Show Me My Money's Worth

Miyamoto: Today's games "too long"


For those of you who know me you know that I love games. I love games of all different types, genre's, and content level. One of the few types of games that I don't like though, are games that just take freaking forever to finish. Oh sure, I play long games, and some of my favorite games are open-ended games that seem to have no end (or goal) to be seen anywhere, but most of the time these types of games make me feel a little weary at the idea of investing who know how much of my life playing them. With this in mind you may find it strange that I disagree with Mr. Miyamoto on his statement that companies should start focusing on making shorter games. This is not cool in my book, not cool at all. While there are some games that do work better as short games rather then long games, I tend to want my games to be at least 10 hours long if not longer. To me, this is a game that is decently long. If the games are shorter then that then I have little to no interest in buying them. I think most people agree with me. Unlike what Miyamoto says, most people DO want games longer because they want "more bang for their buck." Besides, if you've got a story and everything to tell, longer games with a deep enriching world could deeply enhance the game more then anything, and then a large world and long play time becomes a major point of the game. So why is Miyamoto attacking long games? Simple: Because Nintendo WANTS him to! Now why would Nintendo ask him to do this? You must understand that Miyamoto is pretty much a god in the gaming world.

He's the kind of guy people listen to when he has an opinion, and many people eat up everything he says about the game industry because he's made some classic games and has worked in the industry for so long. Heck, I admire the guy and I haven't even liked one of his games since the year 2000, when he created the his last truly original game "Pikmin." Since then Nintendo has used him to spew their propaganda and lies (much in the same way Democrats used Michael Moore and his "Fahrenheit 9/11" movie during the election) to try and get the vast majority of the public to agree with what they are doing. The REAL reason Miyamoto is pushing for shorter games is because Nintendo has been losing money for awhile, and they are looking for ways to save money now. Because shorter games would mean less money spent making games they are using Miyamoto, hoping that people will agree with him, just because he freaking Miyamoto. Except there is one big thing that's going to blow up in Nintendo's face should they decide to go in this direction: Gamers will stop buying their games because they'll realize they're getting screwed. Games are $50 each. The average kid and college student (who are the main target audience for games) work for around $6.75-$8.00 an hour. If someone is working for $6..75 an hour, then they will have to work eight hours for $54.00, and after tax they will have worked a whole day for the privilege to buy a game. Now, since you have worked eight hours to buy that game, don't you think that game should provide at least eight hours or more worth of playing time?

With prices of game development going up and Nintendo talking down to long games, it makes me suspect that they're doing this to try and get people used to buying short games from now on. But we don't need short games because long games are not an issue. Miyamoto brought up "Halo" as a long game. "Halo" is about 10-12 hours long (not including the multiplayer). This is hardly what I would call a long game. So if that's long, then what is considered short in Nintendos mind? How short DO they plan to make their Revolution games?! Here's another idea: Why do people replay "Final Fantasy VII" and "Metroid Prime" so much? These are long games. One of them is even more then 40 hours long ("Final Fantasy VII"). So why isn't length an issue for repeatability for these games? Simple: Because game length, in Nintendo president Iwata's own words, "really doesn't matter." If a game is good you'll finish it. If it isn't good then you won't. It's as simple as that. I may not have finished "Splinter Cell" yet due to it's length, but there's nothing wrong with that because whenever I feel like playing the game, there is still something left to do. As long as games don't make it too difficult to figure out what to do next, then I believe people will finish the good games regardless of their length. It just might take them a little longer then usual. So no, I am not buying into Miyamoto's hype that short games are better, because I can tell you know that if Nintendo plans to make their games less then 8 hours each (which, come to think of it, a couple of their games already have been), then I will just stop buying the games and rent them.

How's that for business Miyamoto?