Please tell me I'm not the only one here who prefers quality over quantity when it comes to gaming. I prefer games that last forever (such as everything by Blizzard Entertainment [since Diablo] and everything by Reenactor Entertainment), over franchises and companies where people stop playing and talking about the game immediately after it's release and a new game in the franchise is immediately announced upon the release of a game (such as Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Final Fantasy, Left 4 Dead 2, Electronic Arts, Command & Conquer [since Westwood went defunct], Star Wars games, etc.). I can see the logic behind why companies release games in such large quantities (but have little or no real quality or innovation in them), it's because they earn more money off of 50 little games that die a month after it's release than they do spending the time, money, and effort to make a really good game that blows everyone's mind over the course of a few years. There is an old joke about LucasArts and how they have a status quo of 20 Star Wars games a week (while this may not necessarily be literal, it isn't far from the truth). While it is true that some of these "all flash no substance" games may be quite enjoyable, they won't last forever like those by Blizzard Entertainment and Reenactor Entertainment. Electronic Arts is one of the worst when it comes to releasing a bunch of games. Now then, before anyone points out that EA is a publisher and doesn't generally make games (they just use other companies to make them for them, which is how they have so many), please keep in mind that they are (both de facto and de jure) dictators over those littler companies that they own. In fact, I own the 2001 Electronic Arts game, Sub Command. In fact, Electronic Arts is so bad about putting quantity ahead of quality that they put on the box (before and during the game's release) that they would shutdown the multiplayer in December 2001. Now that is just pathetic, and not just because you should never shutdown multiplayer, but also because they planned for the game to go under prior to it's release. Then, they went off and made a sequel, I mean really, what the hell! So, does anyone else here feel as I do?

Thing is, personally, I prefer a good balance of things. I do prefer quality or quantity, but I don't a game to be like 6 hours but have the most amazing graphics ever, or have a game that takes f****** forever to finish, because eventually becomes dull and tedious. I don't care if a game is short, as long as the game plays well, that is all I need. I can easily wait for the sequal. I am going to take Tomb Raider: Legend for example. What an exceleent game. Great graphics, spot on controls, fluid animations, not heavily buggy, enjoyable. But the game was quite short (roughly 8 hours). But it was worth the money I paid. The Elder Scroll's IV Oblivion for example is a game that takes forever to finish, and it really becomes boring and is such a chore to play after a while.
But like I said, I like games with balance. Tomb Raider: Underworld and Half-Life 2 are good examples of games that balance quality and quantity. Both games are not too short, but not too long, and have outstanding gameplay to make it enjoyable titles that deserve Game of the Year.

__________________
The look of love alarms Because 'tis fill'd with fire; But the look of soft deceit Shall Win the lover's hire. - William Blake

I'll tell you one thing I don't prefer. Walls of text.

__________________

Nice penticle, DamnImGood

__________________
The look of love alarms Because 'tis fill'd with fire; But the look of soft deceit Shall Win the lover's hire. - William Blake

If its new, everyones buying it, and its active online, I'll buy it.

__________________

This.


Judging from the title you mean basement dwelling WoW players.

__________________

__________________
--RMG

I only buy a game if I am going to play it a lot. But yeah quality is important. I will buy Mw2 because it looks incredible and has fantastic gameplay. I also know that I will get two years solid playing on it.

And what DIG said.

__________________
I dont understand the rollercoaster of life, where are all the inversions?

i get you, world of wacraft is the best when it comes to quality. the work you put into world of warcraft won't be gone a year after you start. your work will continue on then when you get good and possibly quit from boredom you can make over 500dollars off of your account. i probably have a total of over 2000hours play time between accounts on that game

__________________
My Blog --- http://gatlinock.blogspot.com/
Last Updated: Sunday, November 29, 2009

I prefer terrible games with little to no story, crippled controls, and bad hit detection.

i loved mw1 but mw2s online is full of campers which has let it down:/ i like games that have a high replayability or thingd that have editors so you can make your own mission s & stuff. but then if its got a good online mode and nice graphics ill play that 2

I swear this dude does not reply to his threads....

__________________
ChOp HIs FUcKIng HEad ofF!

yes i am a quality gamer. i can pwn any of u mofos in any game. u noobs cant beat my uber l33t skillz, fags dont even try i hvae mroe achievements and trofys than u dream of.

__________________
Do what thou wilt.

Nobody knows a ******** about what a good game is anymore.

I do like active online activity, like Modern Warfare 2, that's mainly why I play it. I still play C&C Renegade, along with other C&C titles (before kanes wrath and tiberium wars.)

I also play Baldurs Gate and the original Fallouts, although the newer ones are getting to me...

__________________
"I'd show you the marks, but I don't want to pull my pants down right now..." Tallahassee Pain. (T Pizzle)