All killer, no filler

After playing the demo for Castlevania: Lords of Shadow at TGS this last year I eagerly anticipated it's release, opting to purchase it when I went back to America for Christmas. Coming back I was excited to play it, but it took me over a month to complete and in the end I wasn't quite satisfied with my overall experience. One of the biggest reasons was the filler. Are developers too worried that their games will get negative reviews if they don't take a long time to complete?

Every time after the few initial times I had to kill a troll or giant spider to progress I groaned. Again!? I just wanted to progress but having to do tedious things slowed everything down. Just thinking about the chupacabra in Castlevania LoS makes me spill over with some rage. What was the point of it, if not to just extend the play time? Don't get me wrong Castlevania was a good game although it had some game mechanic flaws that made it frustrating at times, the filler though in the story progression and game play though is what made its shine fade away for me.

Other games have had this problem too. God of War II is one that comes to mid as well. What should have been a quick game became bogged down with tedious puzzles; towards the end of the game when everything starting piling up it was disappointing whenever you were thrown another puzzle. God of War III fixed this though, playing through quickly and although it was short it was an incredible ride while it lasted.

Why can't more developers understand that the game play time doesn't have to be really long and when will reviewers stop dinging games for being short? We're at a point when games are striving to be more then just pieces of quick entertainment. Games are becoming pieces of art; even the national Smithsonian has recognized that.

Many of the games that have left an impact on me have been shorter in length. Ico and Shadow of the Collosus quickly come to mind. Team Ico has creating games with atmosphere down to the tee, not to mention creating games that engage the player.

I realize that there are people who want a full value when purchasing games still but is a game better if it's drawn out with filler or is it better if it's short and leaves an impact on the gamer?

Tags: God of War 3, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War 2, Castlevania: Lord of Shadows

Problem? Report this post

Chris Hoadley

May 26, 2011

Developers probably are afriad of a game being "too short" since it gives readers a reason to wait until it goes down in price or buy used. How long is too long is still subjective, but if your game stays fun people are less likely to call you out on it.

Report | Reply

Andrew Hickey

That's true and a good point. I understand that length is subjective, I guess (and maybe I should reword some things) I see a lot of developers extending the length of games needessly. Castlevania is a good example. It was a game that, while good in presentation, became quite redundant. If it had been trimmed down it would have been a lot better in my opinion.

In terms of shorter length Portal 2 is a good example. It was short but the experience I got out of it was one of the best I have had in a game within the last 10 years. Some game developers just want to make money and so they stick to a formula and drag it out.

Also of course length is subjective in other ways. I understand that an RPG should be longer because the whole idea of the genre is to engage the player with the story and the characters but once again do we really need 50 hours of grinding to fill the void?