Poll: The Order 1886 - Our critics are bullies

Recommended Videos

Meinos Kaen

New member
Jun 17, 2009
200
0
0
Well, seems we have another case of 'we think we can do no wrong'. Today, an interview from Gamespot came out to one of the devs from Ready at Dawn regarding The Order 1886 and the controversy surrounding its length and price policy. In TLDR fashion, the man says that the game is perfectly fine this long and that the controversy surrounding it was born because 'internet is the new playground for bullies'.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-order-1886-dev-says-internet-is-the-new-playgr/1100-6425374/

Now, I can understand asinine budgeting that puts everything into the shiny pixels for 'cinematic experiences' instead of the actual gameplay. Because apparently some devs need to be constantly reminded that they make videogames, not movies. And that people don't like having to do the same QTEs over and over again.

I can understand stupid excuses for asinine game design like 'well, other shooters are just as long!'. Yeah, first: doesn't make those right either. Second: those usually have multiplayer. Other have *gasp* replay value!

What I really can't understand and what I won't ACCEPT is calling people that call your combination of high price, game length and uninspired gameplay a ripoff BULLIES. I don't know who works with these guys' PR, but they're going to have one hell of a headache. AND THE GAME ISN'T EVEN OUT YET.
 

Chemical123

New member
May 2, 2013
36
0
0
Do you think length factors into a game's quality?
Yes

And it can go both ways. There are games out there that are simply too long thanks to all the padding and it lowers the quality (Inquisition, JRPGs, MMOs)

There are also games that have just the perfect length (Portal 1)

And of course we have games that charge me money for barely any gameplay (Heavenly Sword, any FPS where multiplayer isn't really good)

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.
 

Meinos Kaen

New member
Jun 17, 2009
200
0
0
Chemical123 said:
Do you think length factors into a game's quality?
Yes

And it can go both ways. There are games out there that are simply too long thanks to all the padding and it lowers the quality (Inquisition, JRPGs, MMOs)

There are also games that have just the perfect length (Portal 1)

And of course we have games that charge me money for barely any gameplay (Heavenly Sword, any FPS where multiplayer isn't really good)

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.
Ditto. Both lenght and content go into the quality of a game for me. Dragon Age Inquisition is long, yeah, but much of that length is filled with tripe. The Order 1886 is way too short for a generic shooter with QTE boss fights that focused more on pixels than anything else.
 

Las7

New member
Nov 22, 2014
146
0
0
Developers need to take a step back and realize they can't please everyone.
You're not a victim, relax and understand there is a market for everything that isn't downright broken.
 

FinalDream

[Insert Witty Remark Here]
Apr 6, 2010
1,402
0
0
I'm quite happy with shorter games, what makes me pass on The Order 1886 is the fact that my regular online store are asking £49 for it. Which is about £10+ more than I usually buy games for. So, in this case the game being shorter than expected is something taken into account by myself. I fully intend to buy it when the price falls to a more reasonable level.

I have no sympathy for the dev, they have handled this very badly.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
Well, I can understand feeling a bit cornered when the inevitable internet dogpile happens to something you've been working on extensively for the last two years. Especially when you're the new kid. But as game developers they should probably be able to anticipate that.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
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.

But what could he expect of someone that said this:

"Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it."

I guess we are bullies then as it seems that good people should be buying this "game" because it exists and cant be criticized (cant hurt the devs feelings, poor souls).


OT: For the actual question, Yes, as does everything else from gameplay to story to music. If there is a very good game but the sound effects seem like they were recorded in a bathroom stall it sure as hell is part of the overall quality of a game, therefore the lenght is too, if its too short for its own good then its bad (and since this game already has way too many moments that removes control from the player its even worse).
 

NPC009

Don't mind me, I'm just a NPC
Aug 23, 2010
802
0
0
Do you think length factors into a game's quality?
Yes, to a certain extend. There's not minimum or maximum, the game just needs to be long enough to do what it wants to do. If it can tell an excellent story in 5-10 hours and doesn't need a minute more, the game shouldn't be needlessly padded (though it would be nice if there was some kind of replay value, like an extra difficulty setting, some nice sidequests or whatever).

I haven't played The Order: 1886, but if it does offer a complete experience within those 8-10 hours, I wouldn't complain. At that length the problem wouldn't be that The Order is too short, it'd be that there are many games out there that offer better value. For gamers with limited budgets that would be good enough reason to wait until after a price-drop.

As for the developer, I understand they're frustrated, but they'd get better responses if they'd acknowledge gamers' (and the press') had good reasons to be concerned (they may be planning to spend 60 bucks on this!) instead of calling them bullies.
 

Maximum Bert

New member
Feb 3, 2013
2,149
0
0
Length can affect quality both positively and negatively basically the game should be as long as it needs to be and no longer or shorter so not exactly a scientific method and its highly subjective.

I have no opinion on the Order as I have little interest in it but if I did I would be judging it more on whether I thought it gave value for money or not rather than worrying specifically about its length if it was 2 hours but absolutely amazing (as in the best game I had ever played) then I would consider it worthwhile (that is unlikely to happen admittedly).
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
The thing about The Order is that it fails in most every aspect. I've watched about the first 2 hours of the walkthrough that was posted and nothing in it made me even close to comparing this to, to quote the developer, 'the best steak I've ever had in my life'. It seems to me that 'harrassment' and 'bullying' is the new 'entitled'.
 

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
2,804
0
0
I think you need a third option here - It depends.

Some games are best as shorter experiences. Limbo comes to mind immediately.

Some games are better as longer experiences. Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins, etc.

That's not to say that there's a right or wrong length for a video game. Every game has a sweet spot where its length should fall. If you try to artificially push past that (see almost every Final Fantasy game) it gets tedious. If you don't make it to that point, you leave gamers wanting more.

But all of that fails to consider an even bigger point: pricing.

Limbo was an amazing short game. I'm sure you can think of others. But no one was paying $60 for Limbo. It shouldn't come as a surprise to developers (or anyone else) that gamers might get a bit rankled by playing $60 for a 4-6 hour game (not necessarily The Order, sounds like it's more like 6-8 hours) when you can buy a game with 100 hours of content (say, Dragon Age: Inquisition) for the same price.

That's not to say that length=quality, simply to point out that people like to get more for their money. I haven't played The Order, but if it's as short and unsatisfying as folks are claiming, the market should fix this by sending it to the bargain bin soon enough.

As always, vote with your wallet.
 

Meinos Kaen

New member
Jun 17, 2009
200
0
0
ffronw said:
I think you need a third option here - It depends.

Some games are best as shorter experiences. Limbo comes to mind immediately.

Some games are better as longer experiences. Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins, etc.

That's not to say that there's a right or wrong length for a video game. Every game has a sweet spot where its length should fall. If you try to artificially push past that (see almost every Final Fantasy game) it gets tedious. If you don't make it to that point, you leave gamers wanting more.

But all of that fails to consider an even bigger point: pricing.

Limbo was an amazing short game. I'm sure you can think of others. But no one was paying $60 for Limbo. It shouldn't come as a surprise to developers (or anyone else) that gamers might get a bit rankled by playing $60 for a 4-6 hour game (not necessarily The Order, sounds like it's more like 6-8 hours) when you can buy a game with 100 hours of content (say, Dragon Age: Inquisition) for the same price.

That's not to say that length=quality, simply to point out that people like to get more for their money. I haven't played The Order, but if it's as short and unsatisfying as folks are claiming, the market should fix this by sending it to the bargain bin soon enough.

As always, vote with your wallet.
I guess I should have worded my question differently. I agree with you 100%. There's not a perfect length for a game, nor does a longer game necessarily make for a better game. *Stares at Dragon Age Inquisition* It's the balance between content, lenght and price that's important, as you said.

The reason why I asked is because I've met more than one person saying 'Why focus on length?! Look at the quality!'. Like length didn't combine with other elements of the game to impact the overall quality of a game.
 

Mezahmay

New member
Dec 11, 2013
517
0
0
Meinos Kaen said:
I guess I should have worded my question differently. I agree with you 100%. There's not a perfect length for a game, nor does a longer game necessarily make for a better game. *Stares at Dragon Age Inquisition* It's the balance between content, lenght and price that's important, as you said.

The reason why I asked is because I've met more than one person saying 'Why focus on length?! Look at the quality!'. Like length didn't combine with other elements of the game to impact the overall quality of a game.
Sounds like we should be looking at pacing and/or engagement since those are largely length-independent and act like "interesting content density".
 

RagingTiger

New member
Sep 23, 2014
43
0
0
Games are a story telling medium so length is a fundamental part, no one is going to pay full price to watch a 30min movie so like wise I am not going to pay full price for a 6 hour game. As for the bully statement, consumer's wallets staying closed on launch should send the reply quite effectively.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
I'm going to say no, length does not factor into a games quality. I have played numerous games of all sorts of lengths, with those lengths being created from a single playthrough like an RPG to massive replay value over short individual plays like a Rogue like game. In no case would I say that length factored specifically into quality unless you were talking about cases where the game left me wanting more or overstayed its welcome, but that's just as often an issue of pacing and design as it is hours of length. I count really short games, really long games and everything in between amongst my all time favourites and those games I would consider to flat out be the best.

What length in hours does factor into, however, is value. I can certainly understand someone having qualms about buying a 5 hour long excellent game for $60 when they could instead buy a 100 hour long excellent game for $60. Both games are excellent but, assuming that both titles appeal to you equally, I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing the 100 hour game.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Chemical123 said:
Do you think length factors into a game's quality?
Yes

And it can go both ways. There are games out there that are simply too long thanks to all the padding and it lowers the quality (Inquisition, JRPGs, MMOs)

There are also games that have just the perfect length (Portal 1)

And of course we have games that charge me money for barely any gameplay (Heavenly Sword, any FPS where multiplayer isn't really good)

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.
couldn't agree more, and dragon age inquisition came to mind immediately as well. People thought the deep roads were bad, fucking hinterlands man...could be its own game with how much filler bullshit is in that one area alone.

OT: Depending on the genre and what the devs want to do (what story they want to tell, perhaps?) a games length will vary greatly, and obviously that is subjective to each individual. From what I've seen though, this game is "meh" at best and "what the fuck *yawn*" at worst, so if you're game is short and you're charging full price for it, then you bet your ass you're going to be getting "critiqued" on that.
 

EXos

New member
Nov 24, 2009
168
0
0
Lets get it out of the way. I'm old. :p My first game was on a monochrome screen and DOS. I've had tons of games that lasted me for hours and hours some even several days.

So Yes, to me game length is very important. For a singleplayer game (?60,-) I expect it to last me more than 12 hours (?5,- per hour seems a reasonable rate. :p) Sure some games are short but are amazing but portal didn't cost that much.

It seems to be a running theme in the AAA industry the quality is low, the games are full of repetitions (also means no replay value.)
In contrast there is a game from 1998 (Jagged Alliance 2) that I still play and the total hours spend on it is... Somewhere between 700 and 1000 (Probably a lot more). Yes I'm a PC player but this is a problem on all platforms.

Its a new Console generation but the games are still the same mediocre dribble that just lack depth and feel like movies where you press buttons from time to time. And it seems that when developers are called on it the reviewers are called bullies. We need a developer crash like in the eighties (Not old enough to remember that though), somebody needs to hit Reset.
 

T_ConX

New member
Mar 8, 2010
456
0
0
Yes, length matters.

I wish I had gotten a look at that 5.5 hour playthrough video, but it turns out that uploading an entire movie to Youtube will get your channel shut down.

I can appreciate brevity and games that have the sense to not overstay their welcome, but there's a limit to that. It's one thing to play through a nine or ten hour game that's well paced and doesn't over-reuse things in the end-game, but it's a completely different thing when a 6 hour game ends with a boss fight that's a copy of a QTE from earlier in the game. That's the worst part about this; that they're relying on such shameless length padding AND STILL coming in at 5.5 hours. It raises the question of 'How many hours worth of ORIGINAL ideas did you guys have before you started making copy-paste QTE final bosses?'

When your response to this is to just call your detractors 'bullies', it becomes plainly obvious that you've lost.
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
I feel this title is extremely click-baity. He never says that people being critical of the game's length are bullies, but he is saying people just randomly throwing hate for the sake of hate at it without actually playing the game are the bullies.

As for the poll, yes length does matter in terms of quality, and so a good game never should rush things to get it over with, but neither should it outstay its welcome.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
Apparently I'm in the minority.

Oh well.

No, length has nothing to do with quality. Length only determines how long something is, nothing more, nothing less. Quality is dictated by other factors, such as 'talent' 'drive' and 'vision'. Something can be short, but brilliant. It works in reverse, as well as the 'short and shit' variant, just as 'long and shit' is a thing.