Top
70°

Should Value For Money Be Mentioned In Reviews?

NowGamer: "MGS 5: Ground Zeroes is just one example of a game that sparked debates around value for money. But does the issue of value for money have any place in videogame reviews?"

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
RumbleFish884d ago

Yes and the value for money is superb with MGS GZ.

diesoft884d ago

How? I haven't played it but I am hearing how quickly people are completing it (not including speed runs of 8 minutes or so?). I enjoy MGS but $30 for a sampler? Even at $10 I'd be upset. So how is the value there?

Lord_Sloth884d ago (Edited 884d ago )

^ The how is quite simple. It's very fun. I've plugged over 20 hours into the game and I'm still playing it. If reviews start mentioning price value than I am very curious as to how they will justify the MMO fees of $120 pet year required AFTER THE GAME PURCHASE. You wanna complain about price? There you go.

One_Eyed_Wizard884d ago

Just like Lord_Sloth said. Anyway, doing all missions only once should take you 3 hours minimum on the first try and that's if you're on some sort of rush. It's true that you can complete the first mission and most of them under ten minutes each but that's only if you're already a pro, know exactly where to go and know enemy placement and routes well. It may not be for everyone but hardcore fans definitely.

Also, deja-vu and jamais-vu missions are now (or soon will be?)on both platforms, adding an extra mission to the game. It may still not justify the 30$ tag for some but it already did for me.

If you really just want to see the story and play once you're better off waiting for a major price drop or watch the cutscenes on youtube.

RumbleFish884d ago

MGS games are for the fans of the series. If You are a fan, buy it, you will have lots of fun with it because you will do what fans of the series do: play the game in every thinkable or unthinkable way.
The game has a main mission and 5 side missions. When you look at the percentages of the trophies, you will see how few people have seen the whole game.
There is a good amount of content for the money in that game.

randomass171883d ago

A game that can be beaten in an hour or less can be very fun. Binding of Isaac is such a game. And that's $5.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 883d ago
colonel179884d ago (Edited 884d ago )

mmm I thought reviews were actually INVENTED for that exact reason?? The sole reason to view/read a review is to know if you want to spend money on the product being reviewed, so that you know more of the product and evaluate if it's of value to you. The first thing to know if a product is of value is the value of money.

EDIT: With that said, the value of games is relative to the player. For example, I am very satisfied with 8-10 hours single player games. I almost never play Multiplayer. Other player would only be satisfied with 30-50 single player games like RPGs, and other would only be satisfied if the game comes with MP. However, there is a standard for each of those genres. You expect a movie to be at least 1:30 hrs long, the same with games. If an RPG is 8 hours it is a very very short RPG, and therefore might not be of value. A single player game, should be at least 8 hours or else, won't be valuable either. Fighters might be expected to have 20 characters at least, and that's the reason KI was difficult to convince as a good value.

So there are some minimum standards for each genre that have been stablished. Like movies, there are going to be movies which are 3 hours long, and other that might even be just 1 hour, but those are exceptions, and because of that they NEED to PROVE their value.

MGS V: Ground Zeroes does NOT prove its value. (for most people)

ginsunuva884d ago

But not everyone buys games at the same price.

xBigxBossx884d ago

No. Because that's a personal opinion. Since you are all on N4G, the average gamer doesn't get on here to check reviews, they buy off hype. Any hardcore gamer knew about it's length so if you bought and were disappointed you should have already know about this. IMO this game is amazing. Is it short? Yes. But the replay ability is unreal. I'm over 50 hrs (yes I'm an addict) but I've played this game more than any next gen game. So IMO it's the best game to date

randomass171883d ago

"No. Because that's a personal opinion."

You mean what a review is? :/

Farsendor1883d ago

agree with your yes, if a demo is priced tell us in the reviews of why you shouldnt pay for it.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 883d ago
BlackOni884d ago (Edited 884d ago )

Yes, games are competing for gamers' time and money. If the game isn't worthy of the price it asks, then it should be mentioned in the review. It's one of the biggest reasons I don't use a traditional number scale for my reviews.

*edit* Take The Elder Scrolls Online for example. I didn't play the game, so I can't speak on personal experience, but most people feel that the game is fairly generic in it's offering as an MMO, and as an Elder Scrolls game, it doesn't really feel like an Elder Scrolls game. It's $60 for the game upfront, and $15 per month after that. That literally directly influences how long you can play the game, especially if you have other responsibilities that take priority over paying that monthly fee. That factor alone warrants mentioning it in the review.

I agree with what this article is saying in regards to how we shouldn't have a checklist of features to refer to when evaluating whether a game is good or not, but to answer the question "Should you buy this game or not?" It kinda has to be a part of the discussion.

Lord_Sloth883d ago

Their job is to tell you the pros and cons. Your job is to decide it's value based on that.

BlackOni883d ago

Part of the pros and cons is evaluating what the end user gets out of the experience. That is in relation to the cost of said product, vs perceived value.

Lord_Sloth883d ago

Yes but the perceived value comes down to the individual making the purchase. Ground Zeros is a prime example of this. Everybody is complaining and calling it a top off but I must say that I've gotten more fun and time out of it than most $60 games.

BlackOni883d ago

Right. But when considering reviews, the review is only a reflection of what that one person perceives. A review, in it's very nature, is one's opinion of a game. If the reviewer, who sometimes goes out of pocket for the game, feels that there isn't enough value proposition, that's still a part of the process in evaluating the game.

WizzroSupreme884d ago

Why Kotaku's reviews are designed like they are.

Einhert884d ago

ummmm of course....This is why I like Angry Joes reviews.

Massacred884d ago

Complete honesty and he truly seems sincere. Best reviews out there.

randomass171883d ago

Eh, Angry Joe is too eccentric for my taste. I really like ProJared. He seems genuine as well and his review of GZ was actually really fair. He gave the game an 8/10 for its gameplay but insisted that people don't buy it because of its short length.

king_george884d ago

Probably my favorite reviewer because of how straight forward he is.

That guy needs more success he has certainly earned it

LAWSON72884d ago (Edited 884d ago )

No everybody has a different idea on money's value. Sure mention content and longevity, but IMO if a reviewer cannot get the point across on what a game lacks and they need to say "this game is to expensive" they are lazy and should not be a reviewer.

Show all comments (51)
The story is too old to be commented.