see a lack of good story as a negative, if the gameplay is excellent, the story could be about a man trying to poop in a toilet or something and it wouldn't change how great the game was. If it has it great, if not ok, I'm not anti-story just very against the whole "it needs to have a great story" idea.

Well, I've never met anyone who actually said RE 4 wasn't worth playing because the story was dumb (thankfully). That's just plain silly. As you say, the story is more important with certain genres (like RPGs), but sometimes, it's not always necessary. I agree with the rest of what you said, and I would never completely ignore a game because it didn't have a good story. I would, however, ignore one if it had bad gameplay, which I suppose is your point. On the other hand, I'd be given pause if I heard the story of an RPG wasn't very good, even if the gameplay was fantastic...get what I mean?

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"][QUOTE="CodeMunki"][QUOTE="Skylock00"]

It's an issue from the standpoint of whether a game that can be finished in 6 hours (replayability bearing) is worth buying (especially dropping down upwards of $60 for it), IMHO. If it is that short, then one could get the full experience in a rental, instead of a purchase. Granted, the game could give a great experience, but the only way that it could be an issue in the case of GS's review, as far as I understand things, is that the score from GS isn't purely just an indicator a quality, but overall an indicator of whether the game is worth buying, in which case value comes into play, and length can be an issue in some cases.

Again, not sure if this is officially the case, but that's just my perspective.

MarcusAntonius

Since when? That's ALL it should be. Reviews are not designed around capitalism and consumerism; they're supposed to deal with the product in question. Outlying factors shouldn't be having an impact on an evaluation of the product's quality, although they CAN be mentioned in the review. That's my whole point.

I have to disagree with that. When reviewing any game, those factors must be taken into account. How many times have reviewers complained about cash-ins? There's certainly precedent for that. Here's something more recent.

If a game is a questionable purchase based on amount of content, then the score should be docked a few points. When dealing with the product in question, all facets must be addressed in a review. Why should game length be excluded from graphics, gameplay, and replay value? It doesn't make sense to exclude length and value of purchase from game reviews. We as consumers should be demanding more for our money, especially with new titles coming out at $60. Six hour adventures don't cut it anymore, not without damn good reasons to replay it.

All of that is valid. But NONE of it has anything to do with a game's QUALITY. I'm a purist in that sense. The graphics, sound, and all that have a direct impact on the quality; all the components of a game come together to dictate that quality. Length is only a positive or a negative if it directly impacts the experience. If we finish the game, and the story and gameplay was neither too long or too short, it matters not at all how long it actually was; doesn't matter if it was 2 hours or 200 hours. I understand completely about getting bang for your buck, and as I've said multiple times before, it SHOULD be mentioned in reviews. In that way, I totally agree that the Value score is important.

But I repeat- it means nothing, NOTHING, in regards to the actual quality of the game (minus the preceding exception). And that's what reviews should be about: the evaluation and nothing more. Anything beyond that is compromising the manifest intent of the review. Whether or not we should buy it is a latent intent of a review. Important yes, but not the primary purpose. And I think that's the point.