" Yes, but only when there is a notable price difference between the reviewed game and the rest of the market. Games like Beatles: Rock Band (with kit), Tony Hawk: Ride and last generation's Steel Battalion all have price points that are much higher than the average game. Obviously, this is because all of them include specialized controllers. When a game company is asking the consumer to pay well above the standard price for a game, I think the reviewer should take that into consideration when assigning a final recommendation.Yeah, personally if I wrote a review I'd probably only let the price come into play with the score in the most extreme examples. I dunno, trying to effectively form an opinion on this is hurtiing my brain.
On the other end, I think that when a reviewer looks at a cheaply priced game, price should be mentioned by not effect the overall review score/tone. So after the critic sights all the positives and failings of a game, then they can mention price in recommending the game. In other words, I think it's okay to say "This is a great game" but not "This is a great game for the price". It's either a great game or not a great game regardless of price. However someone can say "This is a mediocre game, but it's cheap and you'll get some fun from it for the price." "
tokyochicken's forum posts
" I think it deserves a mention, but the quality of a game should really not change based on the price. Darkest of Days, for example, is bad at any price. It's only when you go to actually buy it that the semi-budget price makes it slightly more palatable. Very slightly. But really, I consider price, reviews, word-of-mouth and demos and past entries in a series as all the factors to consider when buying, and all separate. Price should be a factor for the buyer, not the reviewer. "
I definitely agree on that, I'm usually more interested in the actual content of the game. To me, if a game may come off as too expensive I usually like to see that mentioned in the review but not affect the score. I feel the decision on whether the amount of time it takes to finish the game is equal what I spend is more of a consumer decision.
I honestly have no opinion on this myself, which is why I want to ask everyone here to formulate some kind of opinion on this. The question sprouted from a few people saying that Halo: ODST didn't deserve a 4/5 on Giantbomb because the game's price was too much compared to the amount of content it offered.
So I ask you guys, should the price of a game be considered in a review, should a game's price affect the score?
I usually scrape through the bargain bin a lot but recently I found Far Cry 2 for twenty-something dollars (I don't remember how much the exact price was) and figured I'd pick it up since everywhere I look that game is usually 70-80 dollars, I live in Canada prices suck.