Well that’s kind of the catch, isn’t it? All else is never equal. And, again, I don’t argue that a game’s length isn’t good to know. I’m just saying it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a game is good or not, or whether you’ll enjoy it or not. Games aren’t steak, they aren’t priced by quality, or by size. Any assignment of “value” is going to be arbitrary and subjective. I wouldn’t want to play Madden for a hundred hours, even if I could get it for $2. But what does knowing that tell you?
It may not tell you if a game is “good”, but it helps you to decide what you are willing to spend on it.
For instance, I enjoyed my time with Kamiko almost as much as my time with Skyrim. So potentially, I would rate both nearly the same. But I wouldn’t pay as much for Kamiko as I would for Skyrim, because I deleted Kamiko on the same day I started it.
And GMG offers other stats that are potential indicators of quality, like percent completion. So if Madden advertises 100 hours to complete, but only 1% of users complete it, then that’s good evidence that I, too, wouldn’t want to play it for 100 hours.
Does not compute.
If you’re buying a game because you want to spend a lot of time playing it, then yes, a game’s length and replayability has a hell of lot to do with whether it’s “good” for your purpose.
This is another good point. A lot of games promise infinite replayability due to procedural generation. But of course we know it’s not really infinite, and eventually we will get tired of it. For some games, this happens sooner than others. So I think it’s helpful to know how soon other players started burning out on the game, and of course this should be a factor when deciding to buy it.
It’s not that complex. Value is an internalized computation. I used Madden as an example, I wouldn’t care if I got hundreds of hours out of the latest version and someone were willing to sell to me at one dollar, I wouldn’t buy and wouldn’t play. That game has zero value to me. But it’s a massive seller for EA, so clearly there are a lot of people out there who would, and do. They assign much greater value to the game than I do, and given how long the lines can get for these kind of games on release day, I’m betting they aren’t blinking at coughing up $60 for the privilege.
Then you already know this not true for some people, so why say it?
Really? Do your tastes usually line up with the other 99% of the population, so that if they don’t find a game worth completing you figure you probably won’t either?
The piece you quoted me was in reference to a game’s length. I just said, several times, that a game’s length can be useful info in making a decision. As can a game’s length. I’ll repeat again: a derived value with a game’s average length of play by some percentage of players on the x axis vs dollars spent on the y axis tells you nothing worth knowing.
Well it tells you nothing, clearly, but it might mean something to someone else. So why not just over look the data and use what you’ve always had and allow someone else to choose how they see fit?
You certainly were saying that cost per hour wouldn’t tell anyone anything useful.
Of course it doesn’t say whether a game is a good game, but no one was claiming that. But it does tell some people something useful about the game.
I mean, I already do this in my head most of the time.
I can’t time travel yet, so the stat would actually be useful to me.
So … not use my godlike powers to prohibit people from using nonsense info to make decisions? Well, if you insist.
Yes. I’m saying it’s nonsense. What you do with that nonsense is nobody’s business but yours. This is a discussion forum right? We discuss things here?
Instead of the average price per hour of gaming, they should measure the price per FPS.
Or how about average amount of time spent in combat? Or in menus? Or in conversation trees? Or anything that might tell you whether a game is going to be up your alley? Because I’ll tell you what’s going to happen with the GMG thing - the same thing that happens pretty much every time Tom posts a review. Folks are going to say the time spent on the game is skewed by people cranking through the game, or they’re going to say the price doesn’t take sales into account, or any number of other things that don’t line up with what they think the number really ought to be. Because, like review scores, there’s going to be one golden, correct number for average cost per hour of gaming, and god help them if they get it wrong.
[quote=“divedivedive, post:36, topic:135343”]
Or how about average amount of time spent in combat? Or in menus? Or in conversation trees? Or anything that might tell you whether a game is going to be up your alley?
[/quote]Also a useful metric to me. Wolfenstein: The Old Blood is far superior to W:The New Order for me because Old Blood focuses more on pure gameplay and wastes less time on idiotic cut-scenes and stupid fetch quests. The pacing of the first game was just atrocious and the cut scenes masturbatory.
I think if 99% of the population doesn’t find a game worthwhile, then I probably wouldn’t either. Which I think is a reasonable conclusion, absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Which usually is absent.
Well then, there’s another area we differ. I make no such assumptions.
I think this is a great metric that has a number of uses.
Reviews and consumers have always cared about whether a game has lasting appeal. Now we have a number that controls for the price of a game, so that cheaper games aren’t penalised as heavily as games going for $60 and last for 5 hours. It also might be better than howlongtobeat.com as this takes into account people quitting halfway because it sucks, and people replaying games over again because they’re awesome or have new game + modes.
I can also see it particularly helping niche demographics, like parents who are looking to shut their kids up for as long as possible, or people without much money who enjoy almost anything put in front of them equally.