Spider-Man: Miles Morales review | Short and mostly sweet, but a ripoff at full price | Firstpost

"Marvel's Spider-Man: Miles Morales is like fine dining: a high-quality experience that's over way too soon, leaving you hungry and clutching a fat bill." - Karan Pradhan, First Post

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ExBee315d ago

It's definitely a good game but at £50 for a short story, its gonna leave people wanting more. If it was £25 and £45 with SM Remastered then it would be closer to the right price

_SilverHawk_315d ago

To each his own but is 8 to 10 hours playtime for a game considered short? Sounds amazing to me

NeoGamer232315d ago (Edited 315d ago )

Ghosts took me about 25 hours and the first spider-man took me about 19 hours on my first play throughs.

This looks to be about half, which Insomniac told us a while back.

Also, this is really only a SP game, so being that short should be reflected more in the price.

ExBee314d ago

8-10 hours for a story in a multiplayer game? Sure that's not short!

But a full-price singleplayer only game. Yeah 8-10 hours isn't a lot

CrimsonWing69314d ago

Pretty sure it’ll be less than 8. We’ll see the time for blind playthroughs on YouTube.

TricksterArrow314d ago

8-10 hours for a SP is OK. Resident Evil 2, one of my favorites, can be beat in less than 3.

Shane Kim314d ago

Yes 8-10 hours for a full price game is too short.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 314d ago
Geronosaur314d ago (Edited 314d ago )

People who complain about price don't take inflation and cost to develop games into account. Plus you're getting consoles at near cost. A little gratitude, jeez.

Sitdown314d ago

It's okay not to like everything Sony does. Geeez

SinkingSage314d ago (Edited 314d ago )

You don't take into account that despite inflation, people's wages haven't significantly increased in the last 20 years, they're pretty much stagnant, so prices go up but wages stay the same, what does that mean? Things cost more now.

Add on top of that the fact that video games sell more than ever so they can recoup costs that they could not years ago.

Add on top of that the fact that licensable engines and a middleware for anything you can imagine makes game development easier than ever, because you don't have to make an engine from the ground up every time you want to make a game, you don't even have to keep updating an in-house engine, you can just license an existing engine with incredibly detailed documentation and support.

311d ago
Lilrizky314d ago

Tbh every resident evil (except 6 which is bloated) the first 3 uncharted games, every DMC and plenty of other AAA games are in the 8-10 mark

dcbronco314d ago

Sony can't take them enough to complain. Good for you Sony. Fleece em.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 311d ago
SinisterKieran315d ago

this is probably the 1st time i've ever seen a review take price into account.

Silly gameAr315d ago (Edited 315d ago )

You ever heard of Literarily the first time I've ever heard of the site on N4G, and I've been here for years.

If this site is going to complain about price for how long the game is, they had better do that for every single game they review from here on out.

potatoseal314d ago (Edited 314d ago )

LOL they're not even on let alone metacritic.

They are no name loser looking to cash in

LOL in the first sentence there is bad english.

"The first time I even heard" LMAO

nirwanda314d ago

Price is often taken into account, do you think alot of low budget indie games could compete score wise with a $100,000,000 game on an even level.
Trust me if untitled goose was $70 it wouldn't be in a game of the year conversation.

Personally I think they should mention collectors edition in reviews to point out what your investing the extra money in.

instantstupor314d ago (Edited 314d ago )

I think it should be brought up in the review for sure, but I don't think it should count towards the scoring. If a game is overpriced, it doesn't automatically become better once it goes on sale. It becomes a better value, certainly, but not a better game.

Gameseeker_Frampt314d ago

You must be new to gaming since The Order: 1886 was ripped apart for being a $60 game with only 6 hours of content.

Hellcat2020315d ago

GTFO it was no damn secret is wasn't a full games length as first one.
Plus he played ps4 version

King_Noctis315d ago

He was talking about the price vs the length of the game.

Hellcat2020315d ago

Dude obviously gave it a bad review because he didn't get a ps5 and a ps5 version of Miles Morales

Battlestar23315d ago

Finally a review that mentions how short it is. Should of just been DLC for the first game and put the resources towards the 2nd one.

Jericho1337315d ago

You can't really blame Sony for releasing it as a standalone expansion. AAA launch titles are usually rushed or delayed (see Halo Infinite) so it makes sense to release a game of this nature at launch. Plus... it's Spiderman, people are going to buy it no matter what. As long as people are aware of what it isn't (a sequel) then there's no problems.

P_Bomb315d ago

First game already had DLC. It’s a different character and wound up AAA. Seen it before in Lost Legacy, Ground Zeroes, Halo 3: ODST.

purple101315d ago

There was already 3 dlcs for the first that they sold at 9.99 for the trio.

This is half a game again. So bit more than dlc.

potatoseal314d ago

* finally a review that's not on opencritic or metacritc that matches up with your opinion on something you haven't played

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 314d ago
BrainSyphoned315d ago (Edited 315d ago )

Full price? Uh if you get it without the ps4 game included it is $50 bucks. Games this gen are $70. Last I checked $50 is $20 less than $70. Now if you want the ultimate edition with the upgraded Spider-Man it is 70---
20 for Peter Parker 50 for Miles Morales.

If we are talking the PS4 version it is $50. Games last gen were $60. Last I checked $50 is $10 less than $60. Also known as 2 out of 2 selling at Not Full Price.

Guyfamily999315d ago

83% the price for a game that's half as long and re-uses the open world from the last game. Should've been 40 or even 30. The Lost Legacy, which people love to compare this too, was a totally new adventure, close to as long as UC4, and yet 40 bucks.

Not trying to be a hater, I'll actually be playing MM becuase I'm excited for it, but this isn't a very fair/pro consumer price point for what the game is.

RazzerRedux314d ago (Edited 314d ago )

"The Lost Legacy, which people love to compare this too, was a totally new adventure, close to as long as UC4, and yet 40 bucks."

Not true. TLL was 7 hours compared to UC4's 15 hours. And prices have shifted this gen as BrainSyphoned pointed out so this game is very much in line with TLL.

"Not trying to be a hater, I'll actually be playing MM becuase I'm excited for it, but this isn't a very fair/pro consumer price point for what the game is."

That is the ultimate judge on whether a product is being sold at the correct price point: will they buy it? Hate or not, but you can't blame someone else if you are going to purchase a product that you think costs too much.

Show all comments (55)
The story is too old to be commented.