midrange on 19 May 2016
| Veknoid_Outcast said: That review was hard to watch: petulant, crude, and mostly unhelpful. If he spent as much time breaking down and describing the game as he did creating clever metaphors and running off on tangents, then maybe he'd have something. As for some of the commentators in this thread: do you honestly believe price, quality, and game hours are or should be directly proportional? That's madness. Some games lend themselves to 60 hour + campaigns, others lend themselves to 90 minute campaigns. If those 60 hours are painfully boring, what good are they? It took me 60 minutes to beat Super Dodge Ball, and it's an outstanding game. It took me 40 and 30 hours to beat Two Worlds and Gods Eater Burst, respectively, and they're both pedestrian. I just don't buy the argument that you can't charge $60 for a short game, or that longer-running games are inherently superior. |
With regards to the price, you do have a point. A short game can justify a $60 purchase. However, star fox zero does not immediately fall into that category by default. Many people in this thread are under the assumption that it does and they just throw around "replayability" as an excuse when they really shouldn't
