SlasherJPC
Banned
So The Order 1886 is bringing up the topic of hours of gamplay versus value once again. Seeing as someone on youtube was able to play through it before release, on easy (though some reports on this are conflicting between normal and easy) and coming in at a whopping 5 hours and some change. Gaming sites are bound with claims that the Order 1886 is only 5 hours. This is causing the internet and social media to storm, and even fellow gaffers to get into the ongoing argument of time vs value vs perceived enjoyment. It's sad to see people fight over this perceived value but I'm here to explain my more personal side of the story on this topic and also why I thought the very same way at time. Now I've not yet played The Order 1886 nor am I in here to tell anyone what to spend their money on. Simply sharing my story and reasoning for my thoughts on this very topic.
First off. The stigma that a game isn't worth your money because of it's length is the biggest concern folks seem to have. Though depending on who you ask, this is truly a pro or a con and seems to be a case by case basis. I don't think a games length ultimately determines if a game is good or bad. A game can be 5 hours and still be a fantastic experience for a lot of players. There is a laundry list of some games that offer shorter and tighter experiences then an open world game. Metal Gear Rising, Resident Evil, God of War, and more. Sony themselves have already had a similar experience with a title back on PS2. That game was called ICO.
ICO can be finished in around 4-5 hours. It's a beautiful, haunting game that really lends most of its time to having you solve puzzles and escape a daunting castle with your new friend. It's very bare minimum on story or exposition, yet offers a game most consider timeless or classic and lead the way for Shadows of the Colossus. Now I bring up ICO as the biggest example to tie into my thread title because when ICO was released, my life was in an extremely different period. In 2001 I was 18 years old, working a almost full time job at Gamestop and going to school. I bought ICO, I completed it in one sitting, and I sat there thinking to myself. "Holy crap, I just spent 50 dollars on a game that lasted me only around the length of two feature films. " I was in shock how short it was, I was disappointed I had spent my money on it and I later traded it in to continue funding my gaming hobby. I was a a young adult with lots of time on my hands, and when a game was 5-6 hours, I almost always never wanted to support or purchase that game at launch. I almost can't believe I used to think that way looking back.
Now we fast forward to 2015. It feels like years in the making for my new mentality.Now I'm 32, married, have a career, and a little girl. I can't tell you enough how wrong I was as a young adult to view length of gameplay as a perceived gauge of value. Also ICO is one of my all time favorite games and I'm able to experience it quite often because it's not a 20 + hour long RPG or experience. I try to keep up with the gaming world because it's ultimately a passion and a hobby. I've be focused around video games all my life growing up, had a decent go at the youtube world for 8 years, and now I write reviews for a website and spend my time on GAF to keep informed. Finding time to play games can become a bit of a hassle if anyone can relate. While I love multiple genres, the biggest one to take a hit is role playing games or open world titles. I'm currently still working my way through Dragon Age Inquisition, barely nicked Far Cry 4, almost done with Dying Light, and the list goes on and on and most of these games are anywhere from 20+ hours long. It's not that I don't enjoy these games, but sometimes it's extremely hard to see one to completion because of how long they are. Does not getting to the end of the game make it a waste for me though? Not at all, as long as the time I have on that game, whether it's 5, 8, 10, 20, hours. If it's fun, enjoyable, and if I can say I had a good time, seeing the ending is irrelevant and was worth my purchase. It is indeed satisfying to be able to finish one and see it through. Which is another reason shorter games offer sometimes a bit more satisfaction (even if only a smudge more) then the longer, unfinished ones.
Which leads me back to The Order 1886. If the game is indeed 5-6 hours long. If the game resonates with me well enough, I don't see the problem. Especially with the insane amount of details that RAD has done to create their game. I'm ok with this. Now granted, I could play the game and truly dislike the story, or campaign and seeing as that's all the game offers, it could be considered a pretty big risk. Granted, thanks to impressions from fellow gaffers who have already played the game and told me their experience was more along the lines of 8 - 12 hours. I sit easier with my pre-order. Though it's still truly not about the time. The impressions they have given us all, along with the games setting and the idea of a cinematic third person shooter (which RAD has always pushed their game as) I feel that The Order 1886 is going to be another game I add to my collection and will hopefully enjoy time and time again over the years and will most likely get replayed more often due to it's shorter duration then the long games sitting in my collection.
As of right now in my life and my situation, I appreciate shorter games and quite frankly wish their were more shorter yet amazing titles. (Indie games have some amazing titles that fit this) Who knows, maybe when my kid grown, out of the house and I'm older and retired, I'll go back to wanting games that are much longer to keep me busy. Yet regardless, I can kick in ICO or any other list of shorter, yet awesome games, see it to the end, and then put it back on my shelf until next time. Hopefully others can read this and understand where everyone is coming from when it comes to their own perceived value for video games and stop the arguing. So when I think back on how my perceived sense of worth and time was back as a young adult versus now. I did the exact thing some folks still due today. Regardless of whatever personal reasons you may have for viewing the value of a $60 dollar game and the time it offers. We're all different. Our lives are all different and in that sense shape what we do and who we are and that perceived value. I can totally respect the reasons for why someone might not want to spend $60 dollars on a short game because I've been that very person and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just as I can understand better then ever before why a shorter, excellent experience can be just as full filling.
First off. The stigma that a game isn't worth your money because of it's length is the biggest concern folks seem to have. Though depending on who you ask, this is truly a pro or a con and seems to be a case by case basis. I don't think a games length ultimately determines if a game is good or bad. A game can be 5 hours and still be a fantastic experience for a lot of players. There is a laundry list of some games that offer shorter and tighter experiences then an open world game. Metal Gear Rising, Resident Evil, God of War, and more. Sony themselves have already had a similar experience with a title back on PS2. That game was called ICO.
ICO can be finished in around 4-5 hours. It's a beautiful, haunting game that really lends most of its time to having you solve puzzles and escape a daunting castle with your new friend. It's very bare minimum on story or exposition, yet offers a game most consider timeless or classic and lead the way for Shadows of the Colossus. Now I bring up ICO as the biggest example to tie into my thread title because when ICO was released, my life was in an extremely different period. In 2001 I was 18 years old, working a almost full time job at Gamestop and going to school. I bought ICO, I completed it in one sitting, and I sat there thinking to myself. "Holy crap, I just spent 50 dollars on a game that lasted me only around the length of two feature films. " I was in shock how short it was, I was disappointed I had spent my money on it and I later traded it in to continue funding my gaming hobby. I was a a young adult with lots of time on my hands, and when a game was 5-6 hours, I almost always never wanted to support or purchase that game at launch. I almost can't believe I used to think that way looking back.
Now we fast forward to 2015. It feels like years in the making for my new mentality.Now I'm 32, married, have a career, and a little girl. I can't tell you enough how wrong I was as a young adult to view length of gameplay as a perceived gauge of value. Also ICO is one of my all time favorite games and I'm able to experience it quite often because it's not a 20 + hour long RPG or experience. I try to keep up with the gaming world because it's ultimately a passion and a hobby. I've be focused around video games all my life growing up, had a decent go at the youtube world for 8 years, and now I write reviews for a website and spend my time on GAF to keep informed. Finding time to play games can become a bit of a hassle if anyone can relate. While I love multiple genres, the biggest one to take a hit is role playing games or open world titles. I'm currently still working my way through Dragon Age Inquisition, barely nicked Far Cry 4, almost done with Dying Light, and the list goes on and on and most of these games are anywhere from 20+ hours long. It's not that I don't enjoy these games, but sometimes it's extremely hard to see one to completion because of how long they are. Does not getting to the end of the game make it a waste for me though? Not at all, as long as the time I have on that game, whether it's 5, 8, 10, 20, hours. If it's fun, enjoyable, and if I can say I had a good time, seeing the ending is irrelevant and was worth my purchase. It is indeed satisfying to be able to finish one and see it through. Which is another reason shorter games offer sometimes a bit more satisfaction (even if only a smudge more) then the longer, unfinished ones.
Which leads me back to The Order 1886. If the game is indeed 5-6 hours long. If the game resonates with me well enough, I don't see the problem. Especially with the insane amount of details that RAD has done to create their game. I'm ok with this. Now granted, I could play the game and truly dislike the story, or campaign and seeing as that's all the game offers, it could be considered a pretty big risk. Granted, thanks to impressions from fellow gaffers who have already played the game and told me their experience was more along the lines of 8 - 12 hours. I sit easier with my pre-order. Though it's still truly not about the time. The impressions they have given us all, along with the games setting and the idea of a cinematic third person shooter (which RAD has always pushed their game as) I feel that The Order 1886 is going to be another game I add to my collection and will hopefully enjoy time and time again over the years and will most likely get replayed more often due to it's shorter duration then the long games sitting in my collection.
As of right now in my life and my situation, I appreciate shorter games and quite frankly wish their were more shorter yet amazing titles. (Indie games have some amazing titles that fit this) Who knows, maybe when my kid grown, out of the house and I'm older and retired, I'll go back to wanting games that are much longer to keep me busy. Yet regardless, I can kick in ICO or any other list of shorter, yet awesome games, see it to the end, and then put it back on my shelf until next time. Hopefully others can read this and understand where everyone is coming from when it comes to their own perceived value for video games and stop the arguing. So when I think back on how my perceived sense of worth and time was back as a young adult versus now. I did the exact thing some folks still due today. Regardless of whatever personal reasons you may have for viewing the value of a $60 dollar game and the time it offers. We're all different. Our lives are all different and in that sense shape what we do and who we are and that perceived value. I can totally respect the reasons for why someone might not want to spend $60 dollars on a short game because I've been that very person and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Just as I can understand better then ever before why a shorter, excellent experience can be just as full filling.