Do you judge the worth of a game by how much "value" it has?

Simple question. I have been noticing lately that people won't buy short games or games that seem to offer little content (regardless of how well they are received by reviewers, gamers, the general public etc) because of arbitrary factors like length, or graphics, or genre. If you fall into one of these categories I'm just curious to hear your reasoning. Also, this is more of a opinion thread and not a "you're stupid because you're not me" thread so please, anyone who can't respect that, don't bother.

I don't like buying games at 60 bucks when I believe it may offer me around 20 hours or less of entertainment. I like to see what kind of replay it offers, like RPGs offering different classes to play as. If it's something I'm interested in I'll get it eventually, just at a lower price.

There's always exceptions though. Sometimes it's just hard to resist.

My motto is that I never buy a SP only game at launch (few exceptions), I wait until its 40 bucks or less.

MP or games like Fallout Im down to pay 60 bucks for.

Because I know damn well there are games that exist that have hundreds of hours of playtime, and enjoyment in store for me, and it knocks the 8 hour long games way WAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY down my list of priorities (as far as gaming is concerned).

Honestly why would I want to spend $60 for an 8 hour game that I can beat within a day? Especially when so many (8 hour games) that come out don't have much replayability? My standards aren't THAT low, and $60 is a lot for someone like me. I'll either rent, or borrow a game that fits that description.

yep i wont buy ovverrated 10 hour games like uncharted 3 until there 15£ i dont get why they make a 10 hour game?

why cant they make a game with proper content instead fo crap overrated multiplayer.

especiallly in action adventure games eg. uncharted 3

i mean ill buy short games, i just bought uncharted and beat it in 2 days and probably wont play it again for a while. it was great but i wouldn't say its better than something like gears 3 or battlefied 3 or MW3 or Skyrim because those games are going to offer me dozens and dozens of hours of play time as opposed to the 10ish hour campaign of uncharted 3. thats why im renting AC Revelations this year instead of buying it. Im going gonna play single player and then be done with itmems_1224

Uncharted3 has multiplayer though. Is it just not appealing to you? (this is nothing to do with your choice I'm just confused on the logic)

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]i mean ill buy short games, i just bought uncharted and beat it in 2 days and probably wont play it again for a while. it was great but i wouldn't say its better than something like gears 3 or battlefied 3 or MW3 or Skyrim because those games are going to offer me dozens and dozens of hours of play time as opposed to the 10ish hour campaign of uncharted 3. thats why im renting AC Revelations this year instead of buying it. Im going gonna play single player and then be done with itActicEdge

Uncharted3 has multiplayer though. Is it just not appealing to you? (this is nothing to do with your choice I'm just confused on the logic)

Quality > Quantity. You can get thousands of hours out of many F2P MMO's and still not pay anything...I would still take a good 8 hour campaign over most of them though.

And gladly pay 50 or 60 or whatever $.

Simple question. I have been noticing lately that people won't buy short games or games that seem to offer little content (regardless of how well they are received by reviewers, gamers, the general public etc) because of arbitrary factors like length, or graphics, or genre. If you fall into one of these categories I'm just curious to hear your reasoning. Also, this is more of a opinion thread and not a "you're stupid because you're not me" thread so please, anyone who can't respect that, don't bother.

ActicEdge

take skyrm for example, i already know it won't be some classic rpg in the gameplay department but knowing i will get to wander about, do piles of quests and explore for hour after hour give it a huge boost to the likelihood i will buy it.

I judge the worth of a game by how much fun it's going to provide me. A game doesn't need to be incredibly long, have multiplayer, or have any other feature. If it's fun, I'll gladly pick it up on release day.Randoggy

This is my philosophy in theory. I really never buy games release date since I will never have time to play them in that time period. Not the price that is a factor though. I only buy games if I will have time to play them in the time period I bought it or if its short.

Of course. If I'm dropping $60 on something, I expect it to have lasting appeal. If it's a weekend affair, I'm definitely going to rent it and be done with it without a second thought.

I'm more concerned with the quality of the title, but quantity is also rather big factor for me. It's great when a title offers both in spades (Arkham city being the most content packed action adventure I have ever played)

Yeah. For instance, Uncharted 3 is a 19.99 since only its campaign matters to me.

I think price is the main factor,which is understandable.

Still it doesn't really matter if a game is short as long as it has alot of replay value.

I do to an extent. I have mostly stopped buying sports games because of how their value gets killed every year. I don't really care about how long a game is or how much hours I'll spend playing it. I mainly care about how good a game is, and how it will stand against the test of time. For example, I think a game like Demon's Souls will be a timeless classic, and is definitely a game worth picking up and will always have value to me.

I think price is the main factor,which is understandable.

Still it doesn't really matter if a game is short as long as it has alot of replay value.

Shinobishyguy

Yup games are expensive, I'm still of the opinion that in general, $60 is too much for any game. I played MH3 for like 300 hours. I experienced all the relevant content in like a quarter of that if not significantly less though. I personally am just one of those people that thinks its arbitrary to say how long you play it equals its value when for example of the 100 hours of Final Fantasy 8 I played, Only about 20 hours of that was filled with legitimately fun moments or something truly exciting and the other 80 was padding and arbitrary leveling up and running through bare environments because it was necessary.

To an extent yes. As a college student I can't afford to just throw money around, so I guage how much fun time that I'm going to get out of a game for it's pricepoint. Most of the time I wait for a game to go on sale before I get it anyways :)

Forgot to mention though that there are some games that I will pay any amount of money for regardless:

• Donkey Kong
• Xenoblade
• Zelda
• Elder Scrolls

i dont get into this calculus of hour length contributing to value. sometimes added length would make a game worse. for instance, it would be detrimental to the god of war games if they were even 5 hours longer. the game mechanics are largely simple and get by with variety and situational use. variety turns to monotony with overuse.

then theres just the simple observation that length seems to have no bearing in my favorite games. ico is only around 7 hours on a first play through and id much rather play that over the slow moving train wreck star ocean 4.

value is a factor in making my gaming purchases (and id agree with the poster that, to paraphrase, said everybody takes value into account. they just value different things). i just dont measure games like chunks of meat. value for me is an overall experience. its a new idea, or craftmanship, or artistry, or maybe something else.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

I think price is the main factor,which is understandable.

Still it doesn't really matter if a game is short as long as it has alot of replay value.

ActicEdge

Yup games are expensive, I'm still of the opinion that in general, $60 is too much for any game. I played MH3 for like 300 hours. I experienced all the relevant content in like a quarter of that if not significantly less though. I personally am just one of those people that thinks its arbitrary to say how long you play it equals its value when for example of the 100 hours of Final Fantasy 8 I played, Only about 20 hours of that was filled with legitimately fun moments or something truly exciting and the other 80 was padding and arbitrary leveling up and running through bare environments because it was necessary.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

I think price is the main factor,which is understandable.

Still it doesn't really matter if a game is short as long as it has alot of replay value.

Shinobishyguy

Yup games are expensive, I'm still of the opinion that in general, $60 is too much for any game. I played MH3 for like 300 hours. I experienced all the relevant content in like a quarter of that if not significantly less though. I personally am just one of those people that thinks its arbitrary to say how long you play it equals its value when for example of the 100 hours of Final Fantasy 8 I played, Only about 20 hours of that was filled with legitimately fun moments or something truly exciting and the other 80 was padding and arbitrary leveling up and running through bare environments because it was necessary.

Well I didn't play it for 300 hours because it wasn't fun :P

But I could have stopped after 50 hours and still have had my fill. I liked the game play and that's why I played it and still play it but its not some sort of steal imo. Its a great game with a lot of content but ultimately 300 hours later my 15ish hours with Galaxy 2 still absolutely blew away MH3.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Yup games are expensive, I'm still of the opinion that in general, $60 is too much for any game. I played MH3 for like 300 hours. I experienced all the relevant content in like a quarter of that if not significantly less though. I personally am just one of those people that thinks its arbitrary to say how long you play it equals its value when for example of the 100 hours of Final Fantasy 8 I played, Only about 20 hours of that was filled with legitimately fun moments or something truly exciting and the other 80 was padding and arbitrary leveling up and running through bare environments because it was necessary.

ActicEdge

Well I didn't play it for 300 hours because it wasn't fun :P

But I could have stopped after 50 hours and still have had my fill. I liked the game play and that's why I played it and still play it but its not some sort of steal imo. Its a great game with a lot of content but ultimately 300 hours later my 15ish hours with Galaxy 2 still absolutely blew away MH3.

Nope!I usually buy anything that interest me.I don't udually buy a lot of fps games anyway because barely no games interest me in this genre.

SP only, MP only, or SP+MP, it doesn't really matter as long as I enjoyed a game a lot then the value is there. I don't buy DLC's though, and I hardly buy expansions unless they are deemed "worth it."

If we want top notch graphics, game design, art direction, and music, we are going to have to pay for it. Games like Uncharted 2 are completely worth $60.

I'm not sure why people have some kind of arbitrary number standard they hold every game in every genre to, regardless of how much they enjoy the ride. I know I was more than justified paying $70 CAD + 14% tax for Mirror's Edge back when it came out, even though the first playthrough lasted me "only" 5 hours and 30 minutes. Every second of the game was enjoyable for me, and I ended up playing it another 10+ times through, and spending at least 30-40 hours playing time trials and speed runs. By contrast, I bought Persona 3 FES for $40, and got 65 hours into it, and was left with almost nothing but bad memories of grinding and a forgettable story. Yet, is was "supposed" to give me 125+ hours of entertainment. It failed to give me half before I got bored and gave up. If I enjoy a game, and it leaves me wanting more at the end (whether short or long) I will be satisfied playing it and can justify the purchase.foxhound_fox

I've been burned on purchasing short games in the past, so I just don't anymore. I'll rent, or borrow the game, and if it when I beat it I want to play even more I'll buy it. It's really only been a problem this gen though since there are many games which have overly scripted "gameplay" elements to the point where replayability is absolutely crushed.

I also won't buy many JRPGs since it's really just grinding in a lot of them, and yah the stories tend to always be bad. I won't risk paying full price for any of them.

I feel most people in this thread have a problem with the games I described. Nearly every game is linear, and I'd say the vast majority of games are short, but some give far more value than others, and there's no denying that.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"] But it's that sense of satisfaction after getting an armor set that you wanted after grinding materials that makes you feel like you're ontop of the world

Shinobishyguy

Well I didn't play it for 300 hours because it wasn't fun :P

But I could have stopped after 50 hours and still have had my fill. I liked the game play and that's why I played it and still play it but its not some sort of steal imo. Its a great game with a lot of content but ultimately 300 hours later my 15ish hours with Galaxy 2 still absolutely blew away MH3.

I didn't get all the gree stars in SMG2, I had other things to do but I did play it for around 25 hours. I'm talking initially though. SMG2 is the best Wii game in existance at this point and the best game this gen imo. Different topic for a different time though. Ridiculously fun game is rdiculously fun is the point.

If the game is short but very good (such as Vanquish), than I know I will play it through at least twice

More like, do you differentiate between the good short ones and the good long ones?locopatho

[QUOTE="locopatho"]More like, do you differentiate between the good short ones and the good long ones?foxhound_fox

I much prefer games with length and/or replayability. The shortest game I have currently is probably Crysis 2, but, at least as a fairly linear game, it has the potential to be played in different ways (up to a point).

I just love the interactability an RPG or action/adventure game has - you have some control over elements of the plot and story, making you part of the game (compared to your average FPS campaign).

I'll play a few "short" games (e.g. Space Marine), but I want to be able to play a game for a few weeks and come out of other side suitably impressed.

(OK, OK, I ploughed through ME2 and DXHR in a matter of days...taking up most of my time, though...but I did end up playing them both multiple times)

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="locopatho"]More like, do you differentiate between the good short ones and the good long ones?locopatho

No game is 100% entertaining for 100 hours.

Yes. I usually go like this.

For each dollar I spend I should get an hour of gameplay.

20 dollar game = at least 20 hours. 60 Dollar game = at least 60 hours. I think this is a good way of deciding.

If I won't get that much worth, I should just rent it because I can beat a game that's less then 10 hours long without spending 60 dollars.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Why would I? A good game is a good game, and chances are I'll be playing it again sometime soon.ActicEdge

No game is 100% entertaining for 100 hours.

Although it's true that a lot of games would get boring, or dull after 100 hours, but some make it. CoD for example, I get really angry at it, but it sure was fun, especially with friends.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"] So if you had enough money for one game, saw two that looked awesome, with one being a 100 hours long and the other 5 hours long, that wouldn't be any factor at all? Madness I say! gotdangit

No game is 100% entertaining for 100 hours.

Although it's true that a lot of games would get boring, or dull after 100 hours, but some make it. CoD for example, I get really angry at it, but it sure was fun, especially with friends.

I didn't say that you can't enjoy your 100 hours with a game, I played TWEWY for 90 hours and I loved all of it. That said, I don't think a game exhists that can be 100% exciting for 100 hours. I played MH3 for 300 hours. I don't think I wasted my time at all but it wasn't 300 hours of pure gripping fun. Selling that line to me is pretty damn impossible.

Um I would expect that to be the norm amongst all people since that is the basic form of juding somethings worth or its value is by judging it by its worth or value....Since they are often interchangable worth and value that is as concepts.
Both are almost completely subjective at somepoint of course a certain standard can be set forth and then judgements based upon objective means can be made, at the start and their most basic level every thing is subjectively judged inits worth or value.

I judge most games as to what they give me in entertainment.

God,no.

I buy whatever I like and looks good.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Why would I? A good game is a good game, and chances are I'll be playing it again sometime soon.ActicEdge

No game is 100% entertaining for 100 hours.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="locopatho"] So if you had enough money for one game, saw two that looked awesome, with one being a 100 hours long and the other 5 hours long, that wouldn't be any factor at all? Madness I say! locopatho

No game is 100% entertaining for 100 hours.

1st time machine ever built.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

No game is 100% entertaining for 100 hours.

MFDOOM1983

1st time machine ever built.