surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I agree with the sentiment of this article. But also have to say some games are too short. Don't buy em for full price is my answer to that (fps's mainly). Also the 200hrs I bet is through different characters. Love the game though 70 or 200, its a great break from Skyrim.
Did you write a review after playing three hours and deciding the alt costumes took too long to unlock?
Great article, I actually prefer shorter game experiences (like 10 or so hours, actually less in many cases 'cause I love platformers) because I'm more likely to actually FINISH the game before getting bored or getting preoccupied with whatever else is going on in my life at the time.
"shows just how obsessed with length gamers can be".
Just like women. Heyoooooo!....sorry.
70 hours is more than enough. Animal Crossing have spoiled us gamers.
Just like women. Heyoooooo!....sorry.
70 hours is more than enough. Animal Crossing have spoiled us gamers.
Well obviously skipping past that 129hrs of dialog is what shorted them their 200hrs of gameplay........ Still it is embarrasing when a developer says their game touts Xhrs of game play and falls significantly short.
Tho I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that 200hrs was taking into account future DLC.... which would technically make them correct in the most reprehensible way I can imagine :P
Tho I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if that 200hrs was taking into account future DLC.... which would technically make them correct in the most reprehensible way I can imagine :P
Ah so he admits he skipped a bunch of dialogue, yet still got 70 hours out of it? And he's calling that bad?
...Baffling
...Baffling
Wait a sec. They said a speed do-everything + skip-all-dialog took over 200 hours in Amalur. If this guy did the same in 71 hours and actually read some of the dialog, that would certainly sound like false advertising.
We don't know we're born with our 1st world problems like short games, trade in facilities and hot running water on tap.
(though I'll admit I was a bit irritated that Saints Row 3 was significantly shorter than SR2).
(though I'll admit I was a bit irritated that Saints Row 3 was significantly shorter than SR2).
I don't think he's actually complaining there's ONLY 70 hours of content so much as calling bullshit on a developer who said their game was so huge it had 200 hours of content.
I have tons of games that I love that are six-to-eight hours. Sometimes I can't justify full price for a game and/or series I'm not 100% on, but that doesn't mean I'd complain about it. I'd just buy it when it gets a price cut. People are stupid.
BTW could you imagine if a game like No More Heroes was 70 hours? Jesus Christ. Good luck with that one.
BTW could you imagine if a game like No More Heroes was 70 hours? Jesus Christ. Good luck with that one.
I bought Sonic Generations, a game you're supposed to beat fast because it is Sonic... I have played it and replayed it so many times that I lost count.
I may have only 30 hours played after so many replays... but I still think that it was worth every cent.
A game is not measured because of the time it takes to beat it, just look at the first Portal!
I may have only 30 hours played after so many replays... but I still think that it was worth every cent.
A game is not measured because of the time it takes to beat it, just look at the first Portal!
Any game nowadays over 8 hours has loads of filler material anyways. Fetch quests, hundreds of unnecessary battles, and finally nowadays with more and more gamers demanding continuously larger environments, loads and loads of fucking walking from point a to b. I'm also finding less and less time to play games so I'm getting sick of RPGs and open world games wasting my time.
Dear god, I wish I had the free time to complain about a game not lasting me more than 70 hours. How many people honestly have the time to play a game for THAT long?
Tyler Wilde of PC Gamer brought up a great point once in defense of his Portal 2 review. He said that he thinks $60 was a reasonable asking price compared to the price of other entertainment. To see a 2 hour movie where I live is $9, by comparison I'm more than happy with a game that gives me 12 hours of entertainment. By that logic, Kingdoms of Amalur should run about $630 for the amount of time you'll spend playing it.
Tyler Wilde of PC Gamer brought up a great point once in defense of his Portal 2 review. He said that he thinks $60 was a reasonable asking price compared to the price of other entertainment. To see a 2 hour movie where I live is $9, by comparison I'm more than happy with a game that gives me 12 hours of entertainment. By that logic, Kingdoms of Amalur should run about $630 for the amount of time you'll spend playing it.
I think you should save some ire for people who deserve it.
This is a guy who is (as you rightfully acknowledged) not overly raging about anything, asking a question about something that was more or less promised to him. Red flags are raised at "where we lied to (...)?" but he even admits it could be just him. And there's not much in that post that screams "I feel so cheated by this!", I think.
I mean, you're not wrong in the things you say afterwards, but basing it on this particular post doesn't seem entirely fair to me.
This is a guy who is (as you rightfully acknowledged) not overly raging about anything, asking a question about something that was more or less promised to him. Red flags are raised at "where we lied to (...)?" but he even admits it could be just him. And there's not much in that post that screams "I feel so cheated by this!", I think.
I mean, you're not wrong in the things you say afterwards, but basing it on this particular post doesn't seem entirely fair to me.
Well when you play the game 8 hours a fucking day for a week, you're asking for extreme levels of post play burn out symptoms. Stop playing games all goddamned day and do other things for a while. Maybe then it wont seem like 70 hours is a rip.
Pretty classy on the part of the developers, they actually came into the thread to explain and apologize for the confusion. Respect right there.
@Burdmayn
I would really hate to see how you would price DVDs/Bluerays.... I mean with the potential to watch them an infinite number of times. I can see it now at the register.
"Sir... that will be infinity dollars, how would you like to pay"
I would really hate to see how you would price DVDs/Bluerays.... I mean with the potential to watch them an infinite number of times. I can see it now at the register.
"Sir... that will be infinity dollars, how would you like to pay"
"I mean, you're not wrong in the things you say afterwards, but basing it on this particular post doesn't seem entirely fair to me."
His phrasing of "Only 70 hours" perfectly encapsulated the problem, though. He just sped through content -- sped through it -- and got 70 hours, then complained because it didn't take him 200.
It just sums up the attitude beautifully.
His phrasing of "Only 70 hours" perfectly encapsulated the problem, though. He just sped through content -- sped through it -- and got 70 hours, then complained because it didn't take him 200.
It just sums up the attitude beautifully.
It reminds me of people who shit on TOR. They'll be like, "I've been max level for like a week, and it's so boring. I hate this game." I'm sitting here thinking, "Jesus fucking Christ, how many hours have you poured into this game? Just to go shit on it everywhere?"
I'm more than happy with 70 hours of content, but if the developer DID say "over 200 hours of content!" then it's kind of shady on the devs part.
I think its important to note the complaint was leveled against content and not only length. I forget his name, but one of the lead designers for Morrowind and Oblivion was on this game, so I guess some people were expecting Elder Scrolls levels of content here.
Length isn't so important to me as the density of a game's content and it doing that content well. I don't expect Resident Evil to be more than 8 to 12 hours, but I do expect it to have enough variety in how it plays to say interested for those 8 to 12 hours.
When your resume has The Elder Scrolls on it, I guess a 70 hour game full of FFXIII-style high fantasy babble could be seen as disappointing. My objection is, however, the online pass witholding game content for a SINGLE PLAYER GAME. I just won't support that, even if the overall length is more than enough.
See, back in the day we didn't pretend this stuff was DLC or an expansion - it was part of the fucking game.
Length isn't so important to me as the density of a game's content and it doing that content well. I don't expect Resident Evil to be more than 8 to 12 hours, but I do expect it to have enough variety in how it plays to say interested for those 8 to 12 hours.
When your resume has The Elder Scrolls on it, I guess a 70 hour game full of FFXIII-style high fantasy babble could be seen as disappointing. My objection is, however, the online pass witholding game content for a SINGLE PLAYER GAME. I just won't support that, even if the overall length is more than enough.
See, back in the day we didn't pretend this stuff was DLC or an expansion - it was part of the fucking game.
@burdmayn
I'm a bit of a proponent of games being shorter and better quality, but it annoys me when people compare game prices to ripoff movie theater admission prices. Or when they say "a steak dinner at the most expensive restaurant there is only costs 15 dollars, so 15 dollars is totally worth a 1 hour long dlc mission." It's partly an apples to oranges scenario, and it also assumes that movie theaters totally offer a great value.
I'm a bit of a proponent of games being shorter and better quality, but it annoys me when people compare game prices to ripoff movie theater admission prices. Or when they say "a steak dinner at the most expensive restaurant there is only costs 15 dollars, so 15 dollars is totally worth a 1 hour long dlc mission." It's partly an apples to oranges scenario, and it also assumes that movie theaters totally offer a great value.
I think perhaps the only games I've put that much time into are Borderlands and (maybe) Diablo 2. Demons Souls and Mass Effect (played twice) came close.
I've been fooling around for twelve hours on Hard and I'm barely level 13. I've also barely touched the story quest.
Don't rush through a game if you want it to last long.
Don't rush through a game if you want it to last long.
''...but even then,most four-hour games aren't very good to begin with.''
Crash Twinsanity would like a word with you,Jim.
Crash Twinsanity would like a word with you,Jim.
"His phrasing of "Only 70 hours" perfectly encapsulated the problem, though. He just sped through content -- sped through it -- and got 70 hours, then complained because it didn't take him 200.
It just sums up the attitude beautifully."
I'm not sure I agree, if only because he seems more concerned with the fact that the devs mentioned 200 hours than how "short" the game was. But maybe I'm giving him too much credit, I don't know.
Either way, I can see where you're coming from, and the phrasing does fit nicely, so I guess you've got me on that one. :P
It just sums up the attitude beautifully."
I'm not sure I agree, if only because he seems more concerned with the fact that the devs mentioned 200 hours than how "short" the game was. But maybe I'm giving him too much credit, I don't know.
Either way, I can see where you're coming from, and the phrasing does fit nicely, so I guess you've got me on that one. :P
Guessing the 200 hours figure assumed you would mess around with crafting, experimenting with respeccing and not skip any dialog. Which is how a lot of people, myself included, play.
I find in general on the world wide web of the internet's that gamer's are pissed about most things, either the game length, the graphics, the controls, the this that and the other about a game. Fuck, games may as well not even be around for these assholes. Nothing can ever please them. Just a painful set of people to listen to and I say they can go fuck themselves.
In this specific instance, isn't this complaint actually warranted. I mean, one of the things I heard from the devs over and over and over again in the lead-up to the release of Amalur was how long it would take to do everything in the game. If you do everything in the game, and it didn't take you that long it's akin to a promised feature that didn't make it into the game.
I mean, if I buy a game expecting [foo] on the basis of being promised [foo] by marketing, and I don't receive [foo] then I have grounds for a complaint regardless of what [foo] is.
I mean, I'm someone who cares about "length of games" but that's largely because "longer games mean I can wait longer before buying the next game" so caring about it saves me money.
I mean, if I buy a game expecting [foo] on the basis of being promised [foo] by marketing, and I don't receive [foo] then I have grounds for a complaint regardless of what [foo] is.
I mean, I'm someone who cares about "length of games" but that's largely because "longer games mean I can wait longer before buying the next game" so caring about it saves me money.
I beat Dead Space 3 times back to back to back to get 100% and had a blast every second!
I would SOOO rather have a short romp that is fucking amazing than 20 hours of "meh" gameplay. Would you rather have a piece of the finest steak in the world or 5 Big Mac's.
I would SOOO rather have a short romp that is fucking amazing than 20 hours of "meh" gameplay. Would you rather have a piece of the finest steak in the world or 5 Big Mac's.
If I were a sea anemone I would do nothin' but smoke joints, play videogames, and fuck fly-ass sea anemone bitches all day long.
I agree. I'm not a teenager anymore or in college. I don't have dozens and dozens of hours to put into a game. A 16 hour game is pretty damn long to me. I don't want developers to try and pad game length with shitty mechanics or contrived plot devices. Give me the best content in the best amount of time that is appropriate for your game.
To be perfectly fair, if the developers did actually say the game would have 200 hours of content/gameplay then this guy is perfectly in his right to call out the devs as liars. Because I dont think even the cutscenes/dialogue are going to inflate the 70 hours of gameplay into 200 hours... this isnt a Hideo Kojima game, people.
But still, 70 hours is a lot of time.
But still, 70 hours is a lot of time.
Maybe I'm unusual, but I try not to buy more games until I am finished with the games I have. So the fact that a new title came out, and looks awesome doesn't convince me to buy it unless I am looking for another game to play.
So hypothetically if a game comes out, and is capable of amusing me for 200 hours, if I game for like 10 hours a week, that game will let me go five months without buying another game! If I buy only games that will amuse me for 15 hours, then in those five months I would have to buy 13 games! If I buy every game for MSRP, prioritizing longer games just saved me $720.
Now, no one is saying that you can't "pad" the amount of time someone wants to spend with their game by making it something they want to play more than once (in fact, this is probably the best way to do it.) But I don't think that people who prefer longer games when they cost the same as short games are really worthy of scorn.
So hypothetically if a game comes out, and is capable of amusing me for 200 hours, if I game for like 10 hours a week, that game will let me go five months without buying another game! If I buy only games that will amuse me for 15 hours, then in those five months I would have to buy 13 games! If I buy every game for MSRP, prioritizing longer games just saved me $720.
Now, no one is saying that you can't "pad" the amount of time someone wants to spend with their game by making it something they want to play more than once (in fact, this is probably the best way to do it.) But I don't think that people who prefer longer games when they cost the same as short games are really worthy of scorn.
Perhaps developers shouldn't promise a certain amount of play time
Completely and utterly agree. So many of my friends won't play Uncharted because of the length, it's so annoying.
I find it hard to play games for that much time these days. Personally, I prefer shorter games now since I know I can actually finish them.
I'd like to point out that this game, Kingdoms of Amalur, has only been out for nine days as of today (2/16). This player sunk at least 70 hours into the game in nine days or less. Someone has a serious case of having too much free time.
I'd like to point out that this game, Kingdoms of Amalur, has only been out for nine days as of today (2/16). This player sunk at least 70 hours into the game in nine days or less. Someone has a serious case of having too much free time.
follow
