The Atlantic wants to rejigger every major sport. Should we do the same for videogames?

Sports are fast-paced and exciting, except when they’re not, so says The Atlantic in this piece suggesting how to fix things.

Take football, for instance:

The thing about watching football is that you don’t actually watch much football. A Wall Street Journal study found that, on average, the ball is in play for just 11 minutes each game.

And here’s the articles suggestion on how to fix basketball:

The NBA could re-weight the game by changing the way it calculates league standings. Teams should get three points for winning a game, and one point for winning a quarter. If Team A wins all four quarters, it’ll shoot up in the rankings with seven points. If Team B wins three quarters and chokes in the fourth, it’ll still get three points.

Maybe videogames, too, are ill-designed. As Jamin once pointed out, games are too damn long. (A size doesn’t matter joke would be too easy.) With games like Metal Gear Solid 5 touting an open-world 100 times larger than its prologue, they don’t seem to be getting any smaller. I'm sure I'll play it, and I'm sure I'll never finish it as well. There are workarounds like quick-travel, which let us leap from one side of the map to another in the blink of an eye, but at the same time that can ruin a game. Should games cut to the point, getting the repetitive stuff out of the way? Or is mastering a skill set by repeating actions over a long duration the reason we play? What do you think?