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.
Log in to comment