What game do you think would have the worst value to pay full price for?
I vote Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patrios, there only roughly 4 hours of gameplay in the main story and you have to pay for extra content for Metal Gear Online.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
What game do you think would have the worst value to pay full price for?
I vote Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patrios, there only roughly 4 hours of gameplay in the main story and you have to pay for extra content for Metal Gear Online.
[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]
Any Final Fantasy game.
Spirit_Warriors
such an ignorant thing to say.
Not really because I played a little of VII and VIII when they came out. Then X. And just recently tried XIII-2 and I would never buy any Final Fantasy game for any amount of money because if I don't like the game, it has no value to me. And I have also given the franchise a chance more than once. Its like Pokemon but terribly worse for some reason.Battle for the Pacific. Worst game i ever played, I spent $15 for a 2 hour campaign, sh*t multiplayer that averages 7 people online at one time, and nothing to like at all.Kevlar101I actually enjoyed that game :P. But, keeping in mind I knew what the game was about and I read the reviews beforehand and I always checked eBay for prices for months on end before getting it. I ended up getting it cheap, which is what I wanted. It was really cheap, and was one of the few games that I PHYSICALLY completed in a day, alongside Driver '76 on the PSP. But I am a bit biased, because I love WWII FPS games. It does have a few things that it doesn't do too well though, such as lack of ammo and the fact that you're told to keep up, but they run at a MUCH faster rate than you and there is no sprint option. Heh, but I enjoyed it for what it's worth, which is what I was expecting. Same for Hour of Victory :P. As I said before, I just love my WWII FPS games. Oh, never got to try the online on BFTP unfortunately, because it was completely dead. I feel that it wouldn't have had as many problems, because most of them were with the difficulty and running out of ammo if I remember correctly, and the squad running away as I said. I can't think of anything personally. Although those Crash Time games aren't very good in my opinion, there's quite a few of them too (I tried the demos). There is also a Ninja game which I didn't like, but I can't remember the name (it's not Ninja Gaiden). It was a game where the game kept zooming in to the ninja's eye. Again, I tried the demo and if I remember correctly he kept running up and down buildings.
[QUOTE="Spirit_Warriors"][QUOTE="lo_Pine"]
Any Final Fantasy game.
lo_Pine
such an ignorant thing to say.
Not really because I played a little of VII and VIII when they came out. Then X. And just recently tried XIII-2 and I would never buy any Final Fantasy game for any amount of money because if I don't like the game, it has no value to me. And I have also given the franchise a chance more than once. Its like Pokemon but terribly worse for some reason.It is ignorant. It's not "what game do you hate"? It's worst value. A game that provides you 40+ hours of gameplay (typically double that if you explore, try to get everything, level up, etc) I wouldn't really call lacking in value. Even if you don't like it. The quality of that time may be debatable even if most would disagree with you. But for what you pay you're still getting way more than most games. And saying FF is "like" Pokemon is a bit backwards.
Everybody seems to measure thier games worth differently. For some it might be the length of the game, for me its the quality of the experience that matters. A game for me could be 5 hrs but if a found the experience to be satisfying in many ways then im happy with it.
I dont think i can pick one particular game but i will say most shooters today just feel dated & not worth my time or money. The experience they offer is pretty bland & forgetable. Something like COD has a lifeless campaign & terrible multiplayer
Uncharted on the other hand is a shooter with lots of variety, character, story & soul to it. Something like that is very worthy of my money.
So i would say shooters, not all shooters, but your standard shooter games have no value to me.
Games that focus or is only pit fights a.k.a. the death matches. You get some small pits and a little extra code so you can run around and shoot other people.
wiouds
LMAO. I second that.
You make multiplayer seem so bad, so stupid, summed up how little they have to offer, & how little effort goes into making them.
Well done sir.
What about the other game modes, what about the strategy involved in capturing control points or a flag? In free for all I could see you point (as minimalistic as it is) but multiplayer has much more to offer then that and I'm saddend that your experience boils down to the basics.Games that focus or is only pit fights a.k.a. the death matches. You get some small pits and a little extra code so you can run around and shoot other people.
wiouds
Skyrim. It's so broken.GamerwillzPS
It seems people can't grasp the concept that this thread is about VALUE, not about which game you don't like.Like Skyrim or not, it has quite a lot of content.
I'll have to go with Marvel vs Capcom 3.
I think it's funny hearing how many poeple thought MGS4 was incredibly short yet I never even finished it.
My opinion would have to be more old school games but I assume we're talking current gen games. In that case I'd have to go with Street Fighter 4. Just the same rehash of SF2 with updated graphics, trudging along the same characters and beating the boss at the end. whoopee.
You do know some fighting game player is going to crucify this statement right? I'm not expert, but I'm pretty sure this statement is just wrong from a mechanics stand point.I think it's funny hearing how many poeple thought MGS4 was incredibly short yet I never even finished it.
My opinion would have to be more old school games but I assume we're talking current gen games. In that case I'd have to go with Street Fighter 4. Just the same rehash of SF2 with updated graphics, trudging along the same characters and beating the boss at the end. whoopee.
metalgrinch
You do know some fighting game player is going to crucify this statement right? I'm not expert, but I'm pretty sure this statement is just wrong from a mechanics stand point.[QUOTE="metalgrinch"]
I think it's funny hearing how many poeple thought MGS4 was incredibly short yet I never even finished it.
My opinion would have to be more old school games but I assume we're talking current gen games. In that case I'd have to go with Street Fighter 4. Just the same rehash of SF2 with updated graphics, trudging along the same characters and beating the boss at the end. whoopee.
Yusuke420
You're not wrong. A big issue current fighting games have is that someone who only plays them casually can't tell the difference between them. To them every 2D fighter on the market is just another game that plays like Street Fighter. Where in reality if someone were to spend a few hours learning the "under the hood" mechanics they would start to learn that their are differences to each game that require different strategies to be able to play it well.
On topic: Any "free to play" game ever made would easily be the worst value. As they are never actually free. They are glorified demos, and if you want to experience the full game you would have to shell out a ridiculous amount of money.
Street Fighter IV
EB offered me 25 cents for the damn thing. I only bought it because a Capcom rep was quoted in an interview saying "there will not be any other versions of SF4." I fell for it. Paid $60.
Any MMO
Also CoD
ZombieKiller7
As sick and tired as I am of CoD I can't really agree. The content in each CoD may just be a slightly changed up rehash of the year before. But the content is still there, and it's quite a bit of content to be fair. For people who still like CoD, the value is still there. Though I'll admit I barely played MW3 so maybe something changed I don't know.
I have to respectfully assume you've never played an MMO for any length of time. For me personally (and most MMO players) when I really get into playing an MMO, I tend to not buy other games I likely would have gotten otherwise. I would go as far as saying playing an MMO tends to save me between $50-$120 a month simply because I didn't bother buying other games. Also if you look at a game like Rift, the amount of content they have released over the last year has been staggering compared to the $15 a month it costs to play the game.
Any short game for 60 bones. You wanna get a good ratio of hours to cash spent at least.Dracula68
I'll pay 60 bones for a satisfying and excellent 6 - 10 hour campaign over a 50 - 100 hour mediocre campaign that's mostly padding and filler any day of the week.
What good is the ratio of hours to cash spent, if a majority of those hours aren't enjoyable?
Example....which is longer, Heavy Rain or Two Worlds?
...now of those two, which had the better critical and gamer reception?
Within reason, but yeah, I'd rather have a great short game too. JRPGs seem to suffer the most from overpadding. There are exceptions (Chrono Trigger is basically 10-15 hours long and all the better for it) but not many.I'll pay 60 bones for a satisfying and excellent 6 - 10 hour campaign over a 50 - 100 hour mediocre campaign that's mostly padding and filler any day of the week.
What good is the ratio of hours to cash spent, if a majority of those hours aren't enjoyable?
gamerdude375
[QUOTE="Dracula68"]Any short game for 60 bones. You wanna get a good ratio of hours to cash spent at least.gamerdude375
I'll pay 60 bones for a satisfying and excellent 6 - 10 hour campaign over a 50 - 100 hour mediocre campaign that's mostly padding and filler any day of the week.
What good is the ratio of hours to cash spent, if a majority of those hours aren't enjoyable?
Example....which is longer, Heavy Rain or Two Worlds?
...now of those two, which had the better critical and gamer reception?
Yeah I see your point.
You deserve that for buying a movie cash-in game.Iron Man 2.
The game sucks, it's four hours, no co op, no multiplayer, no optional paths or unlockable missions = 60$ ?
csftar
I dont think i can pick one particular game but i will say most shooters today just feel dated & not worth my time or money. The experience they offer is pretty bland & forgetable. Something like COD has a lifeless campaign & terrible multiplayerbrucecambellI respect your opinion and I can see where you're coming from, but I just wanted to mention CoD a little bit :). I have been playing CoD since CoD1 came out on the PC. So that means I've played and completed the original, the expansion (United Offensive), CoD2, the console versions (Finest Hour and Big Red One), CoD3, CoD4, WaW, MW2, BO and I've even played the PSP title Roads To Victory. I love CoD basically. But ever since CoD4 I have noticed a change in the series. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it, but I do miss that old feeling. CoD4 was a great game though and it was something different. WaW made me happy because it was going back to WWII, but it felt more like CoD4 than the original CoD games, but it's still a great game MW2 was a great game, but this is the point where it started to feel more of an add-on (that is even coming from me, an original CoD player) BO was no different in that aspect, but it still was great. It also had some great multiplayer modes such as Gun Game and some fun maps, just like MW2 MW3 I haven't played much yet because of problems with it at the start of the year (disc read error, but it's all okay now) I will be going to it soon though. But from what I have played, the campaign is easier than ever and the multiplayer is faster than ever with VERY small maps) That seems to be the problem. The campaign gets a LOT easier every year. Play CoD2 (or 3, but this is probably slightly harder? hmm) campaign on the 360 (or really, the originals, but this will do), then play MW2 campaign, both on Veteran by the way. You will notice a VERY big difference. The other point I was on about is the multiplayer gets faster every year. It went from normal speed, to a bit faster, to a BIT faster, to TOO fast. From what I played of MW3 it gave me a bit of a headache... the maps seem to get smaller every year too, or that may just be me. There are definately a lot of small ones in MW3 though. I think after Black Ops 2, that we should go back to CoD2 style (but with better graphics). Of course, the originals are my favourites, but CoD2 is a bit more modern with regenerative health and whatnot. I would also love it to go back to WWII. While Black Ops was in vietnam, it still felt like MW1, 2 and 3 to be honest... and even WaW, to be fair. Don't get me wrong I do still enjoy CoD, but I think it's time for a change again. It will be 5 years after the release of Black Ops 5 (I think that is the one that is next, right? or it's rumoured, either way). Back to WWII would be fantastic, in my opinion. But no killstreaks or perks. Just straight up CoD2 feeling (or even CoD3, I feel that game is so underrated!) Or really, I would love a new CoD game where they use a new engine that looks FANTASTIC, go back to making it feel like CoD2, but make a "remake" of CoD1. Not remake word by word... I can't think of the correct term. Think of it as a loose reference, if you know what I mean? basically like a reboot using some of the key levels and moments.
Lol, to thing MGS4 is bad for your money?? You essentially get two games in one. The replayablity of MGS4 is pretty good (with all the guns you can use, and the stuff you can unlock to use in your next playthrough), while MGO is like a whole other game. The number of maps in it are pretty decent for what your paying for.
I would say MW3. I played the first 2 MW games alot but cant get into the MW3 multiplayer at all, the maps are so bad I just cant stand the game for more than 10 min at a time, which is a shame cause even though MW2 had problems with the lack of dedis it had some good maps. I dont compare it to Blops cause that game had really good maps.
I'd rather have my mind blown in a 6 hour campaign like Vanquish than be bored to tears in an open world RPG for 100 hours.
Its all about your preference.
As a fan of the Metal gear series i have to say your wrong, the whole story was excellent and there is more then 4 hours of gameplay. Also i would stay it depends on how much you pay for it but if we take it as you go out on release day and pay full price i get why it can be seen as a ripoff. But the game i think is the worst value for money is Star Wars the old republic, you pay full price for the game and considering you have to pay a monthly subscription for the content is a clear rip-off.What game do you think would have the worst value to pay full price for?
I vote Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patrios, there only roughly 4 hours of gameplay in the main story and you have to pay for extra content for Metal Gear Online.
RageQuitter69
[QUOTE="brucecambell"]I dont think i can pick one particular game but i will say most shooters today just feel dated & not worth my time or money. The experience they offer is pretty bland & forgetable. Something like COD has a lifeless campaign & terrible multiplayerAshley_wweI respect your opinion and I can see where you're coming from, but I just wanted to mention CoD a little bit :). I have been playing CoD since CoD1 came out on the PC. So that means I've played and completed the original, the expansion (United Offensive), CoD2, the console versions (Finest Hour and Big Red One), CoD3, CoD4, WaW, MW2, BO and I've even played the PSP title Roads To Victory. I love CoD basically. But ever since CoD4 I have noticed a change in the series. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy it, but I do miss that old feeling. CoD4 was a great game though and it was something different. WaW made me happy because it was going back to WWII, but it felt more like CoD4 than the original CoD games, but it's still a great game MW2 was a great game, but this is the point where it started to feel more of an add-on (that is even coming from me, an original CoD player) BO was no different in that aspect, but it still was great. It also had some great multiplayer modes such as Gun Game and some fun maps, just like MW2 MW3 I haven't played much yet because of problems with it at the start of the year (disc read error, but it's all okay now) I will be going to it soon though. But from what I have played, the campaign is easier than ever and the multiplayer is faster than ever with VERY small maps) That seems to be the problem. The campaign gets a LOT easier every year. Play CoD2 (or 3, but this is probably slightly harder? hmm) campaign on the 360 (or really, the originals, but this will do), then play MW2 campaign, both on Veteran by the way. You will notice a VERY big difference. The other point I was on about is the multiplayer gets faster every year. It went from normal speed, to a bit faster, to a BIT faster, to TOO fast. From what I played of MW3 it gave me a bit of a headache... the maps seem to get smaller every year too, or that may just be me. There are definately a lot of small ones in MW3 though. I think after Black Ops 2, that we should go back to CoD2 style (but with better graphics). Of course, the originals are my favourites, but CoD2 is a bit more modern with regenerative health and whatnot. I would also love it to go back to WWII. While Black Ops was in vietnam, it still felt like MW1, 2 and 3 to be honest... and even WaW, to be fair. Don't get me wrong I do still enjoy CoD, but I think it's time for a change again. It will be 5 years after the release of Black Ops 5 (I think that is the one that is next, right? or it's rumoured, either way). Back to WWII would be fantastic, in my opinion. But no killstreaks or perks. Just straight up CoD2 feeling (or even CoD3, I feel that game is so underrated!) Or really, I would love a new CoD game where they use a new engine that looks FANTASTIC, go back to making it feel like CoD2, but make a "remake" of CoD1. Not remake word by word... I can't think of the correct term. Think of it as a loose reference, if you know what I mean? basically like a reboot using some of the key levels and moments.
I have played them all leading up to MW2. Call Of Duty 1, United Offensive, Big Red ONE, 2, 3, 4, WAW. I had enough at WAW. For me nothing beats the originals. They were great back in the day.
THe campaigns even though arcadey actually felt authentic at the time. Today they feel generic & dated, but maybe thats just me. The multiplayer for 1, UO, 2 & 3 were the best. I would still argue that COD3 had the best multiplayer in the series. Its MP design also had the most potential.
MY love for COD died with COD4. It killed everything good it had going & everything i loved about it. All of its charm was gone. Now its just a money milking machine. I understand people love it but i dont understand why after all these years they still love it.
I see many other games, unqiue games, better games, all doing something that i feel is much more worth my time & money. I cannot support something like COD over other games that i feel deserve my money.
For me i wish they would ditch the COD4 crowd & go back to its root. Drop the fast paced noob action, drop the perks, killstreaks, & pick up where COD3 left off with its team & class based, large scale, vehicle, multiplayer. From there get back to rooting itself in history but with rich charcaters & memorable, emotional WW2 action
Any Call of Duty Modern Warefare game for example.BatCajunManLOL. Not saying they are the best games ever made, but they have tremendous value for your $60.
I can't stop thinking about that ending :lol: [spoiler] Get on the plane, credits roll [/spoiler]Kaane and Lynch 2:
3 hour campaign
few gamemodes but everyone only plays one game mode :/
dcelw540
Marvel vs. Capcom 3. God, what a way to phone in the most wanted fighter ever, Crapcom. TheFallenDemonAgreed, that game was so barebones.
[QUOTE="TheFallenDemon"]Marvel vs. Capcom 3. God, what a way to phone in the most wanted fighter ever, Crapcom. chilly-chillAgreed, that game was so barebones. Not to mention horribly unbalanced and chaotic. But don't worry. Crapcom will make it up to you by releasing an upgraded addition six months later for ten dollars less.
You must not play many games then. Forza 4, Gears 3, Skyrim just came out last year. Any Call of Duty/Halo game over-delivers in value. Fallout New Vegas, Just Cause 2, Burnout Paradise, Saint's Row the third, Batman Arkham City, The Orange Box, and I'm just scratching the surface.The majority of games these days. I finish them in about 2-3 days, and I don't play that much.
tjricardo089
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment