Yesterday I was down in my local game store browsing through their bargains and new games. Picking up a number of different cases I noticed that they were all different: some were bright and shiny; others dark and moody; some even had weird abstract designs on them which had little or nothing to do with the game. One thing that most of the did have in common (other than that they were way out of my price range) was that on the back of every box there was a curious statement:

"20+ Hours of Gameplay!"

What an odd thing to write down, I thought. Surely "Excellent Gameplay" or "5* Gameplay" would be far more sensible to have in a game rather than a proclamation of length. It appeared that the makers and the advertisers of the games wanted the consumer to focus solely on the length of the game rather than any other aspect of the finished product.

Unfortunately, this is becoming a common feature in video games these days, not in the least in journalism. The world of gaming has acquired a number of buzzwords and phrases that are found in almost every review or preview in every magazine or publication. Things such as "A smooth 60 fps" and "20+ hours of gameplay" are littered throughout articles to fill up useless column inches that would otherwise require the writer to engage their brain. Worse than that though is the need to quantify videogames in terms of how long they last rather than the quality of the experience of playing.

Sadly, such a trend is the result of the rampant consumerism that is rife throughout the whole of our society as a whole. Consumers want their products to be the best in their class or the top value for money. They want to feel that they are getting one over on the big corporations by not giving an inch on what they see as a treacherous battleground. However, it is theses selfsame big corporations and publishers that are having the last laugh.

Think of it like this: most games advertise 20 hours of gameplay, the average gamer will kick the game around that mark. If played for 2 hours a day, the game will be over in ten days �which means it can go straight back to GAME for a refund or an exchange. The truth is, however, that most of these games will last a lot less for the better gamers out there. For example, Beyond Good and Evil which everyone touted as lasting more than 20 hours was back in the shop 3 days after I had bought it, clocking in at less than 12 hours time to completion. Paper Mario was licked over a weekend -despite claims that it would last for more than the average working week. I had it done in a round 20 hours with all the side quests.

Folks, I hate to say it, but I'm a terrible gamer.

What's the point of all of this self-indulgent clap trap you ask? It's this: I'm sick of seeing games qualified in terms of how long they last. That's not what is important to me, what is far more important is the quality of the experience than the length of it. It's much better to play a great game for a scant few hours than play a terrible game for several weeks. Not that games need to be over-lengthened, there's nothing worse than a game with truly outstanding moments that has been bulked out with pointless filler-levels and areas that really add nothing to the game. If length is an issue, then why not keep the game the same duration, but add extra games or minigames after the actual experience is over?

Mario 64 DS is a prime example of this kind of work. Many people can beat the final Bowser in week �maybe not with all the stars, but they can get to the final boss and beat him. In many games, beating the final boss means that there is no more game. Such is not the case with Mario. The addition of many mini-games and extra levels and 150 stars dotted around the castle means that the game will last well beyond the reunification with Princess Peach. Resident Evil 4 is another example of this. Though it be over in maybe 20 hours or so, the addition of exciting unlockables and an extra game mode which is arguably just as enjoyable as the main game means that the disc won't be out of the 'Cube for a long time to come.

Admittedly, some games try to outstay their welcome with shoddy extra modes after the main game. So I'm not saying that all games with extra features are shining examples of developer conscience. It is rather more important to focus on the main game itself than neglecting it in favour of artificial prolongation. It is also true that games should be reasonably long in order to justify the sometimes overawing price tags they carry. I personally would rather play Fable for all of the 8 hours it took me than play another James Bond game with all its extra modes and multiplayer for too many long and painful hours.

In closing, hopefully this article gave you 10+ minutes of reading and thinking material, don't forget to check out the rest of the site to expand its lifespan!

[email protected]