Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmist View Post
    Dollars per hour is the single stupidest metric in gaming. It's like judging a movie by the runtime, or a book by the number of pages.

    It gives you games like AC Odyssey, where it shows you all the gameplay in the first two hours, and then just pads the rest of the game out with the same shit.

    How good is the gameplay? New and innovative, or the same tired old shit?

    How memorable is it? Are you still going to be thinking about it in a week, a month, 20 years?
    Like it or not, a lot of people in the world don't have infinite funds and the price (and thus price per time) will be a very important metric for many people. I feel like "the length of a game doesn't matter" comes from a very privileged perspective of not having to worry about the money you spend at all. Imagine having only 30$ to spend a month on games. Do you still prefer to spend it on a "memorable and innovative" 3 hour game rather than a 100 hours of fun gameplay time?

    Movies are all close to the same length, and even the longest movies are only longer by so much in comparison. Same with books actually, though you have some outliers with like 1000 pages but usually you can expect like 200-400. With games you can literally get a 100 times more gameplay out of some of them than others, for a lower price. The difference here is significant.

    I also think it goes without saying that people do enjoy gameplay that is called "padding" by you or others, or they wouldn't be doing it at all. It's part of another annoying phenomenon, namely people thinking their opinions are objective truths. Some people want gameplay, not watching a movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolvarg View Post
    Well, the thing is that games are not priced based on game length, but rather on development time and costs (generally). And development time/cost does not necessarily correlate directly with game length. Also game length is very subjective, with some people enjoying a certain game for 100s of hours, and others not wanting to spend more than a few.

    I like to compare it to food: Does anyone expect a $60 meal to have 6x the food as a $10 meal? Is a $10 meal necessarily better than a $60 meal just because it has a bigger portion for less money?
    I understand that making a short game may cost a lot, or even as much as a different game that lasts 100 hours. I don't expect all games to be priced by length. I understand there are people who are fine paying a lot for short games, I'm just not in that audience.
    Armory Link
    Mount Collection

    Everything wrong with gamers in one sentence:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavox View Post
    I want Activision-Blizzard to burn, but for crimes against gaming, not because they got me too'd.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by zealo View Post
    Or people who don't like how story-heavy games like Persona 5 are could just play other games instead? That game isn't trying to please everyone, and there's not an issue with that.

    Trying to cut Persona 5 down to 30-40 hours or so as posited would necessitate removing a hell of a lot more than just the occasional superfluous story moment outside the dungeons.

    Atlus makes SMT games for people who want that, there's no reason to try to force Persona to slim down it's lifesim elements.
    Not sure I have even mentioned Persona 5. Haven't played it so I refrain from comment on its content...

  3. #83
    Elemental Lord Poppincaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Twilight Town
    Posts
    8,916
    I would expect the game to have at least 10 hours of content for a 60 dollar game. You could argue quality is more important, but some of the highest quality games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Super Mario Odyssey, and The Last of Us were all at least 10 hour games, so your game would have to be even better than those.

    On the flip side, unless your game is really fucking good, then don't make it over 30 hours. I will probably not play it.

  4. #84
    I used to think that way.

    However, the multiplayer games (such as LoL, CoD) are not applicable.
    Especially WoW's daily, the daily has a negative worth.
    The daily is a chore. It is not enjoyable.

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Azerate View Post
    Like it or not, a lot of people in the world don't have infinite funds and the price (and thus price per time) will be a very important metric for many people. I feel like "the length of a game doesn't matter" comes from a very privileged perspective of not having to worry about the money you spend at all.
    Uh-oh, guys. Not valuing "dollars per hour" in your video games is a microaggression now.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Uh-oh, guys. Not valuing "dollars per hour" in your video games is a microaggression now.
    Dunno about microagression, but telling people they are wrong for valuing something that you do not, is a full out, regular agression. Refusing to understand the reasons behind it is closed-mindedness, on the other hand.
    Armory Link
    Mount Collection

    Everything wrong with gamers in one sentence:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavox View Post
    I want Activision-Blizzard to burn, but for crimes against gaming, not because they got me too'd.

  7. #87
    I definitely value more hours per dollar, but their are rare gems that I don't mind paying a premium for. God of War (the latest) I loved and it renewed my interest in console gaming. I didn't get hundreds of hours out of it, but it was definitely worth the price tag. My own personal take on games now is that you shouldn't buy them at release and it's objectively foolish to do so. MK11 was the last game I'll be buying at retail price, especially after all the nonsense they pulled with sales and DLC.

  8. #88
    The quality of the time I spend in a game means much, much more to me than the amount of time. I'm around 15 hours into Technomancer, a game I picked up for $5 and it's...fine. Big improvement from Mars: War Logs, but it's not great. Arguably, I'm getting some pretty fantastic value outta this as I've still likely got at least 2-5 more hours of the game left (if not more).

    Comparatively, I think I picked up Lollipop Chainsaw back in the day for like...$20? $40? I dunno, a lot more than $5. Think I played through it once and it took like 6-8 hours and while it's a bit janky at times it was an absolute delight from start to finish.

    Between the game where I'm averaging about 4 hours per $1 and the game where I averaged (assuming the lower end) around 30 minutes per $1, I got way more value outta the latter.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Super Kami Dende View Post

    by that definition literally any game with something optional off a completely linear path is "padding"
    Well, if that was not padding, then what was? IIRC none of the caches gave anything else than loot. At least the random corpses/chests often had a small text only quest and a bit of lore, say, some merchant got killed. So what were the caches if not padding? Same as with random monster nests?
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Well, if that was not padding, then what was? IIRC none of the caches gave anything else than loot. At least the random corpses/chests often had a small text only quest and a bit of lore, say, some merchant got killed. So what were the caches if not padding? Same as with random monster nests?
    Ways to encourage exploration in the open world? That's pretty standard stuff in open world games, not everyone is going to just explore for funsies so you add some rewards for exploring certain areas and folks are going to engage a lot more with the open world.

    To make a comparison: Think of most of the locations in a Fallout/Skyrim game. They're not needed for any quests/main quest, many don't add any story/lore either. They just exist, many simply to farm some enemies and get the chests of loot at the end. Yet I'd be hard pressed to find many folks who would call that "padding" rather than a big part of the game itself.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Ways to encourage exploration in the open world? That's pretty standard stuff in open world games, not everyone is going to just explore for funsies so you add some rewards for exploring certain areas and folks are going to engage a lot more with the open world.

    To make a comparison: Think of most of the locations in a Fallout/Skyrim game. They're not needed for any quests/main quest, many don't add any story/lore either. They just exist, many simply to farm some enemies and get the chests of loot at the end. Yet I'd be hard pressed to find many folks who would call that "padding" rather than a big part of the game itself.
    So what IS padding then? Do note - I am not even negative about W3. I did clear all those places, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    So what IS padding then? Do note - I am not even negative about W3. I did clear all those places, too.
    Good examples: The endless "help X" quests in FO4 that are just generated repeatedly. Lots of the standard, "Kill X" quests for a lot of inconsequential NPC's that really does nothing for the story or your character or the NPC. The "endgame" of Shadows of War with the like 40 hours grind to see the "true ending" is a fantastic example to boot.

    Edit: Also, excessive use of open world goodies like Far Cry often does with the bajillion chests on your map. You can oversaturate with that kind of stuff and really kill any actual gameplay value it could deliver.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Good examples: The endless "help X" quests in FO4 that are just generated repeatedly. Lots of the standard, "Kill X" quests for a lot of inconsequential NPC's that really does nothing for the story or your character or the NPC. The "endgame" of Shadows of War with the like 40 hours grind to see the "true ending" is a fantastic example to boot.

    Edit: Also, excessive use of open world goodies like Far Cry often does with the bajillion chests on your map. You can oversaturate with that kind of stuff and really kill any actual gameplay value it could deliver.
    Soo... Witcher 3 map clearing? :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by zetitup View Post
    How many hours would you say is worth the money from a game?
    Say you buy a AAA game for 60 EUR/USD, how much time playing the game would you say, "This was worth the money"?
    Also, do you expect less game time when paying less, say an Indie game or any cheaper game from a big company?

    EDIT: The reason i picked Time as a unit here is because it's a generic, adding gameplay, graphics etc, alot of it comes down to personal preferences. While if you measure it in time, you can see a bit more general overview. Say you read a review of a game from someone playing it for 10 minutes and saying the game sucks. Compares to someone playing it for 2 hours or more claiming it sucks. Which opinion would you trust more? Maybe the beginning is really bad, but it becomes better etc.

    Also, you are paying say 60 EUR/USD for a game, which you would have spent real hours trying to earn, so kinda wondering if you spend 6 hours getting the money, how much hours do you expect in return from a game then. Hope this answers why i picked Hours and not anything else to measure it
    I set my enjoyment/ hour to $1.00/ Hour so if a game costs $60.00 I better get 60 hours out of it or I will expect a refund.

  15. #95
    Imagine paying $60 every 10 hours. That'd be rough.
    Quote Originally Posted by TrollHunter3000 View Post
    How the fuck is this trolling?

    Discussing moderation is against the rules. Infracted.

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Soo... Witcher 3 map clearing? :P
    I don't know how many of these are in W3, but if it's like a million of them and they're largely overlapping with other points of interest/reasons to go to those locations then yeah, I'd say that's some padding.

  17. #97
    Always use the Golden Ratio.

    1.618

    Remember, a rectangle with a ratio of 1 to 1.618 is the most *pleasing* shape for a rectangle. So when it comes to pleasure, the Golden Ratio is a part of our definition of pleasure. The method of using this is to compare pleasures.

    Let's say you could spend $60 on enjoying your favorite food for 1 hour or spend $60 on a fun game that you play for 1.618 hours. If you would rather do the latter, it is a fun game.
    TO FIX WOW:1. smaller server sizes & server-only LFG awarding satchels, so elite players help others. 2. "helper builds" with loom powers - talent trees so elite players cast buffs on low level players XP gain, HP/mana, regen, damage, etc. 3. "helper ilvl" scoring how much you help others. 4. observer games like in SC to watch/chat (like twitch but with MORE DETAILS & inside the wow UI) 5. guild leagues to compete with rival guilds for progression (with observer mode).6. jackpot world mobs.

  18. #98
    Don't believe you can count hours played as "Worth the money"

    CS:GO is basically free, but its pretty common that players have 3000 hours played..
    People are still playing GTA V, after 8 years - one time payment.

    Story based games should be shorter in general though.. I always think grinding takes away from the story anyway.

  19. #99
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    177
    I tend to buy hour sinks so I can't immediately think of any games I've bought at least the last 10 years that hasn't had a glorious hours to cost ratio.

    I guess I play too much simulators.

    I've literally scammed Kalypso Media, Paradox Interactive and Sports Interactive I guess, whereas Activision Blizzard probably has the upper hand on me.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by LordVargK View Post
    I'm a big fan of city builders, economy games and turn based strategy. I would never spend 60€ on a game that I can be "done" with. But If I have to call a number, then I would say 200-300 hours.
    Yeah, I always loved city builders too. I played the hell out of Sim City 2000 and my favorite part of playing SC1 was building the largest and most bases by draining every drop of resources from the map, even the ones held by the enemy.
    The most difficult thing for people to do is objectively look at something they don't like and be able to accept that it is not bad, that other people like it, and if it was changed to the way they'd like it that other people would not like it and want it changed back. The second most is to receive something they didn't want or ask for and be grateful for it, not immediately demand what they wanted instead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •