>if a game doesn't make you sink 3000+ hours into it it's a shit gameWhy did this become the industry standard? Why isn't it okay for games to be short experiences you can comfortably revisit multiple times in the future? Even most indies desperately try to extend playtime in the most frivolous ways possible these days.
lol two fails in a row fabraz is so cooked
A lot of people have been brainwashed to believe length correlates to quality because all that matters is getting their money's worth. There's also this retarded idea that because genres like roguelike and 4X can provide thousands of hours of playtime, every other genre must follow suit. There are practically zero arcade games which need more than 45 minutes to explore all their mechanics to a logical conclusion.
>>739408178If Super Mario 64 was released today it'd be criticized for being too short.
>>739408784It's a game that can take you 16 minutes to beat or several hours depending on how you play it. It's not really the developer's fault if you use speedtroon glitches that weren't intended and then complain that it was too short.
>>739408946A casual playthrough can beat the game in 2-3 hours. That's roughly the same length as something like Pizza Tower.
>>739408178>>739408610It's so blatantly obvious when devs do this too. Just look at Crash 4.
>>739408946Faulty logic because 16/1/0 star speedruns are intended for experts and the other major categories barely rely on glitches at all. In fact the main reason SM64 is such a popular speedrun is because glitches can't be relied upon as much as movement and routing knowledge.
>>739409137It is also short. Short games lend themselves to replayability, and replayability lends itself to speedrunning fairly well.SMB1 speedruns are only 5 minutes long, but they have to be the most optimized 5 minutes you've ever played in your life if you even want to make it in the top 10.
>>739408276I stopped caring about them when Slime-san was shit and Demon Turf was shit. I'm only here for Bubsy art.
>>739408610>because all that matters is getting their money's worth.That would be fine if most people weren't halfway retarded and could judge the quality of a game for themselves.The only thing they can tell is how much of their life the game can waste, so that's the only metric they have for "getting their money's worth".
>>739409659This. People only care about quantity rather than quality.
>>739408178I mean, a game that takes 3 hours to run through is anti theatical to purchasing
>>739410289I can tell your first console was a PS2.
>>739408178what kind of name is bubsy?
>>739408178lmao, you sound like a dev selling shovelware.Your licensed shovelware that's overpriced and lasts 2 hours IS bad. Length = better.More content is better.A game that provides more time and content IS better.A game like that has to be on the ultra-exceptional "you can break the rules of writing if you're a master of writing"-tiers.You aren't that. You're that one indie who wants the player to be satisfied with less coping.
>>739410791Were cubekiddie's games really that short, that's awful lmao.
>>739408178In this game's case, another 5-10 levels would've been nice. I don't mind short games, but there's plenty more it could've done with the movement options available.
