Do you feel you got your money's worth

when you pay $60 plus tax for a game and beat it within one or two days of purchase?

That's what GameFly is for........

I play on PC so the games are much cheaper. And get a lot of sales but I do definitely feel I got my moneys worth all the time.

Depends on the game. I'm becoming more and more of the mind that few/no games are worth $60. The last game that I honestly felt was worth $60 was The Orange Box, closely followed by Oblivion.

no games are to focused on multiplayer and when i dont care for it and the story is only 4-5 hours..... no i want my money back

(still will not get over brink i want my $63.50 back

Nah not usually. Unless I poured 20+ hours into it in those 2 days lol. Which I have done. But if your talking about short games in general. I feel pretty pissed off. silentnightmere

Lol, wish I had time to game like that now. But short games, I've learned my lesson the hard way. An average 20 - 30 hour campaign would take me twice as long due to time constraints, especially since I like to explore every nook and cranny. Games nowadays seem to be getting shorter and shorter campaign wise except for good rpg's. Even then, if I can get halfway through a game, let alone complete it on the same day I purchased or even a few days after purchase, I'd be pissed, especially if it was a pre-order.

[QUOTE="silentnightmere"]Nah not usually. Unless I poured 20+ hours into it in those 2 days lol. Which I have done. But if your talking about short games in general. I feel pretty pissed off. HipHopBeats

Lol, wish I had time to game like that now. But short games, I've learned my lesson the hard way. An average 20 - 30 hour campaign would take me twice as long due to time constraints, especially since I like to explore every nook and cranny. Games nowadays seem to be getting shorter and shorter campaign wise except for good rpg's. Even then, if I can get halfway through a game, let alone complete it on the same day I purchased or even a few days after purchase, I'd be pissed, especially if it was a pre-order.

I bet you games will be even shorter next gen

To me it's not the length that counts, it's how the content is packed.

For example 12 hours of cutscenes, 100's of hours of exploring caves, or 6 hours non-stop action.

Along with collectibles, online modes, and other bullschit.

To me most of this stuff is "filler."

They give you busywork collecting stupid schit.

Planet scanning.

Collecting feathers.

Horde Mode.

Alot of bullschit in lieu of content is what it is.

If the game is good you will play it over and over, Vanquish is a great example of this.

Also, tacking on a multiplayer or throwing a bunch of meaningless fetch quests at me isnt a good solution to this, although its what everyone is doing right now.

I almost never buy games at full priced, and I usually play them quite a bit if I like them. So I usually feel like I got my money's worth. The one game I paid full price for I put well over 60 hours into the game so I'd say it was worth it.

Usually, not really. But it depends, if it's a really good game, I can play it many times and have a lot of fun each time. I rarely buy games I expect to be short at full price though. But despite being short, I enjoyed Dead Rising enough to buy the collectors edition of the sequal right away. ($80) The movie it came with was highly disapointing, but the game and other content did not disapoint.

If i enjoyed the game then yes. Once i have the game i have it forever. I can replay it as many times as i could possibly want. Theres never ending replay value in 100% of games.

Gamers these days just have this weird mentality that somehow games are suppose to never end. All good things come to an end. You cant measure the time it takes you to complete the game, its about the quality of the experience.

Just as i buy a movie, or a book, they eventually come to an end, a very quick end. Games are the same. You cant hold them to a standard of they have to last forever, otherwise everybody should quit playing games. Games will always be short.

All games have varying times depending on their development focus. RPGS can be long be their focus is somewhere else, where as something like Uncharted can take months to develop a single set piece & level. Just because game isnt as long as another does not mean they should be ignored

Haven't payed that much for a game in years. Years. There are very few that I would consider forking over that much cash for. If I did spend that much on a 1-2 day experience, I would never buy another game from that company new again. Bargain bin used pile for me. That's the way things have been going lately sadly.

If i enjoyed the game then yes. Once i have the game i have it forever. I can replay it as many times as i could possibly want. Theres never ending replay value in 100% of games.

Gamers these days just have this weird mentality that somehow games are suppose to never end. All good things come to an end. You cant measure the time it takes you to complete the game, its about the quality of the experience.

Just as i buy a movie, or a book, they eventually come to an end, a very quick end. Games are the same. You cant hold them to a standard of they have to last forever, otherwise everybody should quit playing games. Games will always be short.

All games have varying times depending on their development focus. RPGS can be long be their focus is somewhere else, where as something like Uncharted can take months to develop a single set piece & level. Just because game isnt as long as another does not mean they should be ignored

brucecambell

I disagree with everything you said. Not all the games are the same and if we wanted never ending games, we'd still be playing Spy Hunter and Zaxxon. Games are a lot shorter and easier now than they were a few years ago. I paid $20 for Mass Effect 2 and got more value out of that than paying 3 times as much for Uncharted 3. Games are shorter because devs are realizing they can come half assed with the campaign and cash in on the multiplayer gravy train. Plenty of games have set standards like Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, etc.

How can you continously pay $60 - $100+ on a game, just to rush through it at lightning speed only to sell it back at gamestop so you can rinse and repeat? Guess it's like pokemon where some gamers gotta platnum them all and get that sense of accomplishment. Id rather watch a youtube playthrough before paying top dollar on a 10 - 15 hour game that offers no challenge or solid campaign.

What's even more laughable is how impulsive gamers will go from 'Shut up and take my money' to 'I regret I wasted money on the Collector's Edition' posts from gamers who just dive into the hype and pre-order games as soon as they see a teaser trailer with 40 second cutscenes only to be disappointed and complain later.

Not at all. Which is why I try to stay away from shooters.

If the game is great, yes.

[QUOTE="brucecambell"]

If i enjoyed the game then yes. Once i have the game i have it forever. I can replay it as many times as i could possibly want. Theres never ending replay value in 100% of games.

Gamers these days just have this weird mentality that somehow games are suppose to never end. All good things come to an end. You cant measure the time it takes you to complete the game, its about the quality of the experience.

Just as i buy a movie, or a book, they eventually come to an end, a very quick end. Games are the same. You cant hold them to a standard of they have to last forever, otherwise everybody should quit playing games. Games will always be short.

All games have varying times depending on their development focus. RPGS can be long be their focus is somewhere else, where as something like Uncharted can take months to develop a single set piece & level. Just because game isnt as long as another does not mean they should be ignored

HipHopBeats

I disagree with everything you said. Not all the games are the same and if we wanted never ending games, we'd still be playing Spy Hunter and Zaxxon. Games are a lot shorter and easier now than they were a few years ago. I paid $20 for Mass Effect 2 and got more value out of that than paying 3 times as much for Uncharted 3. Games are shorter because devs are realizing they can come half assed with the campaign and cash in on the multiplayer gravy train. Plenty of games have set standards like Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, etc.

How can you continously pay $60 - $100+ on a game, just to rush through it at lightning speed only to sell it back at gamestop so you can rinse and repeat? Guess it's like pokemon where some gamers gotta platnum them all and get that sense of accomplishment. Id rather watch a youtube playthrough before paying top dollar on a 10 - 15 hour game that offers no challenge or solid campaign.

What's even more laughable is how impulsive gamers will go from 'Shut up and take my money' to 'I regret I wasted money on the Collector's Edition' posts from gamers who just dive into the hype and pre-order games as soon as they see a teaser trailer with 40 second cutscenes only to be disappointed and complain later.

Actually games are longer than they used to be. If you remember playing games in the sidescrolling era then you remeber that those games cost the same ( some upwards of $90 ) & actually could be beat in 2 hrs.

People also want to claim games were longer but they never were. Certain games of course will be shorter than other games & that all depends on the game or the focus of the game. Games are time consuming & expensive, & very very hard to make an enjoyable experience for people.

There is a reason why movies are an hour & a half. For example How long could you really keep people interested in a shooter before it becomes boring? Devs put more work into making the experience a memorable one than a long one.

Devs always say this" Do you want a long boring game with filler.... or fo you want a shorter, better game witha completely amazing experience."

Do you think a michael bay action movie could keep you inertested for 30 hours? After a while it would become repetitive & mindless, the action would become all the same, how many unique action scenes could a writer possibly come up with? How big would that budget be & how long would it take to film it all? Could they even make back the billion dollars spent on this movie?

Do you see what i mean? Gamers hold gaming to a unatainable standard. Games have the same problems. Your simply expecting things out of gaming it cant possibly do.

I love Mass Effect but didnt you see any missions that resembled anything as amazing as those Uncharted plane & Boat set pieces? No. Theres a reason ME is 30 hrs & Uncharted is 12. They focus on different things.

By the time ND is finished with one level in UC, BW has already done 4 levels in ME. Because UCs mission design chooses to do things that are technical marvels. So we're back at square one. Do you want long boring game, or short amazing games?

Every game is different. Some will be short depending on their focus & others will be long depending on their focus. As i said before you cannot measure a games worth based on the time you get out of it.

If i buy a book today i can read it tonight & be done with it. Does that not mean i should never buy books? Maybe i should never buy movies because i can watch it one night? Games are no different so people have to stop holding them to this unatainable standard.

I remember when we bought games that lasted 2 hrs, now we have 8 + hour games that are far beyond anything we could have imagined & people are complaining? Ridiculous.

Actually games are longer than they used to be. If you remember playing games in the sidescrolling era then you remeber that those games cost the same ( some upwards of $90 ) & actually could be beat in 2 hrs.

People also want to claim games were longer but they never were. Certain games of course will be shorter than other games & that all depends on the game or the focus of the game. Games are time consuming & expensive, & very very hard to make an enjoyable experience for people.

There is a reason why movies are an hour & a half. For example How long could you really keep people interested in a shooter before it becomes boring? Devs put more work into making the experience a memorable one than a long one.

Devs always say this" Do you want a long boring game with filler.... or fo you want a shorter, better game witha completely amazing experience."

Do you think a michael bay action movie could keep you inertested for 30 hours? After a while it would become repetitive & mindless, the action would become all the same, how many unique action scenes could a writer possibly come up with? How big would that budget be & how long would it take to film it all? Could they even make back the billion dollars spent on this movie?

Do you see what i mean? Gamers hold gaming to a unatainable standard. Games have the same problems. Your simply expecting things out of gaming it cant possibly do.

I love Mass Effect but didnt you see any missions that resembled anything as amazing as those Uncharted plane & Boat set pieces? No. Theres a reason ME is 30 hrs & Uncharted is 12. They focus on different things.

By the time ND is finished with one level in UC, BW has already done 4 levels in ME. Because UCs mission design chooses to do things that are technical marvels. So we're back at square one. Do you want long boring game, or short amazing games?

Every game is different. Some will be short depending on their focus & others will be long depending on their focus. As i said before you cannot measure a games worth based on the time you get out of it.

If i buy a book today i can read it tonight & be done with it. Does that not mean i should never buy books? Maybe i should never buy movies because i can watch it one night? Games are no different so people have to stop holding them to this unatainable standard.

I remember when we bought games that lasted 2 hrs, now we have 8 + hour games that are far beyond anything we could have imagined & people are complaining? Ridiculous.

brucecambell

Those side scrolling games at least offered a challenge. And not many people were buying games for $90, at least where I grew up. You would go to a friend's house who's parents had loot and play them there. Ghosts And Goblins, Ninja Gaiden, Contra, Rygar, etc. You had to master them completely before being able to do speed runs like you see on youtube. Speed runs of games like Mario 64, Banjoe Kazooie etc, were impressive because you had to take time and learn the game inside out. Most games out now, even an average gamer can blow through them with ease.

Those comparisons you keep making to movies and books make no sense. Why would any Michael Bay movie be 30 hours long? I own DVD's of shows like Dexter, 24, The Wire which each season is the length of 3 - 5 flicks, yet each episode has quality content that makes me want to watch the next one. Books like The Art Of War or Misery engages me to read more and more since I enjoy what I am reading. Most games campaign wise, regardless of length offer little replay value or give any real sense of accomplishment.

"Do I want a long, boring game or short, amazing games?" Neither. I want well thought out campaigns that offer both challenge and creativity without sacrificing one for the other while using multiplayer as a cop out for replay value. Uncharted 1 and Uncharted 2 were amazing experiences with great replay value in the single player and both had challenging difficulties. Games like Uncharted 3 are short, disappointing, and way too easy with more focus on multiplayer, and no replay value in single player. Mass Effect games also offer a solid campaign with great replay value and have no need for multiplayer.

Bottom line, games have become way too easy, even on Hard difficulty to be worth $60 regardless of length. Books and movies tend to offer more for your dollar versus paying $60 - $100+ for a game with no real challenge, that lasts 5 - 10 hours and then paying extra for DLC.

Bottom line, games have become way too easy, even on Hard difficulty to be worth $60 regardless of length. Books and movies tend to offer more for your dollar versus paying $60 - $100+ for a game with no real challenge, that lasts 5 - 10 hours and then paying extra for DLC.

HipHopBeats

No they dont. Movies & Books are more higher priced than games if you count amount of hrs a movie gives you for each dollar. Movies cost anywhere from 20 -30$ brand new. Thats 1 hr & 30 minutes for say $20. So by my count a movie that was 4 & a half hours long would be $60 right?

So if a game is 5 hrs long & priced at $60 then that is no more expensive than a movie right? Add in the fact that most games are 8 hours or more, add in the fact that games are interactive ( which add more value ) & really you could say Games are a steal. They're dirt cheap when compared to movies.

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

Bottom line, games have become way too easy, even on Hard difficulty to be worth $60 regardless of length. Books and movies tend to offer more for your dollar versus paying $60 - $100+ for a game with no real challenge, that lasts 5 - 10 hours and then paying extra for DLC.

brucecambell

No they dont. Movies & Books are more higher priced than games if you count amount of hrs a movie gives you for each dollar. Movies cost anywhere from 20 -30$ brand new. Thats 1 hr & 30 minutes for say $20. So by my count a movie that was 4 & a half hours long would be $60 right?

So if a game is 5 hrs long & priced at $60 then that is no more expensive than a movie right? Add in the fact that most games are 8 hours or more, add in the fact that games are interactive ( which add more value ) & really you could say Games are a steal. They're dirt cheap when compared to movies.

We just see it from different angles. You're looking at it as hour per dollar and I'm looking at it as overall amount spent vs. return payoff. I agree movies are a ripoff, $15 for tickets, $20 - $30 for blu ray/dvd. Only difference is most games cost $60 whether they are 5 or 50 hours long.

Why would I pay $60 for a quality 5 hour game when I can pay $60 for a quality 30 hour game and get way more out of it? By that logic, you'd be better off buying TV show dvd's and pay damn near the same price vs paying for one movie. Or waiting for a price drop on a $60 game, buy it for $20 or $30 and not feel burnt.

Also, games are more promising because you can interact with them vs a movie where you can watch a few times, maybe get something new out of it that you missed before and that's about it. That's why it's a bigger disappointment to me paying $60 for a game expecting replay value and quality entertainment vs $20 for a movie that turns out to be crap. Plus you can catch most flicks on cable or online for free.

If you can be satisfied paying $60 for a game you can beat the same day you purchased it, more power to you. When I spend $60 plus tax, I'm expecting something that will last a long time while still retaining good quality.

We just see it from different angles. You're looking at it as hour per dollar and I'm looking at it as overall amount spent vs. return payoff. I agree movies are a ripoff, $15 for tickets, $20 - $30 for blu ray/dvd. Only difference is most games cost $60 whether they are 5 or 50 hours long.

Why would I pay $60 for a quality 5 hour game when I can pay $60 for a quality 30 hour game and get way more out of it? By that logic, you'd be better off buying TV show dvd's and pay damn near the same price vs paying for one movie. Or waiting for a price drop on a $60 game, buy it for $20 or $30 and not feel burnt.

Also, games are more promising because you can interact with them vs a movie where you can watch a few times, maybe get something new out of it that you missed before and that's about it. That's why it's a bigger disappointment to me paying $60 for a game expecting replay value and quality entertainment vs $20 for a movie that turns out to be crap. Plus you can catch most flicks on cable or online for free.

If you can be satisfied paying $60 for a game you can beat the same day you purchased it, more power to you. When I spend $60 plus tax, I'm expecting something that will last a long time while still retaining good quality.

HipHopBeats

Im just looking for a good quality experience. I dont measure the time i get in one play through. When i buy a movie or book there is nothing to do after its done. You put it on your shelf until the day you feel like playing it again. I apply the same mentality to games.

There is no game, no matter what is tries to do that will have me consistently coming back to it day after day. Most games feature mindless filler as replay value but i dont need that mindless filler as i wouldnt go back to the game for filler, i would go back purely because i feel like playing it again.

As i said before some games will be shorter & some longer. I just dont feel like you should be so quick to write off a game like that based on how long the campaign lasts. You had mentioned MGS before, which is widely regarded as great but yet MGS4 is like a 5 hour game, something i would fly through.

Some games may be short but that doesnt mean they are any less worth it, or that they had any less work put into them. I do agree with some of these games copping out with short campaigns & using MP as an excuse as to why the game has replay value, or is worth the price ( * cough * Cod ). Not all short games are like that though.

Some of my favorite experiences & games this gen were very short. The biggest crime a game can commit in my eyes would be dumbing down the experience. I dont mind things being easier as long as there is difficulty options but i think games should be adding complexity to the game rather than simplifying. Right there that adds more variety & would give you further reason to go back & play again.

Things like a mission design editor, or map editor ( Infamous 2, Portal 2, Far Cry, Modnation, LBP, Trials HD 2, Skate ) all of these have ways of creating either a mission or map. That would be the best thing to implement in games in my eyes. There would be your replay value.... but then Call Of Duy couldnt rape peoples wallets for $60 map packs :cry:

It really depends, alot of people will judge value for money on the games length, but also quality. For example, Mafia II, Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3 were only 12-15 hours but the gameplay was flawless, Mass Effect 2 on the other hand was 20-30 hours but the gameplay was lackluster. Simply put, would you rather 30 hours of gameplay that feels like a chore (Mass Effect 2) or 12-15 hours of flawless gameplay (Mafia II, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3)?

Length is still a majour contributor to a games overall value, Metal Gear Solid 4 had only 4 hours of gameplay [FOUR HOURS!!!!!] and even that gameplay was overshadowed by poor presentation.

Also Skryim, many people would consider this game to give you more than your money's worth, I consider it to be a rip off because the game becomes unplayable after 20 or so hours and you don't get the full game for your money.

I play on PC so the games are much cheaper.

seanmcloughlin

Much cheaper? Its a $10 diference most of the times, do you consider that "much" cheaper? Oh, and console games usually have plenty of sales too. Recently I gave $5 for a brand new copy of Fallout 3 (PS3). Never understood why PC gamers always brag about cheaper games when the diference isnt that much really, especially for me that always wait for a price cut in all games.

That's why I buy used games.

First, how do you beat a full game within one or two days of purchasing it?

How do you beat a game within one or two days - is my real question. Let's focus on that before we discuss price. We are talking about full games, right? Not the smaller indie downloadable games. Something like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed: Revelations?I would consider that a marvel if I was able to beat those games within one/two days. I can play heavily through some games but not in two days. A week maybe.

If life, work and sleep didn't get in the way perhaps I could, but then that brings us to the next point.

Price.

I don't know how some of you are paying $60 a game. Now, I understand those that reserve Limited/Collector's editions of games. That's in the $89 - $129 range though. I fall into that category from time to time. However, I have not paid $60 for a standard release title in over 4 years. It's not necessary. The prices drops within 60 days.

It's difficult to state how much value I can give a game based on the total time spent because I don't find myself investing in the full retail price of a standard release game.

Im just looking for a good quality experience. I dont measure the time i get in one play through. When i buy a movie or book there is nothing to do after its done. You put it on your shelf until the day you feel like playing it again. I apply the same mentality to games.

There is no game, no matter what is tries to do that will have me consistently coming back to it day after day. Most games feature mindless filler as replay value but i dont need that mindless filler as i wouldnt go back to the game for filler, i would go back purely because i feel like playing it again.

As i said before some games will be shorter & some longer. I just dont feel like you should be so quick to write off a game like that based on how long the campaign lasts. You had mentioned MGS before, which is widely regarded as great but yet MGS4 is like a 5 hour game, something i would fly through.

Some games may be short but that doesnt mean they are any less worth it, or that they had any less work put into them. I do agree with some of these games copping out with short campaigns & using MP as an excuse as to why the game has replay value, or is worth the price ( * cough * Cod ). Not all short games are like that though.

Some of my favorite experiences & games this gen were very short. The biggest crime a game can commit in my eyes would be dumbing down the experience. I dont mind things being easier as long as there is difficulty options but i think games should be adding complexity to the game rather than simplifying. Right there that adds more variety & would give you further reason to go back & play again.

Things like a mission design editor, or map editor ( Infamous 2, Portal 2, Far Cry, Modnation, LBP, Trials HD 2, Skate ) all of these have ways of creating either a mission or map. That would be the best thing to implement in games in my eyes. There would be your replay value.... but then Call Of Duy couldnt rape peoples wallets for $60 map packs :cry:

brucecambell

It's not just time but a combination of time, difficulty, and most importantly quality. Who would play the same game time after time? A good game is a game you can complete, put away and feel an urge to revist it at a later date. A lot of games out now make good renters or better yet, something to watch on youtube since I don't watch tv really, lol.

A good example of two short games with oppiste effects on me is Uncharted 2 vs Uncharted 3. Some will argue Uncharted 3 is better for whatever reason, but I felt a stronger sense of accomplishment completing Uncharted 2 more than Uncharted 3.

Uncharted 2 blew me away when I 1st played it, with it's set pieces, challenge and wondering what's going to happen next. Sure the story was a Hollywood, Indiana Jones ripoff but entertaining and it drew me in to actually want to finish it as the gameplay wasn't easy 1st time around.

When I 1st played Uncharted 3, I couldn't believe the 1st half of the game was mostly platforming and puzzles. When thngs finally started to pick up during the 2nd half, the game ended leaving me feeling like I payed $60 for an expansion pack and multiplayer vs an actual sequel since I got more fun out of co-op than the campaign. Not to mention those annoying cutscenes and the whole 'interactive movie' experience which takes away from the intensity imo.

For me, buying games brand new at price drops or bargain bin deals has been the best route. When I see walkthroughs of games posted the same day of launch, it blows my mind how people will pre-order and pay $60 or twice as much for a Collector's Edition, burn through games in a few hours and not feel like they wasted money.

What devs ned to do is start mixing it up more and actually test these games on gamers before releasing. Take Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2. One of the best missions in the game imo because it offered variety and had a nice payoff at the end. Just imagine if whatever game took that route the whole game. Smarter enemy AI that adjusts to spam moves and players hiding far away while shooting projectiles and have enemies that actually work together to take you down or react to your playstyle so you actually have to strategize instead of just standing there letting you hack and slash away like what I saw in that new Star Wars Republic crap.

First, how do you beat a full game within one or two days of purchasing it?

How do you beat a game within one or two days - is my real question. Let's focus on that before we discuss price. We are talking about full games, right? Not the smaller indie downloadable games. Something like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed: Revelations?I would consider that a marvel if I was able to beat those games within one/two days. I can play heavily through some games but not in two days. A week maybe.

If life, work and sleep didn't get in the way perhaps I could, but then that brings us to the next point.

juradai

Lol trust me, for every new game that comes out, someone will have a complete or damn near complete walkthrough of it posted somewhere online. Some people get games a day or two before launch and will spend two 5-6 hour sessions completing the game.

If you're still not convinced, check some Skyrim walkthroughs for example and look at the post date. Guaranteed some of them were posted somewhere around Nov. 11, 2011, Skyrim's release date.

People who got an early copy of Max Payne 3 already beat it before launch. There were people posting in game forums complaining about Mass Effect 3 endings the same night it launched, March 6 ealier this year.

I play other games besides Call of Duty. But I don't play Call of Duty.

[QUOTE="juradai"]

First, how do you beat a full game within one or two days of purchasing it?

How do you beat a game within one or two days - is my real question. Let's focus on that before we discuss price. We are talking about full games, right? Not the smaller indie downloadable games. Something like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed: Revelations?I would consider that a marvel if I was able to beat those games within one/two days. I can play heavily through some games but not in two days. A week maybe.

If life, work and sleep didn't get in the way perhaps I could, but then that brings us to the next point.

HipHopBeats

Lol trust me, for every new game that comes out, someone will have a complete or damn near complete walkthrough of it posted somewhere online. Some people get games a day or two before launch and will spend two 5-6 hour sessions completing the game.

If you're still not convinced, check some Skyrim walkthroughs for example and look at the post date. Guaranteed some of them were posted somewhere around Nov. 11, 2011, Skyrim's release date.

People who got an early copy of Max Payne 3 already beat it before launch. There were people posting in game forums complaining about Mass Effect 3 endings the same night it launched, March 6 ealier this year.

I believe you. I am fully aware of those that receive copies early and run through the game as fast as possible. My question was directed more to those of this forum actually. The average Joe of sorts.

Well, it depends on the game. If i personally liked it, despite the fact it was a short one (The Darkness for example) i thouroughly believe i have gotten my money's worth. Because i have replayed those types of games many times.

when you pay $60 plus tax for a game and beat it within one or two days of purchase?

HipHopBeats

Absolutely, if it's a quality experience that brought a smile to my face during that time. This generations biggest fallacy is that length = quality = value. The impatient, insta-gratification inclined Call Of Douchey gaming culture needs to check themselves before they wreck themselves. These mind-sets are why we see crappy multiplayer modes tacked on to quality single player games.

A good example of two short games with oppiste effects on me is Uncharted 2 vs Uncharted 3. Some will argue Uncharted 3 is better for whatever reason, but I felt a stronger sense of accomplishment completing Uncharted 2 more than Uncharted 3.

Uncharted 2 blew me away when I 1st played it, with it's set pieces, challenge and wondering what's going to happen next. Sure the story was a Hollywood, Indiana Jones ripoff but entertaining and it drew me in to actually want to finish it as the gameplay wasn't easy 1st time around.

When I 1st played Uncharted 3, I couldn't believe the 1st half of the game was mostly platforming and puzzles. When thngs finally started to pick up during the 2nd half, the game ended leaving me feeling like I payed $60 for an expansion pack and multiplayer vs an actual sequel since I got more fun out of co-op than the campaign. Not to mention those annoying cutscenes and the whole 'interactive movie' experience which takes away from the intensity imo.

HipHopBeats

Did you play through Uncharted 3 more than once? The 1st time i played it i was dissapointed & then went on to think Uncharted 2 was better. I played it through a second time just weeks later & i enjoyed it a 100 times more. I think i just needed to get over the initial hype, cuz no matter what the game did it was going to dissapoint me at 1st.

Im tellin you right now if you want to enjoy that game its a much better experience the 2nd time around. The last half of Uncharted3 is some of the best gaming i've ever experience. I just finished playing Uncharted 2 again last week & i can say without a doubt Uncharted 3 is a completely better game. You should give it another shot. It may surprise you.

I love the attention to detail in UC btw. Apparently the sand effects in UC3 took a lot of work & is the best representation of sand we've ever seen in a game. Most games just use some sloppy texture as a poor excuse for sand but in the end it looks nothing like sand & never feels, or flows like real sand. There's a lot impressive stuff in those games people just dont pay attention to.

No way altough This is why I almost never buy a game at full retial price of $50/$60 not worth the asking price. I just wait for the price to drop/go on sale to what I consider decent price for how much hours of entertainment the game can offer me. Used to be I'd consider an hour of gameplay per dollar or greater as a good buy/great but I'm more lenient now.

Yeah, I generally feel that I got my money's worth if the game is really good.