This is a topic that's been on my mind for quite some time now, and with the release of the PS4 exclusive The Order: 1886 and the fiasco surrounding its length I'm going to chime in with my opinion concerning the matter of a game's length.

I probably think about game length every day. As a Community Playthrough leader, I can't nominate a game that is too long; similarly if it's too short, we won't play a game unless it's part of a competition. Consequently, I spend a lot of time browsing a website called How Long to Beat. This site has become an extremely valuable resource in selecting games not only for the community, but also for my personal gaming. While this may seem trivial to many, some people get really bent out of shape if a new video game turns out to be too short.



The issue of a game's length is nothing new to the gaming community. It's a relevant topic, but I believe that it's being approached completely wrong. The current assumption is that the longer the game, the better. That's somewhat understandable, since games are expensive and players want to get their money's worth.  However, using play time as a metric for value is too simplistic of an outlook. With this mentality, any game that's at least 40 hours long is a guaranteed good buy. Before you pick up that copy of Far Cry 4 think about the game's content. Is that 40 hours composed of unique, engaging gameplay, or will you have to slog through fetch quests half the time? (Disclaimer: I'm not hating on Far Cry 4, it's only the most recent AAA game in my memory).

In a similar fashion, you should consider a game's content. It doesn't haven't to be innovative, but it does have to be exciting. Is a longer game with dull, repetitive action any better than a shorter, thrilling game? FEZ, while only clocking in around 8 hours, had me captivated with its rotation mechanic and tricky platforming. It could have been a straight forward platformer, but instead FEZ challenges the way players have to think about the game world being 3D while only visible from one 2-Dimensional plane at a time. I'll take a perfectly grilled steak over haute cuisine, fine dining any day.


It's important to think about what goes into making a video game when considering its value. Games, as we all know, are a big business and employee thousands of people. A major console release often has a budget of at least six figures, require loads of talent, and take years to develop. It's difficult, if not nearly impossible, to put a monetary value on a person's blood, sweat, and tears. So before you trash talk a game, remember that someone devoted a significant chunk of his or her life to make it.

What's really important when thinking about a game's length and value is its quality. A game doesn't need to be 40 hours, or even 15 hours. It only needs to be well-made, fun, and engaging. It should thrill and excite. Telltale's The Walking Dead is roughly 9 hours long, but it puts me into the shoes of a post-apocalyptic survivor, it forces me to make hard decisions, which I don't normally have to consider in my comfortable life. A quality game is as long as it needs to be. If it can fun and entertaining in an hour that's excellent, and if it takes 25 hours to experience this type of thrill that's equally as good.

If anything, this game length debate cements the reason to wait for price drops or Steam sales. You also have the option of purchasing indie titles since those rarely cost more than $20 and can be finished in one sitting. I know many of us here have jobs, families, and responsibilities, so we have to choose our games wisely and we also have to effectively get the most out what little game time we can slot in to our busy lives.

Permalink | Comments [11] | Digg This Article | Tweet