Anyone else begrudge paying retail price for a Beat 'em Up?

[J0e Musashi]

Couldn't this be said about any genre? I mean all you do in shooting games is shoot. In racing games you race. What's the difference with fighting games?

[hush]

Couldn't this be said about any genre? I mean all you do in shooting games is shoot. In racing games you race. What's the difference with fighting games?

that was the point i was trying to make

[Guts]

If you don't feel like you're getting your moneys worth from fighter games, don't buy them at launch for full price. Wait a few months or buy older fighters.

Problem solved.

[Prototype]

If you don't feel like you're getting your moneys worth from fighter games, don't buy them at launch for full price. Wait a few months or buy older fighters.

Problem solved.

Exactly.

You could say the same about yearly sport games and a lot of shooting games in todays market.

[Guts]

Exactly.

You could say the same about yearly sport games and a lot of shooting games in todays market.

You could probably say that about any game/genre.

I wouldn't pay 10? (except if I could trade it in a store afterwards ) for Gran Turismo 5 since I don't play racers, someone else would probably pay 100? (or more) to play it this minute.

"Amount of content" is pretty much subjective. Some people get hundreds of hours out of games that other people get bored with in an hour.

[rmoxon]

Exactly.

You could say the same about yearly sport games and a lot of shooting games in todays market.

I dont think thats true, most sport games these days have career modes and the like which can last a very long time, along with loads of other features.

Most beat em ups just have an arcade mode, and maybe a survial mode, and the vs mode, and they are all basicaly the same thing, none of them last veryt long.

There are a few beat em ups that offer the ammount of longevity seen in other genres, Such as Soul Calibur with its story/mission/quest mode thingy. But most beat em ups simply rely on how fun you think it is to punch people in the face repeatedly at the end of the day.

[Brodie]

I'm STILL playing MvC2 on Dreamcast to this day - it's permanently in my DC which is hooked up to my office monitor for lunchtime sessions.

So, for me, a good beat'em-up is WELL worth the money. Unlike say CoD, which i'll play offline a few times then never touch again.

Horses for courses and all that.

[speedlolita]

So you find no fun in competition?

[Geoff D]

I dont think thats true, most sport games these days have career modes and the like which can last a very long time, along with loads of other features.

But cut down to brass tacks you're still doing the same thing over & over again. There's no distinction when the games are placed in simplistic terms.

[Baseley09]

Depends on the game doesn't it.

If it's a badass title like Fatal Fury Special then of course well worth your pennies.

If it's Blaze Blue you are a gaybeard.

[spagmasterswift]

Beat 'em Ups are a total jip! I'm a casual gamer so played through the SF4 on Easy, once I'd taken down all challengers I was stunned! Its like a normal game, but the background is frozen on the first scene of each level and you just have a string of boss fights with no smaller enemies to fight. How do they get away with it?! They should be at least 65% cheaper than proper games. They don't even let you health up with potions and stuff!

[Concrete donkey]

Like others have said it depends on the game really. I'm not really a fighter fan, especially post Dreamcast but I was more than willing to pay over the odds for the Jap GC Soul Calibur 2 and a hori arcade stick and the amount of time my friends I spent playing the game it was well worth it. Especially as a friend and I beat everyone we played against at that years E3 when they were showcasing the western version of the game. Subsequent versions were a waste of money though, mainly because my friends and I don't hang around as much as we used to, all grown up and all that, so we didn't put so much time into them to get any good.

[egparadigm]

What I resent is paying over £30 for is a game that has content I cannot access (online multiplayer) without paying a further fee. Why do I have to pay £40 for £10's worth of content?

Luckily this has at least coincided with the rise of downloadable games. I've found the Wii to offer much better value for money in game terms, because the online component is so weak.

Ultimately this means I've lost interest in modern games almost entirely and have stopped keeping up with new releases. Furthermore, I'm buying more second hand than in the past, so the developers are seeing very little of my money.

[Brats]

I do find it strange that some genres have less apparent value to some people. My overriding principles are:

1) How much fun is the game?
2) How long will I be playing it for?
3) Can I get a similar experience somewhere else for less?

If the answer to these questions above are Loads, Loads and No, then any game is worth ?40. I'd pay that for a puzzle game if ticked the right boxes.

[Anpanman]

Couldn't this be said about any genre? I mean all you do in shooting games is shoot. In racing games you race. What's the difference with fighting games?

Haha yeah.

Mario = run a bit, jump a bit..aaand repeat.
Halo = run a bit, jump a bit, shoot a bit...aaand repeat.

Mmm, probably why I enjoyed Halo more than Mario.