Games that gave you a lot of play value, or barely any at all?

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

I paid 25 bucks for Skyrim Legendary Edition on June 16, 2015 and have gotten over 150 hours out of it; I expect something like 350 total. That's about 7.2 cents per hour. Can't beat that value.
Sonic '06, on the other hand, was a staggering $105.73 per hour in today's money!
For Skyrim to have the same value as Sonic '06, it would have had to cost $37,005.50! That's pretty solid proof of how shitty Sonic '06 is.
A good game will give you at least an hour of lifetime gameplay for each dollar it cost. Sonic '06 gave me 34 seconds of play per 2017 dollar.

[Aussie2B]

I've never played Sonic 2006, but I'm not sure how that math works out there. Even with inflation, you'd have to be able to beat it in under an hour for $105.73 per hour to make sense, but from what I'm seeing on GameFAQs and howlongtobeat.com, it seems like most people take at least 15-20 hours to beat it.

Anyway, it seems like games in general are longer than they used to be, and that's not something I'm particularly happy about. I've never really cared about the amount of time I played versus the amount of money I spent, especially when I already try to get good deals on games to begin with, regardless of their lengths. To me, a game is a good value if it's fun and doesn't wear out its welcome. A game that's bloated and full of busywork just to pad out its length isn't fun to me. On the other hand, a short game may be over quick, but if I really enjoy it, I'll be inclined to replay it.

[celerystalker]

I've never played Sonic 2006, but I'm not sure how that math works out there. Even with inflation, you'd have to be able to beat it in under an hour for $105.73 per hour to make sense, but from what I'm seeing on GameFAQs and howlongtobeat.com, it seems like most people take at least 15-20 hours to beat it.

Anyway, it seems like games in general are longer than they used to be, and that's not something I'm particularly happy about. I've never really cared about the amount of time I played versus the amount of money I spent, especially when I already try to get good deals on games to begin with, regardless of their lengths. To me, a game is a good value if it's fun and doesn't wear out its welcome. A game that's bloated and full of busywork just to pad out its length isn't fun to me. On the other hand, a short game may be over quick, but if I really enjoy it, I'll be inclined to replay it.

I remember we did a mock formula in a similar thread a year or two ago where that $1/hour was divided by a fun intensity variable. Length isn't an indicator of how much fun is had with a game. Some just work better in short form, but are worth the money.

The length of games becomes far less significant as you get older, and even can be a detriment. When I was a teenager in the '90s, I played a TON of RPGS. I was more than happy to sink 50 hours into a game without thinking twice. Now, in my late 30s, I gravitate back to more arcade-style games, not just for nostalgia, but because with far more obligations, it's what I have time for. Unless I'm on vacation, I typically don't have the time to dedicate to the longer sessions an RPG needs to be fulfilling. However, I can play through Black Tiger, Time Soldiers, GI Joe, etc. on one of my arcade cabinets in under an hour, or knock out a couple of credits on Centipede or something. I figure I'll go back to RPGs after my son grows up and I'm looking at retirement.

That said, a few games that did give me hundreds of hours at low cost:

Culdcept Saga
Fortune Street
Top Shop
Monster Hunter Freedom Unite

Counting multiple playthroughs, the list gets exponentially long, not to mention probably hundreds of games I bought at $1 or less on NES and Genesis that certainly beat the $1/hr criteria.

[Gamevet]

I got a brand new copy of Fallout 3: GOTY Edition for PC a few years ago. I'd paid $5 for it and probably put in about 200 hours of playtime, before Windows 10 decided to update and erase my save file. I paid around 2 cents for every hour of game time.

[Nebagram]

I got Civ 3 complete on Steam for 74p (95c US by today's exchange rates) in a sale, and I've got 100 hours on it so far. May not count as I had a disc-based Civ3 a few years before that got a LOT of play.

[kupomogli]

Well. Even a short 20 minute game you can get hundreds of hours from multiple playthroughs, while an unfun game like Assassin's Creed that's bloated with collectibles I might not even make it to the end. Here's some games this gen that I've put a lot of time into.

Has-Been Heroes has a crap Metacritic score at 52 or 61, depending on the console, with journalists complaining that the game is too hard, and yes, the game is difficult and the difficulty permanently increases every time you complete the game, and has a maximum difficulty of what I'm assuming is +7. The first time you only have to finish two areas and each time afterwards the enemies are harder, have more stamina and HP, as well as the length of the game extends by another area. I've only finished it five times and the difficulty of the first area is pretty much what the sixth area was at that time. Despite that though, the game is incredibly addicting and even though I've completed it five times, I've played around 50 hours. The fifth playthrough took around two hours to finish, so each attempt to complete the sixth is around that amount of time which the game keeps track of.

Don't believe the Metacritic scores though. You've got a bunch of journalists that are just as shit at playing games as they are at writing reviews. Just check out this IGN review. All I'm hearing is some bitch crying that the game doesn't play itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvQ0fmDZFJw In comparison, I've uploaded a video showing my completion of the fifth difficulty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Bp9ZT9Nu0

Yakuza 0, or the Yakuza series in general. This is a series that each game has a wide variety of content. The main game itself tells a great story and is takes a fair bit of time to complete, but this game has a massive amount of side activity. Arcade games like Space Harrier, Outrun, Super Hang On, and Fantasy Zone, UFO Catchers, Batting Cages, Bowling, Karaoke, Disco, and many other things to do, all with leaderboards and/or challenges to complete. There's even a mode that unlocks combat challenges with online leaderboards as well. I'll platinum this title like I did others in the series someday, but after finishing it I put it on hold to move on to other games for now. After finishing the game I have around 70% of everything completed with 70 hours playtime.

SD Gundam G Generation Genesis. I haven't completed every scenario yet and unless there are any unlockables afterwards, there's 17 different scenarios from the UC Mobile Suit Gundam universe. For anyone who has any interest in UC Gundam in the slightest, it's a must own. These 17 scenarios consist of multiple stages each of Gundam works. Main stories like Mobile Suit Gundam, Stardust Memory, and Zeta Gundam, etc, side stories like 08th MS Team, Zeonic Front, etc. If the series is animated or it's story was originally a video game like Zeonic Front or Space, to the End of a Flash, a lot of the music from that work is included. Pretty much every mobile suit from these works and many works not even included in the game are available to unlock, many challenges to complete, etc. I have around 60 hours put into this game with a lot left to complete.

Bloodborne. I've probably put over 100 hours into this game with multiple playthroughs. Each playthrough is another build for a particular weapon. Pure strength build for a weapon like the Kirkhammer, pure bloodtinge build with either strength or skill for weapons like the Chikage or Bloodletter, etc. Some weapons have overlap which is nice because you can have a single character that's proficient with those weapons. Some builds that might be a bit weaker in certain melee stats to include additional dexterity and bloodtinge for more attacks and guns to take decent damage. Would be nice if the netcode was as good as Dark Souls 3 because Bloodborne is by far the better game and the variety of weapons and what you can actually do really makes the Souls games look lacking in comparison. I really hope we get a Bloodborne 2 with all the advancements Dark Souls 3 made in pvp.

Divinity Original Sin. Now I've actually only put 20 hours into this on the normal difficulty. That was my first attempt and later I felt I knew how to actually play through the game a lot better so every other attempt has been on the games hardest difficulty(which deletes your save permanently after your entire party dies.) I've actually made a few attempts, the longest one I've had around 20 hours or so at this difficulty until I've died, so right now I actually haven't finished the game, but even saying that, I'd put this game above pretty much every game but Bloodborne this gen in how much I've enjoyed it.

One Way Heroics. I've probably put around 40 hours into this game. I've beaten easy, normal, and hard difficulties without the dimensional vault for six or seven different classes. It's not my favorite rogue like, but I would say it's a must own to anyone that's interested in the genre.

Lords of Shadow Mirror of Fate. Between the 3DS version and the PS3 version, I've put over 100 hours in with multiple playthroughs and playing boss rush mode. My most played 3DS game, an action platformer.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

Exactly. A short 20 minute game that you play through 60 times, for instance, would be 20 hours. Say you bought it for $10, that's 50 cents an hour. Not bad.
Similarly if a game takes 20 hours to beat but you play through it + play it for say 500 hours online that's a whopping 520 hours!

In the Sonic '06 example, it takes 15-20 hours to beat but who's going to play that shit for 15-20 hours? Sonic '06 is baaaaaaad. Metacritic gave it a 46/100, which in my opinion is way too high. Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing got 8/100, so I would say Sonic '06 deserves something like 25.

Another game that was really good was Gran Turismo 3 A-Spec. Probably put something like 500 hours into that one. $50 + tax in June 2002 (that's a total of $74.01 today) for 14.8 cents/hour.
Sim City 4 Deluxe Edition I think was 40 + tax in September 2003 ($57.01 today) for, I would guess, 1,000 hours and counting. That's 5.7 cents/hour. You can't beat that.

Actually, you can. You can get Sim City 4 Deluxe for 5 bucks today! That's 0.5 cents per hour!!!
GT3 goes for about 5 dollars today as well, that's just 1 cent per hour.

[Koa Zo]

Haven't played anything curent to comment on.
Some of the most play value i've gotten could be from the classic Treasure games, especially Radiant Silvergun and Ikaruga - both are pretty much timeless and endless challenge.
Panzer Dragoon Zwei is another one from that era which has unlimited play value to this day. I put in some time trying to get the perfect "Winged Death" ranking and dragon form, was never able to attain it.

[eskobar]

Your formula and calculations doesn't make sense at all.

If you want to give a numeric value based on how many hour a game can give you, you need to define several constants and variables to define a formula that can be useful.

As stated above, I totally agree that quality hours are best than raw hours per game, specially if you don't have the time to play. Puzzles could be the highest return value for many customers, but if you have a factor that accounts how much you like a particular genre, you can have a useful overall formula.

For me:

Don't have the time to play an epic RPG that can give me hundreds of hours ... the last time I played one, Demon's and Dark Souls, I lost more than 800 hours of my life playing those games. The release of Mass Effect 2 on PS3 was particularly dangerous for me ... I played it and indeed the game absorbed at least 400 hours and a few dollars spending on the games, dlc, merchandising and the books.

After that experience, I have spend time with Shmups and arcade games that are very well designed and I can play 5 o 10 min sessions without feeling that I did nothing... I have one year trying to finish Crimson Gem Saga and even if its on PSP, I haven't finished it yet. My backlog is quite big and I think that I'll never catch up :p

[WulfeLuer]

I agree; I'd like to see those formulae and how your variables plug in. I can see some of it but the actual nuts and bolts would help a lot.

I specialize in time-eating RPGs of one kind or another. I don't usually wind up 'doing everything' or getting all the achievements or whatever, but I do pour in a fair few hours per game. There are plenty of out-of-genre games that drive me bonkers and eat my wallet that don't necessarily have huge play times (Raiden and Raiden Fighters, World of Tanks [best bad decision I ever made as a gamer], Mega Man). I don't usually think in dollar amounts for play value, more like 'Is this worth the x hours of work I did to afford this and y hours of nerd time playing as opposed to x hours or work and y hours of nerd time I could spend on acquiring and playing something else?' I do believe that gaming is at its core a subjective experience, and what critics (or even your best friends) opine doesn't always follow, and even a game you realize is 'bad' can still be loads of fun (the reverse is also true).

I'm grateful I've found a place with other players with real life experiences here on this site, with growing Backlogs of Glory like me.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

I agree. A minute of a good FPS, puzzle game, platformer, etc would probably be more "play value" than a minute of a slower-paced simulation game or RPG like SimCity or Skyrim. Play Skyrim for 15 minutes and you feel like you've done nothing. AWESOME game, just takes a long time to make any significant progress, but you're having fun the whole time. Play Sonic the Hedgehog (1, 2, 3, or S&K) for 15 minutes and you're a few levels in, and still having fun the whole time. Play Sonic '06 for 15 minutes and you'll quickly decide you want to play a more fun game, like Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing.

[AceAerosmith]

Anyway, it seems like games in general are longer than they used to be, and that's not something I'm particularly happy about. I've never really cared about the amount of time I played versus the amount of money I spent, especially when I already try to get good deals on games to begin with, regardless of their lengths. To me, a game is a good value if it's fun and doesn't wear out its welcome. A game that's bloated and full of busywork just to pad out its length isn't fun to me. On the other hand, a short game may be over quick, but if I really enjoy it, I'll be inclined to replay it.

I agree with this 100%. To me, games are filled with gathering collectibles and that shit because of a lackluster story/gameplay. The developers know that their story could probably be told in 15 hours and be a solid good game but the modern gaming community expects more for their $60. So, they toss in shit like Trophies and Achievements to make a game seem worthwhile and fool gamers into thinking they've gotten more out of a game than they really did. I'd rather play a game that's worth replaying than play a game that was stuffed full of meanness shit that doesn't play into the story.

[Emperor Megas]

Anyway, it seems like games in general are longer than they used to be, and that's not something I'm particularly happy about. I've never really cared about the amount of time I played versus the amount of money I spent, especially when I already try to get good deals on games to begin with, regardless of their lengths. To me, a game is a good value if it's fun and doesn't wear out its welcome. A game that's bloated and full of busywork just to pad out its length isn't fun to me. On the other hand, a short game may be over quick, but if I really enjoy it, I'll be inclined to replay it.I agree with this 120%. There are games like Fantasy Zone II, Space Harrier (both in the running for my favorite game), and Mystic Defender, that take about 20 minutes to end, that I've played through hundreds of times over. Don't get me started on rail shooters like Panzer Dragoon II: Zwei, Rez, and Child of Eden. The two former I must have played through an hundred times over each.

For me, the main things that determine how much I'm willing to pay are:

A. Is this a current gen game that I'm purchasing for the single player experience?
B. Is this something that I'll play online with a friend?
C. Is this something that's rare, or a classic game that demands a higher price then something run of the mill?

I'll spend a bit more for something in the B, C categories, but common current shit? Nah, I'm generally not paying more than 20 bucks for it. Even when it's something that'll give me literally hundreds of hours of game play for a single play through. There are just too many games now in my backlog to pay for than that, and damn near every game comes down to the $20 mark in a matter of months nowadays.

With all that said, there are some games this generation past that I paid about 20 bucks or less for that I've gotten INSANE amounts of value for. So much so I can't even calculate it. Like Left4Dead 1 and 2. The wife an I have put countless hundreds of hours into those games. It's RIDICULOUS how many nights and entire weekends we've spent playing that shit, and we only played it offline! If we played it online we would probably have gone hungry because we'd have missed so much work.

[Cornelius]

Here is the thread mentioned previously where some formula were proposed: https://forum.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?173002-What-to-you-makes-a-good-game-purchase

If you don't care to read the whole thing, my post in that thread has a proposed formula that isn't particularly refined, but I still think has significant merit:

I like the formula above, at least conceptually. I'd maybe have to include an exponent to it though. Something like:

((fxh)^(1+w)/d

where:
f= fun
h= hours
d= dollars
w= 'wow' moments.

Usually, w will equal zero, but I can distinctly remember some wow moments that really change an evaluation. So an easy 'good purchase' is SMB3. I remember the first time using a shell to ricochet around destroying blocks, and thinking 'wow'. Of course, SMB3 probably doesn't need the help, its fun level is pretty high throughout.

But what about Shadow of the Colossus? It isn't a real long game, and doesn't have a ton of replay value (for me), so it hurts in the original formula. But with the 'wow' exponent it gets a boost, and that game had at least w=2 for me. One was on a flying colossus, and it just gave such a great impression of terror and exhilaration. Wow.

Here's another example, although putting it next to SotC doesn't seem right. Heavenly Sword. It is a fine game, a good time, but certainly deserves some criticism, and its pretty short without a lot of replay value. But for me, one of the levels with Kai set off a total 'wow' moment.

Maybe that's just a different way of expressing Fun. Maybe it should just be a modifier on Fun: ((f^(1+w))h)/d. Just a way to express that for a lot of games that I think back to, there are particular moments that I remember that really sway my overall opinion of a game.

I just want to point out that games don't cost more now, they cost less.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

I think it should be 1/100 w. For instance, a game with 60 fun (pretty fun, but not amazing) for 100 hours for 60 bucks but no wow moments would be a factor of 100, but with one wow moment would be 109.09 because it would be

(60 x 100 ^ (1 + 1/100(1)) / 60
(6000 ^ 1.01) / 60

making the wow moment a 9% increase in value, as opposed to allowing one wow moment to raise the factor to 600,000. Does one wow moment really make a game 6,000 times better? No, I'd say a 9% increase is reasonable.

((f x h)^(1+.01w)) / d

Let's look at Skyrim:

25 dollars
350 hours
Fun (1-100 scale): 85 (game is slow paced)
Wow moments: Probably 4 or so.

((85 * 350) ^ 1.04) / 25)

Value factor: 1,796.74

[Cornelius]

Definite improvement to my formula! Despite the way I wrote it, in my head I wasn't thinking of the 'w' variable being the literal # of moments, but more of like a wow factor, and I just threw it in a formula as a way to conceptualize that. You've implemented it much more effectively, though. For me, wow moments typically have a bigger impact than 9%, though. But they are also influenced by the quality of the game! So here's your next assignment ;) ... include a way to account for how a wow moment can't do much at all for a lousy game, but for an otherwise solid game it can a big impact. My thinking is that a game can be solid, but really not that special, while that same game with a few really great wow moments can become a true classic. Make sense?

[WulfeLuer]

Some quick and dirty notes for my idea

([f*h]^[1+.01w])/d

w needs more proportional weight determined by f.

the awesome factor. turn the wow elements into a, where a=1+.01w

(f[a]*h^[a])/d

Rebuild the formula using the Skyrim formula.
(85[1.04]*350^[1.04])/25

88.4*350 = 30940, 30940^1.04 = 46788.72 (rounded to two decimal points)

46788.72/25 = 1871.55 (again rounded to two)

The rounding helps give a dollar-and-cents number to work with.

[kupomogli]

Everytime I make an action in a video game it's a wow moment.

[Cornelius]

Everytime I make an action in a video game it's a wow moment.

So a modern FF game has what, like 4?

[WulfeLuer]

So a modern FF game has what, like 4?

Six, if you count hitting start/continue and selecting a save file.

[SparTonberry]

Starting a new game in EarthBound has a WOW factor of about 7, by my count. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbu6ewGCmTI

[WulfeLuer]

the awesome factor. turn the wow elements into a, where a=1+.01w

(f[a]*h^[a])/d, where a = 1+.01w

Let's work out one of my old favorites. For anything I bought more that once, I'll use the most recent purchase as the price.

Legend of Mana (PS1)
f = 75, h = 30, w = 6 (the intro cinematic/attract screen, boreal wolf, entering the bejeweled city, unlocking blue dragon, raging pain and raging fury)
d = 25

working out a = 1.06

(75[1.06]*30^[1.06])/25
(79.5*30^[1.06])/25
(2385^1.06)/25
3803.10/25
152.12

Compared to the Skyrim math above, the end number is kinda pathetic, even with the higher wow count. That said, this is the most recent purchase and playthrough of the game, and I know I sunk way more hours in it back the day.

There are some holes in the concept, unfortunately, but I can't see a good solution without pulling out stuff that would be needlessly complex for something like this. The overall biggest is the purchase price, since that is the final function of the formula and therefore the 'most powerful' but can still have a great deal of variance from person to person. Using the above example, I know that I paid the full $40 or whatever when it came out, and since I was an idiot and tried to clean the disc with alcohol a month or two down the line, forcing a repurchase at or near that again. Somebody else with a bit more savvy and patience could have gotten the game for $20-$25 at the time, without accounting for stuff like thrift stores or yard sales.

[BlastProcessing402]

One Christmas I got Golden Axe 2. That morning, I went to play it, manged to finish the whole thing the first time I turned it on. Kinda killed the mood for me that year. Even the first GA had more for me when I got that.

Conversely, the first 360 game I got (other than the packin Kungfu Panda/Lego Indiana Jones set) was Fallout 3. I got the 360 2 days after Thanksgiving, Fallout 3 the day after that. I was still having a great time playing Fallout 3 a month later when Christmas and New Years rolled around.

[WulfeLuer]

There are good short games out there. Sometimes wrecking even a good short game can leave a bad taste in your mouth, especially if you wanted to play it for half of forever. Anticipation can be more fun than possession.

[kupomogli]

So a modern FF game has what, like 4?

And if I wasn't playing it, it'd be zero. If I wasn't so attached to this username I'd change it. Square Enix has been pretty sh*t for a very long time.

But no, the comment was more like a reference to another comment I made about being naturally good at just about everything I play, search the latest pages of the LRG thread.

[WulfeLuer]

Yay for Squeenix and it's never-ending quest to be just like the villains in their games (FF7 and Robotrek come to mind).

Anyway, any more ideas out there about the formula and the ideas behind it? Mine was kinda recursive, but I wanted to keep things relatively simple.

[jb143]

As far as short games go, sometimes it's best to "leave them wanting more". Portal is a game that comes to mind. It's fairly short as far as games go and when it's over you want to keep on playing. But at that point it's already started to get repetitive. If it was any longer it would just ruin the whole thing.