| contestgamer said: A games value is the dollar cost divided by its hours, so if we're comparing it to BOTW and it's shorter then of course BOTW is the better game |
You're not adding replayability/added value a game might have, which makes that entire statement completely moot. There's certain things that have no measurable way to check them out; for all we know, finding all korok seeds without a guide takes much less time than finding all moons in Mario, which could easily boost the later's playtime and become, in essence, a longer game to properly beat. By your money logic, SMO has suddenly become the better game.
If we focus entirely on how fast you can beat a game without taking anything else in consideration, then things get twice as complicated, because Breath of the Wild takes less than an hour to be completed.
Also, I might have understood you wrong, but "Game value is the dollar cost divided by its hours" makes no sense, at all. The equation would be G.Value = Price / Total hours. This basically means the more expensive and shorter a game is, the better numerical value.
Let's put it in motion:
Cuphead
https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=21680
Completionist takes 14 hours. The game was priced at 20 bucks.
Game Value of Cuphead = 20 / 14 = 1.42
Horizon: Zero Dawn
https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=26784
Completionist takes 58 hours. The game was priced at 60 bucks.
Game Value of Horizon = 60 / 58 = 1.03
Cuphead has the higher value, therefore Cuphead is the better game. That's how the logic you just established works.
