Jpcc86 said:
How so. |
A lot of singleplayer games that have more content than that have a ridiculous amount of filler or content which is generally of a lower quality, that probably could have just been cut if game developers weren't worried about making the game overly long to begin with. I really can't think of many games that stretch into the 30+ hour range that are super consistent in quality, there are probably a few (for most people, the old school Final Fantasies come to mind) but not many. A lot of the games that have the best gameplay density, complexity in their ideas, and that are consistently fun are actually shorter because they don't have to stretch those ideas incredibly far.
What I'm saying is that (and when you cut out that specific snippet, this isn't very evident), I understand why people would be upset at paying $70 for a game that's not going to give them dozens upon dozens of hours of content. But I think the fact that a new $70 price tag will make this type of idea even more prevalent, understandable and respectable is sad. Of course, this narrative existed when all new triple A games were $60, too, so to some extent this will always exist as long as new big release games are price matched to an industry-standard. But again, this talking point will become even more normalized, which I think is just a bit sad and kind of stifles discussion on the quality of the games themselves.
