• 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

DarkLordMalik

Member
Aug 15, 2010
12,060
1
0
twitter.com
Edit: To be clear, he talks about the rumors regarding the game being 3-5 hours before the YouTube video went online. So he is not talking about the video that was made available online, rather the rumors/claims of the game being shorter than 5 hours.

Eurogamer interview Ru Weerasuriya and since these comments were officially new, and offer an insight on what RAD think about the length of their game, I think this warrants its own thread.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-16-ready-at-dawn-responds-to-concern-over-the-order-1886s-campaign-length?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialoomph

A lot more at the link.

Last week I had a chat with Ru Weerasuriya, founder, CEO and creative director of Ready at Dawn, to discuss The Order's length after a previous report indicated it could be completed in just a few hours.

"I know there are numbers out there," he said. "I know why the question comes up. I know numbers have been put out there that are actually not right. It's impossible to finish the game in that time, so we know the numbers are wrong.

"At the end of the day, we're not going to comment on it. We can't stop people from writing the things they do. And we're not going to jump at every single mistake that is made out there. Every time somebody has the wrong impression of something we made, or somebody writes the wrong thing about what we did, it would be a full-time job to be like, oh no, that's not right. We make games. We do what we do for the players. And, ultimately, that's where I want to leave it."

While Weerasuriya denied The Order, which leans heavily on interactive cutscenes and quick-time events as it blends third-person shooting, exploration and puzzle-solving with in-engine cinematics, can be completed in just a few hours, it is clear the game won't be considered long by anyone's standards.

But how long, exactly, had Ready at Dawn's tests shown The Order to be? Weerasuriya wouldn't reveal the average playthrough time, but he was willing to enter into the debate about it.

"Game length is important," he said. "Every game has to take its own time to tell its story. Some games can be short. Some games can be long. I still remember the first time I picked up Modern Warfare, I finished the campaign in about three-and-a-half or four hours. And it was fun because they made that campaign work for that because they had something else.

"Any of these games need to pack in what it needs to to deliver the experience you were hoping to deliver when you first tackled it. For us that meant, it's not going to be a short game, it's going to be something that rewards you as you play through, that there is a storyline, that you have information there, and then also it opens the door to a lot of questions you might be able to answer either by what you find in the game, or hopefully by what you will find out in the future.

"Our industry is diverse enough that we need different games. We have to allow for different genres and single-player games like we do, multiplayer games, co-op games, social games, whatever it is."
About the price versus length debate
Weerasuriya said he understood concern about The Order's value as a full-priced game, but hoped Ready at Dawn's quality over quantity approach would satisfy players.

"I absolutely understand," he said. "To tell you the truth, that's something we always keep in our heads. We know people want to be entertained and have things they can play longer. But the industry has always had diversity. You go back 10 years, there were a lot of games that were just single-player, one time play. There were some games that were single-player and you could jump back in and get more. That's what we did in our game. You can jump back and get other things out of it.


"Do we all need to do the same thing? I hope people who do like these kind of games, do play them. But I also want to be in an industry where me as a gamer, I'm given the choice to do that. I've played games that lasted two hours that were better than games that I played for 16 hours. That's the reality of it.

"I've had many more experiences of very short games that have floored me, that have left me dreaming of the things I could do after, more than the games that have lasted 15, 16, 20 or 30 hours, where I've just been like, okay, I played it through and I got what I wanted, but I didn't get more than what I was expecting. Sometimes I want to be floored, even if it's for a short amount of time.

"Gameplay length for me is so relative to quality. It's just like a movie. Just because a movie is three hours long, it doesn't make it better."
 

NuKERxyz

Member
Mar 3, 2013
715
0
0
Portugal
jogos.zwame.pt
"I know there are numbers out there," he said. "I know why the question comes up. I know numbers have been put out there that are actually not right. It's impossible to finish the game in that time, so we know the numbers are wrong.

"At the end of the day, we're not going to comment on it."

Well, you already did!!

Its almost here so let me enjoy it myself, just hope the actual gameplay stands out in this whole "cinematic experience".
 

CozMick

Banned
Sep 28, 2009
6,347
0
0
S-O-T
That answered nothing.

Damage control?

Also, the Modern Warfare comparison doesn't count as it had multiplayer.

still gonna love the shit out of this game
 

Savantcore

Unconfirmed Member
Nov 8, 2013
3,417
1
0
That answered nothing.

Damage control?

Also, the Modern Warfare comparison doesn't count as it had multiplayer.
That's entirely not the point he was making. He's saying that three and a half hours worked for Modern Warfare's singleplayer campaign.
 

Bornstellar

Member
Jan 18, 2012
7,361
0
0
I know numbers have been put out there that are actually not right. It's impossible to finish the game in that time, so we know the numbers are wrong.
This is a straight up lie. Quality of experience aside, I just watched the thing beginning to end in 5 and a half hours, dude playing died plenty and spent his time too.
 

Pankratous

Member
Nov 12, 2013
7,222
11
450
That answered nothing.

Damage control?

Also, the Modern Warfare comparison doesn't count as it had multiplayer.

still gonna love the shit out of this game
If you don't understand the MW comparison then your reading comprehension is terrible.
 

Wasteman

Banned
Jan 10, 2014
240
0
0
That's entirely not the point he was making. He's saying that three and a half hours worked for Modern Warfare's singleplayer campaign.
Yeah but Modern Warfare doesnt just charge £50 for the single campaign. I'm not trying to say I think the Order is too short but it's a terrible comparison, considering COD is one of the biggest multiplayer games out there.
 

JayEH

Junior Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,542
0
0
Hard to believe him when he says the hour counts are wrong when there are multiple accounts of people beating the game anywhere from 5-10 hours.
 

funkypie

Banned
Nov 17, 2013
3,245
0
0
But isn't there a video showing the games length? That is different that someone writing about it lol.
 

matrix-cat

Member
Jan 9, 2009
10,072
1
0
When you have a guy who uploaded an entire playthrough, and said upload is five-and-a-half hours long, I guess there's not really much you can say. We're in Heavenly Sword territory here.
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,718
1
0
Straight up lie. Quality of experience aside, I just watched the thing beginning to end in 5 and a half hours, dude playing died plenty and spent his time too.
I think he means pre-release "a few hours" accusations. This interview happened a week ago, I think.
 

CozMick

Banned
Sep 28, 2009
6,347
0
0
S-O-T
If you don't understand the MW comparison then your reading comprehension is terrible.
He was claiming the story that the developer was trying to portray lasted 3hrs, anything else would be filler, still doesnt hide the fact that the entire story of CoD is filler.
 

Marvel

could never
Jul 5, 2013
29,883
31
540
England
www.youtube.com
Was it? I'm not really invested in this, as my expectations weren't high in the first place, but this doesn't seem like a great response. This seems like it would've been better had they acted on what they're saying here and just said nothing at all.
"We can't stop people from writing the things they do. And we're not going to jump at every single mistake that is made out there. Every time somebody has the wrong impression of something we made, or somebody writes the wrong thing about what we did, it would be a full-time job to be like, oh no, that's not right. We make games. We do what we do for the players. And, ultimately, that's where I want to leave it."

"Our industry is diverse enough that we need different games. We have to allow for different genres and single-player games like we do, multiplayer games, co-op games, social games, whatever it is
."
These two in particular were for me, yeah.
 

Pankratous

Member
Nov 12, 2013
7,222
11
450
When you have a guy who uploaded an entire playthrough, and said upload is five-and-a-half hours long, I guess there's not really much you can say. We're in Heavenly Sword territory here.
If The Order is anywhere near as good as Heavenly Sword I'll be real happy.
 

mjp2417

Member
Jan 12, 2012
3,095
0
410
Straight up lie. Quality of experience aside, I just watched the thing beginning to end in 5 and a half hours, dude playing died plenty and spent his time too.
He's actually not referring to the Youtube playthrough in that quote. There was a rumor circulating earlier that it could be finished in like 2 or 3 hours which is theoretically impossible with this game for fairly obvious reasons.

edit:beaten
 

Skux

Member
Aug 28, 2014
9,904
8
430
Ico
Vanquish
Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
Metal Gear Solid
God of War

All full price, single player only games. All "short". All great.
 

Ramenman

Member
Apr 4, 2007
7,136
0
0
As always I think there's no harm as long as everyone knows what they're buying for which price.

You know you're paying 60$ for a short game, I you feel like it then it's okay.
If you don't, then don't buy it. There's nothing to be outraged about.

I'm not really interested in the game so I certainly won't buy it full price if at all, but I'm sure some people will.

To take another example, retro-actively, I would have paid 60$ for the 5 hours game that was Mirror's Edge, because I still replay those 5 hours once a year because that's how much I love them.

And if Mirror's Edge 2 is also 5 hours long, I'll still pay full price for it day one.
 

yoplay

Member
Oct 18, 2014
362
0
0
NY
Why would you watch a whole play through of the game on youtube? I can maybe understand if you peeked for a bit, but the whole game? Those who do so really had no intention on being the game in the first place. Then they will show up on these threads and complain about the game. I just don't get it.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
17,285
4,375
1,410
"Our industry is diverse enough that we need different games. We have to allow for different genres and single-player games like we do, multiplayer games, co-op games, social games, whatever it is."
This is key for me.

I can't understand why suddenly so many people seem to want every game to do everything. More often than not, if a game does everything it becomes a diluted experience, the final product lacks focus. Yes all of those things can add to the perceived value of a product but what about the quality of your minute to minute experience with the game?

Value perception and value realisation are 2 entirely different things.

I personally value my down time enough to say that I would rather spend 5-10 hours with a quality product that I enjoy every minute of rather than spend 20-30 hours slogging through a game that lacks focus/quality and has been artificially prolonged.
 

Dazza

Member
Dec 10, 2014
1,129
0
0
He was claiming the story that the developer was trying to portray lasted 3hrs, anything else would be filler, still doesnt hide the fact that the entire story of CoD is filler.
Would it surprise you that I know quite a few people that are huge fans of CoD but have only ever played the single player.
 

Stimpack

Member
Aug 14, 2012
3,611
0
410
What a ridiculous question!
The fact that they refuse to tell us roughly how long the game is says it all really. The game is gonna be short. I'm expecting about 7 hours with no extras.
But it's like a movie, a 3 hour movie isn't better just because it's 3 hours. He's played 12 hour games that were worse experiences. Don't you understand, the length of a game is supposed to mean nothing to you. How dare you act as if it matters. Now let's throw out of completely exacerbated numbers and compare Call of Duty's single player campaigns to The Order's. I cannot believe the amount of BS some people are throwing around in defense of gameplay length. Of course there are better games with shorter playtimes, but that doesn't automatically make it alright to charge $60 for a one session playthrough. The whole situation is rather aggravating, because it's just so idiotic.
 
Apr 25, 2011
3,791
0
0
You know, I hesitate to make a comparison to movies considering a cinema ticket costs the same regardless of whether it is a huge hollywood blockbuster or an indie movie that was kickstarted...

But, wouldn't you feel cheated if you went to see some hyped up blockbuster, paid your usual ticket price and it was all over in an hour? I mean, the relevant part is that customers have certain expectations of value. And it's natural to feel misled when developers imply that their huge new game isn't short when we have photographic evidence a leisurely play through only takes 5.5 hours.
 

Pop

Member
Nov 20, 2011
7,679
0
0
Texas
Why would you watch a whole play through of the game on youtube? I can maybe understand if you peeked for a bit, but the whole game? Those who do so really had no intention on being the game in the first place. Then they will show up on these threads and complain about the game. I just don't get it.
They gotta fuel the fire.
 

Alienous

Member
Jan 20, 2013
35,718
1
0
This is key for me.

I can't understand why suddenly so many people seem to want every game to do everything. More often than not, if a game does everything it becomes a diluted experience, the final product lacks focus. Yes all of those things can add to the perceived value of a product but what about the quality of your minute to minute experience with the game?

Value perception and value realisation are 2 entirely different things.

I personally value my down time enough to say that I would rather spend 5-10 hours with a quality product that I enjoy every minute of rather than spend 20-30 hours slogging through a game that has been artificially prolonged.
I don't think that's a problem if you have price diversity also.
 

Stimpack

Member
Aug 14, 2012
3,611
0
410
What a ridiculous question!
These two in particular were for me, yeah.
I mean, I don't know, when people start paying $60 for social games, I guess we'll have bigger fish to fry. The comment about not commenting on every ridiculous claim is one thing, but if there's a serious issue with the length of the game, then this sounds like more of a deflection.

But, at the end of the day, it just means that The Order truly is more of a rental... at least in the eyes of most consumers. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that.
 

GeordieMark

Member
Dec 10, 2013
6,565
2
375
I'm with him on the argument that a game doesn't need to be long to be good. If a game provides a really focussed experience over 5 hours, I'd find that preferable to a game that is needlessly long. Ubisoft games are packed full of content which makes them take many hours to fully 'complete', but most of that content is pointless filler.

The only issue I'd have with the MW comparison is that MW is 5 hours of pretty much uninterrupted gameplay. From what I have seen and heard of The Order, it seems a large chunk of the game are cut-scenes. I appreciate that it is being marketed as a 'cinematic experience', but I can also appreciate why a lot of people would be put -off at the idea of paying full price for a 5 hours long game, where a large percentage of that are cut-scenes.
 

iceatcs

Junior Member
Jul 9, 2007
10,615
0
980
London
I have finish all last gen Call of Duty 100% SPs about a hour and half.
No MP, therefore must should about 4 to 6 times large SP than COD. Then 10-15 hours for 100% is just about enough for no online features.

Bit reasonable, but still little less for value, I would buy it $40 to 50.

Thanks god it isn't 100 hours, I won't able play it, got a life to do.
 
May 21, 2014
2,199
0
0
I don't think that's a problem if you have price diversity also.
Pretty much. If The Order were $40 or something I'd feel no compunctions about buying it. But $60 for 6 hours is just too much. And from the lay of the comments it seems like the only way you're getting 10 hours out of this game is if you spend 4-5 hours lingering in corners looking at the beautiful scenery over the course of your playthrough.
 

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
Nov 1, 2009
27,317
0
0
I don't see why there is such a fuss, this type of corridor shooting game is always 6-8 hours long.

When it comes to these mediocre 'cinematic' games just wait a month and buy it for half price.
 

OrangeYouGlad

Banned
May 9, 2009
4,184
0
0
They're probably going to regret that "it's impossible" thing.
They shouldn't. People aren't reading the actual interview, which was done a week ago, and assuming he's referring to the YouTube walk through posted this weekend.