GAMES: GameSpot GameFAQs MOVIES: Metacritic Movietome Comic-Con
Monday, Sep 25, 2006
Reviews can be misleading or guiding - accurate or inaccurate in conveying what a game is about and whether or not it's for you. They're written by people, so naturally some of it is gonna be bias, taste, opinion, preferance, all of that human stuff, but while reviews are far from perfect they can nevertheless be dynamic and enlightening.

There's something I don't get though; the notion of price having any kind of significance. We're playing games in a time when they stay full price about three months maybe, and after that they successively drop until they're about 9 quid in Play.com's Why Are We Even Having A Sale Now? sale. At the same time we're supposed to believe that the demands on fun factor or value of a game should be in proportion to its RRP.


Table Tennis - it's fun because it's cheap! Uh, wait...

Once games drop in price, does that make them better? If I'm given Toshinden URA for free, does that make it enjoyable? Does paying 200 quid for Zelda: Ocarina of Time actually make it a less incredible experience? No, it doesn't.


D-Xhird - getting cheaper, but not any better.

My point is; a game should always be judged on the merits of a game. Disregard of any outside influence, because it's ultimately a good game a gamer wants, not a bargain.
Posted by SimonM7, 1:23pm
2 Comments | Post a Comment

Comments

Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
I understand where you are coming from. A fun game is a fun game no matter what, but I do think prices change how people look at a game. I mean deep down inside you when you see a game that's £10 you think "I'll try that" but if it was full price you probably wouldn't have even looked at it. It's a simple face that humans just can't help but match money to value and all that nonsense.
Posted Sep 25, 2006 1:44 pm PT
That's absolutely true. I mean I picked up Breakdown, Advent Rising and Pariah as.. sort of a social experiment to see if there was anything worthwhile in them. I found Advent Rising to be one of the better naff games I've played, and it felt okay playing it because it was so cheap. Of course it's different because that game wasn't just bad, it was terribly broken, too.

I guess the point is that a price is obvious, it's right there on the tag, whereas the quality of a game isn't so obvious. If you write a review and state your honest opinion on it as a game, then the rest will sort itself. I think if you review a game in proportion to its price it all just gets incredibly vague. In the end, all games drop to about a tenner, then how do you decide what's more worthwhile?
Posted Sep 25, 2006 1:51 pm PT
Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
  • SimonM7
  • Level: 1 (0%)
  • Rank: Mogwai
  • Forum Posts: 13
  • Messages Read: 0


advertisement
Click Here

Friends

My Friends