Spider-Man 2 and value

 The eternal question

With Spider-Man 2 finally out for the masses to play there is one query hanging over the heads of gamers, and perhaps even the industry as a whole- where the hell is the PC port and will we have to wait three years!? Damn it, Sony- you're not going to be able to 'blackmail' out anymore rogue Playstation purchases from PC players- so just give it up and take our blasted money you damn thieving r- ahem. What I mean to say is: the question of value proposition per the product that we receive and how that compares when placed against other forms of entertainment and other video games. Because as it turns out the leaks that were doing the rounds were not quite true, but on the right track. Spider-Man 2 is not 5 minutes long, but it is about 10-12 by most people's expectations, and how do we feel about that when it comes to a game that is priced at the above premium price point?

Now when it comes to tradtional media, as in films and TV shows, the prices we expect to pay in order to view our content is pretty low. It's been that way ever since home video snuck up to assassinate the rental market. If we use that metric, then 10 hours for $70 seems like a pretty decent proposition and I suspect most tradtional viewers of media won't see why a gaming fan would throw up in their mouth at that ratio. I'd imagine that video game reviewers are typically chuffed with the lean length, considering how their chief priority tends to be wrapping up their impressions as swiftly as possible so they can scoot over to the next game as neatly as need-be. Trust me, I know that bug. But when we expand out to the world of 'comparisons'- well then things might not exactly be so charitable.

It's important we stick to the right genre when drawing these lines in the sand, because even though an MMO might provide hundreds of hours of 'content', that 'content' is largely stretched out periods of grinding specific dungeons for BIS gear in order to run a new Raid or whatever the current MMO 'meta' is. We're talking about a highly cinematic action adventure game here so lets pick up another highly cinematic action adventure game. Heck, let's even stay in this year so we're playing by relatively modern standards, on relatively similar soft and hardware. Let's pick out- Jedi Survivor. Someone who sticks pretty strictly to the main campaign can expect to squeeze about 20 hours out of the game on average. Completionists can expect to double that to about 54 hours. Spider-Man 2 Completionists have reported about 20 hours of content with little easy replay value. (there was now New Game+ at launch surprisingly.) Which gives us our comparison.

We look at roughly half the amount of game, for the exact same price point- and that's when you can understand why a consumer might feel jipped. Now to be clear, there's no such thing as direct and flawless comparison between various different games and the value they provide in their content, there is so much nuance and such a metric is inherently subjective from the get-go. What I'm talking about is the viewpoint of the consumer and how they feel putting down a game they've spent £70 on. In the middle of a economic crisis that's no cheap chips, and leaving such a consumer wondering if they would have been better served spending that money elsewhere to get more out of their buck... well, that is a pretty clear indication of a failure on the part of the developers to make their game pop.

Now it must be said that no one is asking for fluff. Little is worse than the endless time wasting of games like Assassin's Creed that prolong the mundane for several times past it's due-by date and call that an 'epic journey'. Because it isn't. That's just trash. What I'm talking about is meaningful and relevant content that is additive to the gameplay process, and that sort of stuff doesn't just drop from trees- it has to be thoughtful and intelligently conceived and all of that. But then- that is kind of the job of a designer, isn't it? To design and create content that feels meaningful within a game and bear that out responsibly? Unless you work for Ubisoft, in which case they just hand you a truck load of foam-padding and expect you to spend your days stuffing.

All that being said, those who have played Spider-Man 2 have noted it's a game with absolutely zero fat on it's bones whatsoever. I haven't even heard anyone complain about the Mary Jane levels, although that might be because they gave her a Stun Gun so overpowered it literally one shots enemies quicker than Miles or Peter could take them out. (Why do they even fight crimes in the first place? Just send Mary Jane, she'll handle it!) Drag is actually a rather common complaint across media, in our TV shows and our movies, but it's become so common place in games that we never even think to bring it up unless the game is weighed down by the size of it's wasted time. So can it be argued that Spider-Man 2 has simply done what any good movie would do and trimmed itself down to only it's best moments? Possibly! (Might be why they trimmed away all the gadgets too.)

Thus we really have to ask ourselves what it is we're seeking out of entertainment in the world of video games. Is it primarily a matter of convincingly converting our spare time into hours of fun, therefore the more of that time which can be converted the more success that work is, or are we looking for a profound moment of enjoyment or stamp of quality, making the length irrelevant in the equation. Typically it would be considered somewhat redundant to separate these two extremes like this, but when we bring it to a game like Spider-Man 2, with those trimmed edges, it seems we're entering the extremes of this theoretical theorem. And personally I don't know how I'd address that. I guess we want different things from different games and I probably would be more in favour of a neatly sized action adventure game simply for what I seek out of those games, and a more drawn out RPG because that's what I want from those.

But there's only a singly language which makes sense when we're talking about the development of games and that is 'success'. Spider-Man 2 is one of the best selling (if not the) Sony exclusives of the generation, which means it is going to be the formula that Sony follows for it's proceeding commissions. On the upside, there will be enough time for a Spider-Man spin-off game to fill the game, and it might just be that 'Venom' starring title which fans were drooling over the prospect of even before launch. ('Ultimate Spider-Man' game flashbacks!) So maybe we're slipping into the age of shorter games that release at a more rapid pace, which actually doesn't sound that bad... if not for the dreadful price points attached to them- seriously Games Industry, get over yourselves and swallow a bill a bit more you grimy, Scroogian, Malthusian thugs!