Force unleashed 2, 4 hours long

Grammaton, you usually have fantastic posts, but I think in this case you're getting too hung up on the semantics of the argument and completely missing the actual point being made. That point being that everybody has a certain amount of money they're willing to pay for X amount of entertainment, and this specific incident is just one example of such.

And I agree, 4 hours is too short to shell out $60 for. I'll be waiting until I can pick this game up for under $30. (Picked up the first one used for $18 not too long ago.)

Firstly, I'd love to know the titles of these allegedly full price games that contain 20 minutes of content. I've been playing games for three decades and the only possible titles I could come up with are older games that relied on difficulty to compensate for length.

The notion that there is no "qualitative difference" between a person unwilling to pay 60 dollars for 20 minutes versus 60 dollars for 4 hours is, in a word, nonsense. There is no software being sold at 60 dollars a pop for 20 minutes of game play because at some point, even the most enthusiastic and eager consumer identifies price gouging. By contrast, plenty of games, both critically and commercially successful, hover around five to seven hours in length. Again, your 20-minute game analogy is entirely misplaced in this particular argument.

As to your assertion that people who deride this particular game's length would also opt to not purchase games of similar length, that's simply fallacious reasoning. You have absolutely no idea what their purchasing history is or what they'll buy in the future. From my own observations I can attest to the fact that plenty of people who attack a game for a specified flaw are just as likely to purchase another game featuring a similarly perceived flaw. The issue of length and the dollar-to-hour ratio of monetary value is an oft-discussed topic yet these types of games continue to sell just fine.

Lastly, all this talk of the game not selling well, the game only being worth a rental, the developers being lazy, etc., all equates to an attack on the quality of the game which has been brought on by the revelation of the length. All of the derision being leveled at TFU II in this thread is predicated upon the completion time of the game, which implies that length equates quality.

The reality is that your own initial post calls the length (which has yet to be confirmed by a reputable source) "unacceptable", which means you have de-valued and judged the game entirely upon said length. Even more interesting is that you compare the cost of film to this particular game, which brings up an interesting point: the average film on DVD/Blueray is two hours (extras notwithstanding) and costs between 20-30 dollars. If TFU II is actually only 4 hours (not counting challenge levels) then it is entirely in line with the value of film.

Am I to assume you abstain from purchasing DVD's at full retail value in your stand against overpriced consumer goods? Do you also abstain from going to the movies, where the average cost of a ticket is now around 10-15 dollars for a one-time viewing that doesn't even entail ownership?

I'd sincerely love to know the answers to these questions because in reality, if you go to the movies or buy flicks at full retail price, then that line you keep alluding to is merely something you whip out to slam or deride certain games when convenient to do so.

Grammaton-Cleric

Firstly, I'd suggest actually reading my post.

I never said that there are full-priced games containing 20 minutes of play time. Read what I type or don't bother commenting. What I said was that there is released content containing such minimal gametime, and that it's NOT sold at full price because the public at large isn't stupid enough to actually buy it. Game length is absolutely important, period. YOU would see it as "price gouging" if a company tried to sell 20 minutes of content for $60. In the EXACT same way, people who find it unacceptable to spend $60 on 4 hours worth of content often see it as "price gouging" when a company tries to charge $60 for a game that only delivers 4 hours of entertainment. It's the exact same thing. It still boils down to nothing more than the potentially buyer determining that the amount of content doesn't justify the price.

And I didn't say that people complaining about this game's brevity wouldn't buy equally short games. Again, pay attention. What I was saying is that the ONLY way that the existence of other equally short games is relevant is if the people complaining about THIS game are willing to purchase THOSE games. And in the comments that you've been critizing, there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that people's attitudes about overly-short games are specific to this particular game. If they simply dislike short games in general (with comments not providing evidence for or against), then it doesn't freaking matter how many other short-ass games there are.

And no, comments about it only being worth a rental, etc, are NOT comments about the QUALITY of the game. They weren't discussing the QUALITY, they were talking about the VALUE FOR THEM. For example, some people have said that the demo wasn't fun. THAT is a comment about quality. You have someone saying that he got it cheap because he didn't find it worth the new price, and that he then had fun with it. That is discussing both things. That's discussing whether it's worth buying when it was stated that he waited until he could get it for $15. That DOESN'T say anything about the game's QUALITY. However, he DID speak about the game's quality when he said that he ENJOYED the game after getting it for $15.

You're absolutely confused here. People saying that they don't find 4 hours of gameplay to be worth $60 is NOT in any way whatsoever a comment about the QUALITY.

And I DO buy movies on DVD. I do NOT watch movies in the cinema. Same movie, crucial difference. With a movie ticket, I get to watch a movie ONCE. When buying a disc, I get to watch the movie whenever I feel like it. And let me reiterate...I am talking about THE SAME MOVIE.

So...WHY am I willing to buy DVDs and Blu-Rays, even though they cost MORE than a new movie ticket? Simply because I've drawn a line concerning what I'm getting vs what I'm spending. In this case, it's specifically about the equivalent of "replayability". No matter how ****ing good a movie is, I'm not willing to shell out the money if there's not the potential of replayability.

As far as why I'm willing to buy movies for $25, yet won't buy a 4 hour long game for $60, that's because I get more entertainment value out of movies. Movies deserve more of my money because movies are of higher value to me. I'm more likely to be watching movies 15 years down the road than I am to be playing a game that's five years old. I simply get more out of movies, the value-per-hour is a LOT higher than with videogames. And yet...I still have my limits. I refuse to double-dip, I almost never watch movies in the cinema, and the length DOES factor into how much I'll spend. I'll spend $100 for the entire series Seinfeld, but I wouldn't even think of spending $100 for a Blu-Ray of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The movie is absolutely BETTER than the TV show, but still not so freaking good that I can't find better uses for my money.

And that's really what it's all about. If I go to the store looking to buy a game, suppose there's a 4 hour long game sitting next to a 30 hour long game. Four hours of game time is literally like movie length. One can easily knock that out in a single afternoon and be done. Movies give me more value so I'm willing to spend more on them, but there are still limits. 2001 is an infinitely more valuable purchase than than any new videogame out there, I'm still watching that movie 20 years after I first saw it. And yet, I still wouldn't pay New Videogame prices for a copy of the movie, because the price is unreasonable.

And you still fail to see the point here. The point isn't that there's a set line which applies to everybody. The point is that EVERYBODY HAS A LINE, they all just set it at a different place. I've literally known two people who ONLY bought Zone of the Enders because it had a demo for Metal Gear Solid 2. No kidding...they also got a full length game, but they didn't play it. When they walked into the store and handed over their cash (I believe games were more like $50 back then), their thought process was that they were playing $50 for a 30 minute long demo of the new Metal Gear Solid game. Yes, those people exist. They certainly aren't any kind of majority, which is why demo discs normally aren't sold for $50, and why full releases aren't usually like $200. YOU would call those people idiots for spending that much money just to get that little gameplay, other people would call you an idiot for spending $60 on a mere 4 hours of gameplay (I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm talking about other people). The point is, EVERYONE has their limits, but at every single step of the way, the amount of content DOES play a factor.

The people in this thread saying that the AMOUNT of content doesn't matter are only saying so for one reason: Because every game out there provides ENOUGH content so that FOR THEM, it becomes a non-issue. Yet, if I were to bring up something like them paying $60 for a demo disc, they'd think that to be a stupid example. Why? Simply because they've never reached that point in their gaming, and think that such a point is objectively ridiculous. Yet...people bought Zone of the Enders just to play a 20 minute demo of MGS2. That point exists. Ridiculous are not, there ARE people willing to shell out money for that stuff. It's just that most people aren't. It's not a matter of "if it's fun, it doesn't matter how long or short it is". That's what I'm objecting to. Length absolutely matters, and how much the length matters depends on how much enjoyment is obtained from the experience. That's a subjective thing which varies from person to person, but it's flat-out ignorant to say that people should not take length into consideration when pretty much every person here does the exact same thing.

It's not a matter of "quality over quantity". Again, if I'm shelling out $60 for a game or $25 for a movie, then I can get quality AND quantity. There's not exactly a shortage of quality games, not exactly a shortage of quality movies. I don't expect one or the other, I expect BOTH. If a game or a movie has the quality but not the quantity that I expect to be standard, then I either rent it, never buy it, or wait for the price to go down. It's that freaking simple.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Firstly, I'd love to know the titles of these allegedly full price games that contain 20 minutes of content. I've been playing games for three decades and the only possible titles I could come up with are older games that relied on difficulty to compensate for length.

The notion that there is no "qualitative difference" between a person unwilling to pay 60 dollars for 20 minutes versus 60 dollars for 4 hours is, in a word, nonsense. There is no software being sold at 60 dollars a pop for 20 minutes of game play because at some point, even the most enthusiastic and eager consumer identifies price gouging. By contrast, plenty of games, both critically and commercially successful, hover around five to seven hours in length. Again, your 20-minute game analogy is entirely misplaced in this particular argument.

As to your assertion that people who deride this particular game's length would also opt to not purchase games of similar length, that's simply fallacious reasoning. You have absolutely no idea what their purchasing history is or what they'll buy in the future. From my own observations I can attest to the fact that plenty of people who attack a game for a specified flaw are just as likely to purchase another game featuring a similarly perceived flaw. The issue of length and the dollar-to-hour ratio of monetary value is an oft-discussed topic yet these types of games continue to sell just fine.

Lastly, all this talk of the game not selling well, the game only being worth a rental, the developers being lazy, etc., all equates to an attack on the quality of the game which has been brought on by the revelation of the length. All of the derision being leveled at TFU II in this thread is predicated upon the completion time of the game, which implies that length equates quality.

The reality is that your own initial post calls the length (which has yet to be confirmed by a reputable source) "unacceptable", which means you have de-valued and judged the game entirely upon said length. Even more interesting is that you compare the cost of film to this particular game, which brings up an interesting point: the average film on DVD/Blueray is two hours (extras notwithstanding) and costs between 20-30 dollars. If TFU II is actually only 4 hours (not counting challenge levels) then it is entirely in line with the value of film.

Am I to assume you abstain from purchasing DVD's at full retail value in your stand against overpriced consumer goods? Do you also abstain from going to the movies, where the average cost of a ticket is now around 10-15 dollars for a one-time viewing that doesn't even entail ownership?

I'd sincerely love to know the answers to these questions because in reality, if you go to the movies or buy flicks at full retail price, then that line you keep alluding to is merely something you whip out to slam or deride certain games when convenient to do so.

MrGeezer

Firstly, I'd suggest actually reading my post.

I never said that there are full-priced games containing 20 minutes of play time. Read what I type or don't bother commenting. What I said was that there is released content containing such minimal gametime, and that it's NOT sold at full price because the public at large isn't stupid enough to actually buy it. Game length is absolutely important, period. YOU would see it as "price gouging" if a company tried to sell 20 minutes of content for $60. In the EXACT same way, people who find it unacceptable to spend $60 on 4 hours worth of content often see it as "price gouging" when a company tries to charge $60 for a game that only delivers 4 hours of entertainment. It's the exact same thing. It still boils down to nothing more than the potentially buyer determining that the amount of content doesn't justify the price.

And I didn't say that people complaining about this game's brevity wouldn't buy equally short games. Again, pay attention. What I was saying is that the ONLY way that the existence of other equally short games is relevant is if the people complaining about THIS game are willing to purchase THOSE games. And in the comments that you've been critizing, there was absolutely no indication whatsoever that people's attitudes about overly-short games are specific to this particular game. If they simply dislike short games in general (with comments not providing evidence for or against), then it doesn't freaking matter how many other short-ass games there are.

And no, comments about it only being worth a rental, etc, are NOT comments about the QUALITY of the game. They weren't discussing the QUALITY, they were talking about the VALUE FOR THEM. For example, some people have said that the demo wasn't fun. THAT is a comment about quality. You have someone saying that he got it cheap because he didn't find it worth the new price, and that he then had fun with it. That is discussing both things. That's discussing whether it's worth buying when it was stated that he waited until he could get it for $15. That DOESN'T say anything about the game's QUALITY. However, he DID speak about the game's quality when he said that he ENJOYED the game after getting it for $15.

You're absolutely confused here. People saying that they don't find 4 hours of gameplay to be worth $60 is NOT in any way whatsoever a comment about the QUALITY.

And I DO buy movies on DVD. I do NOT watch movies in the cinema. Same movie, crucial difference. With a movie ticket, I get to watch a movie ONCE. When buying a disc, I get to watch the movie whenever I feel like it. And let me reiterate...I am talking about THE SAME MOVIE.

So...WHY am I willing to buy DVDs and Blu-Rays, even though they cost MORE than a new movie ticket? Simply because I've drawn a line concerning what I'm getting vs what I'm spending. In this case, it's specifically about the equivalent of "replayability". No matter how ****ing good a movie is, I'm not willing to shell out the money if there's not the potential of replayability.

As far as why I'm willing to buy movies for $25, yet won't buy a 4 hour long game for $60, that's because I get more entertainment value out of movies. Movies deserve more of my money because movies are of higher value to me. I'm more likely to be watching movies 15 years down the road than I am to be playing a game that's five years old. I simply get more out of movies, the value-per-hour is a LOT higher than with videogames. And yet...I still have my limits. I refuse to double-dip, I almost never watch movies in the cinema, and the length DOES factor into how much I'll spend. I'll spend $100 for the entire series Seinfeld, but I wouldn't even think of spending $100 for a Blu-Ray of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The movie is absolutely BETTER than the TV show, but still not so freaking good that I can't find better uses for my money.

And that's really what it's all about. If I go to the store looking to buy a game, suppose there's a 4 hour long game sitting next to a 30 hour long game. Four hours of game time is literally like movie length. One can easily knock that out in a single afternoon and be done. Movies give me more value so I'm willing to spend more on them, but there are still limits. 2001 is an infinitely more valuable purchase than than any new videogame out there, I'm still watching that movie 20 years after I first saw it. And yet, I still wouldn't pay New Videogame prices for a copy of the movie, because the price is unreasonable.

And you still fail to see the point here. The point isn't that there's a set line which applies to everybody. The point is that EVERYBODY HAS A LINE, they all just set it at a different place. I've literally known two people who ONLY bought Zone of the Enders because it had a demo for Metal Gear Solid 2. No kidding...they also got a full length game, but they didn't play it. When they walked into the store and handed over their cash (I believe games were more like $50 back then), their thought process was that they were playing $50 for a 30 minute long demo of the new Metal Gear Solid game. Yes, those people exist. They certainly aren't any kind of majority, which is why demo discs normally aren't sold for $50, and why full releases aren't usually like $200. YOU would call those people idiots for spending that much money just to get that little gameplay, other people would call you an idiot for spending $60 on a mere 4 hours of gameplay (I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm talking about other people). The point is, EVERYONE has their limits, but at every single step of the way, the amount of content DOES play a factor.

The people in this thread saying that the AMOUNT of content doesn't matter are only saying so for one reason: Because every game out there provides ENOUGH content so that FOR THEM, it becomes a non-issue. Yet, if I were to bring up something like them paying $60 for a demo disc, they'd think that to be a stupid example. Why? Simply because they've never reached that point in their gaming, and think that such a point is objectively ridiculous. Yet...people bought Zone of the Enders just to play a 20 minute demo of MGS2. That point exists. Ridiculous are not, there ARE people willing to shell out money for that stuff. It's just that most people aren't. It's not a matter of "if it's fun, it doesn't matter how long or short it is". That's what I'm objecting to. Length absolutely matters, and how much the length matters depends on how much enjoyment is obtained from the experience. That's a subjective thing which varies from person to person, but it's flat-out ignorant to say that people should not take length into consideration when pretty much every person here does the exact same thing.

It's not a matter of "quality over quantity". Again, if I'm shelling out $60 for a game or $25 for a movie, then I can get quality AND quantity. There's not exactly a shortage of quality games, not exactly a shortage of quality movies. I don't expect one or the other, I expect BOTH. If a game or a movie has the quality but not the quantity that I expect to be standard, then I either rent it, never buy it, or wait for the price to go down. It's that freaking simple.

There are also standard expectations. Would you be willing to pay $60 for a single 90 minute long movie? Most people wouldn't. When the standard price for movies is about $20, there just needs to be more content to justify the price.

Exact same thing here. If the game only cost $30, nobody would be complaining that it's only 4 hours long. But it's not $30, it's $60. At that price, people should be able to expect more content.

Think of it this way...suppose that the game was only 30 MINUTES long, and it still costs $60. Surely, at SOME point, you'd agree that the game is too short to justify the price. And if that's the case, you wouldn't be disagreeing in principle. All you'd be doing is disagreeing on the limit at which the game's price exceeds the value given by its content. Four hours might not be too short for you, but it is too short for others.

The thing is this...if a game is only an hour long, and it's fun, then it's fun. But...it's not the only fun game out there. I'm sure that gamers can find a game that's equally as fun, and is a lot longer than an hour.

MrGeezer

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

If the game is fun in itself, then why not? A demo is only a teaser, NOT the full game.

MrGeezer

You're SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that you'd be willing to pay $60 for a single level that lasts all of 20 minutes?

If I was making a game, only finished the first level, and then I slapped it onto a disc and tried to sell it for $60, you're honestly telling me that you'd buy it as long as it was fun?

You're not listening.

If a demo is worth twenty minutes to go, then it is not worth the time. If the full game is longer, say in the case of Force Unleashed II, which is only four hours, should that really stop someone from buying the game? People are nuts about Star Wars and will replay the game and its stages over and over again until the thrill is gone. To them, there's some replay value to be found in it.

Games like Vanquish may be short, OK, but people are still going to gobble it up and enjoy it. Length does not matter. I don't know how many other ways I have to spell it out for you.

If I was to buy a hack and slash button masher I'd expect some replay value at least.

It turns out that 4 hours of gameplay is true news. In that case I'll most likely wait for the Ultimate Sith Edition.

It's not a matter of "quality over quantity". Again, if I'm shelling out $60 for a game or $25 for a movie, then I can get quality AND quantity. There's not exactly a shortage of quality games, not exactly a shortage of quality movies. I don't expect one or the other, I expect BOTH. If a game or a movie has the quality but not the quantity that I expect to be standard, then I either rent it, never buy it, or wait for the price to go down. It's that freaking simple.

MrGeezer

I'm going to concede that at this point we've been going in circles and to be perfectly honest I feel like I'm taking on two separate arguments: your discussion and analysis of relativity as it relates to length versus pricing in games, which I actually mostly agree with, and your defense of those who slandered the game based on length, which I do not agree with. (And for the record you were not one of the offenders)

The thing is, I fully agree that everyone has their own threshold for what they are willing to pay but at the same time I find most of these personal rubrics to be inconsistent if not downright hypocritical because at no time has there ever been a true consensus on how long a full priced game should be.

That topic however is probably better left for a different day.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

If the game is fun in itself, then why not? A demo is only a teaser, NOT the full game.

Metamania

You're SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that you'd be willing to pay $60 for a single level that lasts all of 20 minutes?

If I was making a game, only finished the first level, and then I slapped it onto a disc and tried to sell it for $60, you're honestly telling me that you'd buy it as long as it was fun?

You're not listening.

If a demo is worth twenty minutes to go, then it is not worth the time. If the full game is longer, say in the case of Force Unleashed II, which is only four hours, should that really stop someone from buying the game? People are nuts about Star Wars and will replay the game and its stages over and over again until the thrill is gone. To them, there's some replay value to be found in it.

Games like Vanquish may be short, OK, but people are still going to gobble it up and enjoy it. Length does not matter. I don't know how many other ways I have to spell it out for you.

Your logic is "some people think it's worth it" and it's flawed, because you're completely ignoring the implied fact that that also means "some people don't think it's worth it."

This thread isn't to tell one group of people how much entertainment they should or shouldn't feel entitled to for their money. It's simply a discussion of the fact, and what each individual person is (or isn't) willing to pay for that 4-hour block of gaming. Nobody is trying to change your opinion or make you do things their way, they're just stating their own opinions for discussion. So please stop trying to force your own views onto others.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

It's not a matter of "quality over quantity". Again, if I'm shelling out $60 for a game or $25 for a movie, then I can get quality AND quantity. There's not exactly a shortage of quality games, not exactly a shortage of quality movies. I don't expect one or the other, I expect BOTH. If a game or a movie has the quality but not the quantity that I expect to be standard, then I either rent it, never buy it, or wait for the price to go down. It's that freaking simple.

Grammaton-Cleric

The thing is, I fully agree that everyone has their own threshold for what they are willing to pay but at the same time I find most of these personal rubrics to be inconsistent if not downright hypocritical because at no time has there ever been a true consensus on how long a full priced game should be.

That topic however is probably better left for a different day.

Personal preference knows no hypocracy.

Each person has their own opinion. Whether that opinion clashes with another is irrelevant to the discussion. At the end of the day, sales will speak louder than words will, and if sales are small enough, maybe the company will decide to put a little more effort into their game next time.

It turns out that 4 hours of gameplay is true news. In that case I'll most likely wait for the Ultimate Sith Edition.

shinian

Personal preference knows no hypocracy.

Each person has their own opinion. Whether that opinion clashes with another is irrelevant to the discussion. At the end of the day, sales will speak louder than words will, and if sales are small enough, maybe the company will decide to put a little more effort into their game next time.

Greyfeld

It's hypocritical to slander one game for a perceived flaw and give another game a pass for the same issue. Personal preference isn't a shield from logic so either a person is equitable with their criticism or said criticism becomes irrelevant.

I'm not perfect, but I try damn hard to be consistent.

Also, IGN scored the game a 6.5 but said completion time is just under 6 hours, which places it nearly a full two hours longer than what has been widely claimed.

Once again, we get to witness a collective, knee-jerk reaction from the online populace before the facts are even in. At six hours, this aligns fairly well with most action/adventure titles.

Incidentally, have you played the demo? The tech alone is some of the best this generation. I think assuming the developers didn't work hard on this game is an erroneous statement. They've addressed most of the complaints of the first game but in doing so they may have removed a bit of padding that apparently, many gamers require to feel that they aren't getting ripped off.

It turns out that 4 hours of gameplay is true news. In that case I'll most likely wait for the Ultimate Sith Edition.

shinian

Actually, completion time is closer to 6 hours.

Hmm... that's odd, I don't think I've ever seen a movie cost that much before. To think they would try selling a $60 movie in a market aimed at $20 movies is absurd. They would be committing commercial suicide. Your analogy is flawed. If your analogy were carried over to games, then we would be looking at a $180 game that is as long as the average. And like the $60 movie, it is absurd to think of such a thing.

foxhound_fox

That's exactly the point.

Look...don't you think that the movie industry would love to charge $60 for a DVD instead of $20? Of course they would. The reason why they don't is because by going too far over $20, people stop buying the movie. By tripling the retail price of a DVD, they aren't going to triple their revenue. Instead, they'll end up making LESS money on sales. That's exactly the reason why videogames DON'T cost $180. Those numbers aren't pulled out of a hat either. The reason why the industry at large pretty much agrees on prices in that range is because that's right around the sweet spot which generates maximum profits.

Movies on disc are gonna be around $20-$30 bucks simply because that's about the most that people are willing to pay for that amount of content. And this is more based on content than it is on QUALITY. Go to the video store and look at the titles on the shelf. ****cs and masterpieces (new release) are gonna cost about the same as bottom-of-the-barrel garbage. Prices then go down if the discs aren't selling, but at no point does the price ever go above around $30. That's the cap, that's the standard price for a new movie, and that price has NOTHING to do with quality. You don't see the price go above that until you start looking at collections, and those ONLY cost more money because there is MORE CONTENT. People won't spend more than about $25 for 3 hours worth of movie, but they WILL spend $60 on 15 or 20 hours worth of a TV show.

Amount of content absolutely matters.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
Hmm... that's odd, I don't think I've ever seen a movie cost that much before. To think they would try selling a $60 movie in a market aimed at $20 movies is absurd. They would be committing commercial suicide. Your analogy is flawed. If your analogy were carried over to games, then we would be looking at a $180 game that is as long as the average. And like the $60 movie, it is absurd to think of such a thing.

MrGeezer

That's exactly the point.

Look...don't you think that the movie industry would love to charge $60 for a DVD instead of $20? Of course they would. The reason why they don't is because by going too far over $20, people stop buying the movie. By tripling the retail price of a DVD, they aren't going to triple their revenue. Instead, they'll end up making LESS money on sales. That's exactly the reason why videogames DON'T cost $180. Those numbers aren't pulled out of a hat either. The reason why the industry at large pretty much agrees on prices in that range is because that's right around the sweet spot which generates maximum profits.

Movies on disc are gonna be around $20-$30 bucks simply because that's about the most that people are willing to pay for that amount of content. And this is more based on content than it is on QUALITY. Go to the video store and look at the titles on the shelf. ****cs and masterpieces (new release) are gonna cost about the same as bottom-of-the-barrel garbage. Prices then go down if the discs aren't selling, but at no point does the price ever go above around $30. That's the cap, that's the standard price for a new movie, and that price has NOTHING to do with quality. You don't see the price go above that until you start looking at collections, and those ONLY cost more money because there is MORE CONTENT. People won't spend more than about $25 for 3 hours worth of movie, but they WILL spend $60 on 15 or 20 hours worth of a TV show.

Amount of content absolutely matters.

So let's address your current assigned parameters of value when discussing film, which I happen to agree with, and apply those same parameters to gaming.

If people are willing to spend 20-30 dollars for what amounts to, on average, two hours of entertainment when buying a film, why then does a hypothetically 4-hour game not fit reasonably into a similar value-to-dollar rubric? By all accounts, a four-hour game sold for 60 dollars is delivering the same value as a two-hour motion picture sold at thirty dollars, so at what point did this belief emerge that videogames as a medium are required to achieve a certain length and why are they being held to a different standard than other media?

There is a double standard at work here; I witness it first hand constantly. The issue of quantity and value as it pertains to gaming is a subject that is tirelessly debated but there is no real consensus on what is "too short" and plenty of gamers seem perfectly willing to surrender their personal ideology on the matter when it suits them.

So let's address your current assigned parameters of value when discussing film, which I happen to agree with, and apply those same parameters to gaming.

If people are willing to spend 20-30 dollars for what amounts to, on average, two hours of entertainment when buying a film, why then does a hypothetically 4-hour game not fit reasonably into a similar value-to-dollar rubric? By all accounts, a four-hour game sold for 60 dollars is delivering the same value as a two-hour motion picture sold at thirty dollars, so at what point did this belief emerge that videogames as a medium are required to achieve a certain length and why are they being held to a different standard than other media?

There is a double standard at work here; I witness it first hand constantly. The issue of quantity and value as it pertains to gaming is a subject that is tirelessly debated but there is no real consensus on what is "too short" and plenty of gamers seem perfectly willing to surrender their personal ideology on the matter when it suits them.

Grammaton-Cleric

Again, everyone's free to determine their own criteria for value.

Personally, for me, I'm far more likely to watch a movie again multiple times than I am to replay a videogame. Regardless of length, I tend to play videogames once and then be done. If I spend $20 for a two hour long movie, it is very likely that I'll watch that movie at least two more times. That's a total of 6 hours for enjoyment for $20. By contrast, if I buy a 6 hour long game for $60, I'm likely to play that game exactly once. That's the same 6 hour block of entertainment as with movies, yet the cost is higher for the game.

Again...someone else is certainly able to see things differently. Other people DO like to replay videogames multiple times, and rarely ever watch movies more than once. For THEM, $60 for a 4 hour long game probably IS a better value than spending $20 on a 2 hour long movie.

But I'm not them. For me, it's impossible to simply look at how I determine if a movie is worth a purchase, and then to transfer that same formula over to games. It doesn't work that way. I value movies more than games (on an entertainment-per-hour basis), and thus I'm going to have different standards for each. Others certainly have a right to feel differently, and that certainly doesn't make them wrong. It's just that, for me personally, 4 hours of gameplay is simply not worth spending $60. Once the price drops, I very well may then pick up the game and love it.

Personally, for me, I'm far more likely to watch a movie again multiple times than I am to replay a videogame. Regardless of length, I tend to play videogames once and then be done. If I spend $20 for a two hour long movie, it is very likely that I'll watch that movie at least two more times. That's a total of 6 hours for enjoyment for $20. By contrast, if I buy a 6 hour long game for $60, I'm likely to play that game exactly once. That's the same 6 hour block of entertainment as with movies, yet the cost is higher for the game.

Again...someone else is certainly able to see things differently. Other people DO like to replay videogames multiple times, and rarely ever watch movies more than once. For THEM, $60 for a 4 hour long game probably IS a better value than spending $20 on a 2 hour long movie.

But I'm not them. For me, it's impossible to simply look at how I determine if a movie is worth a purchase, and then to transfer that same formula over to games. It doesn't work that way. I value movies more than games (on an entertainment-per-hour basis), and thus I'm going to have different standards for each. Others certainly have a right to feel differently, and that certainly doesn't make them wrong. It's just that, for me personally, 4 hours of gameplay is simply not worth spending $60. Once the price drops, I very well may then pick up the game and love it.

MrGeezer

I have no problem with that personal rubric, especially since you clearly delineate your rationale. I agree that each medium should probably be approached differently and I certainly agree that a film, over the long run, will probably garner more viewings than most games will garner plays.

That said, I am curious to how tightly you adhere to that philosophy when purchasing games. Are you entirely intractable, even when the game features plenty of quality or innovation, and is there a strict, formulaic process by which games that are gradually discounted become viable purchases once they hit a certain price point?

Also, how thoroughly do you research the games before making the decision to buy or not buy?

Case in point, the talk of TFU II being 4 hours is not accurate, as the game is actually closer to six hours in length, not counting challenge rooms. Many of the initial posts in this thread were instantly dismissive and angry over that supposed length, a collective reaction based upon information not even published by a reputable source.

I'm genuinely curious because the issue of length come into discussion often, especially with something like Vanquished, which is getting mostly stellar reviews despite having a completion time that is on the shorter side of the spectrum.

I certainly don't require some profound and sweeping epic to justify the hacking and slashing of storm troopers and the crumpling of tie fighters with the force.

Grammaton-Cleric

Amen.

[QUOTE="shinian"]

It turns out that 4 hours of gameplay is true news. In that case I'll most likely wait for the Ultimate Sith Edition.

Grammaton-Cleric

Actually, completion time is closer to 6 hours.

just saw the game trailers review am agreed with it ,they give it a 6.3 the game blows as i expect from the demo narog84

[QUOTE="narog84"]just saw the game trailers review am agreed with it ,they give it a 6.3 the game blows as i expect from the demo julianwelton

[QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="narog84"]just saw the game trailers review am agreed with it ,they give it a 6.3 the game blows as i expect from the demo narog84

[QUOTE="narog84"][QUOTE="julianwelton"] Way to not have a mind of your own. The only negative things the GT review said was that some things got repetitive and the story wasn't great. But if the game is as good as the last one, I and many others, will love it. Also, if the game was only 4 hours they would have said something. julianwelton

actually my opinion was before the review that why i say i agreed with it and i play the completely boring demo and yea the game is a 6 at best many people i know got an early copy and they too think the game blows , i mean the story of a clone that the most cheap way to make a sequel . If you like the game that fine but the game is getting mediocre score for a reason .

IGN 65 ,GameTrailers 63 ,Joystiq 6 ,Eurogamer 5 ,GamePro 5

It's hypocritical to slander one game for a perceived flaw and give another game a pass for the same issue.

Grammaton-Cleric

But nobody's doing that.

So your point is irrelevant.

just saw the game trailers review am agreed with it ,they give it a 6.3 the game blows as i expect from the demo narog84

I'm still going to get my hands on it eventually, because I really liked the demo, and I loved the first game. I'm just going to wait for a price drop to do so, because I'm not shelling out $60 for a game I can beat in an afternoon and never pick up again.

[QUOTE="narog84"]just saw the game trailers review am agreed with it ,they give it a 6.3 the game blows as i expect from the demo Greyfeld

I'm still going to get my hands on it eventually, because I really liked the demo, and I loved the first game. I'm just going to wait for a price drop to do so, because I'm not shelling out $60 for a game I can beat in an afternoon and never pick up again.

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

[QUOTE="narog84"]just saw the game trailers review am agreed with it ,they give it a 6.3 the game blows as i expect from the demo julianwelton

I'm still going to get my hands on it eventually, because I really liked the demo, and I loved the first game. I'm just going to wait for a price drop to do so, because I'm not shelling out $60 for a game I can beat in an afternoon and never pick up again.

I thought about it, but that seemed like a rather steep price when I don't rent games that often. Besides, it shouldn't be too much longer that Red Box gets games in my area, which will be a lot cheaper for my needs.

@narog84 I don't know if I like it yet. I wont be getting it until tomorrow. I may like it or I may be disappointed. But the fact is you're judging an entire game by other peoples opinions, and oh yeah a ten minute demo. Yep you're definitely qualified to make this decision. By the way I don't care about review sites. Do you realize what you just posted is basically five individual opinions? So yes so far five people don't like it, but I'm not them so that doesn't really affect me at all does it? Maybe you can live your life having other people make up your mind for you but I cant. Thats your prerogative. Please do not respond. You have nothing to say. You already admitted to not playing the game.julianwelton

Please, that's an unfair standard and you don't know it. People don't have to listen to Justin Bieber's or Britney Spears' entire released music in order to know that their music is garbage. After you've heard a few songs or maybe one album, then you know enough to decide that you're not gonna like the entire music.

In the exact same way, narog played the demo. He knows what the gameplay is like, and he thinks that it's trash. He played part of it, he doesn't like it, and that's that.

And again, reviews are NOT just opinions. There is a serious difference between a well-written professional review, and the "reviews" that users often write. Proper reviews are essentially art criticism, and that goes a HELL of a lot beyond "I like it or I don't". In fact, the very notion that reviews are "just opinions" is actually flatout ridiculous. For me to say "reviews are just opinions" is for me to admit that I don't have ANY REASON for liking what I like, and that I haven't even begun to make an assessment about what I want in whatever the hell it is that I'm reviewing. If I can EXPLAIN what I think is good and bad about it, then my review isn't just opinion. If I CAN'T explain why I like it, them I'm essentially just saying "I like it but I don't know why". And that's not even a review.

The dude played a demo. A demo whose entire purpose is to promote the game, to make people want to buy the full version. They're obviously not intentionally gonna put the worst parts of the game in the demo (unless the whole game is so amazingly awesome that even the worst parts are great).He played a demo promoting the game, found it to be garbage. He later saw reviews, and the complaints about the whole game largely conform to the impressions that he ALREADY HAD after playing the demo. That's plenty enough to decide that the whole game is probably crap.

And really...that's not unreasonable either. When people make fun of Big Rigs or Superman 64 for being some of the worst games ever made, I guarantee that most of those people haven't played through those entire games. When a certain person says "this band sucks", I guarantee that most of those people have not listened to everything that that band has ever released. Why would they do such a thing, when they've already heard enough to decide that they lack talent?

I have no problem with that personal rubric, especially since you clearly delineate your rationale. I agree that each medium should probably be approached differently and I certainly agree that a film, over the long run, will probably garner more viewings than most games will garner plays.

That said, I am curious to how tightly you adhere to that philosophy when purchasing games. Are you entirely intractable, even when the game features plenty of quality or innovation, and is there a strict, formulaic process by which games that are gradually discounted become viable purchases once they hit a certain price point?

Also, how thoroughly do you research the games before making the decision to buy or not buy?

Case in point, the talk of TFU II being 4 hours is not accurate, as the game is actually closer to six hours in length, not counting challenge rooms. Many of the initial posts in this thread were instantly dismissive and angry over that supposed length, a collective reaction based upon information not even published by a reputable source.

I'm genuinely curious because the issue of length come into discussion often, especially with something like Vanquished, which is getting mostly stellar reviews despite having a completion time that is on the shorter side of the spectrum.

Grammaton-Cleric

Well, I certainly don't keep spreadsheets or anything in my pocket. It's really just a general guideline. I don't ALWAYS research the game thoroughly before making a purchase, and I am providing some leeway if I think that it's a particularly ambitious effort or if it's just something that for whatever personal reason I just really NEED to buy right ****ing NOW.

Of course there are expections to many things, and many variables to consider. It also depends on how much disposable income I have, or if I just have money burning a hole in my pocket and I feel like I need to buy SOMETHING/ANYTHING as soon as humanly possible.

All things being equal, I don't spend more than $20 for any movie, and don't spend $60 for any game less than about 10 hours. That's not entirely strict to the point of being an actual mathematical formula, it's just a genuine guideline. And when there is some wiggle room, it's usually not much of a variance.

The only time when I REALLY stray from that general policy is when I have significant disposable income, don't really care what I buy, and am just in the mood to spend money. That's the only time when I walk into the store and buy a movie or game pretty much blind, and that's also the ONLY time when I end up spending $60 for a game that has less than about 10 hours of gameplay. And while that still happens, it doesn't happen often.

@MrGeezer

He didn't even listen to a "full album". Some of my favorite bands have songs that I don't like at all. If I just listened to one of the songs I didn't like and then said "this band is trash" I never would have discovered all of their other good songs. I've played plenty of good games with stages I didn't like. Playing a demo doesn't mean anything, especially when its that short. He basically walked into the middle of a movie stayed for five minutes (with no idea of what is going on) and said "this movie is trash" and picked up a protest sign. You cannot play a five-ten minute demo and judge something as a whole. You can get a hint that you personally may not enjoy the game, but you cannot say the game is bad because you haven't played the full game. The ability to articulate why you do or do not like something doesn't elevate what you're saying beyond an opinion. There is no difference in one person saying "I don't like this band." and another saying "I don't like this band because they use out dated filters to record their music and their guitarist is sub-par." they are still both individual opinions.

Reviews ARE just opinions. Some things may bother some people and not others. If a reviewer says something like "the stages begin to feel repetitive" that is his OPINION. I may play the same game and never feel like the game is repetitive because I enjoy the gameplay so much. The reviewer may say its "too easy or the story is sub-par" and someone else may play the game and love the story and find the bosses difficult. In short, a demo may be enough for you to decide that you might not want to buy it, but it is not enough for you to go around shouting about how the game is "garbage". If you haven't experienced the majority of the game features/levels and have no idea how the story is you have no business judging the full game, its that simple.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

It's hypocritical to slander one game for a perceived flaw and give another game a pass for the same issue.

Greyfeld

But nobody's doing that.

So your point is irrelevant.

Are you so certain?

I'm willing to bet a fair sum of money that plenty of people who slander this game will end up, in the very near future, picking up a game of comparable length for a comparable price.

I personally find the lack of equity in the way games are assessed, both professionally and within the community, rife with inconsistencies. It's something I've addressed many times before and it will continue to do so because hypocrisy is a grotesquery.

@MrGeezer

He didn't even listen to a "full album". Some of my favorite bands have songs that I don't like at all. If I just listened to one of the songs I didn't like and then said "this band is trash" I never would have discovered all of their other good songs. I've played plenty of good games with stages I didn't like. Playing a demo doesn't mean anything, especially when its that short. He basically walked into the middle of a movie stayed for five minutes (with no idea of what is going on) and said "this movie is trash" and picked up a protest sign. You cannot play a five-ten minute demo and judge something as a whole. You can get a hint that you personally may not enjoy the game, but you cannot say the game is bad because you haven't played the full game. The ability to articulate why you do or do not like something doesn't elevate what you're saying beyond an opinion. There is no difference in one person saying "I don't like this band." and another saying "I don't like this band because they use out dated filters to record their music and their guitarist is sub-par." they are still both individual opinions.

Reviews ARE just opinions. Some things may bother some people and not others. If a reviewer says something like "the stages begin to feel repetitive" that is his OPINION. I may play the same game and never feel like the game is repetitive because I enjoy the gameplay so much. The reviewer may say its "too easy or the story is sub-par" and someone else may play the game and love the story and find the bosses difficult. In short, a demo may be enough for you to decide that you might not want to buy it, but it is not enough for you to go around shouting about how the game is "garbage". If you haven't experienced the majority of the game features/levels and have no idea how the story is you have no business judging the full game, its that simple.

julianwelton

Right...so I suppose it's just OPINION that the game includes jawas, stormtroopers, and AT-STs as enemies. :roll:

In the exact same way, narog played the demo. He knows what the gameplay is like, and he thinks that it's trash. He played part of it, he doesn't like it, and that's that.

And again, reviews are NOT just opinions. There is a serious difference between a well-written professional review, and the "reviews" that users often write. Proper reviews are essentially art criticism, and that goes a HELL of a lot beyond "I like it or I don't". In fact, the very notion that reviews are "just opinions" is actually flatout ridiculous. For me to say "reviews are just opinions" is for me to admit that I don't have ANY REASON for liking what I like, and that I haven't even begun to make an assessment about what I want in whatever the hell it is that I'm reviewing. If I can EXPLAIN what I think is good and bad about it, then my review isn't just opinion. If I CAN'T explain why I like it, them I'm essentially just saying "I like it but I don't know why". And that's not even a review.

MrGeezer

I really wanted to touch upon this because it embodies much of my frustration with the general gaming populace in regards to the way they critique games.

The fact that anybody has the temerity to call that demo "garbage", when it clearly is not, demonstrates how hyperbolic and completely unreasonable people have become when making statements about games they don't care for. I can completely understand why somebody doesn't feel this game warrants a purchase, or why they don't personally enjoy the core game mechanics, but something that is competently made and executed with both technical fidelity and polished craft simply doesn't deserve that level of derision. That demo, or the accompanying game for that matter, isn't garbage but people have become so myopic that there is no concession of quality beyond their own egos. If they don't like something, that dislike must be universal and unfortunately there is no ability to detach one's self to more objectively evaluate a game.

(I understand you were using this as an example so understand none of this is leveled at you.)

As to professional criticism being something more than opinion, while I agree with your ideology of what gaming criticism should be, that ideal doesn't mesh with the vast majority contemporary gaming editorials. Most game criticism is merely opinion, often framed within very narrow personal parameters and more often than not infused with the personal biases of the person writing the review. Worse, the level of hubris found in most contemporary criticism, proliferated by the explosive growth of online entertainment sites, has grown exponentially, with many critics doing their best to serve personal and professional agendas while weighing down their laborious prose with as many college words as their thesaurus will facilitate. There is no humility in most contemporary criticism, just as there is no humility among those who slander quality merely because they don't personally like something.

That isn't to assert that there isn't some very good professional criticism but as a whole I would postulate that most of what currently exists is anything but an art form. Given how many reviews I've read that fabricated technical difficulties or just flatly got the facts wrong, I'd wager that we've some miles to travel before game criticism approaches even the level of most film criticism, which currently isn't exactly at an apex of quality either.

[QUOTE="julianwelton"]

@MrGeezer

He didn't even listen to a "full album". Some of my favorite bands have songs that I don't like at all. If I just listened to one of the songs I didn't like and then said "this band is trash" I never would have discovered all of their other good songs. I've played plenty of good games with stages I didn't like. Playing a demo doesn't mean anything, especially when its that short. He basically walked into the middle of a movie stayed for five minutes (with no idea of what is going on) and said "this movie is trash" and picked up a protest sign. You cannot play a five-ten minute demo and judge something as a whole. You can get a hint that you personally may not enjoy the game, but you cannot say the game is bad because you haven't played the full game. The ability to articulate why you do or do not like something doesn't elevate what you're saying beyond an opinion. There is no difference in one person saying "I don't like this band." and another saying "I don't like this band because they use out dated filters to record their music and their guitarist is sub-par." they are still both individual opinions.

Reviews ARE just opinions. Some things may bother some people and not others. If a reviewer says something like "the stages begin to feel repetitive" that is his OPINION. I may play the same game and never feel like the game is repetitive because I enjoy the gameplay so much. The reviewer may say its "too easy or the story is sub-par" and someone else may play the game and love the story and find the bosses difficult. In short, a demo may be enough for you to decide that you might not want to buy it, but it is not enough for you to go around shouting about how the game is "garbage". If you haven't experienced the majority of the game features/levels and have no idea how the story is you have no business judging the full game, its that simple.

MrGeezer

Right...so I suppose it's just OPINION that the game includes jawas, stormtroopers, and AT-STs as enemies. :roll:

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

In the exact same way, narog played the demo. He knows what the gameplay is like, and he thinks that it's trash. He played part of it, he doesn't like it, and that's that.

And again, reviews are NOT just opinions. There is a serious difference between a well-written professional review, and the "reviews" that users often write. Proper reviews are essentially art criticism, and that goes a HELL of a lot beyond "I like it or I don't". In fact, the very notion that reviews are "just opinions" is actually flatout ridiculous. For me to say "reviews are just opinions" is for me to admit that I don't have ANY REASON for liking what I like, and that I haven't even begun to make an assessment about what I want in whatever the hell it is that I'm reviewing. If I can EXPLAIN what I think is good and bad about it, then my review isn't just opinion. If I CAN'T explain why I like it, them I'm essentially just saying "I like it but I don't know why". And that's not even a review.

Grammaton-Cleric

I really wanted to touch upon this because it embodies much of my frustration with the general gaming populace in regards to the way they critique games.

The fact that anybody has the temerity to call that demo "garbage", when it clearly is not, demonstrates how hyperbolic and completely unreasonable people have become when making statements about games they don't care for. I can completely understand why somebody doesn't feel this game warrants a purchase, or why they don't personally enjoy the core game mechanics, but something that is competently made and executed with both technical fidelity and polished craft simply doesn't deserve that level of derision. That demo, or the accompanying game for that matter, isn't garbage but people have become so myopic that there is no concession of quality beyond their own egos. If they don't like something, that dislike must be universal and unfortunately there is no ability to detach one's self to more objectively evaluate a game.

(I understand you were using this as an example so understand none of this is leveled at you.)

As to professional criticism being something more than opinion, while I agree with your ideology of what gaming criticism should be, that ideal doesn't mesh with the vast majority contemporary gaming editorials. Most game criticism is merely opinion, often framed within very narrow personal parameters and more often than not infused with the personal biases of the person writing the review. Worse, the level of hubris found in most contemporary criticism, proliferated by the explosive growth of online entertainment sites, has grown exponentially, with many critics doing their best to serve personal and professional agendas while weighing down their laborious prose with as many college words as their thesaurus will facilitate. There is no humility in most contemporary criticism, just as there is no humility among those who slander quality merely because they don't personally like something.

That isn't to assert that there isn't some very good professional criticism but as a whole I would postulate that most of what currently exists is anything but an art form. Given how many reviews I've read that fabricated technical difficulties or just flatly got the facts wrong, I'd wager that we've some miles to travel before game criticism approaches even the level of most film criticism, which currently isn't exactly at an apex of quality either.

If they are actually in the game then, no. An opinion is not a fact. If I say something is "trash" that is not a fact. If I say the games soundtrack is terrible that is my opinion not a fact. Seriously where did you go to school? I'm not trying to be rude, but I really cant believe that you see no difference between an individuals opinion and an undeniable fact. A review that states that a game "feels repetitive" is not a fact. That is the way that that reviewer perceived the gameplay towards the later stages. That is what he personally felt while he played. If a review says that "the soundtrack needed more variety" that is his opinion of the soundtrack. Not a fact. Another person might love that all of the music was from the same genre, and that doesn't make the soundtrack good either. It is only that persons view of the soundtrack.julianwelton

THAT'S NOT THE ENTIRE REVIEW.

How is this so ****ing hard for people to understand?

People look at a review, selectively pick out the opinions, and then say "reviews are only opinions!"

But that's being DELIBERATELY dishonest. I could equally well look at a review, selectively pick out ONLY the facts, and then say, "reviews are only facts!"

Of course "a review that states that a game is repetetive is not a fact. But at the same time a review that CONTAINS AN OPINION is absolutely not automatically JUST AN OPINION.

Where the hell are you getting this "either/or" mentality towards game criticism? The review is a combination of both facts AND opinion. Both are extremely relevant, neither can be ignored. To describe the ENTIRE REVIEW as simply fact OR opinion is to be deliberately dishonest.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

In the exact same way, narog played the demo. He knows what the gameplay is like, and he thinks that it's trash. He played part of it, he doesn't like it, and that's that.

And again, reviews are NOT just opinions. There is a serious difference between a well-written professional review, and the "reviews" that users often write. Proper reviews are essentially art criticism, and that goes a HELL of a lot beyond "I like it or I don't". In fact, the very notion that reviews are "just opinions" is actually flatout ridiculous. For me to say "reviews are just opinions" is for me to admit that I don't have ANY REASON for liking what I like, and that I haven't even begun to make an assessment about what I want in whatever the hell it is that I'm reviewing. If I can EXPLAIN what I think is good and bad about it, then my review isn't just opinion. If I CAN'T explain why I like it, them I'm essentially just saying "I like it but I don't know why". And that's not even a review.

Grammaton-Cleric

I really wanted to touch upon this because it embodies much of my frustration with the general gaming populace in regards to the way they critique games.

The fact that anybody has the temerity to call that demo "garbage", when it clearly is not, demonstrates how hyperbolic and completely unreasonable people have become when making statements about games they don't care for. I can completely understand why somebody doesn't feel this game warrants a purchase, or why they don't personally enjoy the core game mechanics, but something that is competently made and executed with both technical fidelity and polished craft simply doesn't deserve that level of derision. That demo, or the accompanying game for that matter, isn't garbage but people have become so myopic that there is no concession of quality beyond their own egos. If they don't like something, that dislike must be universal and unfortunately there is no ability to detach one's self to more objectively evaluate a game.

(I understand you were using this as an example so understand none of this is leveled at you.)

As to professional criticism being something more than opinion, while I agree with your ideology of what gaming criticism should be, that ideal doesn't mesh with the vast majority contemporary gaming editorials. Most game criticism is merely opinion, often framed within very narrow personal parameters and more often than not infused with the personal biases of the person writing the review. Worse, the level of hubris found in most contemporary criticism, proliferated by the explosive growth of online entertainment sites, has grown exponentially, with many critics doing their best to serve personal and professional agendas while weighing down their laborious prose with as many college words as their thesaurus will facilitate. There is no humility in most contemporary criticism, just as there is no humility among those who slander quality merely because they don't personally like something.

That isn't to assert that there isn't some very good professional criticism but as a whole I would postulate that most of what currently exists is anything but an art form. Given how many reviews I've read that fabricated technical difficulties or just flatly got the facts wrong, I'd wager that we've some miles to travel before game criticism approaches even the level of most film criticism, which currently isn't exactly at an apex of quality either.

Oh...don't get me started about artistry in games. I think that games are nearly worthless as an art form, and that the critical process is about on par with that.

But...it's still basically art criticism, and at its core there's more to it than just "I didn't like it". There's still a very real objective quality to game criticism, a very real commentary on things that are objectively present in the game. If it's truly "just an opinion", then it's not even a "review".

As far as describing this or that game as "garbage" being nothing more than hyperbole, how did you come to that conclusion? This particular game is "clearly not" garbage? How would you even come close to being able to make that statement with a straight face if videogame criticism (crude as it is) is simply nothing more than opinion?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the game is "garbage". I'm not weighing in with an opinion since I never played it. And the person who I was talking about probably never used that specific word either. But if he did, so what? If it's all just opinion, if people can say that a 7.5 rating is BS because that's just the reviewer's opinion, then that also invalidates the very possibility that someone is WRONG by flat-out stating that a given game is "garbage" or "100% worthless".

[QUOTE="julianwelton"]If they are actually in the game then, no. An opinion is not a fact. If I say something is "trash" that is not a fact. If I say the games soundtrack is terrible that is my opinion not a fact. Seriously where did you go to school? I'm not trying to be rude, but I really cant believe that you see no difference between an individuals opinion and an undeniable fact. A review that states that a game "feels repetitive" is not a fact. That is the way that that reviewer perceived the gameplay towards the later stages. That is what he personally felt while he played. If a review says that "the soundtrack needed more variety" that is his opinion of the soundtrack. Not a fact. Another person might love that all of the music was from the same genre, and that doesn't make the soundtrack good either. It is only that persons view of the soundtrack.MrGeezer

THAT'S NOT THE ENTIRE REVIEW.

How is this so ****ing hard for people to understand?

People look at a review, selectively pick out the opinions, and then say "reviews are only opinions!"

But that's being DELIBERATELY dishonest. I could equally well look at a review, selectively pick out ONLY the facts, and then say, "reviews are only facts!"

Of course "a review that states that a game is repetetive is not a fact. But at the same time a review that CONTAINS AN OPINION is absolutely not automatically JUST AN OPINION.

Where the hell are you getting this "either/or" mentality towards game criticism? The review is a combination of both facts AND opinion. Both are extremely relevant, neither can be ignored. To describe the ENTIRE REVIEW as simply fact OR opinion is to be deliberately dishonest.

P.S. Please, lets just agree to disagree. You must be tired of arguing the same point over and over just as I am lol.

The shortness of Force Unleashed II is the only flaw in an otherwise awesome game.

The shortness of Force Unleashed II is the only flaw in an otherwise awesome game.

MathMattS