Game Length VS Quality: A New Perspective

The argument has been made before that game length does not directly correspond to quality. Mr. Raroo over at Game Set Watch has written as much, and Portal’s success last year (and more success as Portal: Still Alive this year) serves as a perfect example that a game need not be long to be totally satisfying. Mr. Raroo also points out that there is little more disappointing than a quality game that includes pointless filler to lengthen its gameplay. That’s how I felt when playing Assassin’s Creed and was taunted to collect an unreasonable amount of flags, or the common “Defeat x number of enemies” in any open-world game.

This quandary is not, however, the focus of my post. I readily agree with Mr. Raroo, and many other journalists out there, that games may be of a high quality without lasting weeks while others may spoil themselves by stretching out that which should remain brief. What I wonder is if a game which is all quality may be hampered by being too lengthy. In short, can games have too much of a good thing?

When I first contemplated this idea I thought perhaps I was too rash. After all, bigger must be better, especially if it is all quality, right? Then I thought about precisely how hard-core one must be in order to explore a game that demands upwards of 50 hours of interaction. I surrender that there is a thriving hard-core market, but even a gamer who does little other than school/work and game ought to find a need to circumvent such excess. After all, many mature gamers are now finding themselves with responsibilities beyond gaming, such as families, which limit their available time.

I finished my first play through of Fallout 3 last week. Checking my last save point I clocked in at just under 80 hours of play time. I didn’t fill out all 1,000 gamerscore, but I got as many as I could on the first play. It didn’t take all that time to hit the maximum level of 20. I hit that after a few days. In fact, after a week or so of play I was done exploring the wasteland and levelling up. After another week I began to tire of the quests. I spent the rest of my time ploughing through the quests and gathering collectables. At this point I do think it appropriate to explain that I quite loved Fallout 3. The RPG elements were well produced, I enjoyed the combat, and the world was thoroughly interesting. What I began to find is that I just plain wanted to play another game. At the same time, however, I could not bring myself to set aside the game until I had completed the main plot at least once, for I feared I might loose my place as I would in a book. The result was a detraction from my enjoyment, and a rather “work-like” experience, which ought not to be found in a hobby.

What do I conclude from this? Certainly not that games ought to be shorter. I do believe that games which demand a full price ought to offer a full game. I remain steadfast in my belief that games should merit their expense in what they offer, and that those which have a short length should price themselves accordingly (another good move on the behalf of Portal). I offer this new premise, however, that games which may offer too much should perhaps hold something back. This extra content could be used in a sequel, or perhaps some DLC, but need not be crammed into a game, rendering it overcrowded. I understand that RPG’s are lengthy by their very nature, but a good game designer ought to be able to measure what an acceptable play through consists of. From here on in I will be sure to think twice before celebrating a game with a lengthy experience in order to make sure I do not tire of it too easily.

I do think it’s fair to say that I still think Fallout 3 is an amazing game, and I still plan on looking forward to a second, and third, play through the wasteland. That being said, I also believe I will not be purchasing any of the three DLC scenarios expected in the future. No, instead you will find me exploring other worlds on my 360, and sharing my gaming time with a variety of quality games.