Poll: "X game doesn't last longer than Y And no online? I'm not buying this game!"

[Drauden]

I keep hearing this load of horseshit a lot lately. With the release of Mafia 2 I think it's time to stand up for what value really is.

How often do you look at the back of a DVD and say to yourself: "Huh, this movie isn't longer than 100 minutes. It must suck". That's right, never. What you check out is the story, the setting, and look at the pictures and on what kind of action the movie maybe offers.
When you (well at least when I) look at games, I look out for the same things; what the story is, its setting (type of game) and see what the action is like (gameplay variation).
I want to be immersed into a setting. The plot doesn't need to be anything more than decent to work. As long as the game is fun, and doesn't try to drag itself ass on for two long, fantastic.

A thing that often occurs when games tend to advertise how long they are is repetition, and a plot that gets worse and worse. Of course, this isn't always a problem, as the gameplay might be fun.

I'm not saying I don't like long games, I'm saying that I don't understand people who won't buy games if a game isn't over 20 hours long, even if all the other things about it are great.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Well, one of my favorite games is Shadow of The Colossus, an 8-hour game with no online whatsoever. And then there's Portal, a 1-hour game with nothing else, except a bunch of memes that'll last you a lifetime.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Because many people have limited funding, and they want a game that lasts.

A newly released console game nowadays costs $60. Most of them barely last for 10 hours. That's a lot of money for, let's face it, not that much entertainment.

For $60 dollars you can get more than twice the amount of entertainment a standard game has simply by buying films or books instead. It's pretty damn outrageous if you ask me. That's partially why I switched from Console gaming to a mix of Console and PC gaming. I love my Steam sales.

 

[Good morning blues]

Sorry, but that's bullshit. When I watch a movie, I sit down and watch it from start to finish in a single sitting. When I play a video game, I am paying somewhere in the neighborhood of five to seven times as much money (compared to theatre - it can be more like twenty-five or thirty times as expensive if I'm renting) for the entertainment, and while I do indeed want it to be an enjoyable experience throughout, I am going to feel profoundly cheated if I pay $70 for a game that only lasts six hours.

No, not every game has to be 40 hours long. But short length decreases a game's value just as surely as poor gameplay.

 

[-Samurai-]

I usually look for games that will keep me occupied, and will provide enough content to keep me playing again and again. I want to get my moneys worth.

 

[Jim From Accounting]

i get game's because i like them i doesn't really matter to me how long or well made they are i just go for the fun of them.

hell i bought Trinity Universe out of curiosity and im loving it.

 

[TelHybrid]

I'm sorry but games cost about 4/5 times as much as movies on average on launch, therefore I expect 4/5 times as much entertainment from it.

It's all about price though. If a 5 hour game that looks really fun is £45 (Modern Warfare 2 for example), then I believe it should be priced around the price range of an expansion rather than the price of a new stand alone game.

If games like that are priced at around £25 at launch, then I think it would be worth it.

 

[Bassman_2]

I wouldn't have paid $60 for Portal.

Good thing I got it cheap though. And with those other Orange games.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Online usually doesn't add playtime since it's usually just an excuse for developers to skimp on content, but if playtime played that much of a role in deciding what to buy, I'd never play anything other than RPGs. However, that said, I don't expect to pay $60 for a game with less than 10 hours of content. If I get something like FF10, 50 hours of gameplay for $20, great, but if I get BioShock, which is considerably shorter, but also more enjoyable, that's fine too.

 

[Drauden]

Well I do my research. That game Wanted for the 360 looked pretty awesome and the demo was pretty cool. Curving bullets and what not. The game is literally only 2 hours long though. I'm not paying for 2 hours of game. Especially a full retail release. I always do my research before a purchase. That is what gamers do.

If a game is 2 hours long and is a unoriginal TPS, of course that's a pity. Most small indygames are longer than that.

What I am meaning are the 'real' games, the not movie-based games, like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Alan Wake, Mirror's Edge, Portal etc. None of these games are any longer than 10 hours, the shortest being 2 hours (not 60$ retail though)
These games are all great in their own unique way. Either it's a great story influenced by a lot of movies, or its gameplay is totally new.

 

[slipknot4]

If a game is 2 hours long and is a unoriginal TPS, of course that's a pity. Most small indygames are longer than that.

What I am meaning are the 'real' games, the not movie-based games, like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Alan Wake, Mirror's Edge, Portal etc. None of these games are any longer than 10 hours, the shortest being 2 hours (not 60$ retail though)
These games are all great in their own unique way. Either it's a great story influenced by a lot of movies, or its gameplay is totally new.

Well, to be honest, Uncharted 2 had a great online mode that was really worth it. I mean, the campaign was good and all that but it's not something i'd play more than 2 times.

 

[Eggsnham]

I chose yes, because I still buy games if they're short yet have good gameplay and or story, but if a game is short and shitty (I place a game like this into a mental category I call 'S&S', into this I'll put movies, games, various sex experiences, and books) then I won't buy it.

 

[Kortney]

I don't really agree with the OP. If a game tries to sell me only 6 hours of single player I feel fed up and ripped off. I'm not someone who likes multiplayer at all so when I buy a game I expect it to last me. I don't want it to be 6 hours long (no matter how good it is).

The analogy with the movie doesn't apply. Movies are meant to be watched in one sitting and they aren't interactive. So movies can be judged solely on their quality rather than their runtime. I don't think video games can.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I always consider length when buying a game for full price. Sure it's not the only factor I consider, but it's always on my checklist.

 

[Avida]

The assumption of opening question is that neither game is going to be great, and 1) if its was great there would be no such discussion, and 2) that short great games have replayability, increasing their length. As such if i'm looking for a decent time sink of course i'm going to try and get my money's worth, especially with games costing what they do now and the majority of them being dirt.

 

[8bitlove2a03]

As someone who buys about one game a year, I can't afford to buy a short game, because that almost always means that it's linear and has no single player replay value what-so-ever. Like Halo 3.

SO basically no, I do have to go by length since that usually equates into replay value. Except for Far Cry 2. Because thats one game that you just play through twice in a second area. Which is BS.

 

[ShasoRmyr]

I find it depends on the kind of game, and the quality. I thought the campaign of Uncharted 2 was fantastic, and Portal was new different, and also fantastic. On the other hand I hated Modern Warfare 2. I thought that the campaign was just a little to out there, and a little to short to be worth my money. (It also didn't help that I disliked the online)