Games need to be 60+ hours long to be worth 60 bucks

>Games need to be 60+ hours long to be worth 60 bucks
This shitty logic is more harmful to gaming than lootboxes and DLCs combined. If there's something vidya suffers from above all else, it's padding. Video games need to be padded out with bullshit designed to waste your time because if they don't, aspies lose their shit. That's why open world faggotry is so popular.

Agreed. I don't finish most of games I start because of that crap.

who has ever said this? if a game is 60 hours of bullshit grinding and fetch quests, it's shit. if a game is 60 hours of pure fun and enjoyable gameplay, then it's worth it.

fucking neo Sup Forums, i swear to christ.

There's nothing wrong with a 60 bucks 10 hour game that has excellent gameplay all the way through.

Cool strawman you just made up and tore apart OP

Well if you wanna pay 60 dollars for a game that lasts 3 hours, that's on you.

People can call bullshit on it just like how you called bullshit on what you are bitching about.

Both sides need to fuck off.

>3 hours
Durr
There's nothing wrong with a 60 bucks 10 hour game that has excellent gameplay all the way through.

i didn't argue that point.
for 60 bucks:
60 hours fun > 60 hours grind
10 hours fun > 10 hours grind
60 hours fun > 10 hours fun

pretty fucking simple. is your argument that you want less fun for your money? or that it's too much to ask for a game with more than 10 hours of worthwhile content?

>There's nothing wrong with a 60 bucks 10 hour game that has excellent gameplay all the way through.

Except that they are rare and definitely not the norm. What was the last 10 dollar game worth 60 bucks? I bet it's nothing recent.

quit being fucking greedy, you're ruining games.
there's nothing wrong with a 60 bucks 1 hour game that has excellent gameplay all the way through.

Okay. In your opinion. Others feel differently.

So again, fuck off.

Length isn't all there is to fun. There are some things that are funner than others.
I prefer Thief to Final Fantasy VII, for example, even if the later has much more length to it.

10 hour game*

reading comprehension may not be your strong point. not once did i say that length equals fun. my fucking point is that a fun game that is longer is objectively better than a fun game that is shorter. jesus fucking christ.

And my point is disproving that by pointing out how Thief is much shorter than Final Fantasy VII but still the superior option between the two, despite the fact they're both fun.

Completely agree. I don't even pay full price for games, but there are so many JRPGs I straight up just dropped as they dragged on for way too long.

In your opinion.

Only if it has high replayability, otherwise there is everything wrong with this.

>you need 4100 hours for the game to be worth 60 bucks
Thanks, EA.

alright then, lemme get real technical here.

if two games are assumed to have an equal amount of fun per hour, then a game with more total hours will have more novel fun, not accounting for multiple playthroughs.

what you are arguing is that if one game is a lot more fun per hour than a longer game that is much less fun per hour, then the shorter game is better. which i totally fucking agree with, and which you can't seem to grasp. what i am arguing is that while a shorter fun game is much better than a slogfest of bullshit, the slogfest should not exist in the first place, and as a consumer you should naturally lean to more bang for your buck, which in a perfect scenario would be a game that is infinitely fun per hour and has no end. as a game like this is not realistic, then your preference should lie with games that are both fun and long, and not settle for less. that is free market.

Replayability is a meme. There's already a million great video games to replay. I want new good ones. Replayability is irrelevant in those.

I agree with all of what you said, but the problem is that there are a lot of games with fun gameplay that would be excellent if not for the fact that they have too much padding that makes them a chore to play. See: Every open world game ever. And why does that happen? Because of the over-emphasis on length over fun. The consumer of the free market needs to smarten up.

>i only listen to songs once
>i only see movies once
>i only read books once

you must live a painfully unfulfilled existence

i think opposite, that the developer needs to smarten up. there are some games with excellent concepts, that never end up fleshed out, or that skimp on gameplay modes or other aspects. this is not what i pay for, and this is not a worthwhile transaction in my opinion. rather than being satisfied with the trimming of games, i'd rather push developers to improve both themselves as a medium, and see where it takes both the games and their development ability. to see them take the easy way out with padding and fluff is aggravating, but giving up and letting them create proofs of concept rather than full games is ridiculous.

10 hours of gameplay isn't a proof of concept.

>Replayability is a meme
It's not.
Yeah and I want new good games to play and replay.
>Replayability is irrelevant in those.
u wot m8
In shitty indie games like Undertale or shitty cinematic experiences from Naughty Dog?

well, i don't think 10 hours is a 60 dollar game.

Even if it was the best game of the year, you would automatically disqualify it because it's not long enough. That's exactly what's wrong with this industry.

I agree but you're also exaggerating. The only people that demand 50 hours are shitposters, usually people are perfectly satisfied with 6 to 10 hours unless it's an rpg. It's a decent length for the average AAA action game.

so where's the cutoff? would you pay 60 dollars for an 8 hour game that's excellent? what about 5 hours? how about 1 hour?

would you pay 60 dollars for 30 minutes of incredible gameplay?

>so where's the cutoff? would you pay 60 dollars for an 8 hour game that's excellent?
Yes, easily.

>what about 5 hours?
It'd have to be real great, but sure.

>how about 1 hour?
If the game is literally 1 hour to fully 100% it, then that's a bit ridiculous, sure (although I'd love for you to point me to a game like this on the steam store). But if it's 1 hour of main game and then you add in the side quest completion stuff and it gives you about 6 hours when you fully milk it, if the gameplay is godlike, then yes, that's easily worth it.

>game costs $60 and is 10 hours long
>there are 168 hours per week
That's over $1000 per week of playing video gaymes and is the reason why I simply pirate every game that doesn't take at least 40 hours to finish and play them for free.

yeah, i can feel you on most of those points. i wouldn't disqualify the games, in fact i own and play a lot of games with sub-10 hr gameplay that is pretty fuckin good. however, if the distinguishment is replayability, then a game that i can only get a total of 10 hours of novel gameplay out of is barely, if at all, worth 60 dollars to me. my questions were rhetorical, but my point is that i would rather have a game with more novel gameplay than less. i don't feel like that is too much to ask from developers at all, in an age where marketing and hype has all but overtaken actual consideration for gameplay mechanics. take for example the game RECEIVER, i have 40 hours in it. a simple-ass fucking game, where you are only ever fighting drones and turrets. however, the mechanics of the gunplay, the faithfulness of the firearm operation and handling, is enough to make me yearn for a game that allows all of this in a much larger scope. some of the newer VR platform games are going in this manner; i've seen several webms of damn near realistic gun-handling games. RECEIVER was a quick and easy game, it was a cheap buy, and worth it, but the execution was so good i would have paid more for a more full and whole experience.

Everything wrong with vidya in one post.

I'm glad we agree, then.
>i don't feel like that is too much to ask from developers at all
It isn't, but I feel like the standards for length are higher than the standards for quality. People are willing to accept boring padding that wastes their time before they're willing to accept a fun game that only lasts them 12 hours.

>getting your money's worth is a harmful
Oy gevalt yous sure are one meshuganah

They have to aim for at least 20 hours in the single player and 80% of that at least has to be of real gaming.
These shitty games with 5 hours dont even give you time enough to get attached to the characters or get into the world of the game. A 50 hours long game like The Witcher 3 will leave a huge impression on you even though the game is mediocre as fuck.

I'd add:
10 hours fun > 60 hours grind

as long as its better content/$ than going to the movies it's fine

My impression of The Witcher 3 is that I stopped playing it within 3 hours because the open world was a mistake. I loved the first two games. The Witcher 3 is the perfect example of a series being ruined by the shitty padding the average video game playing retard are in love with. The Witcher 2 was already a really great game with great length to it, but noooo, not enough padding, please add at least 5000 sidequests.

You sound like a brainlet that gets easily overwhelmed

I've never played a game that was longer than 15 hours that didn't feel padded as fuck.

You sound like an autistic individual that wants games to waste your time.

I either want a single cohesive experience that caps at about 30 hours, or a game with a 10-20 hour main story with a 50+ hour postgame.
I'm so sick of 100 hour long rpgs and endless games, I just want something I can keep coming back to for a while after playing the main bulk of the game. Average length is a meme and really shouldn't be a major factor in a game's worth but I still appreciate having a rough idea of how long I'll be playing.
A game should be as long as it needs to be, and reviews tend to touch upon if its too long or short. It's entirely independent of the price point.

Odyssey's main game is 10-15 hours long

well, then the planets have aligned and a conversation here has not devolved to shit-flinging. you seem alright, and i can see what you're saying. i hope that development leans more towards quality over quantity, for both our sakes.

Sounds like the former. OP probably has a chubby for some faggot-tier game, and is salty others don't acknowledge it and so has to fall back on "it's hated because it's short".

>paying for a short-ass game at full price is a worthwhile endeavor

Pirate first if you can, THEN pay if you love it. I pirated Super Metroid for years and boight it at least once.

For 60 bucks it should be 20 hours minimum.