[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"][QUOTE="CajunShooter"]
So many people complain about length of games. Back in the NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, you would pay $50 or more for a game that could be beat in under 4 hours. Now most down loadable games that sell for $9.99 or longer than that.
Would you rather a game have a ton of unnecessary levels added just to make you grind through them to make the game longer? Do you have fun playing games that make you backtrack a ton just to extend the length of playtime? A 5 hour movie isn't necessarily better than a 2 hour movie and a 15 hour campaign isn't automatically going to be better that a 6 hour campaign.
If anything gamers were being ripped off 15 and 10 years ago. The price for gaming hasn't change much, but what has is the amount of content you get for every dollar.
shawn7324
I feel the same way. A shorter game is okay if the game feels complete when it's done. KZ3 didn't feel like there was a bunch of missing segments, so I have no problem with the length. The story was fine at first, though a little disjointed. Towards the end it got a little wackadoo. The gameplay being as awesome as it is made that transgression feel slight though.
I can't stand padding in games, especially when they aren't even hiding the fact that it is padding, like lots of backtracking and such. Bugs the crap outta me, and those are usually the games I don't finish.
I disagree. Were paying top dollar for the game they should be able to deliver at the very least an 8 hour long campaign. There's nothing stopping you from waiting for a price drop if all you want is the SP. I don't think games should take longer than they need just to meet some arbitrary time requirment.
I didn't finish AC:B 'cause it's a padded, boring game. RDR, while I beat it, was also very boring due to padding. Half-Life 2 is another game I've yet to finish.
I prefer a well made campaign that doesn't back peddle throughout it.
Log in to comment