By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Chris Hu on 17 February 2019
Edit Thread
Conina said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

So in other words you did a borderline completionist run in 14 hours? A lot of reviews were saying that the game could be beaten in 6 hours. Sorry, but a 6 hour game in no way deserves 8/10. Not for an asking price of $60 at least. If MS had priced this game at $20, then I'd agree with you. 

 

Cerebralbore101 said:

The original DMC took me 14ish hours to 100% complete, not counting replaying the game on harder difficulties.  I think I got about 22 hours of fun out of DMC1. Keep in mind that it launched all the way back in 2001, and was absolutely groundbreaking. I can't think of a single hack n' slash before it that does even 30% of what DMC did. Crackdown 3 on the other hand looks to be a simple clone stamp of the first game, in a genre that regularly hits 80 hours of content. I kind of expect 20 to 40 hours for an open world game. IMO Spiderman was the perfect length at 40 hours to Platinum it.

If a game costs $60, and takes me 15 hours or less to 100% complete, with no replay value, then that just isn't enough for me. 

At the same time though, I don't really like padding in games. There are some games out there that will be 60 hour experiences, stretched out to 80 or 100 hours. I'm not a fan of that. The length and replay value of games could be a huge long thread by itself. 

Anyway 6 hours to beat the main game is not defendable. Especially not for an open world game. 

So his 14 hours for less than 100% are too short but your 14 hours for 100% are okay?

And "6 hours to beat the main game is not defendable" in case of Crackdown 3, but you ignore that the main game of "Devil May Cry" ain't longer than 6 hours.

Instead you compare your 100% in Devil May Cry with the playtime of the main game of Crackdown 3.

Nobody 100% the single player in Crackdown 3 yet.  Nobody so far has found all the agility and hidden orbs.