Sorry if I remember this wrongly, but with the reveal trailer, didn't they just show the trailer without saying too much what it was about? So that the audience could have an open minded thought of what the game actually was?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ready at Dawn responds to "concern" over The Order: 1886 campaign length
- Thread starter DarkLordMalik
- Start date
Sorry if I remember this wrongly, but with the reveal trailer, didn't they just show the trailer without saying too much what it was about? So that the audience could have an open minded thought of what the game actually was?
EightBitNate
Member
Because no one wants shorter games at full price to become the standard.
This is patently absurd. That was a reveal teaser two years ago. What obligation does a developer have to stop the audience from being open minded in a reveal teaser? What planet is this?
To suggest they have not been upfront about what this game is is really a new depth of criticism for this game. It's the reddest of herrings.
Oppo
Member
Actually not true, you know there are a lot of working dads/moms and other busy people on GAF, who quite frequently vocalize their desire for shorter, single player high quality experiences.
The big deal with this game seems multifold to me – unknown new IP from a relatively young team (for a "AAA" game anyways); Sony console exclusive which rankles some players; a new bar in graphics which REALLY rankles some players (see: Ryse); plus it does indeed fit into the AAA mold of shooter for the game parts, which apparently is un-evolved, because only Nintendo gets to iterate on tried and true mechanics.
And then the Shenmue fans showed up and you knew we were well and truly in crazytown now
And in between now and the initial reveal they haven't said a word about what the game actually is
Oh wait
Yeah, curse us who are actually real fans and can provide with legitimately concerns/criticism toward the title, and not just suck up to everything when it comes to Sony's exclusive. I'm not going to be a soldier for them, and I'm sorry if that makes me a bad Sony fan in your eyes.
lensoftruth
Member
fixed that for you, plenty of people want tighter experiences not full of filler.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
A game here and there being a shorter experience isn't going to make it the standard. I don't want every game out there to be 20, 30, 50 hrs. I'm still working my way through Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Nightengale
Member
The day after the reveal trailer, they said that it was a linear, "filmic" story-focused TPS. Yes, it's in an interview, and not explicitly stated in the trailer, but they've never tried to hoodwink otherwise.
And like what Kev said. Every subsequent media, be it the GameInformer cover, the February gameplay reveal, the E3 trailer, Gamescom trailer, etc... all of it showed what the game was.
Sure, there were folks who were disappointed. Some hoped it had co-op based on the teaser, but the devs had quickly said at least 12 months in advance that that expectation won't be met. Same with MP.
UncleCross
Member
How have they not been upfront about it? The game is exactly what they've been marketing it as.
Like super Mario brothers
Honome
Member
That's not true, price should never be linked with the lenght of a game but with the quality and price of the production. Also many people prefer shorter games, including myself. I am tired of open world games with meanless side quests like DA:I, Assassins Creed or Watch Dogs, the last one was probably the most boring game i played last year.
travisbickle
Member
People would have to purchase it in the multi-millions for it to be considered as a standard by other developers. And if that happened you would have to rethink your claim that nobody wants it.
It was a damn teaser reveal ffs. And they gave some details about the game soon after. Those who followed the game since the beginning would know.
You answered your own question. A lot of people have issue with a full priced game being as short as this reportedly is, with little reason to replay the game except for some collectibles (no NG+, very linear). It's a value thing.
EightBitNate
Member
The vast majority of us are able to make time to play. Just because some people may find difficulty making some time to play doesn't mean that none of us should be able to. Games have been made that way for decades now, and it's not like people have suddenly gotten busier. That's the reason save files were made.
Edit: to be honest, I just can't wrap my head around some of the claims you guys are making. I never thought I'd see the day where gamers were OK with (and even invited) getting less for their money.
They have, which is the reason why I specifically mentioned the reveal trailer. So sorry if I got false hopes that day. It's been a long time since I accepted what The Order 1886 is, that's not the problem for me anyway, since I'm in the market for a linear title now (playing through 4-5 open world games in less than two months in not a good idea btw). Still would've been really nice if the game was a bit more exploring friendly though, but another time another day.
My biggest complain is that the game will still only provide me with 4 hours of gameplay. I'm going to soak in the atmosphere as much as possible and I'm going to collect every single collectible, but that's it when it comes to replay value, which is a bit disappointing. I'm sorry if these complains offends or hurt anyone. I just expected a bit more I guess. The game right now feels like the definition of bare bones.
This is what boggles my mind about all this controversy. The complaints people are throwing around now are the exact same ones people have been throwing around since the first gameplay was shown. "QTEs!" (aka Satan's favorite gameplay vehicle), "Cinematic = no gameplay lol", "no multiplayer = not enough content", "lazy, generic TPS gameplay."
All this stuff has been, pretty much, common knowledge for the better part of a year. How were they not upfront? Why all the surprise to see these suspicions confirmed? How did these suspicions even exist if the marketing was disingenuous? How the hell does this game warrant two 50+ pg threads on the front-page before reviews are even out?
That's fair enough if you felt that way. I would have liked slightly more open areas and more explorable stuff too. Though I don't really know how large the areas in the game are because I haven't played it yet. I did however know from early on this would be a linear cinematic game, every single demo and trailer has showcased it as such.
Presumably there is some level of exploration or exposition available in the game though, because there are quite a few collectibles, readables etc, and multiple trophies associated with them. I can't imagine they will all just be littered in linear corridors and hallways, and that many will require searching around to find. I think that's one of the problems watching videos of a play through where the guy basically doesn't care about any of that stuff.
On a side note, I appreciate and respect the right of people to reject games by talking with their wallets, and the reality is that there isn't a whole lot of content here for the money compared to some other games, especially from big AAA publishers like Ubisoft or EA. But then as hardcore, forum dwelling gamers who are more knowledgeable than your average gamer, there is another side to it. This is the first console game from RAD, one they spent 4 years making, and one they've developed an entire next gen engine for, in-house. Similar to Uncharted (1), I think the expectation for this to be some massive semi-open huge game, was probably a bit of a stretch, but I also expect the sequel to be far more content rich. Looking at the quality of the assets RAD has put in to this, the amount of man power and resources it'd take to offer this game in a semi-open world or much larger scale, would likely be exponential. Not everyone has several hundred, or even thousand developers working on their AAA engine and game. But here's looking forward to how much more RAD can do in the sequel.
cripterion
Member
Actually not true, you know there are a lot of working dads/moms and other busy people on GAF, who quite frequently vocalize their desire for shorter, single player high quality experiences.
The big deal with this game seems multifold to me – unknown new IP from a relatively young team (for a "AAA" game anyways); Sony console exclusive which rankles some players; a new bar in graphics which REALLY rankles some players (see: Ryse); plus it does indeed fit into the AAA mold of shooter for the game parts, which apparently is un-evolved, because only Nintendo gets to iterate on tried and true mechanics.
And then the Shenmue fans showed up and you knew we were well and truly in crazytown now
If they want shorter games then maybe they just need to pack it up after an hour or so of play. They're not obliged to finish the damn thing in one playthrough.
We're not talking about wanting a 30 hour shooter here. If it's even 10 hours long, why can't the "busy mom and dads" play the game in 4 or 5 sittings? I guess they're also ok if Uncharted 4 was 4 hours long with no MP then, as long as it's high quality single player experience?
gaming_noob
Member
I hope you're not referring to posts like mine (unskippable cutscenes). This is a legit concern for me.
StoppedInTracks
Member
Eh... I hope other 2015 SP games do not follow suit.
Hate that expectations argument. I just want a good product- I appreciate the effort of the people making the game, but in the end, it's the final product that matters.
John Bender
Banned
It's just as dumb as saying "lol The Order: 1886" ~3 gameplay"
Neuromancer
Member
There will always be a wide variety of games of different lengths and prices. There is no need to be concerned.
EightBitNate
Member
Exactly. They act as though RAD had the interests of working class mothers and fathers in mind as they created this game.
With people in this very thread basically saying "yes! We like shorter games" it doesn't really inspire any confidence.
Interfectum
Member
Ahh yes, another concern. If The Order does well that means all of a sudden every AAA game is going to copy it. So it's your duty to make sure this game doesn't do well for the sake of the game industry. lol
It's absurd I agree. By that token tho- there are people in this thread blind buying to support this type of game- which I find equally ridiculous.
LOL, what's The Order going to do that wasn't already done by the COD campaigns? You can argue "but multiplayer!" Thats not the point. If you are worried that other developers are going to hamstring their single player content for cinematic set pieces and wow moments, that precedent was set long ago.
I think there is more than enough evidence that developers will make a game as long as they want it to be, outside factors notwithstanding.
its probably because they want shorter games
EightBitNate
Member
I don't give a flying fuck whether a game does well lol. I only say this because people are saying that shorter games are better.
I feel like we're talking in circles now
AbandonedTrolley
Member
Exactly this, a 6 hour game can be a whole lot better than a 40 hour snoozefest. I'm looking forward to this game and really don't care how long it takes me to complete it.
What's wrong with liking short games?
Oh, I'm definitely looking forward to RAD's next game, as I think they will meet my expectations with that one more than this title, hopefully. Not that they missed the mark with The Order 1886. I'm still looking forward to it, I still look forward to blast my way through the game, and soak in the Victorian feel. The gunplay looks really good as well. There are tons of things to build on. It's just that I wanted some of those things now.
Interfectum
Member
Shorter games aren't better, games with less bloat are better. If devs can manage to make a 20 hour long game that isn't bloated then I'm all for it. But if the devs think they need to reach that 20 hour bullet point but only have 5 hours worth of game thus they bloat the hell out of it, I'd rather they just make a good 5 hour game.
I guess this also depends on how people define "gameplay".
But some people actually feel that way. That says nothing about the order, mind you. But why does it bug you so much some people prefer shorter games?
Just don't get them if you don't want them. I am not going to get dark souls 2 remaster because I don't have time but I'm glad the game exists for you.
And to your other point, people actually have gotten busier. The audience that grew up with nintendo games is now 40 years old! People's expectations do change. We are kind of the inaugural class. Sadly. :/
Absolutely, and thankfully you can perfectly express your discontent for the amount of content by not buying it. The beauty of this hobby is that there is a crap load of diversity and a huge number of games out there. Not everyone is going to like their narrative driven, cinematic third person shooters of this ilk.
I'm personally not going to jump to the conclusion of calling the game short yet, as that, like one's opinion of the game itself, is going to be subjective based on the person playing. If it takes me (key word me, and not someone else) 6 hours to complete, I'll be disappointed and feel the content was on the slim side. But if it takes me 9-10 hours, I think that's a solid length for a game of this kind (though I would have preferred longer), and provided I have the desire to replay it, I think there's enough content to justify my purchase. But that's just me.
EightBitNate
Member
But why can't we have longer games that don't have bloat? It doesn't have to be "either...or...".
I'm just confused why someone would want a shorter campaign vs a longer one. Like I said above, why does making a game longer automatically mean that its quality will be worse?
Nightengale
Member
Call me a fool if you want, but I bought WD & Destiny day-ten & day-two respectively, fully aware of their flaws. I've always believed in supporting new IPs in the market, even when I don't necessarily love said games, and I put where my money's worth.
As long as they're not 'bad' (WD was mediocre, but far from terrible, and Destiny was super-fun, even if highly flawed), I do buy such games as a show of support. Not all the time, but often enough.
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Responding rationally would be unfair to me because this post is asinine.
Oppo
Member
This is like demanding that all books be at least 500 pages.
It's nonsensical. Media has varying lengths. I mean, you're right that you can save at any point of course, but you also want to actually be able to finish the damn thing.
No one likes a game that overstays it's welcome. Dying Light was getting a bit of that a few weeks ago.
Uh, it's way harder.EightBitNate said:
But I acrually prefer short games. I'm more concerned w the QTE/story stuff. We'll find out soon enough tho, prob gonna be the type of game I end up just jumping into anyways.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Are there any plans for DLC?
Actually not true, you know there are a lot of working dads/moms and other busy people on GAF, who quite frequently vocalize their desire for shorter, single player high quality experiences.
The big deal with this game seems multifold to me unknown new IP from a relatively young team (for a "AAA" game anyways); Sony console exclusive which rankles some players; a new bar in graphics which REALLY rankles some players (see: Ryse); plus it does indeed fit into the AAA mold of shooter for the game parts, which apparently is un-evolved, because only Nintendo gets to iterate on tried and true mechanics.
And then the Shenmue fans showed up and you knew we were well and truly in crazytown now
What's that got to do with anything? Shorter games for the hard working, sure if that's what they want, but the point is the game should be cheaper if this is the case. However order 1886 is nearly £50 which is insane (How is this next gen tax still bring done!), and I'm concerned at the value at the value it's bringing for that much. Considering to cancel it not only because of this, but I'm too busy to game like I would want to and I think I would be fine waiting for it. Only problem is the pre order bonus. Not quite sure what it brings but don't like missing out on that stuff. If the game is great, sure I'll buy it, whether the game would be worth the price relating to the quality is entirely subjective however and hard to actually know without playing it, but I'm just not seeing his price diversity. It seems remakes are getting more priced accordingly, I'm seeing type 0 going to less than £40 now which is great and I actually would have been happy paying £40+ for it because I know it has a lot of content and the XV demo of course, in order 1886s case, I don't know. I'm seeing 5 hours, but I would be 100%ing if I got it so don't know how long it's be then
So now we are playing the lets have sympathy for the poor devs card? Give me a break! If they don't make a compelling product they are not getting 1 cent of mine. Sony exclusives always bring out the best from you.
SlasherJPC
Banned
Look, someone who gets it. People make me feel crazy and senile for also enjoying short games. Thread feels super hostile really. :/