Still I hate that games like call of duty are expensive, are somewhat decent
but short as fuck.
Just playing it randomly, without some tryharding you can complete it in something like less than 10 hours, it sucks.
Just playing it randomly, without some tryharding you can complete it in something like less than 10 hours, it sucks.
To my teenage self it would make sense, though. Enough time but not enough money, which makes long (sometimes artificially long) games a necessity.
Compare those CoDs to e.g Cyberpunk which I needed like 40 hours to complete
it was way better
A game like SOMA has low mechanical pleasure (it's a walking simulator, essentially) and a short length, but the story and atmosphere are so high that I will forever remember the experience.
Cyberpunk has decent length, decent story/atmosphere (obviously this is subjective) and decent mechanical pleasure so it's a great game.
CoD has a short length, decent to high mechanical pleasure (well at least I hope so for their sake since it's supposed to be about the multiplayer shooter replayability) and low story/atmosphere because it's just a string of action movie clichés. I think that's what makes it sound very mediocre compared to Cyberpunk.
Other gamers might see mechanical pleasure as the trump card, and I can definitely understand their POV (Portal 1 for instance). I'd venture a guess that length is rarely a trump card except if you are stuck with the games you do have. Usually for length to be the most important factor, you need at least a decent degree of the two other factors to go with it. For example, what people love about Skyrim is that the basic gameplay of walking around and doing things is fun and you can just pick up the game everyday for months and still have things to do. The story is nothing special, but the atmosphere is comfy enough. You know the game is there for you when you come back from work.