about 1 dollar an hour, everything above leaves me hugely satisfied unless i'm playing to figure out what it exactly is what keeps me in the game and i find some kind of mechanic which is ... really salt by lack of better term, english knowledge

In my opinion, the length of a game isn't a direct indicator of quality or enjoyment. So when it comes to optimising money spent, for me it all comes down to buying games which respect my time, mean/could mean something for me, are fun to play, and have a certain potential for emotional resonance.

I think that judging games for how long they are is a bit silly, and unfortunately this sort of metric for quantifying enjoyment is nowadays relatively ubiquitous around the internet.

It is, it most certainly is, its a shame that the crowd that judges and the crowd that supplies seem to be 2 hands of the same body

It's content (expressed in movie-equivalent dollars) per hour, not literal dollars per hour.

Minus minimum wage.

Some games owe me.

I always consider length as an important factor, and that also goes for books or music albums for example. The quality of the content is of course crucial, it must be good, but the amount is also there, and something that's short doesn't seem to really... count, doesn't offer enough time to settle into the experience, if you want to put it one way. For that reason, I'd have problems calling anything short, or for that matter not long, as excellent, but assuming I would identify something like that, would likely still prefer long and "just" good over short but supposedly excellent. Even more so when it comes to actually paying for it, or otherwise making some noticeable effort to obtain it.

Why I think the question is silly. Do people ask the same question for other media?

"I only watch movies longer than 110 minutes, shorter and it is not worth it"
"Songs lasting less than 4:30 minutes is a ripp off"
"The correct cent to dollar value of a book is 0.7, less pages and the book is over-valued"
etc.

I know I'm a bit (a lot) late for this but I just realised that either I didn't post my reply or my reply didn't get posted. So sorry so much, I didn't mean to ignore the comment, here's my clumsy attempt at remembering what I was on about:

Yours is an interesting perspective to me because on my previous comment I remember almost mentioning books an other art forms as a way to reinforce my point so... I guess we have completely opposite views on this matter. Maybe we should duel on top of a hill someday at the break of dawn.

Just kidding. At the end of the day I find it difficult to wrap my head around correlating quantity with quality but I'd be disingenuous of me to assume that I'm right when talking about subjectivity. I wouldn't want to entangle my feet with this tangent but maybe there's a cultural aspect to it that I find difficult to understand (as an example, certain Asian cultures find pleasure in eating surrounded by food which ultimately they will only partially consume). Maybe the same cultural phenomena could apply to videogames as well. Even if length doesn't directly equate to quality, enjoyment, or finishing the game, it seemingly correlates to a certain increase in sales figures and it might influence how people think of a given game or how they enjoy it. But maybe I'm wrong, this is just me trying to understand someone else's perspective through quick assumptions and food parallelisms.

Apologies for the delay once again, I wanted to reply nonetheless as your comment made me question my assumptions, and that's always a nice thing to do. Cheers!

I'd put that correlation as: quantity enhances quality, whatever the quality is. A lot of something bad is awful, a lot of something good is awesome. A little of something bad may not be that bad, you go through it, it's over, that's that. A little of something good leaves you (or at least me) wholly unsatisfied.

Yeah, I get were you're coming from, although I'm not sure whether we can talk about correlation if both variables aren't involved (bidirectionally) when the argument is being established, but I'm not statistician nor a philosopher so don't trust me on this. Also, to get a clear answer here we'd probably want to narrow down or define a sample of information, and also evaluate what each one of us perceives as good. So all in all, lol.

In broad terms, when I mentioned correlation I was referring to the question: "Is it a game more likely to be good if it's long (and viceversa)?". And I'd still give a negative answer to that, and even more so if we'd be considering causation.

I can't argue with more good is better but I'm not sure whether we can equate that to more makes better or more makes a better purchase, which I believe was my original point.

But honestly, after having thought about it for this long, I'm not sure I agree with myself anymore.

Thanks for the reply!

its super variable, there are games I do feel I wasted money on and those that I do not, but at somepoint I had my fun with them.


its hard to say for sure.