So, uh

Is this from somewhere, or did you write it?

Edit: Nevermind

I disagree with this article. I don't think I get what I pay for when I buy a game that lasts only a few hours. This isn't a movie, this is a game. I can go to the movies for 6 bucks and watch a 2 hour movie. I pay 65 US dollars for a 6-10 hour game? That isn't right.

Good points but there are obviously exceptions like Gran Turismo, Final Fantasy, GTA etc

Yeah sure.

As to point 1:

The question is not about hour-per-dollar ratios, it is about the amount of entertainment you receive. Entertainment density varies between media, genre, and games. Trying to draw a parallel between game prices and movie prices per hour is fallacious.

As to point 2:

Horse feathers. THis is about content, not hours. You want a 10,000 page book that's awesome? Try Steven Erikson's 10-volume Malazan Book of the Fallen, which is some of the best speculative fiction ever written and will easily weigh in at 10k pages when it ends this month. Never boring, never tiring, always awesome, because its content is compelling and something is always happening.

More, long games can have long and compelling content too, it's just harder to make. Twilight Princess clocked in at 50 hours for me on my first playthrough, but I was never bored with the game. Similarly my brother played Oblivion for 100 hours on his first save file and was never bored with that either. The thing that makes this part of the article pointless is that extended content can be compelling for dozens and dozens of hours, so presenting length as an inherent advantage one way or the other is ridiculous.

As to point 3:

Me and the wife have played ME2 for about 320-350 hours at this point, totalling about ten complete playthroughs (or more, it's gotten hard to keep track). Mass Effect 2 is a beefy game, but that doesn't subtract from how fun it is to play through again because it offers variety of content, and many ways to experience it.

On a related note, I never picked up God of War III again after platinuming it. Length is not a good indicator of replay value.

I agree with the article in principle (Vanquish is a short game, shorter than any mentioned in the OP, but it is arguably the best game and best value released last year) but the points made here are not a good or cognizant argument for the validity of short games as an investment of time or money.

I thought you wrote it at first.

My opinion? Depending upon the genre, and the amount of win in the game, the game can be short I will still like it. Like Uncharted 2, which was short for my taste, because it was so brilliant, I had to go and play it again, and I am still playing it.

But Heavy Rain disappointed me in its length. Its a story based game, so I would have liked it to be a bit longer. I can't obviously enjoy pressing the X O all the time....even though there were different endings, it just wasn't that much of worth to spend 5 hours in.

Although for trophies and stuff I replayed it 2 1/2 times...

RPGs have a lot of dialogues and stuff so they have to be a bit longer, like 30 hours. I was pleased with both Demon's Souls(30 hours) and DA Origins(85 hours for me) length.

Disagree whole heartedly

1: Movies and Games aren't the same things, if we're gonna compare them together, we might as well throw in books as well.

2: Too much of a good thing is NOT bad for you. that's bull. One of the reasons many go gaga for games like Gran Turismo 5 and Little Big Planet 2 are because they are games that keep giving the good stuff over and over and over again. A further point of comparision is Final Fantasy 7-8-9 and why many consider them to be superior to 12 and 13. It is because the former offer a wide range of variety and allow you a greater access to the "good" whereas the latter, lacking in variety therefore lack in what can be classed as "good" and are in conclusion not considered as "good" as the others.

3. Personally, one of the reasons I am happy to replay final fantasy 7, wotl etc over and over again is because they offer quality not in short bursts but over a long period of time. I refuse to pay £40-50 for a game that will only last me one solid afternoon's play. 

Off topic...I think  point 3 in the original article explains why so many people complain about having to carry so many "games" at one time...if games lasted longer and were more fun...you wouldn't need to carry so many... 

As I am growing older, I am appreciating more and more short but quality games. I do not have the time to labour through boring and repetitive games so I am generally happy with getting good quality over a short time.

At the same time, I do not think that this should be abused. Shooters are putting less content in the single player because of the multi-player excuse. And some games are too damn short.

Great thread topic CgI-Quality. It all depends on what type of videogame it is. If it's an RPG,then I'd expect it to be at least 100hrs long. I have 59hrs into Fallout:New Vegas and I'm no were near done. If it's a FPS/TPS,then a 6-10 story campaign is effecient,as that fits with #2. I remember finishing fear 2 and becoming alittle bored with it,toward the end. If there's online,then that add's to the value. There's just so many factors to consider,such as the type of game,the appeal of the game,the online play. If you loved every minute of that 6-10 hrs,then it would be effecient to you,opposed to someone you did'nt really like that type of game to begin with. So yes 6-10 might are might not be effecient,depending on various factor's. Sorry for the rant,but your thread inspired me.

I didn't say one thing about what you said, I just said his points are not a good or cognizant argument for the validity of short games as an investment of time or money.

I DISAGREE.

(Capsed)

But really, if the single player is going to be pants short, at least there should be some kind of semi-quality multiplayer addition, I don't mean a rushed job in the least, but something with substantial maps, leveling system, design, gameplay etc. Going to use COD here as an example, for COD I don't mind the campaign being in that spectre, because quite frankly I'd get about 5 days of gameplay out of it just in multiplayer, so about 5*24 hours, for single player games I am not asking stuff like Fallout 3 or Oblivion but at least 20 hours campaign would be nice if there is no substantial multiplayer element. And no crappy ones either to make up for the short story, I am looking at you Singularity and Bioshock 2.