Arcen Games

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Wingflier on February 09, 2018, 07:50:14 AM

Title: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Wingflier on February 09, 2018, 07:50:14 AM
In my family the rule of thumb is $1 per each hour of gameplay. So a $60 game would ideally merit 60 hours of gameplay.

However, I think this is an extremely strict method. Online I saw people willing to pay $10 an hour, so a $60 game would ideally merit them 6 hours of gameplay time. Some people were even more generous than that.

Though I generally hate DLC with a passion, one nice element of DLC is that it allows people to invest more into a game when they realize they "owe" the developers more money because they've played it so much.

What is your ideal ratio?
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 09, 2018, 09:37:57 AM
I find it kind of bizarre that people calculate the worth of  agame to the game time. While it makes sense to a degree, because you are stuck with the game for a long time, shouldn't be the main price influence be the quality and the gameplay fun of the game?
I rather look how much work the developers put into the game and if I had massive fun instead of having a game that I can play for 100 hours. But for some reason I recentl saw more and more people,t hat claimed, if a game is not lengthy enough, it's not worth investing money into.
Time plays for me a role too of course. I don't want to waste money on games that are simply too short. Good example? Abi (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abi-a-robots-tale/id1170852506?mt=8).
This game was amazing ntil I noticed it was way too short. The price was also higher when I purchased it, I think they dropped the price because of tons of negative reviews.
The game simply is not complete, of course you could say that the ending was an ending ut it didn't feel like one because it left so many stuff unsolved in the game and so many questions unanswered. This is a good example of a game with good quality that ended too soon, probably to cut development time.

Some of my favourite games are quite short but cost more than you suggest (1$ per hour). I think that the logic behind that is already flawed. This was possible like... 10 years ago, but the investment costs of developing games has increased over time. Better graphics, higher salary for employees and of course inflation of money. The last one has actually stabilized a little after Trump was elected (in the US that is) but then dropped again shortly after.

I think a good rule is 10$ for a game about 2-4 hours long if the quality of the game is good and it was fun.

Also, there is a big reason why I don't trust game time anymore. Games liek Fortresscaft Evolved and Home have shown me, that you can stretch the gaming time quite largely if you manipulate the game mechanics. in terms of FCE it simply means that everything you want to build or produce costs a small fortune, so you are permanetely busy increasing the production or waiting for production to be finished. You can literally waste hours to wait for the required amount of items to be crafted to complete the next research project.
Belladonna icnreases the game time in another way, it simply makes the character move slow with no way to increase the speed and also makes every dialog unskipable, which is quite uncommon in modern adventure games. FCE at least has some good gameplay value but Belladonna falls flat through everything.
This taught me, don't rely on gaming time statistics, I still like to look how long a game takes to complete (I take more time anyway because I play very slowly most of the time) but I don't measure the game with it or how much it should cost. If a developer wanted to sell time, he always could find a way to make more artificially.
That's why I look on quality, good developers won't do this most of the time, they put more investment in making the game itself better/bigger instead of adding ways to stretch the time, so the player stucks longer with the game.
However, when a agme costs around 60$ and I rarely buy games that are this expensive, than I think they shoudl last longer than 2 hours, at least 10 hours shuld be a thing. This is  alot of money I invest and I think I deserve a game that I stick longer with.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 09, 2018, 11:58:28 AM
I think $1 per hour is a good ballpark estimate.
But things are going to be more nuanced than that, and it will vary game-by-game, but I'm not even going to consider a title at $60 unless I can be sure that that money is well spent:

Afterall, I'm going to have that game for a long, long time. If I only get 6 hours of enjoyment out of it (pretty much one day of binging) I'm going to come off of it a little sour: there was a nice Saturday afternoon, but now what do I do?

I've also noticed a trend (for me, at least) that the lower the base price of a game the longer the average play time. It's like there's an inverse relationship, which only further steers me away from the triple-A big-budget titles.

AI War, for example, was probably $10 or $20 (and I know I had a store-based coupon at the time) and I've gotten three hundred hours out of it.
Risk of Rain, probably $10, got one hundred and seventy hours.
Portal 2: thirty hours.
Deus Ex (Human Revolution): thirty hours.
Skyrim: nine.

Not always true, but all of the games I've spent more than 60 hours on have all been low budget indie titles. The only exception to this is probably Team Fortress 2, which is now free (and I considered it free, due to buying the Orange Box for Portal). So maybe the trend still holds?
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 09, 2018, 01:24:56 PM
I think $1 per hour is a good ballpark estimate.
But things are going to be more nuanced than that, and it will vary game-by-game, but I'm not even going to consider a title at $60 unless I can be sure that that money is well spent:

Afterall, I'm going to have that game for a long, long time. If I only get 6 hours of enjoyment out of it (pretty much one day of binging) I'm going to come off of it a little sour: there was a nice Saturday afternoon, but now what do I do?

I've also noticed a trend (for me, at least) that the lower the base price of a game the longer the average play time. It's like there's an inverse relationship, which only further steers me away from the triple-A big-budget titles.

AI War, for example, was probably $10 or $20 (and I know I had a store-based coupon at the time) and I've gotten three hundred hours out of it.
Risk of Rain, probably $10, got one hundred and seventy hours.
Portal 2: thirty hours.
Deus Ex (Human Revolution): thirty hours.
Skyrim: nine.

Not always true, but all of the games I've spent more than 60 hours on have all been low budget indie titles. The only exception to this is probably Team Fortress 2, which is now free (and I considered it free, due to buying the Orange Box for Portal). So maybe the trend still holds?

Yeah, this is one of the reasons why I steered away from AAA games.

I was paying just as much as ever, but rarely getting all that much time out of them.  The price stayed the same, but the quality continued to drop, and on top of that, instead of being filled with incredible gameplay they tended to just be filled with more and more cutscenes instead.   Spectacle over substance.

Whereas I can point to *a lot* of indie titles, typically priced at under 20, that have given me lots of hours.  Hundreds in many cases.   

My highest examples are:

Binding of Isaac Rebirth: 442 (that's NOT counting hours spent on the Switch version, iOS version, or the time spent playing it when on my laptop, which is usually offline because hotel wifi sucks)
Nuclear Throne: 289
Unexplored: 178
Bionic Dues: 123
AI War:  121
20XX: 117 (actual hours probably much higher, frequently gets used with the laptop)
Dungeons of Dredmor:  115
Enter the Gungeon: 103
Streets of Rogue: 97

(technically Starward and Last Federation also clock a bazillion hours but those don't count as some of that time was me working on them)

And that's just those.  I could keep going with other games that are likely to end up on that super high section of the list, like Cogmind or Dead Cells or Dont Starve (been out for quite awhile but I only recently dove into it).

But.... yeah I cant think of even one AAA game in the last few years that managed more than a handful of hours (aside from a couple of Nintendo's things, but they're hardly a traditional example here).  Yet they still cost that silly price.   The ONE that comes close is, Anno 2070.   I say "comes close" because I'm not actually sure it counts as AAA or not and I dont remember how much I paid for it originally (I dont think it was quite 60 though).   I do notice though that it's sequel DEFINITELY went into AAA territory.... and suffered massively because of it (seriously, it was bad. Very heavily dumbed down and had cut content... sigh...  I refuse to acknowledge it exists most of the time).


Now, as for DLC?   I can understand why some people hate DLC, but I think there's two types.   There's Greedy Publisher DLC, which is the sort that deserves hating.... it's what you get from unfinished games that have simply had bits chopped off of them so that the greedy jerks could sell it to you later.   And then there's *actual* DLC, which to me is always fine.  I buy plenty of DLC for the games I play... I just make sure that I think whatever is in it is good enough to warrant the cost.   That is, if it even HAS a cost.  Some games, their DLC tends to be totally free even if it's so big that it's like an expansion instead of a normal DLC.   Enter the Gungeon's Supply Drop update, for example, is a pretty big blob of content and balance changes and new modes and just lots of STUFF, yet was free.   Granted, whether it's free or not depends on ALOT of variables for the devs. Plenty of times it's absolutely not viable.  But still, that's pretty frequent for things to be free.   But you'll never, ever see the Big Guys do it.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Logorouge on February 09, 2018, 01:54:36 PM
I used to think a ratio of at least 1 hour per dollar was good, but after a while I realized that some games are just on a mission to waste your time. So nowadays game length is a secondary aspect I keep an eye on, but the main thing now is the quality of those hours instead.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 09, 2018, 02:37:19 PM
Skyrim: nine.
How is that even possible? that woudl require to literally ignore any sidequest and just go for the main story. And while this is possible and valid to do, in my opinion it's the most aweful way to play th egame. Skyrim (any ESO game actually) is about exploring the world as you like and discovering new quests and dungeons on the way, not following strictly the plot line.

When it comes to game time, let's be honest, the biggest time sinks are actually FREE games. Why is that? Because these games work normally int he way, that either you spend money to et your progress as fast as possible or you have to work the hard way. This can be collectible card games, MMORPGs, shooter, strategy games, basically anything that is free and has some sort of currency or unlocks to achieve. My most played game to date is Dota 2 with over 2000 hours and while I spend less time now than before, i still play it and it does not seem I will stop anytime soon. Of course I spend money on that title too, probably around 200€ (maybe even more) so far which is a lot but if you value that alone against the amount of time invested, I have actually spent only 10 cents per hour. This woudl be a bargain if you would consider playtime alone. However, i also use the client for watching streams of pro players, especially during major torunaments I spend hours just to watch others play. However, i still consider this fun and I spend money on soemthign I enjoy, so I don't feel bad about it, even if it is a lot of money.
The reason I spend so much here is however, because it is not artifically hader to achieve something if you don't purchase anything. For example, League of Legends, which still has a larger playerbase, locks heroes behind a currency additionally to skins and other stuff, so if you want to become better or get better heroes, pay money or play tons of games until you unlock the hero you want.
Dota gives you everything for free, this also has the negative side ffect that it overwhelms new players but ont he plus side, it does not require any grind, you just play for fun. You can get items (skins) from drops or you pay for them. Some skins are moeny exclusive and I find that okay, even if not everyone agrees on that. If the rest of the game is free, I can understand, that some cosmetic changes are simpylk not and I have to pay for it, if I want my character to look special. I can see the amount of work put into the sets and honestly, they just look great most of the time.

My other games with long play times are also mostly free.
Talisman, AI War and XCOM are the most played games that cost full money with XCOM being the most expensive one wit all the DLCs released.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 09, 2018, 03:40:49 PM
How is that even possible? that woudl require to literally ignore any sidequest and just go for the main story. And while this is possible and valid to do, in my opinion it's the most aweful way to play th egame. Skyrim (any ESO game actually) is about exploring the world as you like and discovering new quests and dungeons on the way, not following strictly the plot line.

I can top that:  I think I have like 2 hours in it.

Got bored, you see.  Everyone wouldnt stop talking.  I dont need to hear your damn life story, just tell me how many rats need to be stabbed and let me get to it already!
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: WolfWhiteFire on February 09, 2018, 03:56:08 PM
This topic was derailed fast. Personally, for me, the ratio is generally AT LEAST 2 hours per dollar, usually more.

I most enjoy either turn-based strategy games (Fire Emblem, XCOM, etc.), "grand strategy" games (Europa Universalis 4, Crusader Kings 2, etc.), or games with a good story line (especially if one of the other 2 is combined with it), and sometimes RPGs, generally two of those three main ones require a lot of time in order to be good at it, with the TBS games being the ones that don't necessarily need to be long.

Of course, there are many other factors to consider, but responding to the question asked, that is what I generally like in terms of hours per dollar.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 09, 2018, 05:50:39 PM
This topic was derailed fast.


Arcen forums.  Of COURSE it was derailed.

The tracks were broken right from the start.  And conveniently right next to a cliff.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: keith.lamothe on February 09, 2018, 09:35:19 PM
The tracks were broken right from the start.  And conveniently right next to a cliff.
If the left and right rail are even in the same dimension, that's an uncommonly good start.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 09, 2018, 11:27:20 PM
Skyrim: nine.
How is that even possible? that woudl require to literally ignore any sidequest and just go for the main story. And while this is possible and valid to do, in my opinion it's the most aweful way to play th egame. Skyrim (any ESO game actually) is about exploring the world as you like and discovering new quests and dungeons on the way, not following strictly the plot line.

I got as far as beating up my first wyvern dragon and stopped giving a shit.

The tracks were broken right from the start.  And conveniently right next to a cliff.
If the left and right rail are even in the same dimension, that's an uncommonly good start.

Ha! I got a good chuckle out of that.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: WolfWhiteFire on February 10, 2018, 07:20:00 AM
Quote from: keith.lamothe on Yesterday at 08:35:19 PM
Quote from: Misery on Yesterday at 04:50:39 PM
The tracks were broken right from the start.  And conveniently right next to a cliff.
If the left and right rail are even in the same dimension, that's an uncommonly good start.

Well I can't argue with that, though with this one it is more like an astro train immediately rammed it off the rails and shot it a few hundred times just to be sure.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Toranth on February 10, 2018, 08:20:11 AM
Amusingly, I was just thinking about this earlier this morning.  See, I just played Tacoma.

Tacoma retails on Steam of $19.99.  On sale, it's been as low as $9.99.  I got it as part of the last Humble Monthly Bundle, which makes it hard to value, but somewhere between $2-3, weighting for interest.
The game is just 3 hours long with no replay value.

I'm disappointed in the game, even though it was cheap.  It has interesting and innovative mechanics/gameplay and has a decent story, too.  But it was so short and shallow that I suspect any non-free price would have left me unhappy.
In that same bundle was Owlboy - a platformer/Metroidvania style game.  It's not even 10 hours long (without collectibles).  It has a very simple story, and basic, traditional, mechanics.  But I'm happy with it, because although it was short and simple, it was a lot more FUN than Tacoma. 

I suppose I just have to echo some of the rest of you:  $1 per hour is a nice criteria to think about when evaluating games for a potential purchase, but it's very unreliable based on after the fact ratings.  In fact, it's bad enough that I really should stop considering it... but I know I will next time, too.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 10, 2018, 11:59:16 AM
I got as far as beating up my first wyvern dragon and stopped giving a shit.

I guess there are not many people in this forum, that actually liek Skyrim. That's a shame.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 10, 2018, 04:46:23 PM
I got as far as beating up my first wyvern dragon and stopped giving a shit.
I guess there are not many people in this forum, that actually liek Skyrim. That's a shame.

I wanted to like it, but I couldn't progress. Because I'd screwed up my "get some gear from this prison cell" armor selection had been trying to upgrade from "light" to "heavy" and couldn't find any heavy armor, but the mixed set was screwing up the skill point stuff.

So the enemies between me and every quest I had open would borderline one-hit-kill me.

My options were:
1) Mod the game and grind blacksmithing and make armor (ha! no)
2) Complete a stupidly hard quest line to get daedric armor (ha! no)
3) Exploit the stealth skill overnight (...just no)

That combined with a few other things and I just stopped caring.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: WolfWhiteFire on February 10, 2018, 05:08:46 PM
So the enemies between me and every quest I had open would borderline one-hit-kill me.
That should never happen in Skyrim, even if you don't get armor exactly as you like it, unless you set the difficulty WAY too high in my experience. Unless you have probably around 70 levels and a certain dragon type with an insta-kill attack starts spawning.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 10, 2018, 09:56:36 PM
Here's a save file (https://www.dropbox.com/s/12oqro78pajyzx8/skyrim_save.ess?dl=0), if you feel like looking at it.
But like I said, I kind of stopped caring.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 11, 2018, 01:49:44 AM
As far as I remember, difficulty in Skyrim was directed at your level. Higehr level, higher challenge. the problem with that was/is that the cannot calculate your skill build into this and enemies might simply not be designed for your build and you get crushed.
So yeah, I think it is possible, because the game tries to give you a constant challenge anywhere you are instead of having different "level zones" like other RPGs in the same genre have (Gothic/Risen).

I haven't played tacoma myself yet but I also have it from the monthly bundle so I will get to that later. Maybe my experience may differ. I really wanted that game actually and I'm kinda sad now, that the game might actually not be that good as U hoped. But I will judge this myself first.
In general I weight Humble Monthly actually really high because you get good games for a good fee. I don't even care that you don't know what you get, it basically a video game surprise box, might turn good, might turn bad. I had some bad ones and I had soem really good ones. the last two were exceptionally good honestly and the next one includes Dark Souls 3 plus the first of the two DLCs. It's kinda hard to determine the money per hour because everyone might differ here where to apply it ("Which games do I play from this bundle?") Civilization from the last Bundle alone nets someone multiple hundred hours if he is really interested in that game.

If it comes to gaming times, you also have to differ between replayability and non-replayability. A lot of people judge games nowadays if they can play a game multiple times and enjoy it each time or if they would only the first time playing it. Adventure games are  agood example for the later kind, they are centered aroudn story, the game works always the same, same puzzles, smae dialogs, you cannot influence the outcome, you just play the game from the beginning to the end and help the game protagonist to reach it. These games have no replayability because you most likely will enjoy them only once. If you know all the memorable moments already, they won't have the same impact on you again (A twist. A joke. Stuff like that.). In such cases you have to view the general time it takes to complete everythign with all dialogs heard and so on.
Replayable games are most of the time either Multiplayer games or games with random generation in it. Soemthing that keeps the game fresh even after you played it multiple times. Many of them might have a "finish" condition. A Multiplayer game has simply a match to be played until one side wins. Randomly generated games migth have a level or until you die, it differs greatly in those. The time from start to finish may be the "game time" but people consider it not the true game time value because you can play it more often and still enjoy it, clocking many more hours into it.
How do you measure the gaming time then? one person migth get bored after 5 rounds, one after 10, maybe one didn't bother after the first one. In such cases it is too hard to say "This game has so many hours of playing time".

We woudl also have to adress difficulty. Difficulty differs for people. Someone like Misery can beat Bullet Hell games quite easily. I would have to take hours and hours, days, weeks, maybe even months until I would beat even one. This applies to any game. Dark Souls is a good example because it is known for it's massive difficulty spike at literally any corner. Experienced players will breeze through it anyway, shortening the game time. Players who have more problems with games like DS will have to try a lot more and rely on other tactics (grinding to make up for the lack of skill). This is really appearent in RPG games where you can circumvent skill levels with grinding. If you don't have the ability to beat a difficult boss, train so long until you can crush him with brute force.
This can also apply to other games but I think it is the most prominent in RPGs.

Now, as far as value goes, how much money was spent to create those scenarios? Should I have to pay more just because I was not skilled enough? Shoudl I pay less, because the game did me entertain me only for one round of playing? It's really hard to measure the worth of games just by time or even with time at all. At least from my side. But as I said,  I like to look up play times at least to notice how long the game woudl entertain me and if this is worth an investment.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: eRe4s3r on February 11, 2018, 10:38:03 PM
Difficulty slider in TES games is always only a masochism slider given the horridly broken combat and spell systems in all of them, lowest is what the game was balanced around magic and combat wise. And the game is actually still challenging on "easiest" ;p You just don't die in 1 hit... and enemy backstabs now actually KILLS them.

Either way, to me such a ratio doesn't exist. The only deciding factor is "Am I having fun within 2 hours" and if the answer is no to that, refund. If it yes, then purchase price becomes irrelevant, I own it to play it either through or until it ain't fun no more ;) And replayability is a big factor for me, but not a deciding factor for purchase.

I only ever bought (specifically, not bundles) 3 games that I wish I could have refunded and really regretted buying literally from the first minute, X Rebirth, Stronghold 3 and SOTS2

But considering I paid 19€ for Factorio and Played that 250 hours... or 20$ for KSP and played that for 250hours.. well yeah. Some games on the face seem vastly under-priced. But that's not how I think about purchases. I buy things I want nowadays, never again buying anything based on hearsay so the "value" element is really meh for me.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 12, 2018, 09:36:35 PM
I buy things I want nowadays, never again buying anything based on hearsay so the "value" element is really meh for me.

This is how I wish more people would choose their purchases.  Instead of just falling for hype and all that, or buying something because everyone else is.  Maybe the AAA side of things wouldn't be so bad if that were the case.

But nope.  Bah.

As refunds go I've refunded two things, and that's about it.  One of them was a Dark Souls game... the controls made me want to stab something... and the other was a particularly horrid port of a shmup I'm familiar with from the PS3/4.

Someone like Misery can beat Bullet Hell games quite easily.

Not really the case.

They dont get beaten easily (well, occaisionally something like Deathsmiles will happen, but that's rare).  Some dont get beaten at all.

Something like Mushihime Ultra, that took.... about a year.  I've no intention of doing THAT again.  The sequel, on the other hand, is damn near impossible.  Took a ridiculous amount of time to be able to beat stage 1 in that mode.  Stage 2 just eats me.

Or there's stuff like this nightmare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0BnfUX5tvE     I did that earlier today on a whim.... wanted to see what would happen.  That thing isn't going down anytime soon.  Completely overwhelming.

Posted that on Steam, too.  There's no way I'm NOT going to show something like that off at least a bit.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Mánagarmr on February 14, 2018, 02:02:26 AM
How is that even possible? that woudl require to literally ignore any sidequest and just go for the main story. And while this is possible and valid to do, in my opinion it's the most aweful way to play th egame. Skyrim (any ESO game actually) is about exploring the world as you like and discovering new quests and dungeons on the way, not following strictly the plot line.

I can top that:  I think I have like 2 hours in it.

Got bored, you see.  Everyone wouldnt stop talking.  I dont need to hear your damn life story, just tell me how many rats need to be stabbed and let me get to it already!

I top that. 35 minutes before I ragequit. Dull characters, dull story, awful combat, horrible voice acting, hilariously buggy and an interface that actively tries to make me commit suicide.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 14, 2018, 12:26:56 PM
How is that even possible? that woudl require to literally ignore any sidequest and just go for the main story. And while this is possible and valid to do, in my opinion it's the most aweful way to play th egame. Skyrim (any ESO game actually) is about exploring the world as you like and discovering new quests and dungeons on the way, not following strictly the plot line.

I can top that:  I think I have like 2 hours in it.

Got bored, you see.  Everyone wouldnt stop talking.  I dont need to hear your damn life story, just tell me how many rats need to be stabbed and let me get to it already!

I top that. 35 minutes before I ragequit. Dull characters, dull story, awful combat, horrible voice acting, hilariously buggy and an interface that actively tries to make me commit suicide.

But aren't the bugs "part of the charm" or whatever that fanbase always spouts?  Seriously, Bethesda gets... quite a pass on ALOT of things in their games.  Because reasons.

Honestly, I've never seen the appeal to most of the stuff they've put out.  It's always buggy, always seems really awkward in a lot of ways, and everything is just... dull.   "I don't get it" definitely sums it up.

I've wondered, more than a few times, if "world is really big, oooohhh look how expansive it is" is the actual reason why these games get so popular.  Which might also explain the current irritating popularity of open-world games (good grief I'm tired of those... apparently they even screwed up Dynasty Warriors with that recently).
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 14, 2018, 01:48:29 PM
You don't have to get it, but they are poluar for  a reason and "The world is just big and it's expensive" is not the reason.
The reason is, freedom, exploration at your own pace and many more stuff.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 14, 2018, 02:39:41 PM
You don't have to get it, but they are poluar for  a reason and "The world is just big and it's expensive" is not the reason.
The reason is, freedom, exploration at your own pace and many more stuff.

But all that stuff is same-y and bland and boring and spread out painfully far away from each other.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 14, 2018, 02:47:39 PM
Except it isn't for me. Liel I said, you don#t have to udnerstand. Do I have top understand why you like X or Y?
Not everyone likes the same and that does not mean it's a bad game., it simply means you don't liek it and someone else does.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 14, 2018, 06:02:21 PM
The reason is, freedom, exploration at your own pace and many more stuff.

That, however, directly plays into "the world is big and expansive".  I mean, that's what "big/expansive" means in terms of gameplay.  But, it is NOT ACTUALLY TIED TO IT.  I'll get to that in a moment.

It's not just that though.  One of the reasons I don't get it is because they spend so much time building up this world... but the actual gameplay is... some of the most clunky and non-engaging I've ever seen, period, which is just about one of the worst things I can say about a game.  I mean, character movement was slower than a dead frog in sludge.  Combat was also slow, and very awkward.  The interface was even more awkward.  "Slow & awkward" pretty much sums it all up, and in the end, for all the "freedom", you were still doing the same bloody things as in every other game... dungeons and fetch quests and boss fights... it's just that in between those, you had these really blank periods of what often felt like utterly pointless travel.  Sections where NOTHING HAPPENED.

Why not remove the "literally nothing is happening" bits and just keep the gameplay engaging THE WHOLE TIME?

I had that very same question about the recent Zelda, which I also hated.  It was BORING.  Yes, the world was pretty, blah blah blah, but as I've repeated often, you could have shrunk the game world in that by 70% and STILL kept in all of the content.  ALL of it.  The "big expansive world" is, to me, padding.  Just padding.  I compare that to the original Zelda, which STILL had a big world to explore... but the ENTIRE THING was filled with stuff to do.  They didn't make it big JUST to be able to say "look how big this is".  They made it big so that they could fit everything in it.  Literally EVERY SINGLE SCREEN in the overworld had SOMETHING to do in it.  No, I can think of two screens... exactly two.... that seemed a little pointless (I later found out they actually have secret caves in them).  That game still had the utter freedom, hell, you could even sequence-break the heck out of it.  You could end up in, say, the 7th dungeon (or is it the 8th?) immediately after getting the freaking candle.  You went through that game YOUR way.   That concept, absolutely makes sense to me.  It's actually something I actively look for and I often make choices on what to buy, based on whether or not the game in question is going to let me do things MY way.  So that concept is not part of what goes over my head here.

But that's not what "open world" games seem to *actually* be about.  They seem more about bragging rights, to get people to buy them.  As in "look how much BIGGER this seems to be than all those other games".  I mean, have you noticed that ads/articles/whatever about upcoming open-world games tend to never shut the bloody hell up about just how big the game world is?  They often talk more about that, then what you can actually DO in those worlds.   They create all of this space AND DONT USE IT ALL.

I mean, hell, the fact that "fast travel" exists in these games isn't, to me, a feature:  it's a symptom.  It says "we know the travel is bloody boring.  Here's an option to just skip it".  If a game is literally giving me the option to SKIP parts of it, that.... is a problem.


I've seen ONE open world game that I honestly think got it right.  One.  Which is Just Cause 2.   Like the original Zelda, it had this big world.... AND ACTUALLY FILLED IT WITH STUFF.   It didn't matter where you were in that game's map.  Did not matter.  No matter where you were, THERE WAS SOMETHING TO DO OR FIND (usually both).  I mean, literally everywhere.  Even the freaking ocean held stuff to do.  There were never any moments of boring travel, or nothing happening, yet it was still expansive, AND it heavily emphasized the "do it YOUR way" aspect.  Overall, they got it right:  Gameplay over spectacle.  By not making the world bigger than it needed to be, they created something that was CONSTANTLY engaging, instead of OCCAISIONALLY engaging.  And they showed that they could do this without the world shrinking too far and not being interesting to explore.  There were STILL loads of areas to see.  And all the way through, fast travel did not even ONCE feel necessary.  Not... once.  Hell, I don't know if the game even HAD that, because I never bothered to check.  It simply never had any dull or slow moments despite how freaking big that game's world was (and it was quite huge... just not UNNECESSARILY huge).  What's more, the actual gameplay was just FUN.  Combat was fun.  Driving was fun. Flying planes was fun.  The grappling hook / parachute combo was BLOODY AMAZING.  It didn't matter WHAT you were doing at any time:  It was constantly fun (and controlled very well), yet also quite varied.

In other words, that game still had the things you claim to love about Skyrim (including game length and sheer amount of content).... but it proved it could have them WITHOUT that unnecessary padding.  It proved that an open-world game CAN be done that way.  If you were in a bit of gameplay that for whatever reason seemed slow?  It wasn't because of the game design.  It was because you, the player, were actively choosing to take your time for whatever reason.  It was NEVER forced on you... but it FREQUENTLY is in games like Skyrim.

And honestly, I think LOTS of gamers don't know how or why that lack of forcing the slow sections is a good thing, because the style of design used in Skyrim, or in Ubisoft's games, or Zelda, has become the norm.  Hell, it's gone BEYOND "the norm", and instead become "the only way it's ever done".  Nobody even makes games with the open world theme that are constantly engaging beyond the "ooh this area is big, look at the bigness" aspect.  Instead, they do everything they can to distract you from the fact that, hey, nothing is happening here and you need to do some very blank travelling to get to an actual thing.


Dont get me wrong:  I dont think Skyrim is a bad game.  I dont think Zelda is a bad game. I definitely accept the fact that plenty of people love them.  But I think these games fall into one of the biggest, and nastiest trends that plagues the AAA side of the industry right now, and I think it really does hurt the experience.... but most will never see that, because they genuinely have nothing else to compare it to.  They dont get to ever see that it COULD work differently... so they think it CANT.  They think that it's REQUIRED to have that "freedom".  That's why the boring parts may not seem as boring to you... you've never seen how it COULD be done, because there's been almost no examples, and the genre is firmly entrenched in that "norm".  And players accept (and perhaps dont entirely notice) the forced boring moments as something that there is no way to design around it.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 14, 2018, 06:46:25 PM
Why not remove the "literally nothing is happening" bits and just keep the gameplay engaging THE WHOLE TIME?

This. Exactly this.

And when you do run into something interesting in Skyrim, it exists in isolation. "Oh a church of druids who have a quest for you. Wait, why is this church here? What are they even doing? They're just...standing there...in the middle of the forest..."

Edit:
Open Worlds Are Rubbish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxckAE9OU8M
Bethesda's Game Design is Insulting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kRRYgf54oM
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 14, 2018, 07:57:27 PM
I find the titles of the videos quite insulting. And it's called opinion for  areason but the titles... well whatever.
We can agree to disagree.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 14, 2018, 09:55:05 PM
I find the titles of the videos quite insulting. And it's called opinion for  areason but the titles... well whatever.
We can agree to disagree.

We certainly can. I was merely saying "here are some other people who share my opinion."
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 14, 2018, 11:28:51 PM
Like I said, a matter of taste. i could as well show people that share my opinion but the sales of the game speak for itself enough.
Some people simply don't like the genre and that's okay. It's the same with me and Isaac. isaac is a trash game for me. I hate it with my guts. This game is in my eyes really badly designed. But the game was/is succesful. It has a big fanbase. So it is popular.
But in my eyes it still will be trash.
It's the same for you with Skyrim.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Atepa on February 15, 2018, 08:45:05 AM
Either way, to me such a ratio doesn't exist. The only deciding factor is "Am I having fun within 2 hours" and if the answer is no to that, refund. If it yes, then purchase price becomes irrelevant, I own it to play it either through or until it ain't fun no more ;) And replayability is a big factor for me, but not a deciding factor for purchase.
This was such a good move on Valve's part, which was long overdue, but probably helped a lot of companies. (Although I would question if it helped Arcen Games, only because their games are a little more complex and I could see people buying, trying to get into it and giving up within 2 hours and refunding it)

But considering I paid 19€ for Factorio and Played that 250 hours... or 20$ for KSP and played that for 250hours.. well yeah. Some games on the face seem vastly under-priced. But that's not how I think about purchases. I buy things I want nowadays, never again buying anything based on hearsay so the "value" element is really meh for me.

This has very much become my point of view over the years too, but I also have a very well paying job so I have the disposable income to drop the $60-$80 on a game that I may not get a lot out of.

Apparently based of my Steam Library at the moment I pay around $9.27CAD an hour... but that's probably off because I have 142 games I've never launched. (Purchases that were parts of bundles for other games I did want), and time accounted for by my father who plays his games in offline mode mostly.  Currently out of my top 19 games (that's as much as I could fit into a screenshot lol) I have paid $1/hour for exactly one game, which is Ghost Recon: Wildlands, and even that isn't correct because it doesn't factor in the 70+ hours my father's put into the game in offline mode on my account. (the total should actually be around 135 hours according to my Ubisoft Profile)
edit: Yeah that number is way off because I also didn't buy TW:Warhammer for $25.

The point is that while yes it is important to get a good value for your money, at the same time it is important to have fun as well. So sure by all means use the $1/h ratio if you want, but remember that sometimes that won't line up, and you'll pay more for a game. It doesn't necessarily mean the game was bad, it simply means you didn't enjoy it. That's okay.


And before I finish Courtesy of SteamDB https://steamdb.info my top 19 games, because apparently I'm all over the damn map on what I play.
(http://i.imgur.com/TKHgylW.png) (https://imgur.com/TKHgylW)
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 15, 2018, 12:46:21 PM
Like I said, a matter of taste. i could as well show people that share my opinion but the sales of the game speak for itself enough.
Some people simply don't like the genre and that's okay. It's the same with me and Isaac. isaac is a trash game for me. I hate it with my guts. This game is in my eyes really badly designed. But the game was/is succesful. It has a big fanbase. So it is popular.
But in my eyes it still will be trash.
It's the same for you with Skyrim.

I still find this moderately baffling, considering you play something like Starward, which is, if I'm blunt, an Isaac clone.  It's basically Space Isaac, with extra bullets. 


I find the titles of the videos quite insulting. And it's called opinion for  areason but the titles... well whatever.

An unfortunate fact of the internet as it currently is.  EVERYTHING has to be "shocking" or "attention grabbing".  I swear, it seems like MOST videos these days have bloody stupid titles like this.  And dont even get me started on the damn thumbnails.

I remember when Youtube WASNT constantly irritating.  Those days sure seem far off now....
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: TheVampire100 on February 15, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
I still find this moderately baffling, considering you play something like Starward, which is, if I'm blunt, an Isaac clone.  It's basically Space Isaac, with extra bullets. 
I don't see it as this because of multiple reasons. Main reason? Starward has different weapons or equipment slots and you can only equip one item per slot. This makes the whole experience already  a lot different and the balance as well. In Isaac you can grab stuff as you want and stuff your face with all the items you come alone. If this wuld be smart is another thing but this makes a very bi difference.
Another one, Staward tells you what each item actually does whiel Isaac, even after it has been remade and has several dlcs, still does not manage t give you knowledge what each item does. You have to play the game with a wiki open and I simply don't want every 2 minutes check what an item does. Also, the visual design of Arcen is  A LOT better whiel Isaac is simply blood and feces. Do I have to say more?
An unfortunate fact of the internet as it currently is.  EVERYTHING has to be "shocking" or "attention grabbing".  I swear, it seems like MOST videos these days have bloody stupid titles like this.  And dont even get me started on the damn thumbnails.

I remember when Youtube WASNT constantly irritating.  Those days sure seem far off now....
Yeah, the titles are pretty much click bait to attract similiar minded people. Works wonders the other way aroudn as well.
"Why Skyrim is the best RPG of 2011" for an example. I bnet I could find a video woth that title and I bet hardcore fans of Skyrim would watch just to get their satisfaction that the are right in their opinion.

That is the reason why I simply use the thumbnail/title of the game itself for my videos and keep my titles rather simple/dull (which is also a reason why I have barely any viewers). The viewer sees simply what game I play and talk about nothing more and nothing less.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Misery on February 15, 2018, 01:09:39 PM
I still find this moderately baffling, considering you play something like Starward, which is, if I'm blunt, an Isaac clone.  It's basically Space Isaac, with extra bullets. 
I don't see it as this because of multiple reasons. Main reason? Starward has different weapons or equipment slots and you can only equip one item per slot. This makes the whole experience already  a lot different and the balance as well. In Isaac you can grab stuff as you want and stuff your face with all the items you come alone. If this wuld be smart is another thing but this makes a very bi difference.
Another one, Staward tells you what each item actually does whiel Isaac, even after it has been remade and has several dlcs, still does not manage t give you knowledge what each item does. You have to play the game with a wiki open and I simply don't want every 2 minutes check what an item does. Also, the visual design of Arcen is  A LOT better whiel Isaac is simply blood and feces. Do I have to say more?
An unfortunate fact of the internet as it currently is.  EVERYTHING has to be "shocking" or "attention grabbing".  I swear, it seems like MOST videos these days have bloody stupid titles like this.  And dont even get me started on the damn thumbnails.

I remember when Youtube WASNT constantly irritating.  Those days sure seem far off now....
Yeah, the titles are pretty much click bait to attract similiar minded people. Works wonders the other way aroudn as well.
"Why Skyrim is the best RPG of 2011" for an example. I bnet I could find a video woth that title and I bet hardcore fans of Skyrim would watch just to get their satisfaction that the are right in their opinion.

That is the reason why I simply use the thumbnail/title of the game itself for my videos and keep my titles rather simple/dull (which is also a reason why I have barely any viewers). The viewer sees simply what game I play and talk about nothing more and nothing less.


Oh, I definitely agree with you about the item description thing.  I use a mod that simply displays the bloody things on the screen in-game.  Amusingly, it's one of the most popular of all of the mods for the game.

The odd part is:  It's not just Isaac.  Someone, somewhere, seems to have decided that "all roguelikes must be really cryptic and never explain things".   Even Enter the Gungeon, with it's Ammonomicon, which exists to explain things, STILL has me jumping to the wiki frequently.   And just.... why?    Why not just tell me EXACTLY what the bloody item does? 

The WORST bit though is hidden mechanics.  I haaaaaaaaaate that.  Isaac doesn't really do that one too much, but plenty of games do.  Like Gungeon's "Coolness" stat.  Don't get me wrong, it's a good mechanic, that one.  But it's NEVER EVEN HINTED AT.  Not once.  How the playerbase even found out about it, I don't know.  I can only assume goat sacrifices were involved.   There is literally not even the tiniest mention of it in-game, and that's NORMAL in this genre.  And infuriating.

I've never understood this aspect of this genre.  Both of those things, I mean.  Because it really is a genre-wide issue. 

You can thank Chris for it NOT being an issue with Starward.  He was very adamant about that right from the start, making sure that the player got ALL of the info all the time instead of some of the info maybe occasionally sort of.
Title: Re: What is the correct price to gameplay-hour ratio?
Post by: Draco18s on February 15, 2018, 01:44:19 PM
Yeah, the titles are pretty much click bait to attract similiar minded people. Works wonders the other way aroudn as well.
"Why Skyrim is the best RPG of 2011" for an example. I bnet I could find a video woth that title and I bet hardcore fans of Skyrim would watch just to get their satisfaction that the are right in their opinion.

Here's one you might like:
Skyrim: Freedom of Character, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsfQG0h8ijE

His main point is that "Skyrim does everything" which I can agree with. My problem is that it does so poorly (which he agrees with), but sets aside because you can BE anyone. I generally don't want to "be anyone" in a game like Skyrim though, at some point I get fed up with the interface, or one mechanic or another, or something else and go find something more enjoyable.

Can someone play the game anyway they'd like? Yeah. Pretty much. They have the freedom to be anyone.

But that's not why I play games. And its not why a lot of people play games.