zorg1000 said:
You are side stepping the point. |
No, he's committing a fallacy of falsely equating renting a game, with owning a game.
Like I said before, a 6 hour game is not an 8/10 for a $60 asking price. I did not say, "a 6 hour game is not an 8/10 for an E2 rental price."
Machiavellian said:
So you ignore everything else he has done and only look at a few games that did not score great. Is that your only measurement because if so, I guess we do not need to continue this discussion. You already made up your mind. I am looking at the entire change to not only the Xbox division but MS outlook on studios and games period. That include the PC space as well. I see that MS noticed as a company their lack of high quality software and has purchased companies to fill that gap. Its not like this is something that can be turned on a dime or that companies with high quality talent are just sitting out there waiting to be purchased. From interviews with the companies that did get purchase and some that MS was interested in, it appears they have been active in seeking and making deals for years. Come the next Gen, this will be a full gen where Phil will be the boss, so it will be interesting to see what comes out from all the new studios and the current ones. |
Most people who post in these threads literally cannot wait for the potential day that Microsoft is out of the business and in this case, have even predicted it to happen multiple times. Of course there will not be a logical look at what Papa Phil has done.
You made a huge point earlier too about how he was left on and promoted even after the shit show Mattricks leadership put on. Typically in the corporate world when you have a disaster like that, all of the heads roll and new people are brought in across the board. The fact that they instead promoted him to the Xboss just goes to show that Microsoft had faith in him and his vision. And since then we’ve seen a huge shift towards Play Anywhere, we got the Scorpio, we got GamePass, and now they’re scooping up studios to prepare for next gen. Shit takes time.
Crackdown is the last game from the Mattrick era. Good riddance.
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. |
I agree and understand everything you are saying.
The only part I don't agree with is the end.
It's absolutely defendable because you never know when you will encounter that one game that changes your perspective on things.
I personally do think that most open world games should have a decent amount of content. Doesn't mean that the game won't come along where it's open world and six hours yet feels justified in it's length.
Cerebralbore101 said:
No, he's committing a fallacy of falsely equating renting a game, with owning a game. Like I said before, a 6 hour game is not an 8/10 for a $60 asking price. I did not say, "a 6 hour game is not an 8/10 for an E2 rental price." |
So where draw the line?
If you buy it in a few months for $20 - $30 should it get a higher score then? Or if you buy it used now for $20 - $30? Or if you can import it for a bargain? Or if it is a gift?
That's exactly my point: the score should be independant of the price, even if you take both of these aspects into account of your buying/renting decision.
Last edited by Conina - on 17 February 2019
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.
Conina said:
So where draw the line? If you buy it in a few months for $20 - $30 should it get a higher score then? |
No, because there will be plenty of other games for $20 to $30 that will offer much more content, and replay value for the same price. Right now, since the game is new we are going to compare it to other relatively new games that also cost $60. Games have to be compared to other games for the same price point. How much fun, how much content/replayvalue is one game of one genre, versus another game of the same genre? Keep in mind, both hypothetical games cost the same.
And yes, fun factor is an element that can save a game from being too short. But most everybody is saying that Crackdown 3 is only about as fun as the original. And IMO that just isn't enough fun to salvage a game from being 6 to 14 (14 hour completionist run) hours long, with almost no replay value.
Don't get me wrong here, I loved the first Crackdown, and consider it to be a classic. But that game was 40ish hours to complete all the way through, and 15ish hours to do the main story. And the original Crackdown received review scores of about 8/10. So it makes perfect sense for Crackdown 3 (a game that is just as fun but almost a third the content) to get a 6/10 from the average review site.
Conina said:
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.
|
I just bolded the parts of my post that you utterly ignored. Replay value, and breaking new ground are a factor.
Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 17 February 2019
Cerebralbore101 said:
No, because there will be plenty of other games for $20 to $30 that will offer much more content, and replay value for the same price. |
You can say that about almost any new game which is offered for "full price". Of course there are always dozens of older games of that genre with similar or more content and a much better price/content ratio.
Doesn't stop people to want the new stuff instead of playing the older (and sometimes even better) games for a few bucks.
Conina said:
You can say that about almost any new game which is offered for "full price". Of course there are always dozens of older games of that genre with similar or more content and a much better price/content ratio. Doesn't stop people to want the new stuff instead of playing the older (and sometimes even better) games for a few bucks. |
Your question doesn't involve it being full price though. Your question involves it being heavily discounted in a few months. And at that point, we can and should compare it to other games that were heavily discounted. It still winds up at the bottom of the barrel in a price to content/replay-value contest with other heavily discounted games of the same or similar genres.
Crackdown 3 is about a 3rd the content/replay-value of the original. If that's not a 6/10, I don't know what is.
| John2290 said: Jesus christ, people are viscious in here. I was not expecting Crackdown to cause people to storm the beach's of console war Normandy. Mind blown. |
It's to be expected. Crackdown was the centre of the console war this gen from the very start as it was pushed as a title with the full backing of the cloud.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
