Nintendo 3DS

I mean it seems reviewers go harder on games that are 60 & 40 dollars.

While cheaper games (let's say $20 or less at launch) can get away with a lot more gameplay flaws with reviewers.

I think the only aspect that score should affect is value. But I think low prices in games have spread to other categories that reviewers exceptions in design and gameplay.

Honestly I think this praise for cheap games have made 60 & 40 dollars that are not over 20 hours get heavy score reductions from critics. Which I think is forcing developers to add more to the games play time making the game more repetitive then the game developers want it to be.

I think it also gets harder for developers when a cheaper game for one dollar in the same genre can match a full price games playtime. Making reviewers side with the better value even though the full price game might be better.

thoughts?
---
My Fan Made Starter Pokemon www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKoeZ8z98Bo

Reception/sales of games will always effect what games are being made.
PS2 is doing well? Devs make lots of PS2 games.
CoD and Halo break all kinds of records? Everyoen is making FPS games.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam: mcnichoj
Proud Vita/3DS owner.

It'll always be kept in mind. Few (user) reviewers can actually look past what they paid for the game, and I'm guilty of that too. Some games just don't have $50 worth of content in them, and after you play them, chances are you'll go "wasn't worth it", which is not good in your mind. People should try to forget what they paid, because a price isn't part of the game, and really shouldn't be taken into account in a game's score (as you can buy it full price, on sale, used, etc.).

There are great games that I feel bad shelling out $50+ for, resulting in a bad last impression. I'm sure if I got them for ~20-30 instead though, I could be more objective, and see the game for the game, and not how much I paid. It's just something natural that's hard to get away from for most people.

You shouldn't give a 10/10 game any less than 10/10 just because you paid a lot for it. It's just a great game that is overpriced, but it shouldn't make the game itself a bad game.

Yeah, but it shouldn't be. I do think price should be mentioned in a review, but I also think it shouldn't influence the score. Games are games, they should be compared on equal grounds. And yes, this does mean a $60 game should get the same treatment as a $10 game. The score represents how good a game is in comparison with other games, not how good it is for the price. Plenty of great $60 games can be gotten for $10 at some point. This doesn't mean the game suddenly becomes better and deserves even higher scores.
---
Read the mania: http://www.fanfiction.net/~nonexistinghero
In SA2, it's Super Sonic and Hyper Shadow.