Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
3 
Report this post
Yes
Ok.... Why? This game is nothing like the games you mentioned. I can't imagine what kind of replies you're expecting.
($ spent) / ( (FUN hours x 1)+(MEH hours x 0)+(SUPERBAD hours x -1) ) = dollars spent per hour of worthwhile gameplay
In this way, all games can be compared. Oh, and until they start accepting something other than MONEY when purchasing games, dollars are the ONLY standard we can go by. You can't attack the formula on that front, but you can edit the values of the hours. Superbad gameplay can derail a game for me, so I put that at x-3 value, fun is x2, and meh is 0.5 since I'm still being entertained somewhat.
Lets say that I played black ops 10 hours on the campaign and it was all 10/10 awesome, over-the-top gameplay. Add in that I played multiplayer for 30 hours and it was 2/3 meh and 1/3 fun. And lets go with meeting some crappy people online for 2 hours so far.
60 / (20x2) + (20x0.5) + (2x-3), 60/44
That comes out to 1.36 dollars spent per hour of fun. Not bad at all, in fact I'd say it's top-tier bang-for-the-buck.
Remember, when someone asks if something is "worth it" they are almost always talking about the price of the game vs the amount of fun they'll have.
Let's say this 8 dollar game is 10 hours long and well made, making it 8 hours of fun and 2 hours of meh achievement grinding. The devs were great in this example and I had no bad gameplay.
8 / (8x2) + (2x0.5) + (0x-3), 8/9
0.88 per hour of fun gameplay. Awesome. That makes this game more worth it than black ops 2 by a mile.
So you see, you CAN compare games of different genres, but it is still going to be mostly subjective. For someone to answer the OP in an accurate way they would have to enjoy the games he listed and enjoy this game too, and the OP would have to enjoy metroidvanias about as much as he does the games he listed. It's a longshot, but I bet someone fits the bill.
You're really reaching here. It's all subjective. How much money spent also depends how frugal the gamer in question is. Maybe $7 is nothing for the OP, $15 dollars is the top average I'll spend on a new game. And even if you both enjoys those shooters and metrovania style games, it doesn't mean the OP will.
The best way I've found is to find out what kind of games the OP enjoys that are similar in some way. For instance "If you enjoyed the gameplay of Bullet Hell, you might also enjoy this game".
I've played half an hour so far. Count on little plot, (once more) metroidvania style levels, and simple yet slightly challenging gameplay. It's not too engaging for me personally, but it's not bad so for either.
^_^
Even if you have to break to down to genre, I don't think it's odd to make a statement like "I refuse to spend more than 3 dollars per hour entertained via (fps)video games." But yeah, people are different. I think that number would shrink for someone who really enjoys MMOs. If someone can be entertained entirely by something like World of Warcraft, then their cost per hour of fun is going to be really low, maybe 10 cents. Nothing could possibly compete with that, thus that person is not likely to buy other games.
Of course, there's also the element of playing things with friends, and probably a million other variables, but I still think that it is useful to judge how much something costs vs the amount of fun it gives. It's definitely not scientific, but I think it might help in answering whether or not a game is "too short" at least.
Also the graphics of this game are terrible compared with Battlefield, there's no destructable terrain and all the blood is censored. What is this, Mortal Combat on Nintendo? It's 2014, my great!
Do not waste your money. 0/10, would not reccomend.
Notice how I said "parody" not "troll" all you uptight people who need to learn to unclench your anus from time to time.
10/10 - Would read again.