Quality vs. Quantity

[pkmin3033]

We all measure the value of video games differently, but for many of us it always comes down to quality vs. quantity. Some people will balk at paying full price for a game that has a main story/mode/whatever of 10 hours or less, and many will say that they would rather have a shorter, more enjoyable experience than one that lasts for 80+ hours but is repetitive or lacking in story, gameplay, etc. Other factors like replay value and online multiplayer can factor into these choices too.

So, where do you draw the line between the quality of the gameplay vs. the quantity of it? What content in a game turns you away from paying a higher price for it, and what draws you in and tells you that this is good value for money?

 

[Megan]

I usually don't know much about the quality of a game until I play it. Quantity games I can play up about 60-80% through before I hit rock bottom and be like "I'm done with this game, when is it over?". Xenoblade 2 and FE:3H come to mind as the last games I played that induced this type of fatigue. At least XB2 kinda got back up at around chapter 9 and it's definitely not because I figured out how to properly use chain attacks.

Quality games I don't tend to find all too often. Or maybe I've just played too many games so that I can't even properly judge the quality of a game anymore. I suppose, "quality" means for me that I actually consider playing the "post game" of a game. Usually games end for me right when the final boss goes down and the credits roll. If a game makes me want to play the content that comes afterwards, then there's probably some quality to it.

There's a concept that I'd like to see gone: "post" game
Just put stuff into the main game, make it optional and when the credits finally roll, it's the end.

 

[machomuu]

Uh...all, or none or

Well

Price is always an option for me and really the amount of content I get out of a game doesn't really matter to me. It's always based on how much I want it. Like, always always. If I knew how much I'd eventually like it I'd probably pay 60 bucks for Undertale because it really is kind of is close to the peak of what I'd want out of game development from a conceptual standpoint.

But you never really know that at the time so I just wait for deal, really. The only time price really is no option is particular people really want to play it with me when it releases, then I have no choice. Otherwise I can usually wait.

 

[Cid]

We all measure the value of video games differently, but for many of us it always comes down to quality vs. quantity. Some people will balk at paying full price for a game that has a main story/mode/whatever of 10 hours or less, and many will say that they would rather have a shorter, more enjoyable experience than one that lasts for 80+ hours but is repetitive or lacking in story, gameplay, etc. Other factors like replay value and online multiplayer can factor into these choices too.

So, where do you draw the line between the quality of the gameplay vs. the quantity of it? What content in a game turns you away from paying a higher price for it, and what draws you in and tells you that this is good value for money?

Quality of gameplay and replayability is where it's at. I don't mind short games as long as I can play it again. If it's a long game and ends up being a one-time experience that I thoroughly enjoy, then that would be good too, but I'll probably end up replaying it again at some point if it was really that memorable. Post-games are also a huge factor for certain types of games for me. So yeah.

For some of my pet peeves, if a game has too much luck-based elements or a lot of waiting, grinding, and patience that ends up being not that worth it, that would turn me off. Outside of that, the franchise itself and what my investment to it is would dictate whether I buy it or not. It's an interesting thing to think about.

 

[gimmepie]

Quality will always trump quantity. Sure, it's nice to have a solid amount of content but I'd much rather have a short, fantastic game than a game with hours of bad-average content. Plus, I think there comes a point where no matter how good a game is, it can still feel tedious and dull if the content continues longer than it should. I think when you put an obscene amount of content into a game, you set the bar impossibly high for yourself, the more stuff you have the more difficult it becomes to make that content stack up comparatively because you can only up the ante so much.