What if the game was half the length but twice as good?
Its a combination of the two; not just one or the other. A game that was like 20 minutes long but packed full of meticulous detail and had incredible detailed, well-thought mechanics would be cool for....twenty minutes. Likewise a 300 hour long game where you just walk across an empty landscape would be boring as all fuck.
It's subjective.
It usually depends on how poor the person is.
If you are rich you won't mind paying for something of the highest quality regardless of price and duration. You can afford it and don't mind.
If you are poor you won't mind paying for something of little quality as long as it is long and cheap.
This applies to everything, from cars to food or video games. It's difficult to find analogies since there really aren't video games for rich people. You could say Honda Civics are to Terraria what Ferraris are to... there's nothing similar.
>>336315124
You could apply that logic to other industries, such as food or cars; but high-priced videogames don't automatically mean they are higher quality than lower priced ones. Compare Fable: The Journey when that came out at $60. That piece of shit is nowhere near the quality of like say, Terraria, which is a third the price at most.
Its always entirely dependent on the game in question. There isn't really a general rule of thumb to follow.
The Order 1886 was short yet very good. Is the acceptable?
>>336314761
It varys from person to person.
>>336314761
Obviously a game that has both is preferable, but as long as there's a decent amount of both, or a really high amount of one of them, there are bound to be people who find the game worthwhile.
>>336315753
>Grafix
>>336314761
The most important thing is that the game does exactly what it needs to do in the amount of time it gives you to do it. A short game that is very fulfilling and enjoyable is more preferable to me than a long game that is frustrating to play. The exact same thing can be said for a reverse scenario, so the moral of the story is that a game must be, above all things, be well-paced. A game needs to pace itself in a way that benefits the story it wants to tell just like any narrative should.
Quality is not determined by length. It's determined by how the game was crafted and how it takes advantage of that.
I'd say a balanced amount is ideal, but that just comes off as trite considering how many times it's been said.
I think the longer a game is the more apparent the flaws in a game will become, as the player is exposed to the same mechanics/system for a prolonged amount of time, and thus aware of them. This was especially evident when I was playing Agarest. At the same time, however, short games, regardless of their quality, ever feel worth the price if they are sold at retail price or at full price. Considering this, I never like to gauge the quality of a game under a cost/time benchmark, but rather what it does with the time alloted.
Long, engaging experiences worth to be invested in are just as good as impactful, 2 hour games.
