Making the Case For Short Games

Posted by Zonk on Tuesday May 3, 2005 @02:44PM from the long-games-have-more-time-to-suck dept.

Gamasutra has a feature up entitled Making a Case for Short Games, in which the author argues that a good short game is far and away preferable to attempt than an epicly long game. From the article: "Which would you rather play, a computer game that takes forty hours to complete or one that lasts just a few minutes? Don't be too quick to answer. The former asks for a serious time commitment. The latter says come and go as you please. One is a ball and chain. The other is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Well, it's not exactly that bad but considering all of the things you have to do today, which type of game do you really have time for? Also, isn't it peculiar that when you complete a complex or lengthy game you rarely want to replay it, yet short games are often endlessly replayable? "

1 of 123 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And the award for stating the obvious goes to.... by dykmoby · 2005-05-03 19:09 · Score: 0, Redundant

Yeah. If Tetris took 40 hours, it would suck.
If Knights of the Old Republic took 5 minutes it would also suck.
All depends on context, the gamer and the game.
Something tells me someone needed to fill space on a gaming web site. Probably was playing Minesweeper too much before a deadline.

--
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt = [citation required]