It’s the first Topic of the Week in this brave new world where our site is a little bit more orange (among other changes). Exciting! This week, let’s discuss something we’ve already touched on a wee bit. Earlier in the year, we asked if you had time for 100-hour games. This week we want to know if you use the length of a game to determine its value. If you’re spending £40 on a new game, do you expect it to be a certain length, or is that the furthest thing from your mind?
I’ll get the ball rolling.
This was a question I was pondering when I had a wee rant about open world games. A lot of them heap on content as if it adds value, regardless of how compelling the content actually is. And I really don’t have time for it. But at the same time, I do, mostly subconsciously, seem to be more willing to spend more money on a game that lasts longer.
Her Story is one of the most interesting games that I’ve played this year. You can technically end the game whenever you want, and you’re probably going to have unearthed every video and come to your own conclusions within five or six hours. Her Story costs £4.99, which is quite cheap. But I wonder if I would have been so quick to purchase it if it cost £24.99. I like it a lot more than many games I have spent considerably more than £24.99 on, and I still think about the game. It lingers. I only played it for six hours, but I’ve thought about it for weeks.
I’m not sure if I would have. Or, at least, I would have been more hesitant.
I do know that this makes me feel a bit silly, though, knowing how much I enjoyed Her Story, and many short games. Indeed, I often find myself specifically seeking out short games because I don’t have time for a neverending cavalcade of 60-hour epics. I value them greatly, but not always with my wallet.
It’s strange. And annoying.
Anyway, enough from me. What about you lovely lot? Do you think that game length determines, in part, its value? Let us know in the comments!