Why Short Games can be Better in the Long Run What’s the ideal length for a game? I suppose that’s not a question that can be easily answered, but I’m sure we’ve all seen descriptions for upcoming titles that boast “over 100 hours of gameplay”. For some, this is a wondrous thing, as it means great value for money and plenty of opportunity to fully explore the world, combat system and characters. However, I find that it’s been a long time since a descriptor such as this made me do anything other than groan.

As a child, I wanted as many hours of play out of every game as was humanly possible. After all, it was probably a long time until Christmas or my next birthday rolled around, so each title had to be carefully chosen to ensure maximum gaming for minimum spending. It was also far easier to find time to play, with few commitments and long school holidays.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Tyrone_Biggums2000d ago

Going through a game the second time through but this time with a hint of crack really adds to the "replayablity" of the game.

2000d ago
LOGICWINS2000d ago

Anyone who hasn't played Ballad of Gay Tony yet should do so IMMEDIATELY. Perfect example of how quality trumps quantity this gen.

LOGICWINS2000d ago

I mean I had more fun with BOGT's 13 hour story than I did with GTA4's 40 hour original story.

3-4-52000d ago

Just sounds like somebody trying to convince us that crappy 3 hours games are actually good.

complete crap.

Hicken2000d ago

So Journey's two-three hour playtime is crap?

I don't play a lot of short games, since my favorite genre is the JRPG, but I've played some pretty good short-campaign games. Short doesn't equal crap.

ShaunCameron2000d ago

Agreed since I don't really play too many games that might take forever to beat (RPG's). My collection consists of mostly action games.

Show all comments (9)