“Wherein the author learns that things are not always as simple as they seem, and becomes annoyed by that fact.”

My inaugural article for Gamersmark was originally going to be about the new D&D RPG, Temple of Elemental Evil, with a few thoughts on how such a heralded RPG could ultimately turn out to be so utterly mediocre. Alas, that particular discussion will have to wait for another day, for something else has come up.

I picked up Max Payne 2 last week, a few days after its release. I was going to let it pass, because I was hearing over and over again how short it was; shorter, even, than the original, which was already too damn short. Spending 75 bucks for an under-ten hour game was just out of the question.

Then, of course, I finished Temple. And I went up to my local EB (if an hour’s drive can be called "local") and had a look around. The combination of the beyond-glowing reports all my gaming associates were giving me, and the simple lack of anything else I was interested in, persuaded me to pull out my wallet and slap down my green. Before I even took the wrapping off the box, I was planning the letter I was going to write to Remedy, chastising them for cranking out such a thin, "blink-and-it’s-over" title, and then having the nerve to charge full price for it!

Then I played the game.

I finished it just a few minutes ago. As the end credits rolled, I found myself sitting slack-jawed, staring at the screen, stunned to a point of total inactivity. I am riding the crest of one of the most amazing gaming experiences of my life; Max Payne 2 has taken me by the ears and kicked me in the ass, repeatedly. This is one of those few games that simply defies description; you can be told how good it is, but until you’ve actually played it yourself, start to finish, you can’t really understand it.

The question I can’t get away from, however, is how much playtime we as gamers are willing to give up, in exchange for sheer, ass-pounding quality. Is a six-hour game acceptable if it’s among the best six gaming hours you’ve ever experienced? Or is it simply too short for any full-priced title, regardless of how great it is?

Prior to Max Payne 2, my position was very firmly the latter; for the prices we pay, we have a right to expect a minimum number of gaming hours when we pick up a new title. Six hours was inexcusably short, and it doesn’t matter how good the game is.

Now that I’ve finished the game, things aren’t quite so clear. Isn’t that always the way? This game was good. Holy crap, it was GOOD. I’ve come away from it wholly satisfied, and with no regrets whatsoever about the price I paid for it. Obscenely short though it may be (it took me around 8-10 hours to wrap it up), I can’t honestly say that I feel as though I didn’t get my money’s worth.

This seems to be the general reaction among shooter fans: appalled by it’s shortness, but knocked on our asses by it’s greatness. I have yet to hear anyone say that he’s pissed off about buying it because it was too damned short; nobody argues that it’s too short, but nobody seems to care, either.

So what’s it mean? Does it bode well, or ill, for the gaming industry, or does it perhaps mean nothing at all? And if it does signify a trend (see MOHAA for another shining example of a good game that’s just too damn short), is it a trend we want to encourage, or make a stand against?

Personally, I remain against short games. A game like Max Payne 2 compensates for limited playtime through it’s sheer genius, but how many games can we expect to maintain that level of quality? I’m no fortune teller, but based on my experience with computer games over the years, it’s a safe bet that there won’t be very god-damned many. We’re lucky to play one game as good as Max Payne 2 in a year; expecting that it’s suddenly going to become commonplace is unrealistic. But are games like Max Payne 2, which is adored in spite of it’s brevity, going to lead us down a path where even mediocrity is passed out to us in six-hour doses?

I sure as hell hope not. What do you think?