A little appendix: Since it isn't self-evident, I'll just tell you that this entry itself is an analogy. If you read the words from the first to the last, it'll only take you a minute or two. But if you take the time to follow the links and read the other material there, it could take up to fifteen minutes, about ten times that of the minimum required. And then if you want to reply, it could take even longer, since you'll read the other replies and maybe even do some research to back up the point you want to make. So someone might skim this and take thirty seconds, while someone else may be more interested and take fifteen minutes on it, while another person may find it fascinating and spend hours on the issue.

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but the principle is the same.

"Bang for your buck" is a tough cookie, because even at 5 hours for a $50 game, that's $10 per hour of entertainment, which isn't a bad thing. However, you could probably rent the game for under $10 and play it and be satisfied and move on, $40 in your wallet.

Lately, the trend seems to be that if a game is single-player only, the content needs to be massive to be worth purchase for a lot of folks, and that's too bad. I don't think that just because a game is long doesn't mean it's good. I didn't like Twilight Princess all that much, I felt it was repetitive after a while.

So I can see arguments from both sides, but personally, I don't really go in for multiplayer. I buy games that I know I will want to play. I have been burned with really short games I will never pick up to play again (the LOST game is particularly fresh in my mind of bad purchases) but single player only games don't have to be long to be worthy of purchase, either.

Your right.

I got deadly creatures and even though I'm pretty far (chapter 7) -- I already know I will go back and play it again on the hard difficulties and I do not feel like I did not get my moneys worth Also, looking at MadWorld makes me think of Left 4 Dead -- a short game, yet with a lot of replayability, considering you'll be playing it over and over again because its fun, the co-op gameplay and the harder difficulty settings.

All good points, although I think another argument for buying games that look like they'll be enjoyable is the prospect of wanting to play it months or even years after your first playthrough. I never, ever sell a single game for this reason - I did so in the past, and then when I wanted to play the game again, I couldn't, and I was stuck between either not playing it or paying over $100 for it on eBay since it was a rarity by that time.

This blog entry is too short .

But I get the analogy .

I'm actually hyped to play MadWorld even though I don't own a Wii. Looks unbelievably good actually.

I believe the problem is people rank game length by one play through... Most people aren't driven enough to play a game to death, and as such they label length by the absolute minimum you could spend in a game and move on.

So maybe as reviewers they should explain where people are going to get more out of the game rather than comment on the minimum length spec. For example I'll use a simple game I know all about, Trauma Center Wii: "On easy, someone could breeze through it in 4 hours or so. However, there are 3 difficulty modes, and bonus extra hard operations at the end game to tackle. Each replay will be about 2+ hours if you skip the story elements. Also their are high score achievements of S and XS on hard mode. To the truly dedicated that could take up to 10 hours to master each operation alone (on each difficulty). So really this 4 hour game turns into 20+ hour experience to the interested, with constant quick replay (mission jumping) whenever you desire the type of game play again."

And seeming these are the forums, it must be remembered to insult someones lack of depth in their gameplay expectations when they don't play these 'short' games enough... j/k

Gabu, I've mentioned that in some of my posts, but not here because I didn't want to ruin the whole parallel between the text and gameplay by making the entry too long.

raahsnavj, I'm glad that IGN's review of MadWorld explains the whole idea that their 5-6 hour estimate is just the minimum and does include all the ways that gameplay can be extended, just like your Trauma Center example does. Since for some reason people listen to Matt C, maybe they'll finally see the light since they wouldn't listen to me and others who said not to get too discouraged by the length.

Everyone else, thanks for the comments. One thing that seems to come up a lot is that this generation of gamers seems to be more focused on the quantity of games they can experience rather than on getting the most they can out of a single game. That's a gross generalization, I know, but the sentiment seems to be more prominent now than ever before.

@Jordan: "One thing that seems to come up a lot is that this generation of gamers seems to be more focused on the quantity of games they can experience rather than on getting the most they can out of a single game."

Agreed. I think the false feeling that the 'minimum' length in some way relates to how much longer the game will increase in length by playing it to death.

For example, 6 hour min length game compared to a 15 hour minimum length game. Which one will engage you for longer? I bet if I did this as a poll, almost everyone would pick 15 hour game and call me names because that must be the 'dumbest question ever'... they wouldn't even try to find out the actual replay aspects of each game.

And the fact online multiplayer make 'infinite' replay is also hogwash. Yet too many people think this is the only way to make a game actually 'replayable'.

That's true. Madworld has a co-op mode and a hard difficulty setting and the 5-6 hours from IGN don't take into account of either of those.

one thing with Trophies, Gamer Points and online multiplayer gives is replay value.

This really reminds me of the first day that I got my Nintendo Gamecube... with Luigi's Mansion. I started playing immediately. And before the sun had set on that first day, I had seen the credits. No multiplayer online in that one >.> it did feel a bit like a rip-off.
I never sold it though, I think I've replayed it 2-3 times (still haven't gotten the A+ house ) and those re-plays have taken a LONG TIME since I'm taking the "perfectionist path". Sooo I know that game length is a lousy way to measure a game's worth... but I can't say it's an unimportant factor, not when comparing different games with each other.

Whenever I review a game, I consider the genre before commenting on the time that can be squeezed out of the experience. With an RPG, its best to highlight how much can be soaked up on the first play through. With other genre's -- such as action -- its better to play the entire game, unlock a few goodies, take a few different approaches, explore whatever longevity the game has to offer. Then comment on the overall play time. Something about gamers complaining about 50-60 dollar titles and not enough satisfaction reminds me of those folks who order fast food, eat most of the meal, and claim thats not what they ordered. How can money be spent so unwisely and complaints be taken seriously?!

Good luck in the mod adventures...

Nowasdays people just play to get it over with and move on, I think few gamers think about replay value and bonuses