By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mibuokami on 19 February 2011
Edit Thread
psrock said:
mibuokami said:
psrock said:

I would pay $60 not to endure those 60 hours games you guys like. Give me 10 great hours, multiplayer, online and I don't mind at all.  


This is one of the worst thing about modern gamer and I am unsure if statement like this is cause of the effect. Game too short? Pff, throw in multiplayer and online and suddenly everything gets better!

I hope this philosophy dies a painful death.

You are in the minority though, although we wouldn't know based on this thread. Most people don't have the time nor the energy to spend 60-100 hrs playing one game. I am very satisfied with a game like Uncharted, GOW, Infamous, I get to finish those games unlike a GTA game. 

Oh I have no problem with the length of Uncharted, GOW and Infamous, those are actually good example of well executed games. Uncharted for example has a plethora of things to explore or unlock after you finish the game, same for GOW while infamous merit a second play through to explore its moral mechanic, people who don't have the time to explore these things can finish the game in a single play-through and feel satisfied with their 8-10 hrs spent, while fans and completionist have more incentive to play through the game other than trophy.

What I dislike are game that has no reason to include a multiplayer component (but do so anyways) or rely solely on the (crappy) multiplayer component to carry it into 'value' rather than 'ripp-off'. A good example of this would be Kane & Lynch 2, which has a shitty 5 hr single player game that even had the audacity to stripped down features present from the first game. By itself it would have been a very poor effort indeed, but because they added some equally poorly executed multiplayer gameplay, reviewer went as high as 8 and 9 on something that should NOTbe endorsed.