KLAMarine said:
I read the following: "This is more like it. Games should be this long at least." Which seems to imply there's something wrong with games shorter than said length. This was followed by: "That way games aren't relying on "replayability," which differs from person to person." Again, as if to say relying on replayability is bad. No problem though, midrange just told me there's nothing wrong with replayability.
Most online modes rely on replayability. |
Yep, you are right. But, most online modes are person to person replayability (face another person, partner up against zombies, race against other players, and so on). I really consider that completely different than the branching paths replayability in starfox and R&C. Branching paths are limited by what the developer codes, whereas person to person replayability is basically limitless (as shown by the sheer size of the esports community). Even though everything falls under replayability, I consider online and local as two separate things. Since insomniac didn't include online modes, I'm glad they spent time to ensure a lengthy campaign. I'm annoyed at starfox because it has a smaller campaign and no online multiplayer for a bigger price point
