Games Aren't Numbers

Before I buy a game I always check the Metacritic rating just so I know my money won't be wasted. But if I can get a game for free or a low price I don't even bother with what the critics' scores are, I just grab it and play it. After all, what is there too lose? At most a few dollars, at least a few minutes. I'm constantly on the lookout for deals on games; I've gotten so used to their high prices that I do this almost unconsciously now. And it's not just me who has this obsession with prices. A quick scan of Metacritic will reveal plenty of reports like "this isn't worth $60" or even for the cheap downloadable games, "this isn't worth $10." Ultimately every game is judged against its price tag.

From a buyer's standpoint there are reasons to justify paying fifty to sixty bucks on a single game. Most games take ten to twenty hours to complete, and games with nonlinear levels or an emphasis on multiplayer can last even longer. So when you look at it that way, games are significantly cheaper than their competing media.

One problem with this is argument that it assumes that the buyer enjoys playing the game for its entire length. Resident Evil 4 is lucky it was so addictive because otherwise I doubt I would have ever bothered shoot my way through room after room until it unfortunately ended. The gameplay would have been painfully repetitive if it didn't manage to keep my emotional excitement consistently high. I would probably have dropped and forgotten about it after the first hour.

The other problem with the time justification is that it assumes the player has ten to twenty hours of time he can freely donate to each game. If you're like most people though, time is money. Every game I play takes an investment of time in addition to an investment of money, and sometimes the time can end up costing more. If I have to go out of my way to find the time each day to play a game I'll often forget about it, it's not worth it. They need to work around my schedule, not me around theirs. Unfortunately far too many games encourage or require long play sessions by spreading out save points or breaks in the action.

With other media there is always a financial setback with each purchase but it's relatively low. The price of each DVD only prevents me from buying them in large quantities. I've never had to turn one down merely because of its cost. However with games the price is a roadblock in each individual purchase. Both DVDs and games require a time investment, but with DVDs it's the only investment that's a major concern. I've never had to struggle with coughing up $10 but I always think about if I'll really watch a movie enough to bother own the DVD. If games can't be that accessible they'll always remain a niche media.

My favorite gaming purchase in 2008 has definitely been World of Goo. It was a mere $15 for the Wii (although the $20 PC version would have been fine as well). It features lots of short fun stages I could play in chunks whenever I had free time but all together they blended together and lasted about ten hours. Later stages built upon older techniques instead of just repeating old gameplay with new levels. The investment was low and the payoff was high. If only two people are able to make and publish a game like this I don't see why big time developers with fifty staff can't produce this kind of output. Honestly I would be perfectly content if all games were like World of Goo in this sense. I'd be happier buying a few games like than than one long epic title.