Short games
polycounter lvl 10
So there is a new controversy going on right now about the alleged lenght of The Order: 1886 for Playstation 4. Many gamers who've finished the game already claim that it's only 5-7 hours long and 40% of it is cutscenes. If anyone here reads NeoGaf, you know how people feel about that. When enough gameplay is enough for you? How do you feel about spending 60$ on a 5 hour game with no replay value? Should games have right to complain about a game's lenght or lower review scores because of it? What do you think?
I think that 5 or 20 hours, it doesn't matter, as long as I'm well informed about the facts and decided for myself that this is what I want for my 60$ and therefore I will not complain about the game's lenght. A studio made a game, informed me about it and I made a decision to buy it or not.
What do you think?
I think that 5 or 20 hours, it doesn't matter, as long as I'm well informed about the facts and decided for myself that this is what I want for my 60$ and therefore I will not complain about the game's lenght. A studio made a game, informed me about it and I made a decision to buy it or not.
What do you think?
Replies
I think a bigger problem in the arguement is that people expect every game made to be tailored to them. If you need a game to be 60 hours to be worth the money then simply don't buy 5 hour games. You don't need to stop shorter games from existing.
Some games that come to mind.
Killzone: Shadow Fall
Remember Me
Both were beautiful games, with decent stories, and average gameplay.
And ya, I agree with Jamie. It feels like people have this expectation of what a game NEEDS to be. Anything else is unacceptable. And apparently they aren't okay with simply not buying the game and moving on?
Have you played the game?
The only real play-through times I have read are from sensationalist websites. I'd wait.
I haven't yet. But there are few reviews, one from JeuxVideo magazine and there's a full video playthrough of the game on Youtube that clocks 5:30. There are several user reviews out there that say the game is 7 hours long. The game is very very linear and cinematic, the only real way to prolong that play time is to daydream about and hunt for collectibles, but that doesn't really count.
I would rather play a good short game than a needlessly extended and filler packed long game.
Granted, I'd be pissed to if I paid $60 for a linear "cinematic" game, but that's beside the point.
From what I gather most consumers are concerned of paying a full $60 for 5 1/2 hours of content. I can kind of see where they are coming from, but it's interesting to see how this will all play out.
I can think of only 2 other examples of console AAA games being marketed at less than $60;
Metal Gear V ground zereos - $20
Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker - $40
Both games having less than 6 hours of main story content. I don't think most people are judging the quality, but rather is it really worth $60 or should I wait for the price to drop. At least this is what I perceive is going on.
Hell I can complete "most" long form games in 1/2 to 1/3 of the time if I skip everything and burn through it as fast as possible.
It's a two way street, we're in the business of entertainment for the consumers. As much of a craft as it is for us, for the consumers it's a source of entertainment at the end of the busy day.
On the flip side, with huge publishers like 2k and EA royally screwing things up by putting profits before quality, the consumers are very justified of being skeptical of new games. Although, the consumers themselves feed into the vicious cycle as well(pre-orders, day one dlc, etc.).
I'd say it's disingenuous to call out the consumers solely as bickering babies; with the current state of the industry, damage is being done on both ends.
Heavy Rain was probably my most expensive purchase based on start to finish time, and i'm itching to money down another quality quanatic dream story. I had a great time.
on the flipside, I've clocked up a few hundred hours on Civ5 according to steam, which would make it the cheapest by the hour game i've played in recent memory. more great times.
For me the important thing is how much i'm enjoying the game.
There were many hours of torture I spent grinding through the frankly awful gameplay of bioshock infinate, but I forgave it when i finally clocked it because the story was so amazing.
It was harder to forgive assassin's creed, call of duty singleplayer battlefield singleplayer, hitman absolution, the half of uncharted 1 I played, or any of the other grindy slop that's become more and more prevelent over the last generation. All of those wanted to be films, and I wished they'd just ditched the 'gameplay'.
make games i care enough to play over and over and i'll show my custom, regardless of how many hours the 'campaign' is.
I'll buy open-world games at launch if I'm really amped over them, since I know I'll be able to eek out at least 60 hours on them over the course of a year, but I haven't since Skyrim.
If people really cared about length, they'd do what I do- not complain, and just wait a couple years for the game to hit the bargain bin.
If a game is short but an enjoyable experience, then I'd say it would have been worth it, some of the best games I've ever played were under 5-6 hours long but they still managed to be inspiring and enjoyable experiences. I'm sure many people will be flaming about the game after launch but I'm glad there are studios that are trying to create high quality cinematic experiences, even if the average gamer thinks it's not worth the money.
Would you be ready to pay $60 for a short expansion to this game when that would eventually come out?, if time is not a part of the equation for you that is.
This is what the guy who uploaded the walkthrough has to say about it:
Seems fair enough. That's how I'll be playing the game. You can literally stretch any game to infinity if you apply some imagination, that's not an argument to its lenght. Sometimes games are just short.
You should check out Ryse: Son of Rome. It looks just as good as Ryse, if not better(on PC).
One of my favorite gaming experiences I've ever had is the game Journey, and that game is just a little over an hour long, and yet while doing so much with so little, it leaves a huge impression and a great and memorable experience. The one hour is worth it, along with the 15 dollars it costs, because the game itself is amazing, beautiful and leaves an impression.
Rather than the time length of a game, I find myself much more concerned with the content inside and what it does with it.
Games like Borderlands where I can do a mission (rush through in some cases) and save the game is good for me. I can choose a mission knowing if it has impact on the story. I don`t have to worry about forgetting where I was at all, I can choose a mission kinda knowing how long it will be. I`ve racked up 60+ hours on BL1 and BL2.. about 120 hours total just because of this.
A games length != quality. 7 hours is perfect for me. I am still excited.
You did say it yourself though, you wouldn't pay a certain price for these shorter games. This is really what the debacle is all about, I'm sure people wouldn't complain about the length of the the order if the price wasn't as high.
I would actually pay 60 for the order and its length if it meant that the quality of the game made up for the length, and with that I mean it would have to be one of these fantastic unforgettable experiences and one of the best games ever made, which is quite a feat these days.
But for now the statistics are here, you can't stretch out the cutscenes in the game. the gameplay is the only place where time may variate.
While I currently stick by "As long as it's good, it's worth the asking price." I have yet to personally find exceptions.
Regarding The Order: 1866, I wouldn't be surprised if the art pipeline just could not handle a longer game given the fidelity.
Stick it to the Man is a good example - I loved that game and the humour, but finished it in around 4 hours. I wish it was longer, but just because it had such great content.
If it had been longer and had had the same budget, I probably wouldn't have even finished it because it would have been less polished. C'est la vie
Funny: [ame]
Nowadays, it doesn't matter as much, but I would honestly rather play a lengthy story game than a three hour romp. I honestly love old SNES platformers, but the price of admission was too high (actually I played and beat most of them due to block buster rentals).
(exception : i want to look at the art, then i snatch them on a steam sale and "play" them for 1-2hours)
but usually iam looking for games which can keep me entertained for some time. mostly multiplayer or things like civilisation type of games.
It's kind of why I've gone off online games in general - BF4, GW2. Or any others that become repetitive. Once a game is finished, it's gone - just like in the days of the ZX Spectrum, if you could ever complete a game.
It seems at least to me that it's the AAA FPS games that are mostly getting shorter, minus the exceptions like Bioshock and Wolfenstein: The New Order (good ole' singleplayer done right!).
I'd say it's probably due to multiplayer becoming more and more of the main attraction where as 10ish years ago most FPS's were about equal parts single and multi. Quite a few actually had the opposite effect of having a long and great singleplayer mode with a rushed multiplayer tacked on to put the little check next to it on their list of features.
$60 is a bit much though when the average length tends to be approaching 5 hours or shorter for a non-replayable, singleplayer game that's not doing anything revolutionary so-to-speak. I'd say $30-40 generally feels more reasonable ($30 being high end but still indie, $40 being full-blown AAA production)