I’m currently watching a Marvel Wolverine review bash video, as this is the cool thing to do right now. I don’t even own a Playstation 5. Why do I watch that video? Well first its a creator I like to watch and scondly, I am fascinated by the topic of not liking AAA games. Sometimes games aren’t bad, if the price is good. So the game isn’t actually that bad if you wait for a sale? Usually ratings are tied to the price of the game, and sometimes not.
And it got me thinking… we need a rating that does exactly that, a price recommendation when the game is worth to buy. In example an old classic might get a good rating, because the game itself and the emulation is good. But it might have a too high of a price and they did not add features or updated it to modern audiences, that it feels like a useless “remaster”. Or a game itself feels redundant, because there are better options for cheaper price, then the worth it price could be low. But that does not mean the game itself is bad, regardless of its actual price.
Some personal examples with games on Steam (I will round up prices to have whole numbers only):
Final Fantasy 7 (original version, not remake)
Rating: 10/10
Worth the Price: 10 €
Price on Steam: 13 € (currently under 6 €)
Final Fantasy 7 Remake Intergrade
Rating: 9/10
Worth the Price: 30 €
Price on Steam: 40 € (currently 10 €)
I just noticed that I evaluated the worth price higher, because I purchased the games when it was more expensive. What do you think?
(It’s fine to be a bit offtopic, as long as it has something to do with the topic. Here its the evaluation of what the game is worth.)
Hm, I personally never liked the evaluation of playtime to find out how worth a game was. A game that has less playtime and was less fun could be higher evaluated on worth the price threshold. Especially with games that are repetitive or multiplayer. I’m not saying your metric is wrong, everyone should do what is working best. I just say this metric wouldn’t work for me.