Support NeoGAF

[Kai Dracon]

I think the Bayonetta vs Vanquish example bears examination:

Vanquish, by itself, has enough value purely as a score attack shooter. You can play that game again and again for years and enjoy it just as you'd still play Gradius today. On that score, no problem.

Where I think a legitimate sense of disappointment came from was that Vanquish was *made* for content like Bayonetta showcased. It feels incomplete within a certain context. I think there are some games you can play and find perfectly fine in their core value but still feel they missed opportunities. That's Vanquish's real issue.

As for replayability again, I do think "lasting appeal" may be a better way to go about it. Agreed.

One could say that "Heavy Rain" may be a fantastic experience but has zero lasting appeal.

On the other hand, a Civilization game might be said to have literally infinite lasting appeal.

Framing it in that manner may give people a better idea of what to expect from a game, and also to gauge what they want out of it.

 

[Retro_]

because to most people, money is much more scarce than their time.

I'm not arguing that

I'm just saying I don't like the practice of measuring games "in hours"

It's just dumb to me. I've seen people make decisions about games SOLELY on this. Without consideration to type of game it is or genre or why anyone would play the game in the first place, people make decisions solely on some rough estimate on how long they'll hypothetically be playing something by equating it to dollar value.

Of course I make those judgements. Why would I not?

I want to be entertained in the cheapest way I possibly can. That seems like a completely rational goal. Do you want to spend more money than you have to, for some reason?

These are honest questions, by the way. I would like someone to explain why they would not behave this way, because it seems obvious and logical to me that you'd want to get the most fun out of every dollar as you possibly can.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing

I don't have a problem with being thrifty. it's a consumer's job to try and buy goods for the best price possible

I have a problem with people judging games by hypothetical hour counts instead of the actual game and what they will personally do with it/get out of it.

So basically my problem isn't with seeking entertainment for the lowest price possible so much as it is inaccurately judging entertainment by a scale that doesn't make sense for every case.

An accurate assessment of the amount of hours you can enjoy with a game can be a rough measurement of the quality of a game. There are always exceptions, sure, like if you are the kind of guy to slog through the second half of a shitty game just to finish it, or if you're playing a game that you don't like very much because you're playing it with friends, but I'd say it's generally in line.

That's the thing though alot of the times they aren't accurate and only take into consideration one aspect of the game(one playthrough of single player campaign)

and more often than not they don't even take into consideration the type of game. A shorter game with tons of mechanical freedom that it is quite likely you'll playthrough more than once if you purchase it is weighed on the same scale as a lengthy RPG, or a padded linear shooter that you'll more than likely only play once.

 

[farnham]

i agree if a game is great im going to replay it over and over again

if its shit an exhaustive online mode will also be shit

also replay value misses the point for rpgs

 

[Net_Wrecker]

As far as separating opinion and content, that all makes perfect sense. But if you enjoy MvC more, how could it not be worth the same amount of money as a game you enjoyed less? That kind of sounds like saying the 30-pack of Keystone Light is worth the $16.99 but the two 4-packs of DogfishHead 120 min. IPA isn't because 8 beers isn't worth the same as 30 Keystones at $16.99. As if more content is worth more than quality.

Haha. Man that sounds stupid and convoluted (I'm at work and constantly being interrupted), but moving on...

I've never paid for a game, played it, enjoyed it and said to myself "that was one of the best games I've ever played, but it didn't have enough content for the amount I payed".

This right here is a fundamental difference between the way I might think, and the way you might think. The quote I bolded WOULD be something that comes to my mind having completed a brilliant, but short/content lacking game. It might not come to me the SECOND after finishing the game, and it might not come to me 5 hours after finishing the game. But you can bet that 3 days after I finished that brilliant game, yet have no rewards, no new content, or no different ways of playing it a second time, and it just sits there until I feel like experiencing the same game again, I'll think "Y'know, that probably wasn't worth $60."

And the MK vs. MvC3 argument probably wasn't the best example as I was talking strictly about the amount and quality of SINGLEPLAYER content. Even then you could still argue that MK provides a better suite of options online. As much as I'd hypothetically love MvC3, it still wouldn't be worth $60 because MK is "over there" doing ALL THIS.

 

[cametall]

so why did you play Max Payne 2 several times from start to finish?

it evidently had replay value even if it didn't have alternate endings and new game plus and hidden collectables.

I evidently have a sick fascination with shoothing things in slowmo.

 

[LosDaddie]

:lol @ the OP getting destroyed in this thread.

I think you're twisting this idea somewhat. No replay value refers to a game that once completed, has no incentive to go back to the game to enjoy another aspect of it (weapons, mastering combat, new difficulties etc.). That is to say, in that brief 5-6 hours you had with the game, you saw it in its entirety.

IT ONLY REFERS TO SHORT GAMES. Whether or not someone considers Portal 2 + Coop short is besides the point as that is a subjective assessment of length.

It is a fair criticism.

Agreed. Replay value is important when it comes to short games. For example, I'm glad I bought LIMBO on sale because I would've been upset to pay $15 for a 4hr game with no replay value at all. The game was great, but I'll never play it again.

Then again, I'm playing FAble 2 (backlog game) right now, and while it does have inherent replay value (Good vs Evil), I'm probably not going to play the Evil side. I'm at about 20rhs into the game, and I probably have another 5hrs left + DLC.

 

[Shambles]

This is one of the most annoying complaints I hear about games.

"The game is fantastic, but there's no replay value, so it sucks!"

Some of my absolute favorite games of all time I've played only once, but the experience resonated so strongly with me that I don't need to replay the game to "legitimize" it. Take Red Dead Redemption, for instance: I played the game for about 45 hours. Loved it to death. Will I replay it anytime soon? No. I don't ever see myself replaying the game. However, it doesn't lose points for that because it's still a terrific fucking game. Neither does Fallout 3, or Oblivion, or Grand Theft Auto IV, or Mirror's Edge, or Portal 2, or so many other excellent titles.

It's akin to many of my favorite films: I don't really care to rewatch 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I adored it upon first viewing. That's enough for me.

I really believe this "replay value OMG" mentality is far more relevant to short older classics (I'm talking NES, SNES, and earlier) that needed a reason for you to keep coming back or else you'd be finished with it in a couple hours.

Great post. Far more games have the problem of not being compelling enough to finish in the first place, forget replayability. Going through my steam list I have only finished 10/20 titles. Out of my retail games my completion rate is probably more like 75% but even still, I'm only finishing maybe 60% of my games.

Spoiler

I swear i'll finish HL2&Eps. sometime

 

[El-Suave]

I usually only play through a game once - the "replay" takes place in my head when a game is so good that it contained scenes that I will remember for many years to come (good luck remembering the kill/death ratio, or whatever you want as a reward, of the multiplayer shooter du jour that many people enjoy these days). Game length is pretty much irrelevant for me as long as it isn't criminally short.

 

[MrOogieBoogie]

:lol @ the OP getting destroyed in this thread.

How am I getting destroyed? There are people arguing for both sides.

 

[Venfayth]

These are honest questions, by the way. I would like someone to explain why they would not behave this way, because it seems obvious and logical to me that you'd want to get the most fun out of every dollar as you possibly can.

That makes sense but it doesn't always apply to the situation someone is in.

Let's say I can get a game that will last for 25 hours and it costs me $50. That's $2 per hour.

Let's say I can get a game that will last for 4 hours and it costs me $40. That's $10 per hour.

Which is more logical to buy?


You can't answer that question unless you ask other questions to find out more about the scenario. If someone's got 8 hours a week to play, they've got to choose whether or not they want a game to last a few weeks or if they want to be done with it ASAP so they can move on, which ultimately means that the $/hour value is irrelevant. If the game can be replayed, then you're realistically just increasing the # of hours the game lasts.

Also, what about fun?

I personally play games for enjoyment, not for an efficient way to spend my money. If a game lasts for a short period of time and costs more than another game, but it looks like it's more fun, I'll probably still buy it.

 

[Meier]

Lack of replay value is fine if it's a 50-70 hour epic. Not so much if it's a 3 hour jaunt.

It's not like this just applies to games. I felt pissed off that The Corpse Bride was like 70 minutes and still cost me $10+ bucks a ticket.

 

[Himself]

I think this is, in a very simplified way, boiling down to people who think value=time/quantity and those who think value=quality.

 

[rollingstart]

Of course I make those judgements. Why would I not?

I want to be entertained in the cheapest way I possibly can. That seems like a completely rational goal. Do you want to spend more money than you have to, for some reason?

These are honest questions, by the way. I would like someone to explain why they would not behave this way, because it seems obvious and logical to me that you'd want to get the most fun out of every dollar as you possibly can.

fun is not quantifiable

obviously, if a game is 200 hours long and remains fun, that's a good thing. but often it feels like games are designed a certain way, end up shorter, and then are artificially lengthened because: "# of hours = % of fun"

it's not entirely their fault because a lot of gamers have the "BEAT IT! NEXT GAME!" mentality, but I dunno...I'm not explaining this well and am about to get anecdote crazy, so I'll stop.

 

[Alexios]

It depends on the game. I'm not gonna fault Shenmue or insert_JRPG_here for not having much of that, but a roguelike without replay value would pretty much be, well, shit. Context is everything. Games that rely purely on gameplay rather than any sort of story based progression (though they may include that) also tend to be very replayable. Strategy (real time or turn based) games where you try different strategies and harder to beat AI, shooting (take that as you will, shmup or FPS or whatever) games that test your skill and reflexes over and over, etc. Then there are multiplayer focused games. What if they got boring after a single match, offering no depth to master or whatever else? There obviously are types of games that without incentive to keep going back wouldn't be considered worthwhile with good reason so yes, a lack of replay value can be bad.

 

[Retro_]

That makes sense but it doesn't always apply to the situation someone is in.

Let's say I can get a game that will last for 25 hours and it costs me $50. That's $2 per hour.

Let's say I can get a game that will last for 4 hours and it costs me $40. That's $10 per hour.

Which is more logical to buy?


You can't answer that question unless you ask other questions to find out more about the scenario. If someone's got 8 hours a week to play, they've got to choose whether or not they want a game to last a few weeks or if they want to be done with it ASAP so they can move on, which ultimately means that the $/hour value is irrelevant. If the game can be replayed, then you're realistically just increasing the # of hours the game lasts.

If there are really people that think like this, then this is a perfect example of what I hate

 

[LosDaddie]

How am I getting destroyed? There are people arguing for both sides.

That's not the general impression I get, but whatevs.

 

[Souldriver]

I disagree with the OP.

I want replay value. I greatly value (pun) it.

In that sense I am not a typical gamer. Most people just fly from one game to another, because the quality releases follow up one another so quickly as well. But I wouldn't really enjoy that kind of gaming habit. I would feel like I never truly experience a game. For me, an awesome game is one where I can come back to at any time and still have a blast. I buy far fewer games than the average gaffer I think, but I make sure that my purchases will give me many hours of joy. It are games that I actually remember playing, that are ingrained in my memory and make me smiling thinking about them. To put it kinda ridiculous: I make sure that the games I buy and play, will give me a nostalgic feeling if I ever come to box them in the attic.

Because of that I'm also less of an "interactive movie" game genre that's so in these days. Those games don't really have any replay value imo. Give me games that focus on gameplay, or that have countless possible scenarios, or that allow me to roam the world for hours, ...

 

[Net_Wrecker]

I think this is, in a very simplified way, boiling down to people who think value=time/quantity and those who think value=quality.

I don't think I'm either of those though. To me Value = Content vs. Price Point. Quality should be a constant factor ANYWAY, so all that's left is if I'm getting enough for my money. A short amazing game not built around replaying is well worth $30. A short amazing game built around replaying which extends its length x5 is well worth $60.

 

[thezerofire]

I think it's more of a valid reason not to purchase a game if one is limited in funding.

 

[perfectnight]

Completely disagree with the OP. My favorite games of all time have immense replay value. Diablo 2, Street fighter series, Zone of the Enders 2, Deus Ex, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Demon's Souls, Dark Cloud 2, PSO, etc.

But then again I am extremely selective about the games I play. To the point that most people probably think I don't like video games . So I understand if replay is not as important to someone who plays far more games than I do per year.

 

[Tain]

If there are really people that think like this, then this is a perfect example of what I hate

What about measuring the time that one can enjoy playing a game? Like, if hour measurements were generally accurate (five hours for Heavy Rain with absolutely no desire to return, maybe 50 or so for DoDonPachi Daioujou depending on how proficient of a scorer you want to be, etc), would you be against people using them as a rough guideline of quality?

 

[Steve McQueen]

When I start a game I always say to myself ' What a great game! Ï'm gonna play this one again' In the end the next great title is on the shelves and I play that.

I own quite a few games, but I have to admit that the only games I replayed were Resi 4 and Halo CE, so I think for me personally replay value is not an issue

 

[Mudkips]

At $60 + DLC + being unable to sell it later, games better have some fucking replay value.

To most devs, that means shitty multiplayer modes to keep people from selling the game 1 week after launch.

 

[plagiarize]

What about measuring the time that one can enjoy playing a game? Like, if hour measurements were generally accurate (five hours for Heavy Rain with absolutely no desire to return, maybe 50 or so for DoDonPachi Daioujou depending on how proficient of a scorer you want to be, etc), would you be against people using them as a rough guideline of quality?

personally, yes, because 'enjoy' is too vague a standard.

i can enjoy one game for ten hours, and another game for eight hours, and greatly prefer the time i spent with the one i enjoyed for eight hours.

look at it another way. i love horror games. i love games with good stories. i will, and i have, replayed games in both genres because i enjoyed them so much, but replaying Silent Hill (say) is nothing close to how good the experience was the first time through.

it isn't scary any more. it isn't surprising any more. it's comfortable and fun and worth experiencing again, but i'd get so much more out of playing a whole new game.

i love me some score attack games. i love Pac Man Championship Edition DX and probably spent more time playing that game last year in total than anything else, but i'm never sitting down and playing it for multiple hours at a time. it's not in any way shape or form going to fill my desire for a tight, fun, varied, eight hour long story with a satisfying pay off.

because an hour of DX isn't equivalent to an hour of something else, even though DX was my favourite game released last year.

 

[LiK]

replay value is indeed overrated. some games are more like experiences that you wanna experience like a movie. but like any movie, some can be revisited again.

 

[SephCast]

The only games I've replayed this gen have been:

Mass Effect - 6 times
Mass Effect 2 - 3 times
Fallout 3 - 3 times
Valkyria Chronicles - 2 times

I wanted to NG+ Tales of Vesperia, but I didn't get enough points to buy enough perks to want to go through the game again. Now I don't even have the game anymore.

I don't pick up a game anticipating I'll go through it again because it's almost never worth the time unless you enjoyed the game so much you want to play it again. I played Infamous once and it was enough. Same with Heavy Rain and Oblivion. In those cases, the games weren't good enough for me to want to explore the game anymore. Achievements/additional difficulty don't even register as "replay value" to me.

How many hours are Mass Effect 1 and 2? I'm a sucker for good storylines and I am probably going to play them soon.

 

[Retro_]

What about measuring the time that one can enjoy playing a game? Like, if hour measurements were generally accurate (five hours for Heavy Rain with absolutely no desire to return, maybe 50 or so for DoDonPachi Daioujou depending on how proficient of a scorer you want to be, etc), would you be against people using them as a rough guideline?

Yeah I think would still be against it.

because that's something that can only be determined by the individual for their own personal situation, and isn't really the result of anything the game developers did.

As an example, I personally have logged about 30 hours into Hard Corps Uprising. There are people on youtube who have logged over 100. Then there's my friend who has barely played the game for 5, and hasn't played passed stage 4.

We all paid the same amount and are satisfied with the experience we got for the purchase.(although I guess I'm assuming the guy with over 100 hours has enjoyed the game, lol)

Same with something like Mass Effect 2. Alot of day 1 buyers were satisfied with one playthrough of the single player campaign alone. Then there are the people that have replayed the game multiple times and complete all the side content. Then finally there are the people that bought the game on release, have yet to complete it(and have stopped actively playing) and still hold a favorable opinion of the game.

Every person is different will get different mileage out of the game, often of no real active effort of the developer. It'll always be a subjective thing so I don't think it ever has a place in an opinion of objective quality for a game

 

[Orayn]

How many hours are Mass Effect 1 and 2? I'm a sucker for good storylines and I am probably going to play them soon.

With moderate sidequesting and exploration, I'd say they're both in the neighborhood of 25 hours.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

I still don't get where people say RDR is a 40 hour game. I went through the missions in about 10 hours. Where does the other 30 hours come from? Riding a horse through the desert?

 

[LiK]

I still don't get where people say RDR is a 40 hour game. I went through the missions in about 10 hours. Where does the other 30 hours come from? Riding a horse through the desert?

did you do the sidequests and challenges? plenty of minigames too.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

I've played though both Uncharted games 4 times each. So good that I started a new game after the credits rolled with each game.

 

[thefro]

$60 is a lot of cash for 4 hours.

Especially when you can rent a game for $5 max and beat it.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

did you do the sidequests and challenges? plenty of minigames too.

The sidequests and challenges seemed repetitive and the minigames essentially have no point. Can someone tell me, why would I play Blackjack in RDR?

 

[SneakyStephan]

yeah, but the problem is when the strive for 'replay value' ends up as padded length, repetitiousness tasks, etc.

I'm more likely to replay short games with excellent pacing than games that feel artificially lengthened.

Ah yes, the perpetual problem of the gaming industry, following criticism while losing the essence of the idea behind it.

Anyhow, any game that has solid gameplay and is a lot of fun with a good learning curve has replay value.
We all played through mgs1 several times despite the only difference being the bandana/camo and (story spoiler)

Spoiler

wether meryl lives or dies

I played through the tekken 3 story mode like 2 dozen times, often with the same characters, halo 1 in coop was infinitely replayable despite a semi short campaign,you'd replay sonic and mario games over and over with the same levels and never tire of them.

As you said, not it's just chores n groceries : paperwork/homework edition of filling bars in 99 percent of games to pad lenght.
It's especially disgusting in assassin's creed.

 

[Pimpbaa]

I loath short games with no replay value. Also, if I never want to play a game again, it was't that good. It is a very valid criticism.

 

[MjFrancis]

The replay value argument has been all over the place in this thread. Hell, the OP even reframed the question to apply to SP games only partway through. Then people got into the value of gaming as related to price argument. Taking the OP's SP-only argument into consideration, it all really depends on the game. A Cave game like Ketsui or Pink Sweets can be beaten around a half-hour if you credit-feed, but that's like beating DOOM with every cheat code enabled and complaining that the game was easy. People spend tens or even over a hundred hours trying to perfect their score on half-hour games. 'Replayability.'

But since the OP's main gripes are against people who hate on mostly longer SP games (ignoring Mirror's Edge since it has a fuckton of replayability) that don't have NG+ with decent critical backing, I'm just going to advise to ignore those people. Because...

I really believe this "replay value OMG" mentality is far more relevant to short older classics (I'm talking NES, SNES, and earlier) that needed a reason for you to keep coming back or else you'd be finished with it in a couple hours.

is complete nonsense since you don't account for arcade games that have been released in the past 15 years, any game that still takes scoring into consideration or any MP play whatsoever. You've since clarified this position a little, but if that's the case it's still a ridiculous and ignorant statement and this thread is better titled "SP games don't necessarily require replay value."

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

The problem with looking at games as a purely value oriented source of entertainment is that it really isn't. If you start quantifying the numbers then the whole exercise becomes a little depressing.

If I want to start being frugal about my entertainment purchases, I can get nearly every book ever written for under $4 used on Amazon.

Also, I disagree that reviews should discuss a game in terms of its price because prices fluctuate constantly. Okay, so this game was not worth $60, but in the context of the $5 bargain bin? Time investment, however, stays constant.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's not worth $60, it's not worth $5.

 

[Dynedom]

If I'm going to drop 60-70 dollars on a game, I better be able to replay it at least once. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. At the end of the day, I hold video games to all other entertainment mediums: comic books, movies, CD's. If I pay for it, I better be able to read it/watch it/listen to it more than once.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

Nah, replay value = VALUE for people's money.

I put over 1000 hours into SSBM. That was $50 and is a much better deal than the $60 Ass Creed 2 that I played for 30.

 

[tiff]

The sidequests and challenges seemed repetitive and the minigames essentially have no point. Can someone tell me, why would I play Blackjack in RDR?

Same reason you'd play blackjack in any game I guess. It's fun once or twice as a novelty.

 

[Tain]

Every person is different will get different mileage out of the game, often of no real active effort of the developer. It'll always be a subjective thing so I don't think it ever has a place in an opinion of objective quality for a game

I think that some people have flat-out better taste than others. And I'm talking about extremes when it comes to these hour counts. If someone I consider to have good taste in STGs (which would also suggest good taste in genres) can squeeze 50 hours out of shooter A, yet can't stand four credits of shooter B, it's a pretty clear hint to me that I might not want to bother with shooter B. It only gets stronger as more people with good taste chime in. I can also use what I know about a game's genre or developer's pedigree to deduce that I'll probably have no desire to touch it after a single campaign playthrough, which is enough for me to opt for a rental instead of a purchase or whatever.

I'm not talking about only using the measurement to make purchasing decisions, though. I'll sometimes use the measurement to make qualitative judgments when reflecting over games that I've spent time with. Most basically, I can't think of a single short game that I would both not ever enjoy returning to and consider great, which is why I see nothing wrong with, say, the following:

"Bioshock was okay, but I don't think I could stand another playthrough. Vanquish, on the other hand, was interesting enough to not make me sick of the game even after a few campaign playthroughs and wrestling through those Challenge stages, so it's probably better."

Ultimately, the hours enjoyed are a symptom of good game design, not a cause, so that's probably what this boils down to.

 

[KevinCow]

You ever notice how video games are pretty much the only entertainment medium whose value is derived from how much time you'll spend with it? Like you'll never read a review complaining about a movie or book being too short. It's far more likely to see them complain about them being too long.


Honestly, I'm far less concerned about how many hours I'll spend with a game and more concerned about the quality of those hours. I've paid full price on a game I spent ten hours with and still felt fully satisfied because I enjoyed every minute of it; on the other hand, I've paid half that price on a game I spent twice as much time with and felt ripped off because it just wasn't as fun to play.

And, personally? No matter how much I enjoy a game, I'll get tired of it after a while. Eight billion hours of content in my favorite game ever doesn't mean much to me, because I'm probably only going to experience, at most, 40 of those hours. In fact, if it takes me more than, say, 25 or so hours to complete the main game, I'll probably start to enjoy the game less. Because if I like the game, I'll want to finish it, but finishing it means pushing myself to keep playing it after I've started to get tired of it.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

It depends on the game. I bought SSFIV and Child of Eden because I intended on playing them many times. A story-centric shooter/adventure game like Uncharted? I'll probably be bored before the end and there's almost no chance that I'll replay it if I do finish it.

 

[Retro_]

You ever notice how video games are pretty much the only entertainment medium whose value is derived from how much time you'll spend with it? Like you'll never read a review complaining about a movie or book being too short. It's far more likely to see them complain about them being too long.

Yeah. Seems like it only recently became that way too.

I don't read reviews but I don't remember hour count being such a huge bullet point back in the PS2 days.


and I disagree with nothing you posted Tain. I wouldn't lump what you're doing(making informed decisions about games based on the opinions of friends) with my pet peeve with hour counts.(quantifying content in the form of some arbitrary number)

 

[HamPster PamPster]

For me replay value is something I won't care about 90% of the time because I won't play a game again or even beat it. But the 10% of the time a game really captures me I want to be able to replay it and have a great time. Since I have no idea what game will catch me I'll advocate that all games should strive towards increased replayability even if only 10% need it, because I have no idea which 10% that is

Also, IMO the whole quality vs quanity thing breaks down because I've seen very little evidence that short games are actually of a better quality. For every long game that feels padded theres a short game that does too. In fact some of the most "padded" games are the shorter ones IMO

In theory you could take a 30 hour game and cut it down to the 15 best hours but I've never played a game that felt that way.

 

[Omotesando]

Depends on the game.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

You ever notice how video games are pretty much the only entertainment medium whose value is derived from how much time you'll spend with it? Like you'll never read a review complaining about a movie or book being too short. It's far more likely to see them complain about them being too long.


Honestly, I'm far less concerned about how many hours I'll spend with a game and more concerned about the quality of those hours. I've paid full price on a game I spent ten hours with and still felt fully satisfied because I enjoyed every minute of it; on the other hand, I've paid half that price on a game I spent twice as much time with and felt ripped off because it just wasn't as fun to play.

And, personally? No matter how much I enjoy a game, I'll get tired of it after a while. Eight billion hours of content in my favorite game ever doesn't mean much to me, because I'm probably only going to experience, at most, 40 of those hours. In fact, if it takes me more than, say, 25 or so hours to complete the main game, I'll probably start to enjoy the game less. Because if I like the game, I'll want to finish it, but finishing it means pushing myself to keep playing it after I've started to get tired of it.

Typically your not paying 60 dollars for a movie or book. Along with the rise of Redbox, DVD sales have been significantly eaten away. There have been games that take about 4-5 hours to complete the game and multiplayer isn't that much fun but are asking people to pay $60 for the content and that's too much.

Of course most people go by the actual quality of the product. No one rates completely by or decides their entire purchase on how long the game is. I think length and replayability are definite terms to see if the product is worth the price something people are asking. For example Star Fox 64 takes maybe an hour to complete the game but I can't tell you how many me and many other gamers replayed the game increasing it's value significantly.

For long RPG, adventure, MMO, sandbox, etc games replayability isn't a factor because the single player mode is long enough. However, for short fighters, shooters, on rails games, etc replayability and multiplayer is a huge factor or else the request for $50-60 to buy the game is seen as not worth it.

 

[rollingstart]

You ever notice how video games are pretty much the only entertainment medium whose value is derived from how much time you'll spend with it? Like you'll never read a review complaining about a movie or book being too short. It's far more likely to see them complain about them being too long.

No, it's in all media. It can be attributed to whacked out pacing, but Thor needed to be longer. It's a complaint for X-Men First Class too. And many TV shows that run for half an hour often needed an hour.

It should be as long as it needs to be. It's like if went to bake bake cookies, the recipe called for 20 minutes in the oven, and you left them in for 7 hours.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

On a tangentially related note, can we get a moratorium on calling things "overrated" or "underrated"? These words, as they are used, are meant to imply something about the objective properties of a game but all they really reflect is the divergence of one's personal opinion from a perceived consensus opinion.

In other words, it's a meaningless adjective but sounds more authoritative and objective than saying "I liked this game more/less than most people seem to." Are we not brave enough to admit subjectivity?

 

[ArjanN]

You would pay 60 dollars for a great one hour experience?

(The answer is yes.)