Printable View
hah, that is so true dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by luminouslight
i would rather much buy some game that cost 50 bucks and would take me 100 hours to beat, than some game that i got for the same price that i can beat in only a couple of hours.
what would be the point in that? it better have some damn good replay value if they know its short and they are charging me the same price as other games that are actually worth getting.
I think this would be a good and bad thing to happen because obviously as hardware gets more powerfull it would be too expensive to develop big games but that could mean they have to make games that focus more on gameplay it's like in the 8 and 16 bit era they had to focus on gameplay because did'nt have graphics to rely on now it is the same because graphics are too good
I'm too old, don't have much time to play games. 7 to 10 hours seem great to me. I remember when games used to cost $70.
Hmmm, I'm not sure. I find myself preferring a shorter game these days. I just don't have the time to invest in massive epic adventures. Call Of Duty 4 was a perfect length for me. Really was. I just never get round to completing long games any more, the boredom sets in and I start other games. There are too many good games to play and not enough time, I welcome shorter games to be honest. I have a pile of about 6 at home I haven't even started yet that I want to play through. Okami, The Darkness, Lost Planet, loads...
I only really get to play games on the weekend these days anyway.
lol. ive been playing okami for forever and still havent beaten it.
Sometimes I feel like playing a long epic adventure while relaxing on the weekend and sometimes I feel like playing a mini game or two while waiting for a bus. Both long and short games have their applications and both are necessary for true entertainment value.