Mnementh said:
But is length the same as quality? I would argue not. Modern Assassin's Creeds are far beyond 100 hours, but I usually stop playing after 20-30 hours, as that is the time it is fun to play. A game like 'A Short Hike' is only 1 or 2 hours long, but I think it is better than 80% of the 50+ hour games, it has what is needed and is impactful and doesn't overstay it's welcome. Games that are really engaging for all of 50, 70, 100 or more hours are actually pretty rare. So I wouldn't see the playtime (or content) as a mark of quality. |
It all subjective. if you really enjoy a game these days you get like 10x the content of the 90s plus online play, if you wanna finish that content it's up to you. Most of my top games of the 90s were not that repayable for me
MGS1 one and done
Resident evil 2 one and done
Mario 64 after 120 stars no reason to go back
Street fighter 2 franchise including street fighter alpha 3 and x-men vs street fighter. no online play back then
Zelda OOT/LTTP after finishing it no side content really worth exploring.
Gran turismo this had great replay value but no online play
Golden eye was fun but no online play
banjo kazioo same as mario 64
sonic 2d
Mario 2d
nes as well
mega man x franchise as well
Nes. sega genesis, and and many super nes games get hurt by not having save states.
Let me compare my top games of 2010-2020
Sikero finished 5 times loved the combat and multiple endings and story
GOW 2018 finished 2 times
Bloodborne same as above but finished 4 times
Batman Arkham city 55 hours Got both endings, same for Arkham knight
MGSV 80 hours
RDR 70 hours
BOTW 100 HOURS
Last of us finished 3 times cause i loved the atmosphere and story much
Ghost of Tsushima 50 hours and wanna do a replay on ps5
GTAV 80 hours
Super Street fighter 2 turbo 400 hours in thanks to online play lol.
Spider man 60 hours before i got bored but was great fun.
There just wasn't that many big games in the 90s that had quality gameplay more then 25 hours for me.
Last edited by zeldaring - on 25 July 2023






