Poll: "X game doesn't last longer than Y And no online? I'm not buying this game!"

[esperandote]

I don't go to the theater to watch movies under or around 90 min. On the other hand one of my favorite games is Silent Hill 1 wich is 1.5-2 hours long but has lots of replay value and Fighting games like KOF wich you can finish in 10 min but challenge your mates for days.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Well I do my research. That game Wanted for the 360 looked pretty awesome and the demo was pretty cool. Curving bullets and what not. The game is literally only 2 hours long though. I'm not paying for 2 hours of game. Especially a full retail release. I always do my research before a purchase. That is what gamers do.

If a game is 2 hours long and is a unoriginal TPS, of course that's a pity. Most small indygames are longer than that.

What I am meaning are the 'real' games, the not movie-based games, like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Alan Wake, Mirror's Edge, Portal etc. None of these games are any longer than 10 hours, the shortest being 2 hours (not 60$ retail though)
These games are all great in their own unique way. Either it's a great story influenced by a lot of movies, or its gameplay is totally new.

The problem is still that they don't give enough replay value, which is the entire point. When you're on a tight budget, you buy games that last for a long time. Doesn't matter how good the game is, it's still too much money for too little time.

 

[Eggsnham]

(I place a game like this into a mental category I call 'S&S', into this I'll put movies, games, various sex experiences, and books) then I won't buy it.

Haha you pay for sex. Sorry had to do it.

>.>
<.<

I feel like I'm missing something...

 

[thedoclc]

Length is neither quality nor replay value. Developers trump the number of hours of gameplay because it (looks like) an objective measure. However, the first thing to do when anything is measured is check exactly -what- is being quantified. "The amount of hours a typical player spends on a single playthrough." Well, that's just about worthless. Will I want to replay it? Will the game change significantly on repeated playthroughs? I don't care about a single playthrough; I want to 'guesstimate' how many hours I'll play in the end, how fun it will be, etc.

So, yeah, length matters, but not the length that reviewers and developers talk about. I'll use an example from my shelves. Take Mario Kart Wii vs. Bioshock. I've beaten Bioshock about three times and haven't touched it since, so maybe I got twenty hours of use from it. I cleared and unlocked everything in Mario Kart Wii in a couple of hours, and me and my friends have spent countless hours unwinding after class or lab work shooting each other which shells. Which got me more gameplay - and fun - for my dollars?

 

[BlumiereBleck]

As long as I am having fun I don't care how long it is.

 

[Infinatex]

It's all relative to how much you will play the game. Multiplayer is always going to improve a games longevity (if you're into that sort of thing). A game like MW2 may seem like a rip off to some because of it's short campaign. 6 hours gamplay is AUD$16 an hour. As I pretty much only play online multiplayer then it becomes a stupidly cheap form of entertainment. Currently I'm on 370 hours, which is AUD$0.27 an hour. It just depends how you play.

 

[Icaray]

Length is only one of the factors I consider when wondering what to buy. Although things like gameplay and story are more important, the length does matter. Only the length of the single player though, I don't play online. Shortness can be excused if the game is intuitive and has a lot of replay value (Portal, Ratchet and Clank) but is downright frustrating when it's gimped to focus on online play (MW 2).

 

[The Procrastinated End]

Everyone who is stupid enough to say this kinda doesn't deserve your attention, and we could just simplify all the arguments and just hold up Portal.

 

[Ildecia]

irony smells rather sweetly right now. at the moment i've been playing 3 games.

Monster Hunter Freedom Unite
Bioshock 2
and finally, a good old fashioned classic: Super Smash Brothers Melee

each of these has defining characteristics, a unique style to each, and something fun to offer to the player.
the first is one of my all-time favorites and at the moment has around 700 hours of gameplay on it. At first it seemed insane that this game could offer mroe than around 10 hours. but as any monster hunter fan would realize; is that its really REALLY hard to tear yourself away from a MH game if you are on a winning streak.
The second is kind of the runt of the litter right now. i played the game through twice, once for each ending, and i got around 30 hours of play out of it. I wouldn't really play it again because i know that i will get the same experience and i know theres no real neutral ending i could achieve.
The final one is a game based solely on multiplayer (or so i believe) and it has at least 2000+ hours on it right now. (my total damage meter is seriously 18 billion damage done in basic melee) I bought each of these games at full retail price and am happy with each of the gameplay experiences.

i'll bet you noticed the gameplay on each went down based on how new they are; Bioshock being the smallest gameplay time having being released only a year or 2 ago.

again. i find this ironic.

 

[ohgodalex]

If I don't feel that a game is worth my money, that's my own damn business. However I rationalize my decision, it's no concern of yours.

That's how I see it.

 

[saintchristopher]

How often do you look at the back of a DVD and say to yourself: "Huh, this movie isn't longer than 100 minutes. It must suck". That's right, never.

When was the last time you paid upwards of $60 for a DVD?

And yeah, if you're watching you're spending, you'd better be damn sure you were getting your money's worth.

Let's say you're not into online multiplayer, but you like war games, so you picked up a copy of Modern Warfare 2 on day one. 2 hours later, the game is over and you're out $65 bucks. Even if you jumped into the online play to squeeze some extra worth out of it, you're not used to that style of play, and it's not even close to being fun for you.

I mean, i think it's great, OP, that you have the kind of money to throw around on every game that strikes your fancy. Not everyone's as lucky as you. Don't forget that.

 

[Iffat Nur]

I know that quality > length (to an extent), and replayibility value > length, but I only play Singleplayer. I dont have the equiptment necessary to play online, and even if I did, im playing a 360, so f it.
Like I said before, if I bought Modern Warfare 2 (no I didnt, I rented it) and they expect me to flesh out a campaign I beated on Vet in 3 days, thats just bullshit. Portal, of course you nitwaits, is around 1.5 hrs long, but its on Orange Box, which has 5 games. so rly, I payed $12 for it, which means 10 dollars per hour*


*replay times not included

 

[Kurokami]

I keep hearing this load of horseshit a lot lately. With the release of Mafia 2 I think it's time to stand up for what value really is.

How often do you look at the back of a DVD and say to yourself: "Huh, this movie isn't longer than 100 minutes. It must suck". That's right, never. What you check out is the story, the setting, and look at the pictures and on what kind of action the movie maybe offers.
When you (well at least when I) look at games, I look out for the same things; what the story is, its setting (type of game) and see what the action is like (gameplay variation).
I want to be immersed into a setting. The plot doesn't need to be anything more than decent to work. As long as the game is fun, and doesn't try to drag itself ass on for two long, fantastic.

A thing that often occurs when games tend to advertise how long they are is repetition, and a plot that gets worse and worse. Of course, this isn't always a problem, as the gameplay might be fun.

I'm not saying I don't like long games, I'm saying that I don't understand people who won't buy games if a game isn't over 20 hours long, even if all the other things about it are great.

Those of us who don't bleed money (actually maybe the problem is that we do, with expenses and whatnot) and feel the need to decide between games instead of simply buying anything would have to look at play/replay value. I would never say its shit because its not long, nor do I often look to see how long it is, but comeon. If a game can't please me for a decent ammount of time for the $120+ I have to pay for it, I can't afford to purchase it.

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

Length is important. I'm not paying 10 dollars for a snack, but a will pay 10 dollars for a meal.

 

[ssssuuuullll]

quality is much much more important then length. Look at portal

 

[Thunderhorse31]

I wouldn't have paid $60 for Portal.

Good thing I got it cheap though. And with those other Orange games.

This. Is what I was going to say.

I didn't even buy the stand-alone release on XBLA, although $15 is a much more reasonable price for the game, as amazing as it is.

Of course length is important. If MW2 shipped with no multiplayer or Spec-Ops, would you really drop $60+ for a 5-hour campaign? You might; I sure as hell wouldn't.

For games like that, it's only worth a purchase after a price drop. I'm going make sure I get fair value out of my hard-earned dollars.

 

[masseyguy911]

Length is important. I'm not paying 10 dollars for a snack, but a will pay 10 dollars for a meal.

Damn you stole the words right out of my mouth!
Well, that being said, I would rather pay 10 dollars for an amazing snack then 10 dollars for a crappy meal...
So length does matter, just not that much.