Ready at Dawn responds to "concern" over The Order: 1886 campaign length

codhand said:
to be fair, i dont know of many 20 hour cinematic games.
Click to expand...

First someone needs to define what cinematic game means. Does elite dangerous qualify as cinematic with the vast expanses of space rendered beautifully while being 100's of hours long? Or maybe half-life which was huge, or maybe Halo is also a cinematic space opera worth 100's of hours of single and multi-player?

Because if cinematic only means linear corridor shooter with loads of in-game movies, then that's a pretty limited definition.
 
Uncharted was a relatively short game with little replay value, but it laid the foundation for two of the greatest games of last generation (U2 and TLoU), so I'm willing to give RaD the chance to make the same thing happen here.
 
I really hope this gets decent reviews, like at least 80 average. For no reason other than hopefully it will allow some actual worthwhile discussion and do away with all this crap.
 
thebloo said:
I'm not dismissing TLoU, heaven forbid. I'm just saying that this breakdown was made specifically for this game, to make it look bad. And it's the truth (
truth is variable
) so you can't dismiss it. But what if a similar breakdown could be made for something universally acclaimed?
Click to expand...

I know the TLoU band wagon gets annoying but

The Order is (apparently) no TLoU, not mention it's twice as long with good MP.
 
StoOgE said:
I think the better way to measure a game is relatively simple.

How much fun did I have relative to the price?

I think a lot of gamers tend to divide time played by price paid to get the notional value of a game.

i.e. I played Destiny for 150 hours / 60 dollars = .40 cents an hour for entertainment!!!

But not everything is created equally.

If you gave me a false choice of buying Destiny for 30 dollars or Sunset Overdrive for 100 dollars right now, I would buy Sunset Overdrive. And that's a 10-15 hour game with decent but not great replay ability.

That answer is going to be different for everyone though. Someone who can only afford 1 game every 3 months and has 40+ hours of gaming time a week would likely look at the choice and gladly pay more for Destiny because they want something that they can play for a long time. Or they like Destiny more.

Or any number of things.

I think this construct that designers must have a 12+ hour main game and multiplayer to get a 60 dollar value is bad for our industry.
Click to expand...

No no no, this is so wrong. We need to dissect every game and find out it's value per hour, cross reference it with it's QTE's and unskippable movies to find out the maximum fun value that the game can give to a person under optimum conditions.

Because games are expensive, they've never been so expensive in our lives! I mean, sure, this game doesn't have 4 rounds of $15 DLC to make the non-existant multiplayer even worth while, as the developers and publishers "accidentally" hold you hostage as they fracture the community with "reasonably priced" map packs.

This whole thing is perfectly healthy, I mean if you look at the cost per hour of Destiny it's literally the greatest game of our lifetime, just look at the reviews and player opinions!
 
TheLostBigBoss said:
No no no, this is so wrong. We need to dissect every game and find out it's value per hour, cross reference it with it's QTE's and unskippable movies to find out the maximum fun value that the game can give to a person under optimum conditions.

Because games are expensive, they've never been so expensive in our lives! I mean, sure, this game doesn't have 4 rounds of $15 DLC to make the non-existant multiplayer even worth while, as the developers and publishers "accidentally" hold you hostage as they fracture the community with "reasonably priced" map packs.

This whole thing is perfectly healthy, I mean if you look at the cost per hour of Destiny it's literally the greatest game of our lifetime, just look at the reviews and player opinions!
Click to expand...

I've spent about $50 on Dota 2 and put ~650 hours into it. $0.07 an hour. Dat value.
 
ironcreed said:
Lawds. This thread is still erupting like a super volcano, I see.
Click to expand...

Dynomite!!!!! I've come in here only to see the continuing train wreck at this point. This is gamefaqs/reddit level stuff from some of the folks in here. It's not everyone of course, but the ones that do, sure stick out like a bump on a log.
 
This is why review embargoes are stupid. People get the game early, mention short length and the Internet goes insane, then you have 3 days of all this bad energy festering and no way to quell the tide of bad vibes because you can't release review scores.

Had the reviews come out first, you'd at least have other things to talk about with the game as opposed to the length being the main headline.

Dumb move Sony

loaf of bread said:
I really hope this gets decent reviews, like at least 80 average. For no reason other than hopefully it will allow some actual worthwhile discussion and do away with all this crap.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think even 80+ review scores is going to change the narrative about this game. The tone has been set, "the game is 5 hours long" is all the majority of people are going to talk about.
 
What I don't understand is how all of a sudden there exists a standard for how a long a game should be at minimum for $60 and a ratio of gameplay to cut-scenes which defines whether something is a videogame or not.

This thread has seen its share of elitism. To some, if the game doesn't meet their requirements, it's automatically bad. The problem is that this isn't being spewed as personal opinion, but instead as fact. It is terribly frustrating to engage in conversation with people who cannot recognize a product's strengths without having to like it themselves. It's like calling Alien an awful film without recognizing what it does well. This type of attitude is not conducive to a healthy conversation.

Edit: Even worse, people haven't even played the game yet to determine what it does well, but have already arrived at the conclusion that the game, regardless of the person, is bad and must meet a criteria in order for it to be considered worthwhile.
 
Amentallica said:
What I don't understand is how all of a sudden there exists a standard for how a long a game should be at minimum for $60 and a ratio of gameplay to cut-scenes which defines whether something is a videogame or not.

This thread has seen its share of elitism. To some, if the game doesn't meet their requirements, it's automatically bad. The problem is that this isn't being spewed as personal opinion, but instead as fact. It is terribly frustrating to engage in conversation with people who cannot recognize a product's strengths without having to like it themselves. It's like calling Alien an awful film without recognizing what it does well. This type of attitude is not conducive to a healthy conversation.
Click to expand...

No one here is saying the game is bad, just that its bad value for them. Doesn't mean its bad value for you if the order 1886 is your thing.

Unless you equate discussing length with calling the game out for being bad... which is not a very conductive way to look at a conversation about video games.
 
Couldn't resist the hype and pre-ordered on Amazon last night, fully aware of the concerns with The Order.

I don't mind a linear story based game being on the shorter side, especially if it has high production values. I'll definitely get my money's worth and Platinum it. Depending on how good or bad the game actually is, I'll decide if I want to trade it in.

I'm not much into replaying games over and over without having some sort of goal or carrot to chase (trophy hunter habbit) but I'll support RAD if the game is good and keep it around. Maybe even use it to showcase the capabilities of the PS4, when buddies come over.
 
How is it bad value if you enjoy the game despite its length?

Cant you just sell it for 40 bucks when ur done with it?
 
I don't think people have an issue with the length itself, they have an issue with paying full price for a game that has less content than the competition. There's plenty of room for shorter artistic and/or cinematic games, but I think that a tiered pricing system would make things better. I'd probably buy The Order this month if it were $40, but instead I'm going to wait and likely buy it secondhand.
 
-MD- said:
You posted this a little under 3 hours ago

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152421335&postcount=8752 and then followed it up with this http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152429936&postcount=8820

Were you already a couple hours into the game before you made that initial post? Just curious cause you said you weren't actually counting your playtime.
Click to expand...

Oh, interesting. Well, seems the game is not that interesting if you post a picture of your review copy on GAF after 2 hours in. ;)
 
MMaRsu said:
How is it bad value if you enjoy the game despite its length?

Cant you just sell it for 40 bucks when ur done with it?
Click to expand...

But that makes too much sense! I think a lot of the people clowning the game for its "value" didn't really have intentions of buying it anyway. They're just having fun adding fuel to the fire and watching the world (of ppl excited for the game) burn.
 
Amentallica said:
What I don't understand is how all of a sudden there exists a standard for how a long a game should be at minimum for $60 and a ratio of gameplay to cut-scenes which defines whether something is a videogame or not.
Click to expand...

I think it's natural to discuss gameplay and how much interaction there is in a game. After all, video games are an interactive media. Interactivity is what separates it from movies, going to the theater, reading a book etc.

Games have become more and more cutscene-heavy in recent years. Developers/publishers want to tell a story and for that, cutscenes are damn effective. The problem is that cutscenes are not providing any interaction. Some cutscenes have QTEs, but that's just a cheap trick to make you feel in charge.

I think it's worrying that modern AAA games have evolved into cutscene-fests with a few shootouts here and there. Developers need to understand the video game media and focus on true interaction.

To tell a story while the player is in control (not with QTEs...)
 
Darkangel said:
I don't think people have an issue with the length itself, they have an issue with paying full price for a game that has less content than the competition. There's plenty of room for shorter artistic and/or cinematic games, but I think that a tiered pricing system would make things better. I'd probably buy The Order this month if it were $40, but instead I'm going to wait and likely buy it secondhand.
Click to expand...

What is the standard amount of content needed to justify a $60 purchase. You can justify for yourself whether the game is worth it at $60, and that's perfectly fine.

Mogwai said:
I think it's natural to discuss gameplay and how much interaction there is in a game. After all, video games are an interactive media. Interactivity is what separates it from movies, going to the theater, reading a book etc.

Games have become more and more cutscene-heavy in recent years. Developers/publishers want to tell a story and for that, cutscenes are damn effective. The problem is that cutscenes are not providing any interaction. Some cutscenes have QTEs, but that's just a cheap trick to make you feel in charge.

I think it's worrying that modern AAA games have evolved into cutscene-fests with a few shootouts here and there. Developers need to understand the video game media and focus on true interaction.

To tell a story while the player is in control (not with QTEs...)
Click to expand...

But once again, what is the standard? There isn't one, so can we please stop acting like there is and that The Order falls below that standard. Video games are not static. Developers are free to choose how they go about realizing their visions and we will not always like what they put out. That's what I like about video games. Sure, interactivity is great, but if I just reduced video games to how much interactivity I have, rather than how I personally feel when experiencing them, then that's rather meaningless to me.
 
For all the people complaining about the games length, I wonder if you even collect or keep your games long term anyways. I know lots of folks that buy a game, and trade it in a few weeks later or so. If you do this with The Order, it's all the same anyways right? I tend to keep my most treasured or memorable games forever and replay them over the years.
 
MMaRsu said:
How is it bad value if you enjoy the game despite its length?

Cant you just sell it for 40 bucks when ur done with it?
Click to expand...

If only I could get more than 20$ in store credit for a game like this in my market. Besides, there are more economic factors here than "lol resell it". There are a bunch of opportunity costs and other costs associated with going to sell it.
 
SlasherJPC said:
For all the people complaining about the games length, I wonder if you even collect or keep your games long term anyways. I know lots of folks that buy a game, and trade it in a few weeks later or so. If you do this with The Order, it's all the same anyways right? I tend to keep my most treasured or memorable games forever and replay them over the years.
Click to expand...
Even so, it would still be an issue. Time to complete will be shorter, so time between purchase and trade-in will be shorter, and number of trade ins will be higher. Trade and resale values will likely be lower due to market saturation.
 
StoOgE said:
I think this construct that designers must have a 12+ hour main game and multiplayer to get a 60 dollar value is bad for our industry.
Click to expand...

I think the core economic pressure is that if someone can rent your game from Redbox and easily beat it in a day or two, there's a ton of people who will just take that option.

Similarly if there's no multiplayer, it's very easy to borrow from your friend (since you don't need to play it with them), and you have a lot less incentive to play it up front for fear of missing out on the active community.

Combining the two, if it doesn't take long for your friend to beat a game, they can give it to you to play quite quickly as well, or trade it back in and get lots of used copies on shelves very quickly while recovering a lot of their own value.

Compare that to a singleplayer only game like Skyrim that takes a gazillion hours and if you want to play it close to launch, you have to buy your own copy.

This is a large part of why games that aren't multiplayer focused but are still $60 retail products are all meandering open worlds, since they need to do something to convince people to hang on to the game instead of handing it to their friends, renting it, or trading it back in.

We had a window where a lot of developers were actually trying to make something like what The Order 1886 is, but that dried up when the market reaction wasn't there, and suddenly the games that don't have strong multiplayer are all in the image of the singleplayer heavy games that succeeded.
 
Nirolak said:
This is a large part of why games that aren't multiplayer focused but are still $60 retail products are all meandering open worlds, since they need to do something to convince people to hang on to the game instead of handing it to their friends, renting it, or trading it back in.
Click to expand...

Yeah I didn't really think about it until controversy over this game but literally almost every single AAA game I've played recently has been an open world game where I'm chasing down icons on a minimap. And that looks to continue with even games like The Witcher and possibly Metal Gear and Uncharted. :o
 
Nirolak said:
I think the core economic pressure is that if someone can rent your game from Redbox and easily beat it in a day or two, there's a ton of people who will just take that option.

Similarly if there's no multiplayer, it's very easy to borrow from your friend (since you don't need to play it with them), and you have a lot less incentive to play it up front for fear of missing out on the active community.

Combining the two, if it doesn't take long for your friend to beat a game, they can give it to you to play quite quickly as well, or trade it back in and get lots of used copies on shelves very quickly while recovering a lot of their own value.

Compare that to a singleplayer only game like Skyrim that takes a gazillion hours and if you want to play it close to launch, you have to buy your own copy.

This is a large part of why games that aren't multiplayer focused but are still $60 retail products are all meandering open worlds, since they need to do something to convince people to hang on to the game instead of handing it to their friends, renting it, or trading it back in.
Click to expand...

This is actually a very good point. I do think that this game is going to see a large number of trade in's and rentals, perhaps beyond the norm.
 
John Bender said:
Would be interesting to know how many of these guys actually have a PS4 or were interested in buying this game.
Click to expand...

People who watch this on youtube have just as much of an opinion as people who "played" it. The true measure of how good this game is actually how filmic is can actually be, considering that was the goal of it from the start. Presentation first, guns and chest high walls 2nd. I have no PS4 and I must scream.

nib95 said:
This is actually a very good point. I do think that this game is going to see a large number of trade in's and rentals, perhaps beyond the norm.
Click to expand...

Just as a comedic point; I worked at gamestop briefly and the PS4 used drawer was 80% full with Infamous and Watch Dogs. This was like 2 weeks after Watch Dogs came out. I laughed every time I opened that thing.
 
Y2Kev said:
How have they not been upfront about the nature of the gameplay? This has been marketed as an extremely cinematic game from day 1. They have shown QTEs and talked about their new QTE approach in the very first showing. They said story is paramount.

Do you have any interest in this game at all? You seem to have not followed it at all and are making very low information posts.
Click to expand...

I really don't think they have been upfront at all. They're marketing it first and foremost as an TPS shooter with cool weapons set in a very compelling environment. This is not my opinion--check out their website:

First bullet point:

As Galahad, a member of an elite order of Knights, join a centuries-old war against a powerful threat that will determine the course of history forever in this intense third-person action-adventure shooter.
Click to expand...

That's the first thing they have to say about the game. Right off the bat, there's no mention of a short, QTE-heavy experience.


Second bullet point:

Mention cool setting of Victorian-era London.


Third bullet point:

Mention of an all-out war between humanity and an ancient foe. Again, playing up the action.


Fourth bullet point:

Picture of cool weapons. So it's a shooter, right?


Fifth and sixth bullet point:

"Filmic vision" and "seamless narrative experience." So the VERY LAST bullet points speak to cut scenes and QTEs.


What is my interest in the game? What is your interest in the game? It seems to me that you're trying to neuter any discussion about the game, telling those that don't like it to simply not buy it:

Y2Kev said:
Then don't buy it. Some people value things differently. Buy games at the price you want with the features you want.
Click to expand...

Anyways, I don't own an Xbox One or PS4 so I won't be buying the game (unless they've announced it's coming for PC?).

The game looks awesome. I give them a lot of respect for trying to do something innovative. Unfortunately, the deliberate obfuscation of what the game really is turns me off big time. The developer's clear avoidance of a major question about the game speaks volumes. I really don't think it's a good way to treat consumers.
 
Amentallica said:
But once again, what is the standard? There isn't one, so can we please stop acting like there is and that The Order falls below that standard. Video games are not static. Developers are free to choose how they go about realizing their visions and we will not always like what they put out. That's what I like about video games. Sure, interactivity is great, but if I just reduced video games to how much interactivity I have, rather than how I personally feel when experiencing them, then that's rather meaningless to me.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with you on that. There's no standard and there shouldn't be. Diversity is great and there should be room for that, no doubt about it.

I think it's mainly NeoGAF that's a bit hardcore in terms of what a video game is. On this forum, the Telltale games wouldn't be categorized as more than visual novels. Most casual fans would probably just call them regular video games.
 
MMaRsu said:
How is it bad value if you enjoy the game despite its length?

Cant you just sell it for 40 bucks when ur done with it?
Click to expand...

If it isn't worth the 70 bucks (we don't know if it is or not so it's hypothetical) then this makes no sense at all. Why should I give them so much money when I don't feel like 7 hours of this is enough for me to support the devs? Even if I get some of my money out of it later, this would not be a smart thing to do since it encourages these devs to make a similiar sequel.
It's actually smarter to simply wait for the price drop. Again: this only applies if you feel like this game is not worth the price.
 
RSTEIN said:
The game looks awesome. I give them a lot of respect for trying to do something innovative. Unfortunately, the deliberate obfuscation of what the game really is turns me off big time. The developer's clear avoidance of a major question about the game speaks volumes. I really don't think it's a good way to treat consumers.
Click to expand...

I hate to be a stickler, but what do you see as innovative?
 
Nirolak said:
I think the core economic pressure is that if someone can rent your game from Redbox and easily beat it in a day or two, there's a ton of people who will just take that option.

Similarly if there's no multiplayer, it's very easy to borrow from your friend (since you don't need to play it with them), and you have a lot less incentive to play it up front for fear of missing out on the active community.

Combining the two, if it doesn't take long for your friend to beat a game, they can give it to you to play quite quickly as well, or trade it back in and get lots of used copies on shelves very quickly while recovering a lot of their own value.

Compare that to a singleplayer only game like Skyrim that takes a gazillion hours and if you want to play it close to launch, you have to buy your own copy.

This is a large part of why games that aren't multiplayer focused but are still $60 retail products are all meandering open worlds, since they need to do something to convince people to hang on to the game instead of handing it to their friends, renting it, or trading it back in.

We had a window where a lot of developers were actually trying to make something like what The Order 1886 is, but that dried up when the market reaction wasn't there, and suddenly the games that don't have strong multiplayer are all in the image of the singleplayer heavy games that succeeded.
Click to expand...

This is all true and sucks so much.

Games really need their own Netflixy solution long term. I bet the number of people that play these open world bore a thons would drop dramatically if value wasn't a concern anymore.
 
-tetsuo- said:
Just as a comedic point; I worked at gamestop briefly and the PS4 used drawer was 80% full with Infamous and Watch Dogs. This was like 2 weeks after Watch Dogs came out. I laughed every time I opened that thing.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that there will be a large number of used The Order 1886 within a week or two as well. Games like this are disposable entertainment to a lot of people.
 
TomShoe said:
I'm surprised this thread hasn't turned into a gang war yet, with all these drive-bys. The amount of people walking in, blurting "lol5hourswillbuywhen$20" and leaving has been staggering.



Fixed.
Click to expand...

Your post looks more drive-by than the ones you mention. At least people explained their reasons as to why they rather not buy the game at full price. Are you hurt by this?
 
Dictator93 said:
I hate to be a stickler, but what do you see as innovative?
Click to expand...

the blending of heavy rain and uc is innovative. We had our tps then something like heavy rain and walking dead came along and now we have this something in between. also something in between a movie and a game because of the aaa presentation levels of the game. It is something unique def. Whether you like it or value what its trying to do differently is a completely different question.
 
nib95 said:
This is actually a very good point. I do think that this game is going to see a large number of trade in's and rentals, perhaps beyond the norm.
Click to expand...

I am honestly waiting for it to drop to $20-30 (or even lower). I find it a little off-putting that i can buy the game at 5pm and and have finished it by 11pm.
 
MMaRsu said:
How is it bad value if you enjoy the game despite its length?

Cant you just sell it for 40 bucks when ur done with it?
Click to expand...

That is my stance. I spend more than $60 on going out for dinner sometimes. As long as the meal was great, I am not going to bitch about it not lasting long enough. I just want the game to be good... that's all. And from what I have seen, I think it will be for me.

Honestly, it is up to you to decide if it is worth your time. If not, then thankfully there are tons of games to choose from and room at the table for them all. Why does this have to be such a huge controversy and shit storm? Quite frankly, this kind of noise is becoming quite embarrassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ready At Dawn co-founder discusses failed The Order: 1886 sequel pitch
Game Dev  2 3
118
6K
hussar16 replied
Rumour : Ready at dawn had plans for a The Order 1886 sequel pre Meta acquisition
2
71
4K
MayauMiao replied
VGC: The Order 1886 sequel would have offered bigger fights and multiplayer
37
619
ChorizoPicozo replied
Meta shuts down developer Ready at Dawn (Lone Echo, The Order 1886, GoW Chains of Olympus/Ghost of Sparta, Daxter)
2 3 4
176
15K
Wonko_C replied
LTTP: The Order 1886: Sir Gigachad (56k warning, screenshots)
Hype  2 3 4
169
8K
Regginator replied
Top Bottom