How We Value Games
A calmer, more reflective look at the 'back-lash' against the perceived 'shortness' of videogames.Games are often deemed 'too-short'. Indeed, it seems at times that being 'too short' is the worst thing a game can possibly be. I've known people who have looked forward to a game for months, only to not play the thing when it comes out because of rumours that it doesn't 'last' the desired amount of playtime.
Games are almost never deemed 'too long', but I've played a good few games that are too long; games that charm initially but run out of ideas early on and rely on tedious padding to artificially lengthen their playtime.
It comes down to how we value the games that we play. It seems strange that 'length' is the defining value that people seem to hang on. After all, we don't pay twice a much to see a 3 hour film instead of a 90-minute one. Rather than query the length, we go to see the film based off all sorts of other values; trailers, hype, reviews, opinions of friends, a love of a certain director and actor. And afterwards, we may complain that a film is too long or too short, but length is pretty much never the reason we see, or don't see, a particular film.
If you look at value in pure numbers, it does seem silly that we're asked to pay the same amount for an 8-hour game as we are for a 30-hour one. And if the games were identical in every aspect other than length, then it would be silly.
And while I've played a lot of 8-hour games that feel too short, I've played a lot of 30-hour ones that could do with being half that length. Also, I've played some 60-hour games that I wish were even longer; for me, that's incredible value for money. And I've also played some 8-hour games that feel way too long.
The point I'm trying to make is that length is one way to assign value to a game, but it's not the only one, and far from the most important. Do things like gameplay, depth, narrative, replayability, social play, style, setting and pretty much every other aspect of a game matter far more than how many hours of a person's life it takes up?
And we have to take into account that the value of a game differs greatly from person to person. When looking purely at play-time, an obvious example for me is Call of Duty (pick whichever post-Modern Warfare one you like). Call of Duty's campaign is short, very short, running somewhere between 4 and 5 hours. But Call of Duty also features deep and diverse multiplayer modes that can last for as long a player is willing to play them for.
For some people, Call of Duty will outstrip the most expansive RPG in sheer playtime. But for me, as someone who has never been able to 'get' online competitive multiplayer, it's just a 5-hour long campaign. And while it's a very good campaign that is incredibly well paced, it's difficult for me to justify buying Call of Duty at the same price as another game with a more substantial single-player campaign that suits my taste better.
I'm not saying that Call of Duty is a bad game. It's a great game. I'm not saying it's too short; the campaign is paced perfectly, and was it any longer, might start to drag. I'm just saying that with my subjective set of values, Call of Duty is not worth the £40 asking price.
And that's absolutely fine. Evidently, many millions of people do consider it worth the asking price. For the people that play the multiplayer every day for months, £40 is a bargain. But it's about time we started looking at games as a subjective form of entertainment. A game that's too short for someone might be perfect for someone else, and too long for another.
No game is going to be able to fit the values of every single person. And that's great; it means we can all work out what it is we like about games, and buy the games that fit those values. And, hopefully, stop complaining whenever a game doesn't fit our specific set of values.
