I've long been of this opinion. The pressure to offer "value" by shoehorning in multiplayer and massively padding out single-player is really tedious. Especially given how many great games there are to play and how little time I get to play them.
It's now probably the biggest factor I consider when deciding what to play. If any game clocks in at much beyond 8-10 hours it has to be Best Game Ever level of good in order for me even try it. If I can play through three great games or drag myself through one in the same space of time it's a no-brainer. My favourite game last year was the PS3 HD release of GoW: Ghost Of Sparta (never got around to playing it on PSP), precisely because they absolutely nailed the pacing. It was only about 5-6 hours long but as a result it was a non-stop assault of awesome. No drawn out convoluted puzzles, just straight to the point.
I would consider spending an equivalent of £5 or £6 per hour of game to be better value than £1 or £2 per hour of game three times as long where two thirds of it was doing menial fetch quests to artificially boost the length.
It's now probably the biggest factor I consider when deciding what to play. If any game clocks in at much beyond 8-10 hours it has to be Best Game Ever level of good in order for me even try it. If I can play through three great games or drag myself through one in the same space of time it's a no-brainer. My favourite game last year was the PS3 HD release of GoW: Ghost Of Sparta (never got around to playing it on PSP), precisely because they absolutely nailed the pacing. It was only about 5-6 hours long but as a result it was a non-stop assault of awesome. No drawn out convoluted puzzles, just straight to the point.
I would consider spending an equivalent of £5 or £6 per hour of game to be better value than £1 or £2 per hour of game three times as long where two thirds of it was doing menial fetch quests to artificially boost the length.
