Support NeoGAF

[GrizzleBoy]

I dunno, I think theres a difference between short games, and games that are short on Gameplay.

I think the problem people, have with The Order is that its both.

If for instance, the cut scenes were more fleshed out vs the Gameplay or the Gameplay was more prevalent vs cut scenes and the game was a little more substantial there'd be less of an issue.

But The Order seems to be a short game that also has a shortness of Gameplay within itself as a game.

If the Gameplay is some kind of brand new fangled way of doing things that goes further than "shoot the targets to win", the shortness would be easier forgiven. But I'm not sure it does that.

 

[fantomena]

I wish I weren't under an embargo.

 

[sploatee]

My main concern is not length but replayability and its on that front I'm a bit concerned about this game. I think it looks stunning and I'm in the mood for a tight, focused single player action game. My problem is that I play games on hard difficulty and I get the feeling that after one play through (and maybe a collectible round-up) that'd be it. If there was a scoring element or a 'grounded' mode I'd be so excited. It's a bit of a shame really.

 

[Y2Kev]

Uh game price has nothing to do with game rarity. The supply of games is basically fixed due to digital marketplaces.

 

[Dictator93]

He said don't buy it. Not don't involve yourself. Discussions and purchase decisions are not the same thing.

I think this is a pretty simplistic take on what I said. You don't have to not talk about something you don't want to buy. But why the general confusion over why someone might be ok with or even desire that kind of experience?

The thread has 3,000 posts, most of which are arguing if the game is 5 hours or 8 hours. This is genuinely absurd in a way I don't think I've ever seen on the board. This is not a discussion to begin with, but even if it were, "No one wants shorter games," is a pretty challenging starting point.

Gotchya. I also find it hilarious that this thread has so many posts, but there has deifnitely been an evolution in the conversation. I think most people now see that the game offers XX amount of XX content and are at the point of debating the worth of said content as a game.

So you have people saying the cinematic layers and lack of player agency do not make this game worth it cost, and then others (who are not arguing on the merits of the game) who are saying "I dont have a lot of time" or "the devs tried hard." Which once again, is kind of a blank check written to excuse a game that may be leaving much to be desired. Very similar to posting about how it is the "first in the series."

I find that an odd discourse where one side is talking about the game, and the other is talking about mitigating factors.

I think if I argued that Lair is a good game because every time the game became frustrating or overbearing I walked out of the room and smoked a cigarette, hence it is actually a good game, most people would laugh.

 

[Amentallica]

I wish I weren't under an emabrgo.

Tell a mod to give you an alt and post from there. LOL

 

[zarmena]

I'm going to buy it. Short and sweet is fine with me. Value is in the mind of the consumer. Nothing wrong with having different value perceptions. I just find this recurring debate rather absurd. That said, I usually end up loving games that get panned. Mafia 2 got mediocre reviews but I can confidently say I enjoyed it a lot more than Red Dead Redemption.

 

[MMaRsu]

I wish I weren't under an emabrgo.

Your opinion on the game, worth the full price or not? Or can you not say yhat either?

 

[Alucrid]

I wish I weren't under an emabrgo.

"the order 1886s embargo is 20 times longer than the game"

 

[Pennywise]

Sure, you can say you don't want to pay for a game at the price they are charging.

Or just sell it on ebay or trade it in on amazon once you're done.

No one forces you to keep your games forrever, especially in the first weeks you easily get 1/2 if not 2/3 of your money back.

Or you could wait until the game is cheaper...

The options are there, it's not like anybody is forcing everybody to buy the game on day 1.

 

[Frillen]

How do you know this game lacks replay value? On what basis are you drawing that conclusion?

Facts? I know I will be beating the game on hard the first time (which I always do), which means there's no replay value when it comes to difficulty modes. We know there are zero modes outside of the single player campaign, so that rules out any form of replay value there. There's also not a new game+. That leaves us with what the single player mode can provide me with its single play through, which is collectibles and soaking in the atmosphere. Again, I'm sorry if I wanted more out of this title, when games lately have provided me with significantly more content.

 

[MMaRsu]

Or just sell it on ebay or trade it in on amazon once you're done.

No one forces you to keep your games forrever, especially in the first weeks you easily get 1/2 if not 2/3 of your money back.

Or you could wait until the game is cheaper...

The options are there, it's not like anybody is forcing everybody to buy the game on day 1.

Exactly.

 

[Fury451]

I dunno, I think theres a difference between short games, and games that are short on Gameplay.

I think the problem people, have with The Order is that its both.

This is my concern. I'm still picking it up because by all accounts I think I'm going to enjoy it.

But seeing the breakdown of cutscene to gameplay is a bummer, not going to lie. Especially considering that makes it look like some of the story is rushed or not fulfilling, which has been corroborated by some impressions.

 

[fantomena]

Your opinion on the game, worth the full price or not? Or can you not say yhat either?

"the order 1886s embargo is 20 times longer than the game"

Haven't finished it yet, but Ive used more than 5 hours, that's for sure.

 

[Huggers]

Or just sell it on ebay or trade it in on amazon once you're done.

No one forces you to keep your games forrever, especially in the first weeks you easily get 1/2 if not 2/3 of your money back.

Or you could wait until the game is cheaper...

The options are there, it's not like anybody is forcing everybody to buy the game on day 1.

I never hold on to current gen games. Just play to boredom and then Ebay them and get the next thing I want. I don't see the point in building a current gen collection. The length of the game isn't of massive importance to me. As long as what is there is fun.

 

[boredandlazy]

People are worried that this game is going to start a movement of 5 hour cinematic movie games in the entire industry and everything will be destroyed just like when mobile games ruined everything too

Really? That's the impression you've got?

 

[Interfectum]

Haven't finished it yet, but Ive used more than 5 hours, that's for sure.

But the Youtube evidence! You must be mistaken! I'm gonna need your PSN name, home address and SSN to figure this out man.

 

[Huggers]

Haven't finished it yet, but Ive used more than 5 hours, that's for sure.

If it's a 7 out of 10 or less, do not reply to this post ;-)

 

[Y2Kev]

I dunno, I think theres a difference between short games, and games that are short on Gameplay.

I think the problem people, have with The Order is that its both.

If for instance, the cut scenes were more fleshed out vs the Gameplay or the Gameplay was more prevalent vs cut scenes and the game was a little more substantial there'd be less of an issue.

But The Order seems to be a short game that also has a shortness of Gameplay within itself as a game.

If the Gameplay is some kind of brand new fangled way of doing things that goes further than "shoot the targets to win", the shortness would be easier forgiven. But I'm not sure it does that.

It's true for this game. But more generally I think the conversation has sort of shifted to long vs. short because it's now like 24 hours later and the carpet is threadbare.

 

[Ethelwulf]

"the order 1886s embargo is 20 times longer than the game"

Still 3 days until embargo goes up so 24*3= 72hrs. Because you said that the embargo is actually 20 times longer, can we then assume that the length of the game is 72/20 = 3.6hrs?

Spoiler

I'm of course kidding here

.

 

[suedester]

Haven't finished it yet, but Ive used more than 5 hours, that's for sure.

That can't be. There is a YouTube video clearly showing its only 5 hours long?

 

[boredandlazy]

But the Youtube evidence! You must be mistaken! I'm gonna need your PSN name, home address and SSN to figure this out man.

I need a clump of his hair. And maybe a saliva swab.

 

[travisbickle]

First, I don't know if The Order 1886 is good, I haven't played it. The only review I've seen seems to indicate it's a very pretty standard shooter with nice setting but simplistic gameplay and lots of QTE's and cinematic.

I found TLOU to be enjoyable, and somewhat of a good game, I wouln't replay it anytime soon though, yet even TLOU has replayability in the sense of higher difficulty settings and multiplayer.

Maybe it's just me but I rarely replay singleplayer games, even the ones I liked, unless it's to refresh my memory for the next entry in the series

After this thread, it sounds like you're in the norm. But personally if I only play a game once it means it's a bad game. I don't think developers continue to make these games thinking they'll be played once either.

 

[hodgy100]

its amusing that the length of the game is being constantly lowered by the barrators. first it was 10 hours, then it was 6 and now its 3 lol10

 

[Marvel]

But the Youtube evidence! You must be mistaken! I'm gonna need your PSN name, home address and SSN to figure this out man.

A piss test and blood sample too.

 

[Alucrid]

Really? That's the impression you've got?

That's literally the concern of some posters in here

 

[Alienous]

Haven't finished it yet, but Ive used more than 5 hours, that's for sure.

I want to see your stopwatch.

Maybe The Order: 1886 has the feel of a 12 hour game?

 

[c0de]

Haven't finished it yet, but Ive used more than 5 hours, that's for sure.

Are you "rushing" or pixel-examining for collectables?

 

[Interfectum]

Really? That's the impression you've got?

Yes. Otherwise why the concern? Why do people keep coming back in here if it's just a shitty 5 hour QTE fest? It's one game in a sea of hundreds.

 

[Y2Kev]

Stop attacking the guy who beat it in 5 hours and change. He obviously did it. Relax please.

 

[boredandlazy]

That's literally the concern of some posters in here

In my opinion that's not a rational way to respond to this game.

 

[nib95]

Gotchya. I also find it hilarious that this thread has so many posts, but there has deifnitely been an evolution in the conversation. I think most people now see that the game offers XX amount of XX content and are at the point of debating the worth of said content as a game.

So you have people saying the cinematic layers and lack of player agency do not make this game worth it cost, and then others (who are not arguing on the merits of the game) who are saying "I dont have a lot of time" or "the devs tried hard." Which once again, is kind of a blank check written to excuse a game may be leaving much to be desired. Very similar to posting about how it is the "first in the series."

I find that an odd discourse where one side is talking about the game, and the other is talking about mitigating factors.

But all of that is kind of empty until we get the chance to play it ourselves. Certain people have been committed to painting The Order as a definitively 5 hour long game, and whilst it was beaten by this one guy in 5 Hours and a half, the reality is it hasn't been that long for most other people that have completed it. It's as long as whoever playing it takes. And right now we have a massive range of play times which makes it even more of a folly to pin this games length down to a specific number.

My personal take is that whilst game length is important to overall value proposition, the quality of the game and overall experience is still far more important, and that's something I can't judge until I play it for myself. So no, it isn't a blank check, it's one reserved until I get my hands on it, and can actually properly judge it.


Random note, one of the more amusing things out of this to me, is that the guy who did complete it in the YT vids, said he really enjoyed the game and would buy it again had he not already prchased it. But for some reason that part is sort of lost in the rest of the discussion lol.

 

[Alucrid]

In my opinion that's not a rational way to respond to this game.

Which is why I presented that as an example of "Nonsensical hysteria"

 

[LAA]

Uh game price has nothing to do with game rarity. The supply of games is basically fixed due to digital marketplaces.

For digital sure, not physical, but OK even if we ignore that, prices of games only decrease when people aren't buying it. The prices aren't decreasing proportionate to the content the game has or the quality of such content and I think that's what the day 1 price should be reflecting. Not being forced to buying it at day 1 isn't the point, the point is price diversity. Like portable games are usually sold for less than console games. Remakes are usually sold less than new games. We're just not seeing price diversity with high content vs low content games, but yeah its subjective to the person at this point. Like destiny has "high content" if you want to do the same tasks over and over for new items, but in terms of like actual new content, it's lacking and I bet most people would say they wouldnt think Destiny was worth the price they paid for it when discovering this.

 

[boredandlazy]

Which is why I presented that as an example of "Nonsensical hysteria"

Ah sorry. This thread is moving so fast(even though pretty much nothing is being discussed anymore) I didn't follow the complete chain.

 

[Abounder]

People are worried that this game is going to start a movement of 5 hour cinematic movie games in the entire industry and everything will be destroyed just like when mobile games ruined everything too

This is already happening with Metal Gear Ground Zeroes (another game scrutinized for its depth and worth), EA's quotes about how games are still too hard for the masses, and Conan O'Brien being able to cluelessly hack and slash his enemies to death in AssCreed, etc. And considering GAF has a lot of relatively hardcore enthusiasts I can understand why they would rather have something like Bayonetta than Ryse, but it's all good.

Gotchya. I also find it hilarious that this thread has so many posts, but there has deifnitely been an evolution in the conversation. I think most people now see that the game offers XX amount of XX content and are at the point of debating the worth of said content as a game.

So you have people saying the cinematic layers and lack of player agency do not make this game worth it cost, and then others (who are not arguing on the merits of the game) who are saying "I dont have a lot of time" or "the devs tried hard." Which once again, is kind of a blank check written to excuse a game that may be leaving much to be desired. Very similar to posting about how it is the "first in the series."

I find that an odd discourse where one side is talking about the game, and the other is talking about mitigating factors.

Yea I could understand those points if The Order was a launch title, but to each their own and The Order's atmosphere is great.

 

[boredandlazy]

Uh game price has nothing to do with game rarity. The supply of games is basically fixed due to digital marketplaces.

I just sold my PS2 copy of Persona 3 FES on ebay for $90AUS.
It's readily available on PSN.

 

[GhostTrick]

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?

He doesnt say longer means lower quality.
But that sometimes, people dont have time anymore.
Its true thats its easier for me to get into a 8 hour game than a 30 hours one now.
Although, it doesnt mean its okay to have low content either.

 

[codhand]

Destiny was 25 hours long, with three hours worth of actual, original content, and that wasn't worth $60 either. not about simply disliking short games, it's about disliking games short on content.

 

[JNT]

If I'm paying $60 for a book, it better be 500 pages.

And I am not about to feel bad for developers. Most of the best games ever made are locked in at 15 hours+. It really can't be that hard. Co-op or MP would have added in lots of extra hours to playtime.

If I'm paying $60 for a book it better be damn good, which is a concept wholly detached from length.

If you have PSN, then take a look at the percentage of people actually completing a game these days. It's obvious that the market is signalling developers to be more cost effective by not budgeting a disproportionate amount of their total budget pandering to the minority of people that actually complete their 15+ hour games.

 

[StoOgE]

I've had a long-standing argument that games should either be single player or multi-player focuses affairs, and free the teams up to focus on what they are actually doing. There are rare occasions where a games focus seems evenly divided (Halo), but generally just make what you want.

That's why I was fine with Titanfall being exactly what it was, and don't generally have an issue with what the Order is doing.

I also tend to think single player linear games that have one solid idea tend to go too long and have tons of filler. By the end of Gears 3 I wanted it to be over pretty badly even though I had really enjoyed my time in the game. Same with most of the Halo Single Player stuff.

Conceptually I actually like the idea of high production value games that are 3 or 4 hours long and are more like a movie experience.. fun set pieces and then it ends before over-staying it's welcome, with a 30 or 40 dollar price attached. It seems that the Order is probably roughly double that length. I don't own a PS4, but this would be a game I would get simply because it seems like a world that would be fun to run around in.

That said, given the way this thread has gone and the way Titanfall was received for lack of content, I may be the only person with this opinion.

 

[Oppo]

they should release DLC called The Order 18:86 with 2 extra chapters and 86 arena horde modes

 

[c0de]

He doesnt say longer means lower quality.
But that sometimes, people dont have time anymore.
Its true thats its easier for me to get into a 8 hour game than a 30 hours one now.
Although, it doesnt mean its okay to have low content either.

But just like others said they are going to have a longer playtime by playing the game on hard (or hardest) people who have less time can also play a game on easy to finish it in less time.

 

[JacksUsername]

If I'm paying $60 for a book, it better be 500 pages.

And I am not about to feel bad for developers. Most of the best games ever made are locked in at 15 hours+. It really can't be that hard. Co-op or MP would have added in lots of extra hours to playtime.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is only around 200 pages, while the last Twilight book is over 700 pages. I would gladly pay much more for the 200 page book in this case than the 700 page book. It's been said over and over: quantity does not equal quality.

If you don't think 6-10 hours of entertainment is worth 60 bucks, that's fine. You don't have to buy it. But saying "it really can't be that hard" to add an additional 6-9 hours of content is a bit ridiculous.

What's wrong with that? Is the story that captivating that you have to finish it so soon? Then by your own admission, why are you picking 2 other games then?

There's nothing wrong with a game taking longer to beat. But if every game were like that, I would only beat a handful of games a year. Nothing wrong with that either, but I like that these shorter experiences allow me to try more games out, while feeling like I've made progress in completing them.

As for why am I picking up 2 other games, when I still haven't finished Dying Light...well, that's a whole other backlog issue

 

[Fliesen]

I think a lot of people are just disappointed.

More often than not, the rule of thumb would be: The shorter a game, the less story content, the less gameplay, the less time you share with the characters and thereby less time to get immersed in the game. - The sooner you'll eventually forget about the whole thing.

I think there's plenty of people who were expecting / hoping for The Order 1886 to be an epic masterpiece - the final justification for their console purchase.
If i had been looking forward to this game, i imagine, i'd be pretty disappointed, too.

i don't mind full priced short games - i just think that there's only so much content you can cram into such little playtime.

 

[Alucrid]

Destiny was 25 hours long, with three hours worth of actual, original content, and that wasn't worth $60 either. not about simply disliking short games, it's about disliking games short on content.

But I've put hundreds of hours into destiny. Maybe it's about not liking games that don't interest you

 

[yoplay]

Yes. Otherwise why the concern? Why do people keep coming back in here if it's just a shitty 5 hour QTE fest? It's one game in a sea of hundreds.

This.

 

[MADGAME]

If I'm paying $60 for a book it better be damn good, which is a concept wholly detached from length.

If you have PSN, then take a look at the percentage of people actually completing a game these days. It's obvious that the market is signalling developers to be more cost effective by not budgeting a disproportionate amount of their total budget pandering to the minority of people that actually complete their 15+ hour games.

How are you gauging if someone completes a game? Surely not by trophies?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Short game length is one thing, short game padded with gameplay interrupting cut scenes is another.

As an old fart I love short games, i can come home from work get a 30 mins to an hour on a game and call it a day. However having to sit through cut scenes is what kills it for me.

 

[Alienous]

I've had a long-standing argument that games should either be single player or multi-player focuses affairs, and free the teams up to focus on what they are actually doing. There are rare occasions where a games focus seems evenly divided (Halo), but generally just make what you want.

That's why I was fine with Titanfall being exactly what it was, and don't generally have an issue with what the Order is doing.

I also tend to think single player linear games that have one solid idea tend to go too long and have tons of filler. By the end of Gears 3 I wanted it to be over pretty badly even though I had really enjoyed my time in the game. Same with most of the Halo Single Player stuff.

Conceptually I actually like the idea of high production value games that are 3 or 4 hours long. It seems that the Order is probably roughly double that length.

That said, given the way this thread has gone and the way Titanfall was received for lack of content, I may be the only person with this opinion.

I think this notion of sticking to a $60 launch RRP is the problem. Not particularly for The Order, or Titanfall, but in terms of allowing publisher pricing flexibility to a degree. There seems to be this notion that if you're on a disc you must ask your customer for $60/£40 day one, and I really hope we get to a point where games feel comfortable occupying lower (or heck, even higher, to the effect of reducing DLC/microtransaction muddying of content) price-points. A more fluid pricing system from publishers, I think, would alleviate a lot of this.