That's generally what happens when you play on normal or easy.

I 100% agree.

It's a crapload of work to add even an hour of content to a game and it's even more work to keep any system interesting for a short game.  Furthermore, most people don't even finish games longer than 8 hours (or maybe it's 10, it's something in that area, I forget).  Anything longer than that is largely wasted work that only a minority of players will see.

It's much better to create an engaging 6-10 hour game that keeps systems fresh and interesting that must players will see rather than spread your effort over 20 hours that more players won't even see over half the game.

I agree because...

1. after a while (no matter how good) it will get old/repetitive.  i'd rather have a short game that leaves me wanting more than long games that have me wanting an ending.

2. i can always replay the game

3. trophies/achievements add a lot of replay to me

4. online compontents can make a short game last forever if i would want it to

5. i'm pretty time crunched as is -- a game that lasts 40 hours is a game that keeps me from playing another experience (..or two).

6. no matter what they quote as the play time it will always take me much much longer to do a single play though

not that a long game can't be worth it ... but typically i'll be more satisfyied with a short game with really amazing moments like GoW than a long drawn-out experience like darksiders.

I have to disagree. For example: I have played FF8 for app. 1,500 hours and it was so much fun. Also, the Classics like Secret of Mana/Evermore, Terranigma, etc. take more than 10 hour for a playthrough. Gernes like Strategy and RPG are time consuming but a lot of fun.

But in one point I must agree: Too much grinding isn't good for a game. For example the Shin Megami Tensei-Games have a grinding factor like no other game thus i played so far. At some points in Persona 4 I thought i have to take a break because of the grinding.

So you have to differ between Gernes, because Action and Adventures should be a lot shorter than a Strategy or RPG game.

Best hour-ratio for a "shorter" game: 15-20 hours for a playthrough.

Best hour-ratio for a "longer" game: 40-60 hours

Best hour-ratio for a "f%&/ing long" game: 100-120 hours

I completely disagree with the author because he's not addressing the point, the point is people don't want a longer campaign they want a game with more to do in it, side quests, extras, mini games and they want it to be fun to just replay again and frankly most games this gen just don't hit that mark, take enslaved for instance, it's average you are going to go through the story once and never play it again, Batman AA hit a good mid point, the gameplay is fun and if you rush you can finish it but you have the combat maps and the joker riddles to go and get, and the gameplay is fun enough to warrent a 2ed play through eventually but the main campaign is no longer then any other game 

Can't say I agree with it. The theatre comparison was just terrible. Meh.

Fairly reasonable arguments. My opinion is if you want to dedicate yourself to a particular game, it should probably be an online shooter or a MMO, other than that it's pretty tough to play several games, especially nowadays, where there are so many new games to try out. Thus, I think 6 - 10 hours for a game is pretty reasonable, best bang for your buck in terms of entertainment imo.

How could u complete DS in 30 hours? You must be very skilled.

How many playthroughs are included in those 85 hours of Dragon Age?

Post deleted to fix thread. -d1

I actually agree with the basis, Altered Beast is one of the shortest games I have ever played, but it was immensely fun. I suppose if a 6-10 doesnt have replay value then its not worth the money.