Short games aren't bad...a rip off at $60 yes unless it's utterly mind blowingly amazing but a game being short does not automatically mean it's a bad game...

the prices of a short game is the problem for me. sometimes i just want a short game to play and finish and move on with something else.

No. I like games that I could beat within 3 days then move on. That's what my game library largely consist of. Long-length games make sense only for RPG's and Action-Adventure games.

No but, you end up wanting moar, and developers nowadays think that DLC can solve that, which is BS.

it depends. if it feels rewarding and has a killer story, I can justify it. There are also games that seem short, the ones you beat in two days. Then you realize you stayed glued on the couch for 8 hours each day because it was that good.

not every game can be a 200hour epic but £40 for a short game is bad..

No... NEXT!

I'd rather play a good 5 hour game that left me wanting more than a bad 100 hour game which I wouldn't finish.

Short games usually have high replay value. I'm still trying to beat my own records in Vanquish.

Yes, when they cost $60

It depends on the quality of the game and it also depends on the player. Short is different for each player depending on skill and also depending on the amount of time they put in the game.

For me personally I don't mind a short games. In fact I prefer them because often times when a game is really long i'll begin to slowly lose interest and since I usually don't have time to play more than an hour or two a day it can get a bit tiresome playing story mode of the same for an extended amount of days or even weeks.

pretty much think of it like a good movie, you want to have a decent running time but you don't really want it to drag too much to the point where you just want to get to the end so you can go pee. If you enjoy every minute of a game then it's worth it even if it's a bit short, def better then grinding through a long mediocre game.