R6Rider
Gold Member
The second one was only about 8 and the first wasn't much longer that that. An 8-10 hour game was always expected and the perfect length for these games.So its a short game, not gonna buy it.
8 HOURSSS!!?>?>???
The second one was only about 8 and the first wasn't much longer that that. An 8-10 hour game was always expected and the perfect length for these games.So its a short game, not gonna buy it.
8 HOURSSS!!?>?>???
I remember when people absolutely slaughtered a little game called Order 1886 because the length was under 10 hours…now it seems like companies are getting praise for it.
I remember when people absolutely slaughtered a little game called Order 1886 because the length was under 10 hours…now it seems like companies are getting praise for it.
Some of the greatest games of all time can be completed in under 15 hours.
I'm torn.
On one hand, I don't like to be bogged down with a game that has hundreds of hours of content and like a short, snappy well made campaign.
On the other hand, my dream game is an openworld RPG where the map is at least 20million square miles and the game has hundreds of thousands of hours worth of missions and content. A game so big, that it has tens of thousands of places to explore and would take you months in real time to walk from one end to the other.
Torn.
Luckily for you Natalie, the second won't happen in your lifetime, so there's nothing to be indecisive about.
I might happen. I'm only in my 30s. Tech is pretty much there for it already.
Natalie?
Laziest reply ever, look 4 posts aboveI don't get the reference.
Agreed. Many games would actually benefit from cutting out all the filler.The second one was only about 8 and the first wasn't much longer that that. An 8-10 hour game was always expected and the perfect length for these games.
Thr orders length wasnt just under 10 hrs. It was less then 3 hours of gameplay if i recall and total 7 hrs with cutscenesI remember when people absolutely slaughtered a little game called Order 1886 because the length was under 10 hours…now it seems like companies are getting praise for it.
You want tot wash Wang, or you want to watch Wang wash Wang?WHO WANTS SOME WANG?
And the stealth segments were shit.Thr orders length wasnt just under 10 hrs. It was less then 3 hours of gameplay if i recall and total 7 hrs with cutscenes
So its a short game, not gonna buy it.
8 HOURSSS!!?>?>???
For those missing the joke
I got just under 11 with the platinum trophy, that's not as terrible as people made it seem. While it could have been longer, especially with the cut scene, it didn't deserve to be dragged through the mud so bad that it would essentially kill a studio.Thr orders length wasnt just under 10 hrs. It was less then 3 hours of gameplay if i recall and total 7 hrs with cutscenes
Sooo, Detroit Become Human?The order have 8 hours of cinematics for 2 hours of playing with QTE
Yes, this is a perfect example of what I was trying to say. It isn't the length that matters, it's the quality (that's what she said?)Yeah, because people say dumb stuff from emotion not taking account into systematic factors when analyzing things. The people who always complained about games being too short are now complaining about there being too much content. Which is it? I think games like Metroid Dread and others show that you don't need that much content to have a good, enjoyable game. Just make what is there worthwhile and interesting. You can satisfy overachievers by adding challenges, hard modes, etc., but if you screw up the balance of the main game the quality of the core game is sacrificed.
Ugh. Guess I won't be 100%ing it. I don't want to have an existential crisis upon 100% a game. Games like Symphony of the Night and Death's Door have it right content-wise imo.