Let's say you have 2 games. Both last 10 hours each, cost the same, are equally fun on the first playthrough but one is also fun to replay a second time while the other is not. Does not the game that is fun to replay offer twice the value of the one that is not?
I would say that the assumption offered by the question is ultimately specious. I don't know how you can have a game that has 0 replay value yet is equally fun as one playthrough of another.
Why exactly is Galaxy superior to GC2 if you play it less? What makes a game superior?
1: Personal preference. I like TBS's (and RTSs), but in my heart, I'm always an action gamer. I ultimately prefer a game that is about intimately controlling a thing.
2: Impeccable polish. GC2 is a pretty well put together game, but there's no contest in terms of the sheer magnitude of the polish on SMG compared to GC2. GC2's imperfect and bug-laden UI alone is enough to torpedo it in polish for SMG.
3: Unimpeachable design. GC2 had a lot of thought put into it. SMG clearly had
more. It just doesn't compare. Brad Wardell is good, but Shigeru Miyamoto is a master of game design. And it shows.
Now, these are two very different kind of games, so I judge them on different criteria. GC2 is a rules-heavy game, while SMG is a content-heavy game. As a rules-heavy game, it's design is based on gamist principles. How well does the game promote playing it. And so forth. GC2 likes to hide important information about what the effects of a choice will be (among other things), so it is weaker on that.
As a content-heavy game, SMG is more about intimacy of interface, character, world, etc. But gameplay is still important, yet in a different way. It's about how you learn skills, when you learn them, how the game tests them and builds on them. And so forth. And SMG is about as perfect in its pacing as it gets, providing the player with new situations and circumstances that test skills and such.
GC2 is a nice game to play; it alleviates boredom and the AI provides some interesting threats (until the end-game shows up). But the rules itself are simply worn out by this point. They aren't as robust over time as Chess, Go, or StarCraft. And when it comes down to it, all GC2 has are its rules.
the "this game costs more than other games of its kind, so I will not pay for it" is a frighteningly common opinion.
Yes, but what's wrong with it? Movies on DVD generally cost no more than $25. Having an upper limit on the price of any form of content is reasonable. Certainly, you should at least look at something more expensive to see if it is worthwhile. But selling a product at 200% more than the average is pretty strong sticker-shock.
BTW, while people may
say they won't spend $150 on a game, I didn't see Rock Band hurt too much by that. People are a lot more willing to do things when actually presented with the option than they say. Much like all those for-pay programs on-line. They wouldn't be there if they weren't making some money, despite the monkey's throwing feces.
By my estimation, GalCiv 2 is not worth $150, no matter how "infinitely replayable" it may be. Granted, once the bugs get worked out of TA, I'll probably plunk down $30 for it, bringing my total expenditure up to $100. So the totality of the game as it stands I would say is worth $100, but not the initial release.
