- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
What is “five times shorter?” Is that one fifth as long? We can’t really measure the shortness of a thing, only its length.
Sorry, it’s a pet peeve of mine.
I would have commented just this and nothing else if you weren’t already doing god’s work.
It should have said “…is 0.2 times longer”
No, that would be 20% longer, not five times shorter.
20% longer means 120% of the length.
Yes but how girthy is it?
Yeah, good point. May just be clear and say “It is 1/5th the length”?
0.2 times as long.
0.2 times the length of*
I read that as 20% longer… aka 120% the length.
What about “…is 0.2 times the length”
The shortness of a thing is an aspect of its length. Your comment makes no sense. Five times shorter means that you can play Mirage five times in the same time it takes to play Valhalla once. I’m pedantic as hell but this comes off to me as fake pedantry.
Yeah, I’m being quite pedantic, but it is genuine. It’s a common language mistake that frustrates me.
Don’t try to multiply a relative descriptor when you can use hard numbers (i.e. it’s 20 hours shorter) or the appropriate relative measurement (i.e. it’s 20% as long). It’s both improper English and less clear (maybe “2 times harder to understand”?) to do so.
I think we can measure your shortness of breath right there, tho
deleted by creator
I’d rather a shorter actually good game than a game vast as an ocean deep as a puddle.
Quality wins over quantity. A good quality game might even be enjoyable over multiple playthroughs.
The real question we need to be asking ourselves is do games need to be long or do they need to be good?
The answer is they need to be good, which is exactly why I won’t be touching this piece of shit.
Why do you think it won’t be good?
I can’t speak for them but Ubisoft doesn’t have a great modern track record.
About a decade since their last truly great game.
Lmao. I remember when hearing that a new game had a hundred hours of content was great! Now it’s like, thank god Ubisoft stopped sniffing its own farts.
I love 100 hours of content.
Just don’t pretend fetch quests that are just running across the map and a bunch of collectibles that are linear unfun climbing puzzles padded to hell are content.
Seriously, I have played Elden Ring for about 100 hours and none of it felt padded. Quality matters, be it 10 or 100 hours.
Valhalla was such a slog.
I’ve got high hopes for Mirage and Hexe.
You can hear Salomon talk about Assassin’s Creed Mirage’s average run times below at the 17:04 mark, but as it’s in French, we at PCGamesN have transcribed and translated the quote for you.
“Given that we do a lot of playtesting internally at Ubisoft, it’s part of our process, we really want to get as close as possible to the players, so we’ll say that the latest playtimes we’ve received average at around 20-23 hours,” Salomon says. “That can go up to 25-30 hours for the completionists, and we’ll say that those who will be rushing the game will be around 20 hours.”
I love how they convert from French hours to English hours in the translation.
Another fantastic selling point, trimming down the awfully padded content in preference for a decent storyline
Thank fuck
Staying spoiler free for Valhalla, I found the ‘end game’ of the main quest line to be really disappointing. I had sank 150 hours into the thing and felt a bit…meh.
“You conquered Britain. Good for you. Well. See you later.”
I got of bored of Valhalla within like first couple of hours. And I have played almost every mainline AC game out there.
So… the new game is… not as long / big as the old one, which consisted mostly of empty space between some very small areas of things happening?
I mean, I got the game physical on ps5. I installed it longer than I played it.
I don’t even remember if it had auto-run or teleportation or if I just browsed old-lemmy while traveling.
It means they are making it in the image of a valhallas latest expansion: Empty.
