quality vs quantity

Post Reply New Topic

i'd rather have a shorter game (about 10 hours long) that is all enjoyable, with very little imperfection, where you don't do the same thing twice, and every moment is worthwhile, than a game that is 30-100 hours long that has you repeating the same fluff over and over again to augment the length.

Not a fan of Rockstar, then ;0)

While I definitely prefer quality, I'd rather have games that take a ton of my time with a lot of depth, features, extra things to do and places to explore, etc. That alone shows the time and effort that went into making such a game. Of course, there's filler, but it's easy to spot that kind of difference.

I've been disappointed in that a lot of games nowadays have been shorter and shorter in length, with few exceptions(Zelda, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc.). One example might be that Retro put their Metroid Prime series on one disc, all of which took upwards of at least 10 hours to finish the first time through, whereas games like Halo or CoD could be beaten within an afternoon. It's just kind of silly to spend the same amount of money for something you'll be spending significantly less time with(and, thus, get less enjoyment out of).

I'm all for bitsize games with no padding. Dead Rising Case Zero's a great example. If I have to endure another fetch quest I may break something.