In a word, no.
At least not in my opinion.
And of course quality is a factor.
But I’m going to say no.
I bring this up because recently I was listening to a podcast and the guys on it mentioned that they older they get the more they appreciate a 5-6 hour game that they can beat in a sitting or two. And today I came across an old Cracked.com article mentioning that one of the signs you are “too old” for video games is suddenly thinking that games are too long.
While I understand the view point of those who feel that way I just can’t bring myself to agree with them.
The way I see it, the more hours you can immerse yourself in a game the better it is (at least when it is a good game).
I think my opinion might vary so drastically for one very good reason.
As I don’t get paid to play video games and live on a very, very tight budget the amount of games I get to play in a given year is minuscule compared to the guys floating this opinion. When I put down my hard earned $60 (equal to a few hours of actual work) I want to walk away from the counter knowing that I will be able to put more time than I spend at work in a single day.
Games with 30, 60 or 100+ hours of engrossing game-play are tailor made for a guy like me.
I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve poured into the Fallouts or Skyrims or Battlefields of the world.
I love those games for one reason, they kept being fun well past the 6 hour mark.
I get deeply disappointed if I finish a game within a week of buying it.
Seriously, the buyer’s remorse will hit me like a freight train if barely seven days have passed and I’m looking at the credits.
Give me the long, deeply immersive games. Give me the GTAs, the Fallouts, the Dragons Ages and Metal Gears.
I want the investment of my cash to pay me back multiple times over.
But that’s just my opinion.