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?

#41JenniferTatePosted 2/4/2013 2:52:08 PM
Halochief6 posted...
shawnmck posted...
Darkness 2
Enslaved

All short, and all pieces of crap !


Does. Not. Compute.
Does... Not... Compute.
Does... Not... C... *head explodes*


I'm glad it's not just me.
---
You goddamn kids had best be gracious with the merch money you spend, 'cause for you I wont ever have rough sex with Molly Connolly again.
#42rockyoumonkeysPosted 2/4/2013 3:18:47 PM
darkhare posted...
rockyoumonkeys posted...
darkhare posted...

the quality of gameplay your referring too, is the "was this game worth my time per-hour spent playing it". how are people having so much difficulty with this?


We get it. We just think it's stupid.

Jesus, when I finish a game I usually have no idea how many hours I spent playing it, and I'm never interested in trying to figure it out. Because I don't care.


then you must be the type of person that doesnt calculate how many gallons of gas it takes to drive to wherever, or how much per lb a 10lb bag of ground beef costs, or how much electricity costs, or the amount you need to save to pay off your morgage in 15years, or getting the lowest insurance cost per month on your car...in other words your the type of person that likes to get bent over by everyone else.


None of those things are remotely comparable to video games. Everything you listed is objective. Video game enjoyment is purely subjective.

Try again. Or better yet, don't. You're very bad at it.
---
Formerly Known As: boingboingboing
Now Reading: Great North Road, P. Hamilton
#43Perfect LightPosted 2/4/2013 9:46:43 PM
rockyoumonkeys posted...
Perfect Light posted...
rockyoumonkeys posted...
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.

No, YOU came up with mediocre 50 versus excellent 10, and people who like longer games predictably voted for the longer game. I am one of the people who likes long games because I have a family and most of my money goes to them. When I buy a game, I want it to last me a long time so I don't have to buy another one anytime soon. Also, when I buy a game I make sure it isn't mediocre.


I feel like you aren't even paying attention. Yes, I did come up with that example. I told you this. Why are you arguing with me about that?

Because you said this: "So yes, this HAS been someone's argument." It wasn't someone else's argument, it was your argument. You gave people who like long games two choices and they picked. That doesn't mean they prefer a mediocre game over a good one. It just means they feel like they're getting their money's worth for a longer game.


You also refuse to acknowledge the rules of the question, so why do you even care? I wasn't even asking it here, I was just explaining past results. There are people who would rather have a game be long than good. Pretty simple.

It sounds like you don't really even like video games that much if you can be satisfied playing the same thing for as long as possible rather than try a variety of great games.

I feel like YOU aren't listening. My point is that people who like long games don't want average games that are long, we want excellent games that are long. For example, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion and Skyrim, Deus Ex Human Revolution, etc. There are plenty of long games for us to choose from, and if given the choice will always go for an excellent long game instead of an excellent short game. The only reason people chose the longer mediocre game is because you limited their choices.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIbu3wJDmVQ - New gaming series
My podcast: hulkshare.com/inferiorminds
#44rockyoumonkeysPosted 2/4/2013 10:28:01 PM
Perfect Light posted...

Because you said this: "So yes, this HAS been someone's argument." It wasn't someone else's argument, it was your argument. You gave people who like long games two choices and they picked. That doesn't mean they prefer a mediocre game over a good one. It just means they feel like they're getting their money's worth for a longer game.


OKay, last try, because at this point you are either being deliberately obtuse or you're just never going to understand.

An argument requires two people, and it doesn't matter who poses the question. If I pose a question, and you answer that question, you've made an argument. The argument these people made was "given the choice between a mediocre 50 hour game and an excellent 10 hour game, I would rather play the mediocre 50 hour game". That is their argument. What's funny is that until now, nobody had ever started throwing their **** against the wall over the premise like you have. I'm asking a goddamn A or B question here and you're flipping out because you want C.

(And yes, it does mean they prefer a mediocre game over a good one, as long as the mediocre one is longer.)


I feel like YOU aren't listening. My point is that people who like long games don't want average games that are long, we want excellent games that are long. For example, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion and Skyrim, Deus Ex Human Revolution, etc. There are plenty of long games for us to choose from, and if given the choice will always go for an excellent long game instead of an excellent short game. The only reason people chose the longer mediocre game is because you limited their choices.


Yes, I limited their choice. That was the point of the exerciese, to find out which aspect they valued more: quality, or length. Nobody's forbidding them from playing excellent long games. Nobody's saying that long mediocre games are their absolute preference, only that they prefer long mediocre games to short excellent ones.
---
Formerly Known As: boingboingboing
Now Reading: Great North Road, P. Hamilton
#45Perfect LightPosted 2/4/2013 11:22:54 PM
rockyoumonkeys posted...
Yes, I limited their choice. That was the point of the exerciese, to find out which aspect they valued more: quality, or length. Nobody's forbidding them from playing excellent long games. Nobody's saying that long mediocre games are their absolute preference, only that they prefer long mediocre games to short excellent ones.

First off, you have provided no evidence that these conversations ever took place. Second, even if you did, so what? Just because some people who prefer long games value length over quality doesn't mean ALL of us do. For the MAJORITY of people, we don't want an average 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour one, we want an excellent 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour one. Not all of us have unlimited disposable income, and longer games mean we get more value for our money and in the end have to buy less games. Most of us are not willing to sacrifice quality to get it. Just because you found a few that are doesn't really mean anything about the majority.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIbu3wJDmVQ - New gaming series
My podcast: hulkshare.com/inferiorminds
#46KCJ5062Posted 2/4/2013 11:58:44 PM(edited)
Games being 6 hours or have been around since the NES and SNES. Hell those were even shorter. They just felt longer because of the lack of a save feature and limited continues. So if you lose all your lives and use up all your continues you have to start all over.
#47rockyoumonkeysPosted 2/5/2013 12:01:12 AM
Perfect Light posted...
rockyoumonkeys posted...
Yes, I limited their choice. That was the point of the exerciese, to find out which aspect they valued more: quality, or length. Nobody's forbidding them from playing excellent long games. Nobody's saying that long mediocre games are their absolute preference, only that they prefer long mediocre games to short excellent ones.


First off, you have provided no evidence that these conversations ever took place. Second, even if you did, so what? Just because some people who prefer long games value length over quality doesn't mean ALL of us do. For the MAJORITY of people, we don't want an average 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour one, we want an excellent 50 hour game over an excellent 10 hour one. Not all of us have unlimited disposable income, and longer games mean we get more value for our money and in the end have to buy less games. Most of us are not willing to sacrifice quality to get it. Just because you found a few that are doesn't really mean anything about the majority.


Wow. You just cannot handle logic, can you? I'm picturing a 5-year old trying to wrangle a hungry alligator.

1. Evidence? The ****? You want notorized printed copies of GameFAQs archives over the past several years? The **** do I care if you believe me or not? This isn't a goddamn legal case. If you don't believe me, then just stop responding and the problem will take care of itself. The fact that you're still spinning around in hysterics suggests it doesn't even matter if you believe me or not. You want to have this fight, and by golly you're gonna have this fight.

2. So what indeed? Again, you consistently refuse to get my point. I didn't say anything about "the majority". "Excellent 50 hour games" are not part of this discussion; for ****'s sake it's obvious to anyone with half a working brain that that would be preferable, which is why it has no value in the question I originally asked; seriously, what's the point of asking someone whether they'd rather have $30 cash or $100 cash? Rather, I'm asking you if you'd rather have a $30 gift card to Gamestop or a $100 gift card to a store that frames pictures. And you're saying "But I want a $100 gift card to Gamestop!! WAAHHH."

I never spoke in generalities. I simply said that there exist at least some people who would rather play a mediocre 50 hour game than an excellent 10 hour game. NOTHING MORE. It is you who are trying to turn that statement into something bigger and more controversial than it really is by insisting on options that weren't part of the original exercise.
---
Formerly Known As: boingboingboing
Now Reading: Great North Road, P. Hamilton
#48beastwarkingPosted 2/5/2013 1:35:39 AM
I like games - they can be 3 hours or they can be 60 hours, I really couldn't care less as long as they provide an enjoyable experience. Like all things there are exceptions, but this is a rule I tend to follow pretty closely. The question after that then, is what exactly constitutes "enjoyable?" For some it could be quality of gameplay or story, and for others it can be about atmosphere or sound. For others, it is all above.

To me this seems like a very obvious way to rationalize the question, but clearly people are over-thinking this
---
ba-weep-gra-na-weep-ninny-bong
Hail to the king, baby