Posted June 25, 2013
For me it doesn't work that way either, I'd put quality over quantity; in fact, I might even go for the opposite than what your question is suggesting. These days I'm more likely to finish short games and I have less tolerance for games that drag on for too long and are stuffed with filler content. So a game that I'll actually manage to play through in just a few evenings is a better purchase for me than something scarily epic that will only end up in my backlog unplayed or abandoned halfway through (always provided that the experience of playing through the short game was enjoyable). I'd rather have 2-6 hours of compressed, exiting and varied fun than 30 hours flying by during addictive but somewhat repetitive gameplay without me really feeling like I learned or experienced anything awesome and worthwhile. In hindsight I might even come to the conclusion that those seemingly endless games were a bad acquisition, because they cost me not only money, but also time better spent on other things.
To put things into perspective though, I have to admit that I generally value story-telling games higher than others and that I enjoy sampling many many different games more than sticking to one for a long time (both are just personal preferences, of course). And I don't spend that much on individual titles, but I buy a lot.
To put things into perspective though, I have to admit that I generally value story-telling games higher than others and that I enjoy sampling many many different games more than sticking to one for a long time (both are just personal preferences, of course). And I don't spend that much on individual titles, but I buy a lot.
Post edited June 25, 2013 by Leroux