How many reviews have you read (or watched) that summarize a game by saying something like this: “Game X is a really good game, but since its only 4 hours long, it’s hard to recommend the 60 dollar price tag.”

I’m reminded of just about every review of Halo: ODST.

But one of the best-reviewed games of 2007 was Portal, and I got through that one in about 3 hours. Was it so well-received because it was just one game included in a box of five? Is it because it’s only 20 bucks sold separately (and Steam now lists the Orange Box at $29.99, which is a steal)? Or is it because it’s an excellent game and well worth the time and effort required to complete it, however short it may be? Other games in the Orange Box like episodes 1 and 2 of Half-Life 2 are about the same length, maybe a bit longer. People love those games, and I rarely hear complaints about their length.

And you know what? I paid full price for Mirror’s Edge, and finished it five hours later. Then I played through it again and even tried my hand at a couple time trials. I don’t regret my purchase at all. 60 bucks seems more than fair for what the game offers.

To analyze this a bit further, let me break down the basic elements of a game.

All games require two major aspects: gameplay and control--essentially, what you do, and how you do it. This is a “horse and carriage” phenomenon (for those of you familiar with Married…With Children). You can’t have one without the other. You may have the best gameplay in the world, but if the control is poor, the gameplay suffers. After all, how can you take advantage of this fantastic gameplay if you can’t control it? Conversely, if the gameplay is tired and dull, what good is having great control? Both are equally important. Everything else about games--story, graphics, sound, music--these things are secondary. They have little to no effect on what you do and how you do it. (Perhaps technical issues can detract from the gameplay and control--things like, low frame rates, frequent glitches, poor AI, but overall these are things are present to make the gameplay and control work correctly, so they’re all part and parcel of the more important elements). I can definitely see how good sound and story make a game better, but some games are excellent and I could care less what’s happening to the characters (Red Faction Guerilla comes to mind). And the Wii is an underpowered console. Boom Blox doesn’t really look like much, but it’s still one of my favorites.

Yes, I can see why secondary characteristics of games can change a critic’s overall review, but why price and length? How does the length of a game change the way the game plays? How does it change the control? The same thing goes for price. If the game is $60, so what? I bought a Dreamcast for the sole purpose of playing Soul Calibur. That was 50 bucks for the game, if I’m not mistaken, 200 for the console, and later 30 or so dollars for a VMU (because they were scarce when the DC first launched). You might say I paid 250 dollars just for Soul Calibur, and later a little bit more for a memory card to save the unlockables--all for a single game. It was the only DC game I had for a very long time, and it was well worth the money spent.

And shit, how much money do people spend on World of Warcraft from year to year?

I don’t seem to remember people complaining about Resident Evil 1 being too short (about 5 to 7 hours on a single play through, as I recall). The quote on the back of the director’s cut says, “Best game overall, as voted by the readers of www.playstation.com.” So it’s short length has no affect on people’s affection for it.

Specifically on the subject of price, let’s consider budget for a moment. We’re in a recession. People are broke. Certainly a 60 hour game like Fallout 3 or GTA IV is more worth your money than Mirror’s Edge or Halo ODST, right? But now that Blockbuster and GameFly let you keep rentals as long as you want with no late fees, that argument is moot. And remember, I’m questioning why price and length factor into reviews. If you’re a critic saying, “Here’s what this game is, here’s why it’s good or bad,” then shouldn’t you focus only on those aspects of the game that make it a game? Shouldn’t the focal point of the review be gameplay and control (and story, sound, graphics, etc. are less important)?

And when you get to the end of a short game, do you say, “This game was only 4 hours long. Fuck this.” Or do you say, “Man that game was good, but short. Here, let me start a new campaign…” Because the thing is, if you finish a short game and have no desire to play it again, it’s not the game’s length that keeps your from replaying it. It’s the quality. You might say, “60 dollars for a 4 hour experience? Fuck that!” Or you might say, “The gameplay sucks. I don’t wanna suffer through that a second time” (provided you actually finished it the first time). Wouldn’t that mean there’s some aspect of the gameplay or control that makes the experience less fun?

Seriously, it seems to me that a game should be graded on how fun it is, not how long or expensive it is. Because when I finished Assault on Dark Athena, I thought about how much better the game could have been if they stuck to the first Riddick’s stealthy formula. In that case, the gameplay wasn’t up to snuff, so I set it aside and eventually got it rid of it. But I’ve played though God of War: Chains of Olympus three times, so far, and it’s only about 5 hours long, and shorter on subsequent play-throughs. The reason is because the game is excellent, with fun gameplay and good control that I actually think improved on its PS2 cousins (seriously, who needs a second thumbstick?).

I understand that my personal attitude towards games may be different from others. Just because I’m willing to pay full price for Half-Life 2: Episode 1 doesn’t mean everyone else is, especially since Valve said from the beginning that H-L2 Episodes were meant to be three thirds of a single game, so 20 dollars is reasonable when you consider that altogether, the three episodes will be like one complete game (at least I assume so--no one knows what Ep. 3 is gonna be like or how much it will cost). So on the question of whether or not a game critic should rate games based on length or price, my answer is…

Well, no. I fail to see how price and length affect the quality of a game. Why do so many critics focus on it so much? Just tell me if the game is good and if I’m interested and I have the money I’ll pick it up. End of story.