Video Game Length (And The Order's Length of Play)

[Thorn14]

So The Order 1886 has been leaked and broken street date. Youtube and Twitch playthroughs have already gone up and it clocks at a depressing....

5 Hours and 27 Minutes, with cutscenes.

And apparently several "chapters" are nothing but 10 minute cutscenes. All for $60 Dollars.

Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming? Sure the game looks pretty but...for that much money, why would I ever want such a game if its going to be that short, and likely have little replayability?

Thank god I'm renting it instead.

Does the length of a game affect your purchases at all too? Because if a game ends up way too short, I'm going to feel like I wasted a lot of money.

 

[Elfgore]

That's... terrible. I'd be hard pressed to find any justification to spend sixty dollars for five hours of gameplay. This also reinforces my ideal to never purchase shooters at full-price, especially if they lack multiplayer. There's just no replay value and they're so short. It's stuff like this that makes me think Playstation Now is a good idea.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Are those people rushing through it, because some are reporting it to be over 12 hours long [http://www.gamepur.com/news/18017-order-1886-campaign-over-12-hours-long-early-player-new-leaked-screenshot.html], but the guy sounds like he is taking his time. Taking into consideration how this got leaked, it sounds more like people rushed to the end to be the first to show the whole game, rather than the usual gamer who may take their time and appreciate what is there. It's sort of like the BioShock games. Theoretically, you can probably complete all three games combined (including DLC) in less than 20 hours if you rush through them all. However, I, personally, would take that much time just to get through the first game (not so much 2 and Infinite).

 

[Barbas]

Most of what I saw of it was cutscenes anyway. The player activity looked more like filler to pass the time between them.

EDIT:

Spoiler: *Bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang-*

 

[Lilani]

Yeesh, I wouldn't pay $60 for that little gameplay. Hell I'm pretty sure I put more time into Bastion, which I paid something like $8 for along with a whole bunch of other games in the Humble Bundle.

I don't often go looking for a certain length of game, especially because I tend to take longer than most anyway, but there is a point where I expect a certain amount of game for my money. I pre-ordered Portal 2 for like $40 or $50 and the single player campaign is only like 8 to 12 hours long depending on your pace (still about double of The Order, apparently), but I got an extremely polished game for that price, as well as a multiplayer campaign and system for creating and downloading custom levels, which basically lengthens the gameplay exponentially. I would feel seriously let down if I paid $60 for a game half the length of Portal 2 that had no other campaigns or features to engage in.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Wait wait wait, are you saying an over-budget, over-hyped, media slobbered, AAA FPS isn't as good as promised?!

I know I'm being a dick, but did anyone think The Order would be any good? Seriously? At this point, good games are the very rare exception. Like Yahtzee says, just assume everything is shit until it can prove otherwise.

 

[Thorn14]

Most of what I saw of it was cutscenes anyway. The player activity looked more like filler to pass the time between them.

When I rent the game i'm actually going to use a stop watch for every moment I'm actually in control of my character playing, but not counting walking down a corridor slowly with my index and middle finger pressed against my ear.

Are those people rushing through it, because some are reporting it to be over 12 hours long [http://www.gamepur.com/news/18017-order-1886-campaign-over-12-hours-long-early-player-new-leaked-screenshot.html], but the guy sounds like he is taking his time. Taking into consideration how this got leaked, it sounds more like people rushed to the end to be the first to show the whole game, rather than the usual gamer who may take their time and appreciate what is there. It's sort of like the BioShock games. Theoretically, you can probably complete all three games combined (including DLC) in less than 20 hours if you rush through them all. However, I, personally, would take that much time just to get through the first game (not so much 2 and Infinite).

Depends on what counts as normal play, rushing, and taking your time I suppose. Either way, we aren't looking at anything more than 7 hours of normal play even if one takes their time. I don't know how much is also in cutscene, its apparently a lot too.

Also I don't know how to do spoilers on this forum (does it have it?) because the final boss is...eugh.

Wait wait wait, are you saying an over-budget, over-hyped, media slobbered, AAA FPS isn't as good as promised?!

I know I'm being a dick, but did anyone think The Order would be any good? Seriously? At this point, good games are the very rare exception. Like Yahtzee says, just assume everything is shit until it can prove otherwise.

This isn't about the quality of the game so much of it being almost criminally short for a 60 dollar game.

 

[Kopikatsu]

This isn't about the quality of the game so much of it being almost criminally short for a 60 dollar game.

Eh. I pay about $20 for an hour and a half movie at the theater. Entertainment to time ratio is about equal. Assuming Order 1886 is entertaining, of course. I had no plans to get it before this, so.

 

[FootloosePhoenix]

I'm all for judging the value of a game not by its length, but by the quality of its content. Journey still holds up as a good example of a very short yet valuable experience. I go back and replay it every once in awhile just to take in the serenity, the beauty and mystery of its world and the simple yet meaningful interaction with other people you come across. Just last night, in fact, I was playing it again to relax and it took me about an hour and a half from start to finish. But Journey's price on release was $15 and I paid about $8 for it when it went on sale. Based on its quality, I'd say that's fair. It's a little more expensive than buying a ticket at a theatre, but you own it (as much as you "own" anything digital, at least) and can play it as many times as you like. I wouldn't have regret spending the full $15 on it. Of course Journey isn't everyone's thing, but I find that for the plenty of people who did enjoy it, they didn't have any qualms about the pricing either. The length was pathetic, but the actual content was more than adequate.

The Order, on the other hand, does sound ridiculous. Judging it by what I've seen from trailers and such, I wouldn't even pay half price for it, but that's not even getting starter on the length. I really don't mind playing shorter games as long as they're good. Dead Space comes to mind. And really, I don't want every game I play to last dozens of hours because my free time is finite. Mind you, The Order never did appeal to me. Third-person shooters are very seldom my thing to begin with and in this case it sounds like Ready at Dawn dearly wanted it to be more of a film than a video game. I don't object to these highly "cinematic" games existing because I know some people do really like that sort of experience, but aside from maybe a handful of exceptions, I am very turned off by the idea. And the length of The Order doesn't do anything to brighten my opinion of them.

I can't say that length doesn't at all factor into whether I felt the money I spent was worth it, but I see a game you can spend hours upon hours playing as more of a bonus than a requirement. There is a point when that $60 price tag (or $70; hooray for Canada's exchange rate being in the tank) borders on insanity though. This is probably one of those times.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Depends on what counts as normal play, rushing, and taking your time I suppose. Either way, we aren't looking at anything more than 7 hours of normal play even if one takes their time. I don't know how much is also in cutscene, its apparently a lot too.

At seven hours, I probably would say that it comes down to quality and replayability. Games like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and BioShock Infinite are around 7 hours long for a normal playthrough (i.e. the person isn't rushing but isn't spending hours appreciating the scenery), but those games have managed to make me come back to them enough that I've gotten far more than I would from a lower quality 20 hour game I only play once, and those 7 hours are packed with enough ideas that I still find a few new things to appreciate despite the multiple playthroughs. Then again, neither of those games are particularly cutscene heavy, despite having quite a bit of story (they just understand how to tell stories in a video game very well), so that may help them in a way The Order: 1886 can't rely on.

Also I don't know how to do spoilers on this forum (does it have it?) because the final boss is...eugh.

There is the spoiler tag:

[ spoiler]Insert content here[ /spoiler]

And you can also add a comment for people to read before opening it:

[ spoiler=Get ready to have something spoiled]Insert content here[ /spoiler]

Just remove the spaces between the opening brackets and what's inside them. Or you can quote me to see an example:

Spoiler

This is the first example

Spoiler: This is the second example. No need to open it.

I SAID THERE WAS NO NEED TO OPEN IT!

 

[StriderShinryu]

This isn't about the quality of the game so much of it being almost criminally short for a 60 dollar game.

Eh. I pay about $20 for an hour and a half movie at the theater. Entertainment to time ratio is about equal. Assuming Order 1886 is entertaining, of course. I had no plans to get it before this, so.

This is really what it boils down to. Is the totality of the experience worth the asking price, and how does the cost/length compare with similar forms of entertainment (assuming, of course, that you don't specifically complain about those as well)?

I would have little to complain about if $60 got me let's say 8 hours worth of really good entertainment. I would also have no complaints of $15 got me 2 hours of really good entertainment.

Now, I'm not saying The Order will be worth $60 (I personally don't think it will for my tastes) but that's much less to do with the reported running time and everything to do with the fact that it looks like a stock standard cinematic squad based third person shooter laced with QTEs. If my perception of the game is correct, I wouldn't be happy with it even if it ran for twice as long. In fact, I'd probably enjoy it even less because of the fact that there is a length that best suits each individual experience. A well paced and constructed game is often better if it's shorter from start to finish and doesn't wear out its welcome with extra padding just to make it longer.

 

[aozgolo]

Playtime is a HUGE factor in my buying decision for any game that doesn't tout replayability as a big thing. I often go to howlongtobeat.com to get an idea of average playtimes. I'm very much a completionist so I usually take longer than the suggested playtime anyway to explore at my own pace but looking at my last few games I actually paid full price for:

Dragon Age Inquisition
Witcher 3
GTA:V
Pillars of Eternity
Torment: Tides of Numenera
Shroud of the Avatar

you can see a trend of games that boast 40+ hours of gameplay available, probably more if you spend time doing everything and do multiple playthroughs.

I have nothing against short games, but I'm NEVER going to pay full market price for a 5 hour game that doesn't have near infinite replay value.

 

[stroopwafel]

I'm fine by that if it's around 6 hours of quality. A lot of games suffer from unnecessary padding and should have some of that fat trimmed. Tedious backtracking, recycled levels etc. I rather have a short and fun game than a long and boring one. That is probably also the reason why I don't like RPG's.

Anyways, I guess I'll see this friday if the game is good or not. Atleast there is something new to play on my PS4 while I wait for Bloodborne.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Most people in this thread seem to fail to realize you can sell the fucking game when you're done with it. If you play The Order and it has no replay value, then sell the game. If you sell the game after you're done, it will only cost you $10-$20, not $60. The question is whether The Order will be worth $10-$20.

And Vanquish got the same exact hate when it came out and it's the best damn TPS of last-gen. I played the freaking demo of Vanquish more than some full games.

I'm fine by that if it's around 6 hours of quality. A lot of games suffer from unnecessary padding and should have some of that fat trimmed. Tedious backtracking, recycled levels etc. I rather have a short and fun game than a long and boring one. That is probably also the reason why I don't like RPG's.

I hate padding so much, which is why I never finished a JRPG made before PS2. I took me a total of 3 years to finally finished Bioshock because half of the game is an unneeded side quest. I'd rather have a game be good for its entire playthrough over it being artificially extended to be longer.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming?

What direction is that? This is just another launch game suffering from "techdemo fever", except it got pushed back a year. Remember Heavenly Short Sword? That game got hyped for its next gen-iness and it was only 4 to 5 hours long. Sony seems to have one of these bloody things each generation, no need to worry. The PS2 had The Bouncer, the PS3 had Heaven Sword, and the PS4 will have The Order. After which we'll forget all about it, as proper games make their way.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What direction is that? This is just another launch game suffering from "techdemo fever", except it got pushed back a year. Remember Heavenly Short Sword? That game got hyped for its next gen-iness and it was only 4 to 5 hours long. Sony seems to have one of these bloody things each generation, no need to worry. The PS2 had The Bouncer, the PS3 had Heaven Sword, and the PS4 will have The Order. After which we'll forget all about it, as proper games make their way.

And Heavenly Sword was better than God of War 3 as it actually had a decent combat system that required different strategies depending on the enemy.

 

[Maximum Bert]

If the experience is justified compared to the amount of money I put in then I am ok length can and often is a factor but I suppose in theory I could be satisfied paying 40 pounds for an hour game or less if that game was somehow the best thing I have ever played in my life and then some.

So yeah length is a factor in some cases but only in so far as it represents a reflection of my enjoyment of the game. As for the Order dont really care for it could be amazing for all I care I dont like shooters much nowadays.

 

[Casual Shinji]

What direction is that? This is just another launch game suffering from "techdemo fever", except it got pushed back a year. Remember Heavenly Short Sword? That game got hyped for its next gen-iness and it was only 4 to 5 hours long. Sony seems to have one of these bloody things each generation, no need to worry. The PS2 had The Bouncer, the PS3 had Heaven Sword, and the PS4 will have The Order. After which we'll forget all about it, as proper games make their way.

And Heavenly Sword was better than God of War 3 as it actually had a decent combat system that required different strategies depending on the enemy.

Hey man, I barely remember Heavenly Sword as it is, so I guess I'll have to take your word on that. And I don't think you'll find anyone claiming the GoW games had a deep combat system, just that it was extremely satisfying brawling enemies to death.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

I do not care for the length of the game in general especially if the game is polished. On the other hand I am not a fan of a game that I must spend hundreds of hours on when I have other responsibilities to do. So I can see why some people may find short games appealing when they have a busy schedule while those may like long games when they either have the time for it or considered it as an investment.

But sadly I do not like this trend where games have to be very long to be considered an investment, basically letting developers to pad up the game to be long and boring. But to each their own.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

I don't really subscribe to the hours per dollar idea. For me there is no universal correct length for a game. If I finish the game and think "was that it?" then the game was too short. If I haven't finished a game and am thinking "I can't believe this is still going." then it's too long. And off the top of my head I can't recall any games I would consider to be too short but there are plenty that were too long.