It’s Over When It’s Over: In Defense of Short Games

These days I find that I only have the time and patience for so many 40-hour epic adventures, and I’m tired of the stigma attached to games that don’t clock in at that lofty mark. Sometimes you only want to play something for eight hours to get the satisfaction of a job well done – and that should be okay.

I remember when I viewed maxing out a game’s timer as a badge of honor. Seeing that 99:59 attached to a save file was proof that I had gotten the most out of my investment and wrung every possible drop of fun possible out it. Of course, that was in the days when I had a lot more free time and relied on saving my allowance to make game purchases. Things are different now.

Where a long and involved critical path was once an incentive to play a game, many gamers are being drawn to more compact experiences. These titles may not offer weeks of entertainment, but they are still complete games with compelling characters, rich stories, and fun gameplay. They just take less time to deliver the entire package.

As an example, let me tell you a story about how I quit playing Final Fantasy XI several years ago. I had been exploring Vana’diel for months, spending hours grinding levels and getting loot. I had a Saturday to myself set aside for that purpose, but Internet problems kept me from logging in. On a whim, I decided to start up Ico instead. About eight hours later, I was watching the end credits in awe. I couldn’t help but wonder what I would have had to show for those hours if my Internet hadn’t been on the fritz – a few XP a new hat for my Tarutaru? I cancelled my Final Fantasy XI account the next day.

I should point out here that I am still a hardcore RPG fan and love getting wrapped up in the sweeping tales they tell. But at the end of the day, you walk away with your gaming vocabulary expanded by a single new experience. In the time it takes you to play through one 50-hour adventure, you could finish Heavy Rain, Limbo, Halo: Reach, Heavenly Sword, and Mirror’s Edge – and probably still have time to spare. It is getting harder and harder to commit to gargantuan games when there is so much payoff to be had from briefer (yet still complete) titles.

Assuming that I’m not the only gamer out there who feels like this, why does it seem like more and more games are touting their sheer size as a selling point? Part of the problem is that some people believe that a game’s length is in some way tied to its quality. That’s garbage. As a gaming journalist, I attend game unveilings and demos. At these events there is invariably someone who asks, “How long is the game?” as though it’s the most important question. I hate hearing developers answer that question evasively or apologetically. I want to hear them reply, “It’s as long as it needs to be. Next question.” Why shouldn’t that be the standard response? Do you judge a book by its page count? I can see it now: “J.D. Salinger’s long-lost unpublished book! Wait, it’s only 200 pages? I was hoping for 600. Oh, well. Maybe it won’t suck.”

I know that I am speaking from an uncommon position. After all, as a member of the Game Informer staff, I get to play to play a lot of great games free of charge. I also understand that a game’s duration is an important trait to consider for most gamers. After all, if you’re shelling out $60, you want to make sure that you’re not getting ripped off. But there is a distinct separation between a game’s value and its quality, and making it longer doesn’t always mean better. In fact, sometimes a great game can be ultimately be brought down by dragging on longer than necessary. I think Resident Evil 4 fell victim to this, and more recently, Red Dead Redemption.

If publishers and developers really want to add value to a title, there are ways to do it without cramming in a bunch of collection quests and treasure hunts to artificially lengthen the experience. My personal favorite (ever since Chrono Trigger) is the New Game+ option. It allows gamers who have completed a game to start over at the beginning using the statistics and items they had at the end of their last playthrough. Even though it was an RPG-exclusive phenomenon for years, series like God of War, Devil May Cry, and Dead Rising have used this tactic to keep gamers coming back again and again. As a matter of fact, I’d like to see every game implement this feature. Who cares if it throws off the balance? I already beat the game once, didn’t I?

Obviously, not all long games are bad, and not all short games are good. That’s the whole point. True gamers recognize and appreciate quality in a variety of forms and durations. The industry has evolved beyond the arcade mentality of the 1980s; gaming is no longer about plugging in your quarter and milking it for every possible second of gameplay. If a developer creates a quality title, it doesn’t matter if it’s five hours long or fifty. It just needs to be worth the time and money you put into it.

(The original version of this opinion piece ran in issue 172 of Game Informer, but it has been revised and updated)