I paid full price and felt it was definitely too short. I won't be buying any more rail shooters unless they are in the budget bin.

to answer OP : because is on the Wii? see, you paid for it, so...

Well i do agree , but playing with friends the best ways is to try Director's Cut with standard Pistol (no upgrades). Game gets longer and more hardcore then ever :) , and is tons more fun than with shotguns

Wow, some of you are surprisingly hostile.

It's true that tons of old games could be beaten in less time, and I fully agree that quality>quantity (although I prefer having both *hugs Rune Factory*).

That said, there IS a difference: most of the short games you guys alluded to couldn't be beaten in such a short time unless you were really, really good at them. It's all nice and fine to say, for example, "I could beat Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts in just a half-hour!", but realistically it would take a long time before you were good enough to do so.

By contrast, Overkill is an easy game. Once you get the auto-shotgun, it becomes a VERY easy game, even on Director's Cut. I beat both modes (with extra mutants) by myself without ever once getting a game over (I did need a continue once). I have yet to beat House of the Dead 2, try as I might, and that game is much shorter in terms of length.

Having said all that, I don't regret paying $50 for Overkill: it was worth every minute, and my friends and I still enjoy replaying chunks of it now and again.

1. It's one of the best core games on the Wii.
2. It succeeds at humor. Few games do.
3. It has infinite replayability, because it is a bridge title. That means it can be a core game or a party game.
4. It is a great experience, and worth playing through. That can't be said for most new releases.
5. Yhatzee said it was better than Killzone 2.
6. It reinvigorated a dying genre, which many other games have tried and failed to reinvigorate.
6. All games in that genre are short. It's in their nature.
7. Despite its length, the game still garnered great reviews from almost everyone, because of the points I've listed.

IMO, you're getting a bargin.

/bow

Notice the lack of arrogance and flaming in my post. I'm doing much better.

Wrong. You really expect us to use those comparisons as some sort of revelation? It's that, or you are spinning those statements to "prove your point" which is worse.

The "short" games you've listed are demos or remakes. UC isn't "incredibly long" and if you've played it, you would know it is not nearly as good as Overkill.

The truth is, that post right there, totally discredits your arguments. You are either completely misunderstanding the basic facts here, or you are spinning them to suit your argument.

You must know that your comparisons are FARRR to simplistic to base ANYthing on, even an opinion. Truth is, you've probably never played Overkill, and there is most likely some sort of cynicism or biased at play here. Your resoundingly negative posts couldn't be more off the mark than they are in this case.

Just to flesh this out, and leave you some food for thought....you're saying that game length and $$ per hour should determine a games quality? That is a simplistic stigma that I firmly believed when I was a teenager looking forward to my next 70 hour jrpg. Problem is, it's a completely false generalization isn't it?

Well, isn't it?

From page 16 of the PAL instruction booklet for House of the Dead: OVERKILL:

What is the expected length for a game this gen?

What is the expected quality?

Using an argument most often pointed towards graphics and voice overs doesn't quite translate so well when you don't have any sort of real scale.

How long did the best selling game this gen take to beat? Wii Sports?

How long is "Wii Fit?"

Could a game with a SP campaign that is short, not also have replayability?

Is MK:Wii a bridge title that can be beaten in 2 hours and played forever?

Does quality take a backseat to expectations primarily based in the single player "length" department?

Does your argument really hold up?

well for starters.. a 6hr arcade style rail shooter would be insane..

Considering this is an arcade game why would anyone expect it to be longer than a few hours. Every light gun game I've played in the arcades I've easily dumped $50 into and each complete run though only lasts like 1-2 hour. So 2.5 is long comparatively. Anyone who says otherwise obviously didn't play a lot of arcades.

As for why it cost $50, I have no clue. Do I think it should cost $50? no, I think that is too expensive.