If there's one annoying trend that gets under my skin this generation, it's the length exaggeration.
Gamers and even critics have been guilty of claiming a game is at least 2-4 hours shorter than it really is; a good example would be a game like Heavenly Sword , which was widely accepted as a 5-6 hour quest. That's not even remotely close to the truth; it took me and everyone else I know at least 10 hours. Thing is, most of the length estimates you see are often the fastest possible finish time imaginable, so a regular gamer with no guide, no codes, and no hell-bent desire to speed through every last section in record time will almost never finish a game in the times claimed on the Internet.
And now we've got user reviews popping up for Portal 2 , claiming it's very short; some say it's as short as 3 hours. Don't believe this BS for a second. I'm not done and I think my play time is between 8 and 9 hours. Some of the puzzles have stumped me for a little while, but I'm certain that none took up an abnormal amount of time to solve, and I've been moving right along. The belief that it isn't worth $60 because it's "too short" is erroneous and shouldn't be given any attention whatsoever. I've also noticed some PC elitists are just plain miffed that PS3 owners get the game first (and the best version), so they're just automatically giving the game a 2 or something. You know, because they're so mature.
I just wanted to stop this right now before it got out of hand, and consumers start saying to each other, "yeah, but I heard Portal 2 was only…"
Related Game(s): Portal 2