Let me clear something up before I start, some games are best being long, anything RPG related, and games that are seriously based on the story, games like Oblivion, MGS4, and GTA.

I want to see more short and sweet games. If your going to make a bad ass game, it doesn't need to be longer than 10 hours, in fact, 10 hours is a bit to long for many games out there today. There's a lot of games that I would love to play, but at $60 a pop, I find myself either getting my moneys worth with multiplayer, or avoid getting a game I'd like, because the last game I bought is to time consuming. Like I bought GTA4, got bored with it (this has nothing to do with length, I just usually get bored with GTA's) and purchased MGS4, which dragged on forever and I gave up on it. That's $120 dollars flushed down the toilet, which could've been only 60 if MGS4 wasn't so ridicoulas. (I know I already said this game is better longer, but it's the perfect example of too much) I buy games to beat them, and milk the shit out of them, not to play it once, and wait a year for the urge to start it up again. I loved Uncharted, but it wasn't until there was a dry spell of games, that I picked it up and beat it, for the second time, and that's probably the end of that game for me. Resistance, is a tad bit to long, but shorter than other games, and that's why I was so willing to replay it. Now would it have been as fun if they didn't offer a harder difficulty after beating it, and new guns? No, it would have gotten old quicker, but that's my point. We have games that are giving you a lot of replay value, apart from multiplayer. New challanges, DLC, harder difficulties, new weapons/ power ups etc, so why hide those gems from someone with a long campaign? Seriously, if you beat a game that is estimated at 20 hours, how fast are you going to replay it? I would love to see someone put the amount of money they throw in too one game, to be put in to 3 bad ass separate games. Basically, like the orange box. Give me a violent, 3rd person shooter, that is filled with enemies galore, let it take 5 hours. Give it multiplayer, add ons, the whole nine yards. I'm not going to keep listing ideas, but basically, would be it such a bad idea to shorten games, as long as they offer appealing replay value?

splitphilly wrote:Let me clear something up before I start, some games are best being long, anything RPG related, and games that are seriously based on the story, games like Oblivion, MGS4, and GTA.

I want to see more short and sweet games. If your going to make a bad ass game, it doesn't need to be longer than 10 hours, in fact, 10 hours is a bit to long for many games out there today. There's a lot of games that I would love to play, but at $60 a pop, I find myself either getting my moneys worth with multiplayer, or avoid getting a game I'd like, because the last game I bought is to time consuming. Like I bought GTA4, got bored with it (this has nothing to do with length, I just usually get bored with GTA's) and purchased MGS4, which dragged on forever and I gave up on it. That's $120 dollars flushed down the toilet, which could've been only 60 if MGS4 wasn't so ridicoulas. (I know I already said this game is better longer, but it's the perfect example of too much) I buy games to beat them, and milk the shit out of them, not to play it once, and wait a year for the urge to start it up again. I loved Uncharted, but it wasn't until there was a dry spell of games, that I picked it up and beat it, for the second time, and that's probably the end of that game for me. Resistance, is a tad bit to long, but shorter than other games, and that's why I was so willing to replay it. Now would it have been as fun if they didn't offer a harder difficulty after beating it, and new guns? No, it would have gotten old quicker, but that's my point. We have games that are giving you a lot of replay value, apart from multiplayer. New challanges, DLC, harder difficulties, new weapons/ power ups etc, so why hide those gems from someone with a long campaign? Seriously, if you beat a game that is estimated at 20 hours, how fast are you going to replay it? I would love to see someone put the amount of money they throw in too one game, to be put in to 3 bad ass separate games. Basically, like the orange box. Give me a violent, 3rd person shooter, that is filled with enemies galore, let it take 5 hours. Give it multiplayer, add ons, the whole nine yards. I'm not going to keep listing ideas, but basically, would be it such a bad idea to shorten games, as long as they offer appealing replay value?

Um, I feel the complete opposite. If I'm dishing out $60 of my hard earned money, I want the game fully fleshed out multiplayer is usually a must, 20+ hours, great replayability, etc.

I live for a long story and lots to do. I guess that is why I love the final fantasy franchise so much. I think if you buy a game for $60 and it only has like a 5hr long story campaign and the rest of the game is a bunch of multipolayer bs, then you got screwed out of your money. A lot of people are saying that this game or that game is going to get GOTY, I'll ask why, most of the time they'll say because of the online. Well how about the campaign, yeah I already beat it and I thought that it was okay...But yet these people say GOTY....

I feel the complete opposite dude. I would really like to see a spike in 14-20+ hour games out there. Anything under 10, should be price reduced.

iT DEPENDS, if they are going to make the game innovative and not repetitive then it should be longer but if they will be lazy and every level will be more of the same then dont bother because ill get bored...doesn't mean i'll buy the game...what I am saying is that there needs to be a pioint to the length