I get this feedback all the time at the Gamestop I work at. After the customers come and rant on how action packed the game was(I stop listening when the start talking about the graphics), they then complain that the game was short. I look at some reviews and some of the big games have been said to be short(i.e. Gaers of War, Heavenly Sword, and apparently Call of Duty 4). Now begs the question, are they really getting shorter, If so, why?

Well of course they are. Nowadays most bloodthirsty preteen boys care more about the bright sparkly textures and high poly guns to extract that last bit of physically simulated realistically rendered blood from their foe rather than actual quality gameplay. It takes a long time to create the technology to render that stuff and twice as long as forever to actually create the damn art assets in high resolution, high poly, normal mapped and advancedly shaded glory that everyone demands.

A good artist and designer of today could probably create all of Doom, Quake, and Wolfenstein 3D put together in as much time as they spend on a single damn picnic bench now.

I don't think that is the case Mr. Happy. Usually all of the textures, and models are done by a seperate team from the level designers and writers. It is more about telling your story as effectively as possible, without going over budget, and without artificially drawing out the game.

Doom took many hours to play though, sure. But most of the game is the same walls and such over and over and there is almost zero story. Now a game like Gears they have a stong story and lots of variety. Yeah, they could have had you running through genenric ruins for hours on end, with each building looking like the last, but the game would get blasted for that. Need I remind anyone about the dreaded Library levels in Halo? Developers know that players tend to prefer a shorter game that is exciting and new stuff the whole way though, to forced repetition.

Then, of course, there is time. When Doom came out no one cared what the release date was. id made their game and put it out. Now time constraints can mean level cuts. "Do we edit out the battle on planet X, or do we miss our November ship date?" With the money that is put into games now they can't afford to miss schedules.

And Video games have become a more consumeable media. Much like watching a movie or reading a book. When you are done, you are done. With a few rare exceptions like that favorite movie or dog eared book, players don't go back to it. Action game developers write them with the same mindset. Fast and hard, leave a good impression and the player wanting more (a sequal.)

And it is only the action games that really suffer this problem. Puzzle, arcade, racing, rythem, party games are all much shorter, but rely on hundreds of replays. Then you have RPGs on the other end which can easily last hundreds of hours. I don't recall ever hearing someone seriously tell me "Man, I really liked Oblivion.. if only they had made it a little longer"

I actually think that it's a positive trend. I hope that games get shorter, that way people get a little more conscientious about what goes into them. Also, I would trade length for price any day. Give me a three hour game that costs thirty dollars over a ten hour one that costs sixty!

I actually kind of prefer game length...but that comes second to making the game FUN.
It's just that it comes up so often in reviews: "no matter how great the experience is, when it's over you'll be wanting more." etc...
I really don't see how a 5-hour game could in any way be BETTER than a 6-hour game (of the same type of experience).

As games get shorter, their gameplay gets tighter, their stories get better. You don't have to over-inflate a game that just doesn't have the content to go a long ways.

Besides, there are plenty of gametypes that tend to wear the longer you play. In my opinion, a good FPS these days hits around 6 hours of playtime. Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Halo 3 gave me that in spades.

Yes, but reviewers were complaining about the length of both of those. (Episode 2 less so...since it's an episode)

You seem to have this belief that the length of a game directly correlates to its gameplay experience. I'm not going to logically debunk this because I don't even SEE the logic...

the length of the game means nothing really. protal was amazing and it was only 2 hours to play through. yes hl is amazing. also all of the games that followed it. but when it comes down to playing 6-10 hours to get though one single game you tend to run into the same thing over and over. go turn this and then click that. just with a different color button on the wall. you cant take just the games length as a factor all into its self. you have to have an over all view. a 10 hour portal game would have been, lets face it, ridclous. you have to take the gameplay, the graphics, the over all experience and take it all into account. you guys are missing the real big picture of how games should be made. if you ask the creators to put more effort into length your going to find yourself chasing your tail in the end. which makes for horrible game play. whether the story has good intent or not.

Yes they are gettung shorter and a good bit of it has to do with the online "revolution." Publishers have figured out that they do not really need to make a complete game if they include some type of online functionality. But more importantly the overall quality of games is dropping with a few notable exceptions, again due to the online "revolution." The length of a game is really not as important as the quality of the game itself take ZOE 2 it was maybe six hours but the game is a masterpiece that as of yet has not yet been equalled when it comes to fast pacced mech action.

To Catgrr: I agree with you totally, however I would like to suggest that you don't verbally slaughter the forum infants, at least not all the way to bloody stumps. Have a heart <3.

Anyway, as to the original post, I would like to pose a counter-question, something to the extent of "Maybe games aren't getting shorter, we (and by that I mean experienced gamers) have just gotten...better?" I know the concept at first sounds like a scape goat for game makers, but think about it. The more games we play, the more puzzles we learn to solve. Those same puzzles have been repeated throughout gaming generations (such as find a block, move it to a button, push.) The reason I bring this up is that going through my favorite N64 game of all time Zelda: Ocarina of time I ended up getting through it in 8 hours, and hardly remembered any of it. From my knowledge of zelda, or the mario series, or half life, etc...I can pretty much see an obstacle and have a pretty good idea how to solve it right off.
Our resources for beating games, such as online strategy guides, faqs, forums for puzzles, etc. have multiplied many times since the N64 days.
I think it's a little of both, truthfully. Next-gen producers produce slightly short titles filled with puzzles that are, for the most part, intuitive.
Many cheers, Unholykrumpet

For someone who has his head up his ass about the grammar of others you sure did pick a strange phrase in the form of "from the go." Perhaps you missed a word, or need to use another word so that the phrase actually makes sense without someone having to insert a more appropriate word in place of the one you have chosen? Perhaps you are the one in need of purging?

It is funny how as games reach more complexity and realism in their environment, the experience gets better but shorter.
A bit like in life.

God must be a dev.

Yes and no. If you go back and play games on the NES, the only thing that kept you coming back was how friggin' hard they are. In the end, Gears of War is longer than Contra, but you spent more time dying in Contra than you did in Gears of War.

Of course, Doom was pretty long itself, though that is if you played more than the first episode. If you played just the first episode, than either equally short or shorter.

Then there are games like MegaMan X that you can beat in an afternoon, but want to play the next day.

In the end, games are pretty much just as long as they always were, with a few exceptions.

Katana314:
Yes, but reviewers were complaining about the length of both of those. (Episode 2 less so...since it's an episode)

You seem to have this belief that the length of a game directly correlates to its gameplay experience. I'm not going to logically debunk this because I don't even SEE the logic...

I do hold that belief, yes. And if you can't see the logic, let me elaborate...

1) Company comes up with interesting gameplay experience.
2) Company puts game into production, planning on releasing in 3 years for $59.99.
3) Company banks on a single player only experience satisfying the customer.
4) Company thinks "hmm...that might not cut it" and adds 4 more hours of gameplay.
5) Company releases 12 hour single player experience that's been bloated beyond belief.

I have, for a very long time, disliked long games in certain genres, most especially the FPS. By presenting a shorter single-player experience, the gameplay, story, and possibly presentation (graphics and audio, although it's really iffy if short length can help out presentation) all get to be tighter. That 6 hour storyline someone wrote for the game? It gets to last 6 hours. The gameplay? Look at Episode 1 and Episode 2 for great examples of how shorter single-player experiences can work well.

Here are my rules, specifically for a full price FPS:

1) Shorter lengths for single-player are better. Around 6-8 hours is optimal.
2) Single-player only doesn't cut it.
3) Multi-player only doesn't cut it.

So, yeah, as you can see that's actually logic. I apologize for sounding defensive, but your response did sound a little rude. But if you were just saying that you didn't see my point, then please, ignore this last part.

*snip* cleared up by the original author

+++

Catgrr:

However, I feel I must be missing some ultra-hardcore irony here, because a poster states the following, without anyone else disagreeing:

[Poster] I'd prefer to buy three games for $30 each than one game for $60, in comparative time / enjoyment. [edit]: to make this clear for the tards, this means you're wanting to spend $90 instead of $60. Seriously - are you paid by the industry? Otherwise, please, I have this 'sure fire' way you can make money, I have this huge amount of cash caught up in Kenya...

Stop me if my logic is wrong (it isn't), but you'd prefer to spend a whole three hours for your $30 than ten hours for $60? Ignoring the fact that both totals are completely paltry for a paid experience (hell, $60 could probably get you drunk for at least 24 hours) the idiocy of this statement is baffling.

It's possible that neither of you have faulty logic--you might just have differing premises. I don't think you're missing any irony here. Instead, my guess is you are missing the difference between gameplay length and number of titles. A person might be willing to sacrifice the four free hours of game play per $60 spent in order to get to play two different games rather than just one.

I see your logic--why the heck would anyone ask the industry to give them four less quality hours of gameplay for the same price--but can you see the logic in Kuzdu's position (and if not Kuzdu's, mine for purposes of argument here) that four less hours is worth sacrificing in order to get two distinct titles?

Like I said, there's no logical inconsistency between your positions. Just differing premises because you have different value judgments. For the same $60 you'd rather get an extra four hours of 'free' gameplay; for Kuzdu, that person would rather get a 'free' extra title.

Zera:
Now begs the question, are they really getting shorter, If so, why?

I think because the gamer demographic is going upwards in age and income, and downwards in free time. Games used to be something kids on summer vacation played while waiting to get to go to the movies. Now games are something young adults call in sick from their jobs on launch day to play instead of going to the movies. Games have started moving from recreation to entertainment. Games are getting more like a DVD and less like a football. The 'toy' element of a game now is the multiplayer.

Alex Karls:

I have, for a very long time, disliked long games in certain genres, most especially the FPS. By presenting a shorter single-player experience, the gameplay, story, and possibly presentation (graphics and audio, although it's really iffy if short length can help out presentation) all get to be tighter. That 6 hour storyline someone wrote for the game? It gets to last 6 hours. The gameplay? Look at Episode 1 and Episode 2 for great examples of how shorter single-player experiences can work well.

I see the logic of what you're saying--it's the same logic behind dry aged beef. However, if someone wrote a 7 hour storyline--or wrote a 6 hour storyline to tell a story that should take at least 7 hours--then condensing it down to 6 hours doesn't make anything "tighter." Instead it lops essential parts off or compresses them down to something less than their optimal length.

Also I think a lot of times it's not so much what you do as how you present it. Think of great films with long, slow establishing shots. Sometimes you need to make a film longer just to give the storyline room to breathe, or to set the tone for the storyline. I think that applies to games to some extent as well.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I see the logic of what you're saying--it's the same logic behind dry aged beef. However, if someone wrote a 7 hour storyline--or wrote a 6 hour storyline to tell a story that should take at least 7 hours--then condensing it down to 6 hours doesn't make anything "tighter." Instead it lops essential parts off or compresses them down to something less than their optimal length.

Also I think a lot of times it's not so much what you do as how you present it. Think of great films with long, slow establishing shots. Sometimes you need to make a film longer just to give the storyline room to breathe, or to set the tone for the storyline. I think that applies to games to some extent as well.

In essence, I agree with you. Taking something and then artifically shortening it doesn't mean you'll get a better experience out of it.

That said, on a practical level, I think comparing video games with films is bad. Not because they lack similarity, but because of the fundamental differences in how they're delivered to you. Film is a linear medium, games are not. Furthermore, I think that video game concepts that need to be squeezed are much much rarer than those that need to be stretched. So, while I give you a hearty 'hear hear', I don't think that your point reflects the current state of gaming.

Also, I'm trying to come up with a better term than linear, as it doesn't quite convey my meaning. In saying linear, I refer to a medium that you experience from start to finish, like traveling a line in one direction. Take film, for example. If you leave half way through a film, you have not completed the basic act of 'watching the film'. Games aren't linear, by comparison. When you fire up a new game, the basic act of 'playing the game' can be accomplished in any number of ways, as long as you experience all of the gameplay. You don't even need to play the entire single-player storyline to get the complete 'game'.

Alex Karls:
I don't think that your point reflects the current state of gaming.

I think my point reflects my tastes while your point reflects your tastes. I have a feeling that some of what you would consider 'needless bloat' I'd consider 'time to really absorb the game experience' or 'time to really get to know the weapons' or something positive.

I think it also reflects differing preferences for how long one title should take. I'm just more interested in a good 15 hour game than I am in an equally good 6 hour game. That's not a matter of value, that's a matter of individual taste.

I think we can calculate satisfation levels, according to the following ratio: "quality per hour" (QPH).
It can turn out to be "fun per second" (FPS), regardless of whether you're playing the same game, or if you've been playing two shorter games.

I think that one of the problems to games being shorter is that our hands are being held as we go through the game. This in turn makes the games easier so we play through them faster.

A video game that had the potential to be slightly longer (Episode 2) was shortened by the fact that you was given someone to follow or got a helping hand, all the way through the game. Some things that really could have been done on your own, and spent time doing, were taken away from you.

Another game I'd like to choose is Neverwinter Nights 2. Complete one area and then open up the next. What the Heck?! Wheres the free-roam? The exploration? You're an RPG. I could have spent hours doing side dungeons and quests, but there was nothing there and everything was where I needed to go anyway. Waste of potential.

However, some games like Metroid Prime 3 and even Bioshock (to some level) just told you where to go and let you get there, by yourself, in your own time. Thanks for letting me take the time to do your little puzzles and extras, developers! Cheers.

I know I'm not directly attacking shorter games, but I think hand-holding is a key element in making games shorter.

Interesting responses. Well I asked one of my co-workers these questions and he said of course. Apparently to him, all the games budget (most of it anyways) go to the graghics and less for everything else. Part of me thinks this is true, though I also believe some of us have gotten better at the games and therefore we finish them faster. Still enjoy them.

When you read a novel you don't comment: That was amazing, moving, funny, and overall the best book i have ever read but why was it only 200 pages long!!! I want a refund!

Is complicated though because we all want good value and quality games - hence why i buy budget games. I don't know about prices in the rest of the world but online you can get a quality title for £18 new. It could be as low as 3 for £25 thats £8 each. So roughly $16 instead of $36. Reducing the price leads to better 'value for money'.

It could be argued that a shorter story will have more focus - lets use films this time. Whats the average simple film length? 80 to 90 minutes? There are some 'epic' films that weigh in a twice this much but does that make them twice as good? Of course not! I think game stories are, in general, fairly simple. Dragging out a simple story twice as long as is needed doesn't help anything.

Now on to technical issues:
Development times. Shorter development = lower cost = more profit for the same sales - or alternatively you make money on it earlier (by this i means its easier to sell 50,000 copies than 250,000)

You NEED shinyness to sell games (or at least devs/publishers think so, which is effectively the same thing) so you have to spend time on these.

So what do you cut? Length!

Obvious right?

So whats the solution: Shared assets and/or procedural generation of content.

If everyone uses the same engine and textures - adding what you need - they save time. Now everyone has the same shinyness and has to make decenty games.

I think we could be approaching the point where graphics will stop selling games. I couldn't care less whether a game has the Cry, Quake Wars, Unreal engine. So long as its optimised, runs smooth and looks good i couldn't care less.

The other option is to go down the Oblivion/Spore approach and automatically generate stuff thus saving alot of development time. It will start off simple - Spore. But in time it could grow to be a great time saver.

Combine both and who knows what could be done...

It's not so much how much shorter games are getting, it's how EASY they are nowadays. Games are so easy these days that when a challenging game hits the shelves gamers and reviewers put them down because of it. The truth is that games have technically gotten more impressive than ever, but there is something that's missing. Besides from being overly lenient games feel extremely unrewarding (with a few exceptions of course). After beating Bioshock and MP3 (both are amazing games) I didn't really feel like I accomplished anything; maybe it's because in Bioshock you don't actually die or because in MP3 you're grabed by the hand and told exactly what to do; but my point here is that there is no real hustle. there are very few games that force you to drop the controller, think (or meditate for that matter) and move on. Oh and one more thing: ENOUGH WITH ALL THOSE FPS's PLEASE!! Let's get more stuff like Assasin's Creed or something, you know, something ORIGINAL for once...

There is an actual LIMIT to what can go on a disk. Better graphics take up more space, so there's less levels. Remember--this was a selling point for the Blu-Ray format. The discs could hold more data and reduce the need to for two disc games.

I'm sure money is a consideration too. Isn't it always? But I remember waaay back when the consoles were all in their pre-release state that actual space on the game disc was becoming an issue.

Great point Lisa. Though it is not always the case (Heavenly Sword for example) But of course there are work arounds.. reuse textures and such. But I think the difficulty, how "Hard" the game is, is a big deal too. You look at ghosts and Goblins, or Kid Ikirus. They were not considered short games. Though you could complete either in about 2 hours. IF you could beat the game. But it would take you months to get to the point where you get to the end.. hell, it could take months to get to the second stage. Now skip ahead to a game like Ninja Gaiden. A friend of mine traded it after not being able to complete the tutorial. I heard all kinds of talk about how it was SO hard. But in truth when I played it, it really isn't that bad. I died. A lot. But it makes passing that next checkpoint, of finding that next save point so much more rewarding. And the game give countless hours of entertainment for what may only be about a 7 or 8 hour actual play-through.

It is the growing popularity of video games that is hurting them in this case. Developers don't want to scare off the more casual player with games that are too hard, or too confusing to newer players. Then they think throwing in a 'hard' difficulty will apease the more hard-core gamers. Or worse yet, you can unlock a harder difficulty when you beat the normal one. I do miss the good old days of it meaning something when you completed some games. And the weeks leading up to it, instead of the hours. oh well... I'm gonna go tell kids how long I used to have to walk to get to school now.

Oh, and Catgrr: get Bent. Thsi is a vry mature and inteligant board. we dont nead some gramer nazi coming in adn geting all self righious just to show of there self-improtance. stik to the topic and dont worry about mispellings. some of us are at work and using default browsers and dont want or have time to spell check

laikenf:
It's not so much how much shorter games are getting, it's how EASY they are nowadays. Games are so easy these days that when a challenging game hits the shelves gamers and reviewers put them down because of it. The truth is that games have technically gotten more impressive than ever, but there is something that's missing. Besides from being overly lenient games feel extremely unrewarding (with a few exceptions of course). After beating Bioshock and MP3 (both are amazing games) I didn't really feel like I accomplished anything; maybe it's because in Bioshock you don't actually die or because in MP3 you're grabed by the hand and told exactly what to do; but my point here is that there is no real hustle. there are very few games that force you to drop the controller, think (or meditate for that matter) and move on. Oh and one more thing: ENOUGH WITH ALL THOSE FPS's PLEASE!! Let's get more stuff like Assasin's Creed or something, you know, something ORIGINAL for once...

I can understand this. I directly started God of War II on the most difficult level available from get go, and damn, that's tough. It really requires to remember all the tricks, techniques and dodges available, and when use them at their best and most profitable moments, to survive the brutality of the enemy's attacks.

I Die. I Die A Lot. But when I win, I get the feeling that I've kicked something pretty big.
That said, it's how things are today, as you have to let the consumer decide of the level of difficulty.

I have no issues with shorter games. It's a bit like Lord of the Rings. I just couldn't bother going to the theaters and sit inside for nearly three damn hours or so.
I'd rather watch a movie that's well packed, within one hour and 20 minutes.

Lisa: I would think so too, but I think generally DVDs are not completely used. Also, people seem to have no qualms with putting a game on two discs if absolutely necessary (in rare cases)

xbeaker: Unfortunately, the board's against you on grammar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.50823

I'm starting to agree with the possibility that easiness makes the games go by faster...Episode 2 suffered from this. The developers often cut down puzzles after playtesters just got frustrated. I think people especially wanted the final strider fight to be harder.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I think my point reflects my tastes while your point reflects your tastes. I have a feeling that some of what you would consider 'needless bloat' I'd consider 'time to really absorb the game experience' or 'time to really get to know the weapons' or something positive.

I don't think that's the case either. As I said before, I agree with what you were saying before. To be clear, I was just pointing out that I don't believe it was a practical point (cutting a game down doesn't = better gaming, some games need room to breathe like movie) because no games reflect those qualities. In other words, while shortening a longer concept isn't necessarily good, I don't think there are any games that sit on that side of the divide.

Now, the issue of game length as an enjoyment is in a way a different issue altogether. I think what happens is that games don't get designed to satisfy everyone's idea of length. Those people that want a game that's long get a short game artificially inflated to a longer length. And no, I don't consider important gameplay (like getting to know your weapons) to be bloat. On the other hand, the gamers that want a more complete, well told story, or just tighter, less repetitive gameplay, get a game that lasts eons too long.

Hmm...as a side note, I think this means that there is something to be said for repetitive gameplay having its place.

Alex Karls:
To be clear, I was just pointing out that I don't believe it was a practical point (cutting a game down doesn't = better gaming, some games need room to breathe like movie) because no games reflect those qualities. In other words, while shortening a longer concept isn't necessarily good, I don't think there are any games that sit on that side of the divide.

I think a lot of people feel that games like _Heavenly Sword_, _Halo 3_, and even _Bioshock_ sit on that side of the divide.

Alex Karls:

Hmm...as a side note, I think this means that there is something to be said for repetitive gameplay having its place.

That's the point I was trying to get across with the movie analogy--sometimes repetitive gameplay doesn't advance the story any, but it does give you time to get familiar with the weapons or absorb the game experience.

I mean, think about the game that your icon is from, _Ico_. Besides the fights with the shadow demons in the crypt-like room and the ones that come if you wander too far away, all the other fights with the shadow demons are just arbitrarily inserted from what I remember. It's very repetitive gameplay. Frankly, it's button mashing. Yet would any "less" of it make the game any "tighter"?

If you got rid of all the puzzles that don't have anything to do with the storyline you could probably shrink _Ico_ down to like, a two hour game. Would you, though?

I think there's a difference between 'how long it takes to tell a story' and 'how long a game *should* take to tell its story'.

Games are gettign shorter and they are not cheaper this is not a good thing I hate boring twich games and most games even RPGs are all for the twitch and nothing about depth Doom 3 a joke,Quake 4 overly simplistic gun and run, Halo shorter/worser with each game, Hell even HL2 is not as great as it could be if they took time to build levels right....

I have 2 gripes with modern gaming 1 is fun and keeping a game from being repetitive to the point of begin dull and 2 length, a 10 hour 50$ game is one reason I don't buy new games anymore.

Katana314:
xbeaker: Unfortunately, the board's against you on grammar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.50823

While I'm all for proper grammar, and everyone does appreciate when people post clear, well-written things, not to mention the benefit of the positive reflection on the poster, I understand where xbeaker is coming from. Catgrr is being a bit of a tool. Not only is she critiquing their grammar, but also insulting them. Why the need for insults? Admittedly, I called her a tool. But at least I'm insulting her with something relevant, rather than accusing someone with poor grammar of being an AOL user.

<On-Topic>

The common thread I'm seeing in some people's posts, and that I've read elsewhere on the subject, is that games are not shorter (as a measure of content) than older games, but instead are just easier to beat. I agree that if you look at old-school games, there is a lot of re-used content, and much higher difficulty levels, especially those that started off in an arcade setting, where the entire model was to be engrossing, but to kill you often so that you fed in more quarters. But, I think that games steadily grew in content until a point in the late 90's, and as of late have been getting shorter. I'm not unhappy with this situation, as long as the game is still of high quality (Portal was awesome). It just appears to be a reaction to the horrible budget issues with large game productions, getting games released on time, and the higher investment necessary to produce the HD art assets required of modern-generation games. Strategic re-use of assets helps, but I think I could make a graph demonstrating that the higher the quality of an asset, the harder it is to reuse. If something is generic, and blase, you can use it over and over again, and the player's mind will mold it to fit the situation. If you model it with accuracy, the appropriate context for that exact asset narrows, because, for example, why would an entire city use the exact same light fixtures in every building? I appear to have gone off on a tangent about reusability of art assets, but I think I got most of my point across. Games were originally short but hard, then became easier as they became longer, and are now returning to a point of being short, with selectable difficulty, though typically lower than the originally punishing difficulty of the arcade era.

EDIT: Fixed pronoun trouble; turns out Catgrr is a she.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I think a lot of people feel that games like _Heavenly Sword_, _Halo 3_, and even _Bioshock_ sit on that side of the divide.

I think that each of those three games didn't have the story or writing to go further. Heavenly Sword could've had the gameplay if it was tweaked better. Halo 3 and Bioshock could've been pushed out because they did have the gameplay, but I can't see how their material was cut down from a longer length. I just don't think they had it.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
That's the point I was trying to get across with the movie analogy--sometimes repetitive gameplay doesn't advance the story any, but it does give you time to get familiar with the weapons or absorb the game experience.

I agree, and that's one of the reasons I embrace gameplay as such a final arbiter of the quality of a game.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I mean, think about the game that your icon is from, _Ico_. Besides the fights with the shadow demons in the crypt-like room and the ones that come if you wander too far away, all the other fights are just arbitrarily inserted. It's very repetitive gameplay. Frankly, it's button mashing. Yet would any "less" of it make the game any "tighter"?

If you got rid of all the puzzles that don't have anything to do with the storyline you could probably shrink _Ico_ down to like, a two hour game. Would you, though?

I think there's a difference between 'how long it takes to tell a story' and 'how long a game *should* take to tell its story'.

Well, that begs another question. Is story what's most important when we're talking game length, or can gameplay be a big factor there too? Ico was a joy to play through, because most of it was puzzling. I don't usually say the same thing about FPS titles, because shooting people is the same whether you're doing it with a handgun or a railgun. So I'd argue that gameplay has a lot to do with length too.

However, I do think that story will continue to get the short end of the stick. It just isn't as indispensable as gameplay.