Game length is overrated

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Celtic_34
Celtic_34

1903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Celtic_34
Member since 2011 • 1903 Posts

I've started to play more indie games because they are more enjoyable. Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive. It doesn't really make for a better game. I used to like games that were free and better. Growing up it was that way. I still think indie games are somewhat overpriced but the enjoyment is there at least. Too many games imo are about what review scores they get, graphic kings and how long and epic they are. This started last gen. It wasn't that way before.

Since i stopped reading the hype and reviews and just started to buy games that I think i'd like i'm enjoying htem more. Last gen there weren't many games like this though. It seems like the indie titles on ps4 are starting to bring that back a bit though.

Avatar image for Jebus213
Jebus213

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Jebus213
Member since 2010 • 10056 Posts
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Avatar image for gameofthering
gameofthering

11286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By gameofthering
Member since 2004 • 11286 Posts

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178807 Posts

So you like casual gaming. Big deal.

Avatar image for SolidGame_basic
SolidGame_basic

44938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By SolidGame_basic
Member since 2003 • 44938 Posts

that's what she said

Avatar image for Jebus213
Jebus213

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Jebus213
Member since 2010 • 10056 Posts

>videogames nowadays

>extremely long

you fucking wot m8

Avatar image for Celtic_34
Celtic_34

1903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Celtic_34
Member since 2011 • 1903 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

So you like casual gaming. Big deal.

It has nothing to do with being casual. Most games are so dumbed down these days i don't even think people know what casual gaming is. I'd rather a short oldschool in depth game than a long one where i'm doing the same mindless stuff over and over again.

Avatar image for freedomfreak
freedomfreak

52420

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 freedomfreak
Member since 2004 • 52420 Posts

Eh, there are lengthy games that are (mostly) good throughout. And there are short ones that can be a blast, too. Vice versa, and all that.

I don't care much about game length myself.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178807

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178807 Posts

@Celtic_34 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

So you like casual gaming. Big deal.

It has nothing to do with being casual. Most games are so dumbed down these days i don't even think people know what casual gaming is. I'd rather a short oldschool in depth game than a long one where i'm doing the same mindless stuff over and over again.

You generalize way too much to justify your casual gaming.

Avatar image for ShepardCommandr
ShepardCommandr

4939

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#11 ShepardCommandr
Member since 2013 • 4939 Posts

i am not paying $60 for a 5 hour game and indies can suck my nuts

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

i have good news for you then! gimme $60 and i'll make you a game you can finish in 10 seconds! perfect for your casual, busy pleasures!

Avatar image for bforrester420
bforrester420

3480

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#13 bforrester420
Member since 2014 • 3480 Posts

It depends on the price. If a game is cheap and replayable, I don't mind if it's short. However, I got more of my money's worth last gen out of the longest games (Elder Scrolls, GTA, Fallout, etc). I've gotten more value from Civilization IV than any game ever.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 Bread_or_Decide
Member since 2007 • 29761 Posts

This is why I have yet to play any Assassin's Creed game and why GTAV inevitably got on my nerves.

Avatar image for Heil68
Heil68

60679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#15 Heil68
Member since 2004 • 60679 Posts

If the game is good it doesn't matter to me.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By Bread_or_Decide
Member since 2007 • 29761 Posts

@ShepardCommandr said:

i am not paying $60 for a 5 hour game and indies can suck my nuts

You know what company never has this problem but gets all sorts of crap on this site?

NINTENDO. Every game they make is worth the asking price. If you want length, there's bonuses, if you want challenge there's always the end game which always gets harder in most of their titles.

Avatar image for xboxdone74
XboxDone74

2116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#17  Edited By XboxDone74
Member since 2013 • 2116 Posts

I would agree. length of a game for me has never factored into my enjoyment. both journey and vanquish have extremely short campaigns, and they are two of my favorite games from last generation.

The whole length/price argument is not a factor for me, since I am successful, I have no qualms paying $60.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

Avatar image for stationplay_4
stationplay_4

444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#20  Edited By stationplay_4
Member since 2014 • 444 Posts

@Jebus213: exactly what I was thinking

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

45986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 45986 Posts

@gameofthering said:

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

I'd rather have a long amazing game than a short amazing game

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
speedfreak48t5p

14411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 62

User Lists: 0

#22 speedfreak48t5p
Member since 2009 • 14411 Posts

@xboxdone74 said:

I would agree. length of a game for me has never factored into my enjoyment. both journey and vanquish have extremely short campaigns, and they are two of my favorite games from last generation.

The whole length/price argument is not a factor for me, since I am successful, I have no qualms paying $60.

I thought you were banned.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

Avatar image for xboxdone74
XboxDone74

2116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#24  Edited By XboxDone74
Member since 2013 • 2116 Posts

@speedfreak48t5p: What has your Caesar done that would warrant a ban?

I sometimes have other business to attend to, citizen.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

Avatar image for deactivated-5acbb9993d0bd
deactivated-5acbb9993d0bd

12449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By deactivated-5acbb9993d0bd
Member since 2012 • 12449 Posts

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

no... he really isn't missing the point... the OP is.

I would be hard pressed to find even a fraction of the gamer population that considers a game like JOURNEY to be GOTY... and I'm betting simply on its lenght... a nice throw away experience, dwarfed by much bigger experiences.

Indie games are great, but the whole point makes no sense, as there are pleanty of repetitive crap and annoying indie games ect as well.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

Welcome to The World of Padding and Crappy Filler Content !

Its the "Value for Money" type of thinking, I suppose its easier to value a game by length instead of by how much fun you had with it.....

Avatar image for musicalmac
musicalmac

25098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 1

#28 musicalmac  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 25098 Posts

Within reason I would agree. Games like the new MGS are probably too short, though...

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

@ groowagon

Uncharted was fun at 1st.... Then it dragged on and on and it made me sick.... It wouldve been a much better game if it was Shorter.

Samething in The Last Of Us ! Too Long they overstayed their welcome.

Avatar image for santoron
santoron

8584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By santoron
Member since 2006 • 8584 Posts

It's just a factor, and longer doesn't mean better. Still, I'm not paying full retail for a game I'll be done with in a couple sittings, so short games need to be priced appropriately. For example, Child of Light was an easy buy at $15.

Avatar image for bobbetybob
bobbetybob

19370

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#31 bobbetybob
Member since 2005 • 19370 Posts

Blame the idiots that complain when a game is "only" 15 hours long. Length and pacing, like lots of other areas, are things that need balance, even the best games usually screw it up at some point with an overly long section or a boss fight that drags on.

Obviously value plays a part too, even if you're game has a perfect 4 hour campaign $60 doesn't seem justified. That's the real problem with most retail games, they all get the same pricing whereas indie games cover a gamut of prices depending on their content (usually).

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

You are answering the question, yourself. The concern is pushing length for the sake of pushing length.

Avatar image for deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
deactivated-5bda06edf37ee

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#33  Edited By deactivated-5bda06edf37ee
Member since 2010 • 4675 Posts

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

You are answering the question, yourself. The concern is pushing length for the sake of pushing length.

tell me an example of such game? wich game would be better if it was shorter? if you make a bad game longer, then yes, shit becomes a big shit, but in that case the problem is already in the bad quality of the game itself, rather than it's lenght.

Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
blue_hazy_basic

30854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 blue_hazy_basic  Moderator
Member since 2002 • 30854 Posts

Depends on the game and genre. I think some linear games and some RPG's are very guilty of padding (back and forth fetch missions are the absolute worst), but most RPG's I want to be long, I love open ended strategy games and sims, where I can dump a few 100 hrs in them. Alternatively games like FTL brilliantly combine a short play through with addictive gameplay.

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
ristactionjakso

6118

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 0

#35 ristactionjakso
Member since 2011 • 6118 Posts

Ya some of the best games are on the shorter side (Bastion, Guacamelee), but there are many great games on the longer side too. It's all based on gamer preference.

Avatar image for gameofthering
gameofthering

11286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By gameofthering
Member since 2004 • 11286 Posts

@R4gn4r0k said:

@gameofthering said:

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

I'd rather have a long amazing game than a short amazing game

I'd also wouldn't mind that but I've only ever had one game like that, Resident Evil 4.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
deactivated-57ad0e5285d73

21398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
Member since 2009 • 21398 Posts

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the ****?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

You are answering the question, yourself. The concern is pushing length for the sake of pushing length.

tell me an example of such game? wich game would be better if it was shorter? if you make a bad game longer, then yes, shit becomes a big shit, but in that case the problem is already in the bad quality of the game itself, rather than it's lenght.

Current examples are tacked on single player experiences. There isn't much thought going into the campaigns. They are being thrown in there for the sake of having them. The topic isn't about a good game being long, but those that add tons of filler just, as I said before, to have the ability to make the claim, "our game has 50+ hours of gameplay."

Avatar image for Celtic_34
Celtic_34

1903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 Celtic_34
Member since 2011 • 1903 Posts

I'd rather spend $60 on 4 indie games that are short but keep me entertained throughout vs a $60 game that bores me to death.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

45986

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 45986 Posts

@gameofthering said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@gameofthering said:

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

I'd rather have a long amazing game than a short amazing game

I'd also wouldn't mind that but I've only ever had one game like that, Resident Evil 4.

Shooters these days are short to me. Like 4-6 hours. There are some amazing shooters that are older than are 8 hours or longer.

Now, 8 hours isn't long... but it's long compared to what we have now. So in that regard I can name many games that are both lengthy and of great quality.

Of course quality will always > length. But they aren't mutual exclusive :)

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

Avatar image for lostrib
lostrib

49999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#41 lostrib
Member since 2009 • 49999 Posts

@xboxdone74 said:

@speedfreak48t5p: What has your Caesar done that would warrant a ban?

I sometimes have other business to attend to, citizen.

^this annoying crap

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By Bread_or_Decide
Member since 2007 • 29761 Posts

I always wait for a price drop on every game. Never takes long and it's always the best way to pick up a few games for cheap. Makes no sense most games drop prices only a month or two after by at least ten beans.

Avatar image for lunar1122
lunar1122

784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By lunar1122
Member since 2012 • 784 Posts

game length doesn't bother me, as long as the price matches the length. If one makes a 5 hour single player campaign and expects $60 dollars for it. They gotta be dreaming

Avatar image for Gue1
Gue1

12171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#44 Gue1
Member since 2004 • 12171 Posts

@musicalmac said:

Within reason I would agree. Games like the new MGS are probably too short, though...

That's not a game, it's a paid demo.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

58631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#45 uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 58631 Posts

Bad pacing can be very annoying. IMO (which is right) the Playstation Metal Gear Solid, regardless of pantomime plotlines or bad writing was superior to Metal Gear Solid 4 because it snipped down and moderately efficient. Metal Gear Solid 4 by comparison was a fucking mess and reviewers who praised it should have been immemorially fired.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
ReadingRainbow4

18733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#46 ReadingRainbow4
Member since 2012 • 18733 Posts

The average game is shorter than it's ever been before.

Explain yourself.

Avatar image for bbkkristian
bbkkristian

14971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 1

#47  Edited By bbkkristian
Member since 2008 • 14971 Posts

Sorry, but if a RPG is under 30 hours, I'm not paying $60 for it. Xenoblade Chronicles was $50 and I got over 80 hours of enjoyment out of it. Completely worth it. Fire Emblem Awakening, $40, put in over 60 hours, completely worth it as well. Notice the trend, devs want you to pay $2 for every hour of enjoyment, but some of these great RPGs will give you charge you less than a dollar for every hour of enjoyment. I'll admit, RPGs need great battle systems and/or great stories for me to get hooked to their game and enjoy the ride.

Then there's Bravely Default, which said "f*** we need to extend the game" and then made chapters 5-8 a complete nightmare. I wasn't about to go through that much padding, it was completely more than necessary that ruined the game for most people.

There can be exceptions like South Park, which has to have a goal to make the player laugh consistently, if it were longer, it would be more of a challenge for the designers to keep the audience laughing.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#48 Bread_or_Decide
Member since 2007 • 29761 Posts

@bbkkristian said:

Sorry, but if a RPG is under 30 hours, I'm not paying $60 for it. Xenoblade Chronicles was $50 and I got over 80 hours of enjoyment out of it. Completely worth it. Fire Emblem Awakening, $40, put in over 60 hours, completely worth it as well. Notice the trend, devs want you to pay $2 for every hour of enjoyment, but some of these great RPGs will give you charge you less than a dollar for every hour of enjoyment. I'll admit, RPGs need great battle systems and/or great stories for me to get hooked to their game and enjoy the ride.

Then there's Bravely Default, which said "f*** we need to extend the game" and then made chapters 5-8 a complete nightmare. I wasn't about to go through that much padding, it was completely more than necessary that ruined the game for most people.

There can be exceptions like South Park, which has to have a goal to make the player laugh consistently, if it were longer, it would be more of a challenge for the designers to keep the audience laughing.

Good grief. I'd rather put 80 hours collectively into eight games then sink all that time into just one experience.

The most time I ever put into a game was Demons Souls (80 hours) and Skyrim (100 hours.)

Besides those two I prefer shorter games.

Avatar image for bbkkristian
bbkkristian

14971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 1

#49 bbkkristian
Member since 2008 • 14971 Posts

@Bread_or_Decide: sorry if I really love a game, I don't want it to end, or I want to last as long as possible.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

Games have to end... They need conclusions. Even the game with the best gameplay needs to know when to call it a day....