By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
deskpro2k3 on 19 February 2015
Edit Thread
walsufnir said:
deskpro2k3 said:
walsufnir said:


There is nothing to counter as there is no valid point. But thanks for your suggestion but I will keep posting as I like, when I like and how and not like you like


the fact that people are saying $60 is too much for a 6-7hr'ish game that is heavily focused on cinematic storytelling experience but yet, fail to see that you can watch 5-6 movies for $60 for that same length of time.

explain to me how that is not valid, without your wine and blowjob jokes. By all means try if you can, but if you cannot, then just ignore this post.

But watching movies is not the same as buying and play a game. Again, we should compare games with games and movies with movies. You don't even own the movies after you watched them in cinema. The difference is that it is not to be expected to be owned. If I buy a game for $60 I expect more than a movie because I can expect this from other games, too. This means there are different value indicators for movies than there are for games, especially if you consider how much money went in the makings and how the price is set up.

I also don't compare video games with board games. You can find board games for $10, they have immense replay value, offer multiplayer, razor sharp "graphics" and you have offline multiplayer but the comparison is still off for obvious reasons.

 

I'm comparing the value, which is comparable, so yeah I think my point remains. So far I see value in the level of graphical detail, acting, cinematography etc. movie, games, and movie like games, is still a form of entertainment media, and RAD specifically said they're aiming for a cinamatic experience.  The question of good, boring or bad still remains until I play it.