The Long and Short of It
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 739
The games hurt worst by extraneous length are the mediocre ones; Golden Axe: Beast Rider was universally panned for a variety of reasons, including repetitive combat and lack of enemy variety. But many of the games' flaws really don't register until you're several hours in. Hell, it's actually quite a bit of fun for about six hours or so, but by adding artificial length, its weaknesses begin to take center stage. If it never gave gamers a chance to grow bored of its limited combat and enemy types, it likely would have been better received. Middling quality titles hoping to become better by adding mediocre content or tacked-on modes usually end up shooting themselves in the foot. Now, instead of just having a bad game, they have a long, bad game. This actually brings me back to where I started in the first place, with the (too short) criticism being made at all. It always cracks me up when I hear or read a game critique that totally rips a title apart, then concludes by saying the game is also light on content. If a game is that terrible, do you really want more of it?
Now, despite my disdain for long games that have no right to be long, I totally appreciate an interactive experience that packs the content like bacon at an all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet. A good RPG, like Fallout 3, requires more time to develop its characters, flesh out its story, and realize its scope. That's not to say all RPGs need to be 50+ hours, especially when half that time is spent having uninteresting conversations with NPCs, and doing slightly varied versions of the same quest over and over again. The absolute best RPGs, and I'd place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category, give players a choice: take the shorter, critical path, or explore every nook and cranny till you realize the sun has risen and you need to get to work.
