Too Short

A number of reviews recently declared Limbo Too Short. Too Short?  What does that mean?  Before World of Goo was released, every other press inquiry asked either how long the game is or how many levels it had.  The motivation behind those questions is as difficult for me to understand as the Too Short judgement against Limbo.

One possibility is that people are so use to asking and talking about how long a game is, that the notion is now simply embedded in our conciousness with nobody thinking to question its usefuless, much less its harmfulness as a metric by which we measure games.

But let’s ignore that for a moment and take the question of length at face value. If I say a game is too short, what do I actually mean to say?  Maybe I mean “I loved this game so much I wish there was more of it”, or “I was disappointed because I felt like it was building up to something that never came”, or even “I’m disappointed that I paid for a game I didn’t enjoy.”

I certainly didn’t mean to say “This game lasted 4 hours and I paid $20 for it, so that’s $5 an hour, which is too much” because this doesn’t take the quality of the experience of playing the game into account.  If my experience of the game was lackluster, playing it is a waste of my time regardless of whether it cost $1/hr or $10/hr.  On the other end of that spectrum, Portal would have been a worthwhile experience for me even at $100.

Saying Too Short is like using words like Should, Good, Bad, etc.  These are lazy words.  Socially acceptable shortcuts that allow people to speak superficially about what they really think and feel.  Using lazy words is not a big deal in casual conversation, or if you’re speaking with someone who knows you well enough to understand what’s behind the shortcut.  But if you write about games for a living you should not take these shortcuts you do your readers an injustice by seeding their mind with a negative predisposition that reflects your laziness instead of helping the reader learn about your experience of the game.

If you’d like to read more opinions about this subject, check out what our friends had to say about it:

Jonathan Blow of Number None

Chris DeLeon of HobbyGameDev

Dave Gilbert of Wadjet Eye Games

Matt Gilgenbach of 24 Caret Games

Eitan Glinert of Fire Hose Games

Cliff Harris of Positech Games

Chris Hecker of Spy Party

Scott Macmillan of Macguffin Games

Noel Llopis

Peter Jones of Retro Affect

Lau Korsgaard of Copenhagen Game Collective

Martin Pichlmair of Broken Rules

Greg Wohlwend of Intution Games

Jeffrey Rosen of Wolfire

Alex Amsel of Tuna Tech

Michael Todd

49 Responses to “Too Short”

  1. Copenhagen Game Collective - Bi-Weekly Erotic Game Tip: Size Does Matter Says:

    [...] This week, the indie community is blogging about how size doesn’t matter in games (more and more). I see that as an excellent opportunity to continue our Bi-weekly Erotic Game Tip, and give an example of why size does indeed matter! [...]

  2. Fire Hose Games » How Much Is Enough? Says:

    [...] Blow of Number None: http://the-witness.net/news Ron Carmel of 2DBoy: http://2dboy.com/2010/08/17/too-short/ Chris DeLeonL: http://www.hobbygamedev.com/spx/short-videogame-design/ Dave Gilbert of Wadjet Eye [...]

  3. William Says:

    I follow this blog as a developer, not a game aficionado, so I was unaware of the controversy, or even of the game.

    Naively, I would have taken “too short” to mean that players expected more given the sort of game and the context, including pricing. For example, if I pay $11, go into a movie theater, and end up with even an awesome 30 minutes of film, I’d say it was too short because context set my expectations differently.

    Isn’t that what’s going on here? WIkipedia’s summary of those reviews reads: “Reviews universally noted Limbo’s short length for its higher selling price, three to six hours of gameplay for $15, and consider this the largest drawback for the game.” So it sounds like even if you weren’t sure what “too short” meant, other people got it pretty well.

    Ultimately, I think your argument isn’t with the critics and their word choice. It’s with how the audience perceives value, something I suspect the critics are accurately reflecting here.

    But is that an argument you want to have? It always strikes me as dangerous when creators (in any medium) start wishing for a better audience than the one on offer. Not that it wouldn’t be good if humans were smarter, nicer, and used more rational value metrics. But unless you think you have a chance of talking people around, then it’s not like you’ll get to create for that imaginary better audience. Better to focus on the one you’ve got, no?

  4. If Game Is “Too Short”, You Know It’s Great at Game Producer Blog Says:

    [...] Several other fellow indies are blogging about quality over quantity. Cliff Harris writes about “size doesn’t matter” and 2D Boy posted a blog post about Too Short. [...]

  5. Ron Carmel Says:

    william, i pretty much agree with everything you say. the “argument” i want to have is that professional game reviewers are perpetuating what i consider to be a meaningless metric and a way of evaluating an experience which doesn’t serve anyone. minds and opinions are more malleable than most people think, and i’d like to see more writers wield their power more responsibly. i would probably lose some respect for any writer that uses “i’m just catering to my audience” as an excuse for doing less than their best work.

    as a side note, independent game developers rarely focus on the audience, they make the games they want to make and let the audience find the game rather than trying to make a game that fits a certain audience. i’m wishing for more thoughtful writing, not for a better audience.

  6. Singularity Says:

    People just want to be stupid in the face of freedom, don’t listen to them when they say such things. They don’t know the mistakes they are making.

  7. Kriss Says:

    Writers are narrative focused, when they ask the length of your game they are asking the length of the narrative.

    This is a reasonable question.

    What is not reasonable is ignoring every other part of a game to focus primarily on the narrative.

    It’s kind of like having book reviews run by book cover artists who are only ever interested in the design of the pictures on the outside of the book and pretty much ignore the words on the inside.

  8. David Says:

    No one ever complained that Pac-Man wasn’t long enough.

  9. arowx Says:

    In a nutshell I think it’s the experience that counts and not the duration…

    http://blog.arowx.com////blog1.php/2010/08/17/does-length-matter

  10. John Evans Says:

    It doesn’t look like you mentioned Mitch Krpata at Insult Swordfighting? I think his treatment of the topic is the best I’ve seen. (Of course, I haven’t read EVERY link you put up there…)

    http://insultswordfighting.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-taxonomy-of-gamers-supply-and.html

    He really DOES get into the “$1/hr vs. $10/hr” argument. (Note that I linked to the eighth in an 11-part series of short articles, so be sure to check out the rest!)

  11. Pavke Says:

    Very good text Ron. I couldn’t agree with you more.

    As a game aficionado here are my opinions of what “too short” means.
    When the game is awesome like World of Goo or Limbo, for me it means that the game is so great that I want more, much more. I wish it lasts more then it does. And I’m sure most people would agree with me.

    But there are a lot of trolls in gaming community, and they get angry about it. They don’t have anything to complain about the game, cause they know the game is great so they start to bitch about the price, cause it is the easiest excuse.
    And I’m positive, $20 for a American or West European is nothing.

    People have become accustomed to big budget blockbusters.
    They compare Limbo and big guys like Starcraft2 telling SC2 gives much more in relation $ – hoursplay.
    These two kind of games are incomparable. Thats just like saying Avatar is better then The Godfather because it cost 40 times more.

    And as for the professional game reviewers, I think they just don’t care about their work anymore. Some of them are reviewing from like early 1980s, A game experience for a 40 year old game reviewer isn’t the same as for a 14 year old kind.
    Personally, nobody can tell me how I think and feel about something (game), I must experience it for myself. They are very sloppy.

    And we all know they are paid(bribed) to write some of those reviews. A big game company witch spent $200M on marketing expenses isn’t going to let anything to the case. They protect their investments by bribing reviewers to write positive about their games so people would buy them. Reviewers are making a good living out of it and nobody cares about the little guys.

    This is just my opinion. Sorry for my bad English

  12. Parade of Rain » Blog Archive » Size Doesn’t Matter Day Says:

    [...] indie studio was amazing from start to finish. I’m not going to go on about it again as 2D Boy and others covered it pretty thoroughly. It took me 4-5 hours to beat. For those still trying to [...]

  13. Yakatori Says:

    I’m just happy that this discourse about “dollars per hour” is happening. I’m tired of reading and hearing “critics” focus on the length instead of the quality of the content.

  14. Phil Willis Says:

    Some of my favourite games in the past few years have all been considered “short”: Braid, Portal and World of Goo.

    Compare that to Dragon Age: Origins where 35+ hours after I started I still don’t see an end in sight.

    If anyone claims to have an interest in games as art or as a storytelling medium, then shorter is better (if anything).

    If your game professes to have a compelling story with a beginning, middle and end – then why torture your audience and stretch that out to 60+ hours of gameplay?

    If you have a story-based game that long – it had better be as good as 5 seasons of the Sopranos.

    –Phil

  15. “Size Doesn’t Matter” Day | Rock, Paper, Shotgun Says:

    [...] to precipitate the issue. Sample quotes plus links to all the ones I could find follow… Ron Carmel, 2D Boy (World of Goo) Saying Too Short is like using words like Should, Good, Bad, etc. These are lazy words. Socially [...]

  16. Allen Pestaluky Says:

    In response to “If I say a game is too short, what do I actually mean to say?”:

    I think that many players and critics may base their definition partially off of the classic childhood meaning of “too short” which means that the game did not fulfill its purpose as a time-wasting mechanism… From personal experience, as a kid I played games to waste time and be mildly entertained at the same time (entertainment quality was less important back then). Being a kid, I became bored quite a bit and video games were my simple solution to this problem. Pokémon Blue was a good game because it wasted 143 hours of my life. It fulfilled its purpose… at the time.

    To assume that all players expect video games to fulfil the purpose of “wasting time” is ridiculous, as most adults (I would guess) would not be looking for this element as strongly as when they had “all the time in the world”.

    To go back to the original question, here is what I personally would be saying if I was taking this lazy shortcut:

    “Because of the price that I paid for this game, I was expecting to receive more raw time in fresh, new experiences.”

    Interestingly, this statement has a natural contrast which is: “This game was too repetitive”. In this contrasting statement, the meaning is actually /exactly/ the same (“Because of the price that I paid for this game, I was expecting to receive more raw time in fresh, new experiences.”) — but in this case, the game is “too long”. Or, said differently, it stretches the game experience too thin so that it does not maintain a “fresh”, “new”, or “novel” experience throughout.

    I agree with William’s comment that it is definitely something that is an audience problem more so than a critic problem: But, that said, critics should also be careful of using these lazy shortcuts because they may not totally understand their audience and therefore may be failing in communicating effectively with them.

    Sadly, today, “too short” inevitably spawns directly from price in the video game world. If all games were free, we would never hear of a game that was too short unless we were simply saying that we wanted more of it. In terms of marketing and finding the right price for a game, I think it is not possible at this time to have the general audience of the world (and therefore the critics) to change their mind about what they feel is the right amount of “fresh experiences” for the price that they pay. It’s something you have to feel out, understand, and get lucky with as a developer.

  17. Reza Says:

    i think its “I loved this game so much I wish there was more of it” because a unreleashed World of Goo 2.

  18. Jim Says:

    I’m quite interested in this topic.

    To me, “too short” usually signifies that the game ends abruptly — the conclusion to the plot is hastily set in, there is “no motivation” to play once the plot ends, or the developer fails to address lingering questions to the plot. Note all of these assume the presence of a plot — the “story” that the developer chooses to tell.

    Ex. While I really did like Mass Effect 1/2, I gained the “too short” impression after finishing those games; once the epic, climatic plot concluded, there was really no purpose to continue; no motivation to pursue even tougher enemies. And the replayability value drops, because the games depend so much on climatic storytelling — suspense, paradox, tension — that having the knowledge the first time around diminishes the overall experience. Oblivion on the other hand was quite different: the plot was weakly emphasized if at all; simply finding everything there was to find was dozens of hours of great gameplay; not to mention the literally thousands of hours of user created content out there, some of which is as good as the developers’. It should be obvious which game I was more “satisfied” with in the long run.

    To me, a “satisfying” game — one that doesn’t possess the “too short” attribute — has the following:

    - A lack of linearity. Instead of telling the story, show it. Better yet, ask the players to discover it for themselves. Oh, and don’t force them to go through it if they don’t want to.
    - Variable reinforcement, indeterminate lengths. One reason I shun games that display “completion”, have fixed number of levels, or otherwise remind you “how much is left”.
    - Emergent gameplay – allow the user to do things that you wouldn’t imagine in your wildest dreams. Take Oblivion for example: having massive, accidental battles in city streets; hilarious AI “screwups” that make the experience all the better, the freakish physics engine, and hundreds of other things. Other games: Simcity(s), Spore (only to a limited extent), Escape Velocity (an amazing Mac shareware game), X3 Terran Conflict (a space simulator), EVE (perhaps the classical MMORPG example), etc
    - User content – in my opinion, THE most important thing that many developers miss or otherwise completely neglect. They love the game; let them make what they love and put it in! It’s one thing to have a core development team or even a single person develop. It’s quite another to have literally thousand of developers from all walks of life looking to put all sorts of crazy things into YOUR creation. Once again, I quote Oblivion, Fallout, etc.

    These are just my views as a passionate games consumer and part time modder.

  19. Gerald Says:

    I just hate comments on Limbo that state it is “too short”.

    Limbo saved me a ton of time, and i do value my time a lot, by using a checkpoint system that reduces the necessity of replaying level parts to a minimum. This not only results in me enjoying each of the violent but mostly humorsly orchestrated deaths – it also kicked frustration on dying out of the game.
    The result is a very short but intensive game that is among the most worthwhile experiences in my over two decades with videogames.

    Is it “too short”? No!
    Is it something i would have enjoyed playing some more hours? Yes!
    Would a change in the checkpoint system make it a longer game? Yes!
    Would a change in the checkpoint system make it a better game? NO!

    Each review saying it is “too short”, each forum comment saying it is “too short”, … influences game designers in their approach to checkpoint systems. Not a good thing in my book!

  20. Paul Says:

    Mh, I gotta say the length of a game (or time per money) is still relevant to me. I mean, what do you wish for when you buy a game? You want to enjoy and have a good time while playing it. For me DeathSpank vs. God of War 3 is a good example. I really enjoyed both games on a same level. I loved them till the end, which was around 9 hours for each of them, and then I never touched them again. So.. I spent 13 Euros for one really nice 9 hours of enjoyment and 60 Euros for the other 9 hours. (Okay, I gotta admit I rented GoW3 but that’s not what the industry wants.) Since I am not gifted with rich parents or something I have to work to earn some money for those games, around 2 hours for DeathSpank and 10 hours for GoW. So if I had to rate these games, DeathSpank would get a slightly better rating just because of the better price-performance ratio. The enjoyment is the same but the work to get to this enjoyment is not.

    Does that really make no sense? :o

  21. Size Doesn’t Matter Day « Retro Dreamer Blog Says:

    [...] Ron Carmel of 2DBoy [...]

  22. DEFE Says:

    That was a good rant there, Ron. I can certainly understand the idea of a game being so good that you want more. Still, I think that will happen with any game, regardless of length. If a game is good, then it’s good. Length isn’t a big issue, particularly for something as inexpensive as Limbo. On an unrelated note, I hope all is well with you

  23. Gary Says:

    If “Too Short” was a criticism of the price of the game, it really means “Why should I spend $20 on this game when I can spend $60 on Starcraft 2 and play it for half of my miserable life? Just like the first one!”. If “Too Short” was an expression of desire for a longer game experience, this reflects the quality of the content in question, and I personally see it as a request for more.

  24. virious Says:

    Besides all the arguments you mentioned, “too short” does not always mean that the game is not well done. I have played in many games which in my opinion were too long and that led to a boredom. “Too short” or “too long” should not be used as a measure of gameplay because it’s strongly subjectivee.

  25. Paul Says:

    Hehehe, I’m laughing…

    I still have to play Limbo… I don’t even know what it’s about or anything.

  26. Vince Says:

    Yes, most of your arguments are quite true… however, you forget to mention the in-between point: a game that is just decently good, maybe worth $4 for every hour you play it; there are a lot of games out there like that. Basically, in my opinion, there are games that are simply too short, which is the exact opposite of your core argument.

    …I should probably play Limbo before I decide to sound well-read on this matter, shouldn’t I?

  27. Chinese Granite Says:

    I should probably play Limbo before I decide to sound well-read on this matter, shouldn’t I?

  28. Drake Sigar Says:

    Length is a meaningless way to determine value for money, and is usually the first question out of the mouths of teenagers who are unable to realize they’ve been shelling out $60 on mainstream games that have the same gameplay time for years!

  29. How Long Should an Indie Game Be? « DIYgamer Says:

    [...] this regard I’m pretty much in agreement with Ron Carmel’s — of 2D Boy — take on the matter. How in the world can you ever sum up a game and [...]

  30. Chainmaillekid Says:

    All the comments saying “too short to me means…” are just proving Ron right. ( particularly his closing paragraph )

    Saying a game is “Too short” doesn’t mean anything, unless you are familiar enough with that particular reviewer, or he embellishes on it in the review, to know what “too short” means to him.

    Too short can mean it only lasts 2 min, It can mean that not enough happens, or it can mean that the game felt unfulfilled, and who knows what else.
    Its a blanket statement, totally vague.

  31. Zak Says:

    I think its a great game but priced a bit to high. Ive only played the demo, $20 is to much to pay for a game like that. $10 is the sweet spot for games like this. (Braid, World of Goo, etc) Why $20? How did 2dboy come up with that price? In my mind if you sell a game at the sweet spot, you will sell more. Sure you can argue that people would complain that $10 is to much, but you have to draw the line somewhere. $20 is no that line, imo. Lower price, sell more, seems to make sense to me. MS should do the same. Why sell the addon hard drive for an outrageous price? Heck, sell it for the break even point, maybe, just maybe people would buy more content since they have the space. I still have an old 20GB 360 and I only have 2GB left which, the rest is filled with XBL games and other content I purchased. That 2GB is in rotation for demos I download. Ok, I went a little off topic there but the point is PRICE MATTERS!

  32. daniel Says:

    world of goo! whats happening guys was this company ment to die after a huge succes? cmon i dont understand make more games!1

  33. Tim K Says:

    I’m really glad that indie devs are uniting to draw attention to this. Everyone may not feel the same, but at least there should be some light shed on the issue. Personally I want shorter games, if shorter means less “filler”. And I really wish before a game is said to be “too short”, people would consider praising it for not being padded with fetch quests etc.:

    http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TimKeenan/20100903/5685/Less_is_More.php
    or
    http://misfitsattic.blogspot.com/2010/09/too-short.html

  34. Jeet Says:

    You are right Ron about length. After reading few of the links one thought came in my mind that I thought I would love to share. Lenght actually doesn’t signify the amount of immersion either in a game or in a movie. I remember to have seen the movie ‘Branden and The Secret of Kells’ a movie that runs for a mere 75 minutes. But the immersion it provides is so immense that its not gonna leave me even after years.
    Best, Jeet.

  35. HAL Says:

    Oh limbo. Yeah that game looks fun. Id play it but I don’t got no X-box. I heard about limbo on TIG source.

  36. Zack Says:

    I agree, a game can have 100′s of levels in a platform game, but they have spent so much time making levels, that the game play experience is no where near as good.

    Also, Nothing for over a month? Where are you 2D boy?

  37. gp Says:

    What a preposterous argument. If a game is too short, it’s too short, no matter how you try to twist the argument. It’s not a matter of price, nor a matter of unfulfilled expectations. It’s a matter of length, pure and simple.
    Portal was a fantastic game but it was too short. Half Life 2 was good but it wasn’t too short. Was Portal too short because it was better than Half Life 2? No. Was it better because I paid less for it? No. Both came in The Orange Box for which I paid about €12. It’s simple: Portal didn’t last enough. Half Life 2 did. Do I have to time the game to tell you what the right length should be?
    Length may be subjective – only up to a point, though – but if many people feel it is too short, it is; you’re not going to change their opinion by calling them lazy and trying to put words in their mouth: maybe you meant this, maybe you meant that.
    Really, your attitude is arrogant and insulting. If people find there’s something wrong with your game – and here we’re talking about length, which is something wrong, but in a good way – you don’t tell them they don’t know what they’re talking about in this offensive way. You take your notebook and write “Next game must be longer” on it.

  38. mark Says:

    from a gamers perspective if i pay more money than i expect more expieriance, for gamers gaming is a hobby and an expensive one, while watching a movie is just a social outing, like going to a restaurant instead of eating at home,most people dont spend a large amount of their free time only going to the movies, while many people invest hours upon hours into gaming and if everygame cost more than say $2 and hr youll end up spending alot of money which 90 percent of people cant afford what im trying to say a part of a games expieriance is also its length

    from a developers perspective you put years of your life creating an emersive and overall entertaining experiance, and you feel like if you put a game at a lower price then besides losing money people will think its less quality and not very good. when in fact its not just good its great. so you die a little inside putting your lifes work, this amazing piece of artwork for in some cases pocket change. its almost like selling the mona lisa for 100 dollars

    so as a developer you must look at your game from both perspectives as a gamer and as a developer, gamers expect more from more expesive games while on the flip think cheaper games are shit. you must look from both perspectives to decide the price.

  39. James Says:

    too short? I don’t believe a game to be too short. It’s just the way you see it. It could actually be longer and you just got absorbed in it?

    I’ve played games that wouldn’t last very long (World of goo (great job on that, btw Kyle and Ron), Plants vs. Zombies, etc.) And I enjoyed every flipping minute of it. Sometimes I will even play it again for that same experiance I had at first.

    but too short? There has never been a game not worth it’s money. If you think that way over a very good game at a price you just can’t wager for, then you get a job and get your money, cause the price ain’t shortening just for you. Just get the game, play it, and you will see your money was worth the spending. :D

  40. Vince Says:

    @James:

    “There has never been a game not worth it’s money.”

    Wasn’t Carnival Games $50 at one point? :)

  41. James Says:

    mmkay you got me. :P

    I’m talking about REAL games that are whole and new and such. Carnival games can be as carniverous to your wallet as a “Cheetah” if you decide you want to pay $50 now. :D

  42. Jeet Says:

    Hey 2D Boy, where art thou? No news or games this fall. Seems like 2D Boy really fell in love with some 2D Girl and is dating with her, forgetting his beloved fans. Ok ok… There’s always a first time. ;-)

  43. Byth Says:

    Frictional Games (Penumbra, Amnesia) has a great article on this too: http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-game-length.html

  44. Anonymous Coward Says:

    It’s pretty simple actually, it means the game was over before you were ready for it to end.

    I can’t wait to play it, btw.

  45. Vince Says:

    @James:

    Okay, fair enough.

    Anyways, when are you guys coming back? I miss you…

  46. Ethan Says:

    Don’t lambast games journalism as a whole for using the term “too short”.

    One, their criticism is usually well articulated and explained rather than a NeoGAF one word review. “Too short” is often the bullet point at the end of the review that summarizes the main points of a review.

    Two, you’re taking the term “too short” out of context as well and cutting off the words “too short” from the typical quote which is: “too short for the price”.
    Once you take price out of the equation you instantly make games journalists sounds like a bunch of spoiled NeoGAF fanboys.
    Price is a big part of the equation and more important that length most of the time. It doesn’t matter how long a free game is.

    Three, since when can’t game reviewers use the words “should, good or bad”? You have what’s ultimately a subjective review that’s been rationalized so that anyone reading can disseminate whether they want to buy a game regardless of the review score.
    And the fact is, some games are good and some are bad. I doubt anyone thinks that Homie Rollerz is a good game.

    Four, it’s something we’ve cared about on the playground since at least the SNES days. In the NES days we were still getting used the idea of games that weren’t just arcade ports, meaning games that couldn’t be beat in one sitting.
    Since then it’s been a valid concern and game journalists would be remiss to not address these points.

    Five, it’s a pragmatic concern. “Too short for the price” is a roundabout way of saying “rental”.

    Six, Portal is one of the greatest games of all time and is not worth $100. I understand hyperbole but if you’re going to nitpick and takes quotes out of context then turnabout is fair play.
    It’s also a bad example because it came in The Orange Box which is probably the best retail package value… ever but if not then certainly of this console generation.

    Seven, who said World of Goo was “too short”? I don’t recall seeing that but I was unconcerned because I was playing World of Goo at the time and never once thought it was too short.

    Eight, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that games can indeed be “too short” and especially “too short for the price”. By using the Portal example you’re using a full and complete experience as well as mentioning one of the most fantastic games ever made.
    Let’s employ some hypotheticals to explore this concept.
    If Mario Galaxy consisted of one galaxy and sold for $50 then it would be “too short for the price” and flat out “too short”. If Zelda was no more than you going into a cave to get a wooden sword then it would be “too short”. If Portal was simply moving Chell out of her cell, then it would be “too short”.

    Lastly, games journalism was there before the internet kept developers on their toes. Criticism is truly important to art, which some games are, and entertainment, which all games should be.
    If for instance, as arrogant as Peter Molyneux is, you really get the sense when playing his games that he does in fact listen to criticism in order to improve content.

  47. Dr. Corndog Says:

    It means the same thing it means when judging any other aspect of a game. It means, “for the same price I could have bought a game that provides a similar experience but lasts longer.” That is as meaningful a metric as you can have when judging the quality of a game. As a gamer, I can tell you that the length of a game is a vital consideration when I’m about to make a purchase.

  48. Megskimo Says:

    Rob You’re totally right, and who’s job is it to slag off the critics if not the independant developers?!

    One other thing – Woah there Pavke!!!
    ‘And I’m positive, $20 for a American or West European is nothing.’
    That’s way ignorant, I live in the UK, you get poor people over here too, especially now, mostly as it costs so much to live over here! – $20 is a lot to me!

    The point is with Goo and Limbo I was buying something totally new, or that’s what it felt like. You could have this argument with albums and sometimes the 17 track epics do nothing but tire out an amazing idea….

    I was left drooling for more, still am actually! Where are you guys!!!

  49. Megskimo Says:

    LOL I wrote Rob, sorry Ron, love you Ron!