Game genres and value for money

[EternalShadow]

By large, I've noticed a trend: certain game genres tend to be better value for money than others.

For example, shooters are often perceived to be rehashes of previous games as many copy over weapons and animations, only sprucing up environments and physics. The story mode is often short and online multiplayer servers won't last forever. However, fighting games tend to reuse characters and have short individual storylines. On the other end of the scale, RPGs often tend - or aim - to be multi-hour long experiences, often ten or more hours. They include rich worlds, detailed graphics and cinematics and deep storylines.

In your opinion, what game genres would you say tend to be the best value for money and what, the worst?

This perception can stem from replayability to rehashing of old technology tendencies.

Personally, I'd say fighting games are the worst value, whilst shooters come next on the list - often, once you've bought one shooter, you've bought them all unless they are wildly different such as Halo and Call of Duty. After that, I would likely say platformers, then turn-based strategy games then real-time strategy games (this is shaky ground as they tend to vary wildly, but Halo Wars vs Age of Empires 2 is a good example) while RPGs are on the far end. I'm sure I've missed many genres, but that's a general gist.

 

[Razelle]

I don't measure value based on genres, but instead how many hours and/or the experience I got out of playing it. It all depends on your play style. Fighting games and shooters tend to be valued so highly because it's all about playing with and against the human element. That's why multiplayer has become more than just being in the same room. (I've always been a local multiplayer person myself)

But like all things, it's subjective. I don't rate certain genres very highly because I don't find entertainment in them, but they're still valuable to someone. Each genre has given someone great memories worth holding onto, not to mention their money's worth.

Funny thing; the longest I've ever played a game that keeps track of the playtime, is actually a fighting game.

 

[Jesse - PVGames]

When I look at the games that I have put the most hours into, the trend tends to be more sandbox-ish games. Prison Architect, Space Engineers, Terraria, etc. Following not far behind are strategy type games like Civilization V, Total War games. Those types of games definitely give me the most bang for my buck, whereas shooters I get bored of very quickly and they *are* rehashes of the same thing over and over and over. To me, these have the least value for my dollar. RPGs can hit or miss. If I particularly like the game in question, then I can easily sink many hours into it (Earlier FF games, the Ultima series, Baldur's Gate), other RPGs I just can't get into and therefor have less value to me (looking at you FF13 - never had I uninstalled a game so fast). 

I agree that fighting games tend to hold low value (I suppose unless you are REALLY into fighting games), as do most platformers. Again, though, these are just my personal opinions.

When I look at my steam profile for most hours played of anything though, the highest is RPGMaker.

 

[EternalShadow]

Oh yes that's true - sandboxes. Forgot about them

They are probably easily the highest in terms of value per hour, though some can be pretty terrible (Eden: World Builder) so it, much like other genres, isn't a be-all, end-all determination of the value. But in general, yes, the top end of Sandboxes (Minecraft, Terraria) can still outrun some of the best RPGs.

 

[Rhaeami]

The thing about shooters and fighting games is that they are both very often meant to be primarily multiplayer experiences.  While the basic game only lasts a fraction of the amount of time that an RPG tends to, someone who is actually really *into* a given shooter or fighter can easily spend hundreds of hours on multiplayer matches.  It's also a big reason why many shooting and fighting games change little from entry to entry - because they're concerned less with innovative mechanics and more with the game's balance as a multiplayer competitive format.  A Street Fighter fan, for instance, can get genuinely excited or frustrated over every single tiny tweak in a character's moveset from game to game, so the developer can't afford to rock the boat too much.

Personally, I find the most value in RPGs and Sandboxes, because I'm playing these games as a completionist and by myself.  I think a lot of people are the same way, and that's why those genres do what they do.  Generally speaking, if I had to pick one genre, I'd say the item-collection and mini-goal style of Platforming adventure is the least likely to provide hours-per-dollar, since they usually don't come with any sort of replay value, multiplayer features, or particularly long campaigns.  It's been a while since I played this genre, but older examples would include Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Klonoa, Kirby, and the like.

Still, it's kind of silly to judge based on genre alone, some games are better value than others, regardless of genre.  There are even Fighting games with long, fleshed-out story mode campaigns that last 20-30 hours.  It's a big industry.

 

[Tai_MT]

My own (highly subjective!) opinion on "value for money" for a game is largely based upon "did I have fun?".  Unfortunately, I don't often feel like "I had fun" playing many of the more recent games (like say games in the last five years or so, with a few exceptions).  Games that I do have fun with, I often think, "It's too bad it wasn't good enough to play more than once".

I often buy my games for their full retail price (or even more!), and often end up disappointed.  That's not to say it's entirely the fault of the game developers.  It's just that I've been gaming so long that I look for more interesting, unique, and fun experiences.  I'm not looking for "the next call of duty" game.  I'm not looking for "the next final fantasy".  I'm looking for experiences that are either unique, or new takes on old formats.  Back in the day, a "new take on an old format" was including a really well conceived and fun story for a shooter (Halo!).  It's not the norm anymore since games like Battlefield and Call of Duty are conquering that market.  Back in the day, a job system and upgradable skills were really interesting and allowed a lot of customization of characters for interesting battle (or unique gameplay).

So, let me be a bit weird and clear here.  I'm going to define how I judge "value" of a game.

1.  I find the game to be fun a majority of the time.  This means I finish the game and was enjoying the entire time I was going to the end.  I have a lot of games I never finish because I get burned out on the game.  The combat burns me out, the skill progression system wasn't planned for a full playthrough (meaning it was too short to be worthwhile and I maxed it out before even completing the first 3 missions or levels because it was too easy to do so or was too beneficial not to... which tends to translate to about 12 hours of actual progression in game before you max out a skill tree or a progression system), or the game stops throwing new and interesting challenges at me (also known as... the game let me get too powerful too early on and they hadn't planned on players ever finishing the game or vast chunks of the game as overpowered as I got).  Or, sometimes the story just drags on forever and goes nowhere... predictably.  In short, if I finish the game, it's usually worth the investment of $60.

2.  Upon finishing a game, I either immediately want to play it again, or put plans in the back of my head to tackle said game again, but trying different things (be these self-imposed challenges, roleplaying, exploring mechanics, making different choices, etcetera).  I will pay $20 for a movie and eventually watch it again (or watch it a lot)...  Why cannot games get this same sort of value?  A game that I do not ever want to play again because I did everything the first time (or did everything I cared about the first time) immediately makes me think the game is worth $40 at most and $30 more likely.

3.  Ability to recommend a game to a friend or a family member.  If I can't say without a doubt that the game I just played should be played by everyone I know... or at least some of the people I know...  Then, I don't think the game is worth the money spent.  Even if I had fun with it, even if I want to play it again, if there are just things in it that only I would enjoy (which has happened), then I cannot recommend it and it loses some value in my eyes.  To me, video games are a bit more valuable as "shared experiences".  I could talk endlessly about Chrono Trigger and how amazing I think it is...  But, if my friends never play it and there's nothing in it I can recommend them play it for...  I'm essentially talking to myself.  Likewise, if I recommend a game, but provide a caveat to purchasing it, that drastically lowers its value to me as well.  I cannot for the life of me recommend playing a game like "The Last of Us" because the highlights of the game are the story... which you can get on YouTube for free... and you can safely ignore the fairly boring and bland combat/stealth nonsense in the rest of the game (or maybe pick up a game that does both of those much better if that's what you're looking to get out of the game).  I cannot recommend a game like Battlefield Hardline because despite the fact that I enjoy it, it comes with the caveat:  "It's like if Battlefield were made by the Call of Duty people.  Maps just as small, game modes as boring, most gadgets as useless".  I cannot recommend Other M because of the caveat "It's an amazingly fun Metroid game... but you have to ignore the entire story and the fact that a story exists to enjoy it".

That's how I often determine value of a game for myself.  Granted, some of this is "after the fact" review by myself, but it isn't any less valid.  I've told friends of mine, "Yeah, it's a good game, but don't pay $60 for it.  Wait until a price drop to $20.  It's a great game for $20."  My friends trust my judgment, and I often trust theirs (they give me the same advice).  That doesn't stop us from making impulse purchases based on riding the hype train...  But, it keeps us from making impulse purchases on other games that we "didn't have money for purchasing the day it came out".  If one of us gets it, they provide the review for the rest of us before the rest of us drop money on it.

EDIT:  Ha...  I forgot why I was posting in the first place.  I was going to say that I don't really define "value for money" in games based upon genre.  Genre is such a weird thing to base "value for money" on in a video game.  Every person has their individual tastes for the kinds of games they like, but very few limit themselves to one or two genres.  Most people have at least a few games from every genre of video game because they wanted to see what it was like.  I've got a racing game, a fighting game, a sports game somewhere, and an RTS or two.  But, my preferences lie in sandboxes, shooters, turn-based-strategy games, RPGs, and creative/simulation games.  Doesn't mean I don't know a good fighting game worth my money.  Doesn't mean I don't know a good racing game worth my money (call me weird, but I love Forza despite not really buying many of the games...  I like that racing is less about "go fast" and more about braking, cornering, maneuvering, etcetera...  I don't often own these games 'cause I just don't have the time to play them...  And my OCD completionist attitude towards gaming would probably murder me in Forza since I'd want to buy every car and every part for every car).  I've played some fairly fun sports games worth my $60 as well.

We each have our preferences, but luckily none of us are stuck with them as the only games we're allowed to play.  Value for money is determined by fun and personal preference.

 

[trouble time]

By large, I've noticed a trend: certain game genres tend to be better value for money than others.

For example, shooters are often perceived to be rehashes of previous games as many copy over weapons and animations, only sprucing up environments and physics. The story mode is often short and online multiplayer servers won't last forever. However, fighting games tend to reuse characters and have short individual storylines. On the other end of the scale, RPGs often tend - or aim - to be multi-hour long experiences, often ten or more hours. They include rich worlds, detailed graphics and cinematics and deep storylines.

In your opinion, what game genres would you say tend to be the best value for money and what, the worst?

This perception can stem from replayability to rehashing of old technology tendencies.

Personally, I'd say fighting games are the worst value, whilst shooters come next on the list - often, once you've bought one shooter, you've bought them all unless they are wildly different such as Halo and Call of Duty. After that, I would likely say platformers, then turn-based strategy games then real-time strategy games (this is shaky ground as they tend to vary wildly, but Halo Wars vs Age of Empires 2 is a good example) while RPGs are on the far end. I'm sure I've missed many genres, but that's a general gist.

I don't think you get fighting games at all lol. I'd put most value in them since I've put thousands of hours in them. I mean I bought a ps3 just to get Guilty Gear Xrd.

 

[VideoWizard]

Yeah, don't forget about replay value. Super Mario Bros. is an example. Though the game is short (it can be beaten in 30 minutes!) it can be played over, and over, and over, and over... so the shortness of platformers isn't the only factor. That, and Super Mario Bros. 3 and later are actually fairly long.

As far as RPGs go, Chrono Trigger isn't that long, and neither are the first four Final Fantasies or the first Dragon Warrior. (Note, Final Fantasy I will seem longer than it actually is, because its mechanics such as only being able to buy one item at a time and moving party members with status ailments to the back of the party automatically). It's probably not too hard to consider replays of those in the same year. It probably is hard to imagine replaying Dragon Warrior VII, Dragon Quest VIII and IX, Final Fantasy XII or Xenoblade in the same year. Heck, if you're busy enough, you might not BEAT DW7, FF12 or Xenoblade in the same year.

RPG Maker could be considered sandbox, too. While it's not Minecraft or Terraria, you do create your own world. Or worlds, as the case may be. It's usually referred to as an engine, though.

 

[cabfe]

Value is a subjective concept.

What someone thinks is worth $60+, I may consider it worthless because my taste is different.

I don't think you'll find a definite answer for that question.

As a consumer, *you* value if said product if worth the price and agree, or not, to buy it.

 

[Braydon]

Right, well first of all it doesn't go by genre at all, it goes by individual game. I've got hundreds of hours in TF2 and I only payed like 50 cents, that's obviously one of the best values for me right there. Normally I like strategy games quite a lot, but I bought sid meier's civilization V, worst waste of money in my life, not a single second of fun. It's just boredom, and then after hours in a match where you think there should be some sort of climactic fight or something to make up for how much boredom you just endured, you get more boredom.

But like all things, it's subjective. I don't rate certain genres very highly because I don't find entertainment in them, but they're still valuable to someone. Each genre has given someone great memories worth holding onto, not to mention their money's worth.

There's a type of game that's always worse, mobile "games". People only play those because they're really bored and or stupid.

 

[Athryl]

Yeah I don't think genre works very well when calculating value. Sure, some broad patterns perhaps but even that varies a lot from person to person.  For me fighters and shooters would be super low value cause I'd just do campaign and quit, but for the audience they are targeted at there is so much replay on those sorts of games whether online or on the couch with buddies. My nephew has put more hours into CoD online play than I've put into many sprawling RPGs. Same deal with League of Legends. Yeah single player RPGs tend to be long and expansive, but for many people once you beat it you're done. Again, obviously there are quite a few exceptions from one game to another and one player to another. I think the best statistic we could use is to track people's overall playtime vs price, but even that will have its flaws.

 

[dungeon diver]

Personally, I prefer to pay $60 for a short, cohesive, and fulfilling experience over paying the same for infinite hours of procedurally generated content with procedurally generated NPCs walking their procedurally generated dogs with procedurally generated personalities around a park where a procedurally generated event results in a procedurally generated wizard ravaging the city with procedurally generated spells.

 

[Athryl]

Nothing wrong with that - if you don't like it your playtime on that game would be very low giving it bad value in your case. Diablo is pretty much exactly that and for some people provides amazing value. I'm in the middle, I feel I got my money's worth out of all the diablo games I have played, but they're not multi-hundred hour events for me.

 

[EternalShadow]

Yeah, the whole reason I made this topic was to get your opinions on genres and value perceptions, and I agree that it won't be the same for everyone

 

[dungeon diver]

Nothing wrong with that - if you don't like it your playtime on that game would be very low giving it bad value in your case. Diablo is pretty much exactly that and for some people provides amazing value. I'm in the middle, I feel I got my money's worth out of all the diablo games I have played, but they're not multi-hundred hour events for me.

Honestly I was more thinking of games like Watch Dogs, where the procedural generation is so obvious you get in the same exact scripts time and time again and it gets tiring. Diablo's at least addictively gamified.

 

[Matseb2611]

I don't go by the hours, but more the enjoyment of the experience. Because the truth is that if I am not too keen on the game, I won't keep playing it, regardless of whether it's 5 hours long or 100. I just want to enjoy as much of the game as possible, no matter how long it is.

Having said that, I'd say perhaps the worst games in terms of value for money are the high end triple A games. Most of them cost £35-50 these days, last only a few hours (or padded as hell), and have a rehashed formula most of the time.

The ones that I consider to have the best value for money are RPGs, simply because it's my favourite genre and I enjoy these games the most.

 

[hian]

Depends on what kind of person you are.


I've played more hours of Tekken, Street Figher, Battle Arena Toshinden, and Dead or Alive than any FPS with the exception


of perhaps Rainbow Six - Rogue Spear.


Fighting games, if you have people to play with, can last extremely long.


This is even more the case now, with online play.


All games with a multiplayer component and a large fan-base are usually excellent in terms of money used


versus hours played.


Generally though, epic RPGs, that's to say the kind of RPGs that have main scenarios stretching 40+ hours,


MMORPGs(which I hate, but that's besides the point), and large scale strategy games (Total War, and Civ)


seem to be the ones that generally, objectively speaking, from hours it takes to complete them, give the most


value for your money.

 

[Julien Brightside]

I think the video below describe what I think:




Take for instance Portal.

 I can go through portal in 2 hours.

I enjoy the game a lot in those two hours.

I have played Recettear for 37 hours. Most of that felt like grinding.

The hours it takes to complete a game isn't necessarily the same number of hours you have fun playing that game.

 

[kerbonklin]

I think the original subject was more aimed to production costs based on trends within genres, not about "how much fun did X person have?"

I'd definitely say Fighting and Shooter games are of the least value, because what makes those good are idea-brought mechanics that don't "cost" money to think of. On the other hand, Sandbox games need a lot of resources, well made plots, toys to fiddle with, a large environment, and much more, while the mechanics may be simple.

 

[DragonVine]

I think fighting games and shooters are great for multiplayer, and great if they try to have a good story for the main campaign. It doesn't have to be long, just interesting. When I say multiplayer though, I have to make the point that I actually prefer playing in the same room as my friends rather than online. I love the days of Golden Eye on the N64 and playing long multiplayer sessions over and over again, or even games like Mario Kart fo the SNES, and countless others for the NES. That's not to say playing online is bad, but that the element of playing a game with someone in the same room as you is a lot of fun

As far as games I've put the most time into, and thus I feel I got the most bang for my buck, so to speak - I always like games like RPGs, and even games that have RPG elements like Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect. I have also sunk a ton of hours into Deus Ex Human Revoluton, which combines elements of shooters and RPGs (as does Mass Effect). The RPG genre is still my favourite, but I love games like the Batman Arkham series, or Assassin's Creed too.