<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time &amp; Cost</title>
	<atom:link href="http://octopusrex.co.uk/index.php/archives/317/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://octopusrex.co.uk/index.php/archives/317</link>
	<description>In search of a soul</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:29:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: gr33nf4c3</title>
		<link>http://octopusrex.co.uk/index.php/archives/317/comment-page-1#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>gr33nf4c3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://octopusrex.co.uk/?p=317#comment-123</guid>
		<description>This is something I was pondering with a while ago myself. However, my thoughts were more focused on replay value of games, but I think my observation might still fit here:

When Max Payne 2 hit the shelves, some critics were stating that it&#039;s more on the light side regarding content and that there was practically no replay value at all, since it will be the same game every time you play it.

My observation is that I&#039;ve actually finished Max Payne 2 between 5 and 7 times because it is a great game with astonishing level design, but also to some extent because I know I can beat it in 5 to 8 hours. I know what I have to expect, I know it won&#039;t take long to get to the cool parts and I know it will still be entertaining like my favourite movie. The same applies for Prey, which also was less densely packed, content-wise and I replayed it two times for the sole reason that I know it won&#039;t take more than two hours to reach that one cool puzzle or that one boss.

I guess my point is that &quot;amount of content&quot; and &quot;replay&quot; value in the traditional sense (as in you get to see many different things in various play-throughs) are things that don&#039;t make want to play games. I&#039;d much rather play a game that is entertaining through to the end and lasts a little shorter than a game that overextends and starts to bore me. Because chances are, I won&#039;t even finish that one before I lose interest.

A few months ago, I considered replaying Half-Life² because of the cool boat scene and Ravenholme and stuff. Then I entered the sewers that have to be passed in order to leave City17 and right before I knew it, I had already quit the game thinking &quot;Why the hell am I diving around in the sewers finding secret valves when in fact I want to ride boats and buggies and enjoy cool vistas of Eastern-Europe suburbia?&quot; And what will I do when I finally reach those cool parts? Play on for another 6 hours of that boring greyish City17 assault and Citadel rush?

Long story short:
As long as a game doesn&#039;t fall much below the 5 hour mark and know how to entertain me, I&#039;ll gladly buy and play it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is something I was pondering with a while ago myself. However, my thoughts were more focused on replay value of games, but I think my observation might still fit here:</p>
<p>When Max Payne 2 hit the shelves, some critics were stating that it&#8217;s more on the light side regarding content and that there was practically no replay value at all, since it will be the same game every time you play it.</p>
<p>My observation is that I&#8217;ve actually finished Max Payne 2 between 5 and 7 times because it is a great game with astonishing level design, but also to some extent because I know I can beat it in 5 to 8 hours. I know what I have to expect, I know it won&#8217;t take long to get to the cool parts and I know it will still be entertaining like my favourite movie. The same applies for Prey, which also was less densely packed, content-wise and I replayed it two times for the sole reason that I know it won&#8217;t take more than two hours to reach that one cool puzzle or that one boss.</p>
<p>I guess my point is that &#8220;amount of content&#8221; and &#8220;replay&#8221; value in the traditional sense (as in you get to see many different things in various play-throughs) are things that don&#8217;t make want to play games. I&#8217;d much rather play a game that is entertaining through to the end and lasts a little shorter than a game that overextends and starts to bore me. Because chances are, I won&#8217;t even finish that one before I lose interest.</p>
<p>A few months ago, I considered replaying Half-Life² because of the cool boat scene and Ravenholme and stuff. Then I entered the sewers that have to be passed in order to leave City17 and right before I knew it, I had already quit the game thinking &#8220;Why the hell am I diving around in the sewers finding secret valves when in fact I want to ride boats and buggies and enjoy cool vistas of Eastern-Europe suburbia?&#8221; And what will I do when I finally reach those cool parts? Play on for another 6 hours of that boring greyish City17 assault and Citadel rush?</p>
<p>Long story short:<br />
As long as a game doesn&#8217;t fall much below the 5 hour mark and know how to entertain me, I&#8217;ll gladly buy and play it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Octo</title>
		<link>http://octopusrex.co.uk/index.php/archives/317/comment-page-1#comment-114</link>
		<dc:creator>Octo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://octopusrex.co.uk/?p=317#comment-114</guid>
		<description>Pretty sure you&#039;re on the money. I just hope that some (enough) people choose to search for art, rather than searching for entertainment, otherwise that&#039;s all we&#039;ll get.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretty sure you&#8217;re on the money. I just hope that some (enough) people choose to search for art, rather than searching for entertainment, otherwise that&#8217;s all we&#8217;ll get.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David (Ira)</title>
		<link>http://octopusrex.co.uk/index.php/archives/317/comment-page-1#comment-112</link>
		<dc:creator>David (Ira)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:23:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://octopusrex.co.uk/?p=317#comment-112</guid>
		<description>When I buy a game (which is not very often) I look for enjoyment, not length. If I really enjoyed the game then I got my money&#039;s worth. I would have gladly played $30-$40 for Portal alone because it was so enjoyable.

L4D got a lot of flak for being light on content, yet I&#039;ve played that game more hours than I&#039;ve played any other game. I don&#039;t feel jipped.

On the flip side, I bought games that lasted 2x as long as Portal and yet I felt unsatisfied when it ended.

Interesting thoughts though. I think the reason people want length is they play games for entertainment purposes, therefore the longer it entertains them the better. I could be wrong but that sounds about right to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I buy a game (which is not very often) I look for enjoyment, not length. If I really enjoyed the game then I got my money&#8217;s worth. I would have gladly played $30-$40 for Portal alone because it was so enjoyable.</p>
<p>L4D got a lot of flak for being light on content, yet I&#8217;ve played that game more hours than I&#8217;ve played any other game. I don&#8217;t feel jipped.</p>
<p>On the flip side, I bought games that lasted 2x as long as Portal and yet I felt unsatisfied when it ended.</p>
<p>Interesting thoughts though. I think the reason people want length is they play games for entertainment purposes, therefore the longer it entertains them the better. I could be wrong but that sounds about right to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
