Hi Steemers,
I just wanted to float an idea and get some thoughts on it.
Basically I have been wandering if there is a market for reviews on games (and potentially other media) that focus on the question of 'is it worth my time?' rather than 'is it worth my money?'.
The reason I come to this is I find my gaming time increasingly decreasing but due to a love of it and having worked myself to reasonable financial security, I tend not to be too concerned about the price of a game if I am convinced that I want it. This leads me to purchase games that are well reviewed but I invariably never feel like I get the most out of them, Fallout 4 being the most recent example. A well reviewed game that is no doubt value for money but falls down against other games in terms of an overall enjoyment experience in my opinion.
In a lot of cases the money vs time review would come out similar, take The Last of Us or the story missions in Battlefield 1 as examples. I think it would mainly penalise games that have periods where they loose their track a bit, much like many books can have a slow middle, somewhat wasting your time.
For those of you concerned that this would have a negative effect for open world games I don't think that would be true as titles such as the Witcher 3, Shadow of Mordor and GTA V keep the action, or story, flowing, allowing you to deviate if you wish in comparison to Infamous Second Son which required a lot of trekking about and dull filler I thought.
So in summary what are everyone thoughts on taking this time based approach? Please let me know and potentially we can even start to pull together an approved list on a time based front!
Good to chat Steemers,
Alex
Image sources;
1 - Light bulb
2 - Mordor