Viewing Thread:
"Value for money?"

Am i alone in thinking that theres a growing crop of games that could be bigger and take longer to finish?

I can only vouch for the 3 titles that i have ofcourse but it does seem to me that whilst all these games are excellent, they are a little on the short side.

They are...

Resident Evil
Spiderman
Rogue Leader

All 3 of these titles can be completed within 10 hours by any adequate gamer and sooner by any experienced gamer. So is this value for money?

A £35 game taking 10 hours to complete equates to £3.50 an hour... personally i think that this is a little bit much, what do you think?

Now im aware of the "replay factor" that these games offer but its never the same the 2nd time around... remember in RE when you 1st confront the Sharks... or in Rogue Leader when you blow up the death star... classic gaming moments in themselves that i would pay a princes ransom to experience but after doing something once its just not the same the 2nd time around... you simply know what to expect thus ending any "what will happen next" thoughts...

Resident Evil in particular is a fantastic game that everyone should own... under no circumstances am i slagging this game off... its quite simply the scariest game ive ever played but is it as scary the 2nd time around? not for me.

Im not saying that games are too expensive... i do however think that if we the games buying public pay £35+ for a game then it should last us longer than just 10 hours.

Let me know what you guys think... are we getting full value for money?

Thx for reading.

I think that the value for money issue really depends upon how much you're going to play the game. Many people keep going long after they've first completed a game.

I don't know about Spiderman, but Resident Evil has 2 people, and loads more modes to unlock - doing everything will take much more than 10 hours - maybe more like 30 or 40. Getting all 15 Gold Medals on RL will also take hours - although I agree that most people won't bother to spend this amount of time on the game.

The thing with Resident Evil is that you can do it with two characters, and try to unlock the invisible enemies and the One tough Zombie mode.

But Yes Rogue Leader was too short for me.

Theres now talk of Starfox not being the biggest game too, c'mon guys share your thoughts on this one, are we getting value for money?

Am i alone in thinking that theres a growing crop of games that could be bigger and take longer to finish?

I can only vouch for the 3 titles that i have ofcourse but it does seem to me that whilst all these games are excellent, they are a little on the short side.

They are...

Resident Evil
Spiderman
Rogue Leader

All 3 of these titles can be completed within 10 hours by any adequate gamer and sooner by any experienced gamer. So is this value for money?

A £35 game taking 10 hours to complete equates to £3.50 an hour... personally i think that this is a little bit much, what do you think?

Now im aware of the "replay factor" that these games offer but its never the same the 2nd time around... remember in RE when you 1st confront the Sharks... or in Rogue Leader when you blow up the death star... classic gaming moments in themselves that i would pay a princes ransom to experience but after doing something once its just not the same the 2nd time around... you simply know what to expect thus ending any "what will happen next" thoughts...

Resident Evil in particular is a fantastic game that everyone should own... under no circumstances am i slagging this game off... its quite simply the scariest game ive ever played but is it as scary the 2nd time around? not for me.

Im not saying that games are too expensive... i do however think that if we the games buying public pay £35+ for a game then it should last us longer than just 10 hours.

Let me know what you guys think... are we getting full value for money?

Thx for reading.