Same as first one. That's fine. Not every game needs to be 300 hour grind fest.

the game is all about replayability, length doesn't really matter. I have 300 hours in RE2 remake, which only takes like 6 hours to beat on a normal play through. I'm waiting for a sale because of the greedy decisions of the dev/publisher.

You know, I Want Shorter Games With Worse Graphics and I'm Not Kidding.

Originally posted by Averis:

make an insane claim like "it's 10-20 hours long bro".

Joke's on you, I got 114 hours in the first Ghostrunner.
The movement mechanics, fluidity, speed, puzzle-like nature of level design and aesthetic is fun enough for me to keep coming back for a year and grind time on various levels for the hell of it.
Having spent just a couple of hours in GR2, it feels just as good and with more depth to its mechanics. GR1 was one of the best gaming value for money I got, and the sequel looks even more promising.

Originally posted by Karl Toffel:

Same as first one. That's fine. Not every game needs to be 300 hour grind fest.

That's fine but $70 bucks for a short moderate quality indie is yikes no matter how you split it.

I can enjoy a short game and also not be robbed blind at the same time. Will wait until base game goes on discount, I guess. Thanks OP.

I'm 7 hours in and am a little over halfway done.

Regardless, you should be paying for the experience and enjoyment you get out of playing the game, and not the length. Don't really get why people care so much about how long a game is.

I remember reading a comment from a developer or representative here stating that the sequel is a lot bigger than the first game, so I am a bit disappointed to read this.

Nevertheless, I have enjoyed every second of the almost 80 hours I put in the first game so if the sequel is of similar quality it is stil 100% worth it for me.

Errrmmmmm I can't spend 6000 hours grinding battle pass what a waste of money like cringesauce much???

Originally posted by Mad Cat Lad:

Originally posted by Averis:

make an insane claim like "it's 10-20 hours long bro".

GR1 was one of the best gaming value for money I got

technically not a lie since you're probably getting paid to write this drivel

Originally posted by Ahriman:

technically not a lie since you're probably getting paid to write this drivel

Who hurt you?

Bro, you can complete doom eternal in 4-6 hours from start to finish, if you dont die

Originally posted by Adam Jensen:

Bro, you can complete doom eternal in 4-6 hours from start to finish, if you dont die

Most story shooters are 9-12 hours on first run, including Doom Eternal, almost all the Halo games, etc.

That's still almost twice what this game's range is with far higher production values and the theoretical inclusion of multiplayer and extra modes this game doesn't have.

People act as if length is all people measure, but it's not. Perhaps if this game was a 100 across the board GOTY contender with a story that will stay with you for the rest of your life and gameplay that feels like sin, paying such a high price for 5 hours of content might be a good ask for a lot of people.

That's not this game though. The problem isn't just the length, that's just one part of it. So you have a mid game with a short length for a price at the higher range of the indie price scale.

Hollow Knight is $15. Dave the Diver, which will probably win indie of the year, is $20.

I'm just not sure how you guys can't understand that the price tag on top of length is just extra stuff stacked on to why people find this a bad value proposition, not the one and only reason.

People care about how long a game is because that's content, pure and simple. I get the tired old silly argument about padding, but not every long game is full of freaking padding, battle passes, and pointless grinding.

Some games are well priced, really long, and both well-paced and fun all the way through that length... again, Hollow Knight. You could also spend 20 more bucks and get true masterpieces like Baldur's Gate 3 if you don't want to just use the price of Ghostrunner 2 to buy two better indies, lol.

I agree this game, based on what I've seen, isn't worth $40 and if you payed $70 for early access you got ripped off.

It's not that hard a concept to grasp, guys.

@ Nightmarian

People have different tastes. How's that for an easy to grasp concept? You 'd have to pay me to play Hollow Knight and Dave the Diver, and I am not in the mood for playing Baldur's Gate 3 for 200 hours now.

Ghostrunner's gameplay *does* feel like a sin to me and I don't know who decided that the game is "mid". Certainly not the reviews.

Originally posted by Mitsos:

@ Nightmarian

People have different tastes. How 's that for an easy to grasp concept? You 'd have to pay me to play Hollow Knight and Dave the Diver, and I am not in the mood for playing Baldur's Gate 3 for 200 hours now.

Ghostrunner's gameplay *does* feel like a sin to me and I don't know who decided that the game is "mid". Certainly not the reviews.

Fair enough, but note the irony that you're all clowning on someone for professing their own tastes in value. And with a more rational take, at that.

Originally posted by Mitsos:

I don't know who decided that the game is "mid". Certainly not the reviews.

So a 77 average with scores mostly ranging from 6-8/10 isn't mid?

Lmao, okay. When you're a fan these days, you're a fanatic, I guess.

@ Nightmarian

I didn't "clown" anyone in this thread and I did not say anything about your tastes. I have given maybe 2-3 clown awards in 16 years of using Steam.

Bye.