Something that’s been on my mind recently is this vibe going around in the video game world. This repeated notion that a game’s worth is decided by how much time you can spend in it. It gives me a funny feeling.
I’ve seen plenty of critic and user reviews in my time on this ungodly Earth that have pretty great things to say about a game, but will discount that same game because of its length. Even if a title has no business being longer than it is, and tells its story at its fullest, there will always be somebody rolling in to be like, “I just wish it were longer.” Why?
Of course, there are exceptions. With open-world games, live-service games, and others like them, it’s expected that folks would like to spend a whole lot of time in them. With large-scale AAA games that cost bazillions to make and create an expectation of a great expanse, I can understand the disappointment when it’s a little too… little.
That being said, sometimes a short experience is fine. In fact, it’s warranted. I’d much prefer to play a game with no filler and finish it within a few hours than to play a lengthy game with plenty of nothing in between the start and end.
After seeing somebody say that a single-player video game that apparently took them 15 hours to complete was “too short”, I decided to have a think back to games considered to be some of the greats. According to HowLongToBeat, here are some games where the main story (and side quests, if applicable) takes roughly under 20 hours to beat:
- The Last of Us – 14 to 17 hours
- Super Mario 64 – 12 to 17 hours
- Portal – 3 to 5 hours
- Portal 2 – 8 to 14 hours
- It Takes Two – Around 13 hours
- Resident Evil (1996) – 7 to 8 hours
- Bioshock – 12 to 16 hours
- Silent Hill 2 – 8 to 10 hours
- Soulcaliber – 40 minutes to 8 hours
- Half-Life 2 – 13 to 16 hours
At the same time, there are plenty of great games that takes ages to complete, so I can somewhat understand looking at games like Skyrim, The Witcher 3, and Grand Theft Auto V and thinking that they are the staple of how long games should be to be worth something.
However, the way I see it is this: if your only critique of a game is that it’s not long enough, it’s probably a pretty great game! Game length should not be what we value video games on, quality and execution should be what we value the game on. Hell, I’ve played a game that I finished in around 20 minutes that had a profound affect on me! It made me cry! It was short, sweet, and meaningful!
I personally think that a game should only be as long as it needs to be. I’m happy to pay whatever for a good game, regardless of the length. But of course, it’s not all black and white. In fact, it’s grey! It’s a grey topic.
So what do you think then? Should games be valued by how long it takes to finish them? Is game length an accurate system to use when deciding how much a game is worth? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Leave a Reply