The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PA Comic] Wednesday, February 18, 2015 - False Witness
You mean you didn't obsess over getting all the stars in the constellation to a point where you actively have to sabotage your progress in the game and waste hours of your time, then complain about how you had to do this and earned no reward, completely missing the entire message of the game, like so many angry internet-commenters?
Braid was an excellent game and had a far smarter point than a lot of people gave it credit for. The Witness will be brilliant.
Fantastic art! I assume the background is a real photo that is distorted / blurred? Especially like the eyes in the last panel that instantly made me think of the Anamaniacs.
So I have no idea what the Witness is. I haven't been to the internet yet to look it up. But this comic is also topically relevant to The Order 1886 which is coming out this Friday, and there are lots of rumors of supposed play times.
You mean you didn't obsess over getting all the stars in the constellation to a point where you actively have to sabotage your progress in the game and waste hours of your time
I had to actively check out of the game once I found out about how you get some of those stars. Creative and cool, yes, but... not for me.
Side-Note: As a 30 year old guy, with no kids (yet), I don't have the time to play any lengthy games. A good portable game can last me a half a year, a console game like Dragon Age Inquisition can last me 3 or so months. I only get to play like maybe 2 hours a day tops (assuming I want to do all my other gaming like Heroes of the Storm and any other Mobile stuff I'm caught up in as a timewaster on a bus ride, etc.)
I'm just thinking of the art... the shading on Gabe and Tycho is superb, but there's a very minor layering issue on Tycho's right hand in the first panel. I don't know why I'm writing this, though, I absolutely love the strip.
Fantastic art! I assume the background is a real photo that is distorted / blurred? Especially like the eyes in the last panel that instantly made me think of the Anamaniacs.
Now that you mention it, that is the picture that Mike tweeted the other day.
I'm just thinking of the art... the shading on Gabe and Tycho is superb, but there's a very minor layering issue on Tycho's right hand in the first panel. I don't know why I'm writing this, though, I absolutely love the strip.
Braid was an excellent game and had a far smarter point than a lot of people gave it credit for.
Is there any 'official' interpretation of Braid's message? I remember that Blow was disappointed that very few people seemed to get the message of the game, but I never heard what was the 'correct' one was.
Trying to work out how much a game should cost based on time is a freaking classic gamer problem. I know I do the math in my head whenever I buy a new game or system, though I admit it's probably not the best measure. I just grabbed Destiny and I was trying to figure out if it was "worth it" financially. 20 hours played (with plenty more to do) for $50 seemed like a pretty rad ratio. I tend to try to compare it to going to the movies. So $5 for every 2 hours made a lot of sense for me. Plus, the multi lets me engage with friends. If I can keep it under those "costs", I'm usually happy.
TL;DR - Time against cost is tough. I tend to compare play time to cost of going to the movies.
I use movies as a dollar per hour of entertainment metric very often myself.
If two hours of entertainment is worth $14, I would expect a $60 game to be approximately 8-10 hours.
Obviously in the gaming world, genre makes a huge difference in the length of a game. RPGs and RTS games tend to run on the longer side 30-50 hours are common, and many RPGs more like 100 hours if you're a completionist and like to do everything. Shooters tend to run short, and are often in the 5-10 hour range.
Generally speaking, if I pay $60 for a shooter, and I get 10 hours out of the campaign, I'm pretty happy with the purchase. I also am somewhat of a trophy whore and I very often will replay a game a second time on a max level difficulty to try to get more trophies. So that would turn a 5 hour game into a 10 hour game, and a 10 hour game into a 20 hour game.
Braid was an excellent game and had a far smarter point than a lot of people gave it credit for.
Is there any 'official' interpretation of Braid's message? I remember that Blow was disappointed that very few people seemed to get the message of the game, but I never heard what was the 'correct' one was.
I don't know that anyone's ever nailed down a clear story or anything, but it has a very strong message about the warping, destructive power of obsession.
Did anyone at Polygon actually criticize The Witness based on Blow's speedrun time? The only mention I could find on Polygon was simply a re-statement of the time reported in the Endgaget interview with no real comment. Judging the quality of a game based exclusively on the duration of the game seems a little crazy, but knowing something about the approximate size of a game is nice.
Anyway, I don't read Polygon religiously, so I might be missing something. Does Polygon regularly criticize or emphasize the duration of games they review?
I really like the style in the third panel with the more cartoony dot-eyed faces. I haven't seen Gabe do that before and every time I look at it it makes me chuckle.
Anyway, I don't read Polygon religiously, so I might be missing something. Does Polygon regularly criticize or emphasize the duration of games they review?
I don't read everything on Polygon, but it is my most frequently read gaming news site. That being said, the only articles I've seen on Polygon about game length are opinion pieces talking about how the market needs shorter games to cater to busy people. I read through the ten most recent reviews on Polygon, and I only found a couple of references to game length: game length padding in Dying Light, and the time it took to unlock things in Evolve.
Perhaps they are reading articles that I am not, but I don't think Polygon is any more guilty of using short gameplay as a negative critique than any other site.
This is a test.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
It seems weird that Gabe name checks Polygon multiple times in the comic AND his newspost. Something tells me he only read the "click bait title" and not the actual article, and most definitely NOT the article/opinion piece on Polygon that calls in support of shorter games. Maybe he just doesn't have time to read long articles? (See what I did there?)
Trying to work out how much a game should cost based on time is a freaking classic gamer problem. I know I do the math in my head whenever I buy a new game or system, though I admit it's probably not the best measure. I just grabbed Destiny and I was trying to figure out if it was "worth it" financially. 20 hours played (with plenty more to do) for $50 seemed like a pretty rad ratio. I tend to try to compare it to going to the movies. So $5 for every 2 hours made a lot of sense for me. Plus, the multi lets me engage with friends. If I can keep it under those "costs", I'm usually happy.
TL;DR - Time against cost is tough. I tend to compare play time to cost of going to the movies.
For just $1 I can buy a stick to poke myself in the eye with for hours on end. Such a great time to dollar value!
Silly hyperbole aside, quality by far outweighs quantity on my appraisal of the value of a game.
The amount of content in a game obviously shouldn't be considered the most important factor in its value, and the context of a game's "length" should clearly be taken into account (i.e., speed run vs. playing through on brutal difficulty vs. 100%ing). But I would hope that Mike can understand why some people who aren't millionaires and have to regulate their game purchasing might be interested in knowing such things.
I was told that Limbo was an hour long. Took me 5 hours to get to the last puzzle. Not knowing it was the last puzzle, I raged quit. Still never gone back to it.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I remember people saying that Portal 2 was something like 5 hours. Then when I got the game it took me at least twice that. I think it's less to do with the reviewers "not engaging" with the content, and more to do with some of us taking longer to play, especially when puzzles are involved.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
I don't think the length of a game should be used as an indicator of quality. I just finished the first playthrough of "Transistor" in about 4-5 hours. It was still a fantastic experience.
As for it being about time available to play: If I get a game like "Dragon Age: Inquisition", then I expect it will just take longer to finish with my available time.(I don't understand why that is a problem)
Posts
You mean you didn't obsess over getting all the stars in the constellation to a point where you actively have to sabotage your progress in the game and waste hours of your time, then complain about how you had to do this and earned no reward, completely missing the entire message of the game, like so many angry internet-commenters?
'40 seconds of gameplay!'
I had to actively check out of the game once I found out about how you get some of those stars. Creative and cool, yes, but... not for me.
Side-Note: As a 30 year old guy, with no kids (yet), I don't have the time to play any lengthy games. A good portable game can last me a half a year, a console game like Dragon Age Inquisition can last me 3 or so months. I only get to play like maybe 2 hours a day tops (assuming I want to do all my other gaming like Heroes of the Storm and any other Mobile stuff I'm caught up in as a timewaster on a bus ride, etc.)
Now that you mention it, that is the picture that Mike tweeted the other day.
No, Tycho is just a vampire.
Is there any 'official' interpretation of Braid's message? I remember that Blow was disappointed that very few people seemed to get the message of the game, but I never heard what was the 'correct' one was.
That's all I have to say.
Also... Raise your hands here if you're also still playing Braid *sheepishly raises hand*
TL;DR - Time against cost is tough. I tend to compare play time to cost of going to the movies.
If two hours of entertainment is worth $14, I would expect a $60 game to be approximately 8-10 hours.
Obviously in the gaming world, genre makes a huge difference in the length of a game. RPGs and RTS games tend to run on the longer side 30-50 hours are common, and many RPGs more like 100 hours if you're a completionist and like to do everything. Shooters tend to run short, and are often in the 5-10 hour range.
Generally speaking, if I pay $60 for a shooter, and I get 10 hours out of the campaign, I'm pretty happy with the purchase. I also am somewhat of a trophy whore and I very often will replay a game a second time on a max level difficulty to try to get more trophies. So that would turn a 5 hour game into a 10 hour game, and a 10 hour game into a 20 hour game.
I don't know that anyone's ever nailed down a clear story or anything, but it has a very strong message about the warping, destructive power of obsession.
Anyway, I don't read Polygon religiously, so I might be missing something. Does Polygon regularly criticize or emphasize the duration of games they review?
I don't read everything on Polygon, but it is my most frequently read gaming news site. That being said, the only articles I've seen on Polygon about game length are opinion pieces talking about how the market needs shorter games to cater to busy people. I read through the ten most recent reviews on Polygon, and I only found a couple of references to game length: game length padding in Dying Light, and the time it took to unlock things in Evolve.
Perhaps they are reading articles that I am not, but I don't think Polygon is any more guilty of using short gameplay as a negative critique than any other site.
This is a test.
Taken directly from what Washington looked like a couple days ago.
But don't move here because it rains all the time and is completely miserable I promise.
Don't gotta tell me, I live in Oregon.
For just $1 I can buy a stick to poke myself in the eye with for hours on end. Such a great time to dollar value!
Silly hyperbole aside, quality by far outweighs quantity on my appraisal of the value of a game.
So $6 for 2 hours.
I only play long games, ones I can sink a ton of hours into. Skyrim, Fallout 3, etc etc.
I remember finishing Fable in under 20 hours and it being one of my huge problems with it. A role playing game like that should have taken way longer.
It's good when games over deliver in content, while also keeping the minute to minute quality high.
$60 for 6 hours is lame IMO.
That wasn't cool. All hyped up and ready to go, only to get credits.
Steam: pandas_gota_gun
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
As for it being about time available to play: If I get a game like "Dragon Age: Inquisition", then I expect it will just take longer to finish with my available time.(I don't understand why that is a problem)