View Poll Results: Which do you prefer?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • Quickies - I have no patience

    37 74.00%
  • Hour-eaters - I want 50 hours of play for the $

    13 26.00%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Quickies vs Hour-eating games

  1. #11
    They both have their merits.
    Sometimes I want a few rounds of Street Fighter, sometimes I want Knights of the Old Republic.

  2. Both are nice.

    Though, I'd probably say overall I'm more into my games being on the lengthier side of the spectrum.

  3. quick games... i don't have much time or patience for really long games anymore, especially since they usually go nowhere.

  4. Yeah, I cant decide. Cause both types of games, can be both. I can have a quick fifteen minutes before class that I'll chose to get some exp for some of my characters in an RPG. I can also waste away entire afternoons and evenings playing fighting games, which most would consider a quickie type game.

    I also like to have a short round or two of Crazy Taxi in between long Strat sessions. Sort of, cleanses the palette.
    A is for action

  5. Quickies for me. I won't even touch a game that takes 30+ hours through the first time. However, a quickie frequently turns into a quickie played 20 times in a row, and it eats the hours anyway.

  6. #16
    I go through phases...
    Right now, I'm trying to play Disgaea (which I love), but I'm not feeling it. Sly Cooper finally found its way into my PS2, and I'm at 40% right now. I think I'm going to do some platformers before I get back to Disgaea... finish Sly, then maybe get to opening Ratchet & Clank and Blinx.
    HA! HA! I AM USING THE INTERNET!!1
    My Backloggery

  7. Both of course but I happen to lean heavily toward the quickies because I have little to no time. I'm doing better since I moved and have actually made progress with Otogi. But Raiden Fighters 2 is currently spotlighted.

    "Both, obviously, but I'd probably go with hour-eaters. Makes me feel better when I spend $50 on a game and can play it for just as many hours as dollars spent."

    I wonder how many hours one would have to spend to one credit Gunbird 2 or practice to win a 3rd Strike tourney. I'd be willing to bet that I've logged more hours into just fooling around with DoDonPachi than I did playing all the way through Ogre Battle 64 which stopped counting about two thirds of the way through at 100 hours.

    Pa

  8. Since my gaming hours are so scattered and unpredictably scheduled, I rarely play games that take a long time to complete, although the rare experience like Vagrant Story or Metroid Prime takes all my attention when they appear.

    I'd have to go with pick-up-and-play, because I usually only game for an hour or two at a time. That's why Otogi and P.N. 03 are perfect for me currently, because they're not really complex games at their cores, and are split up into missions. I can not play it for a week and be able to get back in the flow right away, which is a major plus for me.

    There's always time for a quick Burnout 2 race or Tennis 2K2 tourney - even though I "completed" both long ago, I still have spent 100+ hours with each. VF4:Evo is great too, although if I'm away from it for a while, it takes a little time to get warmed up (so to speak).

    Satoshi Kon: 1963-2010

  9. I would like to say Hour-eaters but once I think about it most of my games are quickies.

  10. Yeah, I'd definitely say the hours I've logged into so-called "quickie" games would rival that of the epic ones.

    I like platformers because they're both. Each level only takes 3-10 minutes, but you have the option of sitting through as many as you want.

    Well, I guess the same could be said of any game, but as platform levels are more defined than, say, events in RPGs, there's more of a sense of accomplishment, I suppose.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo