Top
130°

A Games Length Does Not Equal Value

Look around the internet and you can learn a lot of things about gamers. One major trend for gamers at the moment is to group together on forums to either complain or praise games. Mostly there seems to be a lot of complaining about changes a game is making or how stupid one company is for not doing something.

That’s all well and good but when people start to use a mathematical calculation when considering if a game is worth buying or just "renting and beating" then things are starting to get crazy. Yes this is a rant about those stupid people that complain that a game isn’t worth their money because it is only x amount of hours.

Read Full Story >>
thataussiegamesite.com.au
The story is too old to be commented.
Chris3992630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Sure "value" is relative. But when you're buying something for $70 plus tax the overall length of the experience is going to be a consideration. Especially if the game doesn't have a MP component (which adds longevity).

Making knee-jerk assessments about games based on numerical review scores though, is a relatively stupid practice that needs to stop.

OneSneakyMofo2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Halo: O.D.S.T. (tacked on single player; released solely to milk the franchise)
Splinter Cell: Conviction (can't believe I hyped myself up for this)
Alan Wake ( had the last episode been good, I'd have changed my mind here)

I can't think of any others right now that are recent.

Inside_out2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

@OneSneakyMofo...Your right. How many suckers out there bought GOW with NO DLC and multi-player and a 6 hr campaign to boot. Those poor kids must of cried themselves to sleep. Nobody who rented it bought it and for good reason. This game should of been an add on for the equally horrid re-issue of last gen GOW games package. All 3 for 19.99 would of been fair.

Heavy Rain, again no multi-player and no DLC. People who rented that game are breathing a sigh of relief. It should of been $19.99 as well with Infamous thrown in.

Look at the games that don't have a single player campaign. Games like so-com and Mag. The used game stores are full with those titles and are not excepting anymore copies at trade because nobody wants these games.

What about games that come out on different consoles and are of different quality. RDR came out on 360 and PS3 but the PS3 port was HORENDOUS. They should give those kids there money back so they can play it on 360. Same with all the multi-plats that play better on one system. You know something is up when all the screen shots and demos are shown on one console only. Look at Rage and Crysis being shown on 360 only...hmmm...why is that???

bjornbear2629d ago (Edited 2629d ago )

i have GOWIII and i've probably played it more than GTAIV

its just fun to go back and do challenge rooms / THE GAME.

Heavy Rain as well, replayed it twice got about 20hr+, great fun

honestly, if you think 70 bucks isn't worth an amazing 8 hour experience its your loss as a gamer.

oh and very cheap jab at PS3, don't be so butt hurt just because my man Mofo listed 3 360 games, don't be so sensitive little boy, go smoke some green n chill

velaxun2629d ago

@1.1.1 a little butthurt that he only mentioned 360 games or what? Maybe that's the only system he owns therefore the only games he has experience with. Chill bud

raztad2629d ago (Edited 2629d ago )

@cez

Well I actually played 70+ hours of MAG, so the game totally returned what I paid for it. When GoW3 came out I stopped playing MAG and GoW3 sucked my life for more than 20 hours of pure EPIC. Replaying it on ultra hard mode now for maximum challenge. Eventually I'll beat it again.

Satisfied with both purchases. GoW3 is one of the bestselling games on the PS3. Keep on hating, perhaps you will sleep better at night.

More on Topic:

Quality> Quantity. So in that sense I agree with the article. Gamers are in a budget, but no every game must have a multiplayer component, or RPG sized length. Buy less but better.

ColdFire2629d ago

TF2 on PC has to be the best value game ever. Great online game, endless replay. But then mix in HUGE amounts of free DLC, (i.e, more than most sequels worth of new content), and loads of mods and such...

nickjkl2629d ago

as long as the amount of hours is equal to the amount of money i make an hour relative to money i make an hour

if i buy a game at 60 dollars that game better last more than 5 hours

ChozenWoan2629d ago (Edited 2629d ago )

GoW3 = 12 hours of epic fun
FF13 = 12 hours of WTF + 40 hours of gameplay I was too bored to get to.

winner?
GoW3

It's better to have 12 hours of unending epic gameplay than to be tortured for 20-40 hours just to get to the good part of a game. Thus Time < Fun.

Of course every game should give you at around 10+ hours of gameplay to help justify the insane prices of games this gen.

Bring back Tier Pricing!!!

badz1492629d ago

I can't even find a good word but obvious fanboy trolling is obvious. go away TROLL!

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2629d ago
ScottJ102630d ago

Yeah... A more appropriate title for an article would be.. A games length does not equal quality. Because many games that are short are very good games. But value, as you said, playing $70+ dollars of a game and only getting a few hours in, that's kind of a waste.

ForceCSW2630d ago

I think the author has a good point he just doesn't prove it very well. I think he just wants to say that a game's value should be based on the amount of enjoyment you get from it not the numbers of hours you spend with it. However the writer just sounds like an ignorant a**hole when he makes his sweeping generalizations though, for example if you can't or don't buy games very often you're probably going to want one that will last awhile.

pippoppow2630d ago

It depends.
10hr great single player game with no multiplayer vs mediocre 20hr single -player game with average multiplayer components. I'd choose the shorter but superior experience.

I really do not care much for mulitplayer games. I liked Warhawk alot and enjoyed the online component to Demons Souls but otherwise have hardly touched online gaming. Maybe I had my fill of it in the 90s PC gaming. I guess the newness of it this console gen has console gamers going nuts over it.

I think the most important factor is overall quality, preference and that certain something that really does it for you.

Take Heavenly Sword for example. It hit all the right cords with me. Great game that is under 10hrs with no multi-player. Have no regrets buying it and would buy a part 2 with a similar length as long as everything else is at least as good/great as the first with some improvements.

Most of these popular games today with online components with 20+hrs of game time just don't do it for me.

Now I understand money is tight for most so thoughtful considerations of a purchase are required. Really depends on the type of gamer you are and how much disposable cash you have.

cjflora2629d ago

I'll agree, but Gamefly needs some improvements. Their shipping time kind of sucks when compared to Netflix. It takes 3-4 days for me to receive a game, and 3-4 days to send back. If I'm sending a game back it's almost a week before I get another if using the 1 game at a time plan. In addition to that, it's hard as hell to get a newer game. I waited 2 months before the availability of Assassin's Creed II got high enough for them to ship it to me. I just recently added Heavy Rain, and it shipped the next day, so adding games that have been out a few months isn't as bad.

In conclusion, Gamefly is still cheaper than buying games at full price, but I can't wait until they grow enough to be as effective as Netflix.

jakethesnake2629d ago

A games length doesn't equal value, but a lack of length certainly means a lack of value.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2629d ago
USEYOURFIST2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

article fail

you missed the point if a great is good it gets brought. but if it can be completed in 6-7 hours and has no replayability (i dont count multiplayer as a reason to buy) then why should spend £40 when i could rent it for £5 and play it for the same amount as if i had bought it

eg god of war 3 - buy as its amazing and will play it through at least twice and want it in my collection

bioshock 2 - rent as i cant see myself playing twice

Titanz2630d ago

Cough*Red steel 2*cough.

MysticStrummer2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Yeah sorry but you're mostly wrong. Substitute "quality" for "value" and you'll be much closer to the truth. To me, a game's length determines whether I'm upset that I didn't just rent the thing instead of buying it. If I can complete it as a rental then it has less value, unless it has great multiplayer modes which most games really don't. If you want to play it again, just rent it again. You could do that multiple times and not pay as much as if you had bought it.

pipster172630d ago

By virtue of using the word "value" it means you want bang for your buck. Of course, if games weren't 60 bucks a rip with the target audience mainly teens through thirysomethings, it might be different. If they were marketed to only rich people or retirees, no one would care that they have to drop so much money on one game. The thing is, especially in the current economy, if I am going to buy a game, I want to get the most out of it for my dollars so that I am not compelled to go buy a new game in a day or a week.

ChickeyCantor2630d ago

What if a game is long, yet the game has more garbage than quality?

I say you are both wrong.

OneSneakyMofo2630d ago

I agree. Look at a lot of RPGs. Do you actually want a 70 hour game that's mediocre (FF13)?

At least 10-15 and at most 30-50.

Chris_TC2629d ago

There is no "at least." For a really, really awesome 6-hour game I will gladly pay full price. And for a crappy 30-hour game I won't pay a dime.

What does a ticket to the movies cost (90 minutes to 2 hours of entertainment)? How about a concert ticket? It's all relative.

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