• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

All games should be 5 hours or less

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sometimes I don't mind a short game. Working & school doesn't leave whole lot of time for much else.
Usually I aim for games I don't have to play for longer than 30-45min in 1 sitting, to make any progress, else I begin getting bored & restless af.
 
TLI3YSU5TZI4GJDDH3OU2TNC4FXYME6I.gif
 
What are you talking about? There are plenty of games 5 hours or less. BC2, Medal of Honor, all the Call of Duty games. Us single players are getting snubbed more and more in games as developers come out with games that have a pathetic single player campaign that they drew up on the back of a McDonalds napkin because theyd rather take the cheap and easy way out and just draw up some multiplayer maps and call it a game.

BC2 was so short that I thought the final battle was just a level boss and didnt realize the game was over til the credits started rolling!
 
No, with a shovel an pick axe. And no food and water. And only one issue of "People's magazine" as jerk off material. No, forget that, let's make it "O he Oprah magazine" oooooooooooooh yeah how do you feel now OP feel like going against the current some more?
 
Op, I agree with you. As a married, thirtysomething, Dad with a career, I welcome more high quality yet short games.

Its sad that at the point in my life where the cost of games became a non issue, i have no time to play them.
 
Drekce said:
Op, I agree with you. As a married, thirtysomething, Dad with a career, I welcome more high quality yet short games.

Its sad that at the point in my life where the cost of games became a non issue, i have no time to play them.
Click to expand...

Cost is always an issue. I'm not going to pay $60 for 5 hours of entertainment. Period.

Luckily, people with intelligence can actually wait for sales and whatnot, but it's a dangerous precedent to set for developers and especially publishers.

Plus, as someone who actually appreciates depth and substance and not just carbon-copies of every game ever made, I'd rather buy less games and have them be substantive than go through four or more 5 hour games a month.
 
Sulaco said:
Cost is always an issue. I'm not going to pay $60 for 5 hours of entertainment. Period.

Luckily, people with intelligence can actually wait for sales and whatnot, but it's a dangerous precedent to set for developers and especially publishers.

Plus, as someone who actually appreciates depth and substance and not just carbon-copies of every game ever made, I'd rather buy less games and have them be substantive than go through four or more 5 hour games a month.
Click to expand...

No, cost is not always an issue. For some people $60 is insignificant amount of money spent easily on a meal that is less than 5 hours.

There is no reason you can't have depth and substance in 5 hours. Length != depth and length != substance.

I am fairly tired of the idea of hours/$ as a measure of value of a game. I realize if you have free time but less money that is a great measure but otherwise it is as useless as measuring polygons on the screen for entertainment value.

I like long games but I also like short games. What I want are good games, good for 5 hours or good for 20 hours I don't care. If you take a good 5 hour game and make it 10 to satisfy people that think hours/$ is the right measure you dilute the quality. It is no different than a movie that is overlong.

As a person that appreciates good games I'd rather play four good games a month than one good game a month. Unless you only play cookie cutter games that should be four different good experiences as opposed to one.
 
CountZero said:
No, cost is not always an issue. For some people $60 is insignificant amount of money spent easily on a meal that is less than 5 hours.

There is no reason you can't have depth and substance in 5 hours. Length != depth and length != substance.

I am fairly tired of the idea of hours/$ as a measure of value of a game. I realize if you have free time but less money that is a great measure but otherwise it is as useless as measuring polygons on the screen for entertainment value.

I like long games but I also like short games. What I want are good games, good for 5 hours or good for 20 hours I don't care. If you take a good 5 hour game and make it 10 to satisfy people that think hours/$ is the right measure you dilute the quality. It is no different than a movie that is overlong.

As a person that appreciates good games I'd rather play four good games a month than one good game a month. Unless you only play cookie cutter games that should be four different good experiences as opposed to one.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you go enjoy your $240 a month in games then for the same experience.

I have no problem with shorter games. I have a problem with knowing the experience could and should be longer, more fleshed out, or deeper, and I am being charged the same amount.
 
Sulaco said:
Sorry, you go enjoy your $240 a month in games then for the same experience.

I have no problem with shorter games. I have a problem with knowing the experience could and should be longer, more fleshed out, or deeper, and I am being charged the same amount.
Click to expand...

It isn't the same experience, the same experience is playing one game for 50 hours rather than 4 games for 10 hours each. I didn't say I buy them new. I said for some people $60 is nothing, I'm not one of those people. I'm so far behind on games I want to play I can wait for them all to go on sale and still probably never finish them.

I am not saying a preference for longer games is bad, I am saying that length as a measure of quality is a poor way to judge a game. I get the idea that you are saying, essentially more bang for your buck, but I don't agree with it. I don't worry about the length of books or movies as long as they are good and the same holds true for games.
 
OP will be getting his wish. Developers have been saying the majority of gamers never reach the end of their games and with the rising development costs as detail increases, making shorter, 6-10 hour games is to be a more and more common trend.
 
As long as I know going in to a game that it is only 5 hours, I won't be too mad. I will just wait for the price to drop down. I have a hard time playing a story mode that I have already beaten once, even if it is an RPG and I am playing as a different character class.
 
if i get 8 hrs. i'm satisified enough. But of course i don't sit in a basement all day either. i only get in a couple hours here or there, often takes me a month to log in 8 hours, depending of course.
 
System_Mechanic said:
if i get 8 hrs. i'm satisified enough. But of course i don't sit in a basement all day either. i only get in a couple hours here or there, often takes me a month to log in 8 hours, depending of course.
Click to expand...
This is me. Even Gears took me almost a week to beat the story, just because I don't have the time I used to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top