Am I the only one pissed here?

Battman23

Does it piss anyone else off when a review lowers a score because a game is under 10 hours in length? Many people did this to Gears of War and a couple reviewers did it to God of War. I, personally would rather have 6 hours of JUST PLAIN AWESOME instead of 4 hours awesome and 20 hours of crap filler. Gears of War is the only recent game where I have beaten it on every difficulty level and it was a blast EVERY TIME. What do you guys think?

Nocren

I think it comes down to cost.
You pay $50-$60 for just a few hours of enjoyment? I would prefer a balance of crap and filler for that cost.

slurpeepoop

Nocren wrote: »

I think it comes down to cost.
You pay $50-$60 for just a few hours of enjoyment? I would prefer a balance of crap and filler for that cost.

The way things are going, that's still pretty cheap from a time to price ratio when it comes to entertainment nowdays.

And, after the 6 hours are up, you still have the game to keep or to resell. Otherwise, you could rent the short game for $5 or so, and get your 6 hours of enjoyment that way.

Zombiemambo

I'm not pissed because whether a reviewer gives it a 1 or a 10 has no impact on how much I enjoy the game.

Wyborn

Nocren wrote: »

I think it comes down to cost.
You pay $50-$60 for just a few hours of enjoyment? I would prefer a balance of crap and filler for that cost.

That would mean that the material that is there is, overall, worse. So you're not solving a problem, you're just going in the opposite direction and taking it too far.

A short game for a normal cost is okay in a case where it is easily replayable, like God of War and Gears are. Those games are aces.

jclast

I'd rather have good short games.

My measuring stick is this: when I take my wife to the movies, it costs me roughly $20 for 2 hours of entertainment. Scale that up. If the movie lasts 6 hours, that's about $60. I'd be perfectly fine if a new game that was 6 hours long and nothing but awesome debuted at $60.

1.) I might actually have time to beat it and/or replay it.
2.) I can always pick it up used; then the ration of dollars to playtime is even lower than the $10 per hour that I pay for a movie.
3.) I've still got the game when I'm done. Can't say that about the movie.

BahamutZERO

10 hours of entertainment for 50 bucks is pretty steep in my book too. I mean, it also depends on the game. I wouldn't dismiss something just because it's short, but those 10 hours better be pretty damn good. And I don't consider things that are short but have good replay value to be truly short, 2D metroid games for example.

Ziac45

I'm fine with games under 10 hours (though both god of wars have been over that for me.. stupid puzzles). Gears is a blast and I played it on every difficulty, my friend and I even sat down all day and just beat it on insane and had loads of fun. Same with Gears of War. I'd rather play these than a 80 hour game full of crap.

Lucky Cynic

I try to avoid the Numeric or Star Systems. "This game gets a 12 out of 10!" or "4.9 Stars out of 5!" don't really say much. Instead I read a bunch about the reviews about which aspects of the game mean more to me than others. Like maybe the game's voice acting blows. If it is a game which I will probably blow thru a lot of the dialog anyways, to me, it wouldn't be such a big deal so I would dismiss that point, as opposed to the reviewer who is trying to do a well rounded review on the game.

Ultimately, I don't buy a game at launch, very few I actually do. Normally I come here first and see what normal people like you have to say about it.

Nocren

All good points.

ben0207

I thought he meant pissed as in drunk, not angry and I was going to complain about him stealing my role of "drunk forumer"

BahamutZERO

ben0207 wrote: »

I thought he meant pissed as in drunk, not angry and I was going to complain about him stealing my role of "drunk forumer"

stop being so [british?]

Speed Racer

$50 for 10 hours isn't that expensive.

A newly released DVD is what, 15-20 bucks? They average 2 hours of entertainment, so you'd need to buy 5 DVDs to get 10 hours of entertainment, which would amount to $75-$100.

Compared to DVDs, video games are a steal.

Daemonion

I wouldn't say I'm pissed off - but I think usually scores are lowered for short games because the campaign leaves you wanting 'more.' In that case I call it justified.

If it is short, but satisfying, and the game score is still lowered, than that is unnecessary in my opinion.


Also keep in mind games are costing more and more money to make - to make Gears of War 20 hours long would cost way, way more than it did to make HL2 20 hours.

ben0207

BahamutZERO wrote: »

ben0207 wrote: »

I thought he meant pissed as in drunk, not angry and I was going to complain about him stealing my role of "drunk forumer"

stop being so [british?]

Bingo.

As for the whole short games deabte: I actually prefer my games to be short enough so I bother finishing them. Having said that, my Oblivion file is at about 160 hours, and I haven't installed SI yet.

BahamutZERO

Mushroom Pie wrote: »

$50 for 10 hours isn't that expensive.

A newly released DVD is what, 15-20 bucks? They average 2 hours of entertainment, so you'd need to buy 5 DVDs to get 10 hours of entertainment, which would amount to $75-$100.

Compared to DVDs, video games are a steal.

that's not an easy comparison to make, since movies are obviously not the same as video games, and the costs of producing 10 hours of movie are much higher than 10 hours of video game, etc.

Viscountalpha

Battman23 wrote: »

Does it piss anyone else off when a review lowers a score because a game is under 10 hours in length? Many people did this to Gears of War and a couple reviewers did it to God of War. I, personally would rather have 6 hours of JUST PLAIN AWESOME instead of 4 hours awesome and 20 hours of crap filler. Gears of War is the only recent game where I have beaten it on every difficulty level and it was a blast EVERY TIME. What do you guys think?

As Darkest_3|i+3 said, Looking for actual information, not a rating is far more useful. I've always felt that game reviewing sucks hard these days. Instant personal biases come into play with alot of reviewers. it is up to a ridiculously absurd point.

I've had better reviews at gamefaq's then any other place.

Speed Racer

It's an easy comparison to make from a consumer's standpoint.

You can get 10 hours of movie for 100 dollars, or 10 hours of game for 50. The latter is the better deal.

BahamutZERO

Mushroom Pie wrote: »

It's an easy comparison to make from a consumer's standpoint.

You can get 10 hours of movie for 100 dollars, or 10 hours of game for 50. The latter is the better deal.

Let's say you want to buy a hot dog. You can get more popcorn for the same price, but that doesn't matter because you don't want popcorn, you want a fucking hot dog. Movies and video games are like hot dogs and popcorn, or apples and oranges, as the expression goes. Why does anyone buy movies if video games give the same duration of entertainment for half the cost? Because they want to watch a movie, not play a video game.

slash000

I think that an expected game length should be based on the type of gameplay. A solid action game like God of War? 10 to 15 hours is perfect. For something larger like an epic FPS? 15 to 20ish hours.

Anything more for those types, and it starts to wear the gameplay down.



It takes me long enough to get through 15 hour games, and that length seems to be my sweetspot.





Also, for games of the arcadey variety, those are good even at an hour's length; like Shmups or lightguns and such. It all depends on the type of gameplay.

Speed Racer

True. However, that's irrelevant. The popcorn is still the better deal, regardless of which one you want. So saying that it's unreasonable to charge a hotdog's price for more than a hotdog's worth of popcorn doesn't make sense.

Magus`

My value ratio is very easy. 1 dollar = 1 hour of fun. Now, 1 hour of fun doesn't need to be one unique hour, it can come from replaying of the entire game, or just segments. I spent 50 dollars on GoW2 and have replayed it about 7-8 times. With an average of about 10-11 hours per, that make it what I consider a good deal.

If I don't think a game will meet my ratio, I rent it.

BahamutZERO

Mushroom Pie wrote: »

True. However, that's irrelevant. The popcorn is still the better deal, regardless of which one you want. So saying that it's unreasonable to charge a hotdog's price for more than a hotdog's worth of popcorn doesn't make sense.

It's not irrelevant, it's showing that they are not comparable.

you have to compare video games to video games here, apples to apples.

Speed Racer

No, it's not. You're talking about tastes and preferences. I'm talking which one gives you the most bang for your buck. It's the smarter expenditure of money to buy the popcorn, because you're getting more for your money. If you're willing to make the less wise purchase of the hot dog because you want a hot dog, then that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you still chose the poorer deal.

SageinaRage

If I can play through a whole game, and nothing sucked, and I want to play it again, then it was an awesome value. I have never played a game, finished it, and thought, 'you know, I wish they had wasted my time more.'

Take Rez. You can beat the whole game in like an hour. No fluff, just awesome. I rate it at a higher value per dollar than most rpg's.

slash000

I've probably logged more time into my favorite 10-15 hour games than I have in my 30+ hour games, just because I can always go back and play through and beat the 10-15 hr ones in a reasonable time and enjoy them, whereas just thinking about replaying a 30+ hour game seems daunting, and even when I try to do it, I get some hours in and feel like I remember it well enough that I don't need to finish it.

Shadowfire

slash000 wrote: »

I think that an expected game length should be based on the type of gameplay. A solid action game like God of War? 10 to 15 hours is perfect. For something larger like an epic FPS? 15 to 20ish hours.

Anything more for those types, and it starts to wear the gameplay down.



It takes me long enough to get through 15 hour games, and that length seems to be my sweetspot.





Also, for games of the arcadey variety, those are good even at an hour's length; like Shmups or lightguns and such. It all depends on the type of gameplay.

This man speaks truth.

Except ... 15-20 hours for an FPS? I mean, Half-Life 2 was around that, but I can't remember any others that were. RPGs have a much easier time making themselves last longer than FPS games, because RPGs are based on back-tracking, drawn-out conversations, and *BAM*LOADING*Fight-it-out* sequences.

In conclusion

SageinaRage wrote:

If I can play through a whole game, and nothing sucked, and I want to play it again, then it was an awesome value. I have never played a game, finished it, and thought, 'you know, I wish they had wasted my time more.'

Take Rez. You can beat the whole game in like an hour. No fluff, just awesome. I rate it at a higher value per dollar than most rpg's.

slash000

Actually, I think 10 to 15 is actually fair for an FPS. Action games in general.

Something like an action-adventure would probably be good at 20 ish hours, then. Perhaps.

Gorilla Salad

What I hate is when developers complain about the difficulty of a game that is supposed to be difficult, and give it a low score because of it.

FUCK YOU IGN! GOD HAND DESERVED A 9, AT LEAST!

Blake T

Battman23 wrote: »

Does it piss anyone else off when a review lowers a score because a game is under 10 hours in length? Many people did this to Gears of War and a couple reviewers did it to God of War. I, personally would rather have 6 hours of JUST PLAIN AWESOME instead of 4 hours awesome and 20 hours of crap filler. Gears of War is the only recent game where I have beaten it on every difficulty level and it was a blast EVERY TIME. What do you guys think?

A game with 30 hours of filler boring gameplay is played once.

A game with 10 hours of awesome gameplay is played multiple times. Seriously ask yourself which is better?

DarkSymphony

I beat Zone of the Enders: the second runner (on my first play through) in just under 8 hours. I'll be damned if I didn't feel like that was some of the best gaming time I've ever had. 8 hours of gaming zen is well worth the $50 when it came out. I've since beaten the game over 10 times. I feel I've got more than my money's worth.

Just an example that time spent does not = value.

Xenogears of Bore

The only time I've ever agreed with any reviewer that marked down a game for length was Max Payne 2. That game is just too damn short.

Just like everyone else said, a fun game is a fun game no matter how long it is. Some short games lend themselves well to replaying, but so do some really long ass games.

DeVryGuy

Video games have one of the best time:cost ratios, but they are pretty normalized across the board. Movies in the theatre are actually not to bad in this regard except you can only enjoy it once. The best value outside of books is probably TV shows on DVD coming in at around $3.50 an hour for 22 episodes (40 min) for $50.

Comic books are probably the worst value.

Variable

While I would rather play ten hours of a great game than 20 of a shit one, I don't think it is wrong to ask for a longer game in some ways.

If a game is poorly paced, no matter what the story, it can feel like the ending came too quickly. This would make a game feel shorter than it should have been. I know this is not at all what all reviewers mean but, I think sometimes it is a valid complaint.

Generally though, hell I'd rather a puzzle game than a shitty epic.

Katchem_ash

I actually like games that run in the 20 hour + mark ala Xenosaga and many JRPG's. God of War was too short even for the Greatest Hits title among other things. I prefer long and drawn out games which makes me feel like I am in a story.

IF your asking $50 for God of War 2, I will instantly turn it down no matter what. For that amount of money I want length not how good it is graphically or how cool the monsters are. I want to earn back and see my $50 to work at a game with a 20+ hour mark rather than a game with a 5 or 10 hour mark. For those games I expect to pay 5 till 10 dollars to buy the game cause thats the amount of happiness that they provide.

Battman23

I think you guys are getting my point and a few of you are nailing it on the head. I think 8-10 hours is pretty much perfect, for me at least. Gears of War is amazing in that I can sit down with my brother and play the whole damn thing in one (or two) epic sit-downs and it is awesome EVERY TIME. (Whereas I have started RE4 multiple times and not finished.) My point with review scores is that maybe they don't matter to us, but they matter to the publisher and developer because reviews and sales are the measuring sticks for the industry.

PS - Please don't hurt me for the RE4 thing. I really really WANT to finish it.

Drag

RE4 took me about twenty hours to complete, and I never felt it approached crap at any point. If a game is ten hours long and costs $50, it had better be a really really good game, and not just "well, that was pretty good." The only game I can think of right now that falls into that really really good category is Metal Gear Solid.

edit- boooo, finish re4

Zombiemambo

Katchem_ash wrote: »

I actually like games that run in the 20 hour + mark ala Xenosaga and many JRPG's. God of War was too short even for the Greatest Hits title among other things. I prefer long and drawn out games which makes me feel like I am in a story.

IF your asking $50 for God of War 2, I will instantly turn it down no matter what. For that amount of money I want length not how good it is graphically or how cool the monsters are. I want to earn back and see my $50 to work at a game with a 20+ hour mark rather than a game with a 5 or 10 hour mark. For those games I expect to pay 5 till 10 dollars to buy the game cause thats the amount of happiness that they provide.

You feel the necessity to force 'JRPG' into every post, don't you? Let's just get it over with:

JAPAN IS SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD

Patrick Rothfuss

DeVryGuy wrote: »

Video games have one of the best time:cost ratios, but they are pretty normalized across the board. Movies in the theatre are actually not to bad in this regard except you can only enjoy it once. The best value outside of books is probably TV shows on DVD coming in at around $3.50 an hour for 22 episodes (40 min) for $50.

Comic books are probably the worst value.

It comes down to a quality vs quantity issue here. You could probably get a used copy of Great Expectations for a buck somewhere, that'll take you about 20-30 hours to finish...

But I'll argue that the trade of Whedon's new x-men is a better value. The story is better. Better plot. Better character. Better storytelling.

That's a better value.

Dirtchamber

BahamutZERO wrote: »

You can get more popcorn for the same price, but that doesn't matter because you don't want popcorn, you want a fucking hot dog.

I don't know why, but that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. I can just imagine some irate customer at a cinema snackbar - "But I don't want more popcorn! I want a fucking hot dog!"

Shit. Now I want a fucking hot dog.

Gunstar

I actually buy games based on gameplay time. (mostly used now since i have no nextgen systems)

Meaning: The other day I went to gamecrazy around noon because I knew I wasn't going to be doing anything and I bought Dead To Rights which I remembered was fun and mindless and I could beat it in an afternoon.

Over summer I had a lot of downtime so I bought Kingdom Hearts 2 and played through that.

I actually get pissed when I buy games and find out they are long. I was so happy when I beat Gears of War in a day because well, it wasn't really going anywhere and I wasn't fascinated with the play mechanics anymore so I just wanted to play on a difficulty that was harder or co-op. Also I played Quake 4 all day and realized I was only like 60% in, I haven't touched it since.