Support NeoGAF

[border]

I will be more than satisfied if the game is 6 hours. That sounds a hell of a lot better than some bloated 15-20 hour open-world slog.

Purchase game for $50 with Gamers Club Unlimited....beat it in a few days...trade-in to Gamestop/BestBuy for $40 credit. Net cost of gameplay experience - $10. A better value than a movie, and short enough that I don't feel like I have to power through a long-ass game just to get a decent trade-in-value.

More worrisome is the possibility that I am going to have to sit through some long and dull-ass cutscenes.

 

[fluffydelusions]

What the hell is going on? The game is 5 hours long now?

5 1/2 going by the complete playthrough up on youtube.

 

[Sweep14]

As if critiquing it automatically makes you a troll. That is a horrible way to phrase conversation and rather toxic IMO.

Never said that criticizing a game de facto makes you a troll.
People are perfectly entitled to think that they should get more for their money but IMHO, gaming duration is not the deciding factor whether a game is good or bad

 

[-MD-]

gaming duration is not the deciding factor whether a game is good or bad

But it is a deciding factor on whether or not someone wants to drop $60 on a game they could complete in a sitting or two.

 

[Dreamgazer]

only one i saw so far for the 5 and a half hours
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZEy3pPYBI4xlQ6dCcXmWwfX

So it's 1x 5.5 hour video walk through vs. 2-3x posters claim of 7-10 hours

I've looked at the user's other video uploads.
His Bioshock Infinite videos adds up to less than 4 hour:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZH0sGm7dSOiUL4o-LiL6KJU

Average playtime is 11hours.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1068

Are we sure his videos aren't edited or rushed?

 

[MR ARCADE FOREVER]

You do realize alot of us could care less about this console war bullshit and more care about the fact that I just want to get my monies worth on a game? Like these games aren't cheap, and it sucks to find out that I can't really trust impressions here anymore as I was told this game was gonna be 12 hours or so when it's in fact wayyyy less than that. And does anyone having a opinion you don't agree with=troll to you? People can criticize the game, this doesn't make them a troll. Some probably have other motives, but there are lots of us who genuinely just want to make sure we end up with a good game and spending our money right. If you don't want criticism, then everything is just basically one big selling advertisement and that's definitely not how it should be. If a game has faults, people should be allowed to call out those faults.

He calls whoever is questioning the game a troll, acts like a cheerleader bullet proofing the game against any valid criticism.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I will be more than satisfied if the game is 6 hours. That sounds a hell of a lot better than some bloated 15-20 hour open-world slog.

Purchase game for $50 with Gamers Club Unlimited....beat it in a few days...trade-in to Gamestop/BestBuy for $40 credit. Net cost of gameplay experience - $10. A better value than a movie, and short enough that I don't feel like I have to power through a long-ass game just to get a decent trade-in-value.

More worrisome is the possibility that I am going to have to sit through some long and dull-ass cutscenes.

well I certainly wouldnt say that short games are necessarily bad. games like Viewtiful Joe, Bayonetta or DMC can be beat in less than 5 hours. it comes down to gameplay and replayability.

Also bloated open-world slogs would be around 80-200 hours not a mere 15-20.

 

[Hugstable]

Never said that criticizing a game de facto makes you a troll.
People are perfectly entitled to think that they should get more for their money but IMHO, gaming duration is not the deciding factor whether a game is good or bad

Yes but if that game duration has almost no replayability, and what little replayability it has is pretty much killed by unskippable cutscenes, then it becomes way harder to justify wanting to drop a full 60$ on this game. 60$ is no small amount of money, and I don't mind short games at all, but they need to at least be somewhat replayable. I mean Resident Evil REmake is one of my favorite games of all times, and that shit can be beaten easily in under 3 hours, and under 1 hour and half if you play good. But the difference is Resident Evil Remake has so many different options and ways to play the game whether it be invisible enemy, Real Survivor, etc.

 

[rrc1594]

Never said that criticizing a game de facto makes you a troll.
People are perfectly entitled to think that they should get more for their money but IMHO, gaming duration is not the deciding factor whether a game is good or bad

Why bring up QB then? It's as if your implying there is some console war motive to people criticizing the game.

 

[T.O.P]

So it's 1x 5.5 hour video walk through vs. 2-3x posters claim of 7-10 hours

I've looked at the user's other video uploads.
His Bioshock Infinite videos adds up to less than 4 hour:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZH0sGm7dSOiUL4o-LiL6KJU

Average playtime is 11hours.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1068

Are we sure his videos aren't edited or rushed?

no idea since i'm trying to stay away from major spoilers, someone who played could confirm this tho

 

[Sweep14]

You do realize alot of us could care less about this console war bullshit and more care about the fact that I just want to get my monies worth on a game? Like these games aren't cheap, and it sucks to find out that I can't really trust impressions here anymore as I was told this game was gonna be 12 hours or so when it's in fact wayyyy less than that. And does anyone having a opinion you don't agree with=troll to you? People can criticize the game, this doesn't make them a troll. Some probably have other motives, but there are lots of us who genuinely just want to make sure we end up with a good game and spending our money right. If you don't want criticism, then everything is just basically one big selling advertisement and that's definitely not how it should be. If a game has faults, people should be allowed to call out those faults.

I understand your point of view about the money and wanting more for it but this game's duration is absoluetly not unusual. your mileage will vary with it : Playing on Hard with no aim assist and taking your time exploring should get you your 12 hours.

 

[MR ARCADE FOREVER]

Why bring up QB then? It's as if your implying there is some console war motive to people criticizing the game.

The QB example was the "behind the scenes" reason invested in his emotional state of mind

 

[-MD-]

So it's 1x 5.5 hour video walk through vs. 2-3x posters claim of 7-10 hours

I've looked at the user's other video uploads.
His Bioshock Infinite videos adds up to less than 4 hour:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZH0sGm7dSOiUL4o-LiL6KJU

Average playtime is 11hours.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1068

Are we sure his videos aren't edited or rushed?

That doesn't look like a completed playthrough of Bioshock.

 

[Derpyduck]

Never said that criticizing a game de facto makes you a troll.
People are perfectly entitled to think that they should get more for their money but IMHO, gaming duration is not the deciding factor whether a game is good or bad

Of course it isn't. But it is the deciding factor on whether or not a game is a good value to a lot of people.

 

[Gestault]

This is RAD's design decision. Don't like it then don't buy the game. As simple as that.

Reactions to game design aren't an all-or-nothing thing. Your reaction is way over the top.

 

[Alienous]

So it's 1x 5.5 hour video walk through vs. 2-3x posters claim of 7-10 hours

I've looked at the user's other video uploads.
His Bioshock Infinite videos adds up to less than 4 hour:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZH0sGm7dSOiUL4o-LiL6KJU

Average playtime is 11hours.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1068

Are we sure his videos aren't edited or rushed?

They aren't edited, unless they are seamlessly edited. The deaths are kept in the gameplay.

He's a fairly proficient player trying to get through a game so he could upload footage of it. 5 hours and 30 minutes is very likely shorter than what the baseline will be, but watching the footage it very clearly isn't a speedrun. Something closer to 6-7 hours seems likely for a playthrough of The Order: 1886 gauging from this footage. It's the 12 hour figure that seems abnormal.

 

[Sweep14]

Why bring up QB then? It's as if your implying there is some console war motive to people criticizing the game.

Don't you think that there are some posters with this kind of mentality (console war) criticizing it on those threads ?

 

[Dreamgazer]

That doesn't look like a completed playthrough of Bioshock.

Yep, you're right.
Any idea what point of the game that is?

 

[Daemul]

So it's 1x 5.5 hour video walk through vs. 2-3x posters claim of 7-10 hours

I've looked at the user's other video uploads.
His Bioshock Infinite videos adds up to less than 4 hour:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZH0sGm7dSOiUL4o-LiL6KJU

Average playtime is 11hours.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1068

Are we sure his videos aren't edited or rushed?

His Bioshock Infinite playlist is not complete, it's missing half the game.

 

[Freeman]

I think you can in all of them. In Ground Zeroes even the tiny little scenes like turning off the power can be skipped.

Its a good decision I suppose, but if so much criticism this game seems to be getting for its length I wounder how good it would to be for them to have reports of people skiping the cuteness and saying the game is half as short as it is.

I like short games myself, my favorite games are all short (around 10 hours or less, with few exceptions going above 20 hours), it makes them easier to go back and play every now and then. Games that are too long usually have very bad pacing.

In the end of the day it seems we arrived at a point where a full priced action game with no multiplayer is something people are not that willing to accept. It makes sense I suppose.

 

[nib95]

So it's 1x 5.5 hour video walk through vs. 2-3x posters claim of 7-10 hours

I've looked at the user's other video uploads.
His Bioshock Infinite videos adds up to less than 4 hour:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZH0sGm7dSOiUL4o-LiL6KJU

Average playtime is 11hours.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=1068

Are we sure his videos aren't edited or rushed?

They are definitely somewhat rushed. He ignores every single additional viewable item or collectible type piece, even if the button prompts shows up right in front of him. No idea if they are edited or not.

The GAFers who have completed it did so on Hard, and also explored and collected stuff, hence the 9-14 hour range we have so far.

 

[Alienous]

Yep, you're right.
Any idea what point of the game that is?

I wouldn't say where he reached was even the midpoint of Bioshock Infinite. It's the weapons cache fetching part, if I recall.

 

[-MD-]

Nevermind.

 

[Gestault]

Its a good decision I suppose, but if so much criticism this game seems to be getting for its length I wounder how good it would to be for them to have reports of people skiping the cuteness and saying the game is half as short as it is.

I like short games myself, my favorite games are all short (around 10 hours or less, with feat exceptions going above 20 hours), it makes them easier to go back and play every now and then. Games that are too long usually have very bad pacing.

There are definitely games out there that overstay their welcome, to the point where being longer hurts the experience.

 

[Sweep14]

Yes but if that game duration has almost no replayability, and what little replayability it has is pretty much killed by unskippable cutscenes, then it becomes way harder to justify wanting to drop a full 60$ on this game. 60$ is no small amount of money, and I don't mind short games at all, but they need to at least be somewhat replayable. I mean Resident Evil REmake is one of my favorite games of all times, and that shit can be beaten easily in under 3 hours, and under 1 hour and half if you play good. But the difference is Resident Evil Remake has so many different options and ways to play the game whether it be invisible enemy, Real Survivor, etc.

I understand your point of view. The better plan for you will probably be to purchase it at $30 after a few months I think

 

[rrc1594]

Don't you think that there are some posters with this kind of mentality (console war) criticizing it on those threads ?

Spoiler

Yeah a little

. You still shouldn't make claims like that with out proof

 

[Dawg]

A source close to me completed it in 8,5 hours.

 

[R&R]

This is RAD's design decision. Don't like it then don't buy the game. As simple as that.

Yes, the unskippable cutscenes are a design decision - like is pretty much everything else in every game ever.

The point is that how can anybody defend unskippable cutscenes? I mean, seriously - haven't you guys played Max Payne 3? And if you have and still don't find unskippability of cutscenes annoying...well, I don't know what to say anymore...

I mean, for me this absolutely kills the game. Short, fine. Not anything revolutionary...well, there usually isn't. OK story, fine. But unskippable cutscenes...fuck!

 

[ironcreed]

Yes but if that game duration has almost no replayability, and what little replayability it has is pretty much killed by unskippable cutscenes, then it becomes way harder to justify wanting to drop a full 60$ on this game. 60$ is no small amount of money, and I don't mind short games at all, but they need to at least be somewhat replayable. I mean Resident Evil REmake is one of my favorite games of all times, and that shit can be beaten easily in under 3 hours, and under 1 hour and half if you play good. But the difference is Resident Evil Remake has so many different options and ways to play the game whether it be invisible enemy, Real Survivor, etc.

That's fair. I totally understand people not wanting to drop $60 on what might be a brief experience with little to no reason to replay it. I normally would share such concerns, but considering the backlog that I need to get back to before Bloodborne releases, I am okay with it being a bit short. That is, just as long as it ends up being as enjoyable as what I have seen. But yeah, it may end up being a better rental for some. We will just have to see.

 

[Sweep14]

Reactions to game design aren't an all-or-nothing thing. Your reaction is way over the top.

Yeah I'm probably being a bit too binary with my last reply. IMHO People are expecting too much from game devs nowadays and they simply can't please everyone

 

[Alienous]

A source close to me completed it in 8,5 hours.

That's the thing, though. I'm not sure how someone would know unless they were timing themselves. Or are they using some in-game counter?

Unless you are timing your play sessions with a stopwatch and keeping track I don't know what to make of a person's timekeeping, especially over footage I can watch.

But 8.5 seems more reasonable than 12.5 hours and still not having completed the game.

 

[Gestault]

This is RAD's design decision. Don't like it then don't buy the game. As simple as that.

I understand your point of view. The better plan for you will probably be to purchase it at $30 after a few months I think

Just a suggestion: Dictating the actions of others comes off as unpleasant, from my experience. It's very likely people understand their own outlook better than you would.

 

[swazzyswess]

looks like if you pick this up at midnight you'll be Ready (to beat the game) At Dawn.

 

[T.O.P]

A source close to me completed it in 8,5 hours.

that would be the sweet spot for this kind of game to me

difficulty?

 

[Sweep14]

Yes, the unskippable cutscenes are a design decision - like is pretty much everything else in every game ever.

The point is that how can anybody defend unskippable cutscenes? I mean, seriously - haven't you guys played Max Payne 3? And if you have and still don't find unskippability of cutscenes annoying...well, I don't know what to say anymore...

Do we know for sure if those cutscenes aren't skippable after your first complete playthrough ?

 

[Aaron]

They are definitely somewhat rushed. He ignores every single additional viewable item or collectible type piece, even if the button prompts shows up right in front of him. No idea if they are edited or not.

The GAFers who have completed it did so on Hard, and also explored and collected stuff, hence the 9-14 hour range we have so far.

He said 9 hours. Where are you getting the extra 5 from? I think 9-10 is really good for this sort of game. There's no reason to exaggerate.

 

[Daemul]

Yep, you're right.
Any idea what point of the game that is?

Getting the weapons for

Spoiler

Daisy Fitzroy

 

[Sweep14]

Just a suggestion: Dictating the actions of others comes off as unpleasant, from my experience. It's very likely people understand their own outlook better than you would.

Certainly. Was just my thought about it. Of course Hugstable knows better then me what to do with his money

 

[tuxfool]

The point is that how can anybody defend unskippable cutscenes?

I'll attempt it. It may be loading assets in the background, there may be a period requiring user input. It also may be that it is too difficult to do the seamless gameplay to cutscene transition *and* add the ability to skip it.

 

[Dreamgazer]

Assuming the gameplay was rushed.
HLTB trend would put the average at an additional 1.5 hours, making it 7 hours

...that's alright for me, but I'll need to look at review scores.

Getting the weapons for

Spoiler

Daisy Fitzroy

Not a clue where that is for BI, but I'll take that it's slightly less than half way.

 

[RK9039]

looks like if you pick this up at midnight you'll be Ready (to beat the game) At Dawn.

Spoiler

Crying

At Dawn.

 

[Daemul]

Not a clue where that is for BI, but I'll take that it's slightly less than half way.

Yeah, slightly less than half way through. I wonder why he never uploaded the rest of his playthrough.

 

[Sweep14]

But it is a deciding factor on whether or not someone wants to drop $60 on a game they could complete in a sitting or two.

This I concur

 

[Gestault]

Considering the gap in play-times from different difficulties for most series I play, this probably isn't as dramatic a revelation as some may fear. At least so long as it doesn't just turn up the "bullet sponge" factor, and really makes the enemies more interesting to fight.

That's actually a pet peeve of mine: When increased difficulty is just a time waster, and doesn't effect the approach the player needs to take in encounters.

 

[Blitzrules240]

I have a $50 dollar gift card.

I'm willing to pay $10ish dollars for this game.

It's gotta be worth at least $10.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Yes, the unskippable cutscenes are a design decision - like is pretty much everything else in every game ever.

The point is that how can anybody defend unskippable cutscenes? I mean, seriously - haven't you guys played Max Payne 3? And if you have and still don't find unskippability of cutscenes annoying...well, I don't know what to say anymore...

I mean, for me this absolutely kills the game. Short, fine. Not anything revolutionary...well, there usually isn't. OK story, fine. But unskippable cutscenes...fuck!

I am a gamer who thinks unskippable cutscenes are a valid decision in some kinds of games and I don't mind them in really any kind of game anyways.

AMA.

 

[Freeman]

He said 9 hours. Where are you getting the extra 5 from? I think 9-10 is really good for this sort of game. There's no reason to exaggerate.

If its a 8-9 hour game on average some people are likely to go beyond 12 or so while other might finish under 6. Just like most TPS it seems, we'll see.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Sounds like the story is garbage, the gameplay is rote and loaded with qtes and the graphics are spectacular.

I really don't care about length as long as its a good 4 hours.

I like to think of games less like movies and more like buying a season of a TV show, so as long as there's 12-20 hours of content I'm happy.

Not sure thats enough to get me to set aside playing old metal gear games, bf4, and majora/monhun and open my wallet.

 

[R&R]

I am a gamer who thinks unskippable cutscenes are a valid decision in some kinds of games and I don't mind them in really any kind of game anyways.

AMA.

Fair enough. For myself it is just something I can't stand.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Fair enough. For myself it is just something I can't stand.

I mean I'll concede that in some games they do seem silly, but they've never actually bothered me. I get up and get a drink or I check my phone for texts. There's always something I can do instead of watching the cutscene if i truly don't want to watch it, so it's not like it's wasting my time. Meh.