Can A Game Be Too Short?

Chuckle, chuckle guffaw! Oh us gamers certainly are a frivolous and funny bunch. If we are not striving for graphical fidelity or consolidating parity between consoles, we inevitably kindle an alternate fire to cauterise an extraneous wound we’ve been picking at like some narcissistic pyromancer. The lingering context that appears etched on granite, descended from the virtual deities on a golden plinth blanketed in rose petals is one of abstract aberration of forced compliances. That a game must adhere to specific formula, that no one has ever specified? This months most effusive transgression is a games longevity. I’ve seen gamers bicker at the brevity of The Order: 1886, reverting to explicit use of derogating someone’s sexuality, intelligence or race to accentuate their point. Many, perhaps incensed by the vocal castration of a game they paid in excess of £45 for, feel dutifully obliged to contend the repugnant protestations with their own derisive rebukes. Like contradicting the concise (short) length of The Order by insisting that conversely Dragon Age: Inquisition lingered long after everyone had lost interest in exploration. That there was just too much auxiliary content to indulge in. I don’t think gamers have a cogent notion of what constitutes as “bad”. Sometimes I wonder whether we are capable of formulating an adroit thought without being reduced to the defamation of another’s persons integrity? Could it be that gamers are as dismissive and captious as any knitting circle?

“Oh The Order is too short. Dragon Age is too long. My Porridge is too hot. This bed is too lumpy…….AHHH! “

A bad experience is applicable to numerable aspects, such as poor graphical rendering which is justifiable, but are now most commonly affiliated with length and breadth of the content. But what does that explicitly intel? Is a game less valuable simply because there are frugal means for extraneous venture? Should a game revoke substance and narrative to supplement spurious quests for negligible trinkets, merely to elongate an experience? Should I continue to ask rhetorical questions? I don’t contest for one second that the content shouldn’t reflect the price, as this is possibly the most pervasive consideration. But to appraise the longevity in correlation with quality of purchase seems antiquated. If your rankled by a games expeditious negotiation then by association you should also be stifled by linearity. From my own experience with The Order I was more perturbed by the unresolved plot threads, the singularly interwoven narratives that were completely omitted, the accursed use of character ambiguity and the ease at which you completed these events. And unless there is some impending content that resolves these arbitrary non-conclusions, then the terse length at which we sauntered through is but a minor inconvenience. The plot, as well as the established fictitious lineage that the Order created was incredibly taught, verging on strained as its ideologies were infused with such whimsical indulgences that were also seemingly exempt from explanation. There are Werewolves because……? Vampires exist because……? Your part of an ancient order, descended from King Arthur and his circular table that confronts these nocturnal abominations because…..? Because, because, because, because……..because of the wonderful things he does?

“Does bigger necessarily mean better?”

There’s no calculable algorithm that can isolate the precise length requisite for gaming atonement. Whether it ensembles a variation of activities or beguile’s you with ubiquitous stories, it’s all subjective. The PS3 title Journey was beautifully compelling exultation, yet short. But of course it was appropriately priced, so maybe latent elongation is a composite issue of both price and length, with one reflecting the other. For me it’s saddening that in these days of industrial prosperity, where games are rendered with the utmost integrity (mostly) we require incentives to prolong our experience rather than play-through again. I played The Order twice, granting me approximately 15 hours of gameplay, which when converted into financial satisfaction economised into roughly £3 and hour. To me that’s fine as I’ll likely indulge in this game in the future. Just because I’ve read a book once doesn’t necessitate that I won’t read it again?! Games should be appraised on various merits; the length, quality, accessibility, multi-player, originality and copious of other discerning properties too long and convoluted to name. Despite the relative duplicity of publishers and corporate greed that so often sullies our endeavours, we should also be marginally culpable for our coddled affluence. We are damned privileged to retain such extravagant toys and accessories.

Besides, shouldn’t we be more concerned with The Orders historical inaccuracies? Jack the Ripper is referenced copiously throughout The Order 1886, with even his identity alluded too near the end. Despite his documented atrocities not staining the cobbled streets of Whitechapel until 1888? Now that is annoying!

      Do you prefer longer lasting games? Let me know your thoughts. Cheers.