It has more content therefore it's better

>It has more content therefore it's better

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2013/11/27/4-reasons-video-games-are-good-for-your-health-according-to-american-psychological-association/#299f87f23a00
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Saying any game is objectively better than another is objectively wrong.

Saying anything is objectively anything is both subjectively and objectively wrong at the same time.

This is not how Sup Forums works

It's objective on a subjective level, which is the best we can do as humans, and is thus objective.

Faggot.

Well there you are right

>it has less content, somehow its better

It's why Pikmin 2 is better than Pikmin 1.

that's not subjective nor objective, that's a concession society does, they agree upon it therefore giving it validity, but it does not apply to the subject in a vacuum therefore it's not objectively so.

Define "content"

Oh maybe that's why Sims 2 /3 is better than Sims 4

maybe even.... sims 1 is better as well.

Content is more gameplay
Cucks will tell you that gameplay means more interactive cutscenes

>A game with removed padding and filler which just makes you lose your time or outright do unpleasing stuff is better than one which does not have that stuff

So games need LESS content now? Make up your fucking mind.

True objectivity is non existent, merely a concept. When people say objective they mean the version we can actually grasp. Words, spoken and written take on the means that the masses or those in power ascribe to them, so true objectivity is irrelevant in most discussions.

They need whatever the right amount is, sometimes you can have it feel too much stretched out, sometimes the other parts of the game don't tie into it, ruining the balance and in some games, I only remember Rayman Legends, having the old game's levels doesn't work because it loses the game feel of the original anyway buy having them just be standalone levels

>not enough content!
>TOO MUCH content!

Sup Forums is even worse than my bipolar wife.

That's because Sup Forums is your bipolar wife.

Okay, say I have two games of tetris that are identical in every way, but one of them will randomly spend $1000 dollars from your bank account every so often.
Are you saying one is not worse than the other?

dev thread?

For some games, DLC that adds content, legitimately makes the game better. The Old hunters, Ringed City, all the new vegas dlcs, dark arisen etc etc. Adding more to a good game makes it better. Adding more of the same shit to a bad game won't improve it.

FUCK YOU

c'mon honey, it's time for your anger pills

>Game is four hours long
>$60

>Has more things
>Doesn't cut or change any of the old things
>Same price or cheaper
Objectively better value

>Game is 100 hours of borefest and grinding
>$60 are now justified

I'd rather grind for 100 hours than be 'enlightened' by a video-game in 4. All video games are a waste of time, so you might as well save money on it.

Bullshit.

MOBAs are objectively boring levels of gameplay, and if a more interactive game would come (and with trade features), most would likely play it. Interactivity is psychosematically associated with depth -- skillfulness.

for a while, then some other younger mouthpiece like yourself would say those games are objectively awful and if only a better game would come along!

Except I have a reason to say so. Then, what are you replying with, but nonsense?

So what if somebody else comes to say that. Is it correct?

>All videogames are objectively bad. If only some form of advanced medium would come and replace it!

You can say a game is objectively better than another, at least in one aspect: based on the functionality of their code; for example, you can say that Nier Automata is objectively better than Big Rigs or Yandere Simulator because Nier Automata's code is more complex and overall more functional than in those two games. A game that works as intended is objectively better than a game that's broken in this regard.

forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2013/11/27/4-reasons-video-games-are-good-for-your-health-according-to-american-psychological-association/#299f87f23a00

I'm not reading garbage, especially by a jew

>I'm not reading science articles

>playing videogames for your health
just play a sport you dumb nigger, video games are a waste comparatively

Most don't get to fly airplanes or fly around with jetpacks. Videogames provide a lot of visual information and objectively increase skills associated with sports.

>not doing both
pleb

>quality over quantity
this is such a bullshit statement

Ride to hell: Retribution is a much better game than Fallout New Vegas.

fallout NV is just as bad as 3.

Youd rather grind than play DMC3? Cancerous tastes.

It's not though. Terraria is a huge game to experience, even the original version, and it was only made in 4 months.

if I find the game fun then I'll play it longer than 4 hours. If the game literally only has enough content for 4 hours, like a ton of shit indies, then yeah I'd rather grind.

>I don't like it so its padding

I gaurntee you this is the same breed of shithead that genuinely believes Ground Zeros was better than MGSV because they knee-jerked so hard against not getting their descent-into-evil fanfiction because their foolish asses got rused in the most predictable kojima twist of any of the games series marketing schemes. The epitome of contrarianism. Welcome to Sup Forums.

Adding things for the sake of adding things is bad. Your 'content' needs to be substantial and lasting, or it's just a bloated mess that artificially extends the game.

Youre thinking of depth not content. Low amount of content doesnt matter if theres a lot of depth.

if DMC3 had 4 hours of content vs 8, I would want the 8. There is that simple enough for you? Refer to this retard.

>Buying the release with no high/g-rank content

WHAT COULD PAWSIBLY GO WRONG?

>buying a $60 game ever

YOU are the cancer supporting it

Not that user you replied to, but what do those extra four hours add? What DLC are you specifically talking about? New levels, costumes, characters, what? You have to be specific with what this added content is, otherwise at worst it's nothing more than bloat.

Your problem is that youre assuming all content is good content. 4 more hours of shitty enemies, shitty bosses and shitty levels will only make the game worse and kill the replayability. Its far better to habe a consistent, straight to the point game. Theres even examples of this like Bayonetta which is filled to the brim with unnecessary horseshit just for the sake of content and "variety" that drags the game down. The reason the ds dlcs were good is because the content itself was both good and optional.

no, the reason they are good is also because the base game play is good. More content for good games = good. More content for shit games = more shit. Simple.

>game gets a "definitive release" with extra additional content
>the additional content is awful

>content
You started to use that meme-word. They won.

The base gameplay is nothing without solid enemy, level and boss design youre taking that shit for granted

>Beat a stealth game in two hours by brute forcing through it
>"The game's not short, you just played it wrong"

Dishonored is a bad game

>complaining about length in games that encourage many vastly different approaches and experimentation
Might as well go all out and complain that competitive mp games are bad because they lack content

I'm sorry, but video games are very subjective. If I could choose between a 4 hour indie shit game or grinding in a game with amazing combat for 100 hours I'll take the 100 hours. And if the games were the same, but one had more content, I'd take the one with more content 9/10 times. Even if it was bad, but offered upgrades, if they cost the same I'd definitely pick it up.