ChichiriMuyo said:
Frankly, I think you'd have to be an idiot to say something like that. The disc size has absolutely nothing to do with the game length. I can make a 1,000 hour game on a single floppy disc and not even fill it up. That doesn't make it a good game. And, in fact, I'd have to say that HS is probably a better game at 6-7 hours than it would have been at 15-20 and it's somehting I'm more likely to pick up. Some people don't want to, or simply can't, devote dozens of hours to a single game and still hope to play others throughout the year. The last time I played a game that lasted me over 100 hours it was literally the only game I played for the first 4 months that I owned it, and it was still the focus of most of my playing for another 6 months after that. If All I have for gaming is 10 hours a month, I don't want HS to last 20 hours. Simple as that. Just because you don't have to work to keep a roof over your head and food in your mouth (let alone the cost of gas, children, school, clothes, etc.) doesn't mean I have the luxury of sitting on my ass and doing nothing productive for 30 hours every week.
|
That's funny, because the biggest argument of PS3 owners in support of Blu-ray is that it will increase game length. Perhaps you should pay a bit more attention to your own side's stance, or at least find another way to justify blu-ray if it won't be used to increase the length of the gaming experience. Heavenly Sword for example claims to have 10GB of audio in their 7 hour game. Of course, you could compress all that down to small enough to fit on a DVD-9 along with a full game experience and lose next to none of that quality. Is that what we are going to do with Blu-ray? Just stop compressing things to make miniscule improvements in quality?
Not only that, but I have to ask, who the hell would pay $600 for something they are only going to use for 10 hours of the month, much less another $60 for a game that's only 6 hours long? Not only that, but if you take the time to come and post on a gaming site something tells me you have a lot more time than you are pretending to have. Certainly you are the only person I have ever met who thinks it's a good idea to have less value in a game for the cost. Perhaps you picked the wrong system, as most PS3 owners like to consider their game system to be one designed for core gamers.
You want to talk about luxury? I work 30 hours a week and go to college another 12 hours a week. I pay rent, I pay for food, and I pay college loans all at the same time. I am not going to spend my hard earned money on a game system I'm only going to use for 10 hours a month. I am certainly not going to spend $60 on a video game that will only deliver 7 hours of entertainment. Apparently all your responsibilities that you claim to have taught you that it's a good idea to waste thousands of dollars on things you hardly use.
