How do you measure a game's worth?

[MrBaskerville]

First of all, how well do the game mechanics work and how much depth do they offer? That's the first thing i value after that it gets a bit less tangible cause i usually look at the games overall feel and atmosphere (from visual style and sound design). Some games just got something special about them that can make you ignore the less flattering parts about them. After that it's all about the level design, good game mechanics are worth nothing if the level design is rubbish.

I think story is the least important part (unless it's a point'n click adventure or if we talk story as in character design), mostly because it's almost always complete rubbish and somethings that's kinda in the way of all the fun. Character design is very important to me, though. Lenght isn't that important either, i prefer something that clocks in around 8 hours or something that can be replayed forever like fighting games or old-school platformers but if the game is 2 hours while also being excellent it really doesn't matter to me.

But in my opinion, no game is worth 60$, i really don't feel like paying much more than 30$ and it has to be really damn promising if i'm dropping that much money on it.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Length and girth, mostly. And never listen to the PR guys; they're prone to exaggeration.

 

[Yopaz]

Length is important, but replay value is actually more important. Take Super Smash Bros. Melee, I've been able to enjoy that far longer than it takes to complete all the events, unlock all the characters and the trophies.

Saints Row 2? I've beaten that game at least 3 times and I've managed to play it for more than 100 hours. Considering I got that for 10 dollars or so on a Steam sale that means I've paid far less than a dollar per hour.

A game can be long without offering value, if you get bored with it before completing it then I can't really merit its length in good faith. So to round it off, every enjoyable hour compared to price. Tales of Xillia is a game that's so good it's worth the steep price I had to pa for the collector's edition.

 

[daveNYC]

I call a game a success if it's one that I decide to pop back into the console for another go around. Not a replay from scratch necessarily, but even just to start playing and goofing around in. Then again, I tend to play a lot of open worl-ish games. Borderlands, Elder Scrolls, Fallout and the like.

 

[TelHybrid]

It depends on the genre of the game. If it's a driving game, then it would be down to variety of cars, and each different car needs to provide a different experience, not just be a different shell for the same car. Variety of tracks too.
If it's not a sim driving game, then any gimmicks should be well executed and not an after thought. Burnout does boost well. Mascot Kart games do weapons well. Boost/takedowns in Ridge Racer Unbounded however... terrible.
Of course the driving itself needs to feel fun. Test the shit out of it.

With shooters, it's simple. A variety of guns, a variety of environments, a variety of enemies. Keep the action fast paced and frantic (unless it's a sniper level). Also stop trying to copy and paste Call of Duty. Do something different.

If it's a platformer, just do anything that Sonic from 2002-2009 didn't do.

If it's a beat em up, make the gameplay feel smooth, fun, and again variety in characters and fighting styles. I wouldn't want to play a Street Fighter game if every character is a new skin for Ryu.

One thing I hate in games is the feeling of "urgh... I'll get this out of the way to get to the good stuff". That's how Borderlands felt to me. Repetitive as hell missions.

 

[Nazulu]

I measure it by it's greatest moments, and how much poor gameplay or whatever effects it. What are the moments in your favourite games do you remember? Keeps it really simple, because it could be a certain challenge, or a part of the story, or something else that's well executed.

Though for games like Smash Brothers and others difficult to judge, I compare the set challenges, level designs or just how much the game play really adds to the whole thing.

 

[Flatfrog]

normally i use a system of 1usd in price should equal an hour of play time for me with the exception being art/experimental games and heavy story based ones like the walking dead

The problem with this definition is that the game I've spent more time on than any other this year has been Cookie Clicker, and what's more it was free. So it should win everything...

 

[Flames66]

I won't pay more than £10 for anything but the most exceptional games (games that are perfect for me). I also expect a game to last me for at the very least an entire day of uninterpreted play. If you want to release a short snacky game that can be completed in an hour that's great, but you better not charge more that £1 for it.

Things that I like in games include: Multi-Player (MMO or standard is fine, no gimmicks whose only effect is I can't pause), Third Person (Straight behind with a good field of view, not over the shoulder), Open world, Character customisation (I can't stand huge muscly testosterone men in stupid armour), Hats!, Steampunk, Stealth, Crossbow, Space, a ramshackle aesthetic, Swords, Single shot Rifles, Zombies, Parkour, vintage vehicles, well written and interesting characters, dystopian futures and long coats.

 

[Multi-Hobbyist]

What makes the $60 all worth it?

So, in order to be worthy of my $60....

[ ] Single player must be more than 8-10 hours long on a "Normal" setting
[ ] Multiplayer must be varied enough to not get boring for at least a month
[ ] Console Co-op for both single/multiplayer
[ ] Not a sequel
[ ] Single player story must be creative and original.

Getting a bit more in-depth....

[ ] Varied weapon system/choices
[ ] Varied enemies
[ ] AI adaptable and changing for better challenges
[ ] Luscious maps, with certain terrain ideal for setting traps
[ ] Gameplay itself .... well it all depends on the game. If it's engaging, it's done right.
[ ] Re-playability
[ ] Side objectives making the main one more worthwhile, and a couple of future sides

When you make less than $20k a year, you gotta have a budget. If they want me to spend even $50 bucks, make a better game.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I measure a games worth by the length of time it takes to finish it and how bored i get waiting through cut-scenes for the next part of the game i get to interact with to begin. A game like Max Payne 3 gets marked down considerably for having non-skippable non-interactive cut-scenes. Sure, the story was good the first time but the second and third playthroughs were a nightmare in patience because of it.

Game length is the most important for me though with the really good games getting over a thousand hours of my time and the really poor games get around ten. But it's not as simple as all that though. Doing the same things for 75 hours made Skyrim a complete chore whilst doing the same thing in Trials HD made for well over a thousand hours of good gameplay. I don't like direct competetive gaming but i do like leaderboards so i can compete against myself to get better and Trials HD is certainly perfect in that respect.

But the question was about worth rather than my preferences so i draw my line at around 10 UK pounds. With lovefilm gone i no longer get to play every game that comes out for £2.50 but when a game tips over the 10 pound mark it needs to be exceptional for me to even care. I've played so many of the big titles over the last 5 years and nearly all of them have been an exercise in disappointment...i'm not the naive 21 year old that bought everything that i used to be.

One last thing...NO! Gaming cannot be considered an art form no matter how many people try to protest otherwise. It requires elements of other arts to exist but also requires direct involvement from the user/spectator to make it happen. Without the user interaction it would be nothing so no, it's not an art form. It's simply artistic in nature and that confuses the issue.

 

[GundamSentinel]

My reasoning is something like this. If I go to the cinema I'd pay roughly ?10 for a 2 hour experience. So if I get an hour or more of fun for every ?5, I'm fine with it and consider it a good purchase. Now, 'fun' should be interpreted broadly. A game can be a meaningful and worthwhile experience without actually being fun.

So something like:

If dblHoursOfFun > dblGamePrice/5 Then
lblGameRating.Text = "Good"
Else
lblGameRating.Text = "Bad"
End If

Mechanics, graphics, variety, characters and whatever can be very important for a game, but no single aspect rules my enjoyment of it. It's the whole experience.

 

[Flatfrog]

One last thing...NO! Gaming cannot be considered an art form no matter how many people try to protest otherwise. It requires elements of other arts to exist but also requires direct involvement from the user/spectator to make it happen. Without the user interaction it would be nothing so no, it's not an art form. It's simply artistic in nature and that confuses the issue.

This seems an incredibly arbitrary distinction to me.

Music requires a composer, a performer and an audience. But those roles don't have to be different people. Some music is performed communally, with all the performers playing for their own shared experience and improvising as they go, so the music shapes itself to the performance. Is that less of an art form? Or is it in fact *more* of an art form?

Games similarly require a designer, a programmer and a player. In some games the player's experience is rigidly pre-defined, in others the game adapts to the player's actions; in any case, the three roles are all pivotal to the overall artistic experience.

Personally, I'd say that *all* art is actively shaped by its audience. In fact, my personal definition of great art is something that creates a powerful emotional response in its audience which was to some extent intended by its creator. (This definition allows something to be great art for me while being nothing special to you). There is no doubt that interactive media such as games can do this.

 

[tzimize]

snip

I measure the value of games in production value and length/hours spent. I have no problems paying for expensive games if the expense is justified, this is relatively simple with AAA games, however there are plenty of AAA games that are shit, or that I just dont like. So I usually do some research and preferably try before I buy.

The try before I buy rule is usually more important the more expensive the game is.

Then there are the games that I simply drown myself in. Like Skyrim. A AAA game that definitely gave me my moneys worth. Then there are games like the binding of Isaac, Terraria or FTL. Which I bought for scraps...and spent literally hundreds of hours in. I sometimes feel ashamed after such a purchase, but I'll never know how much time I will spend in a game until...well, time has passed.

So, if I buy for example FTL for say, 5$...and I spend hundreds of hours in it...I might be inclined to just buy more copies, and give to friends, or buy more copies so I have one on for example Steam and GoG. Its not an exact science but it works for me.

If you're gonna decide whether games are art or not, you first have to decide what art means in this particular conversation. Personally I find products that either stretch the limits of their medium in some way or products that are the pinnacle of achievement in their field can be art.

As such I have no problems assigning the art label to for example:

Planescape Torment (Writing)
Gone Home (interactive storytelling)
Okami (Visual entertainment)
Little Inferno (interactive storytelling)
Mirrors Edge (visual design)
Thomas was alone (interactive storytelling)
Rayman Origins (Visual design)
Beyond Two Souls (interactive storytelling)
God of War (pinnacle of a genre)
Bioshock 1 (Visual design)
Max Payne 1/2 (design)
Journey (visual design, visual storytelling)

I could go on, but you see my point. As such, not all games are art to me, the same as not all music is art nor all paintings. If all created material is art, the word loses its meaning. In my definition of the word, some creations are art. Some are not. Usually it can be debated, and a consensus might be reached.

Its like with a movie. I can see that a movie is well made, even if I don't enjoy it. As such I would think that most people (who have a thought more than their next cod-kill-streak in their head) could agree with me that for example the storytelling in Gone Home is expertly done, and the choice of music and surroundings, the pacing of it all is simply brilliant. While the game itself might not be everyone's cup of tea, the craftsmanship is exquisite.

 

[krazykidd]

The Number of minutes I am having fun should be greater than or equal to the price I payed in American Dollars.

Somebody make that into a mathematical formula, please.

Minutes? Really? The way i judge if a game is worth it is the number of hours it takes to complete versus the price. Bassically, i will pay 2$ An hour.

 

[w9496]

Does it keep me coming back for more? That's a big plus for me, since $60 is a lot of money on a tight budget. If I only get a 6 hour campaign and a shitty tacked on multiplayer, I'm going to be an angry panda.

Of course it's different depending on how much I paid for it. For example I picked the Turok reboot on the 360 a couple weeks ago, and I'm not put off by the fact that the game was short. You know why? Because it cost me 8 whole dollars.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Well lets get the easy part out of the way.

Is the dev team on the front box of the game Atlus, From Soft, or Platinum?
Yes? [ ]
No?[ ]
GOTY [X]

If no, then i'll need to be wooed over by gameplay first, length second, and finally story/characters last.
I eventually do get more complex in between. Like how much depth the game is but without it being difficult to understand, or how simplistic the gameplay is but finding wether or not the game is hand-holdingly easy.
And of course a lasting impression would be nice. Ex. The Last of Us was ok in the gameplay department, but they really kicked it into high gear with the story and interesting ending so kutos to ND for doing a fine job at that.

 

[TehCookie]

I judge it by how much it entertained me. It could be good over a long time or great for a little bit and I'd like the games the same. It doesn't matter if it's story, gameplay, or something else as long as I am entertained. Though I do have different weights to the categories depending on what I'm playing the game for. If I'm playing it for the story and the story turns out to be meh with good gameplay I'd rank it lower than a good story with meh gameplay.

Other things like graphics and music are a bonus. I rarely play games for that reason so games are never judged for those reasons and can only be better by having good graphics and music. Unless of course they're so bad they take away from the game, but I can't think of any game I had to mute to play or graphics that bad.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I measure a games worth by how much fun I'm having playing it or alternatively how much it's engaging me.

 

[kasperbbs]

Content is a major factor for me and if i find that content enjoyable. Thats why i love games like elder scrolls, oblivion, witcher, fallout, mass effect, etc. They provide many hours of fun gameplay and replay value with their different classes, choices and mods to add even more content. If it's something like call of duty, then i will only play the SP once which will last me around 7 hours, then it becomes useless since i'm not interested in multiplayer.

 

[Vern5]

The Number of minutes I am having fun should be greater than or equal to the price I payed in American Dollars.

Somebody make that into a mathematical formula, please.

Minutes? Really? The way i judge if a game is worth it is the number of hours it takes to complete versus the price. Bassically, i will pay 2$ An hour.

Whoops, you're right. That should be Hours and not minutes. This new console generation must have dropped my expectations like an anvil.