S.T.A.G.E. said:
Khuutra said:
I'm sorry, but hta'ts not objective.
As I said before: the value proposition made by Vanquish is that it's like an arcade game. It'si mmensely replayable because it is fun to replay, even without the dangling carrot of further incentive. I never pretended that Vanquish is for everyone (it's not; it's for the hardest of the hardcore and the oldest of the oldschool) but saying that there is an objective standard by which Enslaved is superior is fallacious. Story doesn't matter in Vanquish, hours of play takes a backseat to the fact that it's the most replayable game since God Hand, and it's got the most pitch-perfect gameplay of any shooter I've ever played on a console.
|
I never stated Enslaved was superior. I stated on levels of intrinsic value for the moderate consumer Enslaved has more to offer even though I like Vanquish more. That is objective. My subjective opinion is that I like Vanquish more, despite its short timespan.
|
You haven't qualified "intrinsic value" in an objective way. It would be just as easy - and just as valid - to argue that Vanquish's intrinsic value is higher because it is just more fun to play than Enslaved is (or might be; I haven't played Enslaved). And that's still not objective. Value propositions and necessary hour investments are not analogous.
