Length and "Value for Money"

[prinnysquad]

I can't believe people are getting so "upset" because some people who played the trial/demo of LIMBO commented on it with opinions that didn't match theirs. Does that mean the people who played the trial and had positive opinions shouldn't be allowed to say anything too?!

My "puzzles trying to be clever" comment, I still totally stand by it. A number of people I know who have played the full game have come back to me with similar comments so I'm not totally alone in my thinking. So what if people made comments such as "dull" or "lacking in enjoyment" after playing the trial/demo?! Are they not allowed to give their opinion because it might upset the LIMBO lovers?!

As Jebus hinted, I guess we should change the first play thread rules to "do not comment on a game until you have completed the full game or got to a certain point as your opinion does not matter before that and you might upset people who have completed the game or love it more than life itself".

Good God, have you actually read anything I've put?

I 100% absolutely agree with people giving opinions AT ANY STAGE of the game.
I also, personally, believe that MY opinion is more valuable TO ME on a WHOLE product rather than a part.

[ezee ryder]

It wasn't a direct reply to you (otherwise I would of quoted you), it was just a general post. Oh and I did read what you posted.

[prinnysquad]

Well that's ok then!

Anyway, back to VFM.

Yeah. Depends on so many factors. Including your economic wellbeing. Near the end of a month, I'm very hesitant to buy anything that doesn't have instant returns, as I'd have to exist on bread and water for a week should I buy it.

My perceived VFM on a game could be very affected by how much money I have at that particular point. A game whose VFM is pretty good at the start of the month could constitute significantly less VFM at the end, when funds are precious.

[Jebus]

OK, so is the demo or trial of LIMBO not a representative of the full game? Are the puzzles vastly different in their implementation?!

Personally I think it's a fair indication of the full game.

[Matt]

As Jebus hinted, I guess we should change the first play thread rules to "do not comment on a game until you have completed the full game or got to a certain point as your opinion does not matter before that and you might upset people who have completed the game or love it more than life itself".

Hilariously accurate. Some people are so ****ing precious about things they've purchased.

Of course, opinions are better formed when you've played through a full game. But you shouldn't have to buy a game where you didn't like the demo for your opinion to count.

I also propose from hereon in NO ONE can comment in Headlines until they've played those games. No, "Wow that looks amazing!" because clearly you've not seen a true representation of the game.

[prinnysquad]

Nothing wrong with that as long as you realise it's a very tentative first impression, that may be wholly wrong. Just like the guy who saw your trailer and thought it was a SOTD rip-off!

I find the degree of my opinion is reflected by the depth of my experience. Nothing 'wrong' with any of them though.

[Brats]

Hilariously accurate.

No it isn't. Only one person on the forum is saying that, everyone else is saying that people who have played the demo have a valid opinion, but it isn't as informed as someone who has played the whole game.

[Brats]

Back on the VFM point (instead of point scoring over the Limbo thread) I still can't see that anyone has answered the point which TTK raised, which is:

the length of the experience should in no way be the deciding factor as to what a game costs. Why do people do it to games? Why don't people do it to other media?

Which is a fair point. Why do people take length into account with games, but not with books or film? I agree you can't directly compare different media, but it is perfectly reasonable to cross compare them in this way.

Why is length so important to games to so many people?

[EvilBoris]

Especially when if a game is truly very short, you can sell it on and then it's only cost £10 or so.

I get more annoyed if I've bought a game and I hate it. That's the worst value for money, but hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained

[Matt]

Nothing wrong with that as long as you realise it's a very tentative first impression, that may be wholly wrong. Just like the guy who saw your trailer and thought it was a SOTD rip-off!

I've discussed this with a few people, and no-one can see any similarity with SOTD in the slightest - except, er, it's got zombies in it. Conclusion - guy has either never seen SOTD, or never watched any zombie film other than SOTD

[fallenangle]

Back on the VFM point (instead of point scoring over the Limbo thread) I still can't see that anyone has answered the point which TTK raised, which is:



Which is a fair point. Why do people take length into account with games, but not with books or film? I agree you can't directly compare different media, but it is perfectly reasonable to cross compare them in this way.

Why is length so important to games to so many people?

I explained why I think something like an action/adventure or RPG needs a (genuine) longevity simply to allow the player time to immerse themselves in the created gaming world.

I also think people do take into account film and book length, particularly when they're considering buying them. DVDs/Blu Rays are usually packed
with extra content, increasing their longevity, for the very reason that this is seen to improve their percieved VFM.

Books, not that I've bought one for years, are, or at least used to be priced within certain categories usually determined by a combination of their length and printing/production costs. A 600+ page John Grisham novel would therefore cost more than a 175 page classic of English literature. I assume this is still the case.

IMHO it should be the same for games - a cheaply made or short game, however good, should cost less than an epic and/or high production value, expensive game that has been years in development.

[Welrain]

I do look at a book and if it's 100 pages at £6.99 when a novel is usually the same price I would pass. Just like I wouldn't go to the cinema and pay £8 to watch a 30 min film. I have certain vfm expectations in both cases as I have with games. Its' basic economics really - opportunity cost at all that. I demand a certain amount of bang for my buck. Although I would never compare across the different types of media...as that is pointless and makes no sense.

In the games market you do find that cheaply made games to drop in value quicker that the bigger titles anyway. Market forces for the win!

[Guts]

Which is a fair point. Why do people take length into account with games, but not with books or film? I agree you can't directly compare different media, but it is perfectly reasonable to cross compare them in this way.

Why is length so important to games to so many people?

I take length into account with films. Sometimes I'll rather watch for example an 80-minute action flick or a comedy than a 200-minute historical epic, especially if I'm renting a film with friends.

I would also rather buy a 300-page graphic novel for 20£, than a 20-page one if they both would seem about as interesting, because the 300-page one would keep me entertained for longer.

Same thing with games, if I can get 100 hours of entertainment from a 40£ game, how could it not be better than getting 8 hours?

I suppose if I would have virtually unlimited amount of money to spend on my entertainment, lenght wouldn't matter since I could just keep buying more constantly but since I don't, it basically boils down to "more bang for the buck", like GMass said.

[Charlie]

I have absolutely no need for people to agree or disagree with my opinions, I don't feel I need for my opinions to be the opinions of the majority for them to hold any value.

A good philosophy to adhere to and one, I feel, which more people should adopt.

It's not uncommon, when a game is criticised on ntsc, to see certain individuals embark on a series of posts to try to prove that what they've said is right, that their opinion is somehow smarter or truer than an opposing opinion, often by pouring scorn on what their 'opponents' have said or, failing that, ridiculing their character. It's strange behaviour and behaviour which ultimately only weakens their position because someone confident in their judgement seldom cares whether it's supported or opposed.

[JP]

It makes absolutely no sense to compare incomparable mediums, it's something that's done far too often on gaming sites for some reason.

I don't really feel this thread is about the the length of a game and the rating it gets, from the first post on it feels far more like the people who are supportive of the game are trying to get other people to judge things based on the principles they judged it on.

Some professional reviews will work to stringent guidelines as to how that review is produced to keep the reviews level and to minimise the affect of reviewers being overtly qualitative in the review.

Opinions are not obliged to follow set guidelines however much the original post seems to want us all to base our feelings about the game on them. I do like that people are passionate about things but let's also be passionate about people's right to make their own decisions without being told they've not understood what they should be basing those decisions on.

If somebody has only seen one screenshot of the game and decided that they think they won't enjoy the because it's monochrome, they have every right to voice that opinion. I may well disagree with them and I also have every right to voice that opinion.

I wouldn't dare to suggest that they need to be assessing the game's worth using the same rules that I use to assess it. I actually find that offensive and it is something that appears to be happening increasingly on here for some reason.

I've spent an hour or so playing the game now and in all honestly when it comes to the length of the game, if that's a problem it's not the biggest problem.

Maybe I'm just imagining but over the past few years there seems to have been a growing movement of people choosing to support smaller developers purely for the fact that they aren't one of the major studios. I'm all for supporting the smaller games and developers but because they're small, because it's taken them years to make, because they've put their hearts and souls into a game does not mean it is any more valid than a major studio's game.

I can however respect what the developers have managed to do even if I don't enjoy the game.

I was going to put my feelings about the game in the first play thread but that thread feels a little pointless now.

My main problem with the game is that I found it to be really bland, it felt somewhat like an interactive cut-scene to me due to it being just so linear. It reminded somewhat of the what some people were criticising Heavy Rain for that was released and yet there seems to be far more gameplay in each scene of that than in the hour or so that I played this.

It does mainly look very attractive but the design of the main character is completely unremarkable. The audio is where this really stands out for me, more often that not they've left it to just the atmospherics which works really well for me.

The seemingly endless "We're going to kill you without warning then put you on the same screen again but now you'll know where the trap is that you need to avoid" gameplay was poor when it was done years ago and still feels poor to me now.

It's certainly not the worst game I've played but it's nothing special to me.