Warning, this is gonna be stupidly long.
I just watched the Sony event video, and Pat's argument with Woolie and Liam about whether game reviews should incorporate score caught my attention. Reposted from my OP on Reddit (hope that's okay).
I completely agree with Pat. Price should absolutely be a factor when judging a game as something to be scored or whether or not it is worth being purchased. I'm not an entertainment critic or a "game journalist," but I review a lot of electronics and a good number of games for my job, and I can offer some perspective about what a review should be and what should be in it.
Reviews give consumers an idea of whether or not they should buy a product. Not only is it right for them, but is it a good value? Asking if a game is worth your money is no different than asking if an album, a movie, or an HDTV is worth your money.
Albums and movies don't usually bring the specific price into question, because it's a very limited range that is dependent on from where you buy them. An album will be $12-18 if you get it online, or can be up to around $25 if you get it from a brick and mortar store. A movie will be between $8-18 depending on where in the country you live, if you see a matinee, and if you see it in 3D or IMAX. There is a specific range and that range depends heavily on the consumer's source, not the MSRP.
Box sets, special editions, season collections, all of those things vary much more, and that's when you can put out the price as a specific factor. A movie on Blu-ray might be $20, but a special edition with a radical case and a soundtrack and book and lots of extra crap? A review of that release should definitely include the price, because the question the review should answer is whether or not that specific product is worth the price.
Games have that problem built-in, because a video game can be anywhere from $5 to $70, and that's not including the mobile garbage basement. That price is set by the publisher, and it's set with the amount of effort, resources, and perceived value of the game in mind. Whether it's an indie studio releasing a title for $10 or Square-Enix releasing another freaking Kingdom Hearts remaster for $40, or Activision releasing Destiny for $60 and then offering like 9 more missions and no new settings for $20 after that, the company putting the game out puts the price out as well. It's not a range set by the stores or theaters. They're setting the price for their game.
Now, especially in the case of Square-Enix and other companies who put out what they wanted to be AAA games and botching hard with mediocrity and missed points, the price for a game might drop after the first month to $20. It doesn't change that, when they put that game together, they wanted to make a $60 game. They had a $60 mindset and set out to make a game to justify that price, and they failed. They made a game they wanted to sell for $60, then said "Oh, shit," and cut the price to a point where it could sell. To paraphrase Professor Sadness, that's a failure of the game publisher.
A game can be really, really good and be short. That doesn't change with the price. A game can also be complete garbage and be long. A review has to answer whether or not the experience the game offers is worth your money and time. A really, really good game that's 3 hours long and costs $60 can absolutely get a good review that's justified. It's also nearly impossible because that would require such a combination of budget, time, and auteurish anal retentiveness to make that perfect a title.
Look at P.T. It's free, but would anyone here complain about spending $5 for the experience of that 20-minute mindfuck? Imagine if, instead of a whole, full-length Silent Hill game, P.T. became a three-hour horror title that offered the same experience as the demo, just with more location, set pieces, and a full plot. Imagine if Silent Hills was just 3 hours and $60, but was so tense, so frightening, and so brilliantly crafted that those three hours would stay with you as an example of the best of the entire genre, for years. Hell, even P.T. has gotten on some "Best horror games evuh" lists and it's a FREAKING DEMO. So, would you pay $5 for P.T.'s 20 minutes? Would you pay $60 for a three-hour P.T.? Regardless of your answer, would you want a review consider whether short-P.T. is $5 and long-P.T. is $60?
Going back to reviews and updating scores based on price would be great, but it's not feasible for most reviewers who do tons of reviews through the year. Keeping track of scores and prices is one thing, but having the original reviewer of a game go back to each game when the price changes and change the score accordingly, and changing the review copy to reflect the score change is another. If you just change the number or the grade, then you have a whole review built around the first price. If you keep the price out of consideration, then you have an unfinished review that doesn't address whether or not a game is worth your money in the first place. The price has to be there so, when the game comes out, the people who want to buy it can figure out if it's worth their money.
tl;dr, bullet point edition:
- Games are made and published under the assumption that their launch price is justified.
- Reviews are written to offer the best look at a game's value upon launch.
- Also, don't just look at the numbers. Read the review to figure out if it's valuable to you. Reviewers don't always have the same taste as you (see: Godhand), but good reviewers will offer enough details about the game experience to let you figure out if it's worthwhile.
