comment_box_33-1This week's edition of What Do You Think? isn't just something I've been pondering lately, but something I've always wondered how other people felt about for my entire gaming life. It's pretty straightforward: what do you think of short games?

Ok, maybe it's not so straightforward, as "short" can mean a lot of different things in games. In level-based games, shortness can really stick out. I'm reminded of when Bean's Quest [$2.99] launched back in 2011, and we called it "a fun five minutes." Bean's Quest had the look and mechanics firmly in place, and with its bouncy-centric gameplay it proved unique from the many, many other platformers on the App Store. It did everything right… it was just so bleedin' short.

Well as you might now, Bean's Quest continued to evolve with lots of updates, culminating in a massive finale early last year that brought the game's level total up to a whopping 50 including a final boss fight. A far cry from the paltry 8 levels the game originally shipped with.

However, even in its original short state, Bean's Quest was excellent, and it was hard not to recommend that platformer fans pick it up. But this is the App Store, where there's a never-ending stream of games available for free or 99¢, and many of the games themselves are never-ending, like Doodle Jump or Temple Run, providing endless fun. At $2.99 Bean's Quest was a tough sell with its "five minutes of fun."

Personally, I've never been that concerned with game length. I'd rather play an amazing game that's only a couple of hours than play some 100+ hour game that's stuffed with backtracking or grinding just so it can say it's a 100+ hour game. Just give me the good stuff, you know? I don't need all the extra fluff to justify my purchase.

Then again, and this harkens back to a What Do You Think? from a couple of weeks back about sandbox games, it is kind of sweet when you can buy a game that you can literally play for years. That's just plain wild. Although, grownup Jared has far less time to sit and play video games for hours at a time than little kid Jared used to have, so I actually really appreciate a game I can sit down and beat in a reasonable amount of time. I'm sure other aging gamers such as myself feel the same.

So, what do you think TouchArcade community? Does the length of a game factor into whether or not you'll buy it? Do you feel unsatisfied if a game is really good but only lasts for a couple of hours? Or do you just take the experience for what it is, and move on to the next game? Let us know how you feel in the comments below.

  • DR3AM

    Hmm...

  • McBlink

    Long or short, I usually don't finish any game.

    • Goggles789

      It's funny, because I used to make it a point to finish every game I touched. Yet, now I'm actually willing to set the game down sooner because...let's face it, not that many games are as super engaging as they once were. Those style games are more of a rare commodity, for me.

  • C. Stubb

    Hate 'em. For mobile gaming at least, replayability is a huge influence on what I spend my money on.

    • Goggles789

      The ability to replay a game and feel like you are learning something about it, as trivial as it is, is still way more fun than playing a game once and seeing all it has to see and being done.

      • C. Stubb

        Amen.

  • Flynn Taggart

    This isn't really a conversation about mobile games as it is games as a whole, I think. In the end, a game is as long as you put into it. You can beat both Space Channel 5's in one sitting, but I've probably put more hours into them than I have some big RPG's.

    • pauldavidmerritt

      Mobile game dev's sometimes take advantage of making a game short (for financial reasons and such). I don't like short. I want to feel like I paid for a fully finished product, not wasting time on someone's marketing project. Some short games are worth having and worth coming back to, though.

  • Samurix16

    I buy the games that I know with be a long lasting game.

  • Goggles789

    For me, it depends all on the flow of the game. I've played some short games that feel like they ended too early, and other games of equal length that felt just right. How is that? I think that a game's pacing plays a huge role in the concept of "long" and "short." It's the pacing in a game that can make a long game "tedious" and a short game "just right." Or, vice-versa. For example, for me, Oblivion felt tedious, while Morrowind and Skyrim felt "long, but I want to keep going, very badly," And in retrospect, when I played Dark Souls the first time...it was LOOOOOONG, yet it's pacing made it enjoyable. But, with more subsequent replays of it, it started feeling more "bite sized." In fact, I have a habit of just playing a short portion of the game, say the first half hour, then starting over or calling it quits. Or, on other days I want the full experience and go for the ending. Again, it comes down to pacing, for me. Another example...I played 2 hours of Deus Ex...and god almighty, I found that to be the most tedious thing I have ever done. And that's a huge game, if I am not mistaken. Yet, again with pacing, I can play Ninja Gaiden 2 on my NES and finish it in 20 minutes and be satisfied. I've played games of similar length that give me a "What, that's it?" kind of vibe, too. I think the idea of pacing matters most in whether a game feels short or long.

  • PresidentZer0

    Don't care for length. It has to be fun.

  • ODMay

    If they have different game modes, they'll (probably) benefit me.

  • http://www.jeandenis.net/ Jean-Denis Haas

    Shorter games are nice because I can finish them, like Relic Rush or The Last Rocket. I wish I had time to finish longer games. But I don't mind longer games.

    • Raka Mahesa

      Ooh, yeah, The Last Rocket seems to be one of those games that have the perfect length. It's not so short that I find the ending too abrupt, and it's not so long that I can't finish it. That said, The Last Rocket has those collectible thingies which help extends the playtime a lot.

  • Raka Mahesa

    I'm fine with short games.

    What I hate is AWESOME and SHORT games. Freedom Fall came to mind. It was so, so good. The mechanics feel right, the gameplay is quite fun, and there is actually a decent story that presented in an interesting way. I had a blast playing it, until I found out that the game is finished at level 12.

    Liberation Maiden is another example. While Freedom Fall is only a dollar, Liberation Maiden costs like 5 bucks. The gameplay is super awesome, and it only has 5 levels. Seriously, seeing the credit roll has gotta be one of the suckiest experience ever.

    It's not like games have to has 100 levels or something. I'm fine with those bullet hell where you only has 5 levels, but those games are highly replayable because of multiple difficulty settings and the highscore stuff.

    These days prefer those games that can be replayed countless time like Infinity Blade or even Minigore 2.

  • diaskeaus

    Games like Cloud Spin, which are incredibly short but also have a bit of replayability in them --- are fun ways to spend money. And when you are talking about spending one, two, even three dollars on a game, you can't really complain. And you shouldn't.

  • Taclys

    5 minutes of bliss is better than 30 minutes of "meh"

  • Andybars234

    I dont like short games with the exception if its a really awesome game but if it cost money and only 5min-1hr i probably wont like it:/

  • http://www.foursakenmedia.com/ Foursaken Media

    As a gamer, I actually find myself enjoying a hybrid of both long and short, if that makes sense :p What I mean by that is I like it when its actually feasible to "finish" a game in a medium or even short amount of time, but I also like it when the same game offers up plenty of ways to optionally KEEP playing the game, if I'm really into it (that way I can stop playing whenever I feel like it and still feel good about having officially "completed" the game)... Kingdom Rush comes to mind, in how you can go back and replay each level 2 more times in order to unlock those last 2 medals, just as an example. Achievements and endless/survival modes are also ways to optionally keep a game going after you've "completed" it.

  • Goggles789

    In addition, I don't like accumulating games that once you play, you are done with. I hold replayability as a high asset in gaming.

  • JJE McManus

    Short games with a storyline are fun. Usually arty types. They are a rare breed.
    5 minute play and put-down games usually don't get my attention. They all are part and parcel of an anything for a buck business model. They're mere elements of that gray porridge that dominates the AppStore
    If a dev wants my money give me something I can play repeatedly in 1-2 hour sessions.

  • ScotDamn

    I can certainly relate to Eli's point of view. I'm probably a tad older than a lot of readers and I agree there is something to be said for a game that I can complete in a reasonable amount of time. It was perfectly said above in that I'd rather play a solid, polished game and beat it in a few hours or less than play something that "features" hours upon hours of grind play, I mean game play.

    That being said, there is definitely value behind a game that can be replayed and still offer a fun experience.

  • QWERTYthebold

    I don't know... I kinda wish they were longer. :P

    • Goggles789

      Every man does....J/K :)

  • worldcitizen1919

    That's a mute point. Irrelevant. Every game is short. The human mind can only concentrate or focus on ONE thing at a time. So every game has episodes or levels from the largest 1.5 GB games to the smallest 5MB ones.

    The question is irrelevant. The focus time span of the human mind is the same whatever game you play. Shorter games are not shorter but repetitive. Longer games are not longer just content is varied and diverse but you still can only focus on one thing at a time.

    You can only concentrate on 'one moment at a time' no matter the download size of the game.

    • Goggles789

      That's a very spiritual answer! And it makes sense...if you focus on ONE you will have ONE and short or long becomes irrelevant. I think that while the truth is that we can only focus on short moments across any given time span, we can always reflect upon past experiences and decide if they were long, short, or whatever. But, I would add to it and say that all people perceive time differently...some people think an hour is long but the same hour to someone else feels like a blink...it's simply a matter of how one sees it. It can also go the other way around! A short game can be varied and diverse, like Battletoads or Gunstar Heros, and long games can be repetitive and dull...such was the experience with Deus Ex for me.

      But, for the purpose of fun-filled discussion, the topic can be quite relevant, and even helpful. See? This question, however irrelevant it may appear, led us to this exchange. And I found our exchange to be rather useful!

  • Kevin Pazirandeh

    I really like games I can finish. Earn to Die was short, in a way, but I love that I "finished it". However, mobile games often are built to be endless in some way or another, whether with ever-expanding content or (more cheaply) insane objectives like "Drive a million miles", and there is a reason for this and it's unlikely to change.

    In the world of IAP driven game design, I believe a game needs to appear endless or unbeatable to help players justify the investment of a couple extra dollars (or $100+). They can easily convince themselves there will be plenty left todo after so there is little fear the investment won't pay off (with lots of game time). This leads to a self fulfilling prophecy in which having made the investment of money, the player follows it up with investment of time to make sure they get their money's worth. This is win win for a designer. How could you pass it up?

    It get's worse for short games.

    A free short game will make no money (lack of impressions for ads, hard to motivate an IAP). It has to be paid. Then, even if the experience is top notch, some will still wonder if they got their money's worth if they reach the end as they simply don't know how to react since it's so rare. In both cases word of mouth effects are reduced.

    I wish short games could work, but they can't.

    • Dr. Woodenstein

      This is really discussing more than just appstore games. Short games do work. Star Wars Force Unleashed II for instance was pitifully short in my opinion but was EXTREMELY well recieved by the gamer community. Now I personally prefer longer games as I am an RPG gamer and as such the story and grind time are what sets my games apart.

  • xmido

    Portal was 4 hrs and I enjoyed it more than 100hrs games. Obviously it will always be quality over quantity. 100 hrs of meaningless grind is not more fun than high quality 4 hrs. I played portal 8 times. Longer games I play only once and never think of it again.

    • lepke

      And there you have the perfect answer.

      • Dr. Woodenstein

        I beg to differ. Morrowind (my single favorite game of all time) is endless. Like it doesn't get any longer than that. I have played it more times than I can count and enjoyed it more than you can imagine. Xmido says he/she only plays longer games once and never thinks of them again, but what is there to think about a short game? It's so short you can remember it all. In a 100+ hour game you couldn't possibly remember everything that happened. Also more often than not there were multiple choices to be made and as such there is more replay value. In other words, long games are the way to go if you're a roleplayer. As for other games I guess it's up to the gamer's discretion.

      • darkcheetah

        As someone who plays both Final Fantasy VI and VII at least once a year, and Legend of Dragoon for that matter, I think there are a lot of gamers who enjoy longer "grindy" games for the exact reason that you can't remember everything from those games. Most RPGs have multiple ways to go through the story to certain degrees as well so your experience with the game will be different per play through.

      • Dr. Woodenstein

        Well said. Legend of the Dragoon by the way is pretty freakin' fantastic.

  • defunct32

    Depends on the genre, if it's an RPG it better be at least a minimum of 20 hours w/o sidequests and extras, if it's a platformer make it short and sweet. My age doesn't matter (28 here) cause I love games and I'll make time for it by hook or by crook!

  • shdwstar2417

    When I finished Tales of Symphonia the length was so astounding I was happy to finish it . Engaging games will hold your time.

  • mutts

    The big question is what do you expect from a game.
    I don't mind my mobile games to be short, they are useally for on the road or fot those quiet moments on the toilet :). And when a game is € 0.89 i don't expect a console/ pc lenght game. Although those are shorter to. But with prices in the app store rising, i do want to see my game experience rise to. Still the rule is you pay for what you get. And sometimes you get more for what you pay :)

  • daftman

    I definitely prefer shorter games. I don't want fluff in my games anymore, just an awesome experience I can actually finish.

  • SumoSplash

    It's the length of the boat, not the size of the ocean! Or something like that.

    • http://ask.fm/MidianGTX MidianGTX

      That's what she said.

  • Omn1c1d3

    Yeah a lot of games I play I never finish and most of the time I don't go back to them. It's difficult, I'm sure, to make a game's length just right. My cousin won't buy any game that is basically under something like 30 hours. He feels it's a waste of money. On the other hand, I hate a game that drags on or feels like its full of filler. But sometimes a game just ends when I could really just keep going. I don't mind a short game but it needs to leave me satisfied.

  • Mauiwoweee

    Come on, you guys cant be serious now. If you played call of duty strike team then you will hate the fact that it was too, too short of a game. It was like wiping away that smile off your face in a matter of seconds. I mean i just bought the game and i loved it. I played the game and finished it in half a day. I hated the fact that i just got started and got used to the game and then the credits started rolling! WHAAAAAT?????!!!!!!! I want a game that last longer. Like the console games on xbox 360 and ps3, even ps vita or psp last longer. Why apple? WHY?????

    • lepke

      Has nothing to do with apple lol but besides no mp and thus replay ability you actually end up paying same price per hour ;)

    • Makako

      Why? Because no one wants to pay more than 99c for a game in mobile, that’s why. You can’t make a huge console quality experience that does not rely on repetitive grinding if you can’t be expected to sell enough copies at a reasonable price.

      You want to pay 99c? Get used to short or repetitive "infinite" games.

  • http://obliviousalgorithm.com/ Zachery Jensen

    Short games are the best. But that doesn't mean I think all games should be arcade grade vapid experiences. Quite the contrary. If you want the absolute canonical, ideal exemplar for what a short game can and really, really should be, just play Portal 2.

    In its category, it is very short. A few hours at most if you're familiar with the mechanics. This game has no shortage of amazing all over it and great replay value if you enjoy the co-op mode.

    I have no problem at all paying full price for a short game if it's this calibre.

    On iOS I would say I consider most of the best games to also be short games and again have zero problem with this especially if the developers continue to produce new entries in the series or add "chapters" to the same game. The point is that in a realistic time frame, without a child's free time to dedicate to the endeavor, I can actually *complete* something.

    Some examples I consider short but excellent are Mikey Shorts/Hooks, League of Evil games, and Sword and Sworcery EP.

  • shaver

    I care more about "complete". A story or progression that fascinates me for an hour is more than fine, and well worth the $1.99 I probably paid for it. I want to feel like the developer got to the end of what they wanted to build, rather than ran out of ideas.

    As with books and movies, for a given "unit of enjoyment" I often want it to be as short as possible, so I can get to another. I'm less price-sensitive than some fellow forum watchers, in that I won't insist that someone TOFTT before I spend the price of a soda, but even so I mostly care about whether I enjoyed it.

    Some games are about continued progression, and that is usually predicated on quantity: you have to live in each stage long enough to appreciate it, and then earn the next. Basically requires length. But some are about wonder or story or immersion, and those can be short and still very fulfilling.

  • http://ask.fm/MidianGTX MidianGTX

    For me, it's more about replay value than end-to-end length. If I know I'll be completing a game in only a few hours and there's no compelling reason to play through it again, I just won't bother with it. There's stuff out there that'll provide longer lasting enjoyment for the same amount of money. If it's short but also cheap enough, I'll give it a once through.

  • demonalcohol

    I tend to prefer short games as I seem to finish about 5% of games I play. The only games I spend a lot of time playing are ones that have multiplayer or are just fun games with a rpg she'll like infinity blade.

  • Techead81

    I like long games. I usually base my purchases on how long the game is going to last. I like games where you can finish a chapter, level, w/e, you can save or assume that it's saved lol and come back later. Short games are fine, but it's really about replay ability, whether you're getting that 3rd star or finishing that chapter.

  • Smashbuddie346

    I dont like short games i like when there long like adventure,zombie killing,shooting,modern warfare and all that

    That's what I agree seeya

  • Hobbsicle

    I tend to prefer short, because they tend to be better paced. Long games feel to me like they try to pad for length with things I don't particularly care about. In fact, when a game tells me it has 200+ levels, or is a 20-hour+ game or something, I usually hesitate to purchase, because that to me means it's probably doing a lot of generic rather than a little of novel, and I don't want to while away my hours on something uninventive, drawn out, and/or repetitive. Year Walk was a game I really appreciated for its short length.

    As my screenwriting professor would tell just about every student for their first few scripts, "Make it shorter."

  • tzuptzop

    I dont like to play a "demo" ,thats how i feel about short games, they rarely get updated. if you play a bad one you'll quit from start and go on but if you play a good one that you finish exactly when you start enjoyng it then its even worse. example deus ex the fall, finished the game in 2h and re-played another 3 times to unlock all achievements, items and to upgrade my character to max. the game was one of the best I played lately on mobile but too short, even so i enjoyed 2h + 3h for a total of 5h of playing, not bad but wish it had +5h gameplay + another 8h of re-playing ...
    just my opinion and how i feel about

  • Gamer1st

    The better the gameplay the shorter the game is allowed to last to feel like I got my $ worth.

  • Nekizalb

    Flash games. Period.

    I judge games by how much emotion they awaken in me, and some of the best have been five minute long Flash games. Fisher-Diver for example, or no-one has to die. Wonderputt is another really good one. A game doesn't have to be long and infinitely replayable to be good, just as books doesn't have to be the length of the entire Harry Potter series to be good. Case in point: Sun Tzu's The Art Of War is only a little over a hundred pages long.

  • Midgetcorrupter

    Price has to be a factor in this conversation. If a game is 69p then it can be short (even though some people think paying anything should warrant days of gameplay).

    I like getting a short game for as much as a mars bar and it keeping me entertained for a few hours on the way home.

    I also enjoy the fact that with short games I can experience more different gameplay mechanics in a short time. As a designer I'm much more interested in a short game with a new idea over a long game that gives me the same as we've had for the last 10 years.

  • dancj

    I love Another World and The Room so I don't have too big a problem with short games.

    I wouldn't like to pay more than 69p for something I only get a couple of hours out of though.

  • jonnyboi51

    I think replay ability is key for me. My top games are Steel Runner, Minigore 2 and Asphalt 8. I especially like a good survival Dual stick shooter hence Minigore 2 :)

  • bones boy

    Makes me think of a game that was once available in the App Store called "Today I Die Again" - a haunting intelligent puzzle game that was a 10 on style but took about 6 minutes to figure out.

    • Midgetcorrupter

      That was a brilliant experience playing that game. For something new and different like that I will happily pay even if it's short.

  • http://nachtfischer.wordpress.com/ Nachtfischer

    The way we look at games being "short" or "long" is fundamentally flawed to begin with. Games are meant to be replayable contests of decision-making. They don't just "end" and that's it. They should care about elegance and efficiency and not some arbitrary "overall hours of gameplay" value. In fact, most of our today's so-called "single-player games" are simply just puzzles with a solution you have to find. Puzzles are fine, but I personally don't like them.

    So, if a game announces something like "382 levels" or "epic story-driven campaign"... I'm already not interested anymore.

  • dariusjr98

    All I know is that I'm playing Grand Theft Auto V all this weekend. Goodbye world.

    • Andybars234

      Me to xD

  • heresandypandy

    Depends on quality really. I can live with a short game if the narrative (and price!) justify it, and the content that's there is all high quality. Short episodic games where they've clearly broken the story up so you buy the next episode are annoying.

  • nonstickron

    I like them if they're free. If I pay money for a game though, I want something substantial.

  • Bob

    When a game costs a dollar or two, I'm not at all concerned if it only has a couple hours of gameplay as long as that gameplay is good. I can buy 5 or 10 games to fill my 40 hours with and get a bunch of unique experiences.
    I also appreciate games that are concise and tightly put-together. Most of the 40 plus hour games I've played have been about ten good hours with 30 hours of repetitive nonsense...

  • darkcheetah

    Being an older gamer, I find this discussion interesting for no other reason than it shows that attention spans have really diminished over the years. Growing up in the gaming era where most of your gaming was done on rentals because EVERY GAME WAS $60, I remember playing that rental as much as possible. Even when it was a bad game. It's just so weird how different things are in the industry than they were, and how little reflection as a whole the gaming culture tends to do about where things came from. It's becoming the stereotypical "throw away" culture, which is sad.

  • BillyOceansBlues

    i love short games because there are so many dang games out there. a relatively quick dive into a game is a good way to appreciate the experience and then i can move on to the next. its actually a pretty rare thing for me to play a long game all the way through. the short special ones (like the ones by thatgamegompany, for instance) are the ones that i enjoy a lot, then think about when theyre done, and then come back and play through again some time later.

  • Nycteris

    Short games can be good- I am thinking of "To the Moon" and "Dear Esther" and "Blackbar" - but it's the story that makes them good, not the length or replayability. They are good in a different way than "FTL" which is completely built on replayability

  • Digiki

    Considering how popular the 3-star system is on iOS, that fill the game to the brim with garbage time should one aim for completion. I greatly appreciate a game that skips the garbage and just let's you play.

    For example Badland. Initially booting it up gives you no info and sends you off flying. Wonderful! However after exiting and returning later it showed me a main menu and other stupid tasks. It become so much less cool. It went from art to fart, it was still fun, to playthrough once, but to do so again? No thanks.

  • curtneedsaride

    If we're talking short games like Year Walk and Infinity Blade 1, then I'm a HUGE fan of them. They are super well done and a lot of production value. And even though I spent a few dollars, I enjoyed them way more than most movies I paid a few dollars to see. And that's the thing. It costs a few dollars to eat a burrito which takes 30 minutes or less. Or we spend a few dollars to go see a movie (as much as $15/movie if you go to an Arc Light Cinema), and that might last a couple hours. But I've beaten Year Walk and Infinity Blade multiple times because those experiences are very enjoyable!

    But then there are those games that just don't do it for me... and I try to avoid those thanks to sites like TouchArcade!

  • PureRumble

    Depends on the price...

    With big emphasis on the price.

  • zattelin

    When I buy games I compare them to Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls. I want it to have awesome gameplay and story and I don't want to be able to finish it in 2 days. I want it last.

  • Eseres

    A short game can be great in many ways too, i guess. It is just the same

  • Makako

    I expect games to last relative to their investment. If I got the game for 99c, I am perfectly happy (and actually expect) a half an hour game. If I spend 60 bucks, I expect to get at least a full 2 days of hardcore gaming out of it, or many days of casual gaming.

    I actually get bothered by buying a 99c game that can’t be completed in a day. There are lots other games I want to play and I will likely just dish it aside.

    Mind you, there are always exceptions. If I got GTA5 for 99c in some special, I won’t be angry at the length of the game, for instance :D

  • armilla

    I enjoy long and short games, though I wish most were shorter - I'm more inclined to see games to the end that way, which serve as appetizers for AAA games.

  • casualgmr

    Short games are cool. After gaming for twenty plus years, games with a long storyline with considerable effort have lost their strong appeal. I like short games with an excellent storyline and good graphical ideals, for instance, I love sword bros, but have a hard time getting into DH4

  • Brazilian_Baboon

    I think theyre are horrible becuz you always get into them then they finish! Like what the hek

  • MrAlbum

    This question is far more difficult to answer than one might think. Let me explain:

    Let us say that there is a game "x" with a specified length of 10 hours from the developer. Two players play game "x": player "y" and player "z". Player "y" has played games for the vast majority of his life, and can usually pick up most any game and master it quickly. Player "z" is new to gaming, and has to take the time to master a game's controls because she isn't used to game control systems.

    Player "y" breezes through game "x" in under 2 hours because of his skill level and familiarity with gaming in general.

    Player "z" struggles through game "x" in over 20 hours because of her unfamiliarity with gaming in general and low skill level.

    A 10-hour game is thus perceived to be "short" by player "y" and "long" by player "z".

    The question must be asked, then: did players "y" and "z" have fun playing game "x"? There could be any variety of answers to this, because length is not the only factor to enjoying a game.

    Consider the game Child of Eden. Absolutely gorgeous visuals, set to an uplifting soundtrack and tied to a message of life, growth and living. Near-universally acclaimed by critics, and one of the greatest proofs that video games are an art form. A lot of people who play the game absolutely adore it. And yet, there are only six levels, and they are over "quickly".

    Now, I ask this question to those who have played Child of Eden: is the game worth playing? Should people go out and buy this game? Did you enjoy playing the game? Was its length ever a factor in your enjoyment of it?

    Any answer you give is valid, as long as it is truthful and honest, and you are the ones who would know if your answer matches that criteria, not me.

    Make of my thoughts whatever you will. I hope they stimulate discussion.

    Sincerely,

    Mr. Album

  • ios7prouser

    It sucks

  • Mancopan1

    Here's a relatively short game that's actually pretty fun. Tactical assassin mobile.

  • Turbobond

    Year Walk = short, unbelievably good game I would have paid double for. The Room is another good example. There are others. If a game is good, and not just a concept experiment, I'm there.

  • araczynski

    Obviously 'short' is subjective. If we're talking less than an hour I won't bother buying it. I don't waste my time replaying any game, I like a start an an end, and above all else a good story that draws me in. Once the story is done, so am I, I move on to a different game. There's way too many good games out there (on all platforms combined) for me to want to go though the same one again, there's no sense of any discovery for me. But that's just me, different strokes for different folks.

  • Saar

    I prefer my games to be short. I don't like long games as I don't have the time to play them.
    Longest game I played was "Cheese Barn", all others are 5 minutes games or less...