Game Length And Why It Shouldn't Matter
- Thread starter Eric
- Start date
If Quantum Break is a 5 hour game, watch me get hypocritical as a mother****er. Lol
I hope not. But I have a feeling it might be a similar thing.
I expect 7-15 and that isn't enough unless its the latter with a nice Season pass and/or MP mode.
The Order franchise has potential....just needs more length and man oh man would MP be kool with this world.
The issue is if I only get a shot glass full of champagne. 5 hour games with cutscenes are just too short. I agree that game length should not be a huge factor, but extremes like that stand out. I just can't imagine any game that short being so amazing as to be worth full price.
The point about my statement wasn't meant to be about the quantity... Because god knows I've paid $100 for a bottle that tastes like a hookers bathwater. I just mean, options are good, and sometimes, you spend more than you should for a mouth full of potential chlqmydia... Sometimes, you wake up without an sti... Wait... I've gone off track here..
I also think you could make a logarithmic graph of dollars/justification of expenditure.
For the economists out there, you could make all the graphs! Re:graphics, longevity, gameplay!!!
THINK OF THE GRAPHS!!!
For the economists out there, you could make all the graphs! Re:graphics, longevity, gameplay!!!
THINK OF THE GRAPHS!!!
Even worse when half the time of a 5-8 hour game is unskippable cut-scenes. Well, some devs will do anything to artificially prolong a game.
That's the potential problem with QB right now. It's some kind of action game + live action cinema clips or something.
It may very well be a canned game experience with mediocre gameplay and where gamers are watching clips as much as playing. And even worse, there is no replay value.
In that case, it would be warranted for QB to get lousy scores. Personally, I doubt the game will be that bad. but you never know.
One good thing about the game so far is that the brief gameplay clips look slick, play smooth and all that live action stuff has some replayability as the devs said what you do changes what happens. So it sounds like it is worth replaying to see alternate paths and storylines.
I think it's abvious they were targeting the Heavy Rain, Walking Dead and Beyond 2 Souls audience of the world. I wouldn't expect multi player out of this genre especially at release. From what Ive read a lot the reviews are just plane ignorant. Games like these should be no more than 7-8 hours or it would get boring. Anyway I will be enjoying the game while laughing at ignorant people on the web XD.
To be blunt, this entire article is rubbish. You spend $60 per game, you should get your money's worth. Stop making excuses for mediocrity. In the relationship between developers and gamers, its still risk versus reward. We risk (invest) $60 per game hoping to be rewarded with something worth the time and money we invest into it. Its been a decent arrangement thusfar. To suggest that the length of a game shouldnt matter versus the money spent is treacherous to the point of being insane. You're essentially asking to have your fudge properly packed for you without even an ounce of dignity to cling to. Its absurd....
End rant/
End rant/
Agreed.
What is also important is gameplay. A 5-6 hour SP campaign with zero replayability is bad enough in this day and age where many $60 games have lots of content and replayability (modes, MP, New Game +).
A double whammy is when a certain game is 5-6 hour SP focused game is 2 hrs unskippable cut-scenes and 2 hrs QTE, meaning actual traditional gameplay is 2 hrs. Luckily for defenders, the game's unskippable cut-scenes are being counted in that 6 hr total. Gamers typically do not count cut-scenes as part of game time as most games have either little cinematics and/or they are skippable by pressing A or X.
You know it's a major issue when lots of people are suddenly posting about game length and the expected value of a $60 game. That's because it's rare in today's gaming releases to still have $60 games that have such little to come back to. This isn't the PS1 days where an offline action game can be beaten over a weekend. It's 2015. Gaming has new bars of expectations.
Does anyone remember The Unofficial PlayStation Magazine back in the day? Each game review had a segment that scored (via line graph) how fun the game was after...
1 hour
1 day
1 week
1 month
I thought that was awesome. I can't stand listening to the game length doesn't matter argument. Of course it plays a factor.
1 hour
1 day
1 week
1 month
I thought that was awesome. I can't stand listening to the game length doesn't matter argument. Of course it plays a factor.
The Order is actually the poster child for being generic shooter in terms of gameplay. If it was some fresh experience from a gameplay perspective, then maybe that would be an argument. Beyond and especially Heavy Rain could lean on this argument a bit, but don't come out with a generic 7-8 hour shooter, with no multiplayer and expect people to rave about your game.
Why wouldn't you expect multiplayer? Almost every cover shooter in the last 8 years has had it. The only reason the game got boring is there is no substance, its the same dumb 3 AI over and over, shotgunner rush, cover camper, and sniper that we've seen for over a decade, and probably the worst version of each I can remember. The Order deserves zero slack Zero. I'm sorry. It doesn't do gameplay well, and if it was in likes of Heavy Rain.... be like Heavy Rain then, we can respect that.
I understand the concept they tried to be like TLoU in terms of gameplay, but they don't have a solid AI base to even consider it. So, it ended up falling apart for after the 2nd-3rd encounter. The story is really good though.
I saw/heard one of the devs say that it was a third person action shooter in an interview. They weren't going for TLOU. I'm not sure how that comparison even gets made. Because it is slow? TLOU's game-play isn't shooter game-play, even if it does have some shooting in it. The items you pick up and inspect don't even affect the game in any way. That's so weird to me.
It has even less in common with Heavy Rain( presence of QTEs?). Your actions change the outcome of the story in HR. The QTEs had branching actions, and there were multiple endings. even if Cage didn't want people to play more than once( for impact), there was still a reason to replay it.
The Order's critics are not just criticizing the length, even though people seem to be fixating on that. It is the length, relative to price, relative to cutscenes/gameplay, relative to features, relative replay-ability.
The Length is NOT the only thing people are upset about.
I don't want to get too down on the Order, as I know there is something to it, but some of the defenses are silly.
Last edited:
Maybe they said they didn't try to be like the TLoU of us, but it definitely feels like that game while playing, but just not as good.
Yeah this game has the worst collectable items in gaming history. 3/4th of the items you pick up aren't even collectable. You just look at them. The pictures and stuff don't even give clues or anything relevant. It's as if they were put there to extend the games length.
I dunno, I saw The Order on youtube for free. Decent movie, story was a letdown and made no sense. Definitely wouldn't have redboxed it.
I don't mean it plays like HR I just mean they are going for a similar experience. Like for an example Asuras Wrath.
You could tell by the videos what audience they were targeting so I didn't expect multi player. It didn't suprise me when people said the boss fights were QTE's. If you don'like these sort of games why buy it in the first place and then all of a sudden be disappointed there is no multi player?
From what heard the game isnt bad as peolpe say but not great either. It usually gets an 8 out of 10 on youtube and people are shocked at all the hate. I will just play it for myself. I actually seen a 2 out of 10 review. lol
I was at a friends place and she was playing it today, and I have to agree that the A.I. Was... Not great.
I really hope the game sells well enough to support the studio. I love the idea of games as art. Its a stunning piece of software, and it has potential to be something special.
Journalists are entitled to review it for what they feel its worth, but I really wish that they kept the view of supporting the industry in mind.
I do think that maybe Sony should have thought about the pricing a bit more. If it were half price, I feel the drama would be null and void. I'm not sure of the studios size, or the games budget, but they should have realized the potential of this as a long lasting, console defining property.
Can the licence recover from this? I hope so.
But then does value actually effect the score of a game? It does when I'm buying it, but a good experience is a good experience, whether it be based on his visuals or gameply...
I really hope the game sells well enough to support the studio. I love the idea of games as art. Its a stunning piece of software, and it has potential to be something special.
Journalists are entitled to review it for what they feel its worth, but I really wish that they kept the view of supporting the industry in mind.
I do think that maybe Sony should have thought about the pricing a bit more. If it were half price, I feel the drama would be null and void. I'm not sure of the studios size, or the games budget, but they should have realized the potential of this as a long lasting, console defining property.
Can the licence recover from this? I hope so.
But then does value actually effect the score of a game? It does when I'm buying it, but a good experience is a good experience, whether it be based on his visuals or gameply...
The AI is lousy.
I saw various snippets from the walkthrough posted on YT a week before launch, so I saw both alleyway shootouts and the lycan fight. Two scenes with battles. Two atrocious examples of AI.
The grunts in the alleyway were basically Call of Duty 2 AI from 10 years ago. It dragged on so long I thought it was unlimited grunts like CoD, but eventually the enemies stopped coming out. As for the werewolf fight, it was the most ridiculous werewolf fight I've seen in gaming. Typically, any kind of beast coming at you in a game will act fast and given the type of creature try to bum rush you and claw and bite. I've never seen an AI which comes at you so predictably, takes a swipe, misses, runs back to the same starting point and repeats. Yeah, every werewolf kind of creature in any game or movie sure acts like that.
I didn't even bother watching the final boss fight as I was randomly skipping through YT uploads. Didn't know until later on the final fight is basically another QTE type of fight like previous encounters. Absurd. I then watched it and watching your guy repeat the same knife slashing actions was repetitive.
Agreed.
And it's especially not worth the value nowadays since many game companies seem to dump their games to $30-40 after a few months. It's not like the old days where cartridges and PS discs were full value for a while.
1886 was $40 a month after launch.
I didn't see it this year as I didn't look, but the previous two years before I saw Assassin's Creed going for $20-30 at Costco in January. So literally about two months after launch, you could get the game for half off.
Sure, you can have a short game, or a game that looks obviously low budget, as long as your price reflect that.