Does length matter?

I don't think length matters at all. Journey is my favorite game this year, and I only played through it twice, both times in one sitting.

The length only matters in terms of how it uses it (get it). If a game is too long because it's mechanics get super tedious and boring by the end, or if the mechanics aren't explored enough like that Swan game Patrick and Vinny just did a QL of, then the length can play a factor in quality. Basically, as long as the game is fully realized, then I think length doesn't really matter.

Well its fine for it not to be long but you can't try certain positions with it. If I played Braid whilst watching a movie I would basically get nothing out of the game.

Quality not quantity in all things.

...if you know what I mean.

How long a video game takes to get from the title screen to end credits should NOT be a factor when buying it, considering it for an award, or anything. That's ludicrous.

Take Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, for example. It was a retail game that boasted hours upon hours of content....but most of it was boring, to me at least. The same with Skyrim, Grand Theft Auto IV, and pretty much every open world game. There was just so much meaningless stuff put into the game (commonly described as "filler") that it almost invalidated the genuinely awesome parts.

Even though I spent the same amount of money on Skyrim and Asura's Wrath (technically, I spent more on the latter because of the amazing DLC), I felt I got a better deal with Asura's Wrath, because the game was super awesome from start to finish, instead of Skyrim's 10 hours of awesomeness in a 60 hour play log.

And let's not forget Journey 's 2 hour ride that had most people in tears. Finally, for me personally, The Dishwasher series is among my top favorite video games of all time, but you could get through both of those in a few hours each.

I was ready to talk about the male reproductive organ.... I am sorely disappointed.

Good day.

@Sackmanjones: can you measure the length of your disappointment?

I'm not a video game size queen or anything, but the idea that the length of a video game should have no bearing on price, your enjoyment of it, or whatever else is completely ridiculous.

I don't care how long it is I just want it to be hard. You know, like an erection.
Video games.

Nope. Lollipop Chainsaw can be done in one sitting and it's in my Top ten for the year. Just deliver a good time, no filler needed.

Yes, but longer does not equal better. Depending on the game mechanics and story, the right length for one game may be 2 hours and 100 hours for another.

It's not the motion of the ocean, it's the boat of the lotion.

Length doesn't matter as long as I am enjoying playing through the game. Asura's Wrath is like a 5 or 6 hour game and will be top 3 for me. Journey is 90 minutes long and is FUCKING amazing. I do like a long game (playing through Persona 3 right now and loving it) but sometimes it can hurt a game when they pad out the length *cough*Skyward Sword*cough*

Depends on the game, yes and no.

So yeah, penises you guy, amirite?

@MonetaryDread said:

I think that the length of a game is important for as long as developers charge $60+ for a video game. If I have a choice between a game like Skyrim and a game like Darkness II, I choose the Skyrim type game. At $20 or less, I don't care how long the game is. If Activision released a $20 Call of Duty campaign that was only an hour and a half-long, I would buy it every year.

TL:DR -- $20 is an impulse buy, $60 isn't, so if a developer charges full price length matters.

If a game was a better quality 6-8 hour experience than skyrim's 100+, would it be worth the $60?

It really depends on the genre, most people know that a FPS now days will clock in between 10-20 hours. But a longer game isin't always better, dragging out the same concepts without indurocing new gameplay elemets just to pad length dosen't make it a better game. Ideally you want a long game but its obvious games that are random have a leg up here as replayablility is infinite as long as your still enjoying it. So i guess i think its important to a extent, but if a games only 5 hours long though it manages to be something special and memorable that can be ok too.

Because of replayability and multiplayer (which you may or may not care about), it is difficult to say "X" hours of gameplay signifies something is worthwhile (maybe only the first 3 levels are worth it). So it ends up being what you think the package is to yourself... although I also add in how much the developer spent making the game (which in some ways is even worse than a length judgement).

Like if a developer put in a very limited budget, I usually am inclined to pay less for the title - but this is also impacted by how mass market the game is. It kind of plays to my sense of how fair the price is, even though it is really bad in terms of ignoring the quality side of things.

It really depends, if you're using it in terms of replay value it's very important. However, if you're talking about stand alone campaigns then it varies; I'm" generally not a fan of short games myself unless they have a lot of replay value (typically open ended with respect to gameplay variety and offers NG+ modes). You also have to factor in public preconceptions with regards to genre and for the game to fit within that space.