IGN: "Developers are always striving for the most epic and inclusive games, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case."
I sometimes prefer a game where it's a bit shorter in overall plot length, but absolutely CRAMMED with content from start to finish to make replaying it more attractive. It also helps if there's more focus on gameplay than there is graphics, and a beautiful art style that isn't just the oh-so-common realism-focused greys and browns.
Depends what sort of game it is. If it has an online component, sacrificing some single player wouldn't be too bad, but paying £40ish on a 5 hour single player game is tough to stomach. I'd wait till it was a lot cheaper.
Developers should make the game they want to make. Then they should sell it for a fair price. Setting the price first and then trying to justify it leads to generic "collectables" and heartless multiplayer modes that nobody plays after the first couple of weeks.
Unfortunately,they should fear...Its incredible how many people put no replay value as reason not to buy the order without even playing the game!
Why would "no replay value" appeal to anyone? Granted, we don't know if it does or doesn't have it (in The Order 1886), but at least don't blame people for being skeptical. I won't buy The Order 1886 day one because of those fears. I KNOW that I haven't played it yet so I can't judge it, but then again I won't spend $60 on short campaigns. So I will wait to see if it's a long game and if the story is good. Also replay value matters. Waiting 2-3 days for reviews won't hurt me one bit.
Something between a short and long game is perfectly fine, as long as it's also priced accordingly. Online games are obviously different, considering its success depends on players interacting with players.
I hate padding in games. Shorter experiences tend to be better. Just make multiple endings, tons of Trophies, secrets, modes, cheats, difficulties, multiplayer, and so on. Let that stuff be the padding.
This is something that comes up quite often and tends to differ depending on who you ask. Personally I feel somewhat aggrieved paying 40-50 britbux for a game I can storm through in 5 hours. That's not to say that there aren't some quality games out there that are quite short, though in my opinion they should be priced accordingly.
Games do not need to have 100+ hours of content, particularly when that content is boring search quests. But <10 hours, single player only, no replay value and stretched out by cut scenes and making you replay levels over and over - NO!!!!
"<10 hours, single player only, no replay value and stretched out by cut scenes and making you replay levels over and over - NO!!!!" Sounds like Quantum Break to me, but of course you are excited for that. Do you not see the fallacies and hypocrisy in your behaviour and your judgement?
There is a platform for games with a few hours of gameplay, it's called a smartphone.
What about 8 and 16-bit era consoles? Shorter games were the norm back then.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.