How Much is Alan Wake Worth?

[GonzoGamer]

I can't imagine what game's you've bought 4 times. That's excessive.

Yeah, hard to argue with that, really. In the one game's case, it makes a certain amount of sense because each version was somewhat different. In the other game's case....I was being at least somewhat loony.

Don't tell me you bought all 4 versions of Nintendogs.

Seriously though, I've only bought the same game twice: I liked San Andreas and Fallout 3 so much on the consoles, I got the PC versions too. Are we talking something like that, or are we talking Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" buying a new copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' every time he thinks of it.

When do we get to know what these alluring titles were?

I already told ya. Just gotta read the whole thread.

For the record, I bought the version of Nintendogs with the Corgi. I freakin' love those little dogs, with their stubbular legs and huge bat ears. SO CUTE.

Really? RE2? I can see that actually. However, I always have more fun watching someone play an RE game well than play myself... not quite so well. I own the first two PSOs too (Dreamcast) but I didn't enjoy them as much as the singleplayer originals.

Those Nintendogs are cute. I have the one with the husky (I named him Ballsniffer after the George Carlin skit) and the pug (Waits after the musician).

 

[Woodsey]

Nice article.

I for one would (and do) happily pay £35-£40 for a 6/7/8 hour game (singleplayer only), and I'm a penniless 16-year-old.

It irks me to see people leave comments about games saying "no mutliplayer no buy", as well as a "short" playing time generating a game tonnes of undeserved hate.

You are over paying then, and I'm assuming it's not your money you are spending?
Becuase I refuse to buy single player games that are not RPGs.
It's pointless. Why spend 60 dollars on a game I will play once or twice with no replay value? I can just rent it for 6 bucks.

I play a little game called mount and blade. I have over 200 hours into it. Guess how much i spent? 9 dollars. And it's a much more innovative and fun game than Alan Wake.

I paid 40 dollars for ArmA 2.
And have over 500 hours on it.

So tell me why should I pay more for less?

How am I over paying? That's how much it costs to buy a game - like it or not. If they were charging me £100 then yeah, but they need to make a profit. And yes, it's my money I'm spending. I also tend to replay games a lot.

Your idea that quantity = quality is baffling.

 

[Tonimata]

That's why I will forever defend the argument that games should be priced differently in reflection of their worth.

But then again, who can measure said worth?

Ah, the dilemma

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I still don't understand this notion of playing a story-driven game only once and then never again. Story-driven games are my favourite and if I've finished one that I loved, I dive straight back in for another playthrough. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but if I love the gameplay, the story and the characters, then that's more enough replay value for me.

Same with me. I've rarely ever only played through a good game once.

 

[Katana314]

Anyone who is criticizing linear, zero-replayability, story-based games...is, whether they realize it or not, basically dissing on Phoenix Wright.
Prosecutor Godot, it's time to crack some skulls...attorney style.

The gripe I think a lot of people have with these sorts of stories, besides the fact that video games are overpriced in GENERAL, is that a number of the story-games we've seen so far actually kind of suck. Heavy Rain? I only saw about an hour of footage, but already I was facepalming at their poor narrative ability. Not much changed from Farenheit. Alan Wake? Could be good; I know very little about the specifics. So far, I don't know of anyone who has played through Phoenix Wright and honestly thought the story wasn't worth it, so I'd like to hear some opinions.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

A penny;
-because a million is an eternity, and a nickle is a minute;

*then a guy asks me for a million and i answer him:*

-in a minute.

 

[Uncompetative]

Anyone who is criticizing linear, zero-replayability, story-based games...is, whether they realize it or not, basically dissing on Phoenix Wright.
Prosecutor Godot, it's time to crack some skulls...attorney style.

The gripe I think a lot of people have with these sorts of stories, besides the fact that video games are overpriced in GENERAL, is that a number of the story-games we've seen so far actually kind of suck. Heavy Rain? I only saw about an hour of footage, but already I was facepalming at their poor narrative ability. Not much changed from Farenheit. Alan Wake? Could be good; I know very little about the specifics. So far, I don't know of anyone who has played through Phoenix Wright and honestly thought the story wasn't worth it, so I'd like to hear some opinions.

Let me put it this way. I would like it a lot better if all the characters in these "Cinematic games" spoke Japanese, forcing you to read subtitles.

1. Localisation would be trivial as you could select the subtitle language from the game menu

2. Lip-syncing could be poor and you would hardly notice it (as you would be looking at the subtitles)

Bottom line: Story-bound games are uneconomic. Non-linear dynamical systems (like Robotron 64, Pac-man, or Geometry Wars) will have far more replayability and, often, greater immersion; lasting longer and selling cheaper from some so-called 'AAA' title with filmic production values.

The best value for money game at the moment is the Halo 3 Multiplayer disc that comes with Halo: ODST - ten pounds online.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

My past self would disagree with me but my current self is saying that almost no game is worth $60 plain an simple. And absolutely no game is worth $60 + $40 in DLC that probably should have been included in the original release.

Then you consider the ALL games go down in price astronomically quickly you will see paying full retail price for a new release is just insane unless you happen to be rolling in money.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Bioshock and Beyond Good & Evil possibly?
No?
Oh well.

An interesting article overall. Though... I've never really been one to complain about how many hours a game has in it, I will admit that I do appreciate it when a game has good replay value. But, I've pretty much been a proponent of the "as long as it needs to be" viewpoint when it comes to writing, so perhaps Alan Wake's length works for it. I wouldn't know of course, since its a 360 exclusive (I'm a PC gamer, and my grandfather has a PS3)... but if they ever do release a PC version of the game, I might pick it up.

As for games I've bought several times over...
Well... I'm pretty sure I bought the original Sly Cooper about five times (four of them were used, so they were a bit wonky, finally got my hands on new copy)
I've bought Beyond Good and Evil twice... PC and PS2 versions... what?
Let's see...

The Witcher - twice... lost my registration codes for the Enhanced Edition patch, so I had to buy the better version.

Fallout 3 - when it first came out and the Game of the Year edition... both of which have stopped working. Damn.

Silent Hill 2 - about twice.

Shadow of the Colossus - ruined my first copy by playing it too much.

Portal - I think I've gotten this about 3 times. Once for myself, and twice as gifts for other people.

Psychonauts - got the PC version when my PS2 version started crashing around the final boss fight.

Both Mass Effects - my fucking laptop refuses to read disks anymore... speaking of which... could someone please help me out here? I've installed the update for my disk drive several times and it just refuses to read disks.

Grand Theft Auto EFLC - again, my fucking laptop.

And... that's about it I think.

 

[Jacob.pederson]

Diablo II and Starcraft.

 

[jmbarlow]

My guess for one of your quad-purchases is Sid Meier's Pirates [I've had that on Dos, Xbox, PSP and Win32).

If one makes the argument that Civilisation is fundamentally the same game every time, that could be your second.

 

[Diddy_King]

That's why I enjoy indie games, $1-5 for a 4 hour experience is a good deal for me. I tend to buy games and never finish them so a short game is cost effective for me.

As for games I've bought multiple times:
Persona 3/Persona 3 FES: I bought it, bought FES, lent FES to someone who lost it, bought FES again.
Persona 4: Same as Persona 3 (-) the FES part. Also bought it a 3rd time because I forgot I had purchased it the week before, returned it later that week. To top it off the person I lent these games too found my copy of 4 so now I've got an extra copy of this game without a case...
Brave Story(PSP)-Bought it, lost my PSP as well as the game at school. Bought it again, game broke, bought it again (never did finish this game...)
The Orange Box: Bought this when I only had a PS3, loved it. Got a 360 and bought it for 360. When they started updating the characters in TF2 I bought it for the PC. Which I eventually lost, and had to buy again (this time I got it on Steam (though I bought JUST TF2). When they were doing a sale on Steam I bought The Orange Box for like a dollar.

 

[Mcface]

Nice article.

I for one would (and do) happily pay £35-£40 for a 6/7/8 hour game (singleplayer only), and I'm a penniless 16-year-old.

It irks me to see people leave comments about games saying "no mutliplayer no buy", as well as a "short" playing time generating a game tonnes of undeserved hate.

You are over paying then, and I'm assuming it's not your money you are spending?
Becuase I refuse to buy single player games that are not RPGs.
It's pointless. Why spend 60 dollars on a game I will play once or twice with no replay value? I can just rent it for 6 bucks.

I play a little game called mount and blade. I have over 200 hours into it. Guess how much i spent? 9 dollars. And it's a much more innovative and fun game than Alan Wake.

I paid 40 dollars for ArmA 2.
And have over 500 hours on it.

So tell me why should I pay more for less?

How am I over paying? That's how much it costs to buy a game - like it or not. If they were charging me £100 then yeah, but they need to make a profit. And yes, it's my money I'm spending. I also tend to replay games a lot.

Your idea that quantity = quality is baffling.

How is wanting more for your money baffling?
The average xbox and ps2 games had about 20 hours of solid gameplay.
These days you are lucky to get 12 hours.
So, you get the same shooter mechanics, with upgraded graphics, and 7 hours less of gameplay. That's worth MORE money?

This isn't even talking about "DLC" that adds an hour of gameplay for 40 bucks.
or a few maps for 15 dollars.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

You release a well-crafted single-player game, one with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative

... if you do that your time and money spent making it will surely be rewarded with not just piles of cash to clutter up your desk, but also many, many happy gamers!

Too bad hardly any game developer truely has that ambition or the time/money to make that well-crafted single-player game with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative. Unless they're Blizzard

Most games suffer from bad QA tho; think Mercenaries 2: a load of gameplay breaking bugs that make immersion poor and worse, some missions are almost impossible to complete.
I've had a nice amount of pretty entertaining hours in it, I just knew about the bugs beforehand and picked it up for 1/3rd of the original price after it was out for a long time; THIS was a good proposition for me in this case. If I had paid full price I'd be pissed about the bugs, because they prevent me from going for the normal 100% completion...

 

[tavelkyosoba]

You release a well-crafted single-player game, one with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative

... if you do that your time and money spent making it will surely be rewarded with not just piles of cash to clutter up your desk, but also many, many happy gamers!

Too bad hardly any game developer truely has that ambition or the time/money to make that well-crafted single-player game with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative. Unless they're Blizzard

Or Valve, how long have they been polishing Episode 3? hahaha

 

[Kenjitsuka]

You release a well-crafted single-player game, one with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative

... if you do that your time and money spent making it will surely be rewarded with not just piles of cash to clutter up your desk, but also many, many happy gamers!

Too bad hardly any game developer truely has that ambition or the time/money to make that well-crafted single-player game with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative. Unless they're Blizzard

Or Valve, how long have they been polishing Episode 3? hahaha

Isn't that episode a myth? Like Duke Nukem Forever? ^_^

 

[Proverbial Jon]

If you want a story, read a Novel, watch TV, go to the Cinema, visit the Theatre, or treat yourself to a night at the Opera.

Don't play a dumb-ass videogame whose developers are all frustrated film-directors.

I have to admit this post irked me somewhat... Why should good stories be limited to TV, Books, Films, theatre and opera? Why would the humble video game be shoved aside from that already huge list of entertainment activities? Video games have as much right to tell a story and frankly I would be bored as hell if they did not.

I'm sick of how Pac-man and Robotron 64 are seen as inferior to these uninspired poorly lip-synced overly-linear interactive stories. The last game I bought that represented real value for money gave me well over 1000 hours of consistently rewarding, challenging, entertaining, varied and fun gameplay - and that is only counting the Multiplayer experience. Did any of those games have a story? Did they suffer from not having an objective other than "plant the bomb in the enemy base" (or similar)?

Games have evolved. Simple. I'm sorry if that's not to your liking but it's a fact. We no longer have to settle for mindless violence, now we can have a reason tacked on the side. Some games use a poorly written story as a crutch while others base the entire game around it. Even multiplayer games such as Left 4 Dead have a loose narrative in the background which let you know why the world exists and what you're doing in it. I understand the need for people to play multiplayer non stop (it's not my thing at all) and I can see how a story would get in the way, but do you not desire just a little more depth sometimes?

I really want developers to snap out of the delusion that they have been in since they decided that the average gamer wants (weak) characters and a (lame) plot at the expense of limiting player freedom due to the necessity of story requiring linearity.

Ummm no one actually decided that... ever. The average gamer (who that actually is, I'm not sure) would prefer fully fleshed out characters and a good plot so that they have direction and meaning for their actions. I don't want to wander aimlessly around an area with no goal, nor do I want to kill endless hoardes of people for no real reason. I don't feel that I have been limited because of the story at all and a good game would make sure that you are never given that feeling. Granted, Alan Wake does feel linear, but the overall experience is so engaging I really couldn't care less.

Can you guess what game I have played 1000 hours of and am still not bored of yet?

You do realise that Halo was originally a story driven game before the hoardes online decided multiplayer was more fun? In fact the original Halo:CE is probably one of the exceptions to your many rules. The characters are interesting, there is a rich world barely hinted at and the gameplay is fun and engaging. The levels are open and allow the player plenty of freedom to dispatch enemies in a variety of ways and you're fighting to save the entire galaxy. What's not to like?

Halo 1, 2 and 3 are probably some of my most played games but not for the multiplayer...

Interesting isn't it, how we all have such radically different opinions?

 

[sephiroth1991]

For me there is a diffrence between, there isn't enough of it and it's too short. A game that is too short is not worth how much it is e.g. MW2. A game that there isn't enough of it is worth the cost cos it means that you want more for example a game like Half-Life 2 needs more length cos it's a game i want more of.

I also don't agree with the Multi-Player saves it,it can but then it shouldn't cost how much it is if the Multi-Player excuses the short length or poor quality. If the single player is too short and Shit then it should just be left out to focus on a good Multi-Player, with balence and good maps etc. It should be cheeper then like 8 or 12 pounds or somthin'

 

[aaronmcc]

Well I just finished Alan Wake today and it was an absolute joy to behold. There were literally two points in the entire game which irked me, to do with the fact that Alan is actually an unfit bastard (i.e. he can only run about 25 feet before he's tired, and when he's tired he can't dodge- leading to a whoop down). Normally there's a few bloody annoying bits in every level of every game.
Strangely people who say they've completed it in 6 hours must have ran through the thing and missed out on most of the game experience. I spent ages just walking around checking out the scenery (it's breath-taking, especially the water and lighting/sunshine effects) and looking for hidden items etc. You can listen in on radio programs and watch a tv series. As for the story, well it's fantastic.

Definitely worth the 5 year wait. Cannot wait for the DLC/sequel or whatever is next.

For those of you who are concerned for time limit - play it on nightmare mode and I assure you it will take at least 12hrs, cuz you'll get you're ass kicked!

 

[HandfulofWolf]

Hell of a fun game with friends though. Plus loved how they encouraged multiple play-throughs. Clever. Also always worth a laugh is how a flailing body does about a million times more damage than the strongest attack.