The prospect of a forty-hour role playing game fills me with absolute dread, but thankfully not every game requires a mammoth investment of your time. In fact, when we broke the news that Journey could be completed in three hours that revelation brought a sense of relief and joy.
However, the comments that surfaced at the weekend after NowGamer suggested Killzone 3 can be beaten in four and a half hours completely baffled me. Aside from not actually being wholly correct, the news that a AAA first person shooter could be wrapped up in half a day provoked a stunning response from the internet.
“Well its just typical isn’t it!” exclaimed the commentor on the NowGamer piece. “All the hype non stop hype about this game… and they end up giving us a measly few hours playtime. Bulls**t. ”
Some of the comments on the N4G article were similar in theme, with a few questioning the reviews published at the time based on the playtime reported by NowGamer. Even if it was true, the question really should be ‘why does it matter’?
If you’re a die-hard Killzone fan, chances are you won’t be rushing through the game on Normal anyway (which should take between six and eight hours) – rather plumping for a higher difficulty level, but that’s not really the point – if Killzone 3 was just four hours long, why would that a) affect your decision to buy the game and b) affect any of the already published scores?
Game length shouldn’t be dictated by the current market, rather the other way around. Developers that elongate their single player campaigns should only do so when they’ve got more story to tell, not artificially to please the baying masses, and whilst Killzone 3’s plot won’t win any awards, at least it’s concise and exact.
Filler is the plague of many a console game, fetch and collect quests peppering an otherwise enjoyable story bore me senseless – I no longer have time to hunt out anything that’s extraneous to completion of the story so if Killzone 3 asked me to fanny around looking for token collectables I’d have not been impressed: save that for the likes of inFamous – at least the blast shards could be done away from the main missions.
As it stands, whatever time it takes you to get through Sev’s latest adventure, you can be sure that there’s nothing in there that’s not meaty. Sure, it’s far from perfect, but it’s the equal of any of the recent Call of Duty games with regards to exposition and – besides – isn’t Killzone 3 all about the massive online portion?
So why does it matter how long a game lasts? The misconception that games are getting shorter is exactly that: my earliest memories of gaming include some really short experiences and I’m not alone: Peter said Sonic took him four hours back in the day and that’s with a lot of restarts.
And the perception of value? £40 for Killzone 3 gets you (assuming you play it through more than once and try Elite) around fifteen hours or so of single player campaign, countless hours of co-op, the huge Botzone mode and then there’s online multiplayer, which will presumably run as long as Killzone 2’s did – that is, for at least a couple of years.
Games are, and always have been, good value for money. Relatively or otherwise – think how much a ticket to the cinema costs and how long that lasts…
4lf13
That is exactly my viewpoint. If a game is good, the story can be as short as they want and I will play it many times over. Then add a massive multiplayer and I get about 50 hours from it. Compare that to most other forms of media and it’s one of the best value for money.
BryOnRye
As someone who doesn’t do multiplayer and rarely, if ever, plays through a game more than once I can understand where the complaints are coming from. But instead of getting in a rage on the internets I’ll protest with my pocket – rent it, play through it (hopefully enjoying it) and take it back completely satisfied.
Youles
I think it’s refreshing to have shorter games, I work 45 hours a week and have a 4 month old son….if all games were epic in length I’d either not finish them, or not be able to appreciate various different games. This can be said about challenges and Trophies within games, Kill 100 Flying Rats in GTA….when is that enjoyable? And nobody does it without using a guide or YouTube. It becomes a chore. I would rather dedicate that time into another game. I bought RDR: UN so that I got to try RDR (and see what all the fuss was about) without feeling like I was committing to another huge game….I’d like to see more DLC bought to disc, and it was cheaper too! Same could be done for Fallout’s large DLC.
I’ll judge a game by its quality and my enjoyment, not it’s length. But that’s just my opinion
Dummy01
What I hate most is the collectibles that exist just to add useless game length and sell official game guides just for the maps of them.
And in order to make you gather these xxx idiot stones or whatever they call them in each game, they gave you baits…
A super armor, or a super weapon, or even worse, a super outfit that will make you look in the NEXT playthrough (more useless game length) like Boy George!!!
And they gave you a even bigger bait, at least for a lot of people… They gave a gold trophy!!!
And with all these they can say that the game is 43,56 hours long. Tragic!!!
BG123
‘think how much a ticket to the cinema costs and how long that lasts…’
err.. unless cinema tickets cost £15 each where you come from, £40 for 4 hours is WORSE value than that.
PS. I know KZ3 being that short is complete BS made up by some crappy, jelous xbox fanboy website ;)
TheDeathAvenger
For me, the only time length comes into deciding to watch a film, is to figure out if I’ll have enough time to watch it.
I know that some people only play a game once, as they don’t see a point in completing it again. However it’s not like a film, even for a game with a linear storyline where nothing changes, you can still have quite vastly different experiences.
That cinema comparison (watching a film at the cinema, compared with buying a game) doesn’t really work, if anything it would be more like renting the game, and you can rent a game for a month for less than the price of one cinema ticket.
cam_manutd
Length can be a decisive point in buying games nowadays. Most games have online integration therefore making it instantly replayable whereas FF13 takes around 60 hours for full completion and has no need to be replayed. Personally it depends on the quality of the title like for instance Uncharted which the narrative is so fun it becaomes instantly replayable or some of the earlier FF titles like 7 which is played to death :D
Juelz345
Couldn’t agree more.
I actually prefer my FPS campaigns to be short, because i plan on spending most of my time with with the online portion.
And a perfect example or quality over quantity is Limbo. Limbo took me about 4 hours to complete and in my mind was worth the $15 and more.
While i know that the reports of KZ3 being only 4 hours aren’t accurate, that thought thrilled me to no end. I’ve been playing the beta and absolutely love the multiplayer (surprising since i didn’t like KZ2’s multiplayer), so the quicker i can get through the campaign, get the campaign trophies and focus solely on the multiplayer the better.
Now games like Mass Effect, Uncharted and Assassins Creed…the longer the better, as these are worlds and stories that i completely buy into when i’m playing them. But even then, i’d much prefer a shorter more refined experience that a bunch of filler and fetch quests.
skibadee
more for a nice long SP myself.
Kronik76
I can’t find any content in this article to justify the subheading. It’s a matter of opinion anyway.
I think the time it takes to complete a game is almost irrelevant. If the gamer has enjoyed the experience and feels that they have had value for money that’s all that matters.
As for the Killzone 3 comments, these people really should play the game before coming to such narrow minded conclusions.