yeah i'm gonna say the game is definitely lacking something if it would be boring and feel like it dragged on if it wasn't extremely short, which apparently you are saying it is. seriously whoever said they don't like all these half games coming out is right. whats up with all the big (meaning hyped up) 360/ps3 games being incredibly short to the point where its not even really a full game. anything under 10 hours for an action game is ridiculously short. i'd say about 13-18 hours is about right for going through a game the first time without dying. if its a difficult game and you add in deaths and doing stuff over until you can beat it then a good action game should definitely take around 20 hours to beat. if its under 10 hours its definitely a game to rent and not buy. all these short games are laughable. oh man, i feel sad for anyone that buys these games at full price, unless they have an awesome multiplayer like halo 3.

but yes its definitely a very bad trend that needs to stop. if you can convince yourself that 5 hours is long enough for a game then you are trying way too hard to believe its a good game.

Triple post.

Triple post.

My post was more that... maybe i have more of an attention span than you average gamer.  However for me.  The only time a truely good game gets old is when the story runs out, or the game gets repetitive.  Which, if the game gets repetitive after 6 hours thats a design problem no matter the Genre.  If the same enemies get dull, that's a design flaw.

The problem is, games are getting shorter and they are setting them up for sequels.  There are ways the game could of been extended for nearly twice the length after the backend, though I don't want to say too much since you arn't all the way through.

If a game is A. Too short.. and B. Set up for a sequel.  That tells me that the sequel should of just been the second part of the first game.

Sorry, this is something I've seen with multiple games in the Hack'n Slash genre. Unless every enemy is unique, mashing a combo or a button is going to get boring. 

Yes, I do think that this problem with short games needs to be fixed so don't jump on me like that. Again, it's why I rent and don't actually buy them as much anymore unless it's one of my favorite games such as the Half-Life, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy series. Unless we get developers who are going to make these games longer, I'm going to continue to rent.

However, that doesn't mean I'm going to dislike the games (since Heavenly Sword and God of War, for example, are fun despite their length). 

I'd say RPGs get more repetitive then any other game, mostly because they go on so long, and have a battle system that hasn't been changed since the NES. (Atleast in the ones i actually like.)

The difference is, they're willing to break it up, by throwing more enemies that are different, and more stories.  I mean, maybe Ninja Theory should of just thrown in new enemies where it would start getting repeitive.  It's not like they didn't have the space. 

Heck, i've played through Dynasty Warriors games and not gotten bored until i've gone through like 20-30 hours worth of gameplay because they've always had stories and interesting little wrinkles that get thrown in periodically.

lol, funny you bring up Dynasty Warriors because that game has you mash the same combos like mad. For me, it's fun in small chunks. Maybe get in a really good spree for a week and then get back off it for a a little while and then come back depending on my urge to play it.

I used to be a big fan of Dynasty Warriors because how it was like large scale battles. However, by the 5th one, it's like Madden. It's the same thing with new and improved aspects. It's cool that they improve on battles and such, but fighting all of the same battles such as the Yellow Turban Rebellion and Hei Fei Castle isn't that exciting. In fact, I liked Kessen II because it was similar to Dyansty Warriors, but it was more about mass armies. However, then I found the Total War series that actually allowed for thousands of soldiers battling at once, but even it has it's problems.

---

*edit* Actually what worries me about asking for longer games from developers is that they're just going to fluff it up with crap instead of making it an awesome experience. Some games rock, but others just feel like a bunch of things were just added to put on some time rather than to enhance the experience.

Dynasty Warriors succeeds on several levels with several Musou modes as well as many different characters (discoverable ones too) and items to find. To play through a single Musou will take about 6 hours, more or less depending on the Musou and the player's skill. However, with a single Musou, you can unlock about 6 more characters and many new items. Possibly more Musou modes as well.  Then add in cooperative mode, vs mode, mini-games...etc.

Based on all of that, the replay value of a single Dynasty Warriors title is enormous. Even if you're repeating a lot of the same moves, the game changes that up by adding more combos with a level-up system as well as new effects via items. Get bored with the same moves? Pick a new character. A modern Dynasty Warriors title has well over 30 of them some of which are similar and some that are very different. Playing with Yue Ying is a very different experience compared to playing with Xiahou Dun or Pang Tong.

A single Dynasty Warriors title will offer a lot of value in terms of main storylines and replays. Heavenly Sword doesn't bring nearly as much to the table.

As for your edit, consider what you just said. Your fear is that developers will fluff with crap rather than quality to pad the length of the title. Why do you think that is? In order to make a longer game, you either need a bigger budget or you need to make use of your current budget in a more efficient manner. No one is going to claim that Heavenly Sword had a small budget so why did all that money turn into a 6 hour game? Where did it all go?

The key to management isn't getting more money, it's about figuring out the cost/benefit ratio of each game feature. Koei and Dynasty Warriors are already at the point of experience where adding certain features is not costly as they already have an understanding of how to implement them. They can implement previous features more efficiently (and cheaper) and thus have more room for expansion within that framework.

Ninja Theory and Heavenly Sword do not have that luxury. Now, if they made a terrific game engine for the PS3 in Heavenly Sword and were able to reuse that, how much content would you expect to see in a follow-up title? Would it be a lot? Maybe, maybe not. The problem right now is that it looks like a majority of their budget went into art and taking maximum advantage of the PS3's art capabilities. The result is a game that looks pretty but delivers a short experience. At some level, it's almost more of a technical demo of the PS3's capabilities than a full-blown game. However, art isn't gameplay. Art isn't solid content. Which would you rather have: absolutely perfect hair physics or a couple hours of extra content (levels) and maybe more variety/use in Nariko's moveset.

As its own game judged in a vacuum, Heavenly Sword is disappointing. However, if Ninja Theory is allowed to build upon that and can transfer some of those resources from art to content/level/extra design, the potential for a stronger sequel, one that is in excess of the 6 hours Heavenly Sword hits, is there.

Games aren't just measured in hours of play, however that is a valid measurement. If a game cannot provide a number of hours of entertainment to be worth the price, the game has failed. For each person this is different however, and I'm sure Heavenly Sword was indeed worth the price for some... as a rental. ^_^