| MikeRox said:
The argument is MCC gives 4 games for the price of 1, so is better value for money. This suggests that quantity is the definition of value for money. Ergo, any game with "infinite" replayability due to constant user generated content (quantity) is the ultimate value for money and nothing else is ever needed. I'm deadly serious, I'd rather have quality any day. If a game I love lasts 5 hours. It's still better value to me than a game (or 4) that I loathe purely because they take longer to finish. (this is not referring to MCC, the or 4 is purely to help you understand the similarity). Again, the bit you either ignored or didn't understand, You can't quantify value. It's purely subjective. |
I didn't ignore or misunderstand anything. That's wrong. Value absolutely is be quantifiable.
I never dismissed quality outright, but person preference is not quality. Halo 1-4 are games made with quality. TLOU is a game made with quality. How much quality isn't subjective. How much time, effort, and money spent for each game isn't even equal. For the MCC, you have the T, E, and $ spent on the 4 original games, then the T, E, and $ spent on the remaster of Halo 1, then the T, E, and $ spent on the Re-remaster of Halo 1, the remake of halo 2, and the remasters of halo 3+4. TLOU just has the original game and it's light remaster.
You absolutely can quantify value. You paying $60 for a five hour "masterpeice" doesn't suddenly make the game worth $60. It just means you were willing to pay for something with shit value. It's like when people try to defend that MGS $30 demo. It's not worth $30 just because you liked the game.
