Life Is Short; Game Hard

Apr 04, 2009 14:58

If one peruses video/computer game reviews, one frequent complaint is tied to game brevity: If a game only has four hours (or so) of gameplay, reviews will generally present that information as if it were a bad thing.

My question: Why?

This is an especially pointed question since one of my primary interest is in adventure games (of the old "point 'n' click" variety). I'm at a point in my life where I would rather spend $30 for a game that has 4-5 hours of enjoyable gameplay, than one that has 40-50 hours of gameplay (regardless of enjoyment). The odds of my finishing a 50-hour video game are darn-near zero, whereas I can play a five-hour game in one evening if the stars align correctly.

Obviously, it's difficult to compare apples and oranges; a strategy game with a lot of depth could provide hundreds of hours for the same cost as an adventure game that's only designed to be played once. (I've probably played the Marvel Trading Card Game for the PSP over 500 hours by now.) But I don't judge a movie poorly when it's only 100 minutes long, when -- for the same ticket price -- I could sit through a four-hour epic.
Previous post Next post
Up