Looking at something like Twisted Metal, it's a dated arcade game
The other part of the problem is people calling shit dated when it isn't actually dated. Twisted Metal is no more dated than the Gran Turismo series, Madden, etc. There aren't exactly a huge amount of similar games nowadays.
The same thing is true with almost any new 2D platformer. It doesn't matter how fucking different the actual gameplay is outside of involving platforms, it will be called old school or whatever by people. Fuck, I'm pretty sure people called Braid, a game whose focus is on puzzles rather than platforming, as old school.
People were willing to pay $50 for those types of games on the PS1 and PS2 without near as much complaining as you find today. But now with DD as a viable alternative people have readjusted their expectations downwards. Those "middle class" games are now expected to be on DD services for a quarter of the price and the "upper class" games are now expected to be as big and as juicy as they were in the PS1/PS2 eras while still selling at around the same price. So the effort-to-profit ratio for all games have been skewed downwards by a huge degree and what has ended up happening is those "middle class" games just don't get made as much anymore and both them and the "upper class" games have to pull out tricks like DLC and microtransactions to help offset the fact that their costs have increased by a large amount from the previous generation but the cost of games hasn't.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
People still complain about the upper class games too...
You hear stuff like "It has to be X hours and have multiplayer to be worth so and so." all the time.
So people complain about everything.
That being said, I will agree that with the advent of 10-20 games on consoles with stuff like Xbox Live/PSN though middle-road games do have a harder time these days just because people look at them and put them into the say category as arcade games on those looks alone.
I absolutely hate short games. I have yet to play a 6 - 8 hour game that was good enough to make up for the length. By all accounts Portal 2 proves me wrong, I just have yet to actually play the damn thing.
Lanrutcon on
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
That's what I'm saying so...everybody has arbitrary metrics for what makes a game "worth it". Different types of games get put to different standards but it is something they all deal with.
I prefer mainly shorter games. I have yet to player a game that is over 30 hours long that was worth it other than Fallout 3. Less than 30, yes. Anything over 20 usually makes me wish the developers had realized that a lot of it was boring and should have been cut.
Sources claim that Rockstar won't be publishing LA Noire developer's next game
The ongoing disgruntlement surrounding the fraught relationship between LA Noire developer Team Bondi and publisher Rockstar has taken another turn.
An un-named former Team Bondi staffer has spoken of Rockstar's "disdain" for the studio and suggested that the relationship that finally dragged LA Noire to market will not be resurrected.
In 2005 the studio announced an exclusivity deal with Sony that would have seen LA Noire become a PS3-only release. However, a year later Rockstar stepped in as publisher. Having initially been scheduled for a 2009 release, LA Noire finally hit retail earlier this year.
"I've heard a lot about Rockstar's disdain for Team Bondi, and it has been made quite clear that they will not publish Team Bondi's next game," the anon told Games Industry.
"Team Bondi are trying to find another publisher for their next title, but the relationship with Rockstar has been badly damaged – Brendan [McNamara] treats LA Noire like a success due to his vision but I think Rockstar are the ones who saved the project.
"They continued to sink money into LA Noire, and their marketing was fantastic. Without their continued support, Team Bondi would have gone under several years ago."
"Rockstar used to be very keen on making Team Bondi something like 'Rockstar Sydney' – the more they worked with Team Bondi management, the more they came to understand that this was a terrible idea."
The site also reveals details of Bondi's resistance to Rockstar's interventions, with studio boss Brendan McNamara said top have written: "Every dog has its day and there's going to be hell to pay for this one. I'll never forget being treated like an absolute **** by these people."
studio boss Brendan McNamara said top have written: "Every dog has its day and there's going to be hell to pay for this one. I'll never forget being treated like an absolute **** by these people."
You mean the guy we were told was treating his own employees like absolute shit?
amnesiasoft on
0
BeezelThere was no agreement little morsel..Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
Shit rolls downhill I guess.
Those very same employees probably went home to drink Mexican beer (the cheapest of all beers) and beat their spouses.
You hear stuff like "It has to be X hours and have multiplayer to be worth so and so." all the time.
Whenever I hear/read someone say that able a game I automatically think they are full of shit as I've seen plenty of games that get way the label of being too short when it was just a meathead who either missed a chunk of the game or raced through it at the expense of actually enjoying it.
I prefer mainly shorter games. I have yet to player a game that is over 30 hours long that was worth it other than Fallout 3. Less than 30, yes. Anything over 20 usually makes me wish the developers had realized that a lot of it was boring and should have been cut.
Eh? Just looking at my game rack...
Tales of Phantasia: Narikiri X 25 hours
Super Robot Wars Alpha2/3, Z1,Z2 80 hours a crack
Umineko 80 hours
Tales of Rebirth, Graces, Destiny, Symphonia, Destiny 2, Vesperia -- 65 hours a crack
Just Cause -- Forgot, but it's over 25
428 -- 60 hours
Dragon Quest IV/V -- Around 30 hours a piece
Dragon Quest VIII -- 60 hours
Persona 3/4 -- 60-80 hours
Sora no Kiseki FC -- 60 hours
Sora no Kiseki SC -- 80 hours
Demon's Soul -- Forgot, but it's over 25
Saints Row 2 -- At least 20
These are all great games. Part of what makes a game great is being able to get lost in its world. I do like shorter games like Ghosts and Goblins as well, but I find stuff like Uncharted to be trashy.
You can run through Portal in about 90 minutes. That game is extremely "worth it". Portal 2 you could probably run through in about 2-2 and a half hours, "worth it" as well.
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
You can run through Portal in about 90 minutes. That game is extremely "worth it". Portal 2 you could probably run through in about 2-2 and a half hours, "worth it" as well.
Which is why I specifically mentioned it in my original post. Normally I'd call foul but I haven't heard a single bad thing about it.
You can run through Portal in about 90 minutes. That game is extremely "worth it". Portal 2 you could probably run through in about 2-2 and a half hours, "worth it" as well.
That would be a "speed run" which is a little different. Your first run-through of portal should take about 4 hours. I don't think anybody would claim that the orange box didn't give you bang for the buck.
You can run through Portal in about 90 minutes. That game is extremely "worth it". Portal 2 you could probably run through in about 2-2 and a half hours, "worth it" as well.
Which is why I specifically mentioned it in my original post. Normally I'd call foul but I haven't heard a single bad thing about it.
Also to be fair, those estimates are not from initial playthroughs. I'd say add an additional hour if you're hitting the puzzles fresh.
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
I prefer mainly shorter games. I have yet to player a game that is over 30 hours long that was worth it other than Fallout 3. Less than 30, yes. Anything over 20 usually makes me wish the developers had realized that a lot of it was boring and should have been cut.
Eh? Just looking at my game rack...
Tales of Phantasia: Narikiri X 25 hours
Super Robot Wars Alpha2/3, Z1,Z2 80 hours a crack
Umineko 80 hours
Tales of Rebirth, Graces, Destiny, Symphonia, Destiny 2, Vesperia -- 65 hours a crack
Just Cause -- Forgot, but it's over 25
428 -- 60 hours
Dragon Quest IV/V -- Around 30 hours a piece
Dragon Quest VIII -- 60 hours
Persona 3/4 -- 60-80 hours
Sora no Kiseki FC -- 60 hours
Sora no Kiseki SC -- 80 hours
Demon's Soul -- Forgot, but it's over 25
Saints Row 2 -- At least 20
These are all great games. Part of what makes a game great is being able to get lost in its world. I do like shorter games like Ghosts and Goblins as well, but I find stuff like Uncharted to be trashy.
I would argue that being able to get lost in a game's world has everything to do with the atmosphere, presentation and whether or not the game itself is interesting and nothing at all to do with the length.
That being said this is from someone who plays "long" and "short" games.
More power to the small but perfectly formed game. I'm a busy man and my time is limited. As long it's all killer, no filler, then 6-8 hrs sounds absolutely fine to me.
Jam Warrior on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
A game's length doesn't determine if I like it or not. The actual quality of the game (either story / production, or gameplay) determines if the length of the game was worthwhile. :P
More power to the small but perfectly formed game. I'm a busy man and my time is limited. As long it's all killer, no filler, then 6-8 hrs sounds absolutely fine to me.
It's fine for me too, but then again I wait until games are $20 before I buy them.
"Rockstar also made a huge contribution to the development; their producers were increasingly influential over the last two years of the game's development, and overruled many of the insane decisions made by Team Bondi management. At a lower level, Rockstar also pitched in with programmers, animators, artists, QA, etc. Part of the conflict between Team Bondi and Rockstar was due to Rockstar's frustration with Team Bondi's direction, and eventually Team Bondi's management in turn resented Rockstar for taking lots of creative control. It's also worth pointing out that Rockstar used to be very keen on making Team Bondi something like 'Rockstar Sydney' - the more they worked with Team Bondi management, the more they came to understand that this was a terrible idea.
...
"She also mentions increases in pay above cost of living (implying Team Bondi was generous), but these were the typical increases you'd expect to see for employees as they become more experienced - many of the staff were hired straight from college/uni, so there are obviously going to be sizeable increases in salary for the first few years. If anything, Team Bondi's starting salaries for new employees decreased over the years. When I started, a new designer (with the title 'Junior Game Designer') was on $45k. They then invented an entirely new position underneath the existing Junior Game Designers, called 'Junior Level Designer'. It was basically the same role, but an excuse to pay the new hires less, and to give the existing designers a feeling of seniority without necessarily promoting them or paying more. It also meant that when the Junior Level Designers were promoted, they'd only become Junior Game Designers. They were exactly the same roles though."
Source: "Junior Grad Artists and Junior Level Designers were on $32k-35k, including super. These guys were working at least 70 hours a week, which is about $9 an hour. I often see comments on these articles saying that 'it's a labour of love' or that others would kill for the job, but with everything else going on at Team Bondi it's a whole other problem. With Sydney's cost of living, it's not easy to live off that either."
...
"The other point that was a huge point of contention was a line in the additional working hours scheme: "Should your employment end, prior to 3 months after the end of the project, it will be at the Company's discretion whether payment will be made."
"This meant that many people felt obligated to continue working under the poor conditions because they feared that the company would not pay up the overtime they had accrued. "Company's discretion" is incredibly vague, so nobody wanted to publicly speak out about the working conditions in case there was retribution from management. Then there was the issue of when the overtime was due to be paid - we (rightly) assumed that people would be made redundant at the end of the project, so would these people still be paid their overtime since they wouldn't be with Team Bondi three months after the end of the project? Also, since the overtime was only to be paid out at the end of the project, it meant that if the game failed and Team Bondi went bankrupt, then nobody would have received overtime payment. Team Bondi being shut down was always a very real possibility for us, it was only thanks to Rockstar's bankrolling that they continued to survive. I mention these points to enforce that it was always very unclear whether this overtime would be paid."
...
"We barely had any animators for such a long time, it was crazy. People have mentioned how the open world in L.A. Noire is wasted because the world is so boring. The reason was because no animators wanted to work at Team Bondi. There was no Lead Animator from January 2008 until the end of the game, and for large parts of production we only had one animator working on gameplay animations (any others were doing cinematic animations). This meant that there was no way to add life to the world. It's a perfect example of why staff retention is important, was ignored by the leads at Team Bondi, and the game suffered for it."
People seem to be in such a damn rush to finish games, almost to prove that it's short - I don't get it.
If I'm playing a new game, the second I feel like I'm not as engaged in it as when I first started, I switch it off and give it a rest. When I return, I'll go from the start of the level I was up to.
People seem to be in such a damn rush to finish games, almost to prove that it's short - I don't get it.
If I'm playing a new game, the second I feel like I'm not as engaged in it as when I first started, I switch it off and give it a rest. When I return, I'll go from the start of the level I was up to.
I want to enjoy a game, not 'beat' it.
I prefer long games, I despise short games. And I do everything. I'm one of those insane assholes who doesn't put a Final Fantasy game down until every single optional is dead, every item collected, every bonus gotten. When I take this approach to a game and it's over in under 10 hours I just feel cheated. It's one of those reasons I don't get why a consumer would even consider paying the same amount for Borderlands and say, Homefront.
Lanrutcon on
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
"Rockstar also made a huge contribution to the development; their producers were increasingly influential over the last two years of the game's development, and overruled many of the insane decisions made by Team Bondi management. At a lower level, Rockstar also pitched in with programmers, animators, artists, QA, etc. Part of the conflict between Team Bondi and Rockstar was due to Rockstar's frustration with Team Bondi's direction, and eventually Team Bondi's management in turn resented Rockstar for taking lots of creative control. It's also worth pointing out that Rockstar used to be very keen on making Team Bondi something like 'Rockstar Sydney' - the more they worked with Team Bondi management, the more they came to understand that this was a terrible idea.
...
"She also mentions increases in pay above cost of living (implying Team Bondi was generous), but these were the typical increases you'd expect to see for employees as they become more experienced - many of the staff were hired straight from college/uni, so there are obviously going to be sizeable increases in salary for the first few years. If anything, Team Bondi's starting salaries for new employees decreased over the years. When I started, a new designer (with the title 'Junior Game Designer') was on $45k. They then invented an entirely new position underneath the existing Junior Game Designers, called 'Junior Level Designer'. It was basically the same role, but an excuse to pay the new hires less, and to give the existing designers a feeling of seniority without necessarily promoting them or paying more. It also meant that when the Junior Level Designers were promoted, they'd only become Junior Game Designers. They were exactly the same roles though."
Source: "Junior Grad Artists and Junior Level Designers were on $32k-35k, including super. These guys were working at least 70 hours a week, which is about $9 an hour. I often see comments on these articles saying that 'it's a labour of love' or that others would kill for the job, but with everything else going on at Team Bondi it's a whole other problem. With Sydney's cost of living, it's not easy to live off that either."
...
"The other point that was a huge point of contention was a line in the additional working hours scheme: "Should your employment end, prior to 3 months after the end of the project, it will be at the Company's discretion whether payment will be made."
"This meant that many people felt obligated to continue working under the poor conditions because they feared that the company would not pay up the overtime they had accrued. "Company's discretion" is incredibly vague, so nobody wanted to publicly speak out about the working conditions in case there was retribution from management. Then there was the issue of when the overtime was due to be paid - we (rightly) assumed that people would be made redundant at the end of the project, so would these people still be paid their overtime since they wouldn't be with Team Bondi three months after the end of the project? Also, since the overtime was only to be paid out at the end of the project, it meant that if the game failed and Team Bondi went bankrupt, then nobody would have received overtime payment. Team Bondi being shut down was always a very real possibility for us, it was only thanks to Rockstar's bankrolling that they continued to survive. I mention these points to enforce that it was always very unclear whether this overtime would be paid."
...
"We barely had any animators for such a long time, it was crazy. People have mentioned how the open world in L.A. Noire is wasted because the world is so boring. The reason was because no animators wanted to work at Team Bondi. There was no Lead Animator from January 2008 until the end of the game, and for large parts of production we only had one animator working on gameplay animations (any others were doing cinematic animations). This meant that there was no way to add life to the world. It's a perfect example of why staff retention is important, was ignored by the leads at Team Bondi, and the game suffered for it."
6 -8 hours is the perfect length for me. Too busy for more than that. Plus I actually like playing a lot of different games. Though I seldom pay full price for games anymore. A couple a year at most. A world of 30-40$ 8 hour games would be ideal.
corin7 on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited July 2011
Hmm...as far as my purchasing of 60 dollars games go I think I probably buy 10 at full price every year then a bunch of ones I missed from previous years at lower price points.
People seem to be in such a damn rush to finish games, almost to prove that it's short - I don't get it.
If I'm playing a new game, the second I feel like I'm not as engaged in it as when I first started, I switch it off and give it a rest. When I return, I'll go from the start of the level I was up to.
I want to enjoy a game, not 'beat' it.
I prefer long games, I despise short games. And I do everything. I'm one of those insane assholes who doesn't put a Final Fantasy game down until every single optional is dead, every item collected, every bonus gotten. When I take this approach to a game and it's over in under 10 hours I just feel cheated. It's one of those reasons I don't get why a consumer would even consider paying the same amount for Borderlands and say, Homefront.
More power to the small but perfectly formed game. I'm a busy man and my time is limited. As long it's all killer, no filler, then 6-8 hrs sounds absolutely fine to me.
I used to love long games. Hell, I look at my PS2 rack and there's a lot of RPGs. And stuff like DMC3 with a lot of replay value. But as I quote, now that I'm married...I feel fine with an 8 hour game. I don't know if it's because I have more money than I did when I was in school or if the volume of games has gone up, but I'd rather play shooter X, brawler Y, fighting game Z than WoW or FF12 (I love FF12 but you're SO damn long and grindy).
That being said, I loved DQ9's and FF4:AY's super long single player campaign.
I think...achievements/trophies have warped my sense of enjoyment. Whenever I buy a game I'm looking at sites ranking how difficult it is to get the Platinum Trophy.
More power to the small but perfectly formed game. I'm a busy man and my time is limited. As long it's all killer, no filler, then 6-8 hrs sounds absolutely fine to me.
Totally dude. I couldn't even get through Fallout, even though it was cool, I started to feel like I could be playing like 10 other games.
Then again, with summer looming I'm totally looking forward to getting lost in Red Dead Redemption.
Also holy shit Skyrim is going to eat my life. Oblivion stole 200+ hours and Morrowind even more...
But I can only do one of those style games once every few years.
Silly Santa, we aren't suppose to like products. We're suppose to grumble and buy them grudgingly, and still feel ripped off.
This post is a waste of my time. Why can't you be more entertaining?
Forgive me, I will endeavor to make it worth your time.
You see Santa the video game industry has a very unique consumer/producer relationship in that the worth of the product is measured by a metric of "fun". That being said the idea of "fun" is a very vague one and could be interpreted in many ways. So, to be able to measure "fun" properly, we must add many other stipulations onto it to know if we are indeed having fun.
We must not only ask ourselves what is "fun" as gamers but what is "reasonable" as consumers. Is this 60 product worth it...it might be "fun" but so is that 20 dollar game. Therefore, the 60 dollar product suffers because while it is as fun as the 20 dollar one...it is not as reasonable. So, it stands to be that one should wait for the 60 dollar product to be a 20 dollar product.
But with that another problem arises. That of the social and/or multiplayer aspect of the game. The game industry moves very fast and people are always interested in "the new shit." Because of this, watercooler talk is always changing. So, while waiting for the product to drop in price increases the reasonableness of the product it also decreases the social value. This is irritated even further when the game has a strong multiplayer aspect, because people are constantly moving on to the newer, less reasonable updates of their favorite franchises.
This is what I like to call "day one" syndrome. This is an affliction bought on when the consumer feels that they must have a game right away. Ignoring all other aspects involved in their purchase simply because the game is a "must have". This is problematic because while it may satisfy ones needs as a gamer, the needs as a consumer are ignored. And when that happens we have no metric which to gauge the value of a game by other than "I like it" which is completely meaningless as far as being a smart consumer is concerned.
There are games that try to bypass this, these "arcade" games. They are fun, reasonably price, and can be consumed and thrown away readily. That being said they are not free of problems in themselves because they usually suffer from what I call the "teh SHINIES paradox".
You see this states that even if a game is fun it is less fun than a game that is just as fun but technologically superior. But the problem with that is that technologically superior games usually cost more and because of this their value is decreased. So in this situation both products are better and worst than each other at the same time. Not to mention we have to take into consideration the speed at which the growth of tech decreases the value of the reduced price 20 dollar game, making its value even less.
Therefore, I can only conclude that no game is worth it because they will never have the correct combination of fun/reasonable/social/shiny. And if one thinks they do, it is simply because they "like it" and that cannot be gauged scientifically so it must be discarded.
Ergo, we must steel ourselves for the constant disappointment that comes from our hobby.
More power to the small but perfectly formed game. I'm a busy man and my time is limited. As long it's all killer, no filler, then 6-8 hrs sounds absolutely fine to me.
Totally dude. I couldn't even get through Fallout, even though it was cool, I started to feel like I could be playing like 10 other games.
Then again, with summer looming I'm totally looking forward to getting lost in Red Dead Redemption.
Also holy shit Skyrim is going to eat my life. Oblivion stole 200+ hours and Morrowind even more...
But I can only do one of those style games once every few years.
Same here, man. I've got RDR waiting for me to finish either New Vegas or LA Noire, with Skyrim lurking in the background. Deus Ex is also in coming up next month.
Silly Santa, we aren't suppose to like products. We're suppose to grumble and buy them grudgingly, and still feel ripped off.
This post is a waste of my time. Why can't you be more entertaining?
Forgive me, I will endeavor to make it worth your time.
You see Santa the video game industry has a very unique consumer/producer relationship in that the worth of the product is measured by a metric of "fun". That being said the idea of "fun" is a very vague one and could be interpreted in many ways. So, to be able to measure "fun" properly, we must add many other stipulations onto it to know if we are indeed having fun.
We must not only ask ourselves what is "fun" as gamers but what is "reasonable" as consumers. Is this 60 product worth it...it might be "fun" but so is that 20 dollar game. Therefore, the 60 dollar product suffers because while it is as fun as the 20 dollar one...it is not as reasonable. So, it stands to be that one should wait for the 60 dollar product to be a 20 dollar product.
But with that another problem arises. That of the social and/or multiplayer aspect of the game. The game industry moves very fast and people are always interested in "the new shit." Because of this, watercooler talk is always changing. So, while waiting for the product to drop in price increases the reasonableness of the product it also decreases the social value. This is irritated even further when the game has a strong multiplayer aspect, because people are constantly moving on to the newer, less reasonable updates of their favorite franchises.
This is what I like to call "day one" syndrome. This is an affliction bought on when the consumer feels that they must have a game right away. Ignoring all other aspects involved in their purchase simply because the game is a "must have". This is problematic because while it may satisfy ones needs as a gamer, the needs as a consumer are ignored. And when that happens we have no metric which to gauge the value of a game by other than "I like it" which is completely meaningless as far as being a smart consumer is concerned.
There are games that try to bypass this, these "arcade" games. They are fun, reasonably price, and can be consumed and thrown away readily. That being said they are not free of problems in themselves because they usually suffer from what I call the "teh SHINIES paradox".
You see this states that even if a game is fun it is less fun than a game that is just as fun but technologically superior. But the problem with that is that technologically superior games usually cost more and because of this their value is decreased. So in this situation both products are better and worst than each other at the same time. Not to mention we have to take into consideration the speed at which the growth of tech decreases the value of the reduced price 20 dollar game, making its value even less.
Therefore, I can only conclude that no game is worth it because they will never have the correct combination of fun/reasonable/social/shiny. And if one thinks they do, it is simply because they "like it" and that cannot be gauged scientifically so it must be discarded.
Ergo, we must steel ourselves for the constant disappointment that comes from our hobby.
TD;DR
Worth the money from a content perspective, but boring as fuck. I rate this post a 7.0.
I love 6-8 hour games. A couple of days from Redbox and I can beat a $60 game for less than $5.
This is exactly why I tend to feel cheated by short games. I've just plunked down 70 bucks after taxes and such. If I blow through the game in 8 hours, I feel completely ripped off. Since it's like you said, I could have just rented the damn thing for a fraction of the price.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Posts
The same thing is true with almost any new 2D platformer. It doesn't matter how fucking different the actual gameplay is outside of involving platforms, it will be called old school or whatever by people. Fuck, I'm pretty sure people called Braid, a game whose focus is on puzzles rather than platforming, as old school.
Well for one, your mum still has bills to pay.
You hear stuff like "It has to be X hours and have multiplayer to be worth so and so." all the time.
So people complain about everything.
That being said, I will agree that with the advent of 10-20 games on consoles with stuff like Xbox Live/PSN though middle-road games do have a harder time these days just because people look at them and put them into the say category as arcade games on those looks alone.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/45192/Rockstars-disdain-for-Team-Bondi
Those very same employees probably went home to drink Mexican beer (the cheapest of all beers) and beat their spouses.
"...only mights and maybes."
Shit all the way down.
Whenever I hear/read someone say that able a game I automatically think they are full of shit as I've seen plenty of games that get way the label of being too short when it was just a meathead who either missed a chunk of the game or raced through it at the expense of actually enjoying it.
Eh? Just looking at my game rack...
Tales of Phantasia: Narikiri X 25 hours
Super Robot Wars Alpha2/3, Z1,Z2 80 hours a crack
Umineko 80 hours
Tales of Rebirth, Graces, Destiny, Symphonia, Destiny 2, Vesperia -- 65 hours a crack
Just Cause -- Forgot, but it's over 25
428 -- 60 hours
Dragon Quest IV/V -- Around 30 hours a piece
Dragon Quest VIII -- 60 hours
Persona 3/4 -- 60-80 hours
Sora no Kiseki FC -- 60 hours
Sora no Kiseki SC -- 80 hours
Demon's Soul -- Forgot, but it's over 25
Saints Row 2 -- At least 20
These are all great games. Part of what makes a game great is being able to get lost in its world. I do like shorter games like Ghosts and Goblins as well, but I find stuff like Uncharted to be trashy.
In all honesty DQIX is the most bang I got for my buck over the last few years.
Which is why I specifically mentioned it in my original post. Normally I'd call foul but I haven't heard a single bad thing about it.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
That would be a "speed run" which is a little different. Your first run-through of portal should take about 4 hours. I don't think anybody would claim that the orange box didn't give you bang for the buck.
Also to be fair, those estimates are not from initial playthroughs. I'd say add an additional hour if you're hitting the puzzles fresh.
I would argue that being able to get lost in a game's world has everything to do with the atmosphere, presentation and whether or not the game itself is interesting and nothing at all to do with the length.
That being said this is from someone who plays "long" and "short" games.
It's fine for me too, but then again I wait until games are $20 before I buy them.
$60 for for 6 hours isn't worth it to me.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-07-05-revealed-the-internal-emails-that-provoked-whistle-blowing-at-team-bondi-blog-entry
Christ. I've never seen so much bad blood come out against a single developer in one fell swoop.
If I'm playing a new game, the second I feel like I'm not as engaged in it as when I first started, I switch it off and give it a rest. When I return, I'll go from the start of the level I was up to.
I want to enjoy a game, not 'beat' it.
I prefer long games, I despise short games. And I do everything. I'm one of those insane assholes who doesn't put a Final Fantasy game down until every single optional is dead, every item collected, every bonus gotten. When I take this approach to a game and it's over in under 10 hours I just feel cheated. It's one of those reasons I don't get why a consumer would even consider paying the same amount for Borderlands and say, Homefront.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
My goodness. I agree what someone said earlier.
Game developers really need some kind of union or something.
Because they liked it.
I used to love long games. Hell, I look at my PS2 rack and there's a lot of RPGs. And stuff like DMC3 with a lot of replay value. But as I quote, now that I'm married...I feel fine with an 8 hour game. I don't know if it's because I have more money than I did when I was in school or if the volume of games has gone up, but I'd rather play shooter X, brawler Y, fighting game Z than WoW or FF12 (I love FF12 but you're SO damn long and grindy).
That being said, I loved DQ9's and FF4:AY's super long single player campaign.
This post is a waste of my time. Why can't you be more entertaining?
I...think I need help.
Totally dude. I couldn't even get through Fallout, even though it was cool, I started to feel like I could be playing like 10 other games.
Then again, with summer looming I'm totally looking forward to getting lost in Red Dead Redemption.
Also holy shit Skyrim is going to eat my life. Oblivion stole 200+ hours and Morrowind even more...
But I can only do one of those style games once every few years.
Forgive me, I will endeavor to make it worth your time.
You see Santa the video game industry has a very unique consumer/producer relationship in that the worth of the product is measured by a metric of "fun". That being said the idea of "fun" is a very vague one and could be interpreted in many ways. So, to be able to measure "fun" properly, we must add many other stipulations onto it to know if we are indeed having fun.
We must not only ask ourselves what is "fun" as gamers but what is "reasonable" as consumers. Is this 60 product worth it...it might be "fun" but so is that 20 dollar game. Therefore, the 60 dollar product suffers because while it is as fun as the 20 dollar one...it is not as reasonable. So, it stands to be that one should wait for the 60 dollar product to be a 20 dollar product.
But with that another problem arises. That of the social and/or multiplayer aspect of the game. The game industry moves very fast and people are always interested in "the new shit." Because of this, watercooler talk is always changing. So, while waiting for the product to drop in price increases the reasonableness of the product it also decreases the social value. This is irritated even further when the game has a strong multiplayer aspect, because people are constantly moving on to the newer, less reasonable updates of their favorite franchises.
This is what I like to call "day one" syndrome. This is an affliction bought on when the consumer feels that they must have a game right away. Ignoring all other aspects involved in their purchase simply because the game is a "must have". This is problematic because while it may satisfy ones needs as a gamer, the needs as a consumer are ignored. And when that happens we have no metric which to gauge the value of a game by other than "I like it" which is completely meaningless as far as being a smart consumer is concerned.
There are games that try to bypass this, these "arcade" games. They are fun, reasonably price, and can be consumed and thrown away readily. That being said they are not free of problems in themselves because they usually suffer from what I call the "teh SHINIES paradox".
You see this states that even if a game is fun it is less fun than a game that is just as fun but technologically superior. But the problem with that is that technologically superior games usually cost more and because of this their value is decreased. So in this situation both products are better and worst than each other at the same time. Not to mention we have to take into consideration the speed at which the growth of tech decreases the value of the reduced price 20 dollar game, making its value even less.
Therefore, I can only conclude that no game is worth it because they will never have the correct combination of fun/reasonable/social/shiny. And if one thinks they do, it is simply because they "like it" and that cannot be gauged scientifically so it must be discarded.
Ergo, we must steel ourselves for the constant disappointment that comes from our hobby.
Same here, man. I've got RDR waiting for me to finish either New Vegas or LA Noire, with Skyrim lurking in the background. Deus Ex is also in coming up next month.
TD;DR
Worth the money from a content perspective, but boring as fuck. I rate this post a 7.0.
This is exactly why I tend to feel cheated by short games. I've just plunked down 70 bucks after taxes and such. If I blow through the game in 8 hours, I feel completely ripped off. Since it's like you said, I could have just rented the damn thing for a fraction of the price.