If the average playtime is fairly low (high $/hr) then it’s a warning to people that there is something amiss with the game that may not necessarily be reflected in the information I already have. This was something I would have known had information like this been available back then. Turned out they had seriously exaggerated the singleplayer campaign aspect of the game. Got it home, installed, later that day I was seriously questioning whether I should take it back for a refund when I blew through the single player campaign in 4 hours. I remember Homefront coming out and I thought “Awesome, new game to play!”. It’s tempting to slap numbers on games but at the end of the day, games - like any artform - are far too personal for those numbers to reveal the true worth of a game. Individual circumstances like income change how we look at cost, while personal experiences make it impossible to quantify artistic value. The effort to find more objective ways to calculate if a game is worth playing muddies our conversations. How do you talk about Sea of Thieves‘ ability to people in the comments point to its “record breaking sales” as a way to dismiss it? When I recently tweeted about Green Man Gaming‘s cost per hour, I said it was “indicative of how the medium’s commercial priorities stifle the audience’s critical literacy” and I stick by that. The tension between gaming’s artistic aspirations and their undeniable function as consumer goods makes it really difficult to talk about games. But a focus on money or on games as potential products to purchase can squelch discussion of games as valuable works of art. The more information available, the better chance someone has of making an informed purchasing decision.
#Sins of the father blue bloods movie#
It’s one thing to ask for $US12 ($16) to watch the new Avengers movie it’s another to ask for a $US60 ($80) dollar gamble that Rage 2 will actually be good. New systems or mid-generation upgrades are expensive, and AAA titles cost more than four times the cost of a movie ticket in New York City. One of video games’ biggest accessibility hurdles is the fact that it is a costly hobby. I am sympathetic to the desire for more information about a game before purchase. But these are incomplete means of looking at a game.
![sins of the father blue bloods sins of the father blue bloods](https://images.sftcdn.net/images/t_app-cover-l,f_auto/p/b3a54220-9b25-11e6-b2b8-00163ed833e7/457002048/fuel-screenshot.jpg)
In the minds of some people, that too may make it the superior title.
#Sins of the father blue bloods free#
Team Fortress 2 went free to play in 2011 for some players, this is definitely the better deal. In terms of cost per hours, TF2 wins, but so what? I’m hard-pressed to say which has more value. One made me a better person but another is more fun. Does that mean Gone Home is the better game? That’s hard for me to say. The two hours I played of Gone Home enriched me more as a person than the 300-plus I have spent in Team Fortress 2.
![sins of the father blue bloods sins of the father blue bloods](https://images.greenmangaming.com/926242def57145909977a7a3141039b6/66e0d36409864b78be79641d65d452c1.jpg)
Let’s take an example from my gaming experience. Cost per hour isn’t the same thing as value per hour, but I worry that players won’t make that distinction.