Influential film critic Roger Ebert once posited that “no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.” Granted, there are exceptions to this (we have all seen great flicks that could have done with a bit of trimming), but it’s generally a pretty reliable maxim. And whilst Ebert was talking specifically about films there, there’s no reason that the same rule can’t be applied to other mediums as well.

Whether you’re reading a book, binge-watching a TV show, or settling in for a night of theatre, it doesn’t really matter how long something takes to tell its story, so long as it does it in a complete and satisfying way. Indeed, the duration is not the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to judging the merits of a piece of art.

The question of value-for-money is a thornier issue in the video game industry however, where there is an expectation that costly products justify their high asking price. For context, the average cinema chain in America supposedly charges $9.11 for a single ticket. Meanwhile, an album on iTunes goes for $9.99 by default, a paperback novel will lighten your wallet by around $10, and Netflix provides an endless stream of programming for just $12.99 a month.

These outgoings are relatively cheap when you consider how much cash gamers are forced to sink into their respective hobby nowadays. After all, most contemporary titles ask for $60 upfront simply to cover the base experience, a fee which can then be inflated further by the likes of microtransactions, online subscriptions, downloadable add-ons, and special editions, not to mention the hardware requirements on top of all that.

Given all the expenditure that is associated with gaming, it makes sense for consumers to demand a little more bang-for-their-buck. Plus, you’ve got to bear in mind that not everyone can afford to buy the full slate of AAA releases that come out annually. On the contrary, many of us have no choice but to make the most of what we’ve already got and must squeeze the very last droplets of enjoyment from our latest purchases. After all, they might need to sustain us for a few months, if not the rest of the year!

The point is, I am wholly sympathetic to anyone who feels like they have been ripped off after spending their hard-earned dough on an insubstantial experience. It sucks and you have every right to complain about it. But where I think the topic gets a little murkier, is when you try to pin down the precise cut-off for something being ‘’too short’’. Because unlike with a movie or an episode of a TV show, videogames do not have predetermined runtimes. Rather, their length is wholly contingent on the rate at which you work through them and the point at which you decide they are finally done.

Resident Evil 3-Hours-of-Gameplay

This ever-contentious issue has reared its ugly head once again with the release of the highly anticipated Resident Evil 3, a glossy remake that has been confronted with a mixed reception, to say the least. The game has come under fire for its surprisingly linear design and for its reliance on scripted encounters that offer up little in the way of player agency. Yet the biggest source of debate has surely been its paltry length, which has been estimated at anywhere between 7 and 3 hours, depending on who you ask.

Honestly, those lower valuations seem a tad extreme for your initial playthrough. Unless you’re blitzing through the campaign at an utterly breakneck pace – barely stopping to drink in the atmosphere, read the documents, or explore any of the environments – then you probably need to set aside a full evening for this one. Why you would choose to deliberately rush through all that juicy content is beyond me, but at the same time, I admit that you can feasibly stretch out the duration of anything if you try hard enough (as the ardent defenders of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes proved) so that’s not much of a defense.

For the sake of argument then, let’s meet in the middle and say that it takes about 5 hours to reach the grading-screen of Resident Evil 3. Maybe 2 hours for the intro, an hour and a half for the middle chunk (which takes you through the sewer, the police station, and the construction site), another 60 minutes for the hospital, and then the remainder, which is mostly spent in an underground lab. Based on my playthrough, that seems like a fair assessment.

Now, there are no two ways about it, that is still quite brief for a campaign. True, the 1999 version of RE:3 wasn’t exactly Breath of the Wild either, but it was a by-product of a different era, wherein games would cost $40 at most and were hampered by various technical limitations that restricted their longevity. As such, using the PSone outing as a benchmark for the remake is a false equivalency, especially since the new game is meant to build upon those foundations, rather than just narrowly scrape past them.

The Curious Case of the Missing Grave Digger

Speaking of which, you’d assume that a next-gen reimagining would have the ambition to expand upon gaps in its source material, but the latest take on RE:3 confusingly scales back in certain respects. Many pundits have expressed their disappointment at how entire areas (the interior of the clocktower), puzzles (the infamous water sample conundrum) and bosses (the Grave Digger) didn’t return for the supposed update. Worse still, the ‘’Live Selection’’ mechanic – which had you make split-second decisions that would affect the gameplay and narrative – is nowhere to be seen, robbing the title of much of its replayability.

It’s weird that Capcom consciously omitted some of these elements, particularly when you remember that the material they’re adapting was itself criticized for being too slight back in the day. Indeed, whilst it may be regarded as a bonafide classic now, at the time Nemesis was largely written-off as a glorified expansion pack, due to the suspiciously quick turnaround (it released just one year apart from its predecessor. Sound familiar?), the pitiful lack of new content, and the fact that significant portions of the threequel took place in recycled locations from Resident Evil 2.

So, if the developers were already fighting an uphill battle in trying to put more meat on RE:3’s bones, why wouldn’t they at least take the gifts that were given to them? The Grave Digger is a very strange thing to remove, given that it was essentially the only boss encounter in the original that wasn’t some kind of mutation of the Nemesis. It was a much-needed palate cleanser and a memorable skirmish to boot, with you taking on a colossal worm that tunneled underground like one of the Graboids from Tremors. It could have easily served as one of the highlights for this remake, but instead, it was left on the cutting room floor for no apparent reason.

Likewise, it’s odd that they didn’t dust off the live selection mechanic. Although it never received too much scrutiny for it, last year’s RE:2 upgrade was also on the shorter side (taking about 6 hours to polish off) but it made up for that conciseness by retaining the dual protagonist system from the PSone version, which gave you the opportunity to explore the whole thing again from a totally fresh perspective. Because of this, your second run still had plenty of surprises in store, including remixed enemy placements, altered puzzle solutions, different weapon loadouts, separate paths; and even a replacement for the final boss.

RE:3 has no equivalent to this B scenario, with the closest approximation being the higher difficulty settings that change-up a few elements here and there. Live selection would have easily filled this void, keeping you on your toes in subsequent playthroughs, and there’s no telling how far they could have evolved the idea with the benefit of modern technology. Alas, like so many other things from the original, it is conspicuously absent here.

So, taking into account all the missing features, and the fact that you can inadvertently pull-off a speed-run without even meaning to, it is no surprise that history has ended up repeating itself. Just like before, RE:3 has been labeled as incomplete and rushed, with some critics once again insinuating that it feels less like a full package, and more like a hastily cobbled together piece of DLC.

Destructible Dolls and Unlimited Rocket Launchers

Yet I’d contend that a game’s worth extends far beyond a crass tally of the minutes and seconds that it takes to wrap up. If you’re eager to uninstall Resident Evil 3 after watching the credits roll, then that’s absolutely fine, but I’ve got unfinished business in Raccoon City and am looking forward to spending many, many more hours wandering its blood-soaked streets.

For a start, there are all the usual collectibles that are ingeniously hidden around the world – such as the Charlie dolls, the useful weapon attachments, and the ammo pouches – all of which serve as an incentive to give the game another whirl. Layered on top of that stuff, you’ve also got the addition of a shop, which unlocks after you finish the story for the first time.

With this new menu item, you have the option to earn points by completing fun little challenges, like recording a certain amount of kills with a specific weapon, achieving a target grade, or beating the game without ever opening an item box. They’re basically the same as the standard achievements that you would find in any other title, but the difference here is that you’re actually motivated to do them, because you’ll get sweet rewards in exchange for your efforts.

Retro cosmetics, special pieces of kit that grant you premature access to different areas, and high-tech weaponry (like a fire knife!) are all at your fingertips if you choose to carry on past your initial playthrough. Of course, the store provides extra utility by letting you equip yourself with an overpowered arsenal for tackling the more formidable difficulty modes. On that basis alone, there’s almost unlimited mileage that you can derive from this one campaign.

Replayability and Value for Money

Frankly, I’ve never understood this obsession with ‘’replay value’’. When you come back to a favorite novel, listen to an album for the second time, or stick on a classic movie – you might discover new layers or a deeper appreciation for what was there in the first place – but you wouldn’t expect new content to suddenly materialize. Yet with video games, we seem to think that there’s no inherent value in returning to something unless it boasts alternative endings, a vast open-world, or extra modes that will make it fundamentally different from the last time.

Don’t get me wrong, those are nice little additions when they are included, but they’re not essential. A well-crafted single-player campaign like The Last of Us or Doom is more than capable of holding its own without those gimmicks, provided that its quality is worth cherishing. In the case of RE:3, I’m looking forward to starting over again, not for anything new, but because I want to relive all the standout sequences that already gripped me. Being chased around a labyrinthine substation by a hive of overgrown bugs, tiptoeing the corridors of a desolate hospital in search of the right key, and panickily emptying ammo into those creepy pale head zombies: these are all terrific moments that won’t be diminished simply because I’ve experienced them before.

Taking refuge in the downtown supermarket, only to see Nemesis’ intimidating frame camping outside the window, his gaze permanently fixed on my position no matter where I moved, captivated me in a way that hours of nebulous busywork in Assassin’s Creed or Destiny never could. I’d take 30 minutes of tight intensity any day over a map littered with monotonous fetch quests, scalable radio towers, and other such filler.

Finally, we have to weigh Resident Evil: Resistance into the equation as well. This wannabe Esport was originally pitched as a standalone product, before eventually being repackaged as an inexorable component of RE:3. Honestly, it doesn’t require much detective work to get to the bottom of why it was downgraded from being its own separate release into part of a bundle. As an asymmetrical multiplayer game, it is horrendously balanced and the matchmaking is inexcusably bad. Nevertheless, I’d be lying if I said I haven’t found it to be quite addicting in spite of its jankiness, having sunk a dozen or so hours into it. Although I’m admittedly not too sure how much of that was spent waiting in lobbies.

Irrespective of whether or not you found it to be as enjoyable as I did (griefing other players as Mr. X is a sadistic delight), you can’t deny that it adds a modicum of value to the overall purchase. After all, Call of Duty and Battlefield have historically been given a free pass for the meager longevity of their campaigns, based solely on the presumption that people would be hooked in by the multiplayer instead. That same logic ought to apply here because Resistance can be truly exhilarating when the stars align, and you’ve got a strong team.

To sum up, Resident Evil 3 (2020) is unquestionably short. However, the game’s fleetingness does not correlate with it having limited worth, as every second of playtime here is invigorating and purposeful. Delivering memorable set-pieces, characterful environments and segments that actually elicit an emotional response (in this case, usually fear or disgust), this is how videogames stick with us. Not by generating an arbitrary content glut for content’s sake.

I’ve abandoned titles that ostensibly have way more to offer than RE:3 but just couldn’t hold my interest, but Capcom’s latest foray into survival horror compels me to keep coming back for more, because there’s no boring flab holding it back. And if we are talking about sheer value for money, then surely that is the most important consideration.