YouTube - VANQUISH - Weapons Trailer

New trailer, extra hype

Early reviews are saying the main game is only 4-6 hours long. As awesome as the game is shaping up to be, I'm wondering if it's worth $60. Even with a $20 coupon from Kmart this week, I'm still considering waiting for a price drop. After all, Fallout and Kirby come out this week too.

Bayonetta dropped to like 40 dollars within 2-3 weeks at target. If you're skeptical, just wait a month. I doubt this will perform better than Bayonetta.

I wonder if you use the same concept of value for every other score based game you've bought or played.

Out of curiosity, are shmups inherently not worth much money because most of them can be credit fed and beaten in 30 minutes?

Do you really think the point or design philosophy of this title is to play it only once through? Seriously now, nutty.

Because who would want a 4-6 hour awesome experience when they can have a 10-15 hour average one.

Oh, and that nonsense completely ignores that it might not be that long, only if you're rushing through it trying to get a review done. It also ignores, as Skills points out, that this probably isn't going to be a one playthrough kind of game (see Bayonetta).

Sometimes people make my brain fucking hurt.

Alright, alright, relax. I can kind of see nutty's point. If it's not something he wants to play through again, he basically spent $10-15 per hour of gameplay. It would be kind of rough for someone like me, who earns much less than that at his job.

But I also think back to Gear of War 2, where its campaign was... probably 6-8 hours long, and I was begging for it to wrap up by the time I neared the end. I am unaffected by this short playtime "revelation."

My point in it's entirety is that just using one playthrough's hour count is, in many cases, not the best measure of length or value. It's a number entirely focused on too much by idiot manchildren in the press who play specifically so they can get get up paragraphs on the subject.

How "long" is Bayonetta? I imagine most people went through that more than once. How "long" is Warhawk or BF2, entirely MP affairs? Ikaruga? Harvest Moon? VVVVVV? Machinarium? Any racing game with a career mode in it? It's a stupid thing to base anything on because it means NOTHING in a lot of cases. When does something become "OK" to only play for 3 hours? When it's 10 or 15 dollars on XBLA? 5 on Steam? 20 in the bargain bin?

A better way of describing something would be to discuss something like inherent value that someone is likely to get out of a title. But that's a significantly harder thing to convey, and when you've got awful writers and their awful editors pandering to a group of readers with a collective two digit IQ, this sort of shit isn't bothered with.

nutty is smarter than that and I'm pretty sure most everyone else on this site is too.

It's not fair to use MP games when you're talking length. I never said I wasn't going to buy it, but with two other excellent games coming out this week, I have to take playtime into account. If I'm going to spend most of my time playing Fallout, then why not wait a few weeks for the price to drop? I'm not one to replay games (Kirby, Fallout 3, and FFT are about it), so paying $60 for a few hours isn't very cost effective.

Then again, I do want to play it, and I'd pay the same if I went to a hockey game or some other live event, so I might pick it up tomorrow.

Why not think it instead as "with many good games coming, I should start with Vanquish since it's only ____ hours long, so I can then move to New Vegas"



For me, the whole length thing is a moot point. If I want to play or own something, I will buy it. I never look at movie lengths when deciding what movie to buy, unless I am trying to avoid watching a 5 hour film when I feel like seeing a 2 hour one. Hardly any game these days actually feels too short, usually you're more likely to feel some game is far too long, or ends right when it should.

I think it's fair to mention the apparent value for money you are getting with some game when discussing it in a review, but letting the game's price affect the score is unforgivable (see the whining reviews for Limbo or ODST's campaign). By that logic most magazines and websites would need to update the game's score each time the game's price goes down, because you're suddenly getting more value for money, which by their logic makes it a "better" game.

Maybe things are different Stateside but over here I'd be amazed if this was still more than £20 in a month's time.

I'm like Qwarky, if I like something I'll buy it but then with less time for gaming these days and with a monster backlog, I think the only thing I bought day one all year was Reach and even that was selling for less than the £50 rrp (I got it for £40 odd I think). Games drop in price really quickly over here these days so you can pick things up pretty cheap if you're patient. For example, FFXIII is now only £15 on Amazon and I'll probably buy it when it hits a tenner.

Waste of a tenner.

None of these outlooks are wrong, judging value for yourself is basically how you become a good consumer.

I'm just saying one shouldn't necessarily base it on an otherwise mostly misleading and useless statistic.

It can't be that bad surely?

I tend to see value in terms of hours in the pub. In the pub on a good night you'll probably spend about a tenner an hour. If something gives me more entertainment value per hour than that I call it good value, so if FFXIII entertains me for more than an hour it's not a waste of money.

When I get games like Sacred that last me 150 hours for only £20 then that's incredible value for money. :)

It is that bad. And worse.

You want an hour of amusement? You won't get it. And arguably--and by arguably I mean mo0 thinks the last few hours are good, but they aren't. They're just less restrictive and still awful--if you do get to the three hours of good part, you have to play through 40 hours of crap to get there.

In fact, it will give you negative return for money. In that you'll drop the tenner, and then have to drop another 40 on booze each time you fire up the game to get drunk enough to stomach the damn thing.

You're better off paying someone ten bucks to stomp on your nuts for a few hours.

I might swerve it then. You can get Dragon Age for the same price, is that any good?

PC or bust with Dragon Age.

SO ANYWAY.

Who bought this today? Anyone have a chance to try it yet?

I got it. So, so much sex. Still in Act 1 (just passed Scene 3 from the demo), so I don't have much else to say quite yet.

The preorder weapons are pretty meh, with the exception of the laser. I haven't picked one up yet, but supposedly it uses the ARS' stamina in place of regular ammo.

Jesus Christ, the fierceness of my erection when playing this game is off the scale.

FUCK YEAH KICK A JACKASS FROM A SLIDE AND SLOW MO IN THE AIR AND SNIPE A DUDE OFF A TURRET

People who dislike this are officially mentally handicapped.

My mind has been blown for the 4 hours 53 minutes I have put into this game thus far. I can't wait to see how much punishment I'll be given when I try hard mode after this is over.

Seeing Sam slide, kicking a robot to infinity while getting enough jump to do a slow-mo snipe is so sexy.

Rocket Launcher uppercut is probably the best thing in a video game this year. It never fails to make me burst out laughing.

4-2 on Hard, before I stopped to study. Where's everyone else at? My 3-7 score on Hard is currently #4 on the leaderboard. No idea how long that is going to last, though.

Cannot agree enough. Even though you'd described it to me, I still wasn't prepared for the awesomeness that was that uppercut. God damn this game is ace (and since I've only just started this evening I'm up to 2-1 on my Normal run).

Holy shit, these tactical challenges.

Not only do I have two brand new assholes, they have both been freshly violated to boot. :(

(Otherwise needing to start a God Hard run now)

Holy Shit, I finally tried the Rocket Launcher melee; it was the most unnecessarily incredible moment thus far. And here I thought the Kick to the air was badass.

Courtesy of Omagnus:

Is Vanquish a four-hour game? - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net

A very good article on why GI is wrong. It explains a lot of what people seem to be on the fence about, and I think it's worthy of a read to get a better idea of what this game actually IS.

Plus it talks about that 4 hour thing from a direct and practical standpoint at the end, so.

This is a game that makes Achievements feel so rewarding. Many of them aren't difficult, but it makes you seriously fucking pleased to make one pop for pulling off some seriously cool shit. The short time is also bullshit-- I'm still only in Act 2 and I've probably put about four or five hours in (retries for better scores or to keep upgrades).

Best game I've played this year.