Fun/time vs Time/Price?

[Zanten]

While I don't have a strict 'Money To Time' ratio, I do typically take game length into account when buying something at full retail price, simply because I do have money constraints. x3 I.e. if I buy a full retail game here and now, then it might be a few weeks til I can justify the expense of getting another one... so picking up a game that I'm going to pretty finish in the course of a single dedicated afternoon/evening probably isn't a wise investment on my part unless the actual core gameplay is engaging and varied enough to make replaying the exact same experience just as fun as it was the first time. This usually means being able to do things 'outside the box' to a degree, like Prototype, where I spent far more time running around the city just being an utter dick to EVERYONE than I did actually doing any missions or challenges.

Although at the same time, I'd argue there can be room for games that take things at a slower pace and don't feel the need to be 100% engaging all the time. I know that No Man's Sky is ultimately going to be filled with hours and hours of flying around, quietly exploring planets and gathering resources, crafting etc, etc, to go with all the space battles and conflicts I'll inevitably stumble upon/possibly instigate. And that's fine, because the exact thing I want from a game intended to be a massive, dozens-of-hours experience is for it to have quiet, contemplative times as well as tense, exciting danger times. =D A game with the length of Skyrim, but the intensity of Devil May Cry (nothing but enemies enemies enemies gogogo shiny particle effects EXPLOSIONS) would, in my opinion at least, just becomes rather monotonous.

Still, I certainly have nothing against shorter titles, some of my favorites are in fact extremely short, such as Journey, Thomas Was Alone, The Stanley Parable, etc.