I got hired this morning to be a magazine game reviewer.

[bugrimmar]

Torillian said:

bugrimmar said:
Yknow, I really don't quite get why you're so defensive about that whole thing. it was "impressions" and nothing more. it was a rental, and I did play the full game. Honest to whomever God you want me to swear to.

Anyway that isn't the subject of this thread so I'm leaving it behind. You can look for the thread if you want, but I'm not feeling up to it anymore because of this defensive mindset you already have on.

@Torillian
Yeah, I get that. But I don't see how a 10 hour game can be rated so high against a 100 hour game. In the end of it all, I guess, I just consider that we're "paying" for this thing, and if my 100 hour experience from a game is just as good as from a 10 hour one, I have to give the nod to the longer game.

I absolutely agree that the 100 hour game has more value, but the term replay value only accounts for the incentives the game gives you to play through it more than once, and on its face would not account for the difference between a 10 hour and a 100 hour initial playthrough. 

Honestly, I like the term "value" since it accounts for both, which is what I think you mean by it, I'm just letting you know that for me replay value has a certain connotation and is only a part of value in general.

Using the term value also allows you to make judgement calls on things that aren't included in replay value such as how the game affected you.  On its face Ico is an extremely short game and would have a horrible value, but I gave it a higher score than the playtime would suggest because I so enjoyed Ico and think the the emotional experience is worth something.

I understand what you mean. I loved Ico to death.

But if I'm reviewing it for the gaming public to see, I would emphasize that piece of information that it is quite short. I feel the need to inform whoever is reading that they're paying 50 or 60 something dollars for only a few hours of entertainment. Sure, the experience is worthwhile, but it's like watching a movie. Let's say The Godfather was playing at your local cinema, a great movie, but the ticket price was 50 dollars. The movie only lasts for 2 hours or so. Now even if you KNOW it's going to be a great experience, would you buy a ticket?

A lot of people wouldn't. They want more time with their game to justify the purchase. That emotional feeling you get with a game, while unique to certain really well-made games, has to be delivered for longer than just a few hours.. if not, then the price tag isn't worth the game.

What I usually do is I post two scores for each game. For example, in my Empire: Total War review, I had a "pre-patch score" of 8.5 because a lot of stuff is just broken when the game released, and a "post-patch score" of 9.5, because most of the stuff was fixed already. The reasoning for that is perhaps the ideology that when you ship a game, it should already be fixed.. so I think it's not fair to review a game based solely on "what it could be". But it's also not fair to review a game based only on "what it is now".

In the Ico example, I would give two scores as well. One would be a "rental" score, which maybe I would give an 8 or 9 to (i don't know, I haven't played it in a long time), and a "purchase" score, which maybe I would give a 6 or 7. The game is too short to justify a purchase, but it's a great rental.

So.. there. :D lol.