Originally posted by Tzeentch._
..as no video game with only ten hours of gameplay in it is worth 60 dollars, regardless of the quality of those 10 hours.
I agree...but there are exceptions.
If a game has tons of different outcomes or is like a Holonovel from Startrek, then, yes, it is definitely worth more than $60.
I guess replay value and how much awesomeness makes the difference.
9.9 times out of 10? A 10 hour game is not worth $60: it is worth $20, at the most.
I count replay value into the total hours of gamplay. If a game has a ten hour storyline but nine different endings depending on how you play it, then I would consider that game to have more than just ten hours of gameplay.
If a game has ten hours of gameplay and has basically nothing worth replaying it for, like Crysis 2's storyline, then I just consider it 10 hours. I beat Crysis 2 in about 9 and a half hours on my first playthrough, which was on the hardest difficulty level available. Played the MP for about three weeks before realizing it was garbage, and since then it's basically just been a useless, 60 dollar paper weight.
Crytek better step there game up for this one.
Originally posted by BackFireNo. I don't go to the movies for the movie itself, I go to the movies for the social aspect, which is why I never go alone.
Yes, absolutely. The price to hour ratio is roughly the same as going to the movies. Do you think an amazing 2 hour film is worth $12?
If there is a movie that I want to see for the sake of seeing that specific movie, I'll probably just torrent it, or wait for it to pop up on Netflicks.
Furthermore, that's only ratio wise. I would never spend 60 dollars in one sitting to watch a movie, no matter how good it was.
Originally posted by SmasandianSo you're saying that I'm lying? lol.
I also think the game takes longer than 10 hours to beat.Haven't you ever noticed when people say, "I beat the game in 10 hours during my first playthrough", it always follows with, "on the hardest difficulty setting".
The game might have taken more than 10 hours if the invisibility wasn't broken. The games lack of difficulty and shortness was a common complaint on the Crytek boards when the game was released. Are you sure that maybe you aren't just a slow gamer? 😉
Who said anything about beating a 10 hour game in 1 sitting? A 10 hour game could easily last a week if you only play an hour or 2 a day.
Also there's no pride in rushing through a game. That only matters to those who aren't actually good at games in ways that matter. I assume you're talking about the the whole stealthing past enemies thing that a lot of people did in Crysis 2. If you chose to play that way, and thus only got a 10 hour experience out of it because you bypassed a lot of content, then that's really your fault. You chose to play that way, where as I and probably Smas actually engaged most of the enemies.
Either way, Crytek said they're adjusting the stealth option for Crysis 3 so that you can't just bypass the majority of the enemies without any thought or strategy, as you could in Crysis 2.
That's great to hear. It's also why I just lol @ the attempt to demonize people for playing the game in a way the game designers themselves intended. Using cloak to stealth through the game isn't "rushing" through it, nor is it exploiting a game mechanic. CryTek wanted you to be able to turn invisible and casually stroll through every level, otherwise the ability wouldn't be in there.
Yes, if you want to challenge yourself, you can always just not use it, but you can run that logic with any game. Using that logic, why even bother having increased difficulty settings, as opposed to having just one in a game?
"What's that? Normal mode is too easy for you? Well we were going to make a "Heroic" and "Legendary" difficulty for the game, but decided to hell with it. If the game's too easy than it's your fault for using all the strongest weapons. If you want more of a challenge, than try using just a pistol!"
"What's that? Normal difficulty is too easy for you? Well we were going to make a "Hard" and "Veteran" difficulty mode for the game, but decided why bother. If you want the game to be more difficult than maybe you should try using only the knife!"
"What's that? Normal difficulty is too easy for you? Well we were going to make a hardened and insane difficulty, but decided not too. It's your fault for hiding behind cover and waiting for your health to regenerate! If you want a longer, more challenging gameplay experience, than try playing through the game without hiding behind cover once!"
No. As the gamer, you aren't obligated to limit yourself and add artificial difficulty to the game because the developers failed to create a challenging experience. You're paying them 60 dollars, easily a week's worth of gas, or a phone bill, or lunch and dinner for a week, for the privilege of being entertained. The onus is on them to make the game difficult and long-lasting.
It wouldn't have killed them to simply give a couple of the enemies in the game the ability to see you when you're cloaked. I mean for Christ's sake, half of the villain cast are futuristic high-tech well-trained para-military mercs, the other half are futuristic aliens who have somehow managed to kick the military's ass at every turn. You would think that between the two of them, they would have at least one unit who can see things on a thermal/X-Ray/UV spectrum or something, thus nullifying your cloaking ability. It's not that hard. It wouldn't have killed CryTek to implement this. So at the end of the day it's just a design flaw, and that wasn't the only problem. There were moments when you had to just outright kill everything in order to proceed (the segments when you fight the walkers comes to mind), but even those scenes weren't that hard, due to how many bullets you could tank with maximum armor on, and the retarded AI.
I don't see the harm in admitting that, honestly. No game is flawless. Even CryTek themselves have stated admitted to some of these mistakes on their forums, and have pledged to fix them.
I'm not demonizing you and I didn't say you exploited anything. If you wanted to play that way, so be it. That's your choice. I couldn't care less. But don't complain about it after you made the choice to do it. They had that as an option for those who wanted to play the game that way. You chose to do that even though you didn't really seem to enjoy it, so apparently you wanted to bypass content even though you apparently didn't find that playstyle particularly fun simply because you could. I chose not to and the game was very satisfying for me to play. You complaining about a choice you made in regards to how you decided to play the game is like someone playing on easy mode and then complaining when they find it too easy.
And I didn't say the game was flawless, far from it. Remember, I simply disagreed with the assertion that it's impossible for a 10 hour game to be worth 60 dollars and feel that it's unreasonable for you to complain about a game mechanic that you chose to utilize in order to bypass content.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I count replay value into the total hours of gamplay. If a game has a ten hour storyline but nine different endings depending on how you play it, then I would consider that game to have more than just ten hours of gameplay.If a game has ten hours of gameplay and has basically nothing worth replaying it for, like Crysis 2's storyline, then I just consider it 10 hours.
Based on that definition I would agree. There's no if ands or buts about it: if that's what you meant then there's no denying that a game like that is not worth $60. $20 seems more accurate.
There are some games for iPhone and Android that take longer than 10 hours...and they are free. 😐
Why does length have to equal the cost of the game.
Why not quality? Do you see somebody who listens to punk rock complain that the CD is only 32 minutes long and same price as a Tool CD? No.
What about the books? Or movies?
It's only in video games where people ***** that a quality made game is only "10 hours" long and not worth $60 bucks.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Why does length have to equal the cost of the game.
A better question is why does the length of a game, as Blaxican defined it, have little bearing in the overall valuation of a game?
Originally posted by Smasandian
Why not quality?
Well, as Blaxican defined it, the quality of a game makes you want to play it again. That's not a 10 hour game.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Do you see somebody who listens to punk rock complain that the CD is only 32 minutes long and same price as a Tool CD? No.
But that comparison is not how Blax defined it. The person who bought that CD is going to listen to those 32 minutes many times over: a great value.
Originally posted by Smasandian
What about the books? Or movies?
Most novels take waaaaaay longer than 10 hours to read. Most people read novels more than once, too. Why buy it if your not going to read it more than once?
Why buy a movie if you're only going to see it once?
Originally posted by Smasandian
It's only in video games where people ***** that a quality made game is only "10 hours" long and not worth $60 bucks.
OH! I see, now. No, sorry, I don't buy movies or music that I'm going to listen to only once. That's not how I roll. I'm fairly parallel with my entertainment purchases. I treat books, movies, video games, and music the same. If I'm only going to use it once, it better cost me very little.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, as Blaxican defined it, the quality of a game makes you want to play it again. That's not a 10 hour game.
I strongly disagree with this. Some of my favorite games I only ever bother playing through once.
Originally posted by dadudemon Most novels take waaaaaay longer than 10 hours to read. Most people read novels more than once, too. Why buy it if your not going to read it more than once?Why buy a movie if you're only going to see it once?
What books take way longer than 10 hours to read? War and Peace?
Generally a normal sized novel will take me between 3 and 4 hours to read. And yes, I usually will only read a novel once. However, a novel doesn't cost 60 dollars...
Anyway, I have no problem getting only 10 hours out of a game assuming I enjoy it enough.
Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not demonizing you and I didn't say you exploited anything. If you wanted to play that way, so be it. That's your choice. I couldn't care less. But don't complain about it after you made the choice to do it. They had that as an option for those who wanted to play the game that way. You chose to do that even though you didn't really seem to enjoy it, so apparently you wanted to bypass content even though you apparently didn't find that playstyle particularly fun simply because you could. I chose not to and the game was very satisfying for me to play. You complaining about a choice you made in regards to how you decided to play the game is like someone playing on easy mode and then complaining when they find it too easy.And I didn't say the game was flawless, far from it. Remember, I simply disagreed with the assertion that it's impossible for a 10 hour game to be worth 60 dollars and feel that it's unreasonable for you to complain about a game mechanic that you chose to utilize in order to bypass content.
Fair enough. The point that I'm making is that you shouldn't have to make a conscious decision to not use a game mechanic that the game developers specifically offered to you to use, purely because using that mechanic lessens your gameplay experience. Both Splinter Cell and Dues Ex are games in which you can either slaughter everything in your path or simply stealth right past it. Neither games punish you for choosing one or the other. I feel that, considering the caliber of Crytek's development team, they could have achieved something similar.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Why does length have to equal the cost of the game.Why not quality? Do you see somebody who listens to punk rock complain that the CD is only 32 minutes long and same price as a Tool CD? No.
What about the books? Or movies?
It's only in video games where people ***** that a quality made game is only "10 hours" long and not worth $60 bucks.
The problem with these comparisons you guys keep making is that music CD's, movies, and books don't cost 60 bucks a pop. 60 Dollars is a lot of money. If Crysis 2 was 20 bucks then I wouldn't care about it being only 10 hours long. However, as I mentioned before, 60 dollars is a week's worth of gas to work or food, or a bill, or something that is actually important beyond just entertainment. I feel that for that sacrifice you should gain more than just one rainy day's worth of entertainment. That's the beauty of something like addictive multiplayer. Modern Warfare's SP was only like 8 hours long, but I played the MP for two years. That is a worth while investment for a week's worth of gas.
Originally posted by ares834
I strongly disagree with this. Some of my favorite games I only ever bother playing through once.
Playing through once is not the same thing as what we are talking about. "Playing through once" implies you still played the game after you beat the "main quest" or some shit. This is replay value.
And you're not addressing the point you quoted, either: what 10 hour game have you played through once, never played it again AFTER playing the main quest straight through...and still thought the game was worth $60?
Originally posted by ares834
What books take way longer than 10 hours to read? War and Peace?
Sorry, most people aren't speedreaders like you. A novella may take much less than 10 hours, but most novels should take you longer than 10 hours to read with the longer ones taking over 20 hours.
Very few people can maintain the 200-250 wpm average when reading a novel. It slows down when people are reading something they enjoy, and for when they read it at long periods of time, rather than something they are being tested on for just 5 minutes:
"...on average, most adults read at a rate of about 200 - 250 wpm. While comprehension at this rate is considered reasonable, at 250 wpm it will be difficult to read large amounts of information in a short period of time."
http://EzineArticles.com/2298503
How slow people get when they are reading for long periods of time on something they enjoy differs from person to person. I would wager it is between 150-200 wpm.
So for a 100,000 word (a bit more than 350 pages...which is a novel...but I am Legend is a bit more than 300 pages and it is considered a novella by many...so I don't know) novel at a 175 wpm pace would take you almost 10 hours to read in a single sitting, nonstop. That does not account for bathroom and food breaks. So it would obviously take longer than that.
As a measure, the first Harry Potter book is a very easy read and is around 320 pages in length. That still took me between 12-15 hours to read. It's getting on the shorter side for a novel in its genre as it could be condensed by 50 pages and then classify as a novella.
If you read that in 3-4 hours, you are a speed reader. Not sure how you get enjoyment out of reading, though. I like to enjoy the words I read. I re-read some paragraphs to let things sink in. I go back and re-read sections that are referenced many chapters later, sometimes, to make sure I didn't miss any details before a big reveal (I do that mostly with mystery/murder novels, though).
Originally posted by ares834
Generally a normal sized novel will take me between 3 and 4 hours to read.
That's not a novel, sir. That's a novella...if we are to assume you're reading at 175 wpm.
The average adult reads 200-275 wpm. Most people on the interwebs say it will take them 4-9 hours to read a 300 page novel..which is a short-ish novel.
But I can't help but feel you're still missing the point.
Originally posted by ares834
And yes, I usually will only read a novel once. However, a novel doesn't cost 60 dollars...
The whooshing sound you hear is the sound of the point going over your head.
Originally posted by ares834
Anyway, I have no problem getting only 10 hours out of a game assuming I enjoy it enough.
That's not the point, either.
The point is paying $60 for a game that has no replay value and lasts 10 hours or less.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Playing through once is not the same thing as what we are talking about. "Playing through once" implies you still played the game after you beat the "main quest" or some shit. This is replay value.And you're not addressing the point you quoted, either: what 10 hour game have you played through once, never played it again AFTER playing the main quest straight through...and still thought the game was worth $60?
Uncharted 3. Beat it once and haven't touched multiplayer. Basically, I put around 10 hours worth into it and don't regret buying it at all.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, most people aren't speedreaders like you. A novella may take much less than 10 hours, but most novels should take you longer than 10 hours to read with the longer ones taking over 20 hours.
Fair enough.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But I can't help but feel you're still missing the point.The whooshing sound you hear is the sound of the point going over your head.
That's not the point, either.
Then what is the point other than you get more value out of a book than a short game? Why else would you bring it up?
Originally posted by ares834
Uncharted 3. Beat it once and haven't touched multiplayer. Basically, I put around 10 hours worth into it and don't regret buying it at all.
Okay...but that seems like a waste of money to me. If you only got 10 hours out of it, don't have the urge to replay it, you got ripped off, imo. I would change my mind if you got 30-40 hours of the game. Hell, I got 30-40 hours out of most SNES games on a single playthrough.
Originally posted by ares834
Fair enough.
👆
Originally posted by ares834
Then what is the point other than you get more value out of a book than a short game? Why else would you bring it up?
It is entertainment for which you pay a reasonable price (books). Smas asked about books and movies. I commented with stuff like Why buy a book if you're never going to read it, again? Why buy a movie if you'll only watch it once? Isn't that a waste of your money? So why would you pay for a game that you'll get no more than 10 hours from but never play it again after you beat it? With a book that you buy, you'll usually get more than 10 hours out of it and it costs MUCH less than $60. Though, the two are not directly comparable, imo. I wasn't the one that brought that comparison up but I had to address it because it was posed to me. But, back on point, you should just buy a digital copy of a book or rent it (yes, you can rent copies of books for like..3 or 6 months) rather than buying the whole thing. It will provide you more time entertainment than a 10 hour video game for which you paid $60. Same thing with a movie: if you only plan to watch it once, Netflix or Redbox it, don't buy it. Unless you find one of those "2 for $5" DVD bins...then it is a good price, imo.
You should have rented Uncharted 3. You could have saved $55 if you rented it (I assume you'd have a $15 a month rental cost from Gamefly or a $5 store rental).