Support NeoGAF

[ChawlieTheFair]

No one would compare World of Warcraft to a Souls game. This is insane.

Also, you're talking about games that "can be" finished in short amounts of time (mostly achieved by skipping all of the cutscenes, which can't be done in The Order). The conversation is about a guy's first playthrough. It's not a speed run.

You pay the same price though?

Edit: I'm a lil confused as to what your argument is Zefah?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The assumption can be ascertained by the average playthrough times of several people on GAF as well as reviewers, just as an assumption can be made by one playthrough time on Youtube, which is what you're doing.

Point out where I did that. I swear to go some people don't read posts in full and just jump at the opportunity to draw lines in the sand, point fingers, and attack what they perceive to be as some enemy tribe or something.

I'm just arguing with the people trying to invalidate the YouTube playthrough due to some preconceived notion or desire for the game to be something they have in their heads.

I've already said multiple times that the guy's playthrough could very well not be representative of most people's, and even cited the impressions of GAFfers that we've seen.

 

[Jobbs]

Imagine.. the guy gave a positive impression of the game and quite enjoyed it, yet it will likely cost RAD sales. Crazy world indeed.

if it's indeed a 5 hour game, RAD already knows this and already knows they'll have to live with that fact once it got out in the open and they already know how that'll likely affect review scores.

 

[Memorabilia]

Absolutely. And to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong to me with a 5 hour game in and of itself. It could very well score 10s and I don't think being only 5 hours long should disqualify it from high scores.

It's just for me as a person of limited money to spend on my hobby, I can't justify spending $60 on a game that is only 5 hours long. If reviews and gaf impressions are that it is a good short game, I will happily pick it up when it falls in price, and I can't wait.

Had this been a year ago, I would have jumped. But 2015 is far more loaded with games and there are a ton of experiences competing for my limited dollars. As such, The Order will have to wait if it is indeed that short, for me anyway.

You could always trade it in immediately to Gamestop, Best Buy, Amazon. Then it basically works out to the cost of an extended rental.

As as aside, I like to keep my physical games. Yep, I'm a self-hating collector with a back-log a mile high. But, even I might consider trading this one in the first week after I finish it. I'm getting the collectors edition for the same price as a regular edition, so the only question for me is if I have to trade in the CE hard case to get full trade in credit. It seems like Gamestop will take games without cases right? Soooo that might be my plan. Then I'll pick it up again after it falls to $10 - $15 in the future.

 

[Bill Rizer]

Many of my favourite action games ever are arcade games from '80/90s that can be finished in less than a hour. But those games had perfectly tuned challenge and infinite replayability for score/1-credit-clear/etc. Now, I hope this may be the case with The Order, but I haven't followed enough to know about this.

That said, there's even another category of action games which are neither long nor challenging, but just fun enough to make you like them enough to play multiple times and just enjoy the experience. They're rare, because they need original, unique, interesting and very well crafted mechanics to keep the player interested for even multiple playthroughs. I'm thinking for example to a game like Luigi's Mansion, which you can easily end in 5-6 hours, but is so well made and enthrilling that you leave satisfied.

 

[Seventy70]

These time breakdowns were posted in the impressions thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152352497&postcount=2205

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152355662&postcount=2232

 

[Liberty4all]

The thing I find ironic ... In the old days people would complain if a game was mainly mp and tacked on a single player campaign. Now a killer single player campaign gets trashed if there's no mp or the campaign is too short. I'd rather have a shorter campaign with no filler rather than a long campaign with garbage in the middle.

At my old gaming review site we had to deduct marks if a game was mp only, because single player was the defacto mode to review. I actually got in hot water with a coeditor for giving Left 4 Dead a 10/10 (posted it live before he saw it).

I say this only to show that people value different things. I personally think a games merit should be based on the experience it provides ... Be it mp, single player or whatever. I'm firmly in the camp that a solid 6 - 10 hour single player campaign that provides rich storytelling, top end triple A visuals and engaging gameplay is worth the money.

At the same time I get that not everyone values that when looking at how much time they'll spend with a title.

 

[drotahorror]

I'm glad I like pretty much like all types of games. Really the only genre I don't care for is JRPG's. But guess what? Since I don't like'em, I don't venture into JRPG threads and shit on them. I also don't say they suck as I know some of them are amazing (based on what others think), they're just not for me.

 

[QuikNez]

The thing I find ironic ... In the old days people would complain if a game was mainly mp and tacked on a single player campaign. Now a killer single player campaign gets trashed if there's no mp or the campaign is too short. I'd rather have a shorter campaign with no filler rather than a long campaign with garbage in the middle.

At my old gaming review site we had to deduct marks if a game was mp only, because single player was the defacto mode to review. I actually got in hot water with a coeditor for giving Left 4 Dead a 10/10 (posted it live before he saw it).

I say this only to show that people value different things. I personally think a games merit should be based on the experience it provides ... Be it mp, single player or whatever. I'm firmly in the camp that a solid 6 - 10 hour single player campaign that provides rich storytelling, top end triple A visuals and engaging gameplay is worth the money.

At the same time I get that not everyone values that when looking at how much time they'll spend with a title.

How do you know it's a "killer SP campaign?"

Also, I don't know about you, but MP and additional online features are table stakes these days, if a games doesn't come pre-equipped, especially if the SP doesn't have replayability, the game will get bashed.

This may be a premature statement, but this seems to be what is happening to 1886.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

But what counts as replayability? Surely that's totally arbitrary? Ryse had MP, how many people kept going back to it? BioShock gets replayed a lot, and asides from a different ending the game is totally the same.

 

[Frillen]

The thing I find ironic ... In the old days people would complain if a game was mainly mp and tacked on a single player campaign. Now a killer single player campaign gets trashed if there's no mp or the campaign is too short. I'd rather have a shorter campaign with no filler rather than a long campaign with garbage in the middle.

At my old gaming review site we had to deduct marks if a game was mp only, because single player was the defacto mode to review. I actually got in hot water with a coeditor for giving Left 4 Dead a 10/10 (posted it live before he saw it).

I say this only to show that people value different things. I personally think a games merit should be based on the experience it provides ... Be it mp, single player or whatever. I'm firmly in the camp that a solid 6 - 10 hour single player campaign that provides rich storytelling, top end triple A visuals and engaging gameplay is worth the money.

At the same time I get that not everyone values that when looking at how much time they'll spend with a title.

What about a long game with no filler and that is great throughout? That would be even better than a short game.

 

[GobFather]

How do you know it's a "killer SP campaign?"

Also, I don't know about you, but MP and additional online features are table stakes these days, if a games doesn't come pre-equipped, especially if the SP doesn't have replayability, the game will get bashed.

This may be a premature statement, but this seems to be what is happening to 1886.

A lot of the impressions were positive. Dont different people like different experiences? I never play multiplayer games other than sports and destiny. Most games I just play single player and that's it. So maybe it caters to people like me and not people like you :/

I'm glad I like pretty much like all types of games. Really the only genre I don't care for is JRPG's. But guess what? Since I don't like'em, I don't venture into JRPG threads and shit on them. I also don't say they suck as I know some of them are amazing (based on what others think), they're just not for me.

Yeah. You rock

 

[DryvBy]

How long is the install time compared to the game?

Spoiler

Joking, just in case. This is a sensitive thread.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

The thing I find ironic ... In the old days people would complain if a game was mainly mp and tacked on a single player campaign. Now a killer single player campaign gets trashed if there's no mp or the campaign is too short. I'd rather have a shorter campaign with no filler rather than a long campaign with garbage in the middle.

At my old gaming review site we had to deduct marks if a game was mp only, because single player was the defacto mode to review. I actually got in hot water with a coeditor for giving Left 4 Dead a 10/10 (posted it live before he saw it).

I say this only to show that people value different things. I personally think a games merit should be based on the experience it provides ... Be it mp, single player or whatever. I'm firmly in the camp that a solid 6 - 10 hour single player campaign that provides rich storytelling, top end triple A visuals and engaging gameplay is worth the money.

At the same time I get that not everyone values that when looking at how much time they'll spend with a title.

I don't care about multiplayer or replayability in a game like this. What I do care about is having a reasonably long single-player campaign, which it looks like The Order does not.

 

[Nafai1123]

Point out where I did that. I swear to go some people don't read posts in full and just jump at the opportunity to draw lines in the sand, point fingers, and attack what they perceive to be as some enemy tribe or something.

I'm just arguing with the people trying to invalidate the YouTube playthrough due to some preconceived notion or desire for the game to be something they have in their heads.

I've already said multiple times that the guy's playthrough could very well not be representative of most people's, and even cited the impressions of GAFfers that we've seen.

I'm not attacking anyone. Merely pointing out that a majority of your posts have been based around the assumption that people have every right to be unhappy about a game that takes 5 hours to beat, thus implying that this game takes 5 hours to beat (or 5 hours to beat unless you're a total completionist).

I don't really care about how the Youtuber played the game. If it took him 5 hours then it took him 5 hours. But to base an argument off one data point instead of multiple others seems intentionally dense.

 

[Alebrije]

Well, I guess GAF will implode if Bloodborne is like 5-7 hours length.

 

[Mr. X]

What about a long game with no filler and that is great throughout? That would be even better than a short game.

Depends on the person. With TV, some people like short series that in a couple of seasons. Others want shows that go on for 100+ eps. I'd rather them not go "it's not long enough" and throw something in there just to inflate play time.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Well, I guess GAF will implode if Bloodborne is like 5-7 hours length.

I don't think I could go on living.

 

[John Bender]

The thing I find ironic ... In the old days people would complain if a game was mainly mp and tacked on a single player campaign. Now a killer single player campaign gets trashed if there's no mp or the campaign is too short. I'd rather have a shorter campaign with no filler rather than a long campaign with garbage in the middle.

At my old gaming review site we had to deduct marks if a game was mp only, because single player was the defacto mode to review. I actually got in hot water with a coeditor for giving Left 4 Dead a 10/10 (posted it live before he saw it).

I say this only to show that people value different things. I personally think a games merit should be based on the experience it provides ... Be it mp, single player or whatever. I'm firmly in the camp that a solid 6 - 10 hour single player campaign that provides rich storytelling, top end triple A visuals and engaging gameplay is worth the money.

At the same time I get that not everyone values that when looking at how much time they'll spend with a title.

Couldn't say it any better.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

This is a flawed concept and one which assumes all games are homogeneous. They are not, they are all different things to different people.

What one person might perceive to be "worth" $60 another might decide its only "worth" $20 and vice versa.

And luckily for us, this industry allows everyone to make that choice. You can wait for a sale, you can buy used, you can even rent.

Because of all these factors, I don't understand why its even debated. You are not forced to purchase every game that comes out nor are you forced to buy anything at full price.

Word.

That said, rental or $20 on PSN in a few months for me.

As you said, I value a game that I can finish in a day to be of less value to me. Especially one with questionable replay value. Just lessons I've learned along the way in my life as a gamer. I'm very unlikely to play a game more than once through, so if there isn't something really impressive about its gameplay mechanics (say, Ninja Gaiden Black or Bayo)... or if there isn't kickass multiplayer awaiting my completion of the short SP experience...it's not a product worth my $60. Not for me it's not. $20-$30 is right for me for this sort of abbreviated experience.

What about a long game with no filler and that is great throughout? That would be even better than a short game.

+1

The "either or" rationale is a cop-out. Intellectually dishonest at best.

 

[OSHAN]

if it's indeed a 5 hour game, RAD already knows this and already knows they'll have to live with that fact once it got out in the open and they already know how that'll likely affect review scores.

Wasn't this just said today?

At an event in Milan, CTO Andrea Pessino finally answered in detail the topical question, asked by the audience.

According to Pessino, Ready at Dawn’s internal metrics show that if you play the game at a normal pace and difficulty level, you can finish the game in a window between eight and ten hours. If you play in hard mode or you take your time to seek for every single little detail, you’ll probably clock about twelve hours or more.
Pessino also admitted that yes, if you rush through the game skipping everything you can, you can probably manage the clear in five hours and a half.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

The thing I find ironic ... In the old days people would complain if a game was mainly mp and tacked on a single player campaign. Now a killer single player campaign gets trashed if there's no mp or the campaign is too short. I'd rather have a shorter campaign with no filler rather than a long campaign with garbage in the middle.

Is the old days last generation?

 

[King Tubby]

The thing I find ironic ... In the old days people would complain if a game was mainly mp and tacked on a single player campaign. Now a killer single player campaign gets trashed if there's no mp or the campaign is too short. I'd rather have a shorter campaign with no filler rather than a long campaign with garbage in the middle.

Well, that's the thing. If you're paying $60 for what amounts to a 6-8 hour campaign, it better be killer if you're going to justify that purchase. That's something that depends on the person of course, different people assign different values to things.

 

[Frillen]

Wasn't this just said today?

At an event in Milan, CTO Andrea Pessino finally answered in detail the topical question, asked by the audience.

According to Pessino, Ready at Dawn’s internal metrics show that if you play the game at a normal pace and difficulty level, you can finish the game in a window between eight and ten hours. If you play in hard mode or you take your time to seek for every single little detail, you’ll probably clock about twelve hours or more.
Pessino also admitted that yes, if you rush through the game skipping everything you can, you can probably manage the clear in five hours and a half.

You always have to shave off a few hours compared to what the devs say. Or that's what GAF taught me anyway.

 

[Yaser Tech]

Word.

That said, rental or $20 on PSN in a few months for me.

As you said, I value a game that I can finish in a day to be of less value to me. Especially one with questionable replay value. Just lessons I've learned along the way in my life as a gamer. I'm very unlikely to play a game more than once through, so if there isn't something really impressive about its gameplay mechanics (say, Ninja Gaiden Black or Bayo)... or if there isn't kickass multiplayer awaiting my completion of the short SP experience...it's not a product worth my $60. Not for me it's not. $20-$30 is right for me for this sort of abbreviated experience.

Just curious, why would the replay value be important to you if you rarely replay games?

Spoiler

I personally consider replayability as a factor for certain games

 

[Skux]

Well, I guess GAF will implode if Bloodborne is like 5-7 hours length.

Don't worry, it has endless procedural dungeons!

 

[bananafactory]

If we are talking about "Standard" game length, here is my Uncharted 3 playtime

And here's my cumulative time about 1/3 (Chapter 8 of 22) into my 2nd playthrough of Uncharted 1. The first play was about 6.5 hours IIRC

FYI, neither of these are speedruns. These are my normal playtimes and I am not particularly great at games.

While 5.5 may be a bit short, it is not leagues below standard action adventure game totals. And it sounds like many people will finish closer to the 8-10 hour range

 

[pompidu]

These time breakdowns were posted in the impressions thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152352497&postcount=2205

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152355662&postcount=2232

Wow. That total gameplay time. Just wow.

 

[OSHAN]

You always have to shave off a few hours compared to what the devs say. Or that's what GAF taught me anyway.

That's a rather large ranges he's saying though; I don't think I've seen a dev come out and say "our game takes 5-12 hours to complete." Well, except for today.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You pay the same price though?

Edit: I'm a lil confused as to what your argument is Zefah?

Mine is that the guy's playthrough length is perfectly valid from all accounts. It will likely not be the same length as most people who pick up the game. That's largely irrelevant. However, IF a person were to play through the game in around six hours and end up feeling that it was too short, that opinion would not be invalid, either.

I'm just arguing with the people who seem to be trying to discredit the YouTube guy or are saying that if you don't 100% the game on hard and "soak in the atmosphere" then you're not playing it right.

 

[KingFire]

If we are talking about "Standard" game length, here is my Uncharted 3 playtime



And here's my cumulative time about 1/3 (Chapter 8 of 22) into my 2nd playthrough of Uncharted 1. The first play was about 6.5 hours IIRC



FYI, neither of these are speedruns. These are my normal playtimes and I am not particularly great at games.

While 5.5 may be a bit short, it is not leagues below standard action adventure game totals. And it sounds like many people will finish closer to the 8-10 hour range

Is that a first playthrough?

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

Mine is that the guy's playthrough length is perfectly valid from all accounts. It will likely not be the same length as most people who pick up the game. That's largely irrelevant. However, IF a person were to play through the game in around six hours and end up feeling that it was too short, that opinion would not be invalid, either.

I'm just arguing with the people who seem to be trying to discredit the YouTube guy or are saying that if you don't 100% the game on hard and "soak in the atmosphere" then you're not playing it right.

Ok, and I agree with that.

 

[bananafactory]

Is that a first playthrough?

Yes. I have only played through UC3 once.

The UC1 time is 1/3 into my 2nd playthrough.

I play Uncharted on Easy, mind you. But I am pretty bad so I still died at times.

 

[Liberty4all]

Is the old days last generation?

Early last Gen yes and the Gen before that (PS2). The game changed with titles like CoD whose multiplayer could keep a player going for over a year with no other purchases aside from dlc map packs.

Why do you think multiplayer has blown up so huge? These games take years to make the money is now in the dlc, season passes, monthly psn/live subs etc ... That's why single player only titles are a rarity nowadays rather than the norm like they used to be.

This is another reason why I think the Order is a breath of fresh air ... A reminder that a single player only title can offer a different type of experience not just measured in how many dozens of hours of playtime one gets.

I say that as somebody who prefers multiplayer titles and always has.

 

[Nafai1123]

Wow. That total gameplay time. Just wow.

Both of those quotes are based off the same Youtube playthrough.

If you play like the guy from the walkthrough (=fast) here is how the gameplay vs. cutscene breakdown by chapter looks like (spoiler warning):

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Both of those quotes are based off the same Youtube playthrough.

Since the guy who posted the playthrough said he didn't count the QTE/"push button to advance cutscene" stuff as gameplay, it sounds like his estimate of 1.5~2.5 hours may have been pretty accurate.

 

[pompidu]

Both of those quotes are based off the same Youtube playthrough.

Him going "fast" is not really gonna alter gameplay time that much, if at all.

 

[Nafai1123]

Since the guy who posted the playthrough said he didn't count the QTE/"push button to advance cutscene" stuff as gameplay, it sounds like his estimate of 1.5~2.5 hours may have been pretty accurate.

Again, I'm not arguing how long it took him to play the game. I'm merely pointing out that those two individual posts are in regards to the same playthrough.

 

[Frillen]

Early last Gen yes and the Gen before that (PS2). The game changed with titles like CoD whose multiplayer could keep a player going for over a year with no other purchases aside from dlc map packs.

Why do you think multiplayer has blown up so huge? These games take years to make the money is now in the dlc, season passes, monthly psn/live subs etc ... That's why single player only titles are a rarity nowadays rather than the norm like they used to be.

This is another reason why I think the Order is a breath of fresh air ... A reminder that a single player only title can offer a different type of experience not just measured in how many dozens of hours of playtime one gets.

I say that as somebody who prefers multiplayer titles and always has.

You clearly don't play a lot of single player focused games, do you? Because if you did, you would know there are tons of them out there, especially indie games.

 

[cackhyena]

If we are talking about "Standard" game length, here is my Uncharted 3 playtime



And here's my cumulative time about 1/3 (Chapter 8 of 22) into my 2nd playthrough of Uncharted 1. The first play was about 6.5 hours IIRC



FYI, neither of these are speedruns. These are my normal playtimes and I am not particularly great at games.

While 5.5 may be a bit short, it is not leagues below standard action adventure game totals. And it sounds like many people will finish closer to the 8-10 hour range

Right, but how much more were you actually playing than watching?

 

[KingFire]

Early last Gen yes and the Gen before that (PS2). The game changed with titles like CoD whose multiplayer could keep a player going for over a year with no other purchases aside from dlc map packs.

Why do you think multiplayer has blown up so huge? These games take years to make the money is now in the dlc, season passes, monthly psn/live subs etc ... That's why single player only titles are a rarity nowadays rather than the norm like they used to be.

This is another reason why I think the Order is a breath of fresh air ... A reminder that a single player only title can offer a different type of experience not just measured in how many dozens of hours of playtime one gets.

I say that as somebody who prefers multiplayer titles and always has.

There is nothing "fresh" about The Order besides the impressive graphical fidelity. The game is a manifestation of the CoD single player "filmic" campaigns trend that you seem to criticize: A short, QTE-infested, story-lacking, try-too-hard-to-be-filmic campaign with no reply value whatsoever. This trend started last generation and I vividly remember a number of members here criticizing these games, even calling them "interactive movies" despite having a higher reply value than The Order. Funny how times have changed and now such games are hyped instead of being criticized.

Your posts would make sense if we were talking about Vanquish or MGS:R. These games offer "killer SP" which is a product of their great gameplay and decent presentation that just make you want to get back and reply the game. They are valuable games in spite of their length.

 

[loaf of bread]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all this concern over the one Youtube playthrough that was 5.5 hours when the other like 10 or so people here who finished it all took roughly 9-12 hours. Is there even another confirmed play through thats in the range of the Youtube vid?

 

[Neuromancer]

There are some pretty great reviews in this thread.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all this concern over the one Youtube playthrough that was 5.5 hours when the other like 10 or so people here who finished it all took roughly 9-12 hours. Is there even another confirmed play through thats in the range of the Youtube vid?

At the moment the YouTube playthrough is the only one that we can honestly call "confirmed."

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

At the moment the YouTube playthrough is the only one that we can honestly call "confirmed."

Well it's not like they are all liars.

 

[TheChocolateWar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all this concern over the one Youtube playthrough that was 5.5 hours when the other like 10 or so people here who finished it all took roughly 9-12 hours. Is there even another confirmed play through thats in the range of the Youtube vid?

When presented with people merely claiming to have beaten it in ten hours without any proof of how they played and a person recording the entire playing process, one would hope that a person would realize that an actual video of the entire game would take precedent. Seems a tad higher on the proof scale than unsubstantiated claims.

Not that I have watched the video nor promote the video myself, I do not want to be spoiled. I just recognize that visual proof trumps unsubstantiated claims.

 

[loaf of bread]

At the moment the YouTube playthrough is the only one that we can honestly call "confirmed."

The people here who have and played the game are confirmed. This isn't Gamefaqs.

 

[Tainted]

At the moment the YouTube playthrough is the only one that we can honestly call "confirmed."

Although noone yet can really confirm if there is content missing from his videos

 

[domlolz]

Yes. Completing 100% of a game by finding every collectible, reading every newspaper, listening to every audio, checking out every corner of the game world, and slowly panning the camera around like you're playing an E3 demo when checking out the skyboxes and vistas will increase your play time. That doesn't make beating the game in 5 hours without doing all of those things a speedrun or playing the game wrong. You might as well argue that other generally short games like COD have gotten a bad rap all these years because people didn't find all those laptops while playing through them.

i wonder if people do actually playthrough games like e3 demos and good post

 

[Sean*O]

Note to devs, start padding the shit out of your games.