Portal's length - is it a flaw? + game length in general

[DoPo]

I was just thinking about critics nowadays, considering it a negative, if a single player game has a campaign which can be completed under 6, 8 or 10 hours, and I agree with this statement. Especially because a lot of games today don't have much replay value, while a decade ago, we were getting games that were much longer and had more replay value.

Blue Shift? It's probably one of the shortest games (OK, mods, to be precise) I've played also one with the least replay value. It's from a more than a decade ago. I don't know what you mean by "replay value" - there were lots of shooters with linear story a decade ago. As it not for expansions/mods/multiplayer, a lot of games would have no real replay value. Unreal 2 had an OK-ish story but once you finished the single player, there was not much to do aside from uninstall the game and move on. Well, unless you want to play the short matches against an AI in the beginning but even those get old after 2-3 rounds.

There have always been games with a little amount of replay value (not that this stopped people replaying them). It has always been that way. A decade ago, they had to make long games, whether the length helped or hindered the play was irrelevant. And there were lots of cases where the length was artificially tacked on to stretch, say, 10 hours into 20. Your point about the "good old days" therefore seems to be based on nostalgia rather than actual fair comparison.

A decade ago it would have been stupid to make a short game, package it, ship it and sell it along with other titles that offered more play time. Nowadays, you can make an hour long game and sell it for a dollar or something without much hassle. The market has changed. Ignoring that change is thus unfair.

For some the single player experience is not the focus. Modern Warfare, for example. From what I know of it, it's mostly about connecting to the internet, watching pretty graphics and shooting people while teenagers shout obscenities at you. In a way it YouTube: The game - only the comments are read out loud and you are given the means to vent your frustration - shooting stuff. The campaign isn't too bad but it's terribly short. If somebody bought the game just for the SP, they are in for a disappointment. I was there when a friend of mine played through it. It was like watching a movie or two. I can't say it's necessarily bad but it's certainly not long enough. If you added the SP campaigns of MW 1 2 and 3, I suppose you'd get something decent sized for that game.

Portal, on the other hand, is nice. There is so much puzzles you can string together until the game got tedious. The story is just enough for the playtime. Sure, it could have gone a wee bit longer but all in all, it was not a bad stopping point. And Portal 2 is what I suppose you'd get if you strung MW 1, 2 and 3 - three campaigns in one. Each is, in a way, separate, since each stops at some point much like the original. Only you're transferred to the sequel immediately.

For some game, short works. For others, it doesn't. Pacing is important. Also pricing, I wouldn't pay to play MW, for example, as I don't think I'll devote enough time for the multiplayer. Therefore, I would get less entertainment for my money. I would happily pay £2 for Breath of Death VII because although it's short, I get more out of my money. And I'll be even more happy to pay £2 for Chthulhu Saves the World which is longer. And I was really happy I paid £2 for both games altogether. But I'll also be happy to pay £40 for an AAA title if it's anything like the Elder Scrolls series. When I get an ES game, I know what I'm paying for and that is a lot of playtime and a lot of entertainment there. ME, although highly replayable and with a good amount of playtime, is not able to give me the same amount of entertainment for my money as Morrowind (and I'm hesitant to say Oblivion, but just assume it's modded to be actually bearable). And I picked up ME for £2.50.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's not about how much time a game gives you, but how it uses the time it gives you.

That's why a game like Uncharted 2 can be just as fulfilling as Fallout: New Vegas, eventhough one game is about 6 to 7 hours in length and the other 60 to 70 hours.

Or take Journey. A game of at best 2 hours, and yet it still feels like a whole and worthwhile experience.

This is also why I liked Portal 1 more than Portal 2, because the first game did way more in its short run time than the sequel did in its entire 8 hour time span.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Portal was released as part of the orange box as a tag along game. It was only ever released stand alone at a super cheap price.

Yes, the game length is perfect.

Never played Portal 2 though, personally.

 

[GoaThief]

Without reading much of the thread, I have absolutely no problems with shorter single player experiences. It gets on my nerves when people whinge about games being too short, expecting 100+ hours from each and every game - oh and of course it has to cost less than $50/£35 otherwise they'll claim it's a rip off then pirate or purchase second hand. This kind of attitude is damaging the industry, we don't expect every book to be several thousand pages nor every film to be split into three 2.5 hour long segments.

For example, I really enjoyed the relatively short Enslaved: Odyssey to the West and was happy to pay full RRP and not feel short-changed at all as the overall experience was fantastic. As for games getting shorter in general, I'm not sure I agree with that statement at all.