A Game’s Length Doesn’t Determine its Quality

This week we learned that Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes’ main campaign can be completed in under two hours. Although the game will have side missions and objectives that will lengthen the overall play time, some gamers announced their displeasure over the campaign’s length, claiming that the asking price for it was too much given its brevity.

While I can understand that people want the most for their dollar, I can’t exactly agree with them. On the face of it, a two hour game may seem short but if it’s a solid (pun intended) and enjoyable experience then shouldn’t that be what really matters? Does a game’s length really determine its quality or worthiness? As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot1766d ago (Edited 1766d ago )

Nobody is calling the quality they just aren't stupid enough to buy into something which should of been in the main game, they are trying to sell the intro to the main game to us....doing a Capcom basicaly

I dont see how you can defend these practices, its going to be bundled with the main game in the future some day, just hold off and show them not to do this again.

dedicatedtogamers1766d ago

It's similar to GT Prologue...except Prologue actually had a fair amount of content.

I don't think length determines quality. However, I think game length plays a huge role in *value*. You can have the highest-quality game in the world, the best game ever, but if it's 1-hour long and costs $1,200, you're limiting your market (extreme example, I know). Indies understand this concept (that's why their games rarely launch above the $20 price line). Why can't Konami understand it? Oh's Konami.

I've been a fan of MGS since the NES. I'll be passing on this until Konami gets a clue.

Sarcasm1766d ago

Yeah and GT Prologue has a bunch of re-playability

erathaol1766d ago (Edited 1766d ago )

The argument isn't the quality of the game, its the pricing. For a 2 hour game its better to aim low rather than aim high. $40 seems overpriced but if you threw that ball at a $20-30 range, people would be more accepting of the initial price point.

Instead you aimed at all three, but the one most people have an issue with is the $40 price point. When you have a $60 version coming out next year that will be a full length game, rather than just a small chunk, people question the purchase.

MGS fans know its going to be a good game, hell even great, only some are opting to wait for the price to drop and others will be going for the $20-30 versions.

Zuperman1766d ago

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Bobby Kotex1766d ago (Edited 1766d ago )

There was no MGS on the NES it was just Metal Gear. BTW you can get the game on PS3 download for $20. People love throwing out that $40 price like they have no choice.

hay1765d ago (Edited 1765d ago )

Yeah, buy Ground Zeroes and next thing we'll know is everyone will do that prologue bollocks.

"Good betrayal is needed." Because good betrayal is like good rape. You know you want it after the fact.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1765d ago
InTheLab1766d ago

What really kills is that most of the people defending these practices are the people who will receive free copies for review. It's absurd that these people never consider the reader's wallet until this issue pops up and they still tell you why you're wrong to complain.

emad-E-three1766d ago

I think we all know the quality will be fine even though myself don't like the open world idea but the thing is money does not grow on trees!
I know i'll get disagreed but I for one refuse to pay 40$ for 2 hours cut from the main game! Sorry but I see it as stealing, so its no for me :/

NYC_Gamer1766d ago (Edited 1766d ago )

I won't spend 40 bucks on a 2 hour experience regardless of that quality being offered..I'm not going to support this new route of doing business within gaming because other studios may follow suit just like many have done with cheap dlc and etc.

-Foxtrot1766d ago (Edited 1766d ago )

See that's what I mean, least some people get it

It's not about now or that "one" game it's about showing other developers in the future not to do this and follow these kind of practices.

We don't want to give high up respected devs that sort of idea, I mean look at Rockstar with the online and MT, they thought they could screw us over and everything would be fine, how wrong were they

It's just sad when you get people defending this sort of thing, I'm pretty sure you can hang off buying the game to get the inevitable GOTY edition with everything included or buy the limited edition of MGSV which COULD include it...who knows.

Gamers these days don't think about the consequences of their actions

If the game is good, it's good but that doesn't mean you should give the game a free pass on this sort of thing. I think it's something reviewers should knock points off for in my opinion.

TheoreticalParticle1766d ago

I think there needs to be some general outcry for people to get reviewers to review games from a customer's perspective.

There are tons of games that I wouldn't mind playing for free, but once I plunk down $40-$60 on them, I'm far less happy about my experience. Maybe instead of a 1-10 score, it can get a "Full Price/Half Price/Rental" or a "I'd Pay X".

JoelT1766d ago

You can get the game for as low as $20 if you go digital with PS3 or 360 version. I'm not defending the pricing but there are multiple tiers. And if you're playing this for the actual experience / story I feel that the platform shouldn't matter.

rdgneoz31766d ago

And some people like a physical copy of their game so they can let their friend or family borrow it. And while the story will be the same across platforms, if you want it to look the best, why not go next gen if you've already bought the console...

CyrusLemont1766d ago

Interesting, $40 for 2 hours, in proportion to $60, that would make it 3 hours. Now obviously the full MGS V game isn't going to be that short, we'll most likely get at least 20 hours out of it, imagine that proportion, $400 lol. Anyway, why the hell is a 2 hour intro/demo being priced so expensive?!? It should be $10 on PSN/XBL and $20 TOPS in retail, and that's pushing it a little.

I just hope they don't get away with it, imagine what EA will be thinking then.


TheoreticalParticle1766d ago

Length doesn't affect a game's QUALITY, but it definitely does affect its VALUE.

Movies are 2 hours of entertainment. They cost $10 opening weekend. Why am I paying 4x for the same hit?

Answer: I'm not.

Sarcasm1766d ago

Yup same here I will be skipping this.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1766d ago
TheEnigma3131766d ago

You can't justify paying $40 for 2 hours. I love MGS as much as the next person, but I won't pay for this until it's half price.

Meltic1766d ago

The only thing that bothers me is that the phantom pain is so far away from release and releasing MGS GZ now and phantom pain late 2015 meaby is to far away from eathoter. I understand its a prologue but set a prolouge/demo 1-2 months Before releasing phantom pain not an entire year

DeadRabbits1766d ago (Edited 1766d ago )

I spend 2 hours an evening gaming. Nuff Said!

Are we paying per the hour now for games! In that case persona 4 cost me 5 Grand!

Show all comments (59)
The story is too old to be commented.