Are you one of those gamers who buy games depending on its length? I use to think that a short game is a bad game and that a long game is a good game. Does the length really make a game better?
The older we get, the less time we have to play games. Yes, when we were all 14 and 15 years old we could spend all day playing games. I used to love playing RPGs because back then I could easily spend 5 hours a day playing video games. Now since I am in my early 20's and having to work towards a future, I don't have 5 hours a day to play games anymore. I think video game developers should really consider making their games shorter.

Now before you get angry let me explain. A game like Doom 3, which is a fun game but the bad thing about it was that it was just way too long. The length hurts the game in the sense that it becomes very repetitive and boring. Now if the game was 5 hours long that would greatly improve the game because it would be a "short but sweet ride". Another game that suffers from this is the first Assassins Creed. The first few hours were really fun but the game was just way too long and repetitive. If the length had been cut down to around 5-6 hours than maybe more people could experience the story.
A lot of people feel that they get ripped off if a game is too short. If this is the case then why do Call of Duty sell millions of copy every year? The main storyline is about 4-5 hours yet people buy it like crazy. The reason being the online mode, which I have no problem with. I think more games should do this. By making the story mode shorter and adding multiplayer for those who wants to continue playing, we can choose how much of it we want. If we just want to experience the story without having to spend time on the online mode then we won't have too. The same thing goes towards RPGs as well.


RPG are known to be over 50+ hours of game play. Some games even go to 100+ hours. Maybe I am different from the rest of the world but I can never imagine myself spending 100+ hours on a game. Just imagine what you could do in the 100+ hour. Of course the 100 hour is misleading, most RPGs can be beaten in around 20 - 25 hours without doing any side missions. This is what I think all RPGs should be like. Borderland, as an example, can be beaten in under 20 hours if all you do is the main missions. This is something I appreciate because the game doesn't force you to complete every mission in the game. If the game did required you to beat all the mission than I don't think I would have ever finished the game.
So what are some examples of games that are good but short. Mad World, released for the Wii, is about 3 hours long but the game was very fun. Resident evil 2 could be beaten in 90 minutes yet it is consider one of the best, if not the best Resident Evil out there. Ico has a game play time of around 4 hours. Are these games bad because they are short? Can you imagine playing Ico for 15 hours? If you bought Ico for $60.00 dollars would you feel ripped off, or would you be satisfy by the beauty of the game?
I honesty don't think game developers should consider length when making a game. If a game's story can be told in 5 hours than keep it that way. There is no use stretching the game to 15 hours just because you want gamers to play the game longer. If a game is good than people will come back and play it again. Why do I still play contra to this day? Because I can beat the game in under 30 minutes, and have the whole experience. If I have 2 hours to spend I would take out my Game Cube and beat Resident Evil 2. Game developers should really think about the gamers when creating a game, just like movie directors who make 3 hour movies. Do you really want to make your audience sit and watch a movie for 3 whole hours? Same thing with games. Do you really want us to sit and play your game for 15 hours when it doesn't need to be 15 hours? What if we don't have 15 hours to spend playing your game. Are we doom to never experience it?