I buy most games that come out that I think I want to play at some point. Thus, I have a large stack of games (and books) that I haven't even started yet. And no, I'm not a casual gamer. Video games are my main hobby.

In a way, I agree that some games are too long. When I buy a heavily story-based game, I don't want to play through filler that was added to artificially extend the total playtime. I want to play through it, have the intended experience, and move on.

Now, if those games have replayability for those with more time than money, fine. Look at most older games that weren't RPGs. You could finish them in an hour or two, but they were fun enough that you'd want to play them over and over. I think there's still something to that.

When I was a kid and I had more time than money, longer games were good because I couldn't afford many games. Now, I have the opposite problem.

For what it's worth, I do also play games that aren't story-based that you never "finish"--fighting games and the like.

I didn't say that they were irrelevant. I said that citing casual game as an example is irrelevant. It's well-established that casual games are doing quite well on phones. What I don't believe is that they will be taking over as the platform of choice for non-casual games for hobbyist gamers anytime soon.

Angry Birds is an irrelevant example unless you're talking about casual games only.

I don't see hobbyist gamers giving up their dedicated game hardware anytime soon. I think many of the people speculating about this happening are casual gamers and see games from that perspective. For many, games aren't something they play to kill time when they're bored or have to play when they have friends over, but something that they do as a hobby.

Some types of games would probably work very well on a smartphone, but expecting it to completely replace consoles as a gaming platform is silly, IMO.

This was my first thought also. It's not hypocrisy at all.

In Firefox, at least, it's really easy:

Type / then part of the link text and then enter

Ex: "/ gave it " for the link to the article. Of course, just tabbing until you get to the link works also.

Have you played Minecraft or Terraria?

Combat is a significant part of the core game of Minecraft. People tout it as a pure sandbox, but the main game mode sends monsters to kill you every night and all the time underground.

I've only watched a trailer of Terraria, but it seemed like about 80% of the trailer involved people swinging swords at monsters.

Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you don't have the

This is my problem with it--survival is the "main" mode and it has no real gameplay.

I read in an interview where Notch said that that creative mode was just a test mode while he got the basic engine working--it was never intended to be the pure stress-free building sandbox that everyone makes it out to be. So many people fixated on that mode that people think that's what the game is supposed to be--just virtual Legos.

The game needs challenge. It needs things to threaten you even once you've built your fortress. As of right now, it's extremely easy to "survive" indefinitely.

For those who just want to build stuff, he'll eventually implement "creative mode". How that would keep your attention for more than a few hours, though, I have no idea.

If it wasn't just a lame rationalization for wanting to get games for free, then yes. I doubt very many people that pirate games "because of DRM" buy the game, because they just want to get it for free and they feel better about themselves if they can rationalize it.

If you choose to not buy something because of DRM or whatever else, that's fine, but then you aren't entitled to then play and enjoy the game. If you play it anyway, then you're just a hypocrite and a leech on those who do buy it legitimately.

Then quite honestly, you haven't played many games in the last several years.

There are several very popular games designed from the ground up for co-op: Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Resident Evil 5, etc. In these games, even in single-player, you have AI team-mates. You literally can't play them solo.

I have no idea what you've been playing if you think no modern games have co-op. Co-op was pretty dead in the early 2000s, but it's been back more than ever for the last five or so years.

Shogun 2 Total War is Steam only, so the physical limited edition requires registration on Steam. I think this was true for Empire Total War also.

Red Orchestra was Steam-only, even with the physical copy, also.

If physical copies still had nice thick manuals like they did in the 90s (like the kind I still have on my bookshelf and still read sometimes), I'd be more inclined to get them, but nowadays most "manuals" are just 5-page instruction booklets, so I'm not missing out on much.

What you say makes perfect sense. It's just, as you said, that so many people feel entitled to games.

It's just a lame rationalization for piracy. There's no reason to try to understand it any further than that.

I don't pirate anything, so I either buy the game and play it (when I get time--sometimes much later) or don't buy it and don't play it ever.

For years, the average gamer has been in his/her 30s. Your mindset that "it's mostly for kids" is part of the problem being discussed. It's not a new trend either--many of the very earliest games were mostly for adults.

I'll agree about Dead Space and plenty of other games. I just thought Recettear was a bizarre game to bring up in this discussion.

As a 25+ year veteran of video games (and about 20+ of console games), I hate seeing shoddy PC ports, especially of genres and series that became what they are on the PC (Deus Ex, Elder Scrolls, etc). To me, Bethesda is one of the worst offenders. Oblivion and Fallout 3 were so blatantly a straight port with interfaces that were horrible on PC. I also hate seeing gameplay watered down to appeal to the more "casual" console audience. The above-mentioned examples perfectly illustrate this too.

That said, if a game was obviously designed for a controller, I'll usually just play it with a controller, even on PC. The sad part is how popular first and third-person games are on consoles, when they have terrible controls for them. For that type of game at least, a mouse (when properly implemented) will always be superior.

All completely different games with completely different gameplay. "Overhead view" is not a genre. This is an item-shop sim with a side of action-RPG gameplay in the style of Zelda, Ys, etc, and that style of action gameplay would not work well with a mouse. A part of its charm is that it feels like a SNES-era JRPG--in rare cases like this, a PC game feeling like a console game is a benefit.

It's also a doujin game made by just a few people. If the game wasn't made by a few people with no budget, it might have been an actual console game, but most doujin games are for PC, because it's much easier and cheaper for a few people to make and release a PC game than a console game.

It sounds like you're thinking "Hmm, I see an overhead view--I've played completely unrelated games with overhead view on the PC before, so this game should be just like them!".

Your exceptions are the problem, not the game. When I first installed the game, I never expected it to work with anything other than a gamepad or keyboard because I knew what genre of game I was playing. If it was a Diablo-style game like those examples you named off, I'd expect clicking to move, but it is most definitely not that type of game.