Why Do We Judge Games By Their Length?

When the first Harry Potter novel came out in the late 90's I recall paying somewhere around $40 for it. According to its modern day Amazon listing the book is 320 pages long. Nearly a decade later I payed almost the exact same price for the final book in the series, the 750+ page Deathly Hallows. After finishing this book I told my brother who had also just finished it that it would have been much better if they had cut 200 of the 300 pages spent detailing Harry moping in a forest. Overall my enjoyment of the series decreased as the books increased in length. Rowling began spending so much time on useless exposition that I nearly didn't even read the final two books.

In 1966 the Soviet Union produced its rendition of the legendary Russian novel War and Peace. The film was 427 minutes (or over 7 hours) long and likely cost the current equivalent of about $50 million to produce. I was able to see it during a very rare US showing at the Gene Siskel Center in Chicago in 2007. That year (2007 not 1966) also saw the release of Paranormal Activity. The film was a mere 86 minutes long and cost only $15,000 to produce. The price of a ticket at the Gene Siskel Center in 2007 was about $9 for a matinee. The price of a ticket at the AMC down the street where I could have watched Paranormal Activity? $9 for a matinee.

Why do I bring up these events? Because not a single person I know complained that they were charging the same amount to see a 80 minute long movie that cost $15,000 to make as they were to see films that cost 1000x that much to make and lasted nearly 3x as long. No one walked out of the theater muttering how the film would have been even better if they had just tacked on another couple of hours. That would be insane. I've seen animated films that barely broke the hour mark, and that War and Peace film had three intermissions built in for people to stretch and eat. Let me tell you that there were plenty of people who left long before the end credits rolled. The theater actually showed the film for three days so people could see part of the film one day and then come back the next day to see the rest. I assure you that many people didn't come back for day two.

But currently forums across the web are ablaze with comments about the length of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes. Beating 100% of the game is supposed to take around 4 or 5 hours with the main story taking only 2. Now in any other entertainment industry this would not be newsworthy. People complain far more when a book or movie is too long. If a writer can tell a story in only an hour or only 150 pages then no one tells them they wasted money on their book or play or movie. The story is as long as it needs to be. Once there is no more story to tell the book, movie, or whatever is over. No writer would add in several more scenes to a story just to pad out the length. That's the type of thing that causes audiences to get bored and walk out or put the book down.

And likewise no one expects to pay less for a ticket to see an indie film than they do to see a major summer blockbuster. A film could cost $10,000 or $100 million and we pay the same amount to view it. Yet when we are asked to, for example, pay full price for a game like Rayman Legends, many scoff at the idea of spending the same amount of money for a product that cost only a fraction as much to make.

Gaming is the only form of entertainment that is judged based on value for the dollar. People pay hundreds of dollars to go see their favorite musicians perform for a couple of hours and some will pay thousands to see their favorite sports team win the championship. According to a recent study there are only 11 minutes of game time in a Football game, with the rest spent planning and setting up each play. Yet when Europeans try to explain why their Football is better I never hear the argument that when they see a 90 minute game they are getting a full 90 minutes of playtime. In fact quite a few people prefer American Football because they only need to pay attention once every 10 or 15 minutes. People don't judge the value of a concert by its length, or the quality of a sport by the total game time. Yet a two hour long game is for many people automatically worse than one that is 100 hours long.

The entire concept reeks of a young medium in which quantity is judged over quality. Most movies run between one and a half and two and a half hours. The reason for that is that any more time and most people will get bored and any less and the film likely won't be able to fully develop its plot. In almost every narrative medium pacing is much more important than overall length. A 2 hour movie that is poorly paced can seem like a 5 hour slog, while a 3 and a half hour epic can seem like mere minutes in the hands of a master filmmaker. Compare two Stanly Kubrick films of similar length. The Shining, to me, feels like it passes by very quickly as tension is ratcheted up at a perfect rate so that two hours of nothing feel like some of the most intense of your life. Meanwhile in 2001: A Space Odyssey many people walk out long before the end credits, often during a 20 minute long light show in which nothing happens. For many those 20 minutes likely seem longer than the entirety of The Shining. (Of note I think both films are great but I don't mind super slow films). Point is, the pacing of a film, and its perceived length is far more important than its actual length when determining whether or not audiences find that length acceptable.

There is one other aspect of the economics of games I want to bring into this discussion as it is something no one seems to take into account when complaining about the rising cost of games. A common message among game makers is that used games are killing the industry. The response by many gamers is that numerous other industries have survived a strong used market so why should games be any different? I'll tell you why using a slightly unique metaphor. When I walk into an Italian restaurant I will almost always see a Pasta Alfredo of some sort on the menu. Nearby they might list a juicy steak. The Pasta will likely cost the diner only half as much as the steak but it costs the restaurant pennies for every dollar charged, compared to the steak which they likely can only price at double the cost of making it at most. Alfredo sauce costs a lot less to buy for the diner but it costs almost nothing to make. Using this strategy a restaurant can undercharge for a more expensive dish and make up the loss selling staple foods that cost pennies to make.

This strategy is also employed in the film industry. People often mention Marvel as being a major money maker in the film industry these days. And as far as pure dollar earnings go, Marvel Studios makes more money than any production company each year. But they also spend more. Even their less popular films cost upwards of $250 million to make and market, while The Avengers and Iron Man cost that much merely to make, with marketing eating up another $200 million. So while The Avengers might have made over 1.5 billion dollars that is only a 3 times return on investment. The most valuable production studio in Hollywood is actually Bloomhouse Productions. They are the folks behind Paranormal Activity, Insidious, Sinister, and several other horror films. What makes Bloomhouse films so great is that none cost more than a couple million dollars to make, with the early Paranormal Activity movies made for under $100,000. So while Paranormal Activity only made $250 million that is a 2500 times return on investment. Horror and comedy films are often movie studio's insurance. It isn't how they are going to make their billions, but they are almost pure profit meaning that a $200 million disaster like, say, last year's Lone Ranger, won't bring down the studio. Maybe they won't earn a ton of money in a year with a major flop, but the money earned from cheap films lets them take bigger risks because they have a safety net should those films fail. The only reason this works, though, is because the ticket and DVD price for a cheap horror or comedy film is the same as the price for a summer blockbuster.

Now you might see where this is going. Game studios don't have the safety net that film studios do. That is the difference between the industries. Because gamers want their cake and to eat it too. Since they won't pay top dollar for lower investment games studios are at a much greater risk when a big project fails. If a major publisher could charge $60 for a budget game then they would be much more willing to take a chance on a small project. The issue, though, is that if you have to charge a discounted price for a budget game then there is no incentive to make it. And by budget game I don't mean a low quality version of a AAA game, I mean something that could be made for a couple hundred thousand dollars. The types of games that we currently pay $15 to play. If gamers were willing to pay for quality and not quantity then game publishers would be a lot more willing to take risks. As it is, game publishing is a low margin business. If gamers want things like paid DLC to end then we have to be willing to pay more for games that may be cheaper to produce but are of very high quality. Until that day don't expect to see publishers back down on used games or DLC or micro-transactions. These studios need that safety net and time and again gamers have proven that the safety net is not going to come from buying high quality low budget games. I certainly hope that changes and games can be judged like any other form of entertainment based on how much they entertain, not how long that entertainment lasts or how much it cost to bring it to us.

Your post is definitely worth $60.

Because people are not made of money.

@starvinggamer: Okay so the question in full was: Why do we judge games by their length when we don't judge any other form of entertainment that way? There just wasn't enough room to put all that in the title.

Also, dunno if this is a known issue but just in case, @rorie for some reason when I tried to search for a more specific forum to post this blog to I got the "Tis but a barren wasteland" result no matter what I typed. Hence everyone why this is in the General Discussion forum not the MGSV forum.

Exactly...

I can go see a movie with my wife for say..$15-20. That's about two hours of enjoyment. If I'm going to buy a game that is $60 and only get two or three hours of enjoyment out it I'm going to feel ripped off since. That's how I've always equated it. Now, if there is a lot of replay value, then I'm on board.

Now...if anyone wants to donate to the "Make Mightyduck filthy rich fund" I will gladly never complain about feeling ripped off again.

Thanks Limbo.

I disagree with some of your points on film. Calling Paranormal Activity a little 15,000 dollar film, and ignoring the massive marketing push behind it, is missing a huge point.

You harp on the idea that all films cost the same to see, but they don't. Do you see real low rent independent films at the same price as new big studio competitors? While film doesn't usually have the unmitigated gall to charge at 60 dollars most of the time, sometimes they do.

The idea that the big fish megamovies like an Avengers are sustaining the other movies that come out is 100% backwords. Avengers making money does not mean that there will be more smaller movies out there bolstered by the huge success of this hyperbudget beast. It means we only make hyperbudget beasts cause they are what is making us money. When they suceed we are rich yay! If they fail, oh god no, we go under. In my opinion its a scary fucking model, but its the system now.

None of this had anything to do with content and perceived value though. I think if I am looking to buy a book and I see a 1200 page tome that I can just see wants to waste my time I look at it much the same as a jrpg, maybe there is value there but I could see myself being way more tolerable of that bullshit at 13 years old rather than today. I also value a short dramatically less than a feature length film. Length is a factor. It is ok to discriminate on entertainment. Hell thinking about why you like or dislike something is part of engaging with it. It is a good thing. We should all relax and not rant so much on the internet. Apologies.

@raven10: Because other forms of entertainment are other forms of entertainment. Video games, books, and movies are drastically different from one another in every way imaginable, other than the fact that they are all things we spend disposable income on. I watch movies, I read books, and I play lots of video games, but I do each of them for separate reasons and therefore make my purchasing decisions based on separate criteria.

Pretty much this.

That was too much to read, but judging it by length I'd give it 4 stars.

Length matters, though it matters variably to different people. The quality of excellent films (not Paranormal Activity mind) is much higher than the quality of most 2 hour games; apart from them being different forms of media and thus very difficult to compare.

My argument is less about the absolute cost of the game and more about the fact that you pay that $20 regardless of the length of the movie. Whether or not a game should cost $60 is another subject, but my point is that regardless of what the price point of a game should be, why do we judge a game based on length and not a movie? I see your point that length can be more of an issue at $60 than at $15 but I guess I would be more upset if a game added padding to make it longer lowering my enjoyment of the game. Basically I'd rather play 2 hours of pure greatness and have that be the game than have to play through another 8 hours of mediocrity just because a studio felt the need to add more value to the game.

@fredchuckdave: I would say that many 2 hour games are among the best in the industry. Just last year we had a handful of masterful short games like Gone Home, Brothers, and Papers, Please which were far better than any of the bloated next gen launch games and outside of The Last of Us and maybe Bioshock better than any of the major last gen releases as well. Remove Naughty Dog and Irrational from the equation and I would say that games under 5 hours in length make up pretty much my entire list of top last gen games.

@taig: Paranormal Activity had very smart marketing but not very expensive marketing. I don't know the exact figures but we are talking no more than a couple million dollars. The return on investment is still extraordinary. That was my point with smaller films supporting larger ones. As I said, they are not making the money. In absolute terms something like Paranormal Activity is only making a fifth or so of what a major blockbuster can make. But that money is almost pure profit. The break even point on those movies comes within hours of release. Everything after that is just icing on the cake. It is what makes those films so valuable to a movie studio. A major blockbuster is a major risk. A horror film can be made for so little it will almost certainly break even, and if it is a major hit it can basically print money, which means that a major flop won't bankrupt the studio like often happens in the game industry.

Try to market a single successful short film, and charge a full box office price. Or, how about you just provide a link to a recent and commercially successful--not simply profitable--short film. It doesn't even have to be one that charged a full admission price.

@raven10: Gone Home and Brothers are rather lacking on the gameplay front; so they might as well be movies. Papers, Please takes quite a while to discover all the endings, certainly much longer than 2 hours. If you want to make an argument for short games it's going to have to start and end with Super Metroid (5-6 hours, incentive to replay) and Link to the Past (6-10 hours); nothing short even comes close to scraping those in the past 3 generations. Dark Souls and The Witcher 2 would like to have a word with your last generation games; apart from a very large number of other games that don't fall into your weirdly specific subset. Hell even if you really liked small dev team or indy games you'd still wind up with stuff like FTL, Spelunky, The Binding of Isaac, and Rogue Legacy, all of these being substantially longer than 5 hours for the average consumer. Hotline Miami maybe? That's sort of on the border though and people are likely to replay it at least once; and while the gameplay is pretty good the reason you're playing that game is the music/style.

When was the last time any of you played a 3 hour, $60 game (serious question, I can't think of one)?

Edit: Oh shit, no, I do remember one. I finished Mirror's Edge in about 3 hours my first time through, and it was $60 at the time (I rented it, though).

Video games have a larger discrepancy in length than any other medium I think. Sure there's your 7 hour movie, and there's movies that barely break an hour, but that's an incredibly uncommon and extreme example for that medium. 9 times out of 10, the movie you're going to see will be somewhere between 60 and 180 minutes. Looking at my local theater the shortest movie currently playing is 1 hour and 26 minutes, and the longest is 2 hours and 40 minutes (and one of those is from a director and a series that is infamously lengthy). On the video game side of things, it's not particularly uncommon to see 2 hour games, or 60 hour games (or even longer). So it's just more of an issue in games because things are less standardized in that way, and the difference is more extreme. Maybe people don't complain about it in movies, but I bet they would if there were a 3000% difference. Also as other people have mentioned, money certainly plays a part.

I'm not saying a longer game is of a higher quality, but it is a better value, which is an important factor for some people. That being said, I'd much rather play a game that was over too soon, than play a game that overstayed its welcome.

Back than games also were much short. For example a playthrough of Ninja Gaiden takes like 40 minutes. Mario can be beaten in also in under an hour and they also were full price titles. Today it is a bit different. We have different pricing models for example. 2.-3 hour Last of us DLC was 15$ you played it once and you are leaving are satisfied. Just like a movie. Then there is MGS Ground Zeroes. A game which is sold for 20-40$ which contains a 2 hour campaign but also a lot of side stuff. We already know that it takes you like 5 hours to finish everything and for the price you have to pay it is totally fine in my opinion. If they would charge 60$ like back then then I would have had a problem with it as well. But due to different pricing models it is possible for games to be on a shorter site.

But yeah justifying a price by length alone is pretty naive.

Games aren't the only things I judge by their length!

I have nothing constructive to add to this conversation

Simple answer: Because between books, movies, music, and video games, games are the most expensive at sixty bucks a pop brand-new.

When making a practical purchasing decision, how much time I spend with a game will factor in. It's not really fair, but I don't want to spend sixty bucks for six hours of entertainment unless that six hours is downright motherfucking magical.

Let me be constructive and add that I don't judge games by their length, but their experience (insert penis joke) It's a grown-up thing maybe since when I was a teen and only had my paperboy income, I needed games to last for a while and even JRPG grinding was fun back then. I milked every FF game from 4 to 9 for all their worth, then when X came around I suddenly had a life and I just couldn't. Also I felt the game sucked but that's besides the point.

Now I want great experiences in short bursts. Gone Home being the perfect example, or even Brothers: ToTS. Some games are gifts that keep giving, like Dark Souls or the Elder Scrolls series, but thankfully they're few and far between. Games like Risk of Rain and even Borderlands 2 provide fun short experiences too; sure Borderlands 2 lasts forever, but I feel happy playing through sections of it at the time, with my wife.

End-game content in MMORPGs can also be done. You set aside 2-3 hours at night to go on some raid with your friends, and it's fairly rewarding. Not so much for the game, just the happy digital comradely and the feeling of achieving some goal, however pointless it might be, together.

So yeah, if it's length versus experience I'd much rather have a fun experience. If the two combine then all the better, I guess? I feel dirty now..

@believer258: So you never bought games back in the old days huh?

I judge games by width, not length.

I didn't start buying full priced, newly released games until I got a job in high school, no. And even now I rarely buy brand-new games.

Fair enough than. Many people who I normally see complain about this never felt bad about buying SNES games for even more money than this. And back than most games except RPG were pretty short as well. I remember buying NBA Jam for SNES for 180 Mark new which is like 90 Euro. And these were normal prices for top games. I guess this is why it does not matter to me much since I bought these games since I was a kid or teen.

ctrl + f

"girth"

0 of 0 results

leaves disappointed

There are a LOT of variables that goes into determining if a game is good. Judging a game solely by length is dumb, but it definitely is possible for a game to be too short. It all really comes down to cost, as long as it's reasonably priced, then it can be as short as it wants. Thomas Was Alone just cost me 10 bucks, and I beat it in a little less than two hours, but I went in knowing that it was a short indie game, so I wasn't disappointed.

On the other hand, spending 20 dollars for Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs and only getting 3 really boring hours out of it infuriated me, mostly because the game was advertised as being a sequel to Amnesia, so I expected a lot more out of it.

Also, I would just like to point out that there's different ways to judge all sorts of media, I think it's odd to point to film and books, and claim that video games should be no different. Video games are a far more interactive media, so the expectations for it are a lot different as well.

I'm not sure that I agree that length doesn't factor into how we rate movies. I often see reviewers remark on how movies under the 90 minute mark are a bit threadbare, and also see them saying when a movie is too long (see: Peter Jackson). One important difference between games and movies is that you can't leave in the middle of a movie and come back (well, you can, but that's not how reviewers see it). As such, the "sweet spot" for a movie's length is much shorter.

Books are more complicated, because book reviews are less institutionalized. I think that in the medium of books more than anywhere else, user reviews have overtaken professional as the primary means of judging a book's quality. As such, there are basically no rules on what counts as legitimate criticism, but I know that I personally used to care very much about a book's length, because if I could finish it in one evening, it felt like a waste of money. These days, i'm willing to spend ten bucks just so that I can say I actually read something regardless of how long it is.

I used to be all about long games when I was a kid/teenager, but honestly, I love short games now. It's why I always anticipate CoD, it's why I can't wait for Ground Zeroes, and other things. I don't want to take a ton of time to master things, I don't want to go on endless side quests that just fill time, I don't want to sit through countless combat scenarios and backtracking/puzzles that serve no purpose other than to prolong the experience(I'm looking straight at you Naughty Dog/Half Life 2, Resident Evil 4 amongst others), I just want a good, focused experience that tells a good story. I feel like length, as well as difficulty, completely don't matter to me anymore. In fact, too much of one of those elements can totally sink a game for me.

@raven10: While I get your point, and I agree to an extent that I'd prefer my games to be not bloated with unnecessary story/content, as I think everyone does. There are a ton of reasons I choose to pick up a game. Length is maybe not the most critical component, but it does factor into my considerations. @random45 did a better job of explaining it I think.

Once you reach a higher state of being you can measure everything in enjoyment rather than dollars but to expect this of Joe Pleb is folly. His mind is simple and looks for simple, concrete relationships between objects (product - time - money) rather than the vagueries of measuring happiness.

*someone gives me a snickers bar*

Oh man I was not feeling myself there. What I meant to say was to each his own. Live and let live and uh buy things however you feel makes you feel good, nahmean?

hey, some games are growers not showers

Because deep down, we are all really size queens.

@raven10: Why do you assume that long games cannot be good? I don't understand that part of your argument.

@pyromagnestir: I came to make a joke along these lines, you're just too early for it!

'Because we're all compensating for something.'

I prefer to judge by girth.

Yes, if it is a tight experience packed into a few hours, I don't have an issue with that. If it is drawn out for hours upon hours to extended it's game, I draw an issue. It it costs a pretty penny on is a very short experience, it doesn't bother me as much but it annoys me, looking at you Gone Home.

Why do some people think others shouldn't consider the duration? It is a factor when purchasing a game, whether you think you care or not. You just might not have reached your limit yet. Would you pay $60 for two hours of gameplay? Would you pay $60 for a 30 minute experience? Would you pay $60 for a 5 minute experience? Would you pay $60 for a game which only lasts one minute and can never be played again? Once you have imagined a hypothetical point where it's no longer worth it to you, take a step back and consider that other people have different priorities and ideas of a good value.

Ayup. The sooner we all stop directly comparing video games to movies and books ect. the better.

@sharkethic: Kane & Lynch 2 has a campaign that's literally like 3-4 hours, too. Man, even as one of that game's few admirers, buying that game for full price left a bit of a sting.

@raven10: When the first Harry Potter novel came out in the late 90's I recall paying somewhere around $40 for it.

I'm pretty sure even by late 90's standards you may have paid a bit too much for a book. Then again I have no idea. I'm too use to the idea of any novel being more than $20 (for a standard paperback) being fucking crazy.

@raven10: Length does matter, but it will change with each form of media and with each person. Video games have a more deeper relation to price vs length because the length of games in general change pretty widely from game to game. Some games are 5 hours while others are 100 hours, added the fact that on average all these games will be priced at 60 dollars.

The film example you listed that mirrored this seem more of an abnormal event than something you will see as often as in video games or other media trends. Films, books, and music often have very similar structure and price. With this flexible nature in games i think the question of money well spent comes up more often. The easiest factor most will fall on is length. I don't think it really a big deal as long as the price is in the ball park of the content you get. Some time having a 100 hours game is great. Other time having a one sitting 2 hour game is great. It will boil down to what you are looking for and what you what out of what you pay.

I take the reason we have reservations towards higher priced shorter games is because the market's trained us to think that way for a while now.

Because quantity is a component of value. It isn't the only component (quality of course as well), but it does matter.

example

You need to Paint you room, so you got to the store to find the Paint you need. At the store they have three choices in terms of performance

1. The best Paint in the world- 1/2 pint
2. A reliable if unremarkable Paint-1 gallon
3. Squishy Water in a Can.- 5 Gallon Size

Now if all those paint cost $29.99 which would you get? Most people I'd suspect would get Paint Number 2.

The First Paint probably works fantastic, but there likely isn't enough to cover the room at an affordable price. Paint Three is really cheap, but likely wouldn't work well enough (maybe it runs or doesn't cover) requiring a return trip to buy a different Paint. But Paint 2 offers enough quantity to complete the project, with enough quality to do it in a decent amount of time with certainty at a reasonable price.

Obviously that's an extreme example, and in real life they'd likely have different prices and the performance differences likely not as extreme. But hopefully you see my point that Quantity matters as well as the Quality.

To compare that to Video Games, maybe a game like Gone Home would be Glue 1, Kingdoms of Amalur might be a glue 3 and something Last of US might be Glue 2.

The entire concept reeks of a young medium in which quantity is judged over quality. Most movies run between one and a half and two and a half hours. The reason for that is that any more time and most people will get bored and any less and the film likely won't be able to fully develop its plot. In almost every narrative medium pacing is much more important than overall length. A 2 hour movie that is poorly paced can seem like a 5 hour slog, while a 3 and a half hour epic can seem like mere minutes in the hands of a master filmmaker. Compare two Stanly Kubrick films of similar length.

You definitely get why a movie is given a certain length but in the same paragraph you dismiss that reasoning. A movie that is poorly paced is a movie that is poorly paced whether it's 2 hours or 17 hours. Yet, even though it's poorly paced, the movie is still around the average length. The movie industry believes an hour to close to 3 hours is good value of time for the money.

I think the issue with GZ is that we don't really know if the game lasts about 4-5 hours. All we know is that most measurable portion of the game lasts about two hours. Everything else is speculation and personal pacing.

We're willing to pay different prices for movies, books, and sports because we know what we're getting. We don't know the quality until we get into it but we know how long it will be (or in the case of overtime games, how long it could be). With GZ, we don't know any of that except the campaign is two hours. And a potential $40 for a next-gen boxed version with a two hour campaign and possibly an extra two hours of content isn't a hooking sell.

Games aren't merely judged by the metric of time to completion. But, that is a metric that means a lot to some people because their funds that can be devoted to video games are in short supply. So, I think the important thing to remember on the internet is that you will find dens of haters and apologists for graphics, gameplay, level design, technology, or length of a game.

The key is to remember that length of an experience is only one metric. But, to some people it might be the most important.

I don't know, dude. Why do they pay me based on how many hours I work?

@sirkibble23: I wasn't dismissing it. I was saying that pacing is as important as overall length. Basically that a really great director, writer, and editor can make a film that is exceptionally short or exceptionally long work. Obviously once you break the 3 hour mark you have physical issues to deal with as people might need to go to the bathroom or get a drink or something of that nature but remove those issues and a very long film can work. But by and large you want a film between 90 and 180 minutes.

@oscar__explosion: I purchased the hardcover not the paperback. In those days popular books often launched solely with hardcover editions with paperback versions following later.

@chrisharris: If that one minute was the best minute of gameplay I ever played in my life? Then, yea, sure. Can I currently imagine a one minute slice of gameplay that would be so good that it would overshadow every other game I have ever played or ever will play? No. But that doesn't mean such a minute doesn't exist. It's like a chef that gives you a single bite of food. For me a single perfect bite is more worthwhile than a full meal that is only good.

@noblenerf: I don't think I said that. There are plenty of great long games. The Witcher series is one of my favorites of this past generation just to name one. My point was that you shouldn't judge a game by its length but by its quality.

But there's multiplayer in that game as well, right? Does it even count then? I mean, that potentially works out to 3-4 hours + X hours, which - depended on how much you play the multiplayer - is a value proposition that's pretty hard to top.

I think your missing one huge thing with most long games.

You can choose when you end them, My favourite games are open world games, Fallout, Saints row, Assassins Creed. There are many many hours of gameplay in them, I generally won't do it all but I get to choose when I'm done fucking around doing side quest shit and then mainlining to finish, if you care about story, or just walking away when you've had enough of the mechanics.

No-one is forcing you to continue to play a long game that sucks but once a game is done its done...that's it no more. With a short game, if you only care about story its done when its done.

I also personally have a hard time playing through any story based game more than once I cant stand repeating dialogue and cut scenes.

People evaluate value on video games differently. There are so many factors to consider when deciding to purchase a video game. Time, budget, reviews, history, personal reasons, all are factors when deciding to purchase a game of any monetary amount.

• Someone with a family but a high budget might be willing to spend more on a game that doesn't last as long because they know they will finish it.
• A college student with a lot of free time and little money might go out and buy Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto or Fallout because they know it will last them a long time.

The problem is (and with the internet as a whole) that people need to understand that it is okay for other people to judge games on qualities that you don't. People put a lot of emphasis on game length or reviews, I don't, but I don't care that other people do. Yes it is bothersome when I see people beating up on short games, but I just let it go. They are entitled to their opinion. I suggest you learn the same or the internet will be a very frustrating place for you.