By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Super Mario Galaxy between 7-15 hours long...

Something tells me I shouldn't contribute to this topic, but now that I have read through the whole thread I feel that I'm obligated...

First of, to make things clear: I prefer a short, but great game over a long but mediocre game.

Secondly, when comparing absolutely great games, length comes into play. For example if you play an hour of Beyond Good and Evil and an hour of a 3D Zelda game, you'd say that both are equal. But if you play through the whole games you'll say that Zelda is better because it is longer and therefore more epic.

Because of that, I would love Galaxy if it would take me less than 20 hours to complete the game (not with everything) but it would not be a game on the same level as Mario 64.

Thirdly, if the extra stars are like in 64, getting all the stars means completing the game to me because it is a real part of it. If it is like in Sunshine were the extra stars felt tacked on way more, it doesn't really count to me.

But however, fact is, dear Legend11, you don't have ANY point. I bet you could find a user on a website that says he finished the game in X hours to EVERY game; reviewers are probably more worth more trust.



Currently Playing: Skies of Arcadia Legends (GC), Dragon Quest IV (DS)

Last Game beaten: The Rub Rabbits(DS)

Around the Network

  Look, can everyone calm down? For those wonder those of us accuse Legend11 of misleading, it is because he is literally misleading and neither of his two sources have stated that they have completed the game, with one of his sources estimating around 40 to 60 hours to complete the game.

 

  In the future, I hope whoever is gonna post such a thread RTFP before posting, at the very least. 



I am a PC gamer, and also have a NDS now, but without access to a Nintendo Wii until End of 2007.

Currently playing: Super Smash Brothers Brawl(Wii), Mystery Dungeon: Shiren the Wanderer(DS), Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (DS), WiiFit(Wii)

Games Recently Beaten: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King (Normal; Very Hard after the next DLCs become available)

1 word: RTFA

Legend11 said:
People are missing the point of this thread, it isn't to bash Super Mario Galaxy, it's to bash the people who define a game by a set number of hours and then bash it if the number of hours is low. In the case of some of the games I mentioned it's obvious that the people who define the game as being under 10 hours haven't completed all the challenges in them.

For example take a game like Halo 3, some of the people who bash the game talk about the single player component of the game as being under 10 hours, yet anyone who has tried to find all of the skulls for example knows that without cheating it definitely takes a lot longer than 10 hours to find them all. One skull in particular is notoriously hard to find, with many people having spent 20 or more hours just trying to find it.

I guess I won't be able to get through to some of the people who judge games like I've mentioned, since they apparently just come up with new excuses to justify their views and don't see what they're doing wrong. If you want to believe the challenges in SMG are somehow more worthy than those in some other games that's your choice but at the end of the day it's time that completists are putting into a game to get as much as they possibly can out of it and I really don't agree that an hour in one game should be considered any less worthy than an hour in another.

So you are saying you believe achievements to be comparable to entirely new levels and places you have never been or seen? Or are you making an argument that the merits of each aren't comparable and its for each person to decide?

The true problem here is that nobody has actually played through the game and so having this discussion is rediculous.  You are making an assumption based on anecdote to make your point.   Which is a bad way to approach this from the start, so you created this mess of a thread with a horribly flawed basis and a pretty bad argument built on top of that base and now that people have exposed the problems you proclaim that we will make up any excuse. 

Please take a look at what you know as fact and what you are assuming based on anecdote and then tell us again precisely what YOU know about this game from personal experience. If you can honestly say you know any of this to be true your argument becomes a lot less hollow but before that point this thread is reaching quite a bit. 

 

 



To Each Man, Responsibility
Onimusha12 said:
Ah Legend, Legend, Legend... You've become quite cheeky as of late, though I suppose you feel you've got quite to live up to since you're arguably the only 360 troll on the entire forum. Keep dancing that fine line, it won't be long before you're in ban land if you keep up these antics or will you try and exile yourself from VGchartz a third time?

Actually I go back to University in January and with an incredibly hard term coupled with that fact that I have to make the Dean's List if I want the position I plan on applying for when I'm done (at the end of 2008) it's very likely I won't be posting much of anything.  It doesn't help that I've been in the workforce for 6 years and I'll be extremely rusty at studying, etc, when I go back :|  Wish me luck ;)



Cadence said:
Commenting about Super Mario Galaxy's length = You will be flamed.
Commenting about Heavenly Sword's length = Typical topic, talk about the game, yadda yadda yadda.

Hypocrisy.

This game was probably delayed so they could give it a graphical touchup, like Metroid Prime 3. I bet everybody's going to accuse me of being a fake female again because I said something bad about Nintendo.

BLASHPEMING MALE HERETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although I do think that your comparison is false, as SMG hasn't come out yet, and therefore players can't determine if the so called "short length" of it is real (as in Heavenly Sword), or just something made up by someone who apparently may not have even finished the game.



Around the Network
Legend11 said:
People are missing the point of this thread, it isn't to bash Super Mario Galaxy, it's to bash the people who define a game by a set number of hours and then bash it if the number of hours is low. In the case of some of the games I've mentioned it's obvious that the people who define the game as being under 10 hours haven't completed all the challenges in them.

For example take a game like Halo 3, some of the people who bash the game talk about the single player component of the game as being under 10 hours, yet anyone who has tried to find all of the skulls for example knows that without cheating it definitely takes a lot longer than 10 hours to find them all. One skull in particular is notoriously hard to find, with many people having spent 20 or more hours just trying to find it.

I guess I won't be able to get through to some of the people who judge games like I've mentioned, since they apparently just come up with new excuses to justify their views and don't see what they're doing is wrong. If you want to believe the challenges in SMG are somehow more worthy than those in some other games that's your choice but at the end of the day it's time that completists are putting into a game to get as much as they possibly can out of it and I really don't agree that an hour in one game should be considered any less worthy than an hour in another.

Legend, several people have already provided the counter to this before you even said it.  While you're spending 20 hours playing the same game you've already played, looking for one skull, I can be spending 20 hours playing entirely new game content that I've never seen before.  If I'm having more fun exploring new worlds in one game vs. scouring the same worlds in another, OF COURSE I think an hour in the first game is more worthy than an hour in the second.  How could it not be?

There is nothing wrong with good replay value.  Extra quests/achievements/etc. after you complete a game are a good thing.  But achievements plus lots of original content are much better!  And I'm not talking about Mario Galaxy vs. Halo 3, because I haven't played either game.  I'm just talking about a very simple concept: More is better.  What's so difficult to understand about that? 



Legend will not be banned for this Onimusha, as it's much better to simply disprove the original point than to ban him.

This entire topic was based off 2 pieces of anecdotal evidence on neogaf in which both people admitted to skipping much of the game's content. Not just stars, actual levels. Legend, you opened a thread on a false premise. You have been disproved numerous times, and your mistake has been clearly explained.

I would lock the thread to avoid you and others (cadence) future embarrassment, but you continue to flail to defend your point. If you have the desire to engage in self-humiliation, far be it from me to stop you. You certainly enjoyed doing it back at the Brawl thread a few months ago so I don't see why your attitude about admitting when you make a mistake would have changed.



Legend11 said:
naznatips said:
Reviewers are all reporting 20+ hours. IGN said it's more like 30 if you collect all stars. Give a credible source Legend or this is just trolling.

I really don't see how commenting on a game's length is trolling. I mean I saw many threads in the Sony forum talking about Heavenly Sword's length and similar threads in the Microsoft forum about Halo 3 for example and I don't remember anyone being accused of trolling in those threads. There are also such threads about Call of Duty 4's length and still no mention of trolling.

Anyways for starters check out the "Official Worldwide Super Mario Galaxy Thread - Megaton Spoiler in Post #4938" at NeoGAF. Better yet I'll save people some work and just link to some of the postings in that thread (these people aren't trolls either and it's obvious from their postings)...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8463289&postcount=5880 (7 hours)

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8475999&postcount=6035 (~14-15 hours)

Just as in my original posting I expected people to mention collecting stars but those people must realize that there are achievements and collectables in short 360 games as well for example (I collected hundreds of orbs in Crackdown and did all the timed races for example) but that wasn't enough to fend off those that put down short games. Don't get me wrong I'm not putting down Super Mario Galaxy, in fact I'm defending it along with Heavenly Sword, Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, etc.


 This is funny because you use to be a fairly respected poster but now you just troll anything that isn't an XBox 360 game.  If you take your excuse of random forum posters being credible sources then Heavenly Sword is a 10+ hour game and Lair is the shit if you just learn the controls.

And the reason why people can get away with saying those things about Halo 3 and HS is because they are that short.  When every reviewer says the same thing about the length, it's pretty easy to take it as a fact.  When every reviewer says SMG is 20+ hours and a few random people said they beat it in less than that, you're not so credible. 



Legend11 said:

Just a heads up to people that complain about "short" games (you know who you are), well here's another one to add to your hit list. People are clocking in times of between 7-15 hours on it (7 hours if you usually finish your games quickly). So the average for the game is likely to be somewhere in that range.

For some who're going to try to argue about collecting all the stars, etc, keep in mind that those who've bashed shorter games on the 360 and PS3 didn't feel that such things were enough (collecting achievements on 360, etc) to offset a short game so expect to get the same feedback here, especially since those times include collecting and unlocking almost everything.

The game is apparently pretty good so maybe people should remember that the quality and experience of a game can sometimes make up for it's length. Also this game like Heavenly Sword likely has good replayability so don't let the haters get to you and just enjoy it.


 Also forgot to mention that I knew this topic was bullshit before even reading it.  Why would someone say a game is between 7-15hours long?  You don't give that wide of a gap in a game that short.  In a 60-ish hourgame it's alright to say it's 55-65 hours long but not a game that's somewhere between 7-15 hours.

If you had been using something somewhat credible instead of two random posters, you would say something like SMG is 7-8 hours long, maybe 7-9. 



As much as I like the look of it - I can't see Mass Effect getting game of the year. I think it will rile some people up the wrong way (with the mix of FPS / RPG). Sure some publications will award it GOTY - and it may be deserved - but I'll be very surprised if overall consensus is that it gets GOTY.

I think it will be between Galaxy & Bioshock actually.

...

@re topic: the average completion time for both 60 (min stars), and then 120 (all stars) is what matters.

People are completing HS, first run through - in 5-7 hrs. That is a short game.

People are then completing (getting 60 stars) on Galaxy in 15hrs, and then closer to 30hrs to get all the stars. It sounds to be a similar length to both Sunshine & Mario 64.

I'm confident it will take me closer to 50hrs to get every star (I tend to over explore).

(if SM3 can be beaten in 5min, does that make it a short game? Speed runs FTW!) 



Gesta Non Verba

Nocturnal is helping companies get cheaper game ratings in Australia:

Game Assessment website

Wii code: 2263 4706 2910 1099