Games nowadays seem to be mostly in the 10 hour or less range. This probably enables video game companies to profit more but it sucks for us gamers. Personally, I'd rather play an awesome game with a long story than an awesome game with a story less than 10 hours. As long as the game doesn't feel like it drags on, I'd rather play a game for a month than a game you can finish in less than a week. A good example for me would be Assassin's Creed 2 (haven't played the most recent one) and God of War 3. I had more fun playing AC2 which took me about 35 hours to complete than GOW3 which took me around 10 hours. Thoughts?
Long vs. Short Games
- Thread starter madbst
- Start date
When I was younger, I preferred a longer game. I had less money and more time. So one 80 hour game was great deal for me.
Now I have money to buy any game I want but not much time to play them, so now I really appeciate a nice, well paced 10-20 hour game.
For example, I havent played a console RPG this generation. They are just too long. I dont have the time or desire to devote 80 hours of console play to just one game. I do play them on my DS, because I play on way to/from work, and don't mind playing the same game for two months straight.
Now I have money to buy any game I want but not much time to play them, so now I really appeciate a nice, well paced 10-20 hour game.
For example, I havent played a console RPG this generation. They are just too long. I dont have the time or desire to devote 80 hours of console play to just one game. I do play them on my DS, because I play on way to/from work, and don't mind playing the same game for two months straight.
Having a job and kids, these days I really appreciate a game with a short, intense campaign that I can finish in a few days or weeks, rather than something like Dragon Quest VIII that I've been working on on and off for years. 
That said, there are some games this gen that I've ended up devoting ~100 hours or more to (Final Fantasy XIII, Mass Effect 2, Borderlands), so it's still possible for a game to hold my attention for a long-ass time.
That said, there are some games this gen that I've ended up devoting ~100 hours or more to (Final Fantasy XIII, Mass Effect 2, Borderlands), so it's still possible for a game to hold my attention for a long-ass time.I'm fine with either. I don't game as much as I used to, so it takes me 2-3 months usually to get through something like Dragon Age Ultimate. But I'm fine with that as I only play 5-7 games a year or so and don't care if I don't get a chance to play ever game that interest me etc.
As long as I'm having fun when I do game, I don't care if I spend 2 months playing one long game or a couple shorter ones.
That said, short games are great for when I want to just take a couple days break and veg out since you can finish them in a weekend.
As long as I'm having fun when I do game, I don't care if I spend 2 months playing one long game or a couple shorter ones.
That said, short games are great for when I want to just take a couple days break and veg out since you can finish them in a weekend.
Anything over 12-15 hours is too long. 12 is the sweet spot for me I think. There are too many games coming out these days that I'll never get the chance to play because there aren't enough hours in the day. I'd rather get to play 5 ten hour games that are awesome from start to finish than 2 25 hour games that are sort of awesome but drag a bit in places. There are exceptions, of course - puzzle games, sports games, certain RPGs, etc.
[quote name='madbst']I'm in college and I don't really have the means to buy a lot of games so that's probably part of the reason why I prefer longer games. Plus, I don't have any kids to take care of so I do have more time to play games.[/QUOTE]
When college is over say buh-bye to all that free time and you will be wishing games were shorter like the rest of us... ahhhh college, I miss you so.... Super Street Fighter and NHL '94 is all I can remember...
When college is over say buh-bye to all that free time and you will be wishing games were shorter like the rest of us... ahhhh college, I miss you so.... Super Street Fighter and NHL '94 is all I can remember...
I can't count the number of times I have read reviews or forum posts that cite solely the short length of the game as its fault, but I rarely see games get knocked down so much for being too long.
In my opinion, most games could benefit from trimming out the filler and really tightening the whole experience. I think fulfilling the length expectation is one thing that really hurts games the most, that padded length usually means a lot of repetition. I understand the reason for longer games from a developers standpoint, critics and gamers demand longer games and developers need to recoup the fixed costs that don't change with a games length. And I understand the reason for longer games from a gamer standpoint, it is quantifiable and you can quickly associate the length to cost ratio as the value of the game, rather than address whether the game length is appropriate for its game play depth.
I don't ever buy any games for more than $20 usually, so the value ratio isn't that much of a factor. My time is a much bigger factor and I would rather spend it playing unique experiences rather than repeating the same mechanics over and over.
In my opinion, most games could benefit from trimming out the filler and really tightening the whole experience. I think fulfilling the length expectation is one thing that really hurts games the most, that padded length usually means a lot of repetition. I understand the reason for longer games from a developers standpoint, critics and gamers demand longer games and developers need to recoup the fixed costs that don't change with a games length. And I understand the reason for longer games from a gamer standpoint, it is quantifiable and you can quickly associate the length to cost ratio as the value of the game, rather than address whether the game length is appropriate for its game play depth.
I don't ever buy any games for more than $20 usually, so the value ratio isn't that much of a factor. My time is a much bigger factor and I would rather spend it playing unique experiences rather than repeating the same mechanics over and over.
[quote name='msdmoney']I can't count the number of times I have read reviews or forum posts that cite solely the short length of the game as its fault, but I rarely see games get knocked down so much for being too long.[/QUOTE]
I think that the game companies are fully cognizant of the market for shorter games with less filler, despite the vocal minority of reviewers and forumgoers who decry them. Look at the success of Call of Duty and Gears of War vs. the niche status of ultra-long grind-oriented titles like Disgaea.
I think that the game companies are fully cognizant of the market for shorter games with less filler, despite the vocal minority of reviewers and forumgoers who decry them. Look at the success of Call of Duty and Gears of War vs. the niche status of ultra-long grind-oriented titles like Disgaea.
But of course the Halos, CoDs and Gears games get free passes as they have the online modes. Not nearly as many people by them solely to play the single player.
A 6-8 hour game with a robust online mode is worth $60. A 6-8 hour single player only game is a rental or wait for Goozex.
A 6-8 hour game with a robust online mode is worth $60. A 6-8 hour single player only game is a rental or wait for Goozex.
[quote name='Ryuukishi']That's a good point. A good online multiplayer component does complicate the length equation.[/QUOTE]
When it comes to shooters, I rarely even play the single player campaign. I buy these games solely for the multiplayer.
I have days logged playing Black Ops and Battlefield Bad Company 2 and I've never played the single player campaigns.
I like online multiplayer because I can play it for any length of time and the experience is more or less the same. Sometimes I play for 30-60 minutes. Sometimes I play for 6 hours straight.
When it comes to shooters, I rarely even play the single player campaign. I buy these games solely for the multiplayer.
I have days logged playing Black Ops and Battlefield Bad Company 2 and I've never played the single player campaigns.
I like online multiplayer because I can play it for any length of time and the experience is more or less the same. Sometimes I play for 30-60 minutes. Sometimes I play for 6 hours straight.
iKilledChewbacca
Banned
I like my games in the 5hour-10hour region.
If the game is any longer I will lose my concentration and just never play the game again.
weird.
If the game is any longer I will lose my concentration and just never play the game again.
weird.
Put me in the shorter is typically better category (like 10-12 hours is a good length for an action game for me), back in college sure 50+ hour JRPGs all the way, now I have to really question if I'll stick with something that is going to take me that long over the course of the months that it will probably take me to complete playing during the small amount of time during the week when I'm not at work (although some weekends if I get really into something I can game for a fairly good block).
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Amblix']Games have been short for a few generations now, haha.
RPGs have been keepin' it real since forever.[/QUOTE]
Games have been short since the beginning when we had quarter-hungry arcade games and very simple Atari games to, but the length increased as the graphics got better and allowed for a better variety of gameplay.
Comparing God of War 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 is dumb since they're two very different games. One is a linear action game and the other is an open world game with a lot of collectibles, missions, and big areas to explore. It would be like saying that I'd rather play a game like Just Cause 2 than Limbo or Madden 11 than Enslaved.
RPGs have been keepin' it real since forever.[/QUOTE]
Games have been short since the beginning when we had quarter-hungry arcade games and very simple Atari games to, but the length increased as the graphics got better and allowed for a better variety of gameplay.
Comparing God of War 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 is dumb since they're two very different games. One is a linear action game and the other is an open world game with a lot of collectibles, missions, and big areas to explore. It would be like saying that I'd rather play a game like Just Cause 2 than Limbo or Madden 11 than Enslaved.
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Games have been short since the beginning when we had quarter-hungry arcade games and very simple Atari games to, but the length increased as the graphics got better and allowed for a better variety of gameplay.
Comparing God of War 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 is dumb since they're two very different games. One is a linear action game and the other is an open world game with a lot of collectibles, missions, and big areas to explore. It would be like saying that I'd rather play a game like Just Cause 2 than Limbo or Madden 11 than Enslaved.[/QUOTE]
If I was comparing different genres, I would name this thread Action vs. Sandbox Games. The fact that I'm comparing the durations of completion of games should let you know that any game can be compared in this discussion (short story vs. long story, short story with great multiplayer vs. long story, etc.)
With that said, I also appreciate a game with good replay value and/or a great multiplayer aspect. I've put in over 600 games on NBA Live 10 in the year and a half I've had it, for example.
Comparing God of War 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 is dumb since they're two very different games. One is a linear action game and the other is an open world game with a lot of collectibles, missions, and big areas to explore. It would be like saying that I'd rather play a game like Just Cause 2 than Limbo or Madden 11 than Enslaved.[/QUOTE]
If I was comparing different genres, I would name this thread Action vs. Sandbox Games. The fact that I'm comparing the durations of completion of games should let you know that any game can be compared in this discussion (short story vs. long story, short story with great multiplayer vs. long story, etc.)
With that said, I also appreciate a game with good replay value and/or a great multiplayer aspect. I've put in over 600 games on NBA Live 10 in the year and a half I've had it, for example.
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']Games have been short since the beginning when we had quarter-hungry arcade games and very simple Atari games to, but the length increased as the graphics got better and allowed for a better variety of gameplay.[/QUOTE]
I think the length increase, at least for very old games was due to the ability to have a save state; prior to that a game had to be comfortable to beat (even if it took many times of playing it to learn everything) in one sitting. Once games could be saved the length could (technically) be as long as the data that could fit on the medium it was put on.
[quote name='madbst']If I was comparing different genres, I would name this thread Action vs. Sandbox Games. The fact that I'm comparing the durations of completion of games should let you know that any game can be compared in this discussion (short story vs. long story, short story with great multiplayer vs. long story, etc.).[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure it was what FriskyTanuki was pointing out, but I think the genre and the gameplay mechanics often does play a large part in the length of games or at the very least the length that players perceive that it should be. For instance imagine a shooter or straight up action game that took 50+ hours to beat, it would take an insane amount of content and design to make that type of game enjoyable for that long; and with that said almost no game in that genre tries it. I think sandbox games can usually be expected to be longer since at the very least you have travel time from point a to point b and usually some side missions that you can do along the way; in an action game like God of War it is just one battle after another with bosses and a couple puzzles thrown in every so often and I think that type of game would be hard to extend to the 35 hours you said that AC2 took you.
I think the length increase, at least for very old games was due to the ability to have a save state; prior to that a game had to be comfortable to beat (even if it took many times of playing it to learn everything) in one sitting. Once games could be saved the length could (technically) be as long as the data that could fit on the medium it was put on.
[quote name='madbst']If I was comparing different genres, I would name this thread Action vs. Sandbox Games. The fact that I'm comparing the durations of completion of games should let you know that any game can be compared in this discussion (short story vs. long story, short story with great multiplayer vs. long story, etc.).[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure it was what FriskyTanuki was pointing out, but I think the genre and the gameplay mechanics often does play a large part in the length of games or at the very least the length that players perceive that it should be. For instance imagine a shooter or straight up action game that took 50+ hours to beat, it would take an insane amount of content and design to make that type of game enjoyable for that long; and with that said almost no game in that genre tries it. I think sandbox games can usually be expected to be longer since at the very least you have travel time from point a to point b and usually some side missions that you can do along the way; in an action game like God of War it is just one battle after another with bosses and a couple puzzles thrown in every so often and I think that type of game would be hard to extend to the 35 hours you said that AC2 took you.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='icebeast']I'm not sure it was what FriskyTanuki was pointing out, but I think the genre and the gameplay mechanics often does play a large part in the length of games or at the very least the length that players perceive that it should be. For instance imagine a shooter or straight up action game that took 50+ hours to beat, it would take an insane amount of content and design to make that type of game enjoyable for that long; and with that said almost no game in that genre tries it. I think sandbox games can usually be expected to be longer since at the very least you have travel time from point a to point b and usually some side missions that you can do along the way; in an action game like God of War it is just one battle after another with bosses and a couple puzzles thrown in every so often and I think that type of game would be hard to extend to the 35 hours you said that AC2 took you.[/QUOTE]
That's basically the point I was making, as the two genres inherently have different styles of getting through the story and the world that greatly affects the amount of time that they can last.
For me, it's just quality that matters. I've played both God of War 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 and greatly enjoyed them both. I did balk at games like GTA IV and Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, as both were way too long for me to endure their issues for the full ride, so I bailed about halfway through when I had enough.
That's basically the point I was making, as the two genres inherently have different styles of getting through the story and the world that greatly affects the amount of time that they can last.
For me, it's just quality that matters. I've played both God of War 3 and Assassin's Creed 2 and greatly enjoyed them both. I did balk at games like GTA IV and Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, as both were way too long for me to endure their issues for the full ride, so I bailed about halfway through when I had enough.
I like both. There are times when I can spend 80 hours in an RPG and times when I get rid one after only a couple hours in(I may get flamed but I really didn't like Oblivion). That said, I love a solid 10 hour single player campaign as well. I never spend any time at all in multiplayer, so the inclusion of that adds no real value to a game for me.
Genre for sure factors in. As much as I love a game like Gears of War, I wouldn't want it to be longer than 10 hours as that type of gameplay gets repetitive fast.
Where as things like WRPGs I can play indefinitely as I don't get tired of wandering around doing quests etc., and the stories keep me interested. Plus it easy to finish sections of the games (i.e. a side quest line or DLC, or one chunk of the main quest) and save and put the game aside for a while. With the quest journals etc. it's easy to remember where you were going and so on.
Where as things like WRPGs I can play indefinitely as I don't get tired of wandering around doing quests etc., and the stories keep me interested. Plus it easy to finish sections of the games (i.e. a side quest line or DLC, or one chunk of the main quest) and save and put the game aside for a while. With the quest journals etc. it's easy to remember where you were going and so on.
[quote name='Mixer236']I like both. There are times when I can spend 80 hours in an RPG and times when I get rid one after only a couple hours in(I may get flamed but I really didn't like Oblivion). [/QUOTE]
One thing for me, is it seems that most WRPGs--aside from the Mass Effect series--always seem to take me around 10 hours to really get sucked into them.
I was that way with Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Dragon Age--struggling to get into them, but kept at it and ended up getting hooked. Part of it is I usually get annoyed and end up knocking down the difficulty so I don't have to worry so much with the often clunky combat in the genre or worry much with all the stats customization etc.
But in general the games tend to have kind of steep learning curves with figuring out the combat, customization, the quest management system, how the maps work etc. that make them slow to get into for me. But once I do I get hooked and do every sidequest I can find etc.
One thing for me, is it seems that most WRPGs--aside from the Mass Effect series--always seem to take me around 10 hours to really get sucked into them.
I was that way with Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Dragon Age--struggling to get into them, but kept at it and ended up getting hooked. Part of it is I usually get annoyed and end up knocking down the difficulty so I don't have to worry so much with the often clunky combat in the genre or worry much with all the stats customization etc.
But in general the games tend to have kind of steep learning curves with figuring out the combat, customization, the quest management system, how the maps work etc. that make them slow to get into for me. But once I do I get hooked and do every sidequest I can find etc.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
12-15 hour games are about the perfect length to me. Not too long, not too short. I can play longer games, but they're a dime a dozen, so I have to be really interested in them to play them all the way through.
Games that aren't strictly timed like puzzle games and fighting games I usually just play piece meal style a few minutes a day for a long period of time.
Games that aren't strictly timed like puzzle games and fighting games I usually just play piece meal style a few minutes a day for a long period of time.
[quote name='KingBroly']
Games that aren't strictly timed like puzzle games and fighting games I usually just play piece meal style a few minutes a day for a long period of time.[/QUOTE]
Those type of games just don't capture my interest at all. When I game, even being busy, I like to veg out for 2 plus hours to get away from things.
So aside from online FPS, I mainly stick with games that are at least some what story driven that I can escape in for a bit a couple nights a week.
When I have an hour or less free time I usually opt for reading or watching a TV episode on the DVR etc.
Games that aren't strictly timed like puzzle games and fighting games I usually just play piece meal style a few minutes a day for a long period of time.[/QUOTE]
Those type of games just don't capture my interest at all. When I game, even being busy, I like to veg out for 2 plus hours to get away from things.
So aside from online FPS, I mainly stick with games that are at least some what story driven that I can escape in for a bit a couple nights a week.
When I have an hour or less free time I usually opt for reading or watching a TV episode on the DVR etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='javeryh']Anything over 12-15 hours is too long. 12 is the sweet spot for me I think. There are too many games coming out these days that I'll never get the chance to play because there aren't enough hours in the day. I'd rather get to play 5 ten hour games that are awesome from start to finish than 2 25 hour games that are sort of awesome but drag a bit in places. There are exceptions, of course - puzzle games, sports games, certain RPGs, etc.[/QUOTE]
This sums it up for me, too. 8-12 hours is the "sweet" spot for me, however I'll gladly make exceptions for the right games (Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Madden 11). If the game is over 12 hours, most of the times the game is too long (ie Castlevania) and it'll take longer to get through it.
This sums it up for me, too. 8-12 hours is the "sweet" spot for me, however I'll gladly make exceptions for the right games (Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Madden 11). If the game is over 12 hours, most of the times the game is too long (ie Castlevania) and it'll take longer to get through it.
gbpackers94
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
it depends how good the game is
I enjoy both. My favorite genre is RPGs but I don't play them too often anymore because my schedule means it would take 2 months or so to complete (achievements/trophies)
Although I am going to say that I completely hated Assassin's Creed 1 which I recently completed. To me, there is nothing more annoying/lazy than developers adding collectibles to a game to increase it's length. It has to be measured to an extent for me to enjoy it. 400+ flags, 60 Templars, 90 view points, 30+ Save Citizens was pushing it in my opinion.
Another thing that annoys me is multiple playthroughs to complete a game. An example of this is 3D Dot Game Heroes. The game took 3 playthroughs (minimum) to platinum and it was a fairly difficult game overall. I enjoyed the first 2 playthroughs, but the last one (From Mode; everything kills you in 1 hit? Cmon now x_x) was pretty annoying.
Some games that hit it on the head for me with the perfect mix of content and without getting repetitive that I recently completed:
Fallout 3
Heavy Rain
Alan Wake
Bayonetta (This one was borderline, it was 3 playthroughs but it was also only about 30 hours so that was ok I guess)
Dante's Inferno
I also enjoyed completing a couple 100+ hour RPGs such as Tales of Vesperia, Infinite Undiscovery, Blue Dragon. Time doesn't allow that too often these days though and Eternal Sonata/Lost Odyssey were some good RPG fixes that didn't take an eternity to complete.
I am not married but I work 20 hours a week and am taking 5 classes this semester x_x so my gaming time has been drastically cut
Although I am going to say that I completely hated Assassin's Creed 1 which I recently completed. To me, there is nothing more annoying/lazy than developers adding collectibles to a game to increase it's length. It has to be measured to an extent for me to enjoy it. 400+ flags, 60 Templars, 90 view points, 30+ Save Citizens was pushing it in my opinion.
Another thing that annoys me is multiple playthroughs to complete a game. An example of this is 3D Dot Game Heroes. The game took 3 playthroughs (minimum) to platinum and it was a fairly difficult game overall. I enjoyed the first 2 playthroughs, but the last one (From Mode; everything kills you in 1 hit? Cmon now x_x) was pretty annoying.
Some games that hit it on the head for me with the perfect mix of content and without getting repetitive that I recently completed:
Fallout 3
Heavy Rain
Alan Wake
Bayonetta (This one was borderline, it was 3 playthroughs but it was also only about 30 hours so that was ok I guess)
Dante's Inferno
I also enjoyed completing a couple 100+ hour RPGs such as Tales of Vesperia, Infinite Undiscovery, Blue Dragon. Time doesn't allow that too often these days though and Eternal Sonata/Lost Odyssey were some good RPG fixes that didn't take an eternity to complete.
I am not married but I work 20 hours a week and am taking 5 classes this semester x_x so my gaming time has been drastically cut
[quote name='Gears24']I enjoy both. My favorite genre is RPGs but I don't play them too often anymore because my schedule means it would take 2 months or so to complete (achievements/trophies)
Although I am going to say that I completely hated Assassin's Creed 1 which I recently completed. To me, there is nothing more annoying/lazy than developers adding collectibles to a game to increase it's length. It has to be measured to an extent for me to enjoy it. 400+ flags, 60 Templars, 90 view points, 30+ Save Citizens was pushing it in my opinion.
Another thing that annoys me is multiple playthroughs to complete a game. An example of this is 3D Dot Game Heroes. The game took 3 playthroughs (minimum) to platinum and it was a fairly difficult game overall. I enjoyed the first 2 playthroughs, but the last one (From Mode; everything kills you in 1 hit? Cmon now x_x) was pretty annoying.
[/QUOTE]
But you don't have to get platinum or collection everything. You can put the game down after the first playthrouh or skip the side quests.
Although I am going to say that I completely hated Assassin's Creed 1 which I recently completed. To me, there is nothing more annoying/lazy than developers adding collectibles to a game to increase it's length. It has to be measured to an extent for me to enjoy it. 400+ flags, 60 Templars, 90 view points, 30+ Save Citizens was pushing it in my opinion.
Another thing that annoys me is multiple playthroughs to complete a game. An example of this is 3D Dot Game Heroes. The game took 3 playthroughs (minimum) to platinum and it was a fairly difficult game overall. I enjoyed the first 2 playthroughs, but the last one (From Mode; everything kills you in 1 hit? Cmon now x_x) was pretty annoying.
[/QUOTE]
But you don't have to get platinum or collection everything. You can put the game down after the first playthrouh or skip the side quests.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, few things are sillier than people who complain about achievements/trophies.
If they aren't fun to get, don't bother with them. Who gives a shit about building up gamerscore, a super high one should be a badge of shame rather than a badge of honor anyway.
If they're fun to get, and add enjoyment for you, then go after them. If they're making games feel too long, or making you do shit you don't enjoy like collecting crap, then it's silly to waste time on them when you could be playing something else you enjoy.
If they aren't fun to get, don't bother with them. Who gives a shit about building up gamerscore, a super high one should be a badge of shame rather than a badge of honor anyway.
If they're fun to get, and add enjoyment for you, then go after them. If they're making games feel too long, or making you do shit you don't enjoy like collecting crap, then it's silly to waste time on them when you could be playing something else you enjoy.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, few things are sillier than people who complain about achievements/trophies.
If they aren't fun to get, don't bother with them.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. I mean if getting achievements/trophies is your thing more power to you, but I don't understand why it is worth enduring something that you knowingly hate and then complaining about it. If doing it was that much of a pain why did you?
If they aren't fun to get, don't bother with them.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. I mean if getting achievements/trophies is your thing more power to you, but I don't understand why it is worth enduring something that you knowingly hate and then complaining about it. If doing it was that much of a pain why did you?
I won't complain about game length because I remember growing up and playing great games like Contra and Castlevania with awesome game lengths of like 30 minutes or so once you go good.
MegaMan games were a bit longer, and Mario - while longer - could still be beat in an hour or so. (Mario 3 that is).
So, 8-12 hour games now a days are awesome in my book. The only reason I even think they are short sometimes is because I usually play them AFTER I put in 50+ hours into an RPG.
I love games of all lengths, but I rarely ever buy shooters because they have no replay value and because I don't like competitive (read: I suck) online multiplayer games.
I also hate that they develop those games for multiplayer and then just throw in a story line later.
MegaMan games were a bit longer, and Mario - while longer - could still be beat in an hour or so. (Mario 3 that is).
So, 8-12 hour games now a days are awesome in my book. The only reason I even think they are short sometimes is because I usually play them AFTER I put in 50+ hours into an RPG.
I love games of all lengths, but I rarely ever buy shooters because they have no replay value and because I don't like competitive (read: I suck) online multiplayer games.
I also hate that they develop those games for multiplayer and then just throw in a story line later.
bread's done