twesterm on 21 September 2009
As others have said, it's more about quality than quantity.
If you can keep your shooter interesting for 20 hours then sure, give it to me, but I would rather have 6-8 hours of quality rather than 12 of repetitive gameplay.
Just look at some recent games this gen:
- Halo 3/ODST: Short and to the point. It's not so short you feel completely ripped off and just long enough that it doesn't overstay its welcome. Would you really enjoy these games if it tacked on another 4 hours of the same thing?
- Uncharted: Platforming and shooting was fun but it was the same thing in the same environments for a good 8-ish hours. Think if that game were 12 hours, how sick would you be of those jungles and temples? Just the right length to keep you interested without getting sick of it.
- Bioshock: A good game but also an example of a game that's too long. The pacing in the game is horrible, the game play was fun but wore out its welcome, and things like the hacking mini games were terrible after the 16th hour. Don't get me wrong, the story and atmosphere and how those things presented the world to the player is what made them, but the game was too long and overstayed its welcome.
