Sony - The Confusion

[ChichiriMuyo]

naznatips said:

ChichiriMuyo said:

naznatips said:

MikeB said:
I think many people are misinformed by the media and maybe some XBox 360 fans. Blu-Ray in the PS3 is very desirable as a games media, even multi-platform games developers have complained about the lack on storage available on DVD for the XBox 360.

And what benefit have we seen from this? Heavenly Sword is a 6-7 hour game. That's just plain ridiculous. Twilight Princess is a 40 hour game, and it fits on a 1.5GB Gamecube Minidisc. There is NO BENEFIT to this extra storage space. You want to tell me why 50GBs of space haven't resulted in a game even half the length of 1.5GBs of space? Blu-ray has no benefit to the gaming industry as far as we have seen.

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.

I don't care what PS3 owners support, man.  Just because people say soemthing can be done doesn't mean it will or should.  For the betterment of gamers, games should NOT get longer because of Blu-ray.  Doing so merely cuts the quality of the title and often ends up making the game tedious rather than fun.  As I said, some people don't WANT to spend that much time playing a game, let alone those that can't.  Don't attack games that aren't super-long when they shouldn't be.  HS is not worth spending 20 hours on to beat once.  If it's worth 20 hours at all, then there are certainly multiple difficulties to play on to maek the game a longer experience.  But for the love of god, an action game like that shouldn't take so long to beat that most of the consumers won't do it.  Really, two hour long games like Star Fox 64 and 4 hours games like Resident Evil 1 and 2 are still considered to be among the best.  Size is not everything.

And have you been living in a cave?  I can get a PS3 for $500 at any store I walk into.  Where have you been, and how do you get Internet there?  I only ask because I genuinely would like to be a hermit some day and I should get these things worked out first, methinks.  Either way, you've got the cost of the game wrogn AND you're assuming I'd even buy the game new.  I won't.  In the last 3 years I think I've bought half a dozen games at retail price, and most of those were made by Nintendo (such as AWDS, the last game to really take my time).  I demand very high quality and replayability to buy a game new, and the only game even remotely clsoe to HS to ever delive that experience was DW4.  Maybe when 6 rolls around...  But yeah, for the general consumer $1 per hour of entertainment is pretty good.  Take a girl out to the movies sometime and see how the costs compare.  Granted, I've never gotten laid after buying a video game (though Shadow Hearts did get me a BJ once...), but in terms of entertainment costs it's not that far off from the norm.

And I assure you, I spend at least as much time on work and school as you do.  I probably get paid a little better, though, because my concern isn't about the money spent it's about the time.  Time is far, far more valuable to me than money.  Especially when it's my time.