Game Length

Game length (as in, the length of time to beat or complete a game) is always discussed under the assumption that longer is better; that more hours to beat is stricly superior than less, in every way.  I would like to challenge that assumption, with maybe some caveats.

What are the benefits of game length?  Primarily (and obviously) it means more game to play.  More to do, overcome and enjoy.  Makes sense as an upside.  And, since games cost money, more gameplay means more value for your hard-earned dollar.  Again, makes sense.  Why would I prefer a shorter game, denying me play time and lowering the value of my purchase?

I like to beat games.  If they have a single player narrative campaign, I like to see the beginning, middle and end; I enjoy the complete story.  The longer a game is, the harder that is to accomplish.  With a normal work and social life, it can be quite difficult to find the time to play a game long enough to see the credits roll.

When you multiply finding time to beat games by how many great titles come out each week, you see the inherent problem with long games.  If you commit to beating one, you lose out on beating others.  I'd rather beat two shorter games a month than only get halfway through an epic single player story.  If I love a game so much that I want to play more, I could always replay it from the beginning.

The problem with a replay, however, is the lack of new or novel content.  You've seen it all before.  That's why I love games that don't have one linear story.  Games with random variation, for example, are new every time you replay them.  Some games use clever "chunking" of the game to allow the player to decide how long he or she will play it.  Street Fighter IV, for example, takes only an hour to beat with one character.  But if you want more gameplay out of that disc, you can pick up another character and go after the boss.  If you really wanted to play the heck out of it, you could challenge yourself to beating it with every one!  

This also applies to "session length".  Many longer games also require you play, in one sitting, for long periods, or risk losing the progress you just made.  Games with Save Point systems, for example, require you play at least long enough to reach the next Save Point.  Street Fighter allows you to bang out a 90-second match, if that's all the time you have.  Quick side-quests are another way to allow a player to play a game, enact meaningful progress, then get right back to their busy lives.

Could this be why social games, with their incredibly short session times, finally cracked the code to get through to casual gamers?