Kotaku Article: Shorter games =good?

i guess it depend to each person. certainly there is place for long game and short game. i like both of them as long they are a good game.

short game allow you to have more focused game while long game may have more broad or grander game.

for example, in Skyrim there is lot of thing you can do. do quest, make a weapon, killing a dragon, ETC.

while Journey your objective is simple. go to the glowing mountain.

both of them equally great games but for different taste. i can see why people like to have short game compare to long one. they usually easy to grasp and can be done for short time (duh) which may fit for people that very busy.

i guess it just taste really.

on topic: how do you define long game and short game.

personally

> 10 hour is long

< 5 hour is short

in between is normal i guess

edited 25th Aug '12 12:35:06 AM by rrw

Every second of the game is like grating my forehead against a brick wall...

Gather Your Party, on Bioshock. He's got reasons for making that statement, but the general perhaps cathartic rage expulsions on the parts of authors on that website make the thing just as limited as something as IGN or Kotaku.

That said, there are some very good websites around, or at least ones that offer varied expression — whether it's the granola flavoured Border House Blog, or the cock-cheesey Giant Bomb. (Both of which should be consumed as part of a balanced diet, obviously).

Ah I tend not to read the articles and watch the videos instead. That article certainly sounds as simple in language and as hyperbolic as the usual mainstream stuff, just in the other direction.

But I really like Instig8ive Journalism's stuff for example, I think a lot of his videos contain well reasoned and well constructed arguments with minimal hyperbole played straight.

It really depends on the game itself. A shorter game that uses that time well is better than a longer game with lots of filler. But a longer game that isn't just filler and fills the time adequately is usually the best.

But games tend to be more on the short nowadays. That made me wonder what the point of that article is. But after having read it I understand: The author simply has a short attention span, which she wants to be catered to.

At your suggestion, I checked out a couple of his videos on the youtube, and he's cool enough. His video essay about the "girlfriend mode" implies a good point about ethical standards when writing, as does his research methodology there and in other places. I do think he can lend a disappointing lack of weight to certain marginal discourses (though he clearly follows certain feminist arguments), though I think he's right to disparage Anita Sarkesian's gender essentialism and puff-media stylings. He's also not above making the occasional unsubstantiated swipe himself, and can sometimes discredit a valid argument due to the nature of the discourse rather than the discourse itself. i.e. dismissing the gender arguments surrounding "girlfriend mode" entirely because the statement's "really" about incompetent gamers and the partners of gamers, and that conflating them all as women is completely irrelevant.

But he makes some very, very good points. If journalism wants to be serious, then fucking be serious.

edited 25th Aug '12 2:19:41 AM by Nicknacks

I think Bioshock is a good example of a game that was too long. Why would you put the climax of the plot halfway through the game?

Personally I find myself getting bored of longer games about 2/3 of the way through. I just want it to end already. Usually manifests by starting to ignore sidequests and other 100% completion bits.

For the purpose of creating a dramatic twist. The problem is, you *have* to have further gameplay after the twist if you want the game to have anything resembling a satisfactory ending. Otherwise, say hello to artistic Downer Ending that kills sales.