Longer games vs Shorter games

[jimm22]

this was an interesting article. i don't know if i fully side with what this guy says, but he does make some points.

personally, i feel an 80 hour game gives you plenty o' bang for your buck. but what is too short of a game? 40 hours? 20 hours? should pricing be based on how long you might play it?

anyway, it's not a super in depth article, but still interesting.

That VideoGame Blog » People “tired of 80-hour games,” Winterbottom dev believes

 

[skidmarx]

Sometimes I only have time to play Wii Sports resort or other sports games for half an hour and then get back to house chores. Times like that you really want something short and sweet. However short adventure/rpg games are a piss off. Why would I want to spend time naming a character, dressing/customizing him/her if I'm only going to be done six hours later? There are plenty of games for Wii that cater to the short attention span or casual gamer, but an adventure game should be epic.

 

[Shadow*91]

i prefer longer games. helps me stay interested more and they always seem more fun to me.
a short game just leaves me either disappointed or angry.

 

[DBloke]

I spent about two hours the other day on a Fire Emblem battle and didnt see the end of it (damn bridge)

But arnt games like Street Fighter short?

Im just sayin

I wonder when op will respond to his own threads?

 

[FoxRox]

I like long, in-depth games more than short, instant-gratification games. I'm talking about short games that are "play-through" and not "replay". Games like Wii Sports and Street fighter are great because of re-playability.

On the other hand, speaking of Nintendo games, I found Metroid Prime 3 just as enjoyable as Twilight Princess, even though it took less than half the time.