Is it bad that I think that if a game offers me less than 50 hours of entertainment it was a waste of money?

Is it bad that I think that if a game offers me less than 50 hours of entertainment it was a waste of money?

Attached: 1567998276978.jpg (259x259, 8K)

Other urls found in this thread:

store.steampowered.com/app/752590/A_Plague_Tale_Innocence/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

You do you bud, but I'd prefer a game that is fun for 4 hours than a slog of garbage that takes 60 hours of trash for 2 hours of fun.

"Boy this is the best goddamn game I've played in my life"
>Credits roll, playtime shows it lasted 49 hours with 59 minutes*
"RIPPED OFF AGAIN"

literally this

Yes. You like being busy more than being entertained or any other thing.

Nah, I love RPGs because of that. Especially if they have replayability.

I felt that way in school because I only got 4 games all year during winter due to xmas and the placement of my birthday. As a working adult, entertainment value trumps all. I enjoyed parts of Wasteland 2 but it was seriously way too long. Haven't touched a JRPG in years, and I've been avoiding open world busywork like the plague

depends on the cost

kek

Yes

What if the game only cost $25?

nigga, you are thinking about weekly work hour

Just google the plague, is this the game you are talking about?
store.steampowered.com/app/752590/A_Plague_Tale_Innocence/

>Is it bad that I think that if a game offers me less than 50 hours of entertainment it was a waste of money?
Yeah, it's pretty bad. It means you have very narrow view of games, and seem to be incapable of appreciating games on any form of qualitative scale, or appreciate different kinds of experiences that games can offer.

Basically it means you are very, very narrowminded and limited as a person, and probably blind to what is in front of you.

Still, there are enough games to cater to your weirdly narrow demands, so it's not that bad.

I can think of maybe three games longer than 50 hours that I actually cared about

Hell none of my top 3 games of all time take more rhen like 30 for a casual playthrough

Anything longer than that is ususally padded to all hell and I dont have the patience to go through 20 hours of virtual chores to get to a part of a game I might actually care about

It's a pretty stupid way of thinking:

1) What about the quality of your experience? Surely a higher quality game is better

2) Games vary significantly in price so your fun per hour metric is variable anyway

I never really saw the point in valuing quantity over quality, though I guess I also never had a hard time getting games. I always hear stories of only being able to afford 1 game a year "so make it count" and the like but that wasn't the case for me growing up.

Yes. Yes it is.

If a game is 50 hours long I've probably been bored for half that

imo if that was their case might as well go full pirate

What about games that are short, but you can play for more than 50 hours?

Yeah, it means you’re either a shit tier wage slave or just brain dead. The value of a game should be proportional to the enjoyment and lasting appeal of it, not the time spent playing. A game that is 10 hours long and fantastic is a better purchase than a 50 hour mediocre game. The best games I’ve played in the last few years have almost always been under 10 hours for the main quest.

From the way he worded it, OP is probably one of those who look to complete as many games as possible (aka complete the story) and then move on instead of playing to enjoy the gameplay
I could be wrong here because he said "50 hours of entertainment", but why that exact number and why you can't go further, idk

Funny thing is I know people who also complain about being busy and don't have enough time for video game, but also complain that he "heard" about a game only took 15-20 hours to complete (meaning just the usual story, not even post game or anything) and those ain't worth money
It's a real puzzle

i paid $20 for overwatch and dumped about 200 hours on it yet i feel ripped off