- Dołączono
- 1 Kwi 2018
I would add to this that i think your 40 hour games have some purpose but the issue is they're considered the "norm" due to peolpe tying price with game length to justify paying for 70 to 80 dollar games now. The missing context is what the game will actually entail because most of the time about 20 to 30 hours of a game could be just busy work or navigating a large but empty feeling world. A lot of your play forever type games have systems where it's geared towards grinding and I've seen the excuse for this monotony from some peolpe being "it's fun with other people". However the thing is folks are advocating for less lenghty but well put together games than long games that are designed as virtual chores.The basic problem is the market can only absorb so many "seasonal" play-forever games. There aren't enough gamers or enough time for every game to be a 300-hour skinner box. WoW, TF2, and LoL sucked the air out of PC gaming. I used to play a new game every other weekend or so. When Call of Duty was rising, I would play just that for about half the year, the other half the year on other games. Now? Over the last few years, the only "AAA" games I've played are Diablo IV, Deep Rock Galactic, Helldivers II, and Warhammer: Darktide. I have hundreds of hours in each of those games. In the PS2 era, a typical game got 8-20 hours. 40 hours was huge. 100 hours was virtually unheard of.