So lately it seems a lot of games, especially action and first-person shooter games, are getting shorter. Sub-10-hour campaigns are quickly becoming the norm, and while multiplayer modes are making their way into just about every title hitting shelves nowadays, they’re also becoming a go-to excuse to cut down single-player content.
Purchasing a game that’s over in the same afternoon you brought it home usually can’t be described as anything but a rip-off, and players routinely have that reaction. So it’s interesting that developers still try to sneak out these malnourished packages and pretend they’re going to fly with the target market. However there are many games that, even with a relatively short campaign mode, contain content of a quality that would make you jizz your pants. So it would seem the new emphasis on length over quality reeks of high school essay requirements, where word count is more crucial than writing ability.
There’s no added value to a game when you’re made watch the same dull animations over and over again, or repeat boring and mindless tasks. So the question becomes one of which is better: a game sliced to its essence and lasts only a few hours, or an adventure that pushes into the 30- or 40-hour mark, but with lots of filler in between?
Apparently, a game that lasts eight hours is now a failure, and not worth paying full price for, no matter how good it is. In my opinion, judging a game based solely on its hour count is just... depressing.