I don’t think I could pin down a universal number. I really enjoy when a game understands the staying power of its gameplay loop and finishes up before it gets stale.
I’ve got 180 hours into TotK and I’m not sick of it yet because I discover something new every time I play.
Conversely I 100%-ed Dredge in 20 hours and that felt like the exact right amount of time. Any longer and I’d have been sick of it.
Or we can go even lower with something like Untitled Goose Game, which was under 10 hours and also finished up just as it got old.
So yeah. I’m all about the self awareness of a game with regards to the experience. Whatever amount of time that takes is cool with me.
I’m late to the party, but just wanted to say that your list of purchases and recommended to purchase are just monumental lists of games. So many amazing choices.
I want to add two more if you have room.
Psychonauts and Psychonauts 2. They won’t get you as much in the way of epic set pieces, but they are dripping with charm and very well crafted games with some of the most interesting levels I’ve seen.
This feels like a very natural progression to me, I really don’t see a problem with it as long as they continue to make sure their games are the core of the model and use other media as supplemental ways to build up brand and character awareness. I think anyone would agree that some types of stories are better told via games and others via movies, shows, or books. Broadening their scope allows for more stories to be told.
And theme parks or things of that nature are just cool ways for people to tangibly experience Nintendo IP.
I don’t care about Bethesda. As I said I didn’t even buy or play this game. Sorry about the wording.
I just feel like it’s asinine to say things like “is this the best they can do?” when literally no company puts out their best. And it’s asinine to say things like “but they own id software” when id isn’t the developer making this game. And it’s asinine to expect a company whose games have made gobs of money and sold tens of millions of copies not being a graphical showcase having above average graphics, because why would they suddenly spend time and effort on something they haven’t had to do before and still had success?
Focusing on wording is nitpicking. I’m quite sure you understood my point.
No it is not the best they can do. I haven’t played starfield yet, but it should be obvious that no company with shareholders to whom they need to answer is ever going to do “the best they can do”.
That isn’t even their target, at least not overall. Their target is maximum profitability. Putting forth maximum effort for the best graphics is not going to result in max profits, so they were never going to do that.
And that’s to say nothing of the fact that graphical showcases just aren’t what Bethesda does in the first place. No one should have expected that. This isn’t an id game.
It took me several hours to get into HZD, but once it hit its stride it really hooked me. The opening few hours are quite weak, IMO. It takes that time for the story to start to reveal, and for the more deliberate pace of combat to make itself apparent.
It’s not treading new ground from a genre standpoint.
But the combat is a style that isn’t really very common in open world games, and the commenter you are replying to specifically was talking about the story, characters, and world building…all three of which set Horizon apart from other games, IMO.
I’m really excited to hear that. The real time but actually not combat I think is what really killed me when I played them. I was only like 15 years old but I think I just didn’t “get” it and tried to just go for it in real time which made many encounters incredibly difficult.
I’m really looking forward to playing it (I’ve promised myself to fully beat TotK before I pick it up). I played a ton of BG 1 and 2 when I was a kid and even for me they are hard to pick back up now. A slightly more accessible version of that sounds amazing.
My argument would be that one doesn’t transcend over the other. It’s probably obvious but I also think numbered review scores are inherently flawed, because the metric is subjective and meaningless.
I much prefer a tiers system. These are both top tier games. Anyone can agree they are of exemplary quality and represent some of the best their genre has to offer. Any argument beyond that very quickly devolves into squabbles over subjective preference and that is a bit pointless to me.
As an example, a few of my favorite games of all time are Earthbound, Half-Life, Super Mario World, Metroid Prime, and Skyrim. I would rank all 5 of these games in my top tier. But what point is there in trying to rank them amongst each other? They have nothing to do with one another, so I have no meaningful way to compare them. If I use numbering, would I rank Earthbound a 9.7 and Metroid Prime a 9.5 and that means Earthbound is a better game? 2 tenths better? What does that even mean? I just don’t find value in that kind of arbitrary comparison.
I’m excited for BG3 but I guess I struggle to see why it needs to be compared to TotK at all. Feels like that is selling both games a bit short. They aren’t really that similar.
Honestly, good. I don’t think every game needs to be this massive, sprawling open world that takes a hundred hours or more to complete. There is plenty of room for a more focused experience. And that’s coming from someone who is a big fan of open world games in general.