Not worth the money

[NOWITSREYNTIME17]

49 minutes ago, Spaz said:

 

Most people today wouldn't even finish the first few worlds. You say six hours, it took kids a lot longer because NES games by default were hard as nails.

 

Kids today got it easy.

typical response you would give

[AJ_Radio]

42 minutes ago, djb5f said:

a lot of artificial difficulty in those old Super Mario games because when you would lose your lives, you would have to start the game all over.  
 

Poor game design as after awhile you got very bored/tired of replaying the opening levels over and over to get to the new levels to be able to learn and pass those.  Thankfully, there are checkpoints now and those design flaws are over.  

 

Indie games like Bleed do this, but you're not someone who plays those kinds of games. I mean, you literally cannot compare something from 1985 to now. Super Mario Bros was a product of its time.

 

42 minutes ago, mumik08 said:

I have a question why did people compare to Order 1886

 

The Order: 1886 was essentially a three hour adventure that is a cover shooter. Half of the game was basically cutscenes you couldn't skip. Add the $60 price tag to it, that is why people complained about it.

[scemopagliaccioh]

1 hour ago, Spaz said:

 

Most people today wouldn't even finish the first few worlds. You say six hours, it took kids a lot longer because NES games by default were hard as nails.

 

Kids today got it easy.

That was also the golden era of piracy, so it balances out with cheap prices.

 

1 hour ago, BrandedBerserk said:

The game is well worth it and I personally found it better than the first minus the story being weaker although still serviceable. Better combat, stealth is a nice addition, those secondary character segments that broke up the pace are gone and the open world feels more contained with just the right amount of collectibles/side stuff (fuck those crimes for platinum in the first game).

 

Going cinema to watch a two hour movie these days is about 50$ so a good game that I can get twenty hours of content from for 30$ more doesn't exactly seem like an unreasonable price to me. 

50? Last time I went it was 15, are you factoring in food and stuff? Otherwise, lmao what a scam, no wonder Hollywood is dying.

[BrandedBerserk]

6 minutes ago, scemopagliaccioh said:

50? Last time I went it was 15, are you factoring in food and stuff? Otherwise, lmao what a scam, no wonder Hollywood is dying.

Yeah the overall for the ticket plus food cause there's no way in hell i would pay 50$ for a ticket alone lmao.

Edited November 22, 2020 by BrandedBerserk

[MarcusPunisher]

Sounds like it's already offering more than Resident Evil 3 Remake, which was $60 at launch lol

[HoorayForTyler]

I haven’t paid much attention to the marketing for this game, nor know much about the story elements, but even I could have told you this was going to be another case of “glorified, standalone DLC” content (reminds me of the Uncharted: Lost Legacy release for sure). 
 

Even then I think the game seems great from what I’ve viewed, and depending on what you get out of it its price tag could be justified, it just depends on who you’re talking to. 

[Stardroid]

Some people seem to confuse quality with price tag. That makes no sense and you are just blatantly shilling for video games and ultimately companies. Length does matter as the amount of content should dictate a price tag in general terms. Not quality. I've played games like Inside and Limbo that to me are two to three hour experiences. Some of the best experiences in all of my gaming. I'm not going to pay 50 euros for that am I. This price tag for such a short game is you being played and some of you defend your own gullibility. 

[AJ_Radio]

12 minutes ago, scemopagliaccioh said:

 

50? Last time I went it was 15, are you factoring in food and stuff? Otherwise, lmao what a scam, no wonder Hollywood is dying.

 

Hollywood is dying because of using the same tired themes over and over and over again. It's either a blockbuster superhero movie that uses the same humor and cliche acting as any other, or trying to revive Star Wars for the 1000th time because overpaid film producers don't want to see the franchise die, which it has for a long time now.

 

4 minutes ago, HoorayForTyler said:

I haven’t paid much attention to the marketing for this game, nor know much about the story elements, but even I could have told you this was going to be another case of “glorified, standalone DLC” content (reminds me of the Uncharted: Lost Legacy release for sure).

 

We should be thankful enough they got their own trophy lists with a platinum. Spider-Man: Miles Morales basically does what inFamous: First Light and Uncharted: Lost Legacy did before it. All focusing solely on a character in their respective franchises who played a side role beforehand.

[dieselmanchild]

1 hour ago, BrandedBerserk said:

Give it a few more years and you probably will be...

 

I remember the good old days when $25 would easily buy you and your date a couple movie tickets and some food to share. Nowadays a single ticket is like $15+ and slowly inching towards $20 year after year, especially with all the 3D/IMAX ticket upgrades that are pretty much mandatory. Add in a double large popcorn & drink combo for 2 ppl and... *CHA CHING*... there goes another $20.

 

That’s a cool $50-60 bucks there just for 2 people to go see a movie. It’s insane. That’s probably why I never go to the theatre anymore, which is quite sad as I absolutely loved seeing movies in the theatre. 

 

48 minutes ago, Spaz said:

 

Hollywood is dying because of using the same tired themes over and over and over again. It's either a blockbuster superhero movie that uses the same humor and cliche acting as any other, or trying to revive Star Wars for the 1000th time because overpaid film producers don't want to see the franchise die, which it has for a long time now.

Amen to that Spaz. ?

 

Hollywood is so, utterly starving for creativity and originality. Every single fucking movie these days is either the same old vapid, formulaic Marvel Superhero/Michael Bay-esque film, some other soulless revival of a tried and true cash cow like Star Wars, or some form of sequel, remake, or gimmicky “reboot” (like an all-female Ghostbusters or Terminator, or some turd like Baywatch etc.)

 

The worst part of it all is that this will never end or change, because people are completely fine with paying to see the exact same movie over and over again, as long as it has a different title or a different superhero as the main character. People no longer want to use their brains and watch a movie that is mentally stimulating. They’d rather see 2 hours of giant robots destroying the same handful of cities over and over again (New York. San Francisco, Los Angelos etc.). And Americans are completely uninterested in any kind of film that takes place outside their own borders, or tells a story about someone or something that is not American. It’s fucking sad.

 

This sad reality, coupled with outrageous ticket prices, is the main reason why I switched to television years ago. At least on television, you have audiences that are much smarter and have much longer attention spans, who are generally interested in deep, complex stories and characters that are well written, well acted, and unfold slowly over the course of one or more seasons.
 

I believe this is also why we are seeing so much top talent moving from the big screen to the small screen (which is amazing for us TV junkies! ?). They do a few Marvel movies and make huge money, but quickly grow bored with the empty, soulless roles that don’t challenge them as actors or offer any kind of personal growth. Then they show up on TV somewhere, and their passion for the art is renewed, and we end up getting something truly special.

 

Case in point - Mark Ruffalo. 
 

After doing like 6 or 7 Marvel movies in a row and reportedly burning out a little bit, the dude shows up on HBO earlier this year and gives a truly phenomenal, mind blowing performance in the tragic show ‘I Know This Much is True’ where he plays a set of twin brothers, one of whom is a paranoid schizophrenic. He had to lose weight to play one of the brothers, and gain like 30+ pounds to play the other, and he plays each character so brilliantly that you truly forget you are watching one man playing 2 people.

 

It’s almost like after years of making the big bucks but kind of sleepwalking his way through his role as The Hulk, he lands a role based on a book that he was extremely passionate and excited about, found himself completely inspired and in the zone again, and absolutely knocked the shit out of it. He won an Emmy for his performance in that show. I always liked Mark Ruffalo, but he has proven that he is one of the finest actors working today, all he needs is some quality material to work with.

[xxCESARRBOYxx]

Tbh most games these days aren't worth the price tag imo. The only games I actually buy are games that have a good multiplayer with a lot of replay value. All the other games that I can completely finish within like 20 hours I just rent and complete them within a week at most. Perhaps it's just me being a cheapo but that's just how I feel about games now a days.

[jkilla44]

Loved it, great game and super intense, I’ll pay 50$ any day. 

[Silver-I-Chariot]

7 hours ago, DaivRules said:

Imagine how these people would have felt finishing Super Mario Bros in 6 hours and paying this even more than this.

 

Super Mario Bros had replay value, it was fun playing it again even after you beat it. After you get the plat on this Spiderman game you most likely won't ever touch it again.

[thefourfoldroot]

9 hours ago, PacManKel said:

This game is being sold in the UK for £50-£60 and I finished it in 21 hrs, and when I say finish that includes the story, new game plus and earning the platinum. There is no way this game should be priced so high when it is a glorified DLC. Don’t get me wrong I enjoyed the story but I feel ripped off a bit.

£2.40 per hour of entertainment is not terrible. I suspect you might feel differently if you hadn’t played the original(?).

Still, I don’t pay this amount because I get all my games physical.  Even if I had paid the top end you mention of £60 the trade in value (when the shops open) is £41, so £19 overall for a game that would never be played again once completed anyway. So 90p per hour.

Edited November 22, 2020 by thefourfoldroot

[Gommes_]

8 hours ago, DaivRules said:

Imagine how these people would have felt finishing Super Mario Bros in 6 hours and paying this even more than this.

 

Yeah but you can't really compare that. The range of games is much wider today, your standards are different and back then every game was super short and expensive. Oh and I doubt that the average kid beated Super Mario Bros in 6 hours. ?

 

[AJ_Radio]

5 hours ago, dieselmanchild said:

I remember the good old days when $25 would easily buy you and your date a couple movie tickets and some food to share. Nowadays a single ticket is like $15+ and slowly inching towards $20 year after year, especially with all the 3D/IMAX ticket upgrades that are pretty much mandatory. Add in a double large popcorn & drink combo for 2 ppl and... *CHA CHING*... there goes another $20.

 

That’s a cool $50-60 bucks there just for 2 people to go see a movie. It’s insane. That’s probably why I never go to the theatre anymore, which is quite sad as I absolutely loved seeing movies in the theatre.

 

The second to last movie I watched in the theaters was Life of Pi.

 

Spoiler

 

 

Hard to believe it's been eight freaking years. Anyway, I actually ended up enjoying the movie, because it was a struggle for survival and learning to cope with a ferocious tiger. The 3-D effects they used were actually good.

 

I'd rather see more movies like this than the ever generic superhero movie with Michael Bay type explosions. Really got fed up with that stuff.

 

5 hours ago, dieselmanchild said:

Hollywood is so, utterly starving for creativity and originality. Every single fucking movie these days is either the same old vapid, formulaic Marvel Superhero/Michael Bay-esque film, some other soulless revival of a tried and true cash cow like Star Wars, or some form of sequel, remake, or gimmicky “reboot” (like an all-female Ghostbusters or Terminator, or some turd like Baywatch etc.)

 

I've always dwelled on Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider and Will Farrell movies. Sure, they're stupid, but that's what they're meant to be. I watched Anger Management with Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson for the first time in many years and I was literally laughing my ass off.

 

I miss stuff like that. Movies that didn't have a huge budget, but were serviceable enough to not be low budget and star a number of actors who were all extremely talented. Bernie Mac was another guy I grew up with and loved, sad that he passed on. The Rush Hour type of movie with Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. Jackie whom was my role model growing up and greatly admired the man for doing dangerous stunts. Today, they automatically throw Michael Bay explosions in place of what used to be stuntmen doing action scenes.

 

5 hours ago, dieselmanchild said:

This sad reality, coupled with outrageous ticket prices, is the main reason why I switched to television years ago. At least on television, you have audiences that are much smarter and have much longer attention spans, who are generally interested in deep, complex stories and characters that are well written, well acted, and unfold slowly over the course of one or more seasons.

 

Strangely enough it's the opposite for me. If you ask me what my favorite comedy television shows are, they are Seinfeld and Frazier. These were literally comedy gold. I have the full series of both Seinfeld and Frazier on boxsets, every once in a while I go back and watch a few episodes. There is nothing on television today that can compare. For all the dramatic shows I've seen in the past few years, I actually want good comedy for a change.

 

Yeah, I'm sort of stuck in the past. I'm a 90s kid at heart.

[Carol]

People seem to be forgetting that “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” was only 40€ when it released. I pre-ordered it and that’s what I paid; in addition, I also received “Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy” and a very beautiful theme for my PS4, that I still use today, because it continues to be my favorite theme.

ULL is a short, but great game. It’s fun, fresh, beautiful and loyal to the Uncharted formula. The reduced price tag was a way for Naughty Dog to thank the fans for the reception that U4 had and for all the patience that we had, while waiting for U4’s release. ULL was also free for people that bought U4’s season pass.

 I haven’t played the new Spider-Man yet, but I do agree that 60€/70€ is too much for a game that can be completed in a couple of days. Maybe Sony wants to compensate for the fact the PS5 consoles are “relatively” cheap.

[JediKnight_327]

It's £48 at most retailers and can be sold at CEX for £37 cash, so its really £11 for 21 hours of gameplay.

 

Of course if you chose the discless PS5 then Sony have you by the balls, but people who went digital only already knew that.

[Conor]

Great, yet another one of these cheapskater threads. Valuing a game based on how long it takes to beat regardless of the quality therein just really seems daft to me but hey, you do you, this mindset seems to be a minority one since the game is selling really well. I'd happily pay out for something I enjoy all the way through than for something I only really enjoy half of but spend the rest of that time grumbling about how grindy and drawn out it is.

 

If the game took like 2 hours to see and do everything and still cost as much then I'd probably be more sympathetic. But it isnt. 

Also, you get two versions in one purchase- one which is in line with the 2018 game and the other with the choice of 60 fps or ray-tracing. Four playthroughs, two platinums, easily looking at about 35- 40 hours in total, which is far more bang for your buck than you're letting on. Pretty disingenuous thread altogether.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Stan Lee

[Vintage__Davis]

56 minutes ago, Gommes_ said:

 

Yeah but you can't really compare that. The range of games is much wider today, your standards are different and back then every game was super short and expensive. Oh and I doubt that the average kid beated Super Mario Bros in 6 hours. ?

 

I don't know how much one would have to suck to spend 6 hours trying to beat the first SMB. SMB 3 I would understand, but the first one?

[Titanomachy_75]

11 hours ago, PacManKel said:

This game is being sold in the UK for £50-£60 and I finished it in 21 hrs, and when I say finish that includes the story, new game plus and earning the platinum. There is no way this game should be priced so high when it is a glorified DLC. Don’t get me wrong I enjoyed the story but I feel ripped off a bit.

OKKKKKK!! I guess 21 hours is the new 5 hour game! LOL 21 hours is massive!!! even if its the game and new game + its still 21 hours to do all!! You know some jrpg are 20 hours long!! Its not the length of the game its the price 29 or 39 would be fine ..But for 21 hours come on get real!! 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Titanomachy_75

[Elvick_]

50 minutes ago, Carol said:

People seem to be forgetting that “Uncharted: The Lost Legacy” was only 40€ when it released. I pre-ordered it and that’s what I paid; in addition, I also received “Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy” and a very beautiful theme for my PS4, that I still use today, because it continues to be my favorite theme.

ULL is a short, but great game. It’s fun, fresh, beautiful and loyal to the Uncharted formula. The reduced price tag was a way for Naughty Dog to thank the fans for the reception that U4 had and for all the patience that we had, while waiting for U4’s release. ULL was also free for people that bought U4’s season pass.

 I haven’t played the new Spider-Man yet, but I do agree that 60€/70€ is too much for a game that can be completed in a couple of days. Maybe Sony wants to compensate for the fact the PS5 consoles are “relatively” cheap.

It was cheap because it was initially going to be dlc,  but grew bigger. Just not a full game. Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus was also a shorter game so priced lower, and most people I still saw whining about it being short despite being cheaper. 

 

24 minutes ago, Stan Lee said:

Great, yet another one of these threads. Valuing a game based on how long it takes to beat regardless of the quality therein just seems daft to me but hey, you do you, this mindset seems to be a minority one since the game is selling really well. I'd happily pay out for something I enjoy all the way through than for something I only really enjoy half of but spend the rest of that time grumbling about how grindy and drawn out it is.

Obviously they should have required you to do 100000 crimes before the final mission appears, that’s good and fun game design!

[diskdocx]

5 minutes ago, Elvick_ said:

It was cheap because it was initially going to be dlc,  but grew bigger. Just not a full game. Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus was also a shorter game so priced lower, and most people I still saw whining about it being short despite being cheaper. 

 

Obviously they should have required you to do 100000 crimes before the final mission appears, that’s good and fun game design!

I feel like this pretty much sums it up. Most AAA games now are 20-30 hours of content at most, with a hell of a lot of filler. Repetitive side missions, boring grinds, collectibles - mostly non-essential shit that gets added in to say the game is longer than it really is.

 

Personally, I find 20 hours to be around the sweet spot for most games. If it much longer, it's probably padding. There are some exceptions, but few single player games have a main story that can run that long.

 

As for the OP comment, I'm looking through my list of 1000+ games, and I'm really struggling to come up with many examples of 20+ hour DLC packs.

 

Bottom line is, this could probably have been $10-15 less, but as a launch title with limited options to choose from, I don't think it is outrageously overpriced. Buying new day 1 will always be an expensive proposition. Trade it in, get a good chunk of your purchase price back, and call it a day.

[IesuHado]

There is more expensive games for less also I there was already told the game wasn't going to be long or big. This is the type of games that if you are not a super fan you can easily wait for a sale cause there are lots of other games you can play in the waiting.

[Dreakon13]

The argument of hours played compared to a games perceived value always bothers me.  The only argument to be made is really exaggerated examples that never actually happen (like a 2 hour game for $60)... otherwise it's just kids who have lots of time to play and little money to spend.  Sure, I get it... you have a ton of time to play games, and games that end too quickly means you have to go out and buy more of them to fill in that time, which you probably don't have the money for.  So you throw other quantifiable measurements of a game out the window and focus solely on length.  100 hours is better game than 10 hours.  That's fine and makes sense for you.

 

But there's nothing even close to objectively wrong or offensive about a 10-20 hour game for $60 (or $70)... as long as those 10-20 hours are fun, which has little to do with its length.  If it's doing something bad in those 10-20 hours then that's a different story.

 

 

9 hours ago, scemopagliaccioh said:

That was also the golden era of piracy, so it balances out with cheap prices.

 

I don't see how the NES was the "golden era of piracy"... you should probably at least pick an era with internet access for that.

 

Plus, the people stealing games probably shouldn't have opinions on pricing.  Nothing will ever beat free.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Dreakon13

[scemopagliaccioh]

19 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

The argument of hours played compared to a games perceived value always bothers me.  The only argument to be made is really exaggerated examples that never actually happen (like a 2 hour game for $60)... otherwise it's just kids who have lots of time to play and little money to spend.  Sure, I get it... you have a ton of time to play games, and games that end too quickly means you have to go out and buy more of them to fill in that time, which you probably don't have the money for.  So you throw other quantifiable measurements of a game out the window and focus solely on length.  100 hours is better game than 10 hours.  That's fine and makes sense for you.

 

But there's nothing even close to objectively wrong or offensive about a 10-20 hour game for $60 (or $70)... as long as those 10-20 hours are fun, which has little to do with its length.  If it's doing something bad in those 10-20 hours then that's a different story.

 

 

 

I don't see how the NES was the "golden era of piracy"... you should probably at least pick an era with internet access for that.

 

Plus, the people stealing games probably shouldn't have opinions on pricing.  Nothing will ever beat free.

Piracy was on LONG before mainstream access to the internet.

Here,  where I live   for example, "legit" games weren't sold, because gaming companies  gave it the same price range (or even more) than countries with a much much higher income rate (they still do, to this day) selling was almost impossible, and videogame stores decided to opt  to just sell modded consoles and pirated games, that stopped with the ps3 and the online, that made  piracy pretty useless, due to people wanting to play online, collect trophies  etc, in exchange, they didn't raise the price of games (in America, at least, Europe saw a 20 euro bump for the ps4), but if they do, people don't realize, whenever they cite older games costing 80+, that was a sketchy model  that only gave rise to piracy and made games an hobby for nerds, rather than the juggernaut it is today, bumping up more the prices is an unsustainable model, devs should focus more on cuttimg the budget before imploding.