With such a deluge of quality games coming in this fall and all year long it is certainly a task deciding how to divide up your cash. And the kinds of games that you might be looking at is varied, with massive multiplayer games and deep, complex single player games, the latest releases run the gamut of genres and the amount of gameplay you can expect to get in a single play through. With that in mind, it’s not uncommon to hear lines expressing the inherent value of a game based on the amount of time you can play through it, and just how it would be more worth the money paid if a game has more content to delve through.

It was a topic that briefly came up in last week’s 1UP Yours Podcast when they skirted the subject of distilling games down to an economic proposition. The issue is attributing the very subjective concept of “value” to games and it is worth looking at how it is currently treated within reviews and general talk regarding most games. Take Fallout 3 for example, a game that has been favourably reviewed for its expansive, open world that features a significant amount of content in terms of characters, landscapes and quests. On the multiplayer side, we have LittleBigPlanet, which continues to grow in terms of the content provided by the users, has a relatively short single player skirmish, but allows for an almost immeasurable glut of levels to be created over its lifetime. Both games offer a “value” in terms of the amount of time you could spend exploring unique content over the span of the game, but in a different manner that may change that implied value depending on the kind of experience you enjoy.

The problem comes from the fact that when we start to look at games and assess them based on their worth, such as the common argument that a game may not “feel” like a “full-priced” product, where full price usually refers to the 50-70 dollar mark. It’s a slippery slope, and doesn’t seem to work across any other media that games seem to draw parallel to so often, such as movies. Basically, you wouldn’t criticize a film based on its length or the amount of character stories that you are presented, and certainly wouldn’t expect to pay less at the ticket counter if a film doesn’t span an epic four hours. The same goes for music, as most reviews for CDs don’t often quote the price vs. length ratio, and certainly avoid the topic of bonus features as an value proposition (usually doesn’t count when it comes to special editions).

When it comes to assessing the worth of any artistic medium, it usually comes in terms of evaluating the product rather than the actual content. DVDs are certainly given values by many reviewers, promoting bonus content and features that vary from audio commentary to behind-the-scenes features and extra discs. So when the the content of a game comes out as a value piece, and the actual price tag comes into question, it seems to be a mix up of signals. Of course, games are their own unique beast, and are often reviewed both as artistic endeavours and products, since the content is effectually the way in which the gameplay mechanics are tested and enjoyed.

With these issues aside, the concept of “value” is as subjective as any assessment of a game may be, so it obviously should be taken as a perspective of the individual making the observation. Still, the focus in declaring a games worth based on the amount of content that is presented seems a bit misguided in most parts, because it often comes as a criticism of a product that seems to be thrown in as a way to bring down a game that may provide more than enough of what it intends to do. When Super Mario Galaxy pulled in massive critical success, it certainly wasn’t lauded for a feature ridden experience, so the fact that such criticisms are applied to other products that do not attempt to offer much more than just a solid single player experience seems a bit out of place. Some games certainly lend themselves to have an enjoyable multiplayer portion, but possibilities do not imply intent on the part of the developer, nor does it show a sign of weakness when no attempt is made in that regard.

Ultimately, the price tag you’ll see on the shelf is going to be applied based on what the publisher believes people will pay for the product. Content or features aside, the addition of peripherals or simply having a high profile title will mean a higher price tag. Lower budget titles will often come in at a lower price point, not due to the experience but the fact that it just may not market that well against products of a similar price. You can spout off the best value for games in terms of what you’ll pay versus what you’ll get out of it, but how the content is explored or valued is still a judgment call based on the gameplay that surrounds it, which if fundamentally flawed or uninteresting certainly won’t draw people in. Adding the value to a review or any assessment of a game seems unnecessary based on all this, and the industry needs to assess just why the topic comes up at all, if now for no other reason than budgets are a fun topic due to economic meltdowns.