Length = value? Huh huh.

I have completed two games in the last 24 hours. One – Final Fantasy XIII – I started a few months ago and have been playing on and off since then, chipping away at it. It took me 51 hours in total. The other – Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days – I started last night and finished three and a half hours later. Both cost £50 new (though obviously I didn’t pay that). Both are marketed as story-driven single-player experiences (try and spot the blurb for Kane & Lynch where it says ‘SP won’t last long, but MP can go on forever!’ Can’t find it? Thought not.), yet both have a vast difference in their length and – I’d guess – their perceived value.

But this is something that’s always hard to judge with the old games-writing malarkey, as so many people are vehemently against thrusting their value judgements on others. How can you quantify value solely through how long something lasts? FFXIII is a fuckton of padding – probably 60-70 per cent of it could be cut very, very easily. So is it really ‘worth’ more because you get 40, 50, 60+ hours out of it?

I honestly don’t know. This isn’t me making a point or having an argument either way – I’m really just thinking out loud. Or at least, on this page.

To me, FFXIII isn’t something I would consider as having value for how long it lasts, for the paddy-reason I mentioned just then. Compare it to something like Oblivion or Fallout 3 though, and you have me spouting some other opininonsense about how I feel they’re the two games I’ve got the most out of – ever. Well, aside from Football Manager, but that both transcends any attempt at reasoning and falls foul in that it’s a yearly purchase.

But a game marketed as triple-A, pushed as a gritty, hard-hitting story-led experience and as something that will change the face of gaming forever (through its camera angles/looks, at least) to offer three-and-a-bit hours of entertainment isn’t something I would call good value. And it is something that needs to be highlighted in reviews, not overlooked because it’s hard to quantify value.

It’s like mentioning the price in a review. But then, that’s a whole new can of beany worms.

I said I didn’t really have a point here. Just thinking aloud.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Prattle

One response to “Length = value? Huh huh.

  1. I completed Dog Day’s in about 5 hours after paying £40 for it and to be honest I don’t feel ripped off and I don’t even play multiplayer. I agree with your argument about value being perceived and with a shooter like Dog Day’s it was short because it needed to be.

    That could be the fault of the game makers, creating a repetitive game that can’t be played longer than 5 hours or so but I’ve gone back to it for my next hit on the hardest difficultly setting just because I enjoyed the game so much.

    I personally find games like Final Fantasy too long, I get bored of them, after all a game is only a game and will eventually get repetitive.

    Dog Day’s isn’t without it’s faults, but IO Interactive had a goal of creating a tension filled story and I felt they achieved it, enough for me to go at it again and that never happens.

    Anyway, my thoughts on Dog Days stylization: http://zerotalentcomic.wordpress.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s