Why should the length of a game/price reflect review scores?

Just wondering what peoples views are. Should reviews take into account the length of the game and if so is it because of value for money or is it something else? Also should reviews take into account the price of a game? Would RE4 on Wii have scored so high if it was $50? Would Bioshock have scored higher if it included Multi player thus increasing the length of the game?

I kind of think that taking into account value for money in the overall score is a bad idea, as prices can vary but the game remains the same.

Reviews take into account system requirements for PC games, so yes, the length of a game and its price should be taken into account. Orange Box should receive automatic bonus points for being such an unbelievable value for your money. Then again, it doesn't really need bonus points. It's AAAA based on the quality of its content alone, much less the quantity.

Similarly, Shadowrun was right to have been knocked down for being multi-only and $60, and Heavenly Sword right to have been knocked down for costing $10 an hour to play.

I think the price does come into play in the review. We're talking about people going out to buy the game, so are they getting enough 'bang for their buck', for lack of a better explination. Heavenly Sword, for example, apparently can be finished in 7 hours, give or take. Is that really worth $60? Maybe it is to some people. I know I see that as a negative for the game, and would mark it as so.

As for the length of a game. I wouldn't count multiplayer in the length of a game, so Bioshock with multi would not make the game longer. The length is the single player campaign. Multiplayer is replay value. IMO, anyway.

Just wondering what peoples views are. Should reviews take into account the length of the game and if so is it because of value for money or is it something else? Also should reviews take into account the price of a game? Would RE4 on Wii have scored so high if it was $50? Would Bioshock have scored higher if it included Multi player thus increasing the length of the game?

I kind of think that taking into account value for money in the overall score is a bad idea, as prices can vary but the game remains the same.

actionquake

I think scores already take game length into account. Look at heavenly sword. Clearly reviewers felt HS was lacking. But a game came be released, that is the exact same length, blow you clear away, and get a good score. It's not just about game length but what a game DOES with that length.

I am against games that feel drawn out artificially. I would rather play a short game that feels satisfying than a long game that feels drawn out just for the sake of it. I like long games too, but make it long for a reason and tell me a story. DOn't send me on fetch quests or force me to do side-quests just to stretch it out.

I think a game has to be the right length for what you are doing and, ofc ourse, priced accordingly. I'm not paying $60 for a 4 hour game that leaves me wanting. I WILL pay that money for a four hour game that blows my head off and keeps me coming back to play over and over again.

The length of a game is incredibly important.

When I drop 30-60$ I want to know that I am getting my money's worth.

If a game is under 12 hours long, it should have alot of replayability via achievements and unlockables.

For instance; I just dropped 60$ on Bioshock, which was, admittedly, an awesome game.

However, within one week of buying the game, I had beaten it twice and gotten all 1000 gamerscore.

Now I wonder to myself whether or not I should have just rented it.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes. Take it to its extremes, an absolutely unbelievably good game that only lasts10 minutes and cost $100 should not score 9+ because those 10 minutes were so good.

I think the price does come into play in the review. We're talking about people going out to buy the game, so are they getting enough 'bang for their buck', for lack of a better explination. Heavenly Sword, for example, apparently can be finished in 7 hours, give or take. Is that really worth $60? Maybe it is to some people. I know I see that as a negative for the game, and would mark it as so.

As for the length of a game. I wouldn't count multiplayer in the length of a game, so Bioshock with multi would not make the game longer. The length is the single player campaign. Multiplayer is replay value. IMO, anyway.

Phantom_Menace

So Halo 3 should have been scored a bit lower cause of the 7 ( give or take) hour campaign? In my opinion NO..

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

I think the price does come into play in the review. We're talking about people going out to buy the game, so are they getting enough 'bang for their buck', for lack of a better explination. Heavenly Sword, for example, apparently can be finished in 7 hours, give or take. Is that really worth $60? Maybe it is to some people. I know I see that as a negative for the game, and would mark it as so.

As for the length of a game. I wouldn't count multiplayer in the length of a game, so Bioshock with multi would not make the game longer. The length is the single player campaign. Multiplayer is replay value. IMO, anyway.

Numbman

So Halo 3 should have been scored a bit lower cause of the 7 ( give or take) hour campaign? In my opinion NO..

I think it should have. While a seven hour campaign is a decent length for a FPS, it is still a little short. But Halo 3 does have a lot of replayability, which does help it; I mean, playing the campaign at different levels of difficulty or the nearly endless enjoyment people get from the multiplayer.

i don't see why everygame needs multiplayer nowadays. Also can't understand why people relate for example, single player on Heavenly Sword to Multiplayer on Gears of War. For some reason this new generation started and anything under 10 hours sucks?

Making Heavenly sword 2-3 hours longer would of added nothing to the game. ICO and Shadow of the colossus were short games, and those games are better than 90% of the crap releasing nowadays

yes it should matter. You pay 60 bucks for a game and then it lasts an hour... I don't care if that hour of gaming was totally amazing it is not worth 60 points and should be knocked down review wise.

I don't think it should at all. Prices vary and prices drop. You can't rate a game on a variable - that makes no sense.

I think you can only knock a game down on lenght if you have REASONS. You can't just knock it down automatically for being under ten hours. It works both ways, you can add pointsautomatically because a game is really long. The game needs to be the right lenght.

I guess I always considered the reviews a critique of the quality of the game, same as a movie review. I don't really think of the reviews as telling me whether a game is worth buying or not.

I have definitely read movie reviews where they complain that the movie is too short, but this often a critique of the pacing or the general lack of character devlopment/plot. I haven't played Heavenly Sword but I can imagine that it probably doesn't fall short in the amount of story it tells, it is just short in play length relative to other games.

Ever heard the phrase "More bang for your buck"?

Think on it.