By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - How do you define value in a game?

beeje13 said:
How much enjoyment I get from it. While I loved the order, when you put Arkham Knight (expecting it to be good, after the previous 2) next to it, I have to say The Order comes up lacking.

I will say it again though, The Order wasn't too short, but it was probably $10-20 too expensive.

Arkham Knight, and hopefully The Witcher 3 are amazing value for money.

Its interesting with sports/racing games, you can't really define length.

That's the thing. I have about 400 hours in League of legends and it's only one level. I can't even say it's enjoyable half the time either :D



Around the Network

I never play Multiplayer and seldomly replay games. To me games are great if they offer a unique experience which stays in my mind. the Order did this...DAI bored me to death at some point with its repetitiveness.



By how much fun it is.

It ends there really. Sure you can whine about all kinds of aspects, but when it comes down to it, a games stands or falls by it's fun factor. That's it's only true value to me. Even if something is the grandest, longest, most beautiful game with the greatest amount of content, but I find it as boring as watching grass grow, that's a definitive deal-breaker and it makes any game garbage to me. I find almost no fun in (online-)multiplayer, so it has to come from a stellar, well thought out single-player experience for me.

Hence why I find Peggle to be more valuable than Grand Theft Auto. Extreme examples, but that should adequately convey the idea.



The number of playable female characters that are also cute and/or have nice boobs and/or ass.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

theprof00 said:
beeje13 said:
How much enjoyment I get from it. While I loved the order, when you put Arkham Knight (expecting it to be good, after the previous 2) next to it, I have to say The Order comes up lacking.

I will say it again though, The Order wasn't too short, but it was probably $10-20 too expensive.

Arkham Knight, and hopefully The Witcher 3 are amazing value for money.

Its interesting with sports/racing games, you can't really define length.

That's the thing. I have about 400 hours in League of legends and it's only one level. I can't even say it's enjoyable half the time either :D

How much money did you spend on LoL?

I played it very casually during my lunch breaks for a while and never paid for anything because while it's an enjoyable game, I can easily live without it but one of the guys I played with must have been spending somewhere around $40 CAD a month (mostly for skins) on LoL. He's really hooked on LoL and feels like the enjoyment he gets justifies spending so much.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
vivster said:
The number of playable female characters that are also cute and/or have nice boobs and/or ass.

You're going to hate FFXV then.



Signature goes here!

TruckOSaurus said:
vivster said:
The number of playable female characters that are also cute and/or have nice boobs and/or ass.

You're going to hate FFXV then.

H.... g.... h...



vivster said:
The number of playable female characters that are also cute and/or have nice boobs and/or ass.

This!

Oh and on a smaller scale... the fun I have with the game. But it's like 10th in the list "Things that define value in videogames". So it's no big deal.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Actually sim racers are number #1 when it comes to value for the money.



Fun factor: tight controls, solid gameplay mechanics, hopefully a good story and score (not necessary) and replayability. Length doesn't matter to me at all.

I'd rather have a 5 hour game that I loved for $60 than a 10+ hour game that was mediocre for the same price.



It'll be awhile before I figure out how to do one of these. :P