>>717500121
>>717500653
>It's literally just [three synonyms in a row]
Well now that I write that, maybe you're actually a giga-brain retard and you're just pressing your previous point. In any other context this would just make you a retard. Either way.
>Every complaint needs to be unique
Criticisms usually have to be valid to stick. I can't just say the original Super Mario Bros. game doesn't have enough story content and that's why the game sucks. But if I said that, and then it was repeated ad nauseum by some third party every time Super Mario Bros. was brought up for 5 years, someone would probably notice.
Calling Hollow Knight bloated only has the "illusion" of validity. You see it posted above. "How long to beat." 27 hours? Jesus Christ, this game has as much content as GTAIV! No wonder people get tuckered out!
But you also see the argument this is attached to. "You could beat the whole Metroid series in that time." I feel like this frames the entire argument in a certain way. It's saying that you or someone believes that it's an entire 27 hours of REQUIRED playtime, start to finish, with no variation thereof. And this is the crux of it. As in modern Farcry you have to do a lot of busywork to be ALLOWED to progress with the story, in Hollow Knight it's not the same.
As I said the game, if you knew what you're doing and where everything is and what the fastest route is to go and what have you. If you were rushing through it metroid style without any of the skips and tips and tricks that speedrunners use, it would be about 3 hours. Without dying. Playing the game well.
And if that's the case then where does this figure really come from? If you're good at the game and rush it you can beat it in under 5 hours, so why is the average 27?
Simply put, it's because people don't know about a game when they start it. They aren't good at it. And, they probably feel compelled to do all the content they come across. The game is just an illusion of being "big".
