I Miss Short Games
Big games can be great. I still want major developers to make more games I can finish in a weekend.
Watch the video version on YouTube
The short version
- Not every game needs to become a 60-to-100-hour commitment.
- A focused two-to-five-hour game can be complete, polished and worth buying when its price matches its scope.
- Smaller projects give major developers room to test new ideas while giving busy players something they can actually finish.
Not every game needs to take two months
I miss short games.
The large, sprawling worlds of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Xenoblade Chronicles can be incredible. Super Mario Odyssey was fun to explore. Final Fantasy can deliver a great story and combat system. I am not asking developers to stop making big games.
I just do not need every game to become a 60-to-100-hour commitment.
Sometimes I want a game that lasts three to ten hours. I want to learn it, enjoy it, finish it, and move on without feeling like I abandoned a second job.
A hole, a shovel and a complete game
One of my favorite recent examples is A Game About Digging A Hole. The title explains nearly everything. You dig a hole, sell what you find and upgrade your equipment so you can dig deeper.
It is stupid in the best possible way. The basic loop is a pure dopamine rush, but it does not pretend to be more than it is. It costs $4.99, takes only a few hours to finish and then it ends. I had my fun. I got a complete game. I did not need a season pass, a giant map or another 70 hours of side quests.
That is what I am missing from major publishers.
There are a few recent games that come close. Drag x Drive is a smaller Nintendo release at $19.99, but the game itself did not interest me. Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour costs $9.99 and contains minigames and tech demos, but it is primarily an interactive tour of the system. Metroid Dread is a tighter, more focused adventure, but it still carries a $59.99 price.
Those games prove that major companies can release something smaller. I want them to make that a real part of the business instead of an occasional experiment.
Short does not mean unfinished
I want Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox and other large publishers to take more small chances.
If a developer has a good idea that probably will not sell millions of copies, that should not automatically kill the idea. Reduce the scope. Build a focused two-to-five-hour game. Price it at $10 or $20. Give the team room to try something new, then see whether players respond.
Short does not mean unfinished. Small does not mean low quality. A game can be complete, polished and memorable without taking two months to finish.
The price simply needs to match the experience.
Fire Emblem keeps asking for more time
No series makes this problem more obvious to me than Fire Emblem.
I love Fire Emblem, but I remember older entries as much more manageable games. The 3DS releases became larger commitments. Fire Emblem: Three Houses could consume dozens of hours before I even considered playing another route.
Now Fire Emblem: Fortune's Weave is presenting four interwoven heroes, time travel, a capital city to explore, training, recruiting allies, building relationships and tactical battles. Nintendo has not announced how long the game will be, so I am not going to pretend it is officially a 100-hour game. But everything being shown makes it look like another enormous commitment.
If it turns into a 60-to-100-hour game, it may be the first Fire Emblem I skip. That would not be because I stopped loving the series. It would be because I do not have that much time to give every game I love.
Smaller games create room for new ideas
The obsession with bigger games also makes the industry safer and more repetitive.
When every major release needs a huge budget and years of development, companies naturally lean on sequels, remakes and franchises players already recognize. We keep getting 30-to-100-hour versions of things we already know while smaller new ideas struggle to get approved.
That leaves normal players with time for one or two giant games. It also leaves less time and money to try something unfamiliar.
Smaller games could change that. They would let developers test new mechanics and characters without gambling an entire studio. They could also introduce players to existing franchises at a lower price.
I have never really played a Kirby game. If Nintendo released a focused $20 Kirby adventure I could finish over a weekend, I would try it. If I did not like it, I would not feel like I wasted $70. If I loved it, Nintendo may have gained a customer for the larger game.
That is good for players, developers and publishers.
Make it short, make it good and let it end
There is room for Breath of the Wild, Xenoblade Chronicles and enormous Final Fantasy adventures. Those games can keep their huge worlds.
I just want another shelf beside them.
Give me strange five-dollar experiments. Give me polished $15 ideas. Give me a strong $20 game that lasts one great weekend. Use familiar characters sometimes, and use smaller projects to create new ones. Let developers make something fun without forcing it to become the next hundred-hour franchise.
Short games are cheaper to try. They create room for new ideas. They help prevent fatigue. Most importantly, people with jobs, children and limited free time can actually finish them.
Major publishers: make some small games again.
What short game would you recommend to someone who only has one weekend to play it?