Do you think that it's fair to dismiss a game for being "short"?

2 (11.1%)
8 (44.4%)
It Depends
8 (44.4%)

Total Members Voted: 18


Author Topic: "It's Too Short"  (Read 13629 times)


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #45 on: July 05, 2010, 03:19:47 PM »
Turtlekid, while I'll cede that repetitive missions could be compared to playing the same levels of a shmup repeatedly (though this is where the "score-based play" argument comes in - there's always room for improvement when you're trying to play a shmup for score), comparing JRPGs to shmups brings us back to the performance versus mastery argument. One player could spend the same amount of time improving their own skill at a game as another could making the numbers that define a character on-screen go up.

And "tacked-on" means exactly what it sounds like. It means stuff that feels like they added it at the last minute to try to extend the game's length.

Chupperson Weird

  • Not interested.
« Reply #46 on: July 05, 2010, 03:29:36 PM »
How do you determine if something "feels" like that? I can't determine how anyone would decide that.
Also, what is with bashing people for thinking RPGs are fun?
If I like to make my characters' numbers on a screen go up who are you to tell me that isn't fun for me?
That was a joke.

« Reply #47 on: July 05, 2010, 04:22:43 PM »
Is that meant as some kind of sicknasty iceburn? Because yes, I buy and resell used games. I'm not about to spend fifty or sixty bucks on a brand-new game that I can't return if I don't like, and I'm [darn] sure not about to refuse to recoup my money spend after it's outlived its fun.

Jesus, when did video games become so [darn] serious?

It's pretty humorous how defensive you're getting when I merely pointed out how you view little value in video games, which completely deconstructs your argument.
As a game that requires six friends, an HDTV, and skill, I can see why the majority of TMK is going to hate on it hard.


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #48 on: July 05, 2010, 11:50:15 PM »
Chupperson is being overly defensive as well, since no one said RPGs aren't fun (except Lizard Dude, and not here).

« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2010, 01:09:49 AM »
I wonder if Glorb also returns albums after listening to them once...
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur


  • Banned
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2010, 12:53:38 PM »
My concept of value isn't "I bought this game so I must now own it the rest of my life."  If I'm done with it, I'm done. For example, I sold RE4 about three years after I first bought it because I simply got finished with it. I'd beaten it a good six or seven times and unlocked all the unlockable [dukar], and it didn't make sense to own it anymore. Does that mean I didn't value it? No.

You guys are all trying to force extremely rigid views of extremely maleable concepts like value onto everyone else, whether you realize it or not. We all hold value, length, and quality to mean different things, and that's the end of it. I wouldn't pay more than a buck fifty for a shmup that Warp would spend years obsessing over, and wouldn't play it for more than an hour or two before getting bored. Conversely, I doubt Warp would be willing to drop fifty or so bucks on something like Alpha Centauri, which my cousin and I did back when I was little.

So, in short: length, value, and quality are all related, and yet mean nothing at the same time. I like long games myself; that's my view and I'm sticking with it.

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2010, 04:15:42 PM »
I hate to say it, but I agree with Glorb on this one.

To me, length can factor into what I perceive as the 'value' of a game but is not necessarily the defining quality. A game's the sum of its parts, and the length is just that.

I've played short games I value highly, and I've played games I haven't finished that I value just as high. It's subjective, and saying otherwise just isn't true.


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2010, 08:05:54 PM »
Conversely, I doubt Warp would be willing to drop fifty or so bucks on something like Alpha Centauri
Only because I wouldn't spend fifty bucks on another copy of a game I already own (though I would have bought an Alpha Centauri remake in the CivIV engine).

And thank you, Black Mage, for stating this:
length ... is not necessarily the defining quality [of a game's value]
I was arguing against people who think the opposite, who feel that no matter how much fun they may have had playing a game, if it doesn't reach a certain length, it was a bad game and/or not worth their money, especially since a good number of these people happen to have jobs of the "tell people what games are and aren't good" variety. I'm not trying to say that shmups, or short games in general, are the only good games, or anything like that.


  • Banned
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2010, 09:53:20 AM »
If that's the case, then this all boils down to:

Don't ever listen to game reviewers. Ever ever ever.


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2010, 01:21:08 PM »
Yes, but while that works for those of us who know what they're looking for in a video game, it doesn't for everyone else.

Of course, the biggest problem with game reviews is that they still use arbitrary number systems to rate a game; the fact that it's possible to give a game a negative review but a high score should say enough.

Also regarding reviewers' uselessness: The PSP port of Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars currently has a higher aggregate score on Metacritic than the DS version. The two games are identical aside from the DS version using the touchscreen for the minigames (which were made for the touchscreen). The reason for the PSP port scoring better is left as an exercise for the reader.

« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2010, 03:50:36 PM »
IGN once had a podcast where they lamented that they have to give scores to games, because people will just skip to the end, read the score, and leave. They put effort (how much effort depends on what you think of IGN) into writing out the reviews and nobody reads them. The words explain where the games work and where they don't, and just offer more substance than a single score does. They also touched upon how people freak out and think a game's bad if it doesn't score at least an 8.0, ignoring that in their system an average game is 5.0 instead of like 7.5.

IGN also said that when a game is identical across platforms, one platform version will get a higher score compared to another based on what other games exist for that platform and how the new game stacks up against its competition.

Most interesting of all, they touched upon how the scores are a product of how impressive a game was when released at the time, and what to do when a game is released years later that is so much better than the previous game given a 9.8 yet doesn't have the same amount of awe as the previous game did at its time. Result: the new game gets a lower score despite technically being better than the old. And how one guy was pressured into just re-doing the Jade Empire review to give it a 10 since 9.9 is so close that it should just go all the way.

But then, IGN was the one that gave 10s to both Grand Theft Auto IV and Metal Gear Solid 4, so... yeah.

I'm guilty of looking at reviews and wanting them to be "good enough" before buying because I can't rely on my local videogame store to stock the games I want to rent and I don't have an account with GameFly. But I did take a chance on "Beyond Good & Evil" and... yeah, I have to say it, "you must buy this game, for the love of God."
You didn't say wot wot.


  • Paid by the word
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2010, 05:52:33 PM »
See, rating a game based on what else is on that particular platform makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is the norm, which is rating all games on the same scale no matter what. Comparing a DS game to a PS3 game is completely retarded, and means that said DS game could be a better game than said PS3 game but still score lower because the PS3 is a more capable platform in areas aside from gameplay.

And the reasons for people thinking a 7.5 is average rather than a 5 are twofold: one, they're used to school, where a C (which is "average") is 70-79%, and two, because that's how every other game review source seemingly works. Most of the time, a five is far below average.


  • Bob-Omg
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2010, 03:44:56 AM »
Lots of interesting arguments.

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, I think another thing that can make a game feel overly-short is length of time waiting for it to release or expecting developers to make a sequel longer than its predecessor (in certain cases).

I'll refer to Modern Warfare. People complained that the campaign was short (it really is), but I mean, it was the first of the MW series and the game ended on a cliffhanger, so people lived with it. People expected the sequel to be longer and with the time spent developing it, the only thing people speculate was, "Gahhh, its been so long, they MUST be making it much longer, and MUST have heard our desires!" Aaaand, they didn't. Modern Warfare 2 was about 4 missions longer, I believe, and it ended on yet another huge cliffhanger.

Which brings up another point: paying 65 dollars for online multiplayer. The campaigns in some recent shooters are just an excuse to call it a "full" game. I want my money to go equally to each aspect of the game or at least be an unbalanced split that is fair. When I bought MW2 for $65 (I think it was raised 5 dollars to $70 not including tax because of how hot the game was going to be on release)... turns out I paid about 55 dollars of that on multiplayer because the campaign was just a joke. The lead up from "crap might be going down soon dude," to "CRAP ITS GOING DOWN DUDE," to "crap, let's throw them another cliffhanger dude" happened in the shortest amount of time possible.

Was it fun for the most part? Yeah, sure, but, right as the going gets good and you start finding out the big plot points in the game, well, it ends. The campaign is barely 4 hours long, if that.

By the way, I ended up selling MW2 because of its weak multiplayer. I'm sure some of you have heard of its lack of dedicated servers (host migrations and lag almost every match, and half the time, you can't join a lobby), and its series of glitches and exploits. Aaand, that is why I bought Bad Company 2.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 03:48:56 AM by Trainman »
Formerly quite reasonable.


  • Banned
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2010, 06:41:00 PM »
These days I never hear about MW2 unless someone's trading it in for Bad Comapny 2. Which is understandable, because BC2, from what I've played of it, has about eight and a half times better multiplayer than MW2's (I can't speak on behalf of either game's singleplayer).

Of course, Team Fortress 2 > both of those.

And Perfect Dark > Team Fortress 2.

« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2010, 07:00:13 PM »
From what I've seen, the TF2 community is just as bad as the MW2 guys are, since they get incredibly butthurt over the smallest changes in the game.
As a game that requires six friends, an HDTV, and skill, I can see why the majority of TMK is going to hate on it hard.