Support NeoGAF

[SlasherJPC]

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.

 

[Llyranor]

I prefer shorter games now as well. Quantity over quantity any day! Sure, you can have both, and I'll absolutely enjoy a good longer game. But, more often than not, length will be padded with tedious artificial filler and poorer pacing.

Absolutely depends on the genre, of course. I want my grand strategy games to be a slow burn.

 

[Sagely]

I love a short game from time to time; Brothers was a fantastic experience and felt perfect at 3 hours. The nice thing about a shorter game is that it doesn't outstay its welcome and it's usually a tighter experience, like you say. It is also nice to be able to finish it in a couple of sittings or an afternoon. Give me 6 hours of goodness over 12 hours of spotty quality any day!

I'm still a fan of long games, but I love to change it up with something shorter every now and then - especially since most of the games I play are very long RPGs. It can be intimidating to start something with such a big time commitment.

As for the money argument, I like to compare the price of a game to a movie ticket or similar entertainment experience. I'm happy to pay $20 for 2 hours at the cinema, so that keeps things in perspective.

 

[Messofanego]

Oh man, I remember when Shadow of the Colossus was blasted for its short length and just being considered a boss rush game. Or how the length was brought up as a negative criticism in reviews for Max Payne 2. Vanquish is also short. All three are now considered some of the greatest games.

Here's my take on complaints about game length. And it's usually stuck on full price AAA games. Cause there are plenty of short indie games now that are rightfully praised the hell out of when they pack in a tight and meaningful experience within a few hours. We don't expect great AAA games to be short. We don't expect AAA games to be absolutely amazing and memorable throughout, cause there aren't many that come at a short length. If there was a 2 hour AAA shooter that was an absolutely amazing and memorable experience throughout where the gameplay never outstayed its welcome, I'd buy it for full price. If it was totally satisfying and also happened to be replayable, hell yeah I'd buy it for full price.

If you buy a 4-5 hour AAA game, it's kind of easy to extend that. Either you can try higher difficulties. Or be a virtual tourist who explored everything like me and anyone else who ever took a screenshot or made a GIF and shared it.

But we don't have many great 2 hour full price AAA games. So we consider any AAA game <8 hours to be heinous.

 

[eznark]

If it's good who cares?

 

[Phediuk]

I honestly cannot remember the last time I thought a game was "too short".

I can, however, think of many many times when I thought a game was too long.

 

[kiguel182]

Oh man, I remember when Shadow of the Colossus was blasted for its short length and just being considered a boss rush game. Or how the length was brought up as a negative criticism in reviews for Max Payne 2. Vanquish is also short. All three are now considered some of the greatest games.

Here's my take on complaints about game length. And it's usually stuck on full price AAA games. Cause there are plenty of short indie games now that are rightfully praised the hell out of when they pack in a tight and meaningful experience within a few hours. We don't expect great AAA games to be short. We don't expect AAA games to be absolutely amazing and memorable throughout, cause there aren't many that come at a short length. If there was a 2 hour AAA shooter that was an absolutely amazing and memorable experience throughout where the gameplay never outstayed its welcome, I'd buy it for full price. If it was totally satisfying and also happened to be replayable, hell yeah I'd buy it for full price.

If you buy a 4-5 hour AAA game, it's kind of easy to extend that. Either you can try higher difficulties. Or be a virtual tourist who explored everything like me and anyone else who ever took a screenshot or made a GIF and shared it.

But we don't have many great 2 hour full price AAA games. So we consider any AAA game <8 hours to be heinous.

I think a lot of people would be up for 2 hour AAA games if they didn't cost 60 + dollars. I would embrace it.

But yeah, I love short games and knowing a game is to long deters me from playing since it's most likely I won't finish it.

Shorter but more polished and tighter experiences are no doubt better than bloated ones.

 

[digitalrelic]

When I was 16 I could plop down 1000+ hours on games like Counter-Strike or Everquest or Unreal Tournament. But now, as a homeowner, husband, and father working a full-time job... With VERY few exceptions, I won't finish a game if it's longer than ~15 hours. I beat GTA V because it's a masterpiece, but other than that I can't remember the last time I beat a game that long. This reality really cemented itself when I picked up Dragon Age Inquisition on Day 1, and after two weeks of playing I realized I was only 6 hours in and it would literally take me 6-8 months to beat the game. Traded it in after that realization. I just don't have time for games like that anymore.

 

[ConradCervantes]

The Order: 1886 is fixing to be a short, mediocre game with dazzling eye candy. No amount of spin will change this.

Good OP, tho

 

[tcrunch]

The problem of a short game is the dollars/hour increases dramatically. Obviously this may not apply to an indie game you pick up for $2, but it definitely applies to new AAA releases (aka The Order), so comparing TO1886 with something from the humble bundle is not accurate.

If the game is $60:

50 hour game = $1.2/hour
30 hour game = $2/hour
20 hour game = $3/hour
15 hour game = $4/hour
8 hour game = $7.5/hour
5 hour game = $12/hour

This assumes only one playthrough. Any game you feel compelled to play more than once will further mitigate the cost, but I think it's also true that games like long RPGs command more replay value than short cinematic shooters because not only do they have more content, but frequently more ways to play the game. Some people may argue that shooters are dramatically different at different difficulty levels and that counts as replayability. Since replayability is going to measure differently for everyone, that's a hard metric to factor in here.

In a previous thread someone compared the cost to that of going to a movie. If you take a movie at $8.17 (US average 2014) and the movie is 90 minutes (kid film), it's $5.50/hour. If the movie is a more typical blockbuster broad-audience film, you're probably over 120 minutes, which makes the movie $4/hour. If you live in a place where movies are expensive, even a short game can seem like a bargain by comparison. However, a more accurate look at movies vs. games would factor in the gas it takes to get to the movies, snacks, etc. vs the cost of buying a console or gaming PC and maintaining any services you need to get full playability from your game. This is getting into the fuzzy details, I just wanted to re-mention the movie comparison because I thought it was interesting.

Personally I live near a Hastings so I can just rent short games.

 

[Mendrox]

Sorry I value my money so these games get bought when they are cheaper...

 

[Gears]

I'm just gonna wait for release, take a look at reviews, and either rent it or buy it. Length doesn't determine quality that's for sure. Though I don't get these comparisons to completely different games just to put it in a good light. Vanquish was a damn fine game, but it was also very fast paced and was packed with action. Though if the order is as fast as vanquish that's fine too.

 

[tengiants]

When I was 16 I could plop down 1000+ hours on games like Counter-Strike or Everquest or Unreal Tournament. But now, as a homeowner, husband, and father working a full-time job... With VERY few exceptions, I won't finish a game if it's longer than ~15 hours. I beat GTA V because it's a masterpiece, but other than that I can't remember the last time I beat a game that long. This reality really cemented itself when I picked up Dragon Age Inquisition on Day 1, and after two weeks of playing I realized I was only 6 hours in and it would literally take me 6-8 months to beat the game. Traded it in after that realization. I just don't have time for games like that anymore.

I know what you mean. For the most part I'm the same way, but every once in awhile a game clicks for both my wife and I and we end up putting hundreds of hours into them. Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate and Animal Crossing are the two that come to mind, and it's mostly because they are convenient and can easily take them with us on trips etc...

 

[Choomp]

If it's good who cares?

Way too many people, unfortunately. Sure, length could have some affect on quality of the game, but sometimes it doesn't matter. I also think short games don't get as much appreciation, playing a game in one sitting even is a fun experience.

 

[manueldelalas]

OK, I see people mentioning ICO, SotC, Brothers, and other indie games. Let's put Klonoa, Braid, Thomas Was Alone and a ton of other games in the list too.

What do those games have in common? New gameplay, or new ways of story telling; and generally a cheaper price. They bring experimental things to gaming.

Now what do games like The Order, Ryse, Uncharted 1 and others (a ton of other mediocre pieces of software that are generally forgotten) that are often criticized for length bring new on those departments? The answer is: very little. That's the problem.

$50 or $60 is difficult to justify in those cases.

 

[michalmarek77]

Great game it's a great game despite its lenght.

Spoiler

That was written by someone who always buys CoD's only for single player campaign Day 1 and always think that it was worth the money. Because fun...and production values

 

[Crossing Eden]

OK, I see people mentioning ICO, SotC, Brothers, and other indie games. Let's put Klonoa, Braid, Thomas Was Alone and a ton of other games in the list too.

What do those games have in common? New gameplay, or new ways of story telling; and generally a cheaper price. They bring experimental things to gaming.

Now what do games like The Order, Ryse, Uncharted 1 and others (a ton of other mediocre pieces of software that are generally forgotten) that are often criticized for lenght bring new on those departments? The answer is: very little. That's the problem.

$50 or $60 is difficult to justify in those cases.

Yea this should be taken into account, most of the shorter games people are bringing up as examples weren't $60, and were innovative and/or unique among their peers beyond just the aesthetic. Which is the main reason why they're remembered so fondly.

 

[Chû Totoro]

If it's good who cares?

I keep saying this and a lot of people do too (if not everyone).

Then it's just a decision you have to make if your gaming budget is not that big and if you have to choose between two good games then it can be justified to choose the one that will be enjoyed for a longer time. Or if you don't have a lot of time for gaming like me... I personally have more money to spend on games than time to enjoy them so I focus on the ones I'm sure I'll enjoy.

Games are only too short or too long if they're not that good.

 

[Absoludacrous]

People don't remember games like ICO being short because the gameplay and atmosphere stood out among the rest of the games being offered at the time. The Order is going to come and go, and its short length is only going to make it that much more forgettable.

 

[More_Badass]

OK, I see people mentioning ICO, SotC, Brothers, and other indie games. Let's put Klonoa, Braid, Thomas Was Alone and a ton of other games in the list too.

What do those games have in common? New gameplay, or new ways of story telling; and generally a cheaper price. They bring experimental things to gaming.

Now what do games like The Order, Ryse, Uncharted 1 and others (a ton of other mediocre pieces of software that are generally forgotten) that are often criticized for lenght bring new on those departments? The answer is: very little. That's the problem.

$50 or $60 is difficult to justify in those cases.

1) The Order isn't even out yet
2) Quality over quantity? In The Order's case, perhaps finely tuned satisfying gameplay? You don't have to reinvent the wheel to be a worthwhile experience, just polish that wheel to a mirror sheen.

I always prefer lean games rather than something padded out and stuffed with filler. For one, I rarely finish longer open games, get distracted with other gameplay elements, etc. I never finished GTA V or Skyrim. A focused experince, short and sweet and to the point, is great.

People don't remember games like ICO being short because the gameplay and atmosphere stood out among the rest of the games being offered at the time. The Order is going to come and go, and its short length is only going to make it that much more forgettable.

It isn't even out yet. Maybe wait for reviews at least

 

[Squirrel Killer]

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.

You weren't "wrong" in your view, it's just that your current life situation has changed your personal value calculation. You were right for you then and you are right for you now and you'll be right in the future when it comes. Not that you don't, but always keep that in mind when considering other peoples' personal calculations.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Great game it's a great game despite its lenght.

Spoiler

That was written by someone who always buys CoD's only for single player campaign Day 1 and always think that it was worth the money. Because fun...and production values

I only buy COD games for single player campaign as well so I feel you on that one.

 

[nib95]

OK, I see people mentioning ICO, SotC, Brothers, and other indie games. Let's put Klonoa, Braid, Thomas Was Alone and a ton of other games in the list too.

What do those games have in common? New gameplay, or new ways of story telling; and generally a cheaper price. They bring experimental things to gaming.

Now what do games like The Order, Ryse, Uncharted 1 and others (a ton of other mediocre pieces of software that are generally forgotten) that are often criticized for length bring new on those departments? The answer is: very little. That's the problem.

$50 or $60 is difficult to justify in those cases.

Innovation isn't a requirement of fun. Sometimes all that is required is something solid or well done. I actually really enjoyed Uncharted 1, just as I have many other short games like Metal Gear Solid, Mirror's Edge, Max Payne 1/2, Modern Warfare 2, God of War, ICO, Vanquish etc.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Minor thing but I'm guessing 4-5 hours for Ico is for repeat playthroughs. I remembered it being longer than that and looking it up on howlongtobeat, the average was about 6-7 hours.

It isn't even out yet. Maybe wait for reviews at least

There's a complete walkthrough of the game up on Youtube already.

One day, I'd love to make an RPG that was 3-5 hours long but try to pack in all the quality and replay value I could into that short time.

 

[SlasherJPC]

People don't remember games like ICO being short because the gameplay and atmosphere stood out among the rest of the games being offered at the time. The Order is going to come and go, and its short length is only going to make it that much more forgettable.

Yeah I can't say if The Order will be a forgettable game experience since I haven't played it yet. Time will tell.

 

[Mr. Poolman]

Short games are fine if they are replayable.
Be it for challenge (Limbo) or innovative gameplay (Brothers).

Linear short experiences such as The Order aren't on this categories, so being such a short experience will hurt them on the eyes of many gamers.

 

[Chû Totoro]

Also I have a simple question for people who are asking for more and more length (because it gives them the impression the game is more valuable).

Doesn't your personal time have value too?

I'd rather play a 5 hours excellent game and have 5 hours free time so I can play with my little girl in a parc, watch a TV show with my wife, go playing football with friends and say at the end of the day that this saturday was just fuc*ing awesome.

But, hey... some people like to stay 5 hours a day in front of a f2p game so they can "progress". Some should focus on this (maybe?).

f2p games : the best value you'll ever get !

Spoiler

if your life time doesn't have any

 

[Interfectum]

You weren't "wrong" in your view, it's just that your current life situation has changed your personal value calculation. You were right for you then and you are right for you now and you'll be right in the future when it comes. Not that you don't, but always keep that in mind when considering other peoples' personal calculations.

I think the issue is for every ICO or The Order there are dozens of Dragon Ages, Far Crys, Assassin's Creeds, Open World Crime Game, etc. There is room in the industry for both but, as seen today, some act as if a shorter, full priced game is some abomination that will leave the industry in tatters.

 

[RelentlessRolento]

I feel like these shorter but tighter games have longer legs long term than most longer games.

I think the reason for this is due to importance of depth over length of time.

It's partially why I enjoy fighting games. It's the same scenario from round to round, very short, but so much you can do.

 

[Lunar15]

To me, it matters more if there's a skill element. Stuff like Metal Gear Rising are ridiculously short, but the replay value is there because I can keep getting better.

 

[Fitts]

This is why I love indy titles so much. They're able to realize their vision without being padded experiences because they're (usually) priced appropriately to the quantitive entertainment they provide.

I'm all for having a tight, high-quality experience, but completion time is most definitely a factor when I'm looking at dropping coin on a full price retail release. I purchased The Bouncer on day one. (less than 2 hours to run through a mediocre campaign, about 5 to do absolutely everything) Never again.

 

[theaface]

Two of my most fun recent gaming experiences were Framed and Monument Valley, both of which can be completed inside of one hour. Both fantastic an neither outstayed their welcome.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Minor thing but I'm guessing 4-5 hours for Ico is for repeat playthroughs. I remembered it being longer than that and looking it up on howlongtobeat, the average was about 6-7 hours.

.

I can't remember specifics I just know we def beat it within the 4 to 6 hours. I would play games with various friends so if I got stuck on a puzzle we'd have a second person watching/playing as we took turns. So that might have made us get through it quicker then most. I realize that's not the same for everyone and I bet with how I play games now, I'd spend way more time just gawking at the visuals.

 

[Voliko]

Any arcade game can fall into this category, old school console platformers, most Platinum games etc. These are my favorite kind of games. They are focused, well-thought out, and don't feel like a waste of time.

I'd rather pay for a great short game than a drawn out bad game. I think most single player games are far too long just so a high price can be charged.

 

[Kintaro]

I hope the OP plays The Order, then looks back at this OP when they find out that the unskippable cutscene to gameplay ratio is....way the fuck off compared to all of the other games listed in the OP.

Also, looking back through rose tinted glasses does not invalidate the feelings you had when you first played the game. You felt ripped off by the game's length. You were not wrong. This was your true feeling at that point. $50 of your hard earned money was spent and you did not like the experience. Just because your circumstances are different over a decade later does not invalidate that feeling. Nor does it invalidate people's feelings now. You come off like an old man telling young wipper snappers that they don't know whats what. Or you actually come off worse because there are plenty who share your current lifestyle and will STILL feel the game is a rip off with its short length.

This thread is a weird way to defend The Order when it doesn't need defending.

 

[anddo0]

People don't remember games like ICO being short because the gameplay and atmosphere stood out among the rest of the games being offered at the time. The Order is going to come and go, and its short length is only going to make it that much more forgettable.

Well put.

I have no problem with short games (look at the avatar). I thought Journey was worth it, loved Mirrors Edge. Absolutely nothing wrong with them.

That being said, if your game is short, it had better not being a cookie cutter run of the mill experience. Everything needs to click, any falter in the formula then it's not worth it.

If a game is short, it has to be memorable, and has spark that feeling of "this is something I definitely want to replay for years to come"..

I still have high hopes for The Order... I'm little concerned, especially if the gameplay doesn't hold up. But it's a game I'd like to play/own.

 

[K' Dash]

Hey, I have no problem, just price it accordingly, stuff like Bayonetta, MGSR, Ninja Gaiden is short, but they have A LOT of replay value, I fail to see the same for The Order 1886.

 

[SlasherJPC]

I hope the OP plays The Order, then looks back at this OP when they find out that the unskippable cutscene to gameplay ratio is....way the fuck off compared to all of the other games listed in the OP.

Also, looking back through rose tinted glasses does not invalidate the feelings you had when you first played the game. You felt ripped off by the game's length. You were not wrong. This was your true feeling at that point. $50 of your hard earned money was spent and you did not like the experience. Just because your circumstances are different over a decade later does not invalidate that feeling. Nor does it invalidate people's feelings now. You come off like an old man telling young wipper snappers that they don't know whats what. Or you actually come off worse because there are plenty who share your current lifestyle and will STILL feel the game is a rip off with its short length.

This thread is a weird way to defend The Order when it doesn't need defending.

Your reading way to much into this thread. Lol

 

[GavinUK86]

People don't remember games like ICO being short because the gameplay and atmosphere stood out among the rest of the games being offered at the time. The Order is going to come and go, and its short length is only going to make it that much more forgettable.

And you know this how?

I still laugh at people shitting on Max Payne 3's unskippable cutscenes and lack of gameplay. "You run around shooting for 20 seconds then get a minute cutscene". That game is still one of my all time favourites so I have no issue with The Order being short and having loads of cutscenes. I'll replay it 2, 3 maybe even 4 times so I'll be getting my money's worth. That is, unless the games shit. I really hope it isn't.

 

[Forkball]

There's nothing wrong with short games. The problem is the price. $60 for five hours of entertainment is not very good compared to the alternatives. For $60 you could see six movies, totaling to maybe 12 hours. Not to mention they are six very different experiences as opposed to one. Or you could buy four or more books for that price that could take five to ten hours each to read.

The amount of hoop jumping people are doing because of a corridor cover shooter that is largely cutscenes is bewildering.

 

[entremet]

Hey, I have no problem, just price it accordingly, stuff like Bayonetta, MGSR, Ninja Gaiden is short, but they have A LOT of replay value, I fail to see the same for The Order 1886.

Ninja Gaiden 2004 was pretty long during my first play through. Especially for an action game. It averages at 15 hours on Howlongtobeat.com.

 

[thefatness16]

I enjoy and prefer shorter games too op. I don't mind long games, but I just prefer tighter expierences that come with shorter games.

 

[More_Badass]

Minor thing but I'm guessing 4-5 hours for Ico is for repeat playthroughs. I remembered it being longer than that and looking it up on howlongtobeat, the average was about 6-7 hours.



There's a complete walkthrough of the game up on Youtube already.

One day, I'd love to make an RPG that was 3-5 hours long but try to pack in all the quality and replay value I could into that short time.

Watching a game and actually playing something are completely different experiences. Watching someone play a game for five hours at their pace is not equal in any way to actually sitting down and getting into a game yourself, being in the moment

Seriously? We're using a YouTube walkthrough to say if a game is forgettable or not?

 

[SparkTR]

I'd be surprised if this even approaches the greatness of ICO. I think my main issue is that the game is (likely) both short and looks uninteresting/generic as hell to me (outside of the art style). Those leaked playthroughs really reaffirmed that to me. That's not a combination I'm keep to put money towards.

 

[manueldelalas]

1) The Order isn't even out yet
2) Quality over quantity? In The Order's case, perhaps finely tuned satisfying gameplay? You don't have to reinvent the wheel to be a worthwhile experience, just polish that wheel to a mirror sheen.

I always prefer lean games rather than something padded out and stuffed with filler. For one, I rarely finish longer open games, get distracted with other gameplay elements, etc. I never finished GTA V or Skyrim. A focused experince, short and sweet and to the point, is great.

You are missing the point completely here. EVERYBODY prefers focused experiences and lean games rather than games padded out and stuffed with filler. Nobody likes missions that are the same again and again, nobody likes the triforce quest in Wind Waker, nobody likes chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Bravely Default to be required to finish the game.

That's not the issue here, and you know it.

Yes, The Order is not out yet, but we've seen enough of it to know what the gameplay is like, and in my opinion, the derivative gameplay and short SP only campaign with little replay value (most of it is just padding, collecting useless crap) do not justify a $60 price, and I expect the market to have a similar opinion to mine and the game dropping in price fast.

 

[Tizoc]

ICO has the benefit of replayability, short games with replayability are a perfect combination IMHO.
EDIT: By replayability I mean that the game still would make you go back and re-experience it from the beginning, and you'll still have fun playing it even if you've memorized everything there is to know about the game.

 

[Aru]

Yes, I tend to love shorter games more than before. But what I hate more and more is filler. Quite a lot of (J)RPGs have a huge filler part. I like to experience a story enhanced by its gameplay.
For RPGs, 25 hours is a good length to me. Depends on the game, but it's enough. Dragon Quest VIII is an example of a game with a lot of filler I would have enjoyed more if it was 50% shorter (main quest only). As long as the filler stuff is optional, I don't care. When it becomes part of the main quest, it annoys me.

Majora's Mask is also an example of what I don't want to play anymore: a game based on (fetch) quests to progress. I love Zelda dungeons and in other games you just had to find out how to access said dungeons, with sometimes a few objectives to clear beforehand, but not so many quests that add next to nothing to the game.

 

[maxcriden]

tcrunch's post above really hits the nail on the head for me. I simply do not want to pay full MSRP ($60) for a game that offers a main campaign of fewer than ten or so hours of gameplay. I think the last time I did this was Luigi's Mansion, which I want to say was $50? at the launch of GCN. It offered a disappointing 6-8 hours to complete the game with minimal replay value of significant interest. I don't think I've purchased a $50+ game since then with such a short main game on offer. When games like DK:TF and 3DW offer dozens of hours of entertainment to really complete, I just can't justify it to myself very easily.

Fake edit: I looked it up and LM was indeed $50 at launch.

 

[More_Badass]

There's nothing wrong with short games. The problem is the price. $60 for five hours of entertainment is not very good compared to the alternatives. For $60 you could see six movies, totaling to maybe 12 hours. Not to mention they are six very different experiences as opposed to one. Or you could buy four or more books for that price that could take five to ten hours each to read.

The amount of hoop jumping people are doing because of a corridor cover shooter that is largely cutscenes is bewildering.

Replay value. A good 5-hour game, I could replay four, five times, re-play my favorite moments. Like a good movie, it's something you can enjoy multiple times and still enjoy.

Replay value doesn't always mean new game plus, arcade modes, and whatnot. Something it comes down to a memorable experience you want to play again and again. Brothers, Limbo, Journey, Portal 2, etc

Replay value is not always some concrete quantifiable thing you can rate on a scale or list in bullet points, but instead comes down to personal preference and enjoyment.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

ICO has the benefit of replayability, short games with replayability are a perfect combination IMHO.

Yep, shmup's are usually really short but you can constantly replay them.

Games where it is about skill helps out because you will constantly get better. It is a sense of achievement. Not a fake achievement like kill 300 guys to unlock an upgrade.

I don't want to pay $60 for a game that is like 6 hours long and no replay value. That's a rental or pick it up for like $10 later on down the line.