Support NeoGAF

[Tizoc]

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.

A much better example would be the Resident Evil games Even if you know the fastet route to beat the game you can still enjoy re-experiencing it time and again. With RE2 in particular offering you 4 ways to play the game at least.

 

[Kintaro]

Your reading way to much into this thread. Lol

Ah, so it was just another thread about The Order. Gotcha.

 

[SlasherJPC]

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.

Yeah this is more how I perceive my single player games. Games like Alan Wake, The Evil Within, Resident Evil. I play them again yo experience the world, setting, and story they provide.Not to gain a new high score, beat new game plus, etc. Much like a movie I watch over and over. Truth be told, I rewatch shorter movies rather then longer ones. It can apply there as well.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

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.

Yeah, pretty much this exactly.

 

[Sagely]

Agreed that full-price is difficult to justify for a very short game (and by that I mean something like Brothers, which can really only be played once). I was only too happy to pay $60 apiece for Platinum games which technically are short in terms of a single playthrough but offer days and days of replayability.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Ah, so it was just another thread about The Order. Gotcha.

Ah, so it was just another shit post. Gotcha.

 

[antti-la]

Gaming is a medium where most of us are expecting something big. On many minds this something big corresponds to length. No matter how well crafted the story, graphic details, how tight the game-play is - if you're paying 60 bucks for something, you better be able to enjoy it on many nights. And yes it sounds bad when it's only "5 to 6 hours long" but that doesn't tell anything about the experience overall. I think many people are actually satisfied after playing and finishing one of these short experiences, whether they realize it or not... It's just the idea of buying something full priced versus the promised length, which makes us grin so badly.

Developers of modern AAA games hate this, and thus are too afraid to ship the game like that. Game gets stuffed with couple of mediocre levels and needles time consuming tasks to do, which even might get noted in reviews - but hey, it's still a lot safer than being called short.

Yeah, I'm all in for 4-6 hours games if that means that the game is an awesome ride on every other aspect.

For example, Bioshock Infinite and Alan Wake could have ranked much better in my books if they were a tad shorter (the latter one especially).

And for example from the top of my head, COD:MW, Singularity and Portal games were just awesomely complementary experiences, even though they fall to the "short" category.

 

[charsace]

The game isn't out yet and people are already defending the supposedly short length.

 

[LifeLike]

Enjoyed Metal Gear Rising A LOT and don't get me wrong but there are Speedruns under one hour.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

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?

I was responding to someone who said "It isn't even out yet. Maybe wait for reviews at least." Yes, playing a game will tell you a lot more than watching it, but watching a complete playthrough will tell you more about a game than reading any review will.

 

[More_Badass]

The game isn't out yet and people are already defending the supposedly short length.

Goes the opposite way too. People are already criticizing it without having played it

And again, watching a walkthrough on YouTube is not the same as playing a game, being in the moment and getting into the experience. At least, IMO. A game like Singularity came across as a generic Bioshock ripoff in trailers and gameplay, and yet it's often praised here as an underrated gem

 

[-tetsuo-]

This thread kind of reminds me of the offhand thread I made to defend Too Human before it came out. Perhaps I can bump it when The Order comes out.

 

[codhand]

that experience, so tight.

 

[hodgy100]

The reason why sonic games from SA1 onwards have shitty alternate gameplay is mainly to pad out the game to make them longer :/

 

[anddo0]

Enjoyed Metal Gear Rising A LOT and don't get me wrong but there are Speedruns under one hour.

Much like Vanquish, and other similar games. MGSR begs to be replayed.
That alone makes it worth full price.

I'm not sure what The Order offers in regards to that.
But unskippable cut-scenes, really?

 

[Tizoc]

The reason why sonic games from SA1 onwards have shitty alternate gameplay is mainly to pad out the game to make them longer :/

This is a criticism I share, however Sonic Generation at least was $30 on PC and was worth it for its length.
Sonic Unleashed and Colors were OK too though.

 

[entremet]

Enjoyed Metal Gear Rising A LOT and don't get me wrong but there are Speedruns under one hour.

MGR was developed under fire to save a failed in house Konami project.

That's why it was so short. The additional difficulties is where the game shines.

 

[nib95]

This thread kind of reminds me of the offhand thread I made to defend Too Human before it came out. Perhaps I can bump it when The Order comes out.

If the current Order 1886 impressions from GAFers are anything to go by, I don't think there will be too much disappointment, at least for those that know the kind of game this is, and generally enjoy linear, story driven TPS experiences.

The game being too short hasn't really been a complaint outside of those who've never played it, commenting on YT video's either.

 

[KKRT00]

I dont think longevity of main story or full playthrough was generally a problem in the past, the replayability or playability of such titles however was.

Just look at Max Payne 1 vs The Order 1886.
Max Payne is at most 5h game, but it has like max 15-20m of cutscenes and has excellent gameplay where You need to conserve resources, be careful and has really good difficulty setting, it also has also tons of interactivity and secrets.
Its great game for speed running, trying new things in gameplay [loads of variety in weapons] and really high skill ceiling on hardest mode.
The Order 1886 is 6h game, but almost half of it are cutscenes, and next 20% are QTE or sections with very limited interactions. And even if the proper gameplay was excellent, You cant skip QTE interactions and QTE battles or even cutscenes, which make game really hard for many to replay.

 

[-tetsuo-]

If the current Order 1886 impressions from GAFers are anything to go by, I don't think there will be too much disappointment, at least for those that know the kind of game this is, and generally enjoy linear, story driven TPS experiences.

The game being too short hasn't really been a complaint outside of those who've never played it, commenting on YT video's either.

But will it be better than Too Human?

 

[Webhead]

I have no problems with a short game. I can be fully entertained buy watching a 2 hour movie or ready a six hour book. The problem comes when a short game offer nothing new in terms of gameplay. Right now, The Order looks like a very generic cover based third person QTE shooter. I hope I am wrong but from what I can tell, it looks like The Order's main goal is to look pretty. If that's the case, I do have an issue with the length. If that's not the case and the gameplay is exciting/innovative than the length is no issue at all.

 

[SlasherJPC]

But will it be better than Too Human?

Should make a thread about it.

 

[shandy706]

My thoughts:

A game being short doesn't make it good.

A game being short doesn't make it bad.

A game being long doesn't make it good.

A game being long doesn't make it bad.

None of the above guarantee a "tight, fun, or focused gameplay experience".

All of the above CAN have a "tight, fun, or focused gameplay experience".

I enjoyed Ryse.

I absolutely love Costume Quest 1/2.

I enjoy games like Skyrim and Fallout where I can pour 60-120 hours into them.

A great game-play experience can come in a large, medium, or small package.

Complaints about length are completely legitimate (both ways). Why? Personal preferences.

I don't like "long" games that rely on me having to party up or that I can not save in at any point. <---- That's my personal dislike...and it has to do with my time and not having much to play games. Games like Skyrim do not fall in this category, because I can save at any point. Therefore, not having much time to game, does not eliminate broader/larger games for me.

 

[nib95]

But will it be better than Too Human?

Most probably. But who knows lol. Plus better is subjective anyway. No doubt there are those that dislike cinematic TPS experiences, just as there are those that dislike hack and slash action RPG's.

 

[georly]

I totally appreciate short story-based games. I rarely have the time to play a long 50+ hour rpg because i can usually only play 4-5 hours a week, so I often forget what was going on in the story. I can basically beat one a year. Last year was xenoblade, the year before that was ni no kuni. This year xenoblade X, next year will be FFXV. So I really enjoy the 3-8 hour games now, because i can actually beat them in a week.

If I want a game to last, I get stuff like smash bros or monster hunter. Stuff where the story doesn't matter, so I can pick up and play it any time. I used to care about long games, but I no longer do.

That said, I still have a hard time stomaching 60 bucks for a 5-10 hour game. I usually wait for a sale for that.

 

[Messofanego]

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.

Jazzpunk
Mark of the Ninja
Proteus
The Fall
Lifeless Planet
Never Alone
Journey
Papo and Yo
The Path
Grow Home
Papers Please
Ether One
Neverending Nightmares

Yeah, short 2-4 hour $50-60 games are just not as memorable as those...yet.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Should make a thread about it.

Oh shit I am definitively doing this.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Jazzpunk
Mark of the Ninja
Proteus
The Fall
Lifeless Planet
Never Alone
Journey
Papo and Yo
The Path
Grow Home
Papers Please
Ether One
Neverending Nightmares

Yeah, short $50-60 games are just not as memorable as those.

Yes I agree and really wish people would stop equating these games with a game that is $60.

 

[Jito]

I agree OP, I'm looking forward to a tight, directed and cinematic story experience from The Order over all these long open world games I've been playing lately. I've been playing Far Cry 4, Destiny, Dying Light, Unity since the end of last year, all long slogs through boring stories with so much padding. It doesn't hurt to have an awesome and short story experience for once.

 

[RM8]

I love short, replayable games since I'm more of an arcade-y gamer. I can put hundreds of hours on a fighting game or Mario Kart, but not in a never-ending RPG. Short AAA games, though, are usually the opposite experience of a gameplay-focused arcade game.

EDIT: Uh, if this thread is about The Order, I really have no opinion about it since it's not my kind of game. If a big chunk of it consists of QTEs and un-skippable cut-scenes, then yeah, I can see why people aren't thrilled.

 

[Seanspeed]

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.

I really think you're being silly condemning the game already, before even playing it, or before its even out in the wild. No, you have *not* seen enough of the game to make a judgement on how the gameplay is, nor do you realize that replay value is a subjective matter and people replay games for all sorts of reasons.

Now, you may not be a fan of cinematic-style games in general, but other people are and *if* The Order succeeds on that front and has enough variation or excitement in the gameplay to keep players interested throughout, then it may well be a 'replayable' game for many.

We just don't know yet.

Anyways, I love all sorts of games. Shorter ones are great, but I cant lie and say I'm willing to spend $30-40+ on a 5-6 hour game. That's just not going to happen. I don't have a specific formula that determines how long a game needs to be before I spend 'x' amount on it, but if I spend $40 or more, I don't want to be finished with the game within a few sittings with it. It would have to be like the most spectacular video game experience ever, and even as much as I love many games, I haven't come across one yet that's that good.

 

[drtomoe123]

I'm with you OP. It's all about the experience that the game provides.

Even when it comes to genres that focus on longer games, most of the really outstanding experiences I've had came from shorter RPGs like Panzer Dragoon Saga.

 

[freenudemacusers]

mods are we allowed to avatar quote the op y/n?

 

[gelf]

To quote what I said in the other thread

I'm not interested in The Order but I have to say I hate seeing a games value measured against how long it takes to get to the credits. If the game is exceptional in that short playtime then its absolutely worth the money in my view and I'd probably want to replay it multiple times anyway. Complaining too much about game length is what leads to artificial padding being shoehorned in just to get that so many hours of gameplay commendation and I've had way too much of that stuff in recent years.

A lot of my fave games of all time clock in at less then 10. That's not to say I don't like some longer games but I can't think of any game I've ever played for 20 hours plus that didn't have some really dragging sections that I wish weren't there, particularly in this genre. You can spread things out too thinly, it really depends on how tightly designed those short hours are if it justifies the price for the run time. I suspect The Order wont but I'll still defend the idea of short full price games in the future.

I'm an arcade gamer at heart and in my experiece with the odd exceptions(Dark Souls) I've found more consistent enjoyment from shorter games with the sort of attention to detail thats difficult to have in a long game without an unreasonable amount of man hours to do it.

 

[More_Badass]

At least one impression from the Impressions thread

Ok, just finished the game (took me about 9 hours on normal). I suck at writing impressions so I'll keep it short.

I didn't find the story anything special. But it's good enough, good characters with top notch VA and great facial animations.

Gameplay wise, it's solid. Satisfying gunplay, great weapons, decent AI. My main issue with the mechanics is that when you're close to a cover, Galahad would automatically stick to it, and that really irritated me. There's a button for taking cover if I wanted to, so why is there a contextual system on top of that? And there's no way to turn this off.

The disappointing: The unique weapons are so underutilized. The half breed encounters, both number and design wise.. What a missed opportunity.

Overall I liked it, I was craving for an AAA TPS and this game delivered, with an amazing atmosphere and solid gameplay. But just as I expected, it was honestly nothing special. 7/10 (If you wanna know my scale:

Spoiler

1-5=different levels of crap, 6=decent, 7=good, 8=great, 9=amazing, 10=The GOAT and it's reserved for TLG

).

Now, where's my photo mode...

9 hours

Also another thing to consider, is that perhaps Youtubers play through their games faster than the average person so they can move onto the next game and make more videos?

 

[Karu]

I am a student, which in turn means I have lots of free time.
I am a student, which in turn means I have not so much money at my hands.


Does not compute.


I do like short games. Especially with story-focused games I found myself rather annoyed by games that fuck up their pacing because of shallow mechanics thrown in for the funz. But I try to get those at a discounted price. Admittedly I miss out on being part of the conversation - which is one of my favourite things, but I have to face reality at some point, at which 60€ (or even 70) for a 10 hour experience without much replay value (I'm a one-and-done gamer) is not feasible.
Therefore I would prefer a more multiplayer-/ or grind-y/gameplay-heavy experience that entertains me for a much longer time.

At the end of the day it's about money/value, but for reasons that I can hardly change right now. I won't buy The Order 1886, although it does seem interesting to me. It wouldn't make sense. I rather buy Dying Light, Bloodborne the next month or an older game I get for cheap like The Last of Us.

 

[Necromanti]

I have always preferred shorter, more focused gaming experiences over endless, repetitive padding, but The Order would not enter this argument for me due to its highly "cinematic" nature. That's not something I look for, personally, especially when the game is already quite short.

 

[Slixshot]

Amen, Slasher. ^_^

 

[InfiniteCombo]

At the end of the day, if a game is good, length is almost irrelevant.

If I recall correctly, the "shortness" argument was also being levied against Captain Toad at the time of its release [although that game had the added benefit of being only $40, as opposed to $60]. And that's some of the best $40 I've ever spent.

On the flip side, I love to 100% open some of my favorite open world games.

In either case, I get the value it out of the game.

 

[borghe]

I actually prefer shorter games... The 5 hour estimations for a $60 game is a bit unbalanced IMHO though.. Short of it being among the 5 greatest hours I've ever gamed... I feel a "good solid" 5 hour experience should only cost ~$20-30.

We'll see. I haven't canceled my $150 pre-order yet.. but man.... 5 hours for a full price game... like if you condensed TLoU into 5 hours that MIGHT be worth $60.. short of that though.... hmm..

edit - for my time and attention span... 5 hours is actually a PERFECT length for me. I have NO ISSUE with the length... just the valueof a full game.. if 1886 is amazing I wouldn't/won't care. if it's simply "very solid and fun" then yeah... that's a bit steep.

 

[Shyakugaun]

The damage control is real lol

 

[Iva Demilcol]

Now we need the thread "Why we hate short games" on the first page so I can post that "NeoGaf" gif.

 

[Loxley]

If it's good who cares?

It always puzzles me what people choose to make a controversy out of. With all of the messed up things going on in the industry right now, the length of The Order strikes me as such a non-controversy (especially since most people haven't even played it yet) that it's barely worth mentioning.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Also... for any given game, no matter its length, the player decides on the replayability.

You can choose to do in-game replayability (timed trials in Captain Toad or Tropical Freeze) or make your own rules (knife-only runs in Resident Evil games). Or a hybrid of those two.

The point is, that even if it's a 2 hour game, but a damn good one at that, you'll find ways to replay it and extend your playtime.

 

[qizah]

This assumes that a shorter game is inherently a tighter experience, more well put together experience. Often times, a 20 hour game seems like a tighter experience than a shorter game.

That said, who cares, buy what you want.

 

[Tunavi]

Short games are better. Quality of games go down as they get longer. I would take a short game full of quality content any day over a long Game with a ton of unnecessary filler

 

[KingV]

With GCU, short games are like rentals. I usually make a dollar or two if they have the pre order cert

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I focus more on the satisfaction a game gives me for completing it rather than how long it took to get there.

A two hour game can be better than a 90 hour game.

That being said, my preference is on games that are a "slow burn" that I can just keep popping in and finding new things to do in them. I replay the shit out of my games so length isn't usually a thing I concern myself with.

 

[iconoclast]

Short games are fine when they have lots of replay value. Platinum's games are a perfect example. Most of them have finely tuned mechanics, higher difficulties that had actual effort put into them with remixed enemy encounters, bonus challenge modes, and scoring systems that encourage mastery. You could easily make a 6 hour long game last for a 100 hours because there's so much to do.

Then there are short games that have no mechanical depth or replay value whatsoever. Those games are perfect bargain bin or rental fodder.

 

[boltz]

Short games are better. Quality of games go down as they get longer. I would take a short game full of quality content any day over a long Game with a ton of unnecessary filler

Are you making no this blanket statement seriously? So most NES games would be better than many of the games from the last decade because of length?