It's been no secret that since the beginning of the century, the length of the average game's single player has taken a nosedive. This is most likely due to the speedy rise of online gaming, with many developers placing a greater emphasis on the social component of a given title than the solo campaign. At first, many bemoaned this trend, cursing the likes of GRAW, Darkwatch and King Kong for their truncated efforts back in the latter stages of 2005 through early 2006. By the time Gears of War hit the shelves that Christmas, there was a small backlash regarding its length. Last November, with Call of Duty 4's 6 hour blazing salvo of constant set pieces, nobody batted an eyelid. Five years ago, gamers would have demanded a futher few months of development time if they could ace a game at anything under a day's work (possibly because they needed to be amused if they pulled a sickie).

How things have changed. Now we accept it without question, rarely even mentioning time spent nailing through a single player mode. It's seen as heresy if we aren't able to beat a game the day it comes out so ludicrous amounts of time can be poured into fragging our friends, and this has become the norm. However, I'm not lamenting the loss of some of the solo experience to multiplayer, far from it. Although I always have and always will prefer playing alone to tolerating twelve year olds insult my mother during a game of Halo, of late I've increasingly been searching for games that I can finish in a week or so without trying too hard. I simply don't have the time to become invested in massive RPGs anymore, so I'm perfectly happy with a five hour experience if it means I don't need to pour all of my leisure into it and lose sleep just to complete it before next Summer. Length may still be an issue for some, but the landscape has changed as the gaming demographics have grown older. There's nothing wrong with a short game, and with the wealth of releases we're being treated to this month, for me they're perfectly welcome.