This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Real gamers don't value a game on it's length to price. (360 related)

#1knightimexPosted 7/22/2011 7:32:16 AM(edited)
Yea, It's another KnightimeX topic.
Deal with it!

Would you judge the quality of gold by it's color?
No, that would be stupid.

The same goes for judging the value of a game based upon how long it takes to complete it.
Why do people do this is beyond me.

You won't purchase a 360 game because it's too short?
$15 is too much for a game that's less than 3 hours long?

*sighs*

A game that's only 3+ hours long can easily be worth $60 if the quality of the game is just that.

I like to worry more if the game is actually going to be good, vs how long it takes to complete it for 40-$60 its asking for.
I think it's dumb to enjoy a mediocre game because it was 40+ hours yet the over all quality was lacking <--- so it's worth the $60

Fallout 3 New vegas comes to mind.
^^^ Meh at best.

I remember the 16-bit days when games used to reach anything from $40 to $90 sometimes USED!
I remember getting Super Castlevania 4 for 49.95 I saved up my hard earned cash for that baby.

Was I upset because it was short?
Hell no, it was amazing through and through.

I even played it again last night. I can tell you this, it was more fun than actually playing a Xbox 360 game.
Nostalgia? Probably.
You don't see good games like Super CV IV any more, I think those days when soul meant something is long gone.

Now gamers just care about how long a game is vs how good it actually is.
Sad day is sad.

Here's hoping 360 gamers + others actually realize that Quality will always be worth far more than Length of game.
---
I hate to admit it, but I'm a graphics whore in denial.
#2nothingbeastPosted 7/22/2011 7:31:39 AM
I think it's dumb to enjoy a mediocre game because it was 40+ hours yet the over all quality was lacking <--- so it's worth the $60

Fallout 3 New vegas comes to mind.

^^^ Meh at best.


So it's ok for you to decide what's worth spending $60 on, but no one else?

Interesting.
---
~I was stomping goombas and saving princesses long before most of you were born.
#3BuckVanHammerPosted 7/22/2011 7:38:33 AM(edited)
so your saying real gamers can't be a conscience consumers? good thing im not a real gamer then, because throwing money away is just stupid.
---
after I leave here I'm gettin a memory enema
#4stapler87Posted 7/22/2011 7:34:40 AM
IDK, I'd like to have a decent amount of content when I'm paying money for something. Ten years ago I could play the same game forever and never grow tired of it. Now I need a little something more than a replayable 2 hour campaign to justify the price.

And I've gotta disagree with you about Fallouts, I really enjoyed those. Not because of how long they are but because of the freedom to explore the world and complete quests at your own pace.
---
"I have to return some videotapes!" - Patrick Bateman
#5knightimex(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2011 7:34:58 AM
nothingbeast posted...
I think it's dumb to enjoy a mediocre game because it was 40+ hours yet the over all quality was lacking <--- so it's worth the $60

Fallout 3 New vegas comes to mind.

^^^ Meh at best.

So it's ok for you to decide what's worth spending $60 on, but no one else?

Interesting.


I don't think it's wise to believe game X is X hours long so it deserves X amount of $ to be worthy of a purchase.
---
I hate to admit it, but I'm a graphics whore in denial.
#6knightimex(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2011 7:36:38 AM
stapler87 posted...
IDK, I'd like to have a decent amount of content when I'm paying money for something. Ten years ago I could play the same game forever and never grow tired of it. Now I need a little something more than a replayable 2 hour campaign to justify the price.

And I've gotta disagree with you about Fallouts, I really enjoyed those. Not because of how long they are but because of the freedom to explore the world and complete quests at your own pace.


And i'm glad you enjoyed it.
Really I am.

But for me it's quality was pretty bad.
frame rates only a mother could love.
---
I hate to admit it, but I'm a graphics whore in denial.
#7nothingbeastPosted 7/22/2011 7:36:43 AM
I don't think it's wise to believe game X is X hours long so it deserves X amount of $ to be worthy of a purchase

Because no one played FO3 because they genuinely had fun with it, right?
---
~I was stomping goombas and saving princesses long before most of you were born.
#8GeistPosted 7/22/2011 7:37:09 AM
knightimex posted...
The same goes for judging the value of a game based upon how long it takes to complete it.
Why do people do this is beyond me.


Paying 60$ for a 15 minute game would be rather dumb.
---
Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas.
#9b2trumpetPosted 7/22/2011 7:38:27 AM
Yeah. My thing is, I'm trying to wonder why older games seemed to be well made all the time, and can be played hours at a time, and heck, years later. Most games now won't last years.

I just want my good quality games again. Making a fun and everlasting game, not one that is incomplete and needs DLC, one that rushes the single-player just to fit multiplayer, one that lets you do splitscreen, one with a good story...older games are lasting forever for a reason.

I just want my quality back.
#10knightimex(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2011 7:38:38 AM
nothingbeast posted...
I don't think it's wise to believe game X is X hours long so it deserves X amount of $ to be worthy of a purchase

Because no one played FO3 because they genuinely had fun with it, right?


Yet you wouldn't have fun with a game like Vanquish because it was short and cost $60?
---
I hate to admit it, but I'm a graphics whore in denial.