• 160 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by jimmyfenix (3688 posts) -

"Dear critics: Stop sneering at players who don’t buy short games, you’re being assholes"

Gone home looks like a fantastic game but the only "criticism" some gamers have made is the pricing of the game which only last 2-3 hours.

Here is an excerpt of the article. Here is the full article

"Gone Home can be finished in a few hours. I believe I finished Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons in about three or so. Both are fantastic games, well worth your time and money, but there has been this oddly pretentious backlash against gamers who say that these games are too short.

I've read plenty of comments that note, at the current asking price, some people just aren’t willing to spend the money for what amounts to a few hours of entertainment. And then critics and developers shake their heads sadly at the unwashed masses who just don't understand QUALITY and ARTISTRY.

There is a part of me, and I’ll admit it’s probably a snobby part, that also balks at the idea of measuring the worth of a game by its length. We don’t value paintings by the foot, do we? When you pay more for a nice Scotch, you don’t get more in the bottle, you simply get a better product. We don’t remove points from certain films because they’re under three hours, and likewise epic-length films aren’t better simply because they’re longer.

It can be frustrating when people dismiss entertainment due to its length, but I’m uncomfortable with casting any judgment on anyone due to how or why they do or don’t buy certain games. Keep in mind that games, in a broad sense, are supposed to be fun.

The dollar per hour valuation isn't meaningless

Critics don’t have to look at games and see a dollar per hour value, and that’s a pretty shitty way to judge games as art. But I also get uncomfortable when critics, writers, or even developers sneer at players who are being smart consumers and making purchasing decisions to get the most bang for their buck, especially at launch when games are their most expensive."

I dont mind if i pay the full price of a game which would only last me a couple of hours. Its the quality i am after but i see why some people would critise the price of a game which would only last a couple of hours.

Here is a couple of tweets from some journalists also former creative director Adrian Chmielarz of People can fly on this topic and Greg Kasavin from Super Giant Games. Also i understand Greg`s Stance on this subject

What do you guys think ? Is it right for critics to "sneer" at gamers who wont buy Gone home because it is too short and a tad expensive? Or do you think Ben makes a point in this article. Also i don't think Adam is an asshole :(

#2 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

Having been a video game player since 1994, having played tons of games and spent hundreds of hours in them, I still firmly believe that video games should not be compared to any other medium of entertainment.

The moment you sink your hands into a piece of entertainment and it becomes interactive, the value and standards should differ enormously from the ones you have for watching a movie or staring at a painting.

Quality and artistry are fine, diversity is great, creativity kicks ass, but we're paying money to interact with a piece of software, and that interactivity needs to last a while.

#3 Posted by ThunderSlash (1374 posts) -

I'm with Greg Kasavin. Sometimes when left with the choice of buying either a great short game or a good long game, I will opt for the longer game because "Hey, I have all this free time and I'd rather not finish that game in a sitting."

Also, Adrian might be pulling that statistic out of his ass. So what if they don't finish a game.

Also also, Adam is definitely not an asshole and I bet he smells real nice.

#4 Edited by 2HeadedNinja (1453 posts) -

Also, Adrian might be pulling that statistic out of his ass. So what if they don't finish a game.

I dont have a real opinion about all of this, but this specific statistic I have heard plenty of times, maybe not the exact same number but that a significant number of people don't finish long games.

#5 Edited by SamStrife (1280 posts) -

I believe value should be judged seperately from the "artistry" of the product but it is still a massive issue.

There is no one out there with any right to tell others how to spend their money. Situations vary wildly for people and if a kid spent a good portion of his gaming allowance on Gone Home and finishes it in 2 hours, that's a problem. Sure, the kid could have done his research but life doesn't always work like that.

The last thing those people need are "rich" people saying they should appreciate the "artistry" and have spent their money wildly. Every case is different.

#6 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1274 posts) -

@thunderslash said:

Also, Adrian might be pulling that statistic out of his ass. So what if they don't finish a game.

I dont have a real opinion about all of this, but this specific statistic I have heard plenty of times, maybe not the exact same number but that a significant number of people don't finish long games.

It may be true that of out of everyone who plays games only 25% tend to finish them, but I would bet a large majority of the people not finishing games don't even know what Gone Home is. I think it's safe to say that most of the people complaining about the length/price of some of these really short indie games are the kinds of gamers that finish the majority of the games they play.

#7 Posted by Ramone (2932 posts) -

The games press are in a very privileged position where they generally don't have to buy a lot of the games they play, it's understandable that this might skew their view on the value of certain shorter experiences. They also don't have the time to play a lot of longer games. This disparity between critics and their audiences is always going to cause issues of perspective like this.

I don't think calling them assholes is the right way to go about starting this debate and I also haven't seen anyone sneering at us normal folk but it is a discussion worth having.

#8 Posted by SunBroZak (853 posts) -

It's subjective and situational. How you define experience vs time played and how much time/money you have to spend on video-games factor into the argument in a big way, and I don't think either side can understand the diversity of those two variables. In the end, it's up to the consumer to decide where his/her money is best spent, and if Gone Home's price point doesn't justify the experience, then they can buy it at a cheaper price later.

#9 Posted by DeeGee (2098 posts) -

Of course he's right, it boggles me that anyone could disagree with him.

I have a certain amount of money that I can spend on games before it cuts into my money for things like food and rent and travel costs. So I pretty much will always choose not to buy a short game, especially when it has almost zero replay value, until it comes dramatically down in price.

#10 Posted by Jimbo (9712 posts) -

Reviewers shouldn't be considering total hours or price in their judgement of a game at all, but of course it's absolutely fine for the reader to do so. The reader is the only person in a position to make that value call for themselves and nobody should sneer at them for doing so.

Feel free to sneer at reviewers who base their judgement of a game on time/price value though. That isn't their job and they are in no way equipped to make that call for the reader. Reviewers should concern themselves with quality, not value.

#11 Posted by ThunderSlash (1374 posts) -

@thunderslash said:

Also, Adrian might be pulling that statistic out of his ass. So what if they don't finish a game.

I dont have a real opinion about all of this, but this specific statistic I have heard plenty of times, maybe not the exact same number but that a significant number of people don't finish long games.

His estimation is not off, looking at Steam Achievement numbers for popular games can kinda show that not a lot of people finish the games they bought. I just find his point to be lacking. Let the individuals decide whether if a game is worth finishing, no matter how long it is and how much they like it.

#12 Edited by SuperTess (137 posts) -

This just in: "worth" is relative! Thanks Ben Kuchera, Games Criticism Police! Sorry, I just find him tiresome at times. He takes a stance of critics should be nice by calling them assholes. Nice. Was there a lot of sneering pretentiousness from critics? I haven't read much outside of Giant Bomb coverage, other than some fantastic essays that were linked on Twitter.

#13 Posted by Molenator85 (206 posts) -

I got to the second false equivalency in that statement and stopped reading. Almost everything that guy has done has seemed like the kind journalism that is trying to hard to blow peoples minds.

#14 Edited by Christoffer (1658 posts) -

I have to admit I kind of look at "length" as a part of the overall quality. It might not be right but that's the truth. Loosing myself deep into a game for a weekend or even a whole week is kind of why I play games. If it's fun and gives me something to chew on, I'm happy. If it's brilliant but doesn't last through a cup of coffee, I'm sad.

I should add that I don't care much about video game stories. Now I'm the asshole.

#15 Posted by DystopiaX (5241 posts) -

Patrick used "check your privilege" in his comment on this article lol

Not a knock against patrick, I just find that phrase amusing

As for the actual issue itself, I agree with Ben, but I also agree with some of the comments in that I haven't seen a lot of critics actually do this- I have seen many argue that the experience is worth the 20 dollars no matter the length, but I wouldn't call what they are doing "sneering" at the people who are asking about the dollar/length value of the game.

As someone who can't afford all of the games that I want, and have to often not play or wait awhile to play many games, I'm on the side that totally would like to play many of these experiences and does want to know the value I'm getting for my money. This isn't necessarily length-related, as I did buy Gone Home and have purchased other games of a short length in the past, but I do factor length into my considerations along with the quality of the game and the price (the supposed quality of Gone Home having won in this instance), and when faced with buying a long game vs a short one of relatively equal quality, would probably choose the long one.

I'm not - and I'm sure all of the gamers who are are asking about the price are not- suggesting that length factors into the quality of a game, or that a game must be long to be good or worth buying, or even, as some game critics/reporters/essayists have suggested, trying to influence the game industry to create longer experiences over shorter ones (a weird argument that I've found over this whole debate). Obviously the quality of the game comes first, and the length of the game should be secondary to the quality, but at the same time it's not like the length is irrelevant in a discussion about games, and when money is tight, as it is for some gamers, the length does matter when making a purchasing decision. Belittling those who think so is just dumb.

#16 Posted by rachelepithet (1262 posts) -

This game is targeted at an age group in which $20 costs as much to them as $10 does gamings teen audience.

#17 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Just another disconnect between people that get games for free and those that have to pay for them.

#18 Edited by DonChipotle (2659 posts) -

I've got no problem with short games. But if a game is short, before I make the purchase I have to ask if it'll be worth the price. I paid full price for Mad World and I finished that game the day I got it. I did the same again with Metal Gear Rising. Rising was worth the price to me; Mad World wasn't. I played Gone Home. I do not think the experience was worth the twenty dollar price. Not to decry the game or anything, but to me what I got - while worth a playthrough - was not worth the asking price.

I don't get upset at anyone who thinks otherwise, either. Short games are not some terrible blight. Gone Home is exactly as long as it needed to be. But, to me, it isn't a twenty dollar game.

#19 Posted by Morningstar (2061 posts) -

It's subjective, nobody should tell me what games to buy, on what grounds and how I should value games. Let people value their games they way they want, it's their money and their choice.

#20 Posted by mracoon (4915 posts) -

I haven't seen any critics sneering at players and he doesn't give any examples either, so I don't understand who he's arguing with. There's nothing wrong in critics telling people they're missing out if they don't play Gone Home, that's there job, but they can't assess each individual's financial status. If you're a person who wants your money to last the longest possible time, then there are sites that exist which tell you how long it'll take to beat a game. You can't blame critics for saying a game is a worthwhile experience if that's the thought they had after finishing a game.

Moderator
#21 Posted by SamStrife (1280 posts) -

This game is targeted at an age group in which $20 costs as much to them as $10 does gamings teen audience.

Ignorant comment of the day award, right here.

#22 Posted by Fattony12000 (6378 posts) -

There are (at least) thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands of potential variations to the situations that all the people who buy and play video games are in. Just like with everything, any one thing is at least a thousand million times more complex than you think it is. Ben's view is but one view in that sea of views.

#views

I, for instance, hate how this repost of someone's else work will get more views and replies than these two things that I did (fatbomb-follow-your-bliss & japlanning-i-m-going-to-japan).

But that's just like, my view, man.

#advertising

#23 Posted by Humanity (8016 posts) -

I've been arguing this for a while now, and I agree. I mostly agree with the sentiment that game reviewers have a somewhat snobby reaction to gamers that start to calculate gametime into price.

In short, I can afford Gone Home for $20 no problem, but I don't believe that is a fair price for the experience they are offering no matter how enjoyable it is in the end. If a games value is so subjective then let's allow publishers to price all games that get rave reviews at $150 because hey, it's just THAT good. There are price standards to which all games adhere and when you step outside of those standards then you get people that are simply not going to buy your product no matter how good the reviews are. Kerbal Space Program? Yah I'll buy that for $20. Gone Home? No, maybe $10 or $15 at most but no matter how awesome the story is I'm not going to support the idea that a 2hr long interactive story simulator is worth $20.

Online
#24 Posted by Dixavd (1147 posts) -

Again I'm going to have to concur with Ben's basic message but disagree with the way he said it. Also, I have yet to see that these "sneering" critics he keeps talking about aren't just in his head.

As for me though, I have a very personal opinion on length in games. Since it takes me a while to get into a game (it takes me hours to get invested in a game's mechanics, story and setting - something which for me must be earned) then a short game tends to disappoint me. I should also say that I'm one of those people Adrian is talking about that rarely finishes a game. And I am not-only-okay with that, but I'm quite happy with it. If I finish a game, then one of two things must have happened (usually): 1) it was so short, I finished it before I got enough out of it and truly became invested in the game; or 2) it was such an amazing game, I couldn't not finish it. Either way I've a melancholy disappointed feeling afterwards (I'm disappointed because I never truly wowed me, or I'm disappointed because it did in such a powerful way and now it's over).

That's just me though. I'd never try and tell others how to play games or how to spend their money. But I also hate the argument that a low number of people finishing a game is inherently a bad thing. It's like people from all sides are thinking "I shouldn't tell people what to do with their time or money since everyone enjoys things differently - but I'm going to vocally judge them anyway". It's still a minority of people who think that, but this thread is indicative of the fact that those people are the ones that get linked to.

#25 Posted by Marokai (2640 posts) -

I agree with him wholeheartedly; price matters to people. The example he makes about food is a perfect way to explain how the thought process.

I have four kids, and you better believe I think of the cost per plate when we go out to eat, and that changes where we might go. It doesn’t mean I don’t like or appreciate better food, served in teeny tiny portions artfully prepared, it just means that in this situation value is important, and it’s definitely a factor. I'm not devaluing the art of food, I'm just taking a bunch of personal factors into account, and finding out that the Olive Garden isn't terrible for families.

I don't think that critics should have to start judging their games solely on a price to length ratio, but price does matter, and length does matter, and even if it shouldn't the the crux of how you judge a game's worth critically, it's a fair way to base your purchasing decisions as an average consumer, and no one should judge that.

Patrick's comment irked me because it was completely vacuous. He says he agrees, pretty much, that people shouldn't judge others for how they base their purchasing decision and that price and length can and do matter, but he takes no responsibility as a critic himself to actually inform his audience. He neglected to mention price and length in his review for Gone Home. And while that may not be how he judged the game at all and didn't impact his review, that's not the point. If it matters, and reviews are supposed to be there as buying advice, we deserve to know that information and it is your responsibility to inform your audience of something you claim to consider valuable information.

Gone Home looks really interesting. But I don't want to spend 20 dollars when my budget is incredibly limited. I don't like to buy extremely short games, as a general rule, unless I get them for a very cheap cost or already know ahead of time I like something about it. I shouldn't be looked down on by people who live in their ivory tower as someone who "can't appreciate a game with meaning" or some bullshit, or acting like I'm "part of the problem" because I try to watch out for my money. Yeah, if any part of Adam Sessler reacts condescendingly to people who don't want to spend a disproportionate amount of money for a very short game, he is an asshole. Fuck Patrick's emphasis on tone of discourse.

#26 Edited by Ghostiet (5153 posts) -

Adrian Chmielarz is not a journalist, just by the way.

#27 Posted by laserbolts (5309 posts) -

A 2 hour game shouldn't be 20 bucks. Plain and simple.

#28 Edited by churrific (457 posts) -

@marokai: I agree with that bit about Patrick. It's an error on his part to not have basic details on the game listed somewhere, esp. so for an outlying game like this. At this point, it's just due diligence with the way these short games are evolving into things that are to be praised.

#29 Posted by Hailinel (22762 posts) -

Kuchera calls his peers assholes, and he thinks it's justified. Suggest he acts like a dick on Twitter, and he'll block you without any attempt at discussion. He loves aggressive language, so long as he's the one being the aggressor.

#30 Edited by jimmyfenix (3688 posts) -
#31 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1274 posts) -

@marokai: I agree with that bit about Patrick. It's an error on his part to not have basic details on the game listed somewhere, esp. so for an outlying game like this. At this point, it's just due diligence with the way these short games are evolving into things that are to be praised.

There is absolutely no reason price should have to be mentioned in a review. He critiqued the game as it is, it's up to the consumer to decide if the price is worth it, the reviewer need only assess the game well enough for the reader to make that decision on their own. It's not as though you can buy the game without knowing how much it costs, so Patrick choosing not bring up the price in his review doesn't really make a difference.

#32 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1274 posts) -

@jimmyfenix

@ghostiet said:

Adrian Chmielarz is not a journalist, just by the way.

Neither is Greg Kasavin.

#33 Posted by Demoskinos (13927 posts) -

Im kind of with him. Im not paying $20 for a 2hour experience like Gone Home when that experience isn't repayable. If I get a short game that has reasons to play it over and over like leaderboards or mission ranks. The conversation changes a bit.

#34 Edited by churrific (457 posts) -

@ll_exile_ll said:

@churrific said:

@marokai: I agree with that bit about Patrick. It's an error on his part to not have basic details on the game listed somewhere, esp. so for an outlying game like this. At this point, it's just due diligence with the way these short games are evolving into things that are to be praised.

There is absolutely no reason price should have to be mentioned in a review. He critiqued the game as it is, it's up to the consumer to decide if the price is worth it, the reviewer need only assess the game well enough for the reader to make that decision on their own. It's not as though you can buy the game without knowing how much it costs, so Patrick choosing not bring up the price in his review doesn't really make a difference.

I mean just reading the internet these days, game length vs. price obviously means something to a significant chunk of people. Whether that's an ok value metric or not doesn't really matter anymore. He should just be providing that type of info. out for all those people that care and use it as part of their decision-making process.

#35 Posted by mpgeist (579 posts) -

I hate that I somewhat agree with Kuchera on anything...The length of the game, especially in terms of value to someone buying it, should not be the only deciding factor in buying a game, but I think it should be included in the decision making. If they decide not to buy it because they don't feel the price is justified then I don't understand why that is something to be scorned. The games business is not a charity.

#36 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1274 posts) -

@ll_exile_ll said:

@churrific said:

@marokai: I agree with that bit about Patrick. It's an error on his part to not have basic details on the game listed somewhere, esp. so for an outlying game like this. At this point, it's just due diligence with the way these short games are evolving into things that are to be praised.

There is absolutely no reason price should have to be mentioned in a review. He critiqued the game as it is, it's up to the consumer to decide if the price is worth it, the reviewer need only assess the game well enough for the reader to make that decision on their own. It's not as though you can buy the game without knowing how much it costs, so Patrick choosing not bring up the price in his review doesn't really make a difference.

I mean just reading the internet these days, game length vs. price obviously means something to a significant chunk of people. Whether that's an ok value metric or not doesn't really matter anymore. He should just be providing that type of info. out for all those people that care and use it as part of their decision-making process.

My point was that you can't very well buy the game without knowing the price, so anyone is still free to use that info in their decision making process, there is just no need to demand that info come from the review. The review informs you of the quality and I think it's better if price stuff is left out.

#37 Posted by churrific (457 posts) -

@churrific said:

@ll_exile_ll said:

@churrific said:

@marokai: I agree with that bit about Patrick. It's an error on his part to not have basic details on the game listed somewhere, esp. so for an outlying game like this. At this point, it's just due diligence with the way these short games are evolving into things that are to be praised.

There is absolutely no reason price should have to be mentioned in a review. He critiqued the game as it is, it's up to the consumer to decide if the price is worth it, the reviewer need only assess the game well enough for the reader to make that decision on their own. It's not as though you can buy the game without knowing how much it costs, so Patrick choosing not bring up the price in his review doesn't really make a difference.

I mean just reading the internet these days, game length vs. price obviously means something to a significant chunk of people. Whether that's an ok value metric or not doesn't really matter anymore. He should just be providing that type of info. out for all those people that care and use it as part of their decision-making process.

My point was that you can't very well buy the game without knowing the price, so anyone is still free to use that info in their decision making process, there is just no need to demand that info come from the review. The review informs you of the quality and I think it's better if price stuff is left out.

Eh I kind of disagree with that myself. This is the one medium where the concept of price = quality matters the most to me. How good a game I perceive could probably be directly impacts the price I'm willing to pay for it (i.e. whether or not it's on sale). How long a game is could be part of that formula for determining how good a game is, or it might not.

#38 Edited by Marokai (2640 posts) -

Are reviews supposed to be buying advice or the pointless self-indulgent ramblings of the author? If I'm supposed to read a review and know whether or not I want to purchase it or not, or at least have a better idea, I am not well served by someone deliberately omitting vital product information like price or length, especially when that reviewer himself admits that they are crucial components of a buying decision. Reviews are already near-pointless in their current form as it is.

#39 Posted by Chaser324 (5988 posts) -

In my opinion, judging a game's quality and its value are two separate things, and I think they should stay that way. With the possible exception of free to play or otherwise heavily "monetized" games (which maybe can't or shouldn't be traditionally reviewed anyway), I don't think discussions of pricing have a place in a critical analysis of a game. It's the reviewers job to provide a full assessment of the product, which probably does warrant a mention of game length, but it's up to the consumer to decide if the price is justified.

On the flip side, I think the backlash against games that some consumers feel are "overpriced" is largely far too harsh. If you can't justify the purchase of a game at a particular price point, then that's perfectly fine. Don't buy it. And if you've made the decision not to buy it, don't turn around and harass people that are in a different financial situation that allows them to buy and enjoy the game. Also, please don't confuse your frustration at the value proposition as an implication about any aspect of the quality of the game, and don't interpret positive reviews as being inflated, blatant lies, or a slight towards you. As has been stated, most reviewers are assessing quality and not value.

Moderator
#40 Edited by Winsord (1066 posts) -

This is Justin McElroy's (Polygon writer) comment on the article:

I obviously think everyone on internet should be allowed to judge by whatever criteria they like, because I love freedom.

But the dollar per hour issue is problematic for me because it encourages cruft. Take Dragon's Crown for example. I think that would have made a great 6-8 hour game, but instead I was force to repeat levels endlessly until the parts of the game that worked well were totally diluted. I have no idea if the game was designed this way to justify a certain price tag, but it's the sort of outcome you can expect when we have some idea of what an hour of game costs.

In short: I'm not sure how you solve this problem without punishing creators who are concise.

I feel like this side of the argument misses the point people who are saying it's too expensive are trying to make. It's not that consumers who are more budget-conscientious are looking for Gone Home to be a longer game, it's not padding we're looking for, but it's a price appropriate for the experience. Padding in games for length is usually both obvious and not very fun to play through, and I don't think anyone who's arguing Gone Home is overpriced to them is saying that's what they want. It's people asking for price to better scale to the size of game in this case, not the other way around. I don't agree with the argument that the developers are being unfair for asking that price, but it's totally fair for people to also no be willing to pay that much. Even though I'll be waiting for a lower price, I'm happy other people are enjoying it now.

Personally, I haven't seen many people saying that the other side is wrong unless they've misconstrued the argument a bit like I feel Justin has, so it just kind of seems like a non-issue. There are a lot of people who feel the price is fair to them, and a lot of people who don't, but I haven't really seen game critics scoffing at those who say it costs too much, but rather just re-stating that they really feel it's worth it. It's not fair, nor sensible really, to be mad at someone in a different financial state than you and/or who values things differently than you. For those of us who think Gone Home costs much, it's pretty simple, don't buy it until it reaches a price that you do actually think is fair. For those who think its value makes sense based on how much it costs, they enjoy it sooner rather than later. You don't need to have a game the moment it comes out, so if it's not worth it don't complain, just wait. If the game really is too expensive for everyone, they won't sell any copies and the developers will have to choose whether to leave the price and make no money or lower it to where it meets more peoples' expectations.

#41 Posted by hollitz (1183 posts) -

I'm with Kuchera on this one.

It's not a critic's job to sell you a game that they are getting for free.

#42 Posted by Chaser324 (5988 posts) -
Moderator
#43 Edited by Winsord (1066 posts) -
#44 Posted by Sergio (1775 posts) -

What some people don't get, like Philip Kollar (surprise, considering he's from Polygon), is that it's not that people don't want to play short games, it's that the game might not be priced correctly for some people.

#45 Posted by AlexW00d (6069 posts) -

I wouldn't really call that an attack. And I agree with him, the only person who can put a value on these games is the individual, so if £20 is too much for a 3 hour game for them, then so be it, what does that matter to anyone else?

#46 Posted by JasonR86 (9385 posts) -

There are other problems with Gone Home besides its price and length.

#47 Edited by MistaSparkle (2146 posts) -

I've been hearing so much positive Gone Home talk over the past few weeks that I thought, "This is a game I need to check out." I went on steam, saw the price, and immediately added it to my wishlist because I wasn't going to pay $20 for something that I probably wouldn't replay anymore than once. I felt bad because I want to support games that are trying to be different and meaningful, but I just couldn't justify it to myself to pay that much for 4 hours of gameplay.

#48 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (362 posts) -

@deegee said:

Of course he's right, it boggles me that anyone could disagree with him.

I have a certain amount of money that I can spend on games before it cuts into my money for things like food and rent and travel costs. So I pretty much will always choose not to buy a short game, especially when it has almost zero replay value, until it comes dramatically down in price.

I have a certain amount of money that I can spend on entertainment, but that doesn't mean that I won't spend $15 to go see a movie that I may or may not watch ever again. I spent about that to go see Act of Killing, a brilliant, thought provoking "documentary" that I never ever ever want to watch again.

The question is what do you value most in a video game-- if that's time spent then great. But for others new, exciting, and different approaches to the medium (lengthy or otherwise) is a draw for people like myself.

Frankly Kuchera's article is another in a long line of his vapid attempts at opinion pieces. I think he can be a talented writer, but most of his opinion pieces are absurdly reactionary. He talks about critics calling out people who value their time spent with a game just as much as, or more than, the experience itself, which is valid-- BUT it's just as valid for critics to complain about people who hold those views.

A critic should provide us with a thoughtful, reasoned analysis and critique, and from reading that we as consumers can determine if it aligns with what we want from that medium for the price that is being asked.

He talks about critics talking down to people who value their time spent in a video game highly, but provides no examples. He's happy to call them assholes, but refuses to call anyone out. It's a limp attempt at getting attention and provides no meaningful insight or dialogue.

#49 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (4471 posts) -

We all apply our own value to what we choose to buy and we all have different realities when it comes to budgets. It's impossible to speak for everyone when discussing value propositions. I was able to buy the game from the Steam trading cards I sold, so I'm not complaining, but really though, this is why we have Steam Sales.

#50 Edited by EXTomar (4133 posts) -

Not buying a game because it is short is like not buying Madden because it is football. It is arbitrary, irrational, and ultimately not a problem.

People need to stop worrying about what someone else is playing or why they didn't play it. Dissecting to ascertain why a game someone loved isn't loved by another is an interesting academic question but in the end not that valuable to others.