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

Why do some "complain" about $60 games that lasted 6 hours or less?

#11SheepinatorPosted 2/3/2013 8:27:26 PM
Quality is the number one factor in what I want to play. Then I consider $$$/hr, but not all is equal. The 5th hour of an SP campaign is probably more interesting and eventful than the 25th hour of backtracking in an RPG or the 50th hour of deathmatch.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#12Halochief6Posted 2/3/2013 10:34:12 PM
zaiwen posted...
Yet some justify shelling out the premium, just to play multiplayer?


Because playing online lasts longer?

What the hell is this topic? Seriously...
---
"Please explain to me how a dog can help a blind person see the difference in 720p to 1080p in tv sets under 32"?" - NakedSnake1986
#13darkharePosted 2/3/2013 10:47:56 PM
rockyoumonkeys posted...
knightimex posted...
Because people base value on stupid things.
Time of a game is dumb to price.

Base price on fun, quality, and experience.


One would think. But there are a surprising number of people out there who would rather play a mediocre 50 hour game than an excellent 10 hour game.

I guess when they have that much time to fill in their empty lives, they have to start looking at quantity over quality.


6hr game for $60.00 ='s $10per 1hr

10hr game for $60.00 ='s $6 per 1hr

the fact that you quoted someone referring to a 6hr game for $60, but you stated a 10hr game shows either you complete lack of reading comprehension, or your obvious intent at skewing the fact of the argument.

i also think that "fun" can be a factor of equation within this formula and can slide the scale one way or another. i dont know about anyone else, but i tend to play games that i deem "fun" for longer, so therfore adding .5 or 30min to the hr scale for the amount of hour overage or "fun or not fun" ive had with the game can as well drop the price of the hourly rate spent on the game by a large sum.





.
---
micro-transactions in $60.00 retail games, it will get worse devs are just boiling the frog slowly so we dont notice.
#14shawnmckPosted 2/3/2013 10:56:18 PM(edited)
Not everyone plays multi-player.
Some people (myself included) only play a game for its single-player campaign, which makes the game over-priced because we are NEVER going to touch MP.

When there are SP games that can last 12+ hours retails for $60 bucks, then a 5 or 6 hour game that retails for $60 bucks feels like we're being ripped off.

And don't give me that "quality" bull-crap...because there are plenty of 5 or 6 hour long games that are of low quality.
#15Perfect LightPosted 2/3/2013 11:43:14 PM
rockyoumonkeys posted...
One would think. But there are a surprising number of people out there who would rather play a mediocre 50 hour game than an excellent 10 hour game.

I guess when they have that much time to fill in their empty lives, they have to start looking at quantity over quality.

I hate it when people say this. This has never been anyone's argument in the history of ever. People who like long games don't want a mediocre 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour game. We want an excellent 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour game.

You're also dealing with a flawed premise. People who use this argument always say that the super long game is average and the short one is amazing. I have played PLENTY of short and crappy games.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIbu3wJDmVQ - New gaming series
My podcast: hulkshare.com/inferiorminds
#16rockyoumonkeysPosted 2/4/2013 12:00:07 AM
darkhare posted...
rockyoumonkeys posted...
knightimex posted...
Because people base value on stupid things.
Time of a game is dumb to price.

Base price on fun, quality, and experience.


One would think. But there are a surprising number of people out there who would rather play a mediocre 50 hour game than an excellent 10 hour game.

I guess when they have that much time to fill in their empty lives, they have to start looking at quantity over quality.


6hr game for $60.00 ='s $10per 1hr

10hr game for $60.00 ='s $6 per 1hr

the fact that you quoted someone referring to a 6hr game for $60, but you stated a 10hr game shows either you complete lack of reading comprehension, or your obvious intent at skewing the fact of the argument.

i also think that "fun" can be a factor of equation within this formula and can slide the scale one way or another. i dont know about anyone else, but i tend to play games that i deem "fun" for longer, so therfore adding .5 or 30min to the hr scale for the amount of hour overage or "fun or not fun" ive had with the game can as well drop the price of the hourly rate spent on the game by a large sum.


.


Jesus. It was an example, and one I've used many times before. It's also valid because 10 hour games are far more common than 6 hour games. Since I don't put a dollar-per-hour amount on games (because I think it's stupid), it doesn't really matter how many ****ing hours it is. I also think you trying to create a mathematical formula to determine the true value of a game is pure lunacy. In fact, that's really my entire point in asking people that question.



Perfect Light posted...
rockyoumonkeys posted...
One would think. But there are a surprising number of people out there who would rather play a mediocre 50 hour game than an excellent 10 hour game.

I guess when they have that much time to fill in their empty lives, they have to start looking at quantity over quality.

I hate it when people say this. This has never been anyone's argument in the history of ever. People who like long games don't want a mediocre 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour game. We want an excellent 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour game.

You're also dealing with a flawed premise. People who use this argument always say that the super long game is average and the short one is amazing. I have played PLENTY of short and crappy games.


I didn't just make that example up off the top of my head. Several times in topics like this, I've flat out asked people what they'd rather play: a mediocre 50 hour game or an excellent 10 hour game. And people have chosen the former. The question is meant to discover what's more important to people: how fun a game is, or how long it is. And obviously there are people who value the game's length more than they value its quality (though maybe I shouldn't say "quality", because some of these people have argued that the game's length IS its "quality".) So yes, this HAS been someone's argument. Obviously those people would prefer an excellent 50 hour game, but that wasn't part of the question.
---
Formerly Known As: boingboingboing
Now Reading: Great North Road, P. Hamilton
#17shawnmckPosted 2/4/2013 12:11:57 AM
For every "high quality" 6-hour game that you can name, I can name two or more piss-poor quality 6-hour games.

The whole "quality over quantity" argument just doesn't hold up.

Just because a game is short does NOT mean that its good.

Case in point...
Brink
RE: Operation Raccoon City
Army of Two: 40th Day
Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days
Homefront
Darkness 2
Turok
Enslaved
legendary
Blacksite: Area 51
Bionic Commando

And many others.
All short, and all pieces of crap !

Now, lets list some great LONG games....
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Fallout 3
Skyrim
Oblivion
Mafia 2
Red Dead Redemption
Bioshock
Borderlands
Far Cry 3
Dark Souls
Witcher 2
Dragon's Dogma

And I could go on.

Just because a game is short doesn't automatically make it good, and just because a game is long, doesn't automatically make it bad.
#18darkharePosted 2/4/2013 12:15:22 AM
rockyoumonkeys posted...
Jesus. It was an example, and one I've used many times before. It's also valid because 10 hour games are far more common than 6 hour games. Since I don't put a dollar-per-hour amount on games (because I think it's stupid), it doesn't really matter how many ****ing hours it is. I also think you trying to create a mathematical formula to determine the true value of a game is pure lunacy. In fact, that's really my entire point in asking people that question.


well i for one would like to invite you to step off of your cloud of superiority and stand at the same level as us on the ground, and tell us lowly people not what a value of game isnt but what a value of game is.
---
micro-transactions in $60.00 retail games, it will get worse devs are just boiling the frog slowly so we dont notice.
#19rockyoumonkeysPosted 2/4/2013 1:03:01 AM
shawnmck posted...

Just because a game is short doesn't automatically make it good, and just because a game is long, doesn't automatically make it bad.


And I certainly wasn't saying otherwise, and I can't imagine anyone else was either. I'm talking about short games that are good and long games that are bad or mediocre.
---
Formerly Known As: boingboingboing
Now Reading: Great North Road, P. Hamilton
#20rockyoumonkeysPosted 2/4/2013 1:10:20 AM(edited)
darkhare posted...
rockyoumonkeys posted...
Jesus. It was an example, and one I've used many times before. It's also valid because 10 hour games are far more common than 6 hour games. Since I don't put a dollar-per-hour amount on games (because I think it's stupid), it doesn't really matter how many ****ing hours it is. I also think you trying to create a mathematical formula to determine the true value of a game is pure lunacy. In fact, that's really my entire point in asking people that question.


well i for one would like to invite you to step off of your cloud of superiority and stand at the same level as us on the ground, and tell us lowly people not what a value of game isnt but what a value of game is.


No such thing, because it's different for everyone. Like I told you, it's not something you can create a stupid mathematical formula for.

I don't know your budget. I don't know how much time you have for gaming. I don't know if you're one of those people who needs NG+ or unlockable crap or multiple paths in order to say a game has "replay value". I don't know what aspects of a game you value most (gameplay? story? multiplayer?). I don't know a host of other things one needs to know to determine the value of a game for you.

For someone with disposable income and limited time for gaming, short but excellent games can be a godsend. For someone whose mom will only buy him one game every few months, the longer the better, and quality be damned.

EDIT: I will say that if I'd noticed your sig sooner, I would not even have bothered getting into this with you. You're clearly more passionate about the subject than I am.
---
Formerly Known As: boingboingboing
Now Reading: Great North Road, P. Hamilton