Poll: Is a game that can be completed in a single day/session a bad game?

[Dalisclock]

No. A game's length should be suited to it's content. Length has no inherent value by itself. I've played long games without much content, short games with too much content and plenty of great games that took anywhere from minutes to weeks to finish that I enjoyed and felt satisfied with. The price I'm willing to pay depends on the value and not how long it took me to finish.

 

[Redryhno]

Look at the poll. I know the first thing people are gonna do is scream "PORTAL". Well i think that portal is the exception that proves the rule. That game has a little replay value as well as extra challenges and the game price at release was pretty low ( as a stand alone game ) or practically free in the orange box. I'm pretty sure if it came out as a 60$ game it would have gotten backlash.

So my question is : Do you think that a game that could be completed in a single day/session is a bad game?

Since classic games have already been brought up, what about fighting games? I know that some of them have story modes, but those are just window dressing. And even with that, I can still beat every character's path in Soul Calibur 3 if I focus hard enough.

And the point about fighting games belays a much larger point; what about games that don't have a set completion point? Puzzle games, like tetris or...I don't know, cooking mama? Simulation games, like The Sims or any number of hunting games? What about all of these first-person shooters that are so popular? Are you going to take their multiplayer into account?

In short, no. Your question is wrong, and is leading.

Ehhh, fighting game story modes are honestly more like getting you used to the roster, and then you go and apply your basic knowledge against others and improve, that's where the game actually starts. I've always seen them like lengthy(and very well-done I might add if you choose) tutorials.

And the others? They give you objectives, puzzle games are there and are respected because they give you difficulty and are normally pretty long because very few people win them the first go around.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Look at the poll. I know the first thing people are gonna do is scream "PORTAL". Well i think that portal is the exception that proves the rule. That game has a little replay value as well as extra challenges and the game price at release was pretty low ( as a stand alone game ) or practically free in the orange box. I'm pretty sure if it came out as a 60$ game it would have gotten backlash.

So my question is : Do you think that a game that could be completed in a single day/session is a bad game?

Since classic games have already been brought up, what about fighting games? I know that some of them have story modes, but those are just window dressing. And even with that, I can still beat every character's path in Soul Calibur 3 if I focus hard enough.

And the point about fighting games belays a much larger point; what about games that don't have a set completion point? Puzzle games, like tetris or...I don't know, cooking mama? Simulation games, like The Sims or any number of hunting games? What about all of these first-person shooters that are so popular? Are you going to take their multiplayer into account?

In short, no. Your question is wrong, and is leading.

I'm sorry i didn't know we were in a court of law, i thought i was on a gaming forum.

I don't know what I'm leading to, most of the votes say no. I guess i should apologize for being human and having a bias?

 

[Beliyal]

Nope. I beat games in single sessions (To The Moon, Gone Home, Portal, The Stanley Parable), I loved them and I wouldn't in any way think they were bad games. My friend beat the entire first game in The Walking Dead series in a day and I doubt anyone would say that TWD is bad.

Length really does not equal quality. Short games can be excellent and long games can be terrible.

 

[Nazulu]

So is this for if it was $60? And are we talking the entire 24 hours?

Well it depends on a lot of things. If I bought a game $60 and I beat in 12 hours, but it was repetitive and generic, then I wouldn't be satisfied. However, if I paid in full for say, Half-Life (how much was it when it was first released?), which is something unique and doesn't take too long to beat on your first play through, then yeah, it was a great enough experience for it.

I don't believe something being over priced makes it bad though, just a crappy deal.

 

[Fappy]

No, I don't think it's a huge factor in how much I'll enjoy a game. Hell, most of my favorite non-RPG games can be easily beaten in one sitting. Replay value's kinda subjective.

 

[FPLOON]

Nope... because a game's overall quality is more and/or as equal important than a game's overall quantity... Then again, results may vary based on the person in question...

Other than that, this does not factor in replayibility, so there's that to consider as well...

 

[Estarc]

I think day/session leaves a little too much wriggle room. So I'm going to specify that as eight hours, twelve at a stretch.

If the game costs full price, $60 in USD I believe and around $100 AUD, and it has no replayability, then yes. No matter how good the game is if it costs full price and only entertains me for a day I would take it back for a full refund.

On the other hand if you have a FPS with a campaign that can be completed in a day and then countless hours of multiplayer, or a game like Bayonetta with multiple difficulty modes and unlockables that you are expected to play again and again then I am fine with it.

Heavy Rain is a good example of a game I liked but that just wasn't worth keeping. Lollipop Chainsaw is another.

 

[Something Amyss]

The price may cause me to evaluate whether or not I am willing to buy the game, but I don't think that makes it a bad game in itself. As such, if I know a game's short I may not buy it at a price, but I don't think that makes it bad.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Length doesn't necessarily make something bad.

Like you said, Portal exists, and that's only around 5 hours, the first Gears of War was only about 5 hours as well, but still quite good.

The problem isn't just game length. Game length is an easy thing to talk about because it's something that is factual. No one is going to argue that a 5 hour game isn't in fact 5 hours long, but people can debate the actual quality of a game until the cows come home. It's hard to justify a $60 purchase for a game that's 5 hours long with only a mediocre campaign, no multiplayer, and no other difficulty settings to replay the campaign on, but show someone a campaign you think is mediocre and you might find that they love the game, and vice versa.

There have been hundred hour games that I wouldn't spend $10, and there have been 8 hour games that I've been more than happy to throw money at. Game length is not a measure of quality, but it is something that is very easy to note in an argument about how bad a game is.

 

[MonsterCrit]

The answer to whether a game is good or bad has nothing to do with length. The question is.. did you enjoy it? . I mean a good 2 hour game is better than a mediocre 20 hour game.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

No. At worst it's a bad value proposition. For example, if Portal (the first one) was originally sold standalone for $500, it would be an awful value proposition and consumers wouldn't buy it. It would still be a great game though.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

The funny thing OP, is that I thought this would be a Star Fox thread. I like Star Fox but you can "beat the game" in a couple of hours even if you're new to the series. I really like Star Fox though; even though you can beat it quickly and easily, there are multiple paths and various ways of getting from level 1 to the final boss. Take away the branching paths, the multiplayer and, price the game at $60+ without wavering and that would be bad...but I can forgive games like Star Fox. When it comes to Portal, that was originally released with games that were significantly longer and games which have proven themselves to be genuinely good, fun games. If you try buying Portal now it's not going to be the price of The Orange Box on day one and depending on when you buy it, you could find that it's cheaper than the cost of a half-decent sandwich.

 

[EHKOS]

I would say only if it's too pricey. I've had some wonderful experiences one-shotting games. The night I decided to throw in Condemned 1 without any knowledge about it was the greatest night of gaming I've ever had, though my eyes hurt like a ***** by th time I was done at 5 AM. And I got it for a song, less than an apple pie. That's like...an awesome game for a day's worth of pie.

 

[veloper]

Bad only if there's no replay value.

If it's really good and it's a game, then it has to be worth playing again. If it's not worth playing again, then the gameplay cannot have been that good, so not a good game.