Poll: The Order 1886 - Our critics are bullies

[Iwata]

The thing is, you gotta put yourself in the developer's shoes for a moment. Their game isn't even out yet and already there are rampant rumours that the game is 5 hours long, started by a single video that spread like wildfire, as people were trying to find first impressions about the game.

The developers rejected that notion. Shortly after, several other YouTubers have also made videos saying that the game is NOT five hours long, but you still see that rumour everywhere. And it's no doubt cost them sales.

And I DO get his analogy: I'd rather pay for a short game that I enjoy than for a long game that I won't. I paid ?15 for AfterBurner Climax, and I once finished that game in - literally - 7 minutes. And I still enjoyed it a LOT more than, say, Final Fantasy X.

Personally, I don't care. The game looks pretty cool, and I can't wait to play it. At best, I'm simply frustrated that so many chose to believe one single video that so many others have already disproved.

 

[mad825]

Oh well, it still sell like pancakes. I no longer have any faith in the gaming community.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well is it a good five hours at least? To me it being a bad or good game is the larger sticking point. If the controls suck, it's glitchy and every ten minutes it kills a puppy, then a shorter ruinning time is probably for the best.
Likewise if it's a great 5 hours, then great! I of course would want more, but I'd be happy with a great 5hour long game. I'd but it on sale of course, but yeah the length itself isn't a make or break deal for me

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I'm pretty sure the 5 hour game length thing is only a rumor, which is why the Escapist and other gaming sites haven't really reported on it yet (I think). It seems that you can finish the game in 5 hours, but only if you speed run the game.

 

[RJ 17]

Oh well, it still sell like pancakes. I no longer have any faith in the gaming community.

That's about where I'm at right now as well. Countless times a game crops up with a big hub-bub such as this pre-launch and everyone always says "vote with your wallets" and such...and yet those games continue to do just fine.

Look at Evolve which - as Jim Sterling put it - is "a game about selling DLC". There was all the controversy of how, at Day 1, there would be $100+ worth of DLC for the game...and yet it's doing just fine. Apparently the gaming community really doesn't care so much about such DLC practices despite how much it loves to complain about such DLC practices.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I like this part of his reasoning:

"If you go and you eat a steak, if you pay $100 for a steak that tastes like the best steak you've ever had in your life but it's only 200 grams versus paying the same price for the worst steak you could want--but it's all-you-can-eat,"

The problems is that from what everyone has already seen so far (everything by now) is that the game isnt good in the first place, most of the small amount of gameplay is the most basic TPS mechanics a game can have and the rest is QTE stuff where you just watch your character do stuff while you press a button or two from time to time.

The problem is also compounded as in his reasoning rests in and is only applicable of a certain world of his own creation: A world where I or anyone else has that 100 dollars to blow on a culinary experience.

I'm not sure if someone officially turned off the Recession Klaxon, but I do know times are still a bit tough all over. I can't even count how many threads we had recently about trouble finding jobs and the like. And those of us who are not having trouble with actually getting employment... we have spouses, rent, food that needs to be eaten regularly (not just a once in a life time steak), families... we got stuff to pay for.

So when we are putting down our cash that could go to something we actually do need instead of something for a luxury, we can't just trust the word of Mr. Jan who has a vested interest in making us believe it's a once in a life time experience. It is up to us to find out what is what in our own eyes. And since we as gamers are in the same boat, it is up to us to warn each other.

But since he's also someone who needs to eat and that does depend on people buying his product, I can see why he'd never admit to that.

Now, onto the "bully" topic. Welcome to the brave new world where criticism=bullying, disagreement=bigotry, debate=harassment.
I understand that even the worst games out there have people who poured their life and soul into the game and it is HARD to distance yourself and not take the criticism personally. We are all human after all. But people need to remember that criticism can be a GOOD thing. There is nothing worse than when a person think that either he or his creations are perfect, since there is no room for improvement there. Which means they ignore everything that anyone else tells them and do whatever they want until they produce something so horrifyingly bad that everybody can't help but exclaim:"How could they go so wrong?". George Lucas, M. Night Shamalyan, John Romero etc. all fell into the trap of believing their own hype and we all know how that turned out.

But the cut goes both ways.

To be heard, we have to be tolerable. A message is only as good as how someone implements it. I'm in a sort of 'war' on youtube because I dare to mention I dislike Chaos Marines. This other guy's first response was about me being ignorant.

Ignorant. Over an opinion.

I've been into Warhammer 40k since 2004. More than a decade of my life. I read the fluff, I play the games, I follow Mini Wargaming and Beasts of War... This guy doesn't know a thing about what I do know. He didn't want to. He just saw someone disliking something he liked, and he came out with insults and condescension.

Of course, any facts he might have are completely lost to me as he didn't come to me as a fellow gamer, but another net troll who can show a lot of bile and vitriol over a keyboard but probably not in real life. Life goes on. Another person I never have to think about again.

But.

If he came to me as an equal, treated me as such, and we talked about it, he might not have swayed me, but at least I would have another viewpoint to consider.

I'm not directing this point at you at all, but it's very easy to find pretentious little punks on the net who look for new people to trash so they feel superior. Even the most valid criticisms, debates, and disagreements are worthless as vehicles of change if the intended target must suffer personal attacks to even view it.

We are all human. We are all different. We don't all have to be thick-skinned. We do not all have to mind our tone. But if a few feel it's an imperative to lace their ideas about a subject or the foibles they find with it with derogatory remarks, then it's just as valid if Mr. Jan calls them bullies if that's what he perceives bullies to be.

 

[Lilani]

There's a difference between saying length = quality and saying length = cost effectiveness. The criticisms being levied against The Order's length fall in the latter category. People don't mind short games--the popularity of indie games of late attests to this. They also don't mind expensive games--the popularity of mainstream AAA games attests to this. However, people have come to expect a certain amount of content for a certain amount of money.

Someone further up used the analogy of getting a $100 steak at a restaurant. The problem with this analogy is that's assuming no other restaurants are offering any greater amount of steak of the same quality. In this case, many studios are producing games of the quality of The Order with much more content, but at the same price. Games are art, just like fine cuisine, but both are also consumer products. There is a point where there isn't a high enough quality at which you can make your steak which can excuse its tiny portion or huge price, and it isn't the chef that gets to decide where that threshold is.

As for the "bullying" aspect, I can definitely understand how the viral nature of news like this feels like bullying, especially when the game isn't out yet and only a tiny percent of those saying these things about the game have actually played it. But it's definitely not something you want to say to the media, especially when the game isn't out and your money isn't made yet.

 

[Zhukov]

I have nothing against short games. In fact, I tend to get suspicious when games are advertised or praised based on their length. "OMG, 100+ hours of content" reads, to me, as "OMG, filler everywhere!" I would prefer to pay full price for three hours of distilled brilliance than pay peanuts for 40 hours of drudgery.

Sadly, The Order 1886 does not look like distilled brilliance. It looks like polished mediocrity.

 

[Dalisclock]

Length is a factor, but so is how it is used. Is Final Fantasy XIII a great game because it's 50 hours long? Is Portal a crap game because it's 5 hours long? I'd much rather pay full price for a short, wonderful game then a long, shitty one.

 

[Denamic]

As long as it's not a full priced game, being a bit short is fine. Imagine paying for a feature length film and only getting a 30 minute episode with commercial breaks.

 

[Iwata]

So we're all assuming it's five hours now because of that one video, despite the developers and other people who have played the game saying that's not true?

 

[Ryan Minns]

I have no intention of buying it but given the length is longer than I took to finish some of last gens BIG name games I'm not sure what the fuss is

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

Yes, if a game is too short or too long it can adversely affect the player experience, i thought we settled this back when portal 1 came out and everyone liked how it was super fun but didn't outstay it's welcome.

I can understand the dev being pissed about being beaten up over length i'm kinda tired of people bitching about QTE's too. Yes they're annoying when put in every game but some games can benefit from them so long as they give you some heads up to watch out for them. I personally have no issue with a game having a "cinematic" experience games are allowed to be what their maker chooses them to be so a 5 hour long movie with QTE's is a fine choice or at least it's no less worthy than any other choice. yes our medium is the most interactive but that doesn't mean every game needs a controller prompt just for breathing. it's OK to have some games be short like this, just don't expect people to shill out $60 for it is all. hearing it's a short game is going to make more people wait for a sale to pick it up and having no replay definitly means if i do play this i'll just gamefly it. but that doesn't necessarily mean the game is less fun. Reviewers are well within their rights to recomend either passing or waiting for a price change. more and more games are releasing at the $40 price point and I think that's going to help, not having a unilateral price point for games is good. consoles need to catch up.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Of course length factors in. A game can be too short, too long or just about right. The story can be abruptly interrupted or tediously drawn out, the game can run out of ideas or get repetitive and samey YES THAT'S A WORD. So yes, length can factor in.

 

[dohnut king]

A game's length affects is value, not its quality. The Last of Us arguably may be a higher quality game than Civilization 5. But Civilization 5, even if you paid full price for that game and both expansions, will give many more hours of good game play per dollar than the Last of Us so long as you like that type of game. Sandbox games or games with a lot of replay value are going to be better deals for the average consumer, all things being equal.

Now all things are not equal for every consumer. Some gamers prefer tighter narratives and therefore don't like sandbox games, and may not like other genres with high replay value like sports, strategy, or multiplayer shooters. Given the great expense of making AAA games, those gamers are going to have to pay more for their gaming or go the indie route.

 

[Rayce Archer]

If I may paraphrase an old mechanic's adage:
Long, fun game- won't be cheap.
Cheap, fun game- won't be long.
Long, cheap game- won't be fun.

 

[kasperbbs]

Yes, it matters to me at least. I don't replay games all that often and i don't care much for multiplayer, so buying it full price and being done with it in 7 hours seems like a waste. I could watch ten movies at the cinema and buy some popcorn for the price of that game. I'm not saying that length = games worth, just look at inquisition.. But judging from your comments the order is just an ok game?

 

[NeutralStasis]

Yeah......no.

Game length for a game that costs $60 matters. It is a factor. I would not pay full ticket price for a movie that was 45 minutes long....when I could wait till it comes out on DVD and get it on Redbox for a buck. I am not going to pay $60 for a game that is less than 6 hours long...including the cut scenes.

And, the idea that someone is critical of your work makes them bullies needs to stop right now. If games are "art" then people should feel free to be critical of these works. (As someone who is an artist) Criticism is how things improve. If you don't like your work being battered by critics....don't release it to the public.

 

[Weresquirrel]

Order 1886 hasn't really been on my radar, since I don't have a PS4, but...

A game can be short and still excellent. I only put 8 hours into Spec Ops the Line, and I consider it to be one of my all time favourites. Call of Juarez: Gunslinger only has 4 hours on it, but again, I loved it. The length of a game's impact on quality is entirely dependant on the game itself. Some games can cram a lot of heart into a short package, while other games can be padded to the point of being excruciating.

There's 3 main mitigating factors:

Quality - If the short time it has is excellent, it can still be money well spent. Journey, Portal and Gunslinger are all examples of terrific but short games.
Content - Replayability, challenge, secrets, multiplayer. If you can play the short game multiple times for different results, great. A lot of arcade games fall into this.
Cost - If it's cheaper than a full priced game, less content can be expected.

If people are only critisising it based on the length, they are in the wrong. If the game is short and doesn't have the above factors going for it either, that's when the complaints about length are justified.