Do you prefer Sonic games that are short, but fun, or games that are long, but often tedious?

[Diogenes]

I like long Sonic games, even if they are tedious. What's the point of buying a game if you could beat it easily and quickly?

Fun?

[Nepenthe]

I think the better question is, why would I sink $50/60 into a game that's going to last a few hours and fail to get me invested after its campaign is over "for fun" when I can simply go on over to Adultswim.com and boot up Super House of Dead Ninjas for free and also "have fun," and probably play it for longer too?

[Kuzu]

I think the better question is, why would I sink $50/60 into a game that's going to last a few hours and fail to get me invested after its campaign is over "for fun" when I can simply go on over to Adultswim.com and boot up Super House of Dead Ninjas for free and also "have fun," and probably play it for longer too?

I think that's better than subjecting yourself to hours of monotonous gameplay just for the sake of longevity.

[Nepenthe]

What are you referring to? Buying Colors for full price when I could've kept playing Unleashed or merely playing Super House of Dead Ninjas instead of bothering at all?

[Kuzu]

I was mainly referring to his point about something tedious and boring being good if it makes the game longer.

[Nepenthe]

I think his point was more so why would you not try to get your money's worth? Again, you know how easy it is to merely have "fun" for little to nothing?

[Diogenes]

A long but tedious game probably isn't more worth my money than a short but fun one (though it depends on how fun/tedious/long/short we're talking). Length in itself is not a benefit; I don't want to spend money doing something I'm not enjoying.

[Ferno]

Do you prefer Sonic games that are short, but fun, or games that are long, but often tedious?

I enjoy games that are lengthy and fun. (the question was one-sided to begin with)

Edited November 27, 2012 by Inferno

[Nepenthe]

A long but tedious game probably isn't more worth my money than a short but fun one (though it depends on how fun/tedious/long/short we're talking). Length in itself is not a benefit; I don't want to spend money doing something I'm not enjoying.

He never really said anything about the quality of the shorter game. He asked why would you want to buy something that can be beaten both easily and quickly? If the answer is "to have fun," my response to that is "Why in the world would you spend $60 to have "fun" for four hours when you can easily have that same amount of "fun" with something cheaper or even free?"

The thing about "fun" is that it's exceedingly easy to come across considering the breadth of games on cheap and free platforms (and even then games aren't the only way to have fun; entertainment is huge and expansive, after all), but money is not. Even if I didn't find the shorter Sonic games less than thrilling than the longer ones, I still would be pissed to some degree that I paid as much money as I did for something that didn't even last me a damn day. "But you had fun, didn't you?" Fuck that; I could've easily had the same amount of fun for free. Longevity does actually matter in many instances of purchase, games being one of them. If they weren't so expensive, I'd let four-hour experiences slide easily. But as it stands, "mere fun" isn't good enough anymore when we're talking about coming significantly out of pocket.

[Komodin]

Do you prefer Sonic games that are short, but fun, or games that are long, but often tedious?

Well, normally, I would strongly prefer Sonic games that are long and fun; however, if I absolutely have to choose between these two options, I would simply go with the former. As long as the game has good replay value, I would easily get my money's worth with it.

[Kuzu]

I think his point was more so why would you not try to get your money's worth? Again, you know how easy it is to merely have "fun" for little to nothing?

It's not so much fun, but the quality of the fun itself.

[Nepenthe]

High-quality fun is not exclusive to expensive yet short games.

[Uphex]

High-quality fun is not exclusive to expensive yet short games.

While that is absolutely true, the op said the only alternative to a short game was a long, but tedious one. Personally I'd still choose the latter though. :v Edited November 27, 2012 by Uphex

[Nepenthe]

While that is absolutely true, the op said the only alternative to a short game was a long, but tedious one.

And I rejected such a dumb question outright because it's a false dichotomy.

[Komodin]

While that is absolutely true, the op said the only alternative to a short game was a long, but tedious one. Personally I'd still choose the latter though. :v

I don't understand... why would you want to play a tedious game?

[Uphex]

I don't understand... why would you want to play a tedious game?

If I have free time, better to spend it playing a game even if it's boring then to spend 60$ on something extremely short that I can probably get free. It's a lose lose situation, but that's only if I had to choose, and thankfully I don't.

[Diogenes]

He never really said anything about the quality of the shorter game. He asked why would you want to buy something that can be beaten both easily and quickly?

The question was, why buy a short game over a long and tedious one. And my answer is, if the short game is more fun.

If the answer is "to have fun," my response to that is "Why in the world would you spend $60 to have "fun" for four hours when you can easily have that same amount of "fun" with something cheaper or even free?"

If I could get the same amount of fun for cheap or free, then I would take the cheap/free option. But "is fun" is neither binary nor is it tied exclusively to the length of the game. If I pay 60-some dollars for a short game and am satisfied with it, it's probably because I had a lot of fun with it, even if it wasn't spread out over 10, 15, 20 hours.

And yeah, if you don't find the short game to be worth your money, if you don't find it to be enough fun for your buck, don't buy it. But I don't think a game that I would call "long and tedious" is worth my money either. That sounds a hell of a lot like wasting more of my time on something that's less fun.

[Nepenthe]

The question was, why buy a short game over a long and tedious one.

That really wasn't the question that particular poster asked either. The question makes no comparison to the longer yet tedious game.

If I could get the same amount of fun for cheap or free, then I would take the cheap/free option. But "is fun" is neither binary nor is it tied exclusively to the length of the game. If I pay 60-some dollars for a short game and am satisfied with it, it's probably because I had a lot of fun with it, even if it wasn't spread out over 10, 15, 20 hours.

And yeah, if you don't find the short game to be worth your money, if you don't find it to be enough fun for your buck, don't buy it. But I don't think a game that I would call "long and tedious" is worth my money either. That sounds a hell of a lot like wasting more of my time on something that's less fun.

I've not meant to imply either of these about fun. My point is that "fun" is isn't actually the only element I look for in a game I'm buying, because if such were the case why would I actually buy any games at all? You know how much true, high-quality fun is out there in the world to be had for far less than the retail price of most boxed games? Other elements of a game matter, length being one of them, which is mainly where I disagree with you. Even if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that a four-hour game was going to be heaps of fun, I'm still going to feel shortchanged if that four-hour game is full retail.

It's like buying a brand-new tire at full price that deflates on you in a week. Yeah, my car worked and I had fun being mobile again for that week, and the tire served its purpose well for the time it actually lasted, but fuck me, I expected the thing to last longer for the price it was set at.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Dizcrybe]

And I rejected such a dumb question outright because it's a false dichotomy.

Like I said, that just seems to be the case with Sonic games.

[Nepenthe]

Like I said, that just seems to be the case with Sonic games.

It's not for me. There's plenty of short Sonic games I could rip into with just as much fervor as I would something like Sonic 06, and there's a few longer 3D ones I hold in high regard. A short Sonic game doesn't guarantee anything, hence why your question was terrible.

[Dizcrybe]

It's not for me. There's plenty of short Sonic games I could rip into with just as much fervor as I would something like Sonic 06, and there's a few longer 3D ones I hold in high regard. A short Sonic game doesn't guarantee anything, hence why your question was terrible.

Depends on the person, I guess. The only really "long" Sonic game I found a good deal of enjoyment in was SA1. Most of the Sonic games I like are short by comparison (including... that one).

...then again, Sonic 3D Blast isn't terribly long, and I think that game sucks, so maybe you're right.

[no one]

I'd rather have a little good than a lot of bad.

[Your Vest Friend]

I'd rather have the long game.

More for me in more ways than one. :3

[Mr. Taxi]

Of course Meito is right. Nothing about a game being short means anything about it being good. Even if "it seems so when it comes to Sonic games", it's but a case of correlation, not causation. Thrill and length are different aspects of a game - Dio and Nepenthe were only discussing which one makes it worth the purchase or which is more important.

[Solkia]

EDIT: Nevermind, I see that's what the discussion has been

Edited November 28, 2012 by Underaged Hot Anime Girl