@Morphine_OD @cuddlyfuzzle @Adwand Who's saying they only play a game to pass the time? I don't think it's too much to ask to get the most for your money. The story may be fantastic, I don't know, and that may make it worth the price tag, but we're talking about a game not just a story. They could have written a book, created a movie or anything else, but they chose to make a game. Therefore it has to be a complete package, hence why I'm discussing Replay Value, not strictly Time Spent.

Also, while I do enjoy discussing story quality and time, I feel you hurt your point slightly by mentioning your speed run time. I agree that Silent Hill 2 is a classic, but by simply saying your speed run was less than an hour and a half, it takes the story out. Speed Runs aren't about story, it's about how quickly can you finish, so the game in actuality is not as short as the claim. It's using one statistic that is not relevant to enhance your point.

I, for one, love being engrossed in a story. I am a writer, so I hope that I would be. I'm simply pointing out that other games have crafted fantastic tales while also providing the player with a multitude of options and choices to give the story more meat. Making DLC to give added story is not the preferred route.

It also bothers me that creators of games these days view replay value as "super hard difficulties" like 1999 mode. While these are welcome additions, they aren't necessarily so different, just requiring you to slightly alter your play style, and ultimately don't feel all that difficult once you figure out the game's scheme. Give me choices that I can't go back on by circling back and seeing the other side of the door; ones that actually dictate story, and make each playthrough feel like a new experience.

@cuddlyfuzzle @Morphine_OD @Adwand You're right in that they are two genres, but I get your point. I look to something like Deus Ex for the PC. That game took nearly 40 hours to complete, and it had such an amazing amount of replayability. Now I'm not expecting them to recreate it, because they can't even make a decent sequel to it (Invisible War and HR are garbage by comparison), but something akin to it would be nice.

@RabidBurp @Adwand That's not so horrendous like Dishonored's woefully short campaign. Still a bit under my preferred length window, but I appreciate you letting me know a rough estimate.

Am I the only one who is bothered by the majority of these comments saying they've beaten the game already? I'm not going to shy away from it, but if the game is so short you can beat it in a sitting, I hardly think it's worth top dollar. The original Bio wasn't supremely long, but it was at least close to 20 hours if you did everything. I've read people saying it takes less than 10.

This is especially irksome when we're talking about a game without any multiplayer. I'm not saying I want there to be MP, but if you're going to make a solo campaign exclusively, it better have some length to it. That being said, it probably is a great story and world, but with no real replayability beyond future DLC (I freaking love this system...said no one ever...) it says something to me about linearity.

I find that I tend to avoid Collector's Editions every time, though I have fallen off the wheel a couple times, but the collectors versions I bought weren't the obscenely priced ones. I bought Dead Space 2 and Dark Souls (most recently), but those were at most $10-$20 dollars more than list price.

I feel though that most statues as bundles aren't terribly interesting. Most of the time the interesting content is the artbooks and soundtracks. In the case of Ni No Kuni, since it was brought up in the vid, that 300 page Spellbook is amazing, and I kind of wish I had bought that one (mainly because I collect books).

To me, the most egregious abuser of Collector's Editions is Blizzard. Sure they've done statues and whatnot, but most of the time its a small companion in WoW, an avatar in SC, or a character mod in D3. To me their prices aren't worth these very minor, "Look what I bought," additions.

@cbeck002 What!? No way. When you make a game that stylistically looks everything like Mirror's Edge, a game about exploration, you want to completely limit movement to restricted areas. This is pretty simple game design logic.../s

I could look past the combat a bit because I think there's still time to fix it. I'm completely against these stupid arrows. Let me dictate how I get to point B from point A, and if there's a small box in my way, I should be able to interact with it, not just have to go around it because it's a set piece only.

"Where do I go?" "Oh, I just follow these brightly lit arrows that indicate the only path I can take to get to where I need to go."

What happened to exploration in games? You present us with this title that looks stylistically like it could be a third person Mirror's Edge, yet you limit the way we progress through the game by making us follow arrows? I for one hate this style of gameplay. Even the person going through the demo here tried to jump over an obviously low enough crate, and she only staggered in mid-air before returning to the original spot.

Sure the world looks nice, but we only get to see it as a painting rather than an environment. I agree that the combat looks lackluster; a lot of flips with no real action during. I feel ultimately that the devs had this neat stylistic idea, but ultimately are going to create a generic game that will be overhyped as heck simply because of its style. I'll wait to see more on this, but I'm not impressed by what I'm seeing thus far.

@Rickystickyman @abHS4L88 @jmc88888 I believe I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I've owned every Nintendo system since the NES, and (as with the Wii) I feel I can wait some time before deciding to purchase a Wii-U. This is primarily in part because I know what I'm going to be getting, as this article lays out, and while I'm excited to play them, I'm in no rush to jump out and get the system.

I think you're right in that there are differences between say Mario as a sidescroller, and Mario as a 3D experience. However, when you delve into the games themselves, they are and have been exceedingly repetitious since their original inception. Aside from the ability for three friends and some minor controller perks, the new Mario Bros. for Wii-U is hardly any different in play than the old classic. The same is true between say Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy 1/2. Aside from being able to move between "planets" and have a friend use a remote beside you, the same gameplay exists: Enter World 1, collect the star. Once enough stars have been acquired, a new world awaits. In either version the same basic principles exist; Peach will be kidnapped, and Mario and/or Luigi rescue her. Familiarity.

Zelda, since it was also brought up, is somewhat a different beast. I find that there are enough differences in each game to make them feel at least somewhat unique. Whether it's a whole new style like Windwaker, traversing through time in Link to the Past, or having an alternate and darker version of things like Twilight Princess, there are distinct differences. Where I do have issue with the Zelda series is along the same lines as my Mario example; the core gameplay remains the same. Start out unequipped, find wooden sword, enter dungeon to acquire (bow, bomb, hookshot, band of strength, etc.), rinse and repeat until enough equipment is obtained to allow you to collect the Triforce (while also going back and visiting those pesky unreachable places without X equipment). All of this culminates in the same ending that permeates all Zelda games. Link saves Zelda from the clutches of Ganon/Ganondorf. Familiarity.

Personally, I love these games, despite the new coat of paint and upgrades to the engine. However, my 2000 Honda Civic is still a 2000 Honda Civic. I buy Nintendo systems knowing full well what I'm getting, but also choose to buy PS systems for the ability to play everything else. It's not that the Nintendo lacks in any one thing, it's just that it's nothing new. Sure the new controller is a unique change, but a gimmick does not make for a new feeling. The titles don't change, but hey, who cares? People still buy them because they make them well. The games are fun and make people think of their youth; they are family friendly and colorful, not requiring too much "thought" as it were.

I can sum up my gripes with Nintendo and my reasoning for agreeing with this article in the following analogy. If an author writes a fantastic new story with intriguing characters, a dangerous villain, and a moving plot, the author is deservedly praised. The same author writes another book two years apart from their first, but this time only adds maybe a single character, or a new "location" for those original characters to visit; the plot remains the same, the events are largely similar, and the presentation hasn't been altered. The book may still be "good", but it shows a lack of creativity. Let's say this author continues this process for five more books, throwing in requisite side stories in separate volumes in order to generate sales; we read those books knowing full well what happens, and ultimately end up feeling let down in the end because it's the same story we read twenty years ago but by now the main character has a mustache. It's not good business practice, eventually it will catch up with you.