There's always going to be someone bitching. One person wants to "get their moneys worth" and wants an 8+ hour single player campaign. The other person is going to prefer a 3-6 hour game. I personally don't have a preference. I loved Portal, and it didn't feel THAT short. But I also loved COD4 single player since it was so epic.

Yeah, its just another gaming trend... like crates.

I mean, it wasn't too long ago that amazing games got seriously docked on review scores for being too short.

Now people realize that bigger isn't always better.

Long games were great investments when I was young, but I'm starting to see where these people are coming from

Black was only 8 or so hours, and I wasn't willing to waste my time playing it.

Though I've actually felt the issues that they're describing there, I don't want the problem fixed. It's my own laziness and responsibility to finish that game. Cutting games down into bite-sized pieces doesn't solve the problem, it just leaves the dedicated pissed, and the rest unfulfilled in all but the best of games.

Simply put-Call of Duty 4 and Portal get away with being 4 hour games because they're excellent. It's their excellence that justifies the time, not vice-versa.

I love short games. I feel like 90% of the games that are 15+ hours are just way too repetitive / trying too hard to make it long. If more games were short like Portal, I'd be engaged for every minute, and do everything I can to finish it. When I'm playing a fun game that gets repetitive because it's trying to extend itself past 20 hours, I usually end up just putting it down and moving on to something more action-packed-every-moment.

Short games are great... when they're not $60. Don't charge me full price for a game that'll last me 4-5 hours.

I love short games... So long as they're cheap and awesome.

There's no room for filler in a 3 hour game.

@scottyboy218: At $60 a pop, yes, I would like to get my money's worth. I Don't care about how long a game is, but I do care if it's less than six hours. And counting on multiplayer to extend the games's life is not what I want. Which is becoming a trend.

I love long games like Mass Effect, take that suckers

I think he's got a point but that point is contingent on the price of the game. Portal was perfect at 3 hours because it was part of a package of 5 games for 60 bucks. It was also sold by itself for a third of that price. Whereas Call of Duty 4 took 6 hours for single player, it had infinite replay value in multiplayer and difficulty levels that justified the 60 dollar price tag.

If COD4 only had single player they couldn't have charged that much for it (see heavenly sword sales). There's definitely a place for shorter games, but it's just not in the 60 dollar price range. Personally, I'm ecstatic about echochrome for 16.99, even if it only lasts a few hours.

I'm sorry but I really miss those days of the 40 to 60 hour epic month long games. I mean shit I remember back in the day FFVII took me 80 something hours WITHOUT Knight of the Round. I just like the really deep story type games. Kinda like my books if you will.

I think it's about time that companies making longer games really think about length and pacing with portal being so hot right now. I've played very few 40hr+ games that didn't leave me bored to tears and in complete apathy about the story at some point ater 20 hours.

I think the reason you see people complaining less about the length of a single player campaign as well is the multiplayer. I mean, how many copies of Gears of War or Call of Duty 4 do you think would have sold if it didn't have a multiplayer mode? I mean, Uncharted got great reviews but it was an 8-12 hour third person shooter with no multiplayer and it sold about 200,000-400,000 copies versus Call of Duty 4's 7 million and Gears of War's 4.5 million copies. Portal also came with Team Fortress 2 as well as Half-life 2 and two episode packs, but I'm willing to wager that if Portal was a standalone product for $50-$60 it would have done no where near as well.

It's not a matter of lack of time, but moreso the lack of wanting to spend 1-2 hours a day for a month straight just to beat a game. By the time I come home, have dinner, and watch a show or two on tv I generally don't want to spare more than 90 minutes playing games. Ideally, I'd like games to be in the 6-10 hour range, with good replay value should I want to extend the game time. Portal is a bit short, but it packs so much fun in three hours time that it's better than most full-length game. For Portal 2 I do hope they enlarge the game size, even by an hour or two would be nice. The only genres I want to playing for more than 10 hours are RPGs, strategy, war sims and some puzzle games (e.g. Lemmings, Picross).

I feel like if you're spending $60 on a game there should be at least 15 hours of single player.

Look at Warhawk. No single player, hence the $40 price tag. Is the 5 hour single player experience of R6 Vegas 2 really worth $20 extra?

I know it's a funky example, but I miss the days where you look forward to going through the entire story of an FPS. Half Life was a perfect blend of single and multiplayer.

Never had a problem with getting into a game and remembering the controls etc. after not having played it for a long time. And I hate it when I don't finish a game and I usually end up playing it later and beating it.
I don't think I like the idea of games being shorter because they aren't going to drop the prices just because the game is shorter and I find that I'd rather be playing something again and again that cost me 70 bucks that playing a number of shorter games for the same price each.

@ scottyboy218: im that "someone bitching" If im paying $60 for a game... it needs some sort of replayability.
Take Call of Duty, the story is short, but the online has me back for more.

Short games are ok (6-8 hours), if it has a strong multiplayer element. Otherwise i would expect 15-20 hours of gameplay at min for $60. Problem is nowadays is that single player only games get so repetitive after about 8 hours.

I hate when people make false conclusions because they haven't thought about why they like the game. How is less of a good game better than more of a good game? The reason Portal was good was because the mechanics were freaking amazing, not because it was short. It just happened to be short. In fact, I hated that it was short. I'm a college student, and I don't always have tons of time, but even if Portal was 50 hours long, I probably would have beaten it by now. Just a lot of short play sessions over a long period of time. It would have been a hell of a lot cooler too (although I think they might start running out of ideas if they made it that long).

Meaning CASUAL FPS GAMES, wich halo was one of the first ones...

Man, I'm not usually busy and I still haven't completed... *looks over* between 7 and 11 of my games. Thank god I found the time to beat Sneak King and Aegis Wing, and the latter on the hardest difficulty no less... Yep, I'm an idiot. I enjoy short games but some length is nice too. I complete longer games like Mass Effect and Oblivion (all guilds) and my first thought is "now what?" Shorter games have less of that feeling, but they are beat and you're left wanting some more, a pit of emptiness forming in you're stomach. You have to know: What happens to Chell after Portal? Will the King continue to scare the hell out of passerbys? Will the L-Block live to complete another row? Too bad, wait for the next one, chump. Really I just want a game to be good enough that I can look back and say, "God damn, that kicked ass!" It's not the length of the game, it's how you use it.

If portal was a full $60 and it was as short at it is now I would not be happy. I still want 10 - 20 hour games at least (I don't mind if it's like COD4 where multiplayer lasts a long time). I seriously enjoyed Oblivion and have generally enjoyed longer games, of course the quality still has to be there but I'll take a longer game over a shorter one almost any day.

@Balance_In_Life (PSN):
FFVII took you 80hrs to get to the end, what where you doing the entire time, I got to the end of the game in like 36hrs the first time, now something like FFXII I understand that game has story spread out between tons of side quests and hunts. I think it's more the american games that are getting shorter lately, aside from stuff like Oblivion most of them tend to be fairly short.

Longer games are better in my opinion, shorten it and you're only shortening the plot and the potential fun. Even if you don't have much time to play them a 20 hour game at just an hour a day would last you 20 days, a 5 hour game would only last you 5 days, when your a person who doesn't play many games I'd imagine completing the ones you have would leave you with nothing left. Just my opinion but long games are the best, even if you don't complete them then atleast you can have fun with it as long as you want.

I've played 20+ hour games that are too short, and 3 hour games that are too long.

Horses for courses.

Sadly, I'm spoiled from Zeldas, with over 30 hours to pass it (which is a lot of fun without being too much repetitive) and when I look at some great FPSes on the Xbox that take something like 8 hours and get really repetitive (Like the Halo serie) I feel like more small games like Portal, or hell episodic games like Half-Life which don't cost 60$ are welcome.

Sure, as long as the game doesn't cost $60 I'm all for shorter games, like Portal =D!

Indeed... if the price is right I'm okay with this.

@boxofthegods: Thats dumb, games aren't about speeding through to see how fast you can beat them, they are about enjoyment. I played FFVII for over 100 hours before I beat it, I had all the fun possible in it.

Portal was great as part of the orange box, Buuuuuuut, I wouldn't pay $60 for portal alone.

/maybe if they had a crapload more advaned levels to do

How bout good games are the new black... ?

Short games are fine, but don't charge me full price for a game I can comfortably get through in under a week. Portal was bundled with plenty of extra games to warrant the whole package, but a $70 Portal probably wouldn't have been as well received. I would be perfectly content paying $30-$40 for all of these shorter games, but if the industry thinks they can swap out games with good length (20-40 hours is my middle ground) for something much shorter (Hello, Uncharted and Heavenly Sword) then I will be forced to go elsewhere for fun.
PS I used two PS3 games as examples because that is what I have, so I speak from experience. Fortunately for me I heard the two games were shorter than most and decided to rent them, enabling me to thoroughly enjoy them (well, Uncharted more than Heavenly Sword because GoW II was fresh in my mind). I'm finding it harder and harder to justify $70 for many games these days, they're all getting shorter.

agreed. i think that as long as the avg. age of gamers is at around 30, the avg. game length will stay relatively short

I have no problem with focused, short games as long as they aren't charging $60. CoD4 did have a relatively short single player campaign, but on the other hand it had well-done multiplayer which certainly added to the value.

@boxofthegods: Knights of the Round was the last thing I did. Maybe my time is a little off but I do remember getting all the extra loot was fucking long!

The New Black? Every Time I Die? Good song.

The biggest problem with games being 15+ hours or even 10+ hours is that I don't have a ton of time to play them and before I can beat any of them, a new must have game comes out that I know I'll never get unless I buy it at launch. This is why I have yet to complete Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem, and Super Mario Galaxy (past 60 stars). I'm now playing Brawl and am also about 3 hours into the Metal Gear Essential Collection. I'm swamped!

Screw short games, I want more value for my money. I remember a time when Baldur's Gate II + Throne of Bhaal took over 100+hours on the first play through. That's not even counting the replay value of going through it again with a different class and party makeup. I've probably logged well over 500 hours on it. I just beat it again a few weeks ago with some fan made mods. Contrast that with Kotor which took only 20 hours and only merited one replay to go dark side.

Damn I love being 15, rpgs FTW

I must really, really suck because Portal took me closer to 5-6 hours than 3 hours. I few puzzles near the end took me a good amount of time to figure out.

@darthmole12: The Call of Duty series isn't known for its single-player campaign, but COD4's was certainly the best to date.

If you make games really short so people who don't play many games can finish them then that kind of takes away from the more dedicated fans who do play lots of games and have a bigger interest in gaming. I don't mind some short games but may aswell make the majority large, value for money and whatnot. Better to cater to those who'll buy multiple games than those it'll take a few weeks to finish the last 9 hour game.

It's better business sense to support the more hard core gamers who get more games, and its better value for money to get a game with more than a quick plot and some action. If people want to just complete games quickly then go on the internet and find some internet games or go for pick up and play multiplayer games.

Short games are fine as long as they have multiple modes/features to make up for it.
I'd say 9 hours are ideal for a first person game, but it should have multiple mp modes, unlockables maybe, expansions, etc.
I don't think anyone should really be taking advice from valve - the HL2 episodes are just horribly short and take ages to make, of course I've never worked in the gaming business but these episodes don't look like they'd take more then 2-3 months to make.

There are few, specific instances where I'll be willing to pay full price for a game that's under 10 hours long. Throwing in a half-ass single player mode and claiming hundreds of hours of gameplay online isn't one of them. I'm looking at you, every single FPS in existence! (Well, most of them.)

I don't know what I think of this. I loved Portal for what it was, but like others have said I would not pay the price of a "normal" game ($60) for it. I like "bang for my buck" but I also like quality.

I don't think a game's length has anything to do with (para-phrashing here) "adults not having time to beat it". If an adult has enough time to beat a three-hour game, be it in one sitting, two, three or more, he has enough time to beat any other game. He just needs to play it in smaller chunks.

Heck, I'm 10 hours into Lost Odyssey, am loving the hell out of it, and its taken me 7 sessions to get this far. If the game was over in 5 hours, I would be greatly disappointed, and generally feel cheated out of my money. Now I know RPGs will probably always be the exception to the "short game" rule, but I think I would feel the same way about a lot of other games. A FPS that I can beat in 8 hours, regardless of the number of sessions it takes, still feels short to me.

I don't think short games will ever be "the norm", but if they are as good as Portal (complete, well-told and entertaining pieces), I'm all for seeing more of them. As long as they don't end up hurting other games.

If you can make a short game feel long and keep it fun, you have made an ideal game.

Why can't we continue having it all?

Gamers like to complain about casual gaming and varied length and etc etc etc, but there really is enough room to please everybody.

As an addendum to the above; multiplayer makes games better. Pretty much always. Bioshock was great, but no multiplayer turned it from what it could have been "this game is cool! and I'm still playing it!" to a "that was cool, too bad it's over". I'm glad they didn't skimp on the single-player to work on a half-assed multiplayer, but I'm saying that with a fully-developed multi-player mode, it would be several times better, and truly worthy of the Game of the Year title.

The thing about Portal is the fact that even though its short, its a really good game. Good enough to the point where people WILL replay the game. I know I finished it 4 times.
HOWEVER, with that said, longer games are more satisfying, because I know for a fact that I have more to come back to and finish. I'm not one to sit down and beat a whole game. I prefer to savour my games, and take my time.
Thats why I enjoy long games.

Well, there's certainly some truth in what Wolpaw is saying, but I think using Portal as his case study isn't a good example. Portal is the three-dimensional equivalent to an addictive flash-based game (in fact, there's a flash-based version of Portal, as you may remember). Portal is definitely a fun and addictive game, but I don't know if I would go around comparing it to a "feature-length" game like Call Of Duty 4.

The primary draw and appeal of Portal is that, so long as you enjoy the game, you don't have to invest anything. You don't have to invest time, you don't have to invest effort, you don't have to invest thought or philosophy. You can just pick it up and have at it. It's definitely good fun, don't get me wrong, but I would liken it to a flash-based game rather than a traditional video game. In that sense, I would attribute Portal's popularity to the growing popularity in casual flash games rather than a trend in people's video game preferences.

Also, I think there's something to be said about simple concepts being a trend, rather than simply a shorter game. Take, for example, PixelJunk Monsters. If you've played the game, then you know what I mean when I say that it is, by no means, a short game. I easily invested 20+ hours into that game with my brother before completing it. Although the game wasn't short, the concept was so simple that I didn't have to worry about forgetting what I was doing in the game last weekend (which I'm notorious for doing in RPGs). I think a simple design is something that we will probably see more and more of in the coming years. Just something to think about.

Although we all appreciate a short (or simple) game, like I said: it's all about the investment. With a short game that requires almost no investment, you get the satisfaction of having fun without devoting much time or energy. By comparison, however, if you've ever played a great RPG that required you to invest a lot of time and energy (and a little bit of money), you can remember the feeling of getting rewarded in dividends for you investment. Breath Of Fire or Final Fantasy games are generally good examples of this. Obviously, a crappy RPG will have the complete opposite effect, but as with any investment there's always a risk involved. So it's not necessarily how much or how little you want to invest in a game, but also how much you want back from that game.

Essentially, I guess my point is that this is an apples and oranges comparison that Wolpaw gives in his interview. But he's half right.

I think this is the point of xblah and such. If you downsize the game, don't forget to downsize the price!

I don't mind short games at all if they have a reason for me to play them again. Portal was great, but its inclusion in the Orange Box made it grand. I'd be pretty disappointed if I bought it separate, seeing as there's little replay value beyond the challenges. I really, really dig games that open up a new mode that's fun all over again after you beat it, like the challenge mode in most of the titles in the Ratchet and Clank series. I get so many playthroughs on those games, and later on down the line, it's not such a huge commitment if I want to play through it again. It's the really long games where I'm pretty much wishing it would just end that I don't like. Then I beat it, shelf it, and never touch it again knowing that it'll take forever to finish. Doomed to a life of collecting dust on my bookshelf.

BAD EXAMPLE:
Lost: Via Domus

GOOD EXAMPLE:
Oblivion IV

@Balance_In_Life (PSN):
That would explain it, 80hrs without Knights of the Round is a little silly , but with it that makes sense, the inane amount of Chocobo breeding you had to do to get that, made sure I didn't ever get that particular summon.

I prefer shorter games, but I really don't see people buying short games if they don't offer something else as far as value goes. Portal's added value was HL2, and Team Fortress 2 content, and COD4's added value is online. I really don't see a 4-6 hour portal selling for $50 unless it's offering something else.

@boxofthegods: I got Knights of the round in about an hour. If you follow the strategy guide, you only need about 3 Chocobos, t