Fixed that for you.s69-5 said:
Not every genre can slow burn with content for hundreds of hours ¬_¬
20-hour games are "short"?
- Thread starter shrekfan246
- Start date
Not every genre can slow burn with content for hundreds of hours ¬_¬
Those two points aren't exactly joined in any ways69-5 said:
From where I sitting, it looked like you were just making two separate points.
1: 15-20 is pathetically short
2: You like RPGs
You didn't join them! Why?!
Honestly, i think that the problem is how much replayability the games have, in relation to the price.
I mean you can have a game with 50+ hours of gameplay, but it probably will be just more of the same stuff repeated over and over again.
Games such as spyro and crash bandicoot had many hours of gametime, not because the campaigns were particularly long, but If i remember right, it wasn't really just "more of the same" type gameplay that we see today with games such as skyrim, but because of how much there was to do on it. Secrets to find, 100% score to get on each level and so on.
I think it's usually a waste of money to buy a game for like £20 or $40 or $50, if it only has maybe 10 hours of gameplay which you can't repeat, unless it's an exceptionally amazing game- in which case you'd get more than 10 hours of gameplay by replaying it anyway.
I think it's exceptionally bad when you take into consideration that a lot of free to play games actually have more gameplay time (which is more fun) than some games that you pay quite a large amount for.
For example, most of the games that i've spent the most hours on (according to xfire) are all free to play games. War Rock, Gunz... and so on.
Although it works both ways of course. A game which gets stale and boring very quickly (not mentioning any names) will of course not be a good investment anyway, although if the game gets boring then it probably wasn't fantastic to begin with.
I mean you can have a game with 50+ hours of gameplay, but it probably will be just more of the same stuff repeated over and over again.
Games such as spyro and crash bandicoot had many hours of gametime, not because the campaigns were particularly long, but If i remember right, it wasn't really just "more of the same" type gameplay that we see today with games such as skyrim, but because of how much there was to do on it. Secrets to find, 100% score to get on each level and so on.
I think it's usually a waste of money to buy a game for like £20 or $40 or $50, if it only has maybe 10 hours of gameplay which you can't repeat, unless it's an exceptionally amazing game- in which case you'd get more than 10 hours of gameplay by replaying it anyway.
I think it's exceptionally bad when you take into consideration that a lot of free to play games actually have more gameplay time (which is more fun) than some games that you pay quite a large amount for.
For example, most of the games that i've spent the most hours on (according to xfire) are all free to play games. War Rock, Gunz... and so on.
Although it works both ways of course. A game which gets stale and boring very quickly (not mentioning any names) will of course not be a good investment anyway, although if the game gets boring then it probably wasn't fantastic to begin with.