Games that are not worth it: most of them, really. $60 American is hardly an amount fitting to pay for a game. It's a lot of money. My Wii-loving friends usually buy the eye-catching Nintendo games as soon as they come out for that price.
Nintendo: I've yet to witness anything made by Nintendo to be worth calling a 'gem.' I'll give them the fact that they go way back and set up many lasting franchises, but that's literally all they have going for them. Their games are repetitive; their boss battles are equally boring and systematic, and their production line is more redundant than tard-speech. The Smash Bros. series is the only game Nintendo made that I can play for over a period of 30-40 minutes straight and not want to tear my hair out, but they're not worth buying the Wii.
Valve: most of what they put out is brilliant, so there's a bit reassurance when it comes to seeing a $60 Valve title. Half-Life 1&2; Portal; Team Fortress 2 are nearly as perfect as FPS's are ever going to get. The Orange Box was a good deal for the $50 I spent to get it off of Steam.
MGS4: It's about $400 American if you don't already have a PS3, but so far it seems like the only game that makes owning this console worthwhile, and I'm a person who _hates_ the MGS series. I thought the game was one of the most highly invested projects I've ever seen. Everything to me was superb except for what makes MGS MGS (the intentional cheesiness; the intentionally ridiculous story that I have decided has twists for the mere sake of twisting; the facial animations, dialogue and voice acting blow donkey balls. The cutscenes, though, are astonishing to watch with the new graphics). If you're into MGS, you might even consider buying a PS3 and calling it a Metal Gear Solid 4 Television Adapter. That's what my friend did, and he's not regretting it... unless in like 3-4 months the game comes out on the Xbox 360.
Blizzard: great games if you like the formulas they tend to stick to religiously. I personally came to love their RTS's, but I can't play their RPG's without crying at how grindy they are and how there's actually no real role-playing involved in them. I used to play Diablo 2 a bunch when I was around the age of 14-15, but once I realized how systematic it was, the fun value dropped considerably for me. Blizzard do seem very committed to patching out most of the bugs and imbalances in their games. I think highly of that.
The Commandos series: the shit. If you want a game that makes you think and work for your victory, get Commandos 2/3. 1's alright, but the graphics are exceedingly shabby. Commandos 1 and 3 are arguably the two hardest games I ever played.
The Hitman series: I played 1 and 2 so far and liked both, but 2 was better by some ways than 1. I haven't played Blood Money yet, but am looking forward to. Definitely worth the price.
The Total War series: my favourite RTS's, as they are large-scale; the unit interactions are well-done; the balance is there for the most part (some factions have access to more powerful units or a greater variety of units, but those restrictions are accounted for with historical excuses). The historical accuracy is horrendous, but there are community mods that help amend this problem.
---
Mac's: considering the hardware you get for the price you paid, a Mac is the most overpriced machine you can get aside from an Alienware. Unless you absolutely can't do without OSX, you can easily build something more powerful for half the price of a corresponding Mac.
They do go out of their way to provide a quality product though which is one of the reasons I'm such a fan of them. Their ongoing support for things like Battle.Net is also admirable (ignoring Vivendi's bullshit with stamping down on development of local servers).
