Shareefruck
Registered User
That's exactly what the discussion was meant to address-- and I think the three of us are all in agreement about that. It was spurred on by the recurring sentiment that a short game should not be $60-- an idea that is too focused on the quantitative. Commander Clueless and I both feel that that's more or less the case I think, but seem to differ on the degree that the quantitative considerations are irrelevant to its value.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?"
Commander Clueless's position seems to be that it only has relevance once you consider what the game's going for (basically what you're saying in your example), whereas I don't think it's relevant at all even with those considerations in mind (to me, two extra hours loving every second of Metal Gear is not necessarily greater value than one extra hour loving every second of Metal Gear-- Regardless of the type of approach a game has, as far as duration goes, games should only ever be valued by how appropriate the amount is, not how abundant, IMO). What is the best $/hour game (which everyone seems to be throwing out now for some reason) is something that I don't think ever matters or that there's much of a point in ever considering, personally.
It's not really a debate though-- just bouncing perspectives off each other.
Last edited: