Are console games really worth the money?

[opa-opa]

When I see people still plunk down $50 for something like Contra, it really makes me wonder.

When you spend $50 on an average console game, do you really get that much out of it, as compared to let's say, an average $50 PC game?

Lately I've been noticing the quality and production values of PC games improving steadily, while that of console games have dropped.

A good $50 PC game will give you at least 50+ hours of gameplay, 90% of the time has an option for network gaming, a full color manual, great FMV/music/story, and continuous updates/patches. Basically, everything that a console game offers, plus a lot more.

On the other hand, you would be lucky to get 20+ hours of gameplay out of a $50 console game these days. And the production values may not be even as good as that of a PC game.

[unit003]

PC games have this kind of "PC" type of feel which doesn't always translate well for a console unless it's just something you want to spend long hours with. Console games on the other hand, can get pretty intense, so it really depends on where your interests are sitting. Matter of fact, when was the last time you saw a real nailbiter like Devil may cry on a PC?

[opa-opa]

What's a "nailbiter" game?

There's lots of action games on the PC too. Like Battlefield 1942, NOLF, Bond games, etc.

[Frogacuda]

PC action games don't have that same skin-of-your-teetch intensity. I don't really dig online play, and most PC games are pretty useless offline, not to mention which 99% of PC games fall into 4 genres and I get sick of that crap. I play my console stuff more. Hell I play emulators more than games made for PC.

I think alot of the problem with the industry today and the way the public perceives games is that they have this concept that after they beat a game it's "used up" or they're "done" and with the aggressive trade in programs at software stores, games oftem get tossed aside. I don't get why people see these games like that. I can understand with games that are really heavily story oriented, but outside of that it seems bizzarre to me. Do you buy an album and play it once and then return it because you "finished it"? It's a really stupid way to look at games.

[sggg]

I think it depends on the game. Some games might be better on PC, especially certain genres... but for my taste I much prefer console games. I don't think PC games offer "more for the money". Patches usually just mean the game was released with many bugs.

Every game I buy is "worth the money". If I didn't think it was, I would not buy it. My ratio of console to PC games is probably 20 to 1... so, that speaks for itself. At least for me.

It's probably different for every person though. Some people enjoy console games more and others enjoy PC games more. To each his own I guess.

[Chojin]

Your logic is rather flawed. As a console and PC gamer I can say they are quite different worlds and not directly comparable to each other like a console vs console would be. The best you could do with that is compare games that are on both platforms and 99% of the time, if it started out on the PC, it's better on the PC. If it started out on a console, it's better on a console. Obviously there will be exceptions but not many.

Also the PC has just as much crap games(If not more) as your standard console and just because it's on the PC doesn't mean it's going to be 50+ hours and ya ya ya.And what PC games are that long? Mostly RPGs and strats/rts.Honestly, would you expect those genres to ever be a mere 10 hours or less? That would be a complaint on any platform.

Also these days, patches seem to be more a determent since most developers love to release broken and unfinished games and fix em up with everlasting patches afterwords. Others made changes that make the game worse(Quake 3 post 1.17).Thats something I never want to see on a console.

[PaCrappa]

My 32MB Ogre Battle 64 cartridge gave me 150 plus hours of gameplay the first time through. If I played it again I might be able to do it in under a hundred. I've been told that the PS1's Dragon Warrior 7 offers well over 300 hours of things to do. And it's going to take someone like me many more than twenty hours to "finish" Contra SS.

I don't buy "average" console games. I only buy the great ones(still warming up to Contra SS, to be honest) and I always get my money's worth. Occasionally something I buy doesn't quite stack up and then I sell it.

But I guess PC gamers have never bought a bad game and don't have to deal with this problem. What with production values of such high quality. Opa Opa is right, console games would probably be worth more in the long run with some more FMV.

Pa

[TNLthugg]

I like buying console games better then PC games, becaues i know the game will work on the console, and less frezzing, now on a pc the game has to be made to work on all types of PCs thuss making is kida bugy and glitchy, i think console games are worth the extra money and and pluse no intalling. but i do end up playing pc games longer.

[Jeremy]

Hey, it works for Square.

[Lordmrw]

I don't buy PC games as much as I used to. The majority of the PC games I buy are the ones I wanted but passed me by years ago. Its sad to say, but most PC releases fall into 3 or 4 categories, and if you're not interested or feel like playing those, you're fucked. I prefer the "feel" of console games to PC ones, and I've never been one to demand a certain amount of enjoyment out of a game to deem it worth owning.