One of the things that really irritates me is when reviews complain that games are too short. I'm playing Fable at the minute and am enjoying it immensely. But reading reviews from the US it seems that the game is great but "too short". And it's not only Fable, most games are critiqued using time. You often read negative comments like how a game offers "only 20 hours gameplay", or can be "finished in a weekend". This sounds great to me. I'd far rather have Ico's focussed intensity than a bloated, drawn-out "epic". Better to burn out than fade away right? Well no, it seems a lot of gamers want their action padded out.
Obviously the relatively high cost of games is an issue but that is still no excuse for comparing length to quality. Is Rachel Stevens latest album (65 mins) better than Revolver by the Beatles (35 mins) ?
So many games now involve backtracking and other spurious timesinks designed to lengthen the time played. Look at Zelda: Wind Waker. You're going along nicely, sailing around, solving puzzles then bang – players are forced to hunt for spurious items to proceed. The plot goes out the window simply to lengthen the time played. You even have to fight previously defeated foes at the end. Bah. Developers, if you've said all you need to say in 5-10 hours then stop right there. We'll love your game and hey, we'll have time to buy another one. And it may be one of yours.
Now, don't get me wrong. If I'm playing a great game I want it to go on and on. Harking back to Zelda, but Ocarina of Time took hours to play through, yet was enjoyable throughout. Then there are the likes of Morrowind and Baldur's Gate, great RPGs that entertain for 200+ hours. Or what about the MMORPG's which literally grind on for ever. Obviously multiplayer sports and party games are exempt from this, as they can't be "finished" as such.
But the point is clear. Brevity is good, backtracking bad. Let the best designed games last longer if they need to but prune the rest. Quality not quantity has to be the way forward. Right?
