"It's a budget title" does not excuse quality of fun

[jamail77]

Look. With the recent Legend of Korra video game released people have been saying it's GREAT for a budget title and that you can't compare it to AAA. I HATE this excuse. The only thing a budget title scales down on is scope, the scope will never compare to AAA. So, don't expect top of the line visuals or as in depth content. That doesn't mean the game shouldn't be serviceable though. You don't excuse the flaws or go less harsh on them. Review games as games.

For some reason people seem to believe this philosophy means AAA gets an unfair advantage due to resources put in. As I said though, you know the scope won't be the same, but that doesn't excuse a not fun game from being not fun. I review games by this philosophy and guess what? I still manage to find indie titles I think are better than terrible AAA titles. It's not this black and white, give unfair advantages or review games on a sliding scale based on prices deal.

I've seen people accuse reviewers who gave this game a low score of a lack of journalistic integrity and bad reviewing practice. This is silly and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how this review philosophy works because, as I said, indie titles can still come out on top. If an indie title used its resources more efficiently to polish the game to a sheen then, despite its lower budget, it is the better made game than a terribly polished AAA title.

Actually, someone responding made my point much better than I did

I 100% agree that a bad game is a bad game no matter how much (or little) money you put into the game. Broken game-play, bad stories, technical issues, etc. are not things that should be glossed over just because the game is cheaper. These are things within your control no matter your budget. I suppose a higher budget might help since you can afford more help but that's flimsy at best.

There are things you expect for a lower budget game, but these issues are not among the things that can be fairly excused from criticism.

For the record, I understand the excuse. It's fair, it's understandable. I just don't think it's a very good one for the reasons I stated above. It's only good in deciding whether you really wasted your money rather than in judging quality: "Eh, I only spent $5 on this bad game when the full price was $15, so even though I don't like it, I could have spent more, which it didn't deserve, so I don't feel too bad". What do all of you think? Is that excuse getting a little annoying for any of you? Or, do you still think the excuse is fair?

Important Note: I have been accused of trying to dictate how much playtime others should get out of a game, of thinking fun and quality is objective, and for my personal review philosophy. The first two, if implied anywhere in this post or my follow up posts, was unintentional. I may have stated this belief of mine rather bluntly and it may come off as if I'm stating fact. I only stated it so bluntly because of how strongly I believe in it, but I would never force it on anyone. I find the excuse highlighted as the topic of this discussion bizarre and I am just stating my perspective on how bizarre it sounds to me. To paraphrase some things I said later in the thread

I don't get why everyone keeps accusing me of things I didn't say. If it's because I implied any of this or sounded over defensive then I am sorry, but I had no intention of dictating how much play time you should get or how much fun you should have. The MAIN point of this thread is for those who excuse what they would have normally criticized just because it's a budget title. These are often flaws that can be addressed regardless of budget, they aren't things like top notch visuals or lots of activity on the screen or complex gameplay that taxes the processor as of course budget games can't handle those things. This isn't just referring to this game specifically, but in general. I just don't think the excuse has a lot of merit and that's my opinion. This thread just states my opinion. If others feel that excuse is fine or are legitimately enjoying the game, especially if they are legitimately enjoying the game and aren't using that excuse, I AM FINE WITH THAT.

Believe it or not, I don't actually care that much about the game. I just am not a concise person: I am criticized constantly by my friends for my long Facebook posts, messages, and phone texts. Heck, they even criticize how long I talk for. They often say, "It doesn't sound like you care that much, so why did you write/speak an essay?". That's because I go in depth; I can't help myself. My passion for the topic at hand might bleed into my posts as if I care so much about the game itself rather than the topic at hand, but I don't: It's unintentional. I just want more people to actually address the main point of this thread as I have apologized for injecting a tone that would suggest anything other than the main point of this thread.

 

[tippy2k2]

I think it's 100% fair

I agree that a bad game is a bad game no matter how much money you threw at it but I do feel that the cost of the game should factor into the thinking for a review.

A game like Telltale's Walking Dead isn't very long but it's $20 so that's completely fair. It can also go the other way where I will ding a product that cost $60 that gives me five hours of entertainment. The more money I'm paying for something, the more I am expecting from it.

Hell, I do my own mini-reviews on Facebook about movies I see and my review scores are "See it in theater", "Redbox" or "skip it". I am literally giving the movie a cost-based review.

 

[jamail77]

I think it's 100% fair

A bad game is a bad game no matter how much money you threw at it but I do agree that the cost of the game should factor into the thinking for a review.

A game like Telltale's Walking Dead isn't very long but it's $20 so that's completely fair. It can also go the other way where I will ding a product that cost $60 that gives me five hours of entertainment. The more money I'm paying for something, the more I am expecting from it.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. I address how lower budget means you won't be getting as in depth content, so of course campaigns are shorter. As I said, budget excuses scope and the fact you say the more money you pay the more you expect makes me think you might be agreeing with me, but you might also be saying that you except a toned down game beyond just scope.

My point was that a lower budget does not excuse a game from not being fun. If the camera is annoying or cutscenes are choppy (Hypothetical example, not talking about Korra specifically: When cutscenes are PLANNED for the budget of the game, they should look fine in the context of the game rather than choppy) or it relies on gaming tropes that are well known as gimmicky or low content (Not the same as in-depth content by the way, which refers to complexity. My definition of low content just means it wasn't worked hard on within the resources; it doesn't have much to it. That doesn't mean it's complex), then the game has problems. A lower budget does not excuse a game from doing things that make the game un-fun. It only excuses scope or complexity.

 

[tippy2k2]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. I address how lower budget means you won't be getting as in depth content, so of course campaigns are shorter. As I said, budget excuses scope and the fact you say the more money you pay the more you expect makes me think you might be agreeing with me, but you might also be saying that you except a toned down game beyond just scope.

My point was that a lower budget does not excuse a game from not being fun. If the camera is annoying or cutscenes are choppy (Hypothetical example, not talking about Korra specifically: When cutscenes are PLANNED for the budget of the game, they should look fine in the context of the game rather than choppy) or it relies on gaming tropes that are well known as gimmicky or low content, then the game has problems. A lower budget does not excuse a game from doing things that make the game un-fun. It only excuses scope or complexity.

I suppose I'm three-fourths agreeing with you.

I 100% agree that a bad game is a bad game no matter how much (or little) money you put into the game. Broken game-play, bad stories, technical issues, etc. are not things that should be glossed over just because the game is cheaper. These are things within your control no matter your budget. I suppose a higher budget might help since you can afford more help but that's flimsy at best.

The only part that I somewhat disagree with you is that I do feel the score a game gets should take into consideration how much the game costs but even in that, I think we're mostly in agreement there. I feel that technical issues shouldn't get a pass in reviews against the cost of the game. However, I feel things like length, graphics, size of world, etc. should get cost factored into the reviews.

In fact, re-reading your post above, I think I 99% agree with you assuming I fully understand it.

 

[jamail77]

In fact, re-reading your post above, I think I 99% agree with you assuming I fully understand it.

It sounds like you fully understand what I'm saying. I actually don't mind if a score takes into consideration how much the game costs, but I feel like that goes too far sometimes, like in the case of The Legend of Korra game. I admittedly haven't played it, but I watched a full walkthrough of it and it just has so many problems that people are overlooking because 1) They're not as blatant as a game that is 100% broken and 2) They're using the "It's a budgeted title" excuse. Of course, there's the nostalgic fans just happy for all the references to the show and things like that as well. I'm not saying that some people don't just legitimately like the game and see no flaws. I'm sure they exist too and that's fine; I just disagree with them. Someone is bound to point out that I, nonetheless, haven't played the game, but when I've seen enough of a game I can judge whether I will like it or and be right 7/10 times when I finally get to play the game. I say that from experience: I tend to have a good gut feeling when I've seen enough of a game.

I like the part where you said things that tend to break a game are largely controllable regardless of your budget. I should have said that in my OP, to make it clear. Would you mind if I edited my OP and just quoted you actually? It's clear from your responses that my post isn't as clear as it could be.

Also, sorry. I edited my post after you quoted it. Don't know if that changes anything. I just thought I'd point that out.

 

[tippy2k2]

It sounds like you fully understand what I'm saying. I actually don't mind if a score takes into consideration how much the game costs, but I feel like that goes too far sometimes, like in the case of The Legend of Korra game. I admittedly haven't played it, but I watched a full walkthrough of it and it just has so many problems that people are overlooking because 1) They're not as blatant as a game that is 100% broken and 2) They're using the "It's a budgeted title" excuse. Someone is bound to point out that I, nonetheless, haven't played the game, but when I've seen enough of a game I can judge whether I will like it or and be right 7/10 times when I finally get to play the game.

I like the part where you said things that tend to break a game are largely controllable regardless of your budget. I should have said that in my OP, to make it clear. Would you mind if I edited my OP and just quoted you actually? It's clear from your responses that my post isn't as clear as it could be.

Also, sorry. I edited my post after you quoted it. Don't know if that changes anything. I just thought I'd point that out.

No problem. I do that constantly where I will post my OP or a response in a thread and then edit it later when I think of better/clearer ways to get my point across.

If you feel my post would help you get your original point across, feel free to use it.

 

[Kopikatsu]

This is about the Legend of Korra thing. Here's the deal:

The game has flaws, yes. But I had fun playing it. I had a lot of fun playing it. It's one of the very, very few games that I bothered to 100%. And that's the only metric that holds any weight to me. I don't care if a game doesn't advance the medium. I don't care if it's mechanics are outdated. I don't even care if it milks every cliche there is for all they're worth. I only care that it's fun. And LoK was.

 

[NeutralStasis]

Having not played Legend of Korra, I have little to no opinion about the game. I do know that titles that are tied to popular cartoons or other properties run a higher risk of pissing off the fanboys if does not make their dreams of being a cartoon character come true. I am going to use a different game for example; X-Men Destiny. I remember renting the game through a redbox. I was not expecting much out of the title and was not disappointed. It was fine...fun even. It did not make my dreams of being an X-Men, but was ok. however, it was universally blasted by critics and players alike. If it did not have the X-Men moniker would have been universally reviled? Maybe....but it might also have been looked at as a fun little title that was too short.

 

[Josh123914]

This is about the Legend of Korra thing. Here's the deal:

The game has flaws, yes. But I had fun playing it. I had a lot of fun playing it. It's one of the very, very few games that I bothered to 100%. And that's the only metric that holds any weight to me. I don't care if a game doesn't advance the medium. I don't care if it's mechanics are outdated. I don't even care if it milks every cliche there is for all they're worth. I only care that it's fun. And LoK was.

Pretty much this.
The likes of IGN had docked points using the reasoning that it couldn't stand up to Bayonetta 2 or Arkham Asylum.
.
.
Maybe that's because neither of the other two were sold for £12 at launch?
I was not expecting some innovative holy gee wizz masterpiece. I (and others) should have just been expecting a button masher set in the world of Avatar. For reviewers to criticize the game for being a button masher seems to be missing the point of it, and then some of these sites are rating it 3/10 or 4/10.
Now, I don't usually care about review scores, but its pretty jarring for this type of score to come up on IGN and Gamespot, where scoring anything below a 7 is a death sentence, while if they dared give Bayonetta 2 or any other AAA release a score below 8, there's riots in the streets.

 

[TristanBelmont]

The Earth Defense Force games are a lot of fun but cost like ten dollars.
Slender, Five Night's at Freddy's, almost every horror game that isn't from Cpacapom or Konami, are budget titles.

Heck, MineCraft, the most financially successful (cost-to-profit ratio) game ever made, is a budget title.

 

[jamail77]

snip

Yeah, you can't compare it. Because AAA games waste their resources on unimportant stuff, and budget titles make the most of the talents of their dev team. It's a no-brainer

The Earth Defense Force games are a lot of fun but cost like ten dollars.
Slender, Five Night's at Freddy's, almost every horror game that isn't from Cpacapom or Konami, are budget titles.

Heck, MineCraft, the most financially successful (cost-to-profit ratio) game ever made, is a budget title.

Good to see people that agree with this, not because I need spiteful vindication, but because sometimes I feel alone in this opinion even though the probability of that would be low anyway.

This is about the Legend of Korra thing. Here's the deal:

The game has flaws, yes. But I had fun playing it. I had a lot of fun playing it. It's one of the very, very few games that I bothered to 100%. And that's the only metric that holds any weight to me. I don't care if a game doesn't advance the medium. I don't care if it's mechanics are outdated. I don't even care if it milks every cliche there is for all they're worth. I only care that it's fun. And LoK was.

It feels like you didn't even read my OP. I am not asking for something that advances the medium. Heck, the title of this discussion is "It's a budget title" does not excuse quality of fun. Nowhere did I ask for more than that. I have no doubt in my mind that The Legend of Korra is a fun, competent enough game. However, it looks like something that doesn't hold you for long and gets stale and then falls back on gimmicks like auto-running sequences, "Defeat x enemies to proceed", and what not though I suppose that falls under outdated mechanics you don't mind as long as they feel fun to you (They largely don't feel fun to me by the way). That's why I'm getting it on a heavy discount, it's not worth what the marketers are claiming it is, at least to me.

I actually saw someone post on Kotaku (Please. No bashing Kotaku as a stupid site. I get that, I really do, but I'm just citing a commenter here rather than using the site itself as some sort of evidence) that if this game was $60 it'd be garbage, but because it's $15 it's okay. What? Either he's saying 1) The gameplay is stale and un-fun but because it's $15 I make it fun for myself because that's what $15 is worth or 2) It's a fun game, but has enough flaws that it can't live up to a $60 title, so I will excuse those flaws. Either way he meant it, it's a poor excuse as I cited in my OP, via tippy2k2 technically, the kind of flaws we're talking about here can, for the most part with a few exceptions, largely be controlled regardless of budget. It's 1 thing not to expect top of the line graphics, lots of activity on the screen, gameplay so complex it taxes the processor. It's another to excuse things like choopy cutscenes in the context of this game maximizing its resources, it's another to excuse things you don't like as filler because as a cheap title it needed filler, and well, things like that.

Look, I'm not even here to talk about Korra really. I'm here to have a discussion on how you judge a budget game versus a AAA game and the answer, as far I'm concerned, is you expect lesser graphics, lesser activity on the screen, and things like that, but you don't expect dumbed down fun. I've already made my impressions on the Korra game known on the following threads:

Games you're excited for but also kind of meh about [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.862650-Game-s-youre-excited-for-but-also-kind-of-meh-about#21491223]

Legend of Korra: The Game [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.863484-Legend-of-Korra-The-Game#21544698]

How to control an Avatar game [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.863641-How-to-control-an-Avatar-game#21544640]

You have actually commented on the 2nd thread and if you go back there you'll see that I posted my criticisms. In fact, I got so ranty and rambly that I decided to bow out as I didn't want to ruin the fun of everybody who just wanted to geek out on the game by giving the discussion a cynical atmosphere. That's why I created this thread, to take my cynicism elsewhere, and when you state how you like the game and think it's fine for what it is it feels like you're kind of talking past me. There's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, but it almost feels like you're justifying the game and dismissing my argument. If you disagree with my assessment of the game (Which could still change when I actually get the game because, who knows, maybe I'll end up loving it though I doubt that. It'll probably be closer to a fun romp that goes stale after a few hours.) there's already a thread to geek out about the game, the 2nd one I linked.

The likes of IGN had docked points using the reasoning that it couldn't stand up to Bayonetta 2 or Arkham Asylum.
.
.
Maybe that's because neither of the other two were sold for £12 at launch?

You know, Gamespot and IGN are rightfully criticized, but I feel like you completely missed IGN's end point. To quote them, they said, "It?s not for older people who enjoy a good action game, because next to contemporaries like Batman: Arkham City, Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor, and even Platinum?s own Bayonetta 2, Korra looks terrible with its simple two-button combos and poor combat scenario design". The author of that review did not compare it to them as an unfair matchup to AAA titles. He compared them as contemporaries, as games that excel in their combat. That goes back to the whole point of this thread, you do not excuse budget title's lack of fun because they're budget. You excuse them on things they can't afford and all game budgets can afford fun.

I do think it is odd that IGN was so excited for the game and then blasted it so harshly. I thought it was very obvious from the previews what the game would turn out like, but the way they act I don't think they saw it coming.

I was not expecting some innovative holy gee wizz masterpiece. I (and others) should have just been expecting a button masher set in the world of Avatar. For reviewers to criticize the game for being a button masher seems to be missing the point of it, and then some of these sites are rating it 3/10 or 4/10.
Now, I don't usually care about review scores, but its pretty jarring for this type of score to come up on IGN and Gamespot

To address your innovative masterpiece remark see what I said to Kopikatsu. AGAIN, nowhere in this thread have I said I expected that. I expected fun. You review entertainment as entertainment.

I was expecting more than a button masher that grabs you in as a toned down version of other Platinum games, but with the twist of being set in the Avatar universe. Button mashers can be fun, but this looks like it grows stale quick. The reviewers giving out 3s and 4s are giving it out for poor camera design, lackluster combat, choppy cutscenes, lack of polished visuals (Note how I said polished, not top of the line) and lack of depth in the environment, and finishing moves that cause mecha tanks to automatically transition from smoke to on the ground broken rather than us actually getting to see them breaking apart (OK, not really. The last one is more my nitpick. For a game with so much flashiness, you'd think they'd the developers would want us to see our work in action, but nope. Automatic death transition). I haven't seen any state it's bad because it's a button masher, but because it's a bad button masher.

As for me, I was hoping for something unique. Notice how I didn't say innovative masterpiece. Budget titles, especially indie titles, have given us unique things before. The Avatar universe has earned a unique game. I was hoping for a game that actually let me control the elements rather than summon them from nowhere. Obviously, to take that to a full extent would be very taxing on a processor, but that's why you go for a simple visuals and less activity on the screen to help compensate. Even then it would be limited, but it would show the potential this universe has for a good game and we might have gotten a full fledged title that actually lets you do that on a much larger scale. And, if I couldn't get that it'd be understandable because this is a budget game and that ACTUALLY is something that is easier on a bigger budget. If not that though then I was at least hoping to feel like I was performing elegant martial arts; this game only delivers proper stances to basic attacks. In fact, it prioritizes flashiness: That 100 fire kicks/punches Korra can do in the game is something she would NEVER do in the show. The nice thing about Avatar is the great martial arts founded fighting often can still look flashy, getting the best of both worlds.

Again, this thread isn't really to discuss Korra. I just used her game as an example. It's to address how you review budget titles. If you want elaboration on my opinions I posted links to threads where I posted my opinions in my response to Kopikatsu.

 

[Kopikatsu]

However, it looks like something that doesn't hold you for long and gets stale and then falls back on gimmicks like auto-running sequences, "Defeat x enemies to proceed", and what not though I suppose that falls under outdated mechanics you don't mind as long as they feel fun to you (They largely don't feel fun to me by the way). That's why I'm getting it on a heavy discount, it's not worth what the marketers are claiming it is, at least to me

If you want to reduce a game to it's base elements like that, then you can make anything sound dull. 'Turn based RPGs are mash the attack button X times until you're rewarded with the next cutscene'. And technically every game that isn't open world falls under 'Defeat x enemies to proceed'. Heck, some open world games even use that, too. It kind of just seems like you're complaining that the video game is a video game.

I actually saw someone post on Kotaku (Please. No bashing Kotaku as a stupid site. I get that, I really do, but I'm just citing a commenter here rather than using the site itself as some sort of evidence) that if this game was $60 it'd be garbage, but because it's $15 it's okay. What? Either he's saying 1) The gameplay is stale and un-fun but because it's $15 I make it fun for myself because that's what $15 is worth or 2) It's a fun game, but has enough flaws that it can't live up to a $60 title, so I will excuse those flaws. Either way he meant it, it's a poor excuse as I cited in my OP, via tippy2k2 technically, the kind of flaws we're talking about here can, for the most part with a few exceptions, largely be controlled regardless of budget. It's 1 thing not to expect top of the line graphics, lots of activity on the screen, gameplay so complex it taxes the processor. It's another to excuse things like choopy cutscenes in the context of this game maximizing its resources, it's another to excuse things you don't like as filler because as a cheap title it needed filler, and well, things like that.

I don't recall ever commenting on Kotaku even once in my years on this site, but eh. No point in starting now. I imagine he's saying the latter because the former wouldn't make much sense. The mechanics are simplistic at first glance with some depth (I didn't even figure out how to properly utilize Chi until I'd already beaten the game the first time, and GOD that would have made so many fights easier). But I imagine that the reason it's good as a $15 game but wouldn't be a good $60 is because the mechanics do get a bit repetitive, there isn't a huge amount of enemy variety, skill paths are pretty linear, and it's short. But that's okay. It's length actually works for it, because it doesn't drag on so long that you start to get sick of the repetition. It is a great $15 game. It would be an unfulfilling $60 game because $60 for a 5 hour long game is a little excessive. There's no need to look into it any deeper than that.

There's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, but it almost feels like you're justifying the game and dismissing my argument. If you disagree with my assessment of the game (Which could still change when I actually get the game because, who knows, maybe I'll end up loving it though I doubt that. It'll probably be closer to a fun romp that goes stale after a few hours.) there's already a thread to geek out about the game, the 2nd one I linked.

And this is the problem. You insist the game needs to be 'justified'. It doesn't. It contains about as much content as I've come to expect from games in that price range, but the mechanics have surprising depth (They aren't on the level of MGR or Bayonetta, but it's not shallow either). I honestly don't know what you want here. Do you expect it to have the content of a $60 game at a $15 price point? Besides, I was addressing this point you made "but that doesn't excuse a not fun game from being not fun". And I said that the game is fun. Fun is subjective, but you're posing this as though the game is objectively bad for what it is.

 

[jamail77]

If you want to reduce a game to it's base elements like that, then you can make anything sound dull. 'Turn based RPGs are mash the attack button X times until you're rewarded with the next cutscene'. And technically every game that isn't open world falls under 'Defeat x enemies to proceed'. Heck, some open world games even use that, too. It kind of just seems like you're complaining that the video game is a video game.

I have looked at this game in depth: I watched a full walkthrough and read multiple reviews. I am singling out a few annoyances, nitpicks, but trust me, when I said all of that stuff that I was considering the game in its entirety. I wasn't trying to break it down to its base elements. To break down my in depth opinion of the game would take an essay long post and I already linked you to threads that state my opinion of the game if you're honest to good curious on my opinion.

Also, there's blatant, hand holding "Defeat x enemies to proceed" and organic "Defeat enemies to proceed". I don't want to go into detail about why the way Korra does it annoys me versus the way other games do it. It's also telling you say I'm complaining about a game being a game. There's a lot of discussion right now about games becoming more immersive, whether "video game" is even a term that does justice to the medium anymore. I'm complaining about something that reminds you you're playing a video game, an overused trope of video games actually. And, before anyone says anything, no I'm not particularly expecting a budget game to do its best to hide that its a game at its core, but the trope is nonetheless annoying for reasons of its own.

There's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, but it almost feels like you're justifying the game and dismissing my argument. If you disagree with my assessment of the game (Which could still change when I actually get the game because, who knows, maybe I'll end up loving it though I doubt that. It'll probably be closer to a fun romp that goes stale after a few hours.) there's already a thread to geek out about the game, the 2nd one I linked.

And this is the problem. You insist the game needs to be 'justified'. It doesn't. It contains about as much content as I've come to expect from games in that price range, but the mechanics have surprising depth (They aren't on the level of MGR or Bayonetta, but it's not shallow either). I honestly don't know what you want here. Do you expect it to have the content of a $60 game at a $15 price point? Besides, I was addressing this point you made "but that doesn't excuse a not fun game from being not fun". And I said that the game is fun. Fun is subjective, but you're posing this as though the game is objectively bad for what it is.

Either I am ridiculously unclear or you're reading something in my posts I'm not saying. It's probably the former; I have a history of being unclear. I don't insist the game needs to be justified. I'm insisting that you're justifying the game as a way of dismissing my argument. Are you doing that? Probably not, you say you're just saying you had fun with it, but that's what it felt like.

I already have expressed multiple times that I don't expect the content of a $60 game at a $15 price point. I can't help getting frustrated at this point because that's what this whole thread is about. At the end of the day, it's about fun and this looks like a very limited time of fun. Then, it gets stale. That's not what I wanted. I have bought plenty of $15 games that were surprising, not only in the depth of their mechanics, but in enemy variety, non-linear paths, all the things you're excusing this game for. You do say because the game runs so short you don't get sick of the repetition and if that's true then fair point. Again, I haven't played the game and that may very well be the case. But, I don't expect budget games to not have what you state on some level just because they're budget. AAA games have more enemies on the screen, more complex AI and gameplay that modern systems can handle, better graphics. While it's true budget games are limited in how much they can do with enemy variety and linear vs non-linear paths, many budget games still do a serviceable job with the resources they have.

I don't feel this game does that and that's my opinion, my impression until I get the game. I have to decide how good a game is before I buy it because that's how we, as consumers put our money where our mouths are...and conserve money to actually put food in our mouths. If I buy the game and I don't think it's worth what they promised at that price point then I payed what I didn't think it deserved (the latter reason for deciding whether to buy doesn't apply because losing $15 isn't that big of a deal to my living expenses). As I said, plenty of $15 games are masterpieces and I wasn't even looking for a masterpiece.

If you like the game that's fine. I have no issue disagreeing on the quality of the fun of this game. I'm not suggesting any sort of objectivity to fun. I am stating how I took the game. If I thought this was objective, I wouldn't have reminded you that there is a thread entirely composed of mostly positive opinions on the game or that what you find fun is not necessarily what I find fun though to be fair, I said the latter in parentheses. I would have dismissed that thread as nostalgic fanboys and never would have bothered pointing out a possible difference in our tastes, but I didn't. If it sounds like I'm trying to put objectivity into this, that goes back to the main point of this thread: People who excuse things they would have complained about if their choice budget title was a more expensive title instead. If there was any objectivity I put into this discussion I would think it was there and it was unintentional. If I sounded over-defensive and if I do sound like I'm trying to force an objectivity that doesn't exist onto anyone then I'm sorry. I certainly didn't mean to.

 

[Bad Jim]

At the end of the day, it's about fun and this looks like a very limited time of fun. Then, it gets stale.

Low cost does justify lack of longevity. That's true whether it has limited content or if its' whole concept is too shallow to be fun for a long time. Lots of $60 games take about 12 hours to beat, so if a $15 game is fun for 3 hours it's doing okay.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

You are rather passionate for someone who have yet to play the game? I know you watched Let's play of Korra, but if you haven't invested in the game, you have nothing to lose to not play it. It also shouldn't matter if other people feel they already got their money worth.

There are plenty of games at budget price with low amount of contents such as Limbo, Gone home, Fairy Bloom Freesia or the likes... it's unfair to value these games based on the amount of playtime per dollar. It's also rather inappropriate to tell people how much fun they are allowed to have even if the combat is "broken", and the story is lacking.

Legend of Korra has mixed review, a love-it-or-hate-it type of game. There are people who share your worries about quality of contents, like IGN or Gamespot reviews and there are the people who love the game just for the solid entertainment it provides.

 

[jamail77]

At the end of the day, it's about fun and this looks like a very limited time of fun. Then, it gets stale.

Low cost does justify lack of longevity. That's true whether it has limited content or if its' whole concept is too shallow to be fun for a long time. Lots of $60 games take about 12 hours to beat, so if a $15 game is fun for 3 hours it's doing okay.

I agree that low cost does justify lack of longevity and shallow fun is okay to a certain extent as well. However, I don't agree that a $15 should be fun for 3 hours. It should be fun for as long as it takes to complete all the content offered one time, assuming no replay value. That's why the content is offered. This game has a 4-5 hour campaign and then a pro-bending mode, think of it as a sport but you're throwing fire, water, and rocks at people using your super powers. If we assume you can spend 3 hours on the pro-bending mode, trying to best your scores and learn the nuances of the mode this game's fun should be good for anywhere from 7-10 hours, again assuming no replay value. I know that might sound kind of nitpicky, that's only so many hours past 3, but it's how long the content they offered is supposed to last. And, that isn't even including replay the game with all your powers from the start or with the different costumes you can get.

I still want to get the game; I just don't think it lives up to what was promised in marketing. That's all and that's just my opinion, which could very well change when I get the game.

You are rather passionate for someone who have yet to play the game? I know you watched Let's play of Korra, but if you haven't invested in the game, you have nothing to lose to not play it. It also shouldn't matter if other people feel they already got their money worth.

There are plenty of games at budget price with low amount of contents such as Limbo, Gone home, Fairy Bloom Freesia or the likes... it's unfair to value these games based on the amount of playtime per dollar. It's also rather inappropriate to tell people how much fun they are allowed to have even if the combat is "broken", and the story is lacking.

Legend of Korra has mixed review, a love-it-or-hate-it type of game. There are people who share your worries about quality of contents, like IGN or Gamespot reviews and there are the people who love the game just for the solid entertainment it provides.

To address your question as to why I SEEM so invested in a game I haven't actually bought, I'll just quote what I said to another person in the thread:

I don't feel this game does that and that's my opinion, my impression until I get the game. I have to decide how good a game is before I buy it because that's how we, as consumers put our money where our mouths are...and conserve money to actually put food in our mouths. If I buy the game and I don't think it's worth what they promised at that price point then I payed what I didn't think it deserved (the latter reason for deciding whether to buy doesn't apply because losing $15 isn't that big of a deal to my living expenses). As I said, plenty of $15 games are masterpieces and I wasn't even looking for a masterpiece.

I don't get why everyone keeps accusing me of things I didn't say. If it's because I implied any of this or sounded over defensive then I am sorry, but I had no intention of dictating how much play time you should get or how much fun you should have. The MAIN point of this thread is for those who excuse what they would have normally criticized just because it's a budget title, flaws that can be addressed regardless of budget. This isn't just referring to this game specifically, but in general. I just don't think the excuse has a lot of merit and that's my opinion. This thread just states my opinion. If others feel that excuse is fine or are legitimately enjoying the game, especially if they are legitimately enjoying the game and aren't using that excuse, I AM FINE WITH THAT.

As for the low content thing, see what I said about that to Bad Jim. A game's playtime should last as long as the content offered takes to complete. This game is supposed to draw you in from anywhere to 7-10 hours, assuming you don't bother replaying with all your powers intact or with different costumes. If it gets stale before you complete the content then what was the point of offering that many hours of content? That's just my opinion, my standards. If others are fine with not getting more fun out of the content then more power to them.

While, unfortunately, IGN and Gamespot are more in line with my opinion for once I worry this is a subtle jab at me, as if I have low, strange, or silly standards of games. I am just more skeptical. Believe it or not, I don't actually care that much. I just am not a concise person: I am criticized constantly by my friends for my long Facebook posts, messages, and phone texts. Heck, they even criticize how long I talk for. They often say, "It doesn't sound like you care that much, so why did you write/speak an essay". That's because I go in depth; I can't help myself. My passion for the topic at hand might bleed into my posts as if I care so much about the game, but I don't: It's unintentional. I just wish more people would actually address the main point of this thread. I have already apologized multiple times for implying anything I didn't mean to or sounding over defensive. Would it be okay if we just get back on topic? I admit my fault here.

snip

My work break is over, so I'll edit in a response to you when I can come back. Sorry for the delay.