Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
I would love to live in a world where we get FPS campaigns that are about 8 hours long, are fulfilling, and cost $60. That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that. A Let's Play is not a substitute.
So if you wanted to get what you're looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
That assumes I don't care about things like better resolutions and frame rates, voice acting, modern considerations for how people actually interact with games, etc. I've also played Fallout 1 already.
That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that
Then you should be supportive of deflation in the video game industry, instead of making excuses for why we should pay more for less
Again, "more" is often to the detriment to the value of the game, because adding hours is easy. I'm saying that, on a AAA level, games were worth more to me when they were shorter. We're currently paying less for more. But at below AAA levels, I'm often served extremely well for $35.
I'm not talking about about adding hours, I'm talking about adding quality.
But at below AAA levels, I’m often served extremely well for $35.
yes, good games exist at that price point, but the average game is not good, and is not worth that.
You mention things like better resolutions, better frame rates, better voice acting, more modern, more better, etc, but none of those things are what makes games good or worth more money. AAA games with cutting edge graphics and star-studded voice acting are not automatically good games, and in fact it frequently has an inverse effect where focusing so much time and money on stuff other than the game leaves a shitty game that will be forgotten about in months; that would absolutely not be worth $30, despite having all your superfluous qualities
No, they don't automatically make a game better, but if I'm choosing between two games that are similar in themes or mechanics, I'm leaning toward the one with voice acting and better presentation. That's worth extra money to me. It's far easier to retain story elements when they're acted out. Production value is still value. Not only did I get a killer RPG for $60 in Baldur's Gate 3, but I also got some killer performances to help sell it. That extra production value is worth extra money. I could play the previous two Baldur's Gates for pennies on the dollar, and I did, but I would certainly say I got more value out of the game that costs more. In V Rising's case, I know of no other action RPG/loot games that have been combined with survival games in this way, playing with independent movement and aiming instead of mouse pointers, so that's worth the money to see. I think we're done here, but your sense of value is just very strange.
Choosing presentation over game quality is what caused the games industry to be bloated beyond belief.
That is a very different idea than what we were talking about.
I would love to live in a world where we get FPS campaigns that are about 8 hours long, are fulfilling, and cost $60. That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that. A Let's Play is not a substitute.
That assumes I don't care about things like better resolutions and frame rates, voice acting, modern considerations for how people actually interact with games, etc. I've also played Fallout 1 already.
Then you should be supportive of deflation in the video game industry, instead of making excuses for why we should pay more for less
Again, "more" is often to the detriment to the value of the game, because adding hours is easy. I'm saying that, on a AAA level, games were worth more to me when they were shorter. We're currently paying less for more. But at below AAA levels, I'm often served extremely well for $35.
I'm not talking about about adding hours, I'm talking about adding quality.
yes, good games exist at that price point, but the average game is not good, and is not worth that.
You mention things like better resolutions, better frame rates, better voice acting, more modern, more better, etc, but none of those things are what makes games good or worth more money. AAA games with cutting edge graphics and star-studded voice acting are not automatically good games, and in fact it frequently has an inverse effect where focusing so much time and money on stuff other than the game leaves a shitty game that will be forgotten about in months; that would absolutely not be worth $30, despite having all your superfluous qualities
No, they don't automatically make a game better, but if I'm choosing between two games that are similar in themes or mechanics, I'm leaning toward the one with voice acting and better presentation. That's worth extra money to me. It's far easier to retain story elements when they're acted out. Production value is still value. Not only did I get a killer RPG for $60 in Baldur's Gate 3, but I also got some killer performances to help sell it. That extra production value is worth extra money. I could play the previous two Baldur's Gates for pennies on the dollar, and I did, but I would certainly say I got more value out of the game that costs more. In V Rising's case, I know of no other action RPG/loot games that have been combined with survival games in this way, playing with independent movement and aiming instead of mouse pointers, so that's worth the money to see. I think we're done here, but your sense of value is just very strange.
Choosing presentation over game quality is what caused the games industry to be bloated beyond belief.
That is a very different idea than what we were talking about.