Nintendo Switch #4: More than 1 year later

[Do Make Say Think]

For me it can be an excellent five hours. I'm not paying 60 bucks for a five or even ten hour game. I'll just watch a video of the game.

60 dollar games don't tend to be that short though. Also you would do well to be mindful that we are in the age of hyperbole.

It isn't on Switch but the most recent example of this is the game Control. Just after release you had people saying they finished it in 7 hours which then lead to a lot of people saying what you said: "I don't want to pay full price for a game that short".

I happened to get the game with my graphics card so I played it and it took me 27 hours to complete (and I loved that game, I binged it). Did someone somewhere manage to finish it in 7 hours? Probably? They are the outlier though.

So when someone tells you a game is that short (less than 10 hours), I'd suggest keeping in mind that the people who make those comments tend to be edgelords/neckbeards.

Games that are that short tend to have high replayabilty (something I don't really care for) or multiplayer (which I also don't care about). I cannot remember last time I paid full price for a game I'd qualify as "too short".

 

[Pilky01]

I still haven't finished Link's Awakening and it will probably be a long time before I do. Probably not until the next drought in the spring/summer. In general I am an incredibly slow player. If someone tells me a game takes 100+ hours to 100% that would mean it will literally take me 300+ hours but more likely I won't ever even come close.

I still maintain its a rip off at full price. Its a Game Boy game with Game Boy mechanics and a Game Boy design. Its a 30 year old game with a really nice new paint job.

Conversely, Captain Toad:Treasure Tracker should not be a discount game. Its a great f***ing game with lots of playtime and replay value, off the charts production value, and the work of the developers is evident in every carefully crafted world/puzzle. It is a premier quality product and Nintendo should have charged full price for it.

I happened to get the game with my graphics card so I played it and it took me 27 hours to complete (and I loved that game, I binged it). Did someone somewhere manage to finish it in 7 hours? Probably? They are the outlier though.

So when someone tells you a game is that short (less than 10 hours), I'd suggest keeping in mind that the people who make those comments tend to be edgelords/neckbeards.

I agree. People who know exactly how long it takes them to complete a game tend to be neckbeards.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I agree. People who know exactly how long it takes them to complete a game tend to be neckbeards.

The point was that people who burn through games are outliers. When was the last time you paid 60 dollars and you had finished most of the game within 10 hours?

 

[Shareefruck]

That's wildly unfair and a pretty rotten/condescending thing to say, IMO. They may be a niche outlier compared to casual audiences, but I don't see how simply being able to comment on a game being a certain number of hours long (especially when it IS short and consequently easy to estimate from the fact that you only spent few evenings on it) is automatically "neckbeard" or "edgelord" behavior.

How does that even relate to Edgelord-ism anyways?

Besides, while I haven't gotten very far yet, isn't Link's Awakening a $60+ sub-10 hour game?

 

[guinness]

The point was that people who burn through games are outliers. When was the last time you paid 60 dollars and you had finished most of the game within 10 hours?

Super Mario Odyssey.

The replayability was artifical, and after a certain point, I quit caring.

Time vs money spent is generally why I prefer RPGs. It may end up affecting replayability, but if I can sink 60-80 hours into a game, win. Or in games like Fallout 4, I modded the crap out of it, and have over 600 hours into it. And it wasn't even a spectacular game.

However, massiveness is why I don't redo BoTW on the Switch, I made the mistake of installing the DLC onto that copy, but it's so much work to recreate what I've done on my Wii U, I just can't. I'd rather play SMB 3 for the 1ooth time.

 

[Shareefruck]

Agreed that Super Mario Odyssey has artificial replay value. I like the base game, but I hate how the majority of it is designed to be a pointless and unrewarding collectathon.

But why do you guys even WANT to sink 60-80 hours into a single videogame in the first place? It seems absurd to me. Even 30 hours usually ends up feeling bloated to me. I'd rather a game respect my time than be designed to suck up as much of it as possible. The fact that something like Stardew Valley consumes so much of your life meandering around doing pointless but addictive busy-work shouldn't be looked at as a positive, bang-for-your-buck point of sale, IMO-- it should be just the opposite, if anything.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Super Mario Odyssey.

The replayability was artifical, and after a certain point, I quit caring.

I agree with you on the game: I got to Bowser and beat him and that was that, I had my fill.

Us not wanting to finish the game isn't quite the same as "finishing most of it" however (in SMO you need 500 Moons to finish the game).

I just don't think there are very many $60/$80 games that end up being very short; that is what indies are for and they cost a lot less. It doesn't mean they don't exist or that someone might be "wrong" for preferring to spend their money on a game they know they will spend a lot of time on.

 

[Royal Canuck]

I'm in Canada, so that Untitled Goose game is $30 for about 4~ hours of gameplay.

To me, it's just not worth it, maybe at $15 if it is really as good as people say.

I feel a lot of the indie games get a lot less enticing with the exchange rate here.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm in Canada, so that Untitled Goose game is $30 for about 4~ hours of gameplay.

To me, it's just not worth it, maybe at $15 if it is really as good as people say.

I feel a lot of the indie games get a lot less enticing with the exchange rate here.

I like the fact that that Untitled Goose Game exists-- it's a cute idea that's a fun start for non-gamers, but $30 is pretty ridiculous. Ignoring the length, it's a cheaply made novelty game with what feels like tons of development shortcuts taken, whose novelty wears off pretty quickly. It should really only be available for throwaway money-- around $10-15.

 

[Taro Tsujimoto]

Congrats, Mr. Miyamoto!

 

[Pilky01]

'person of cultural merit' seems like an understatement but congrats nonetheless.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Congrats, Mr. Miyamoto!

Koji Kondo also deserves this but yeah, Miyamoto is awesome. Well earned.

 

[Commander Clueless]

But why do you guys even WANT to sink 60-80 hours into a single videogame in the first place? It seems absurd to me. Even 30 hours usually ends up feeling bloated to me. I'd rather a game respect my time than be designed to suck up as much of it as possible.

I think it depends on how that game uses those 60-80 hours. If it's well designed and uses that time well, it can be a great thing.

The fact that something like Stardew Valley consumes so much of your life meandering around doing pointless but addictive busy-work shouldn't be looked at as a positive, bang-for-your-buck point of sale, IMO-- it should be just the opposite, if anything.

That's a very negative take on a masterfully designed but simplistic game.

If it was a tedious game to beat, yeah, it could be considered a negative. I argue what it actually is, though, is a very well crafted simple and slow game that I very much enjoy and have played several times.

The style and (especially) pacing isn't for everyone. I actually would've figured Stardew would be a game you would appreciate on a technical level (less is more, etc. etc.), if not a stylistic level.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think it depends on how that game uses those 60-80 hours. If it's well designed and uses that time well, it can be a great thing.



That's a very negative take on a masterfully designed but simplistic game.

If it was a tedious game to beat, yeah, it could be considered a negative. I argue what it actually is, though, is a very well crafted simple and slow game that I very much enjoy and have played several times.

The style and (especially) pacing isn't for everyone. I actually would've figured Stardew would be a game you would appreciate on a technical level (less is more, etc. etc.), if not a stylistic level.

I personally don't care too much for the overall gameplay loop of Harvest Moon/Stardew Valley and games of that type, although I like a few things about the games themselves. Inventory management-- particularly gradual leveling-up/reward systems-- have never been a huge draw for me in general. But that's kind of besides my point anyways. Even if every hour of a game is top notch quality that I absolutely love and don't feel is wasted, I don't agree that the literal duration of entertainment should really matter much at all.

For example, I'm pretty sure I've spent thousands of hours on various Street Fighter games over my lifetime, and I think some of them are complete masterpieces in design that I find totally inspired. But I look fondly on elements of the game itself, not on the amount of time I spent on them or how much space in my life it positively occupied. To me it's just like... who gives a **** about that, unless it happens to be a problem?

 

[Commander Clueless]

I personally don't care too much for the overall gameplay loop of Harvest Moon/Stardew Valley and games of that type, although I like a few things about the games themselves. Inventory management-- particularly gradual leveling-up/reward systems-- have never been a huge draw for me in general. But that's kind of besides my point anyways. Even if every hour of a game is top notch quality that I absolutely love and don't feel is wasted, I don't agree that the literal duration of entertainment should really matter much at all.

For example, I'm pretty sure I've spent thousands of hours on various Street Fighter games over my lifetime, and I think some of them are complete masterpieces in design that I find totally inspired. But I look fondly on elements of the game itself, not on the amount of time I spent on them or how much space in my life it positively occupied. To me it's just like... who gives a **** about that, unless it happens to be a problem?

Your thousands of hours in Street Fighter is a indicator of quality, though, isn't it? You may not consider it a contributing factor to your assessment of quality, but mentioning your hours played in a game designed around a longer experience has the effect of showing just how much you did enjoy it - you played it to your full potential (and possibly then some). I was attempting something similar with Stardew.

It's a boast that only works for games designed for that longer experience. For example, saying you've played INSIDE for hundreds of hours would be more of an atrocity than a positive.

In short: if it fits the game's style, it's a compliment. Not sure why anyone would sink that many hours into a game they disliked.


Interestingly, I'm a bit of your opposite on this one - I never much enjoyed fighters (with the odd exception of One Must Fall 2097 back in the day - still like that one). I do enjoy a well crafted management game.

 

[Shareefruck]

Your thousands of hours in Street Fighter is a indicator of quality, though, isn't it? You may not consider it a contributing factor to your assessment of quality, but mentioning your hours played in a game designed around a longer experience has the effect of showing just how much you did enjoy it - you played it to your full potential (and possibly then some). I was attempting something similar with Stardew.

It's a boast that only works for games designed for that longer experience. For example, saying you've played INSIDE for hundreds of hours would be more of an atrocity than a positive.

In short: if it fits the game's style, it's a compliment. Not sure why anyone would sink that many hours into a game they disliked.


Interestingly, I'm a bit of your opposite on this one - I never much enjoyed fighters (with the odd exception of One Must Fall 2097 back in the day - still like that one). I do enjoy a well crafted management game.

Not necessarily. I think there are way too many factors involved for any perceived correlation to have merit, and ultimately, I think that focusing on bang-for-your-buck value can be very misleading in a "missing the forest for the trees" kind of way.

As you say, some equally great games don't warrant a long experience, but on top of that, it can be ambiguous whether or not a game is designed for a long experience in the first place, and even if a game is designed for a long experience, it still isn't necessarily less worthwhile if it happens to not end up being one for you. Also, games that aren't worthwhile can still effectively consume just as much time by virtue of shamelessly addictive guilty-pleasure qualities that have nothing to do with how good they are-- It doesn't necessarily mean that you like it or see value in it, just that it has a hold on you (which isn't inherently a good thing).

The spectrum is just so wide and ambiguous that the correlation seems completely arbitrary to me.

In any case, I kind of got sidetracked-- my main point was just that I don't think there's any intrinsic value in something occupying more of your free time, as if you're just paying for that free time to be filled as a service. That whole approach just rubs me the wrong way, regardless of whether or not it can otherwise be a useful indicator.

 

[Pilky01]

I really don’t follow this debate.

I play games if they’re fun and put them down as soon as they’re not.

 

[Winger98]

For anyone curious, WalMart has Luigi's Mansion 3 for $49.94

 

[Commander Clueless]

I really don’t follow this debate.

I play games if they’re fun and put them down as soon as they’re not.

An excellent strategy.

However, the discussion is about the validity of evaluating games on an hours played basis - as in, once you've finished with a game and put it down, did you feel like you got your money's worth and does that feeling have anything to do with how many hours you played?

Or do you care about any of that?

 

[Daisy Jane]

i finally beat hollow knight.
there was this one boss i just wanted no time of (it actually made me put the game down for months) then my friend told me i could ignore it completely. and i was like done and done.

 

[Oogie Boogie]

Having a spooky good time with Luigi's Mansion 3 so far.

 

[Shareefruck]

I've been making my way through Hollow Knight and I'm liking it a lot as well. I don't think the design is quite perfect like I do some of my favorite games (there are quite a few oddly placed leap of faiths into spikes and tediously placed save points-- The bosses are the most satisfying part of the game and having to re-navigate this crazy winding path every single time you die just seems so unnecessary), and I don't find the feedback to be as crunchy as I like them (feels a bit slippery in this), but the aesthetic, lore, atmosphere, attention to detail, and skill-set provided are all excellent. There are tons of nice, subtle narrative touches that I found on point as well.

Spoiler

Might be an odd detail to single out, but the banker reveal is just perfect.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

An excellent strategy.

However, the discussion is about the validity of evaluating games on an hours played basis - as in, once you've finished with a game and put it down, did you feel like you got your money's worth and does that feeling have anything to do with how many hours you played?

Or do you care about any of that?

I think the question misses by the point by being too focused on the quantitative. One hour in a game like Vanquish isn't the same as one hour in Metal Gear.

You need way more than "number of hours played" to settle the qualitative question of "were you satisfied with this game?"

 

[Papa Francouz]

Best $/hour game I've ever played (and continue to play) is The Binding of Isaac. Not for everyone, but if it gets its claws into you, it REALLY gets its claws into you. It has been my downtime game, my free time game, and my game to play in between games.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I think the question misses by the point by being too focused on the quantitative. One hour in a game like Vanquish isn't the same as one hour in Metal Gear.

You need way more than "number of hours played" to settle the qualitative question of "were you satisfied with this game?"

Right. The key question being asked is this part:

An excellent strategy.

However, the discussion is about the validity of evaluating games on an hours played basis - as in, once you've finished with a game and put it down, did you feel like you got your money's worth and does that feeling have anything to do with how many hours you played?

Or do you care about any of that?

The "did you feel like you got your money's worth" part is for context off of the post I quoted.