Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

General: A Sub-Genre?

2»

Comments

  • ArienaiArienai Member Posts: 2

    Some people claims that the business model is irrelevant to the quality and per consequence the grades the game receive, well, I think it's utter nonsense. I mean we're in a consummer society and the price on any products we buy affects the value/grade we place on the product, and it's especially true for games (no matter the genre), for exemple i don't think little games like tiny wings would have the same grade if it were sold in a box for 50$.

    Also we can all agree on one thing, the misleading term f2p must disappear, because no game is actually 100% free, developpers need to eat too.

    In the end gaming is an investment on the fun we have for the price we paid, so game should be rated this way. We should count how much it costs to obtain and play 100% of a game and include it in the final decision for the grade, and for time sensitive costs I think it can be extrapolated from the reviewer playstyle to different type of gamer playstyle (harcore or casual, etc...)

  • sschruppsschrupp Member UncommonPosts: 692

    I think the pay model should just be another category. In rating a game shouldn't it boil down to "Is the game fun?", "Is the game visually appealing?", "Is the game stable and mostly free of bugs?", and "Does the game use music and sound in an appealing way?"

    I think the only thing that needs to be expanded on as far as pay model is if it isn't a straight subscription then what can your money get for you, is money required for a casual player to enjoy themselves, is money required for a hard-core player to enjoy themselves and if so how much? 

    One of the biggest fears many people seem to have about F2P is whether or not you "need" to spend money to be competitive. Then there are those that don't care if they're competitive as long as they can have fun. Those are issues that should be brought up in a review, not whether a game is good or not depending on if it's P2P or F2P.

  • sschruppsschrupp Member UncommonPosts: 692

    Originally posted by Arienai



     



    Also we can all agree on one thing, the misleading term f2p must disappear, because no game is actually 100% free, developpers need to eat too.



    In the end gaming is an investment on the fun we have for the price we paid, so game should be rated this way. We should count how much it costs to obtain and play 100% of a game and include it in the final decision for the grade, and for time sensitive costs I think it can be extrapolated from the reviewer playstyle to different type of gamer playstyle (harcore or casual, etc...)


     

    I totally agree. F2P is just misleading and has turned into a dirty word. Maybe "Full Subscription" and "Optional Subscription" (Modular? ) or something along those lines would be more accurate.

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,292

    I do not think that F2P and P2P should have different scales... both are the same form of entertainment, with differnt fees.

     

    What I DO think should be done, is that the price be taken into consideration. When reviewers look at computers, they dont compare the $500 computer to the $5k computer. They compare based on bang for the buck.

     

    If a F2P game cost ~$5(dl time value) compared to the ~$50 cost for the P2P, is the P2P 10x better? This is the real comparison. You have to use a comparision that is similar to what the consumer would use... to help them make a good decision, not some arbitrary comparison that holds no relation to their decision process.

  • dadowndadown Member UncommonPosts: 210

    While I think the same scale should be used for both, the cost to play should be a factor in the rating (and that includes the 'must buy' costs for f2p). For me, a p2p game has to be MUCH better than a f2p for me to buy it. For other people, price may only be a minow consideration.

  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726

    I do think it is a sub class of the genre.  It offers a content rich environment with a free to play option.  EQII, LOTRO and DDO all fit this mold.  The item shops also don't seem to rob your wallet like many of the normal f2p grinders do.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    I think you basicaly review each game on what it advertises it intends to deliver. You wouldn't review McDonalds on the same scale as you do the Ritz Carlton, because McDonalds doesn't try to portray itself as anything other then a fast food resturaunt.

    So a F2P that's open about the experience it's trying to deliver (or for that matter a small indie project as well) is fine to review on a different scale. However ANY game (this goes for AAA titles too) that hypes itself to high heaven....deserves to be reviewed on the scale it attempts to portray itself on.

    In other words, as a reviewer, I would hope that as part of your review for any title (AAA, F2P, Sub based, browser based, etc) that you would attempt to puncture whatever marketing hype the game spews about itself with a healthy dose of realism about what it actualy delivers.

    I agree with Grumpy. The experience that the game is trying to deliver should be the benchmark.

     

    Part of the problem is that MMOs are cosntantly viewed as a genre and not a platform. Garden Party World, Vindictus, LOTRO, League of Legends, and Combat Arms simply cannot be measured against each other in any reasonable fashion because most would have major shortcomings and downsides when assessed using 3D MMORPGs as the measuring stick. However as a PBBG, an Action MMO, an MMORPG, an MMO RTS and MMO FPS each one shines brightly in their own category.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • ideationideation Member Posts: 19

    I believe it depends on the content and intention of the game versus the subscription model. For instance, games like LOTRO and DDO were at one time subscription based and later converted to F2P. So how is it you can compare them as two separate entities? For instance, you can have a MMOG (massive multiplayer online game) that only brings people together for the sole sake of doing so (second life?) and you can have MMORPGs which tend to bring players together for the sole purpose of completing objectives and storymodes. Some are free and some cost money, although they provide entirely different content.

    Guild Wars 2, the sequel which I believe you're referring too has a lot of hype. I believe it will deliver with unparalled expectations as well, as the original game and additions were very well developed. However, just because it's F2P I don't believe justifies making it anymore complex to separate it into a sub-category, although you can it's perfectly fine to do so. It just adds an extra demension of complexity in rating games.

Sign In or Register to comment.