Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Gaming Beast
Registered: 11/21/2007
Offline
2220 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 18, 2008

Michelasso wrote:

CaptainHarlock wrote:

Michelasso wrote:
If I pay the price for a solid gold toilet they can't give me a iron one. I am a customer, I have the right to state what I expect from a product in order to buy it. 10 hours or less gameplay? No more than $20. Otherwise I won't buy it until it's platinum. It's that simple. Would you pay a full price ticket for a movie 20 minutes long? I wouldn't. That's it. 

 


 And I have a right to say to you that your reasoning is flawed.

 

That's a poor comparison and here's why. Beacause a movie would not be released if it were only twenty minutes long as a stand alone film. There are short films that are shown in theaters as part of festivals and with other short films. Woody Allen has made one which was actually very good. Tim Burton has made one as well. And I have paid full price for movies that were one hour and twenty minutes in length. Woody Allen's Hannah And Her Sisters was one so was Crimes and Misdemeanors. Many Diseny films clock in at under 90 minutes. But I suppose all these films are now considered "bad" by your standards because they are not the same length as Heaven's Gate or Gone With The Wind

 

You conveniently left out the rest of my comment. Which was by your standards the United States Tax Code at 12,000 pages would then be considered the greatest literary work in history. Longer is not better by default. By your standard nobody should have bought the original Metal Gear Solid because there's only found and a half hours of total gameplay. Metal Gear Solid 2 only had around maybe six hours of total gameplay. God of War only had about ten hours of gameplay. Are all those "bad games"? Are they all "not worth it"? 

 

You have a right to state what you want as a consumer. However, creative people and artists have a right to create as they see fit. Do you think I should start emaling Cheap Trick and tell them "I'm a customer and I demand that your next album should be a three record set. If not I'm not paying full price for it". You know what they'd tell me? They'd say "We're making the best album we can and if you don't like it, we're sorry but we're not forcing you to buy it". Creative people create, and the public evaluates that work. And if your only yardstick to evaluate is running time then you're not seeing the bigger picture. 

 

There's certain things we don't like in this world. But you know what, we deal. That's all we can do. Going around placing demands on things that are out of your control isn't going to get you anywhere.  


I left the rest of your argument off for the simple reason that it was plain stupid. I am not saying that quantity = quality.  But I am saying that, out of two great games, if one goes for 1/3 of the playing time, that one should cost 1/3 - 1/2 of the price. Like they will do with Ratchet & Clank for PSN, they did with GT5P, Siren Blood Shoot and many others. TR usualy had 4 chapters. If the next TR will have a Chapter only with some episodes, like more or less is uncharted now, its right price will be about $15-$30. Is it so hard to understand?
I don't judge games by quantity, but I judge their price by lenght and variety. If Uncharted had 3 or 4 chapters, all as good as the first (only) one we've got, wouldn't it be a much better value for money? My hope is That Sony/Naughty Dog rushed the development of the game, making it short, because they wanted immediately a good exclusive for the PS3.
Then try to buy a book of law, and let's see how much you do spend. You must make a loan for it. Thus, even in your example I was right, because I was talking about prices and NOT quality.  

 




All disk based games released for the PS3 are $60, Untill they become a greatest hit. Regardless of length. Hell MGS4 can be beat in under 5 hours begining to end. But I dont see anyone begging for that to be cheaper. Your an informed consumer, Dont buy it till you like the price. In the mean time posting crazy things on the boards complaining about the price just makes you look cheap.
Please use plain text.
Message 31 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 12/09/2007
Offline
5540 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 18, 2008

assassingamer wrote: 

All disk based games released for the PS3 are $60, Untill they become a greatest hit. Regardless of length. Hell MGS4 can be beat in under 5 hours begining to end. But I dont see anyone begging for that to be cheaper. Your an informed consumer, Dont buy it till you like the price. In the mean time posting crazy things on the boards complaining about the price just makes you look cheap.
I am cheap then. I don't grow money out of a tree. I can afford a full price video game a month. If they were all that short I could forget about videogames. The replay value is near to zero, unless one likes to be harrassed by an AI that keeps shooting us to death every second in the harder modes.
----
- I'm not a Playstation fanboy. I'm a Micro$oft hater. It's different.
Please use plain text.
Message 32 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 11/25/2007
Offline
4246 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 18, 2008
Wow! You must have rushed through it. I don't think Uncharted is short.
Please use plain text.
Message 33 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 02/06/2008
Offline
2628 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 19, 2008
my first playthrough took me about 12 hours,  but i take my time and explore,  looking for those damn treasures.
Please use plain text.
Message 34 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 08/14/2008
Offline
132 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 19, 2008
You guys also need to keep in mind that most of the people here that claim to have "easily" beaten "Uncharted" in a few hours are probably 13 year old kids with no lives. Those of us who are married with children and work fulltime don't have the time to blow through a video game in one sitting, LOL!
Please use plain text.
Message 35 of 53 (3 Views)
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 05/14/2007
Offline
149 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 19, 2008
I didnt think it was too short.  I spent a lot of time exploring after wiping the enemies out.  The graphics were outstanding...
Please use plain text.
Message 36 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 05/14/2007
Offline
149 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 19, 2008

PlaySkippy3 wrote:
You guys also need to keep in mind that most of the people here that claim to have "easily" beaten "Uncharted" in a few hours are probably 13 year old kids with no lives. Those of us who are married with children and work fulltime don't have the time to blow through a video game in one sitting, LOL!

 

 

True dat.. True dat...

Please use plain text.
Message 37 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 12/09/2007
Offline
5540 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 19, 2008

PlaySkippy3 wrote:
You guys also need to keep in mind that most of the people here that claim to have "easily" beaten "Uncharted" in a few hours are probably 13 year old kids with no lives. Those of us who are married with children and work fulltime don't have the time to blow through a video game in one sitting, LOL!
Exactly. That's why Uncharted is a stupid game for brainless kids. Period. Oh yeah, in the case you wonder... ask some of them what's 8x8- most of them do not even know the answer. But they want to program videoagems, duh?

 

----
- I'm not a Playstation fanboy. I'm a Micro$oft hater. It's different.
Please use plain text.
Message 38 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 07/13/2007
Offline
408 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 20, 2008

because the developers chose to pace the game perfectly rather than put in hours of filler nobody wants to play. 

 

Now, they could have made the game longer without filler, yes, but then the game would probably just be coming out, and the PS3 really needed some good games.  Plus with a story driven game like this, it can only be as long as the story allows. 

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Please use plain text.
Message 39 of 53 (3 Views)
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/08/2000
Online
24127 posts
 

Re: Why was Drake's Fortune soo Short?

Aug 20, 2008

Michelasso wrote:

CaptainHarlock wrote:

Michelasso wrote:
If I pay the price for a solid gold toilet they can't give me a iron one. I am a customer, I have the right to state what I expect from a product in order to buy it. 10 hours or less gameplay? No more than $20. Otherwise I won't buy it until it's platinum. It's that simple. Would you pay a full price ticket for a movie 20 minutes long? I wouldn't. That's it.

 


And I have a right to say to you that your reasoning is flawed.

 

That's a poor comparison and here's why. Beacause a movie would not be released if it were only twenty minutes long as a stand alone film. There are short films that are shown in theaters as part of festivals and with other short films. Woody Allen has made one which was actually very good. Tim Burton has made one as well. And I have paid full price for movies that were one hour and twenty minutes in length. Woody Allen's Hannah And Her Sisters was one so was Crimes and Misdemeanors. Many Diseny films clock in at under 90 minutes. But I suppose all these films are now considered "bad" by your standards because they are not the same length as Heaven's Gate or Gone With The Wind.

 

You conveniently left out the rest of my comment. Which was by your standards the United States Tax Code at 12,000 pages would then be considered the greatest literary work in history. Longer is not better by default. By your standard nobody should have bought the original Metal Gear Solid because there's only found and a half hours of total gameplay. Metal Gear Solid 2 only had around maybe six hours of total gameplay. God of War only had about ten hours of gameplay. Are all those "bad games"? Are they all "not worth it"?

 

You have a right to state what you want as a consumer. However, creative people and artists have a right to create as they see fit. Do you think I should start emaling Cheap Trick and tell them "I'm a customer and I demand that your next album should be a three record set. If not I'm not paying full price for it". You know what they'd tell me? They'd say "We're making the best album we can and if you don't like it, we're sorry but we're not forcing you to buy it". Creative people create, and the public evaluates that work. And if your only yardstick to evaluate is running time then you're not seeing the bigger picture.

 

There's certain things we don't like in this world. But you know what, we deal. That's all we can do. Going around placing demands on things that are out of your control isn't going to get you anywhere.


I left the rest of your argument off for the simple reason that it was plain stupid. I am not saying that quantity = quality. But I am saying that, out of two great games, if one goes for 1/3 of the playing time, that one should cost 1/3 - 1/2 of the price. Like they will do with Ratchet & Clank for PSN, they did with GT5P, Siren Blood Shoot and many others. TR usualy had 4 chapters. If the next TR will have a Chapter only with some episodes, like more or less is uncharted now, its right price will be about $15-$30. Is it so hard to understand?
I don't judge games by quantity, but I judge their priceby lenght and variety. If Uncharted had 3 or 4 chapters, all as good as the first (only) one we've got, wouldn't it be a much better value for money? My hope is That Sony/Naughty Dog rushed the development of the game, making it short, because they wanted immediately a good exclusive for the PS3.
Then try to buy a book of law, and let's see how much you do spend. You must make a loan for it. Thus, even in your example I was right, because I was talking about prices and NOT quality.

 


No, you left out the rest of my comment because you had to place your's into a context that it would be more viable.

 

You've just contradicted yourself. You claim you don't judge by quantity but by length. What is "length"? Length is QUANTITY of gameplay. Pure and simple.

 

The whole argument of "If a game is shorter is should be priced lower" is inherently flawed and I will tell you why right now. Because if developers would not make any money. AND furthermore, if a game is longer you would just as easily pay MORE. A developer could turn around and say "Well there's over 60 hours of gameplay, we can charge $120 for it!'. After all you are getting much more gameplay, so wouldn't that warrant a higher price? There's more development time involved and more man hours to make it. So a higer price would be necessary. And then how do you price an online game with seemingly limitless gameplay? What is then the standard? Games are priced at what the market will bear. And the market is currently bearing the $60 price tag. Yes a few people will have a problem, however, like you, they seem to be in the minority.

 

There is not "right or wrong" in this matter really. It's a matter of economics and practicality. By your standards the business model would be far too convoluted to ever be practical. "Oh but I don't want to pay $60 for a short game". Well that's your right to object. I don't want to pay $70,000 for a BMW but you don't see me complaining to the Bavarian Mortor Works that they should lower the price for me and for me only because I'm a consumer and what I say goes.

 

And thus this will be my final post on this topic as this conversation has seemingly run it's course. It's best to end this discussion because it appears to be turning into the Contradiction Sketch.

 

So you I say peace be with you my friend. 

Message Edited by CaptainHarlock on 08-20-2008 01:23 AM
Please use plain text.
Message 40 of 53 (3 Views)
Reply
0 Likes