More Reviews
REVIEWS GRiD 2 Review
Grid 2 surprised me. I was going through the motions, getting used to the cars and their handling, when suddenly something happened. I started having fun.

State of Decay Review
Undead Lab's zombie-infested action title has finally hit XBLA. Is it worth a few of your precious Microsoft Points, or should you whack it over the head with a two-by-four and continue on your merry way?
More Previews
PREVIEWS Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate Preview
Everyone's favorite business model comes to the fighting genre.
Release Dates
NEW RELEASES Deadpool
Release date: 06/25/13

Dynasty Warriors 8
Release date: 07/16/13

Turbo: Super Stunt Squad
Release date: 07/16/13

Mamorukun Curse
Release date: 07/16/13


LATEST FEATURES Software Without GamePad Purpose Drives Nintendo's Disappointing E3
If Nintendo can't develop games made especially for the Wii U GamePad, then no one will be able to.

Xbox One Controller Hands-On
The more time I spend with the Xbox One's controller, the more subtle yet meaningful improvements reveal themselves.
 
Coming Soon

LEADERBOARD
Read More Member Blogs
FEATURED VOXPOP Starling
E3: PC or rather about the lack of it
By Starling
Posted on 06/15/13
E3 2013 has been very silent for me. There's tons of media, but most of it buzzes past my ears without them catching the important keyword that my ears are fine tuned to receive: "PC" or "Personal Computer". Microsoft, Sony, EA and Ubisoft have all shown their cards...

MEMBER BLOG

Gnarl Gnarl's Blog
PROFILE
Average Blog Rating:
[ Back to All Posts ]
Hard Difficulty- a retort to Casual Difficulty's 'How short is too short?'
Posted on Wednesday, October 27 2010 @ 09:57:01 Eastern

Lost in translation
 
 
(You can find Casual Difficulty's 'How short is too short?' short essay on the website Game Revolution, entitled as the latter in the Features section.)


  Without recapping Casual Difficulty's short essay: I agree.  Gamers who complain precisely over a game’s length and it being “too short” are missing the point entirely.  Literally looking for more bang for one's buck to measure a game’s caliber by is not only unfair but unjust- not to sound too serious or anything.
 
  However, if I’m to use myself as an example, I believe that these very same gamers- or at least some of them-  look for longevity in their games more from a financial standpoint than one of merit.  Jesse Costantino is absolutely right in saying that, with time, production prices have only gone up- but in turn so have retail prices.  And, to use his own food-styled metaphor, in a city (industry) full of great restaurants (games), we the consumer want more on our plate for what we’re paying, and understandably so.  That isn't to say however that quantity surpasses quality.  Indeed, it is quite the opposite.
 
  To put it plainly, Vanquish is a superb piece of work.  Its length places no handicap in my mind upon how "good" it is.  What it DOES do, however, is place it at the back of the purchase line.  Short games are a doomed species.  To use Vanquish as an example: why bother shelling out 40 pounds, dollars or whatever your currency for a game you can complete within a seven-day  Blockbuster rental for 7 whatevers, and use the leftovers for that other title you’ve had your eye on.  Or, to convert that into another food metaphor: why pay a lot for the privilege of a high-street cafe muffin when you can buy a pack of the exact same four at your local supermarket- for less?
Sure, seven days is a lot less time than ownership provides, but one can only chew for so long, no? 
 
  And, if multiplayers are, like Casual Difficulty says, 'underdeveloped' (and I’m not wholly disagreeing there) where does that leave the short, sweet game?
 
  Gamers, I believe, don’t want to chew up and spit out game after game.  They want to be able to recycle! Or, regurgitate, as gross a food metaphor as that might be.  The solution lies in short games finding a reason to come back and replay- and it’s here that achievements/ trophies help.  Though they themselves have taken something away from games (gone are the days of playing Sonic 1 over and over for want of more coins or just to damn finish) it provides, in return, with incentive.  And there at least, games have not changed.  People have always played towards a goal: it’s what makes a game a “game”, whether it concern sports, software or foxy boxing; whether it be to win, succeed in a personal achievement or just plain reach a certain level of enjoyment.  I see achievements/trophies simply as various mini-goalposts that keep gamers coming back to whatever game title you like to score that extra little sense of accomplishment.
 
  Perhaps it’s just a matter of semantics.  Game design theorists often complain that, unlike most design industries- from mechanics to architecture- gaming lacks a solid form of jargon, beyond that of genre labeling.  When these gamers Jesse speaks of cry out about “length”, what they might really be calling for is “replayability”.
 
'If a game’s not worth savoring, is it really worth consuming?'

  Absolutely.  I’d like to think we’d starve otherwise.  To use Jesse's food metaphor one last time, gaming is indeed a lot like hunger.  And just because we don’t savour our McDonalds Big Mac doesn’t mean it isn't worth wolfing down with fries.  Anyone for a cheeseburger?
Comments
  • Thee_BoBALOSA
    Thee_BoBALOSA

    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posted: Nov 11th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
    Since this site has limits on characters,i will be short. the idea of games being beaten within an afternoon leaves me with the feeling of a cash grab.ie-The first Call of Duty was something never seen before.the expansion that followed added to the whole experience,while CoD2 felt shorter with less content.(why did they take away vehicles?)Replay value is very important to me. being able to pick up and play a decade old while still receiving enjoyment out of it,makes the original cost worth every penny.ie-SW Rebellion,one of the best RTS games for Star Wars.the Total War series(expect Napoleon-cash grab),the old Command and Conquer series, before Generals(why did they take away base building?)or Road Rash N64 with its island to go roam around on.It really comes down to(in my opinion)how much freedom there is in "X" game.for computer games,a selling point is the modding community.Company of Heroes is still going strong.RUSE came out and is unable to be modded,sadly the game will die.
  • pennpsu
    pennpsu

    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posted: Nov 15th, 2010 at 8:20 am
    I cannot fathom why people insist on preaching the merits of a "short" game, or for "streamlined" PRG's, or for "simplified" gameplay. Experienced gamers want immersive, challenging gameplay with options and customization, and yes, LENGTH. If casual gamers are your target demo, so be it, but us hardcore players will ALWAYS pass over a "streamlined, simplified and short game" for the Fallout 3's and Gears of War and Mass Effects (ME1 anyway). I have yet to hear any real explanations about why shorter, simpler games are better game design in any way, shape or form.
  • Thee_BoBALOSA
    Thee_BoBALOSA

    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posted: Nov 21st, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    In my ever quest to read the internet, i came across this article. http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/217341/friday-​editorial-why-games-need-to-be-shorter/ i do not totally agree with his view. i still believe replay value is key, and not the idea of more games with "better story". i mean how many times have we heard the same old story being told and told again. http://www.thelegendsleague.com/blog/wp-content/uplo​ads/2010/01/AvatarVSPocohantoas.jpg i must state though, i am not a fan of capitalism.monetary system. so seeing shorter games being "pumped" out to me looks like a cash grab. looking at you halo/call of duty.
  • pennpsu
    pennpsu

    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posted: Nov 22nd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
    Tae K. Kim's article assumes that most gamers use playtime as a primary factor in game selection, and shorter games would lead to better game development. I would assert savvy gamers balance all aspects of a game, and also know when gameplay feels like an afterthought or tacked on. Hardcore gamers consider much more than pure playtime when making a purchase. To simply say as long as the gameplay is solid then length doesn't matter lets developers off the hook completely. I want BOTH, and that's exactly what AAA titles deliver. If developers need to come up with another 5 hrs of quality playtime to add some legs to their game, I say fine. Isn't that what their job? Isn't that why we pay $60.00 and up for AAA titles?
  • Thee_BoBALOSA
    Thee_BoBALOSA

    Joined: Jan 2008
    Posted: Nov 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    yes, taking the time, and yes IF need the money (heaven forbids) for a game be a well told story. if you were to look at Portal, the game was an awesome experience for both gamers, and non gamers. i will though, the game was part of a three pack game, the orange box. was the game just a nice bonus/treat? portal 2 is coming out in the future. question - are they taking their time with the game due to: game bugs? story? fun factor? playability? graphics? the list can go on. blizzards 'Ghost' has been in production, halted, started up again halted, blah, blah, etc. one story, i heard was the game could not meet the "high bar" set by starcraft I. i would love to disuse the monetary system with you but sadly only 1000 characteristic limit, sigh.
  • pennpsu
    pennpsu

    Joined: Sep 2010
    Posted: Nov 24th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
    Valve is taking their time because they are one of the few developers who NEVER release anything but AAA games. Gabe Newell knows first hand what it takes to deliver a great experience, Valve's catalog shows that. Every developer needs to take the time to address all the issues you mentioned, as for Blizzard, your guess is as good as mine.

Post a Comment
LOGIN or REGISTER to post a comment or rate this article.
 
More On GameRevolution