/v/ - Video Games

Games have a replay value, most movies are not worth watching twice. That comparison make no sense.

>>14898570

>Games have a replay value, most movies are not worth watching twice.

Well that's just wrong, people rewatch movies far more often than they replay games.

Most of the time when a game takes more than 10 hours to beat it is loaded with tons of filler just to make morons feel like they got more out of the purchase. I would rather the game be excellent from start to finish instead of having to suffer through hours of pointless padding.

>>14898596

I've beaten Mega Man 2 more times that I've watch any movie. If I have 2 hours to kill I would rather replay a great short game than re watch any movie.

>>14898570

Most games are also not worth playing twice, only those built around great variety between playthroughs. I don't understand what Soulsfags for instance, find so fun when they replay the exact same game multiple times, going through the same areas with minimal differences.

Action games can maybe get away with being geared towards replayability or on the shorter side, if they have tight fun gameplay that's enjoyable on its own. A lot of new ones have levelling systems and perks, so they end up throwing the same trash mob against you over and over just so you can get enough XP to buy some extra HP or a combo that should have been available from the get go.

RPG games are nicer longer, though. It's comfy to sit in a tavern and drink a beer after a long quest, or to go exploring in random abandoned farmhouses or caves. I wouldn't want them to have time limits or be shortened.

>>14898530

>For example, it's an unwritten rule that action movies should be 1 hour 30 minutes long

This reeks of that faggot saying indies shouldn't be hard and take more than an afternoon to beat.

Anyways, games take different times to beat depending on the person and the game's difficulty level, it will not be beat within the same time for everyone playing it. The best you can do is give an estimative, but not based on it's genre, just on the time other people beat that game itself.

Games can be very different from each other, even on the same genre, so saying games in the same genre shold have guidelines like that just wouldn't work

>>14898816

Yea the only games I honestly replay alot are games with difficulty sliders and actually get fucking hard when you increase it

other than that it's just fucking pointless. Infact most single player games are utterly pointless. You don't really get good at doing anything besides gaming AIs that always have either no options or very limited options anyway.Games I would replay would be a game like Hitman 2 Tenchu, devil may cry(fuck 2 though the movement is all fucked up in that game) just games that actually were incredibly fucking hard single player games. Or resident evil 4 when I beat it I just had to go back in and mess around with the weapons

Imagine actually trying to replay an assassins creed game… I think I did this once I played 3 and my save file got corrupted midway through the game so I "replayed it" and honestly after like 30 minutes of realizing how much bullshit, walking scenes, expository dialogue nonsense that I'm going to be FORCED to rewatch I just stopped playing it and really never played one of those fucking games ever again not to mention the fact that they dropped like 20 of them a year I couldn't even keep track and didn't really like the games that much anyway. Ubisoft has just turned me off as a consumer because it's the same bullshit when I played Far Cry 3 it's just more terrible games where the enemies can't shoot to save their lives(just like the enemies in assassin's creed are utterly fucking useless retards)

>>14898853

> It's comfy to sit in a tavern and drink a beer after a long quest, or to go exploring in random abandoned farmhouses or caves.

I can't think of any game in recent memory where you can actually do this.

>>14900789

>>14900789

Skyrim

>>14898530

>timers in games

>timers in missions

>timers on switches

Unless the game is about cooking or defusing a timed bomb, there should be no timers at all. A timer is not "get to the exit of the mine or it will collapse on you"; that's fine. A timer is a hard timer, either visible or invisible, that auto-game ends or mission fails.

>>14898853

>>14900789

> It's comfy to sit in a tavern and drink a beer after a long quest

An RPG with a food/drink/sleep mechanic would make this action genuinely rewarding rather than simply relying on the player's self-restrictions to role play.

>>14906035

I'm endlessly upset that you may be listing the only fucking "game" that actually allows for this.

>>14898530

It's not an unwritten rule, it's based on how many minutes you can have per reel.

Yes. It is physically impossible, with current technology, to ensure the opposite. In fact many PS1 CDs have fallen to disc rot. If you can't clear that game in a few decades, you seriously need to git gud.

>Modern blockbuster action films are the same length as Disney movies

>Modern adults literally have the attention-span of children and can't bear a movie longer than 2 hours

I don't really need any more reasons to wallow in 90's nostalgia, but it's so fucking hard when everything current tries its goddamn hardest to be objectively inferior in every possible way.

>an unwritten rule that action movies should be 1 hour 30 minutes long. It's just the right length for that kind of movie, it's neither too long or too short and it's what people seem to enjoy the most for that genre

Most people are retarded and most of the world's population are nonwhite shitskins and their attention spans are irrelevant when it comes to deciding what is or isn't good enough for game or movie length. The best movie I've ever watched was over 3 hours long and I can't find anything in that same genre that can compete with it. My favorite game takes 90 hours to complete and 1000+ hours if you want to be turbo-autistic and 100% it.

Meanwhile it's a fact that most trash games are short, shooters in particular. CoD, BF, FarCry, etc are uber-garbage and take less than 9 hours to complete. The normalniggers like them because their standards are low and their attention spam is comparable to a fish.

I don't care what they consider good. There is no hard limit for anything. If it's good then it doesn't matter how long it is.

>>14898530

I guess there could be an argument for it, but I would argue against it.

First, unlike movies, games are not meant to be played in a single session; you don't have to play a 12-hour game all in one sitting. And second, I think it's important that game developers are given freedom in their designs. If every game was required to be no more than six hours, there'd never be another metal gear solid 3, or a similar game that takes a while to playthrough.

That's a bad comparison because most people don't beat games in one sitting. Basically, if the game is longer than something like 4 hours, it's arbitrary how much longer it will take - 6, 12, 20 hours? The more the merrier if the game is good. Of course, there's a certain limit after which it gets tedious with simple action games, but it's stupid to try to set some sort of a standard.