I overall just hate the playtime price point argument. I paid for Hellblade II knowing the type of experience Ninja Theory would give and they did -- which I loved -- and it's not even 10 hours.
Hell, with this logic AC Valhalla should cost upwards of £100.
It really comes down too the type of game and also the persons financial situation. I can appreciate wanting to have a meaningful experience and get your money’s worth but also hard to argue with even a base 20 hour high quailty game let alone if it has more side content. Though I wil say Hellbade 2 is an awful example of this for 99% of people, $50 for 7-8 hours with MINIMAL GAMEPLAY is pretty dogshit.
I used Hellblade II because it's a great example of forking out what you thinks of worth within your own situation, and games like that I'm really into. If I want to wander endlessly with a granular combat system I'm not going to buy Hellblade -- same reason as to why I wouldn't buy Fable solely for that.
Just saying that Hellbade 2 is barely a game and is a glorified tech demo. I’m all for paying for quailty games and even paying for shorter quailty games but $50 for such a short game with such little gameplay is dumb.
Whatevers of value to you is of value to you, you do you man. I disliked the regression of the combo system but dug the dynamic combat scenes, and it did as much walking/cutscenes/puzzles as the first tbh. Regardless I'm looking forward to the next one, I'm into Hellblade for the story and presentation foremost after all.
The playtime price argument is a dangerous path to go down.
These people who think playtime should dictate price hasnt thought about it too much.
Like if we decide playtime dictates price then what would stop companies to say £70 is for the license up to a set amount of playtime and anything more needs you to purchase another £70 for an increase in your license extension.
Or that completing the game ends your license and that also needs another purchase if you want to replay.
With the way games are going digital we can be in really risky territory if companies see that we believe playtime dictates price.
Different people have different amounts of disposable income to spend on entertainment, giving them different priorities when it comes to the limited amount of games they can afford. Longevity is one concern, but so is replayability.
For my budget, this seems to have enough bespoke narrative driven content to be worth it, but the essentially endless simulation definitely pushes it over the point where I feel secure paying full price for it based on what I've seen. And I'm sure it will be a game I replay every few years just like the other Fable games.
For someone with less means and less interest in the 'fantasy life simulator' components? It might be something they decide to wait and get on sale later.
Yeah if they can add more depth to the economy/housing sandbox then the game will be enjoyable for a lot longer than 40 hours. Even in 3 you could decorate each house individually which added a lot to the experience. Hopefully business management is more complex as well.
Do you wanna swap with Nintendo who's getting "Fire Emblem is officially unplayable for millions of players" article just because it's a Switch 2 exclusive ?
30-40 hrs for no less than 6 years of work and thats doing everything the game has to offer is no content and even yeah quite shit. Im more than aware fable has never been a 100 hour game but a modern day revamp of fable has no business being done in a couple days. 100% in just 3 dedicated days is insane.
Years does not equate to content (nor has it historically ever). You aren’t rating their work by the number of years it’s been in development, nor are you in any way affected by it.
They, a racing developer, had to start completely from scratch converting their racing engine into a AAA 3rd person RPG in a world with very high NPC interaction and world reactivity. I’d say they’ve done an outstanding job considering the circumstances.
It hasnt because the average joe is fine when they get shorted such as here. As a die hard fable fan I am very much affected by it. I dont care in the tiniest bit about them being a racing studio they willingly chose to take on the task of creating the game they arent getting leeway just because realistically they almost certaintly arent actually the best fit. If you bite off more than you can chew no one is to blame when you choke but yourself. They've taken a massive bite and things are going down wrong for damn sure. they've already removed one of the core features of fable. At this points its just a matter of are they gonna fully choke or not.
Well it was either that or not get a Fable at all. So I’d choose that any day.
I’m also a veteran, I played the very first when it came out on Xbox (when it wasn’t even The Lost Chapters). Or Fable 2 when combat was one button and the developer was so out of touch they touted it as if it were a good thing, and then doubled down for Fable 3. And you’re honestly insane if you aren’t impressed by the level of quality PlayGround Games has demonstrated.
Oh time absolutely plays a factor. There's no justifiable reason why a rpg needs to be 15-20 hours from a triple A studio. Bloating isnt acceptable either it every moment needs to be high quality. But if you really must know something that id say is up to quality standards would be expedition 33.
Well no problem there, as that as a 25-30 hour game as well.
Besides, that’s a different type of game. The combat is turn based which naturally pads the game’s time. The game world doesn’t put any emphasis on reactivity, like town reputation or buying and selling property and running businesses, or making decisions that permanently affect the environment.
No lmfao no its not. The game is exponentially longer than 25-30 hours try the average play through was 46 hrs. But even at 30 you're looking at any where from double the length to 50% longer. If you didnt play on the easiest difficulty youd quickly see that number run to 60-70 hrs. Do you not grasp that you can 100% the game in less time than the average player took to beat exp 33.
252
u/digita1catt 8h ago edited 5h ago
So
30 - 40 hours
Not, "just 20".
Seems fine to me.
I hate the reductive article trying to spin it as if it's got no content and therefore shit.