Rumor has it that The Order: 1886 is a relatively short game. Should this have a profoundly negative impact on review scores?
Being too short would impact the score. 10 hrs to 12 hrs shouldn't. I think that's a good length for a linear shooter game.
A bit off topic but we wish we would have got these kinds of articles about AC Unity and all it's bugs before release.
or Cod with the Lag....
10 hours shouldn't impact the score, but 6-8 in sp linear shooter? Hell yes, wish they could at least throw in some horde mode.
Some sites did score AC:U and BF4 low because of issues. Some sites reviewed Ryse low for it's length and Titanfall for having no single player. Some sites will overlook them some wont.
So speed running a game determines the length. In my world length is determined by the content within and its genre. for example gtaV had a long long gameplay life. Why because its an open world game with tons of mini games within it. Tons of driving to you next objective to continue the story. Thus costing a lot of time to complete. The order is a story drivin liner gamer. There is no driving to the next mission. No police chasing you on the way to said mission where you have to ditch them in order to continue. Liner games length should be determined by how long it took you to complete the game, not beat it. Speed running a game skips content and while its awsome to speed run games for the quickest time...you are not playing the game the way it was ment to be played. Reviewer's can't speed run a game and review it. They have to play it the way it was intended. That like playing only the story mode in gtaV or cod. Then reviewing them, without playing them the way they were intended to fully....would effect the score drastically.
It is off topic so why not take it somewhere else, we aren't here to talk about that. Either way whether that's true or not doesn't change anything.
@King, I agree to a degree. If you rush past enemies, skip cut scenes, use cheat codes etc to finish a game you are not playing the game as designed. The person that beat the Order in 5 hours didn't skip the interactive cut scenes which take up almost have the game time. What he didn't do is look for in game collectibles for completing trophies. Another user that did platinum the game did it in 9 hours. Using trophies to double a games length doesn't sit well with everyone. Without multiplayer or co-op there really isn't much re-playability either. If you are not someone that feels the need to get a platinum in every game you play, the Order is indeed a relatively short game even when played as designed. With that said, it is up to each of us to decide if the game length and lack of multiplayer makes it a non-purchase. Some might care, others may not.
The media somehow loves to complain about PS4 exclusives these days... I really didn't see that many clickbait articles when Assassin's Creed or Call Of Duty launched. I'm just glad when it's finally Friday and I can play it for myself. :)
the length of a game should only impact the score if it has a direct impact on how good or bad (usually bad) the game is. put another way, a game should only be as long as it needs to be. some games need to be 2 hours, some games need to be 102 hours. you don't judge a game's length compared to other games, you judge it compared to itself and how well (or poorly) its length fit with the game.
like you said no one complained about Metal Gear Solid 4 and Revengeance being 5 hours or shorter, it all about quality and this game shines of it.
Have you played it yet?
@ infinity Many people did complain about it. In fact they start calling it movie gear solid because of it. The problem back then is the same problem now. Many will say who care cause its on their console of choice and turn a blind eye.
@Septic Do you have to play a game yourself to see that it has quality? After seeing just a few minutes of footage, would anyone even dare to argue that The Order 1886 is a quality game? When it comes to graphics, characters, voice acting and presentation this game is leagues above other games and I certainly don't need to play it to realize that.
Some websites are overdoing it currently for the clicks.
Simple answer no the score shouldn't be impacted by the length, as long as the game has a good ending and story and gameplay.
Gears of War Judgment was 7.5 hours OFFICIAL (that means the speed run would be less than that); Bioshock was what? 11 hours? I don't see why all of a sudden its so important how long the game is.
Where were these articles when other 'short' games were released? So a speed runner finished the game in 5hrs. Whoop de doo! We see speed runners finish games like Dark Souls in 2 hrs. Did it suffer from review scores? MG Revengence can be finished in under 5 hrs, it still is a good action game. I don't understand why all of a sudden games like The Order or Ryse are put through the ringer for subjects that have been present in many MANY games before them.
^ yes, exactly! I hope Quantum Break is over 5 hours or it's going to get blasted for being 'pretty'....right?
But what if 5 hours is all it takes to properly tell the story, would you rather they pad it out with useless fluff? That sort of thing detracts from the game, not adds to it. Games should be the right length for the story being told. That might be 3 hours, or maybe 30. Perhaps that 3 hour game shouldn't cost the same as a 30 hour game, but it only being 3 hours doesn't automatically make the longer game better than the shorter game.
You know you make a great point, I never thought about it like that. The only problem with your argument is one little fact. The guy didn't do a speed run lol idk where you guys keep getting this from, what evidence is there that he did a speed run? Because he finsihed it fast? Because he didn't capture every single collectable? The guy didn't sprint through the whole game, he didn't pass by enemies or anything, he played it how it's supposed to be played.
Games have always been put through the ringer. Why are so many of you acting so surprised when your particular game is now being put under a microscope? You even said so yourself... "I don't understand why all of a sudden games like The Order or Ryse" Yes, add Titanfall, Driveclub, GoW, Gears and any other high profile exclusive from years ago until now. There is no ALL OF A SUDDEN, it's always been around it's just that a lot of you are now seeing more negatives only because it's your hot game of choice. Two or three no name sites (blogs) does not equal a hate campaign. No matter how much you want it to be true.
The game wasn't speed run, is that what people will resort to when trying to defend the game. You quite obviously don't understand what a speed run is to be honest. How you can compare Dark Souls to The Order just baffles me, Oh and Ryse got hammered way before it was released and that at least had the multiplayer for a bit of replay value.
I always like to mention that Fallout 3 and Skyrim can be beaten in around 2 hours by speed runners if you just do the story missions... so if SP story games like Wolfenstein and The Evil Within are around 12-15 I'm okay with that.
I can't believe the Order is the 1st game ever to not have online. How weird is it that it took the Video game community till Feb 20th 2015 to figure out that not all games have to be over 8 hours of pure non stop gameplay to be good. this is becoming so sad. PS hate/bias is real. If you need proof...then your not trying.
Most games offer approx. 10 hours of gameplay for your $60. If the Order is indeed a 5 hour game with extensive cut scenes, a lot of people will be disappointed. A short game with no re-playability, multiplayer or co-op for $60 falls well below what many people have come to expect. The game can still be good, but being short if this is the case will have an impact on what some people think in regards to value.
I dunno, I'd say a short campaign is a pretty legitimate gripe to have with the game. $60 is a tough pill to swallow for something most people will only play through once and forget about.
ever hear of resale? I put a little over 90 hours in dying light - and then sold it for 48 dollars on ebay.....even with the small fees, I played the game and it cost me 19 dollars.
What about the people who don't sell their games after a week? I sure as hell don't.
"I can't believe the Order is the 1st game ever to not have online." Maybe because this is a game that should be expected to have an online. Team base, multiple weapons, duck and cover, third person action shooter...would this game NOT benefit from having multiplayer? At least a co-op? It seems the devs were more interested in making sure the graphics were "cinematic" and if co-op or multiplayer were added the graphics would have taken a hit. You can't say that The Order wouldn't have benefited from a great online campaign anymore than the same complainers who said Titanfall should have had a single player. And if these devs are so great as a lot of you are championing then there is no doubt that the multiplayer would have been great also. "PS hate/bias is real. If you need proof...then your not trying." No it is not, we saw the same bashing for Titanfall (overhyped, Cod with Mechs, no singleplayer mode) and Ryse (short, all QTE's). I wonder why there's no MS hate/bias campaign when those games are getting crucified at the stake?
"You can't say that The Order wouldn't have benefited from a great online campaign anymore than the same complainers who said Titanfall should have had a single player. And if these devs are so great as a lot of you are championing then there is no doubt that the multiplayer would have been great also." Again, many who are thumping these games including Xbox one games it seems, just want to complain for the sake of it, if the game is broken from even playing than yes, that was a very valid reason, but to complain about the story? Or that there is no single player or Multiplayer..to me its being upset with the vision of what the developer wanted to start the game, esp. If its being direct to be more than one game in a series. Example: An as I pointed, this does not stop [email protected] from adding a 2nd Game with Multi-player or add it as a DLC for the 1st. Look at Uncharted, and what about the next TitanFall. They all are getting Hate
Well first off you cant say this is the 1st game EVER to not have online, because that's just not true.
it isnt short ffs stop with this bullshit. Ive played 6 hours now and sill not half done yet...
Journey was only 2 hours. If someone were to score it low because of that, they're not qualified to review anything.
Yeah but the thing with Journey is that it wasn't a 60$ game.The problem people are having now is that the Order 1886 isn't worth the 60$.I don't know where these articles were when Titan fall came out or Evolve just a few days ago or even Bio Shock. Below @vongruetz Since most people want The Order 1886 to burn to the ground and destroy every chance of it ever getting a sequel then yes I can see a lot of review sites ripping The Order a new one for having a short story mode the same sites that gave Evolve and Titan fall high scores.
So are they reviewing the game or the price? In three months, The Order is going to be $20 on sale. Will it be a better game then? I think a game should be critiqued on what it is, not on how much it costs. Review the game and let the consumer determine if it's worth the money.
What problem are people having? The video game community hasn't even played the game. Reviews aren't even out yet. Multiple people who have played have stated they're 10 to 12 hours deep and aren't finished with the game. There is no problem. Once the game is out then everyone can actually speak on it. For now, the game being short is complete speculation (with evidence to the contrary). We've already seen that there are at least 16 chapters. Watching someone stream on PS live, they didn't make it through one entire chapter in an hour. People just need to wait till the game is out. Very simple.
@averagejoe26 Totally agree with you. If it's short, meaning not even close to having enough content for more than 6 hours of gameplay, I will be one of those who will admit it. And before the trolls start saying that i'm biased towards PS exclusives, i'm biased towards the Playstation brand yes, but if a game sucks, it sucks. Example: Killzone is a PS4 exclusive, but it was an unremarkable game. It sucked. And if I finish The Order in less than 2 days, (I play 3 to 4 hours per day) then it's short.
"I don't know where these articles were when Titan fall came out" You're kidding right? The backlash Titanfall got from this site last year was absolutely insane... but you don't want to remember that just like the majority of this site because it doesn't fit with your victimised conspiracy, whatever, disagree away.
@Jalva Most of the Titan fall articles were about the bots and 6v6 or was it 4v4 online.I didn't read a lot of articles about the lack of story compared to the order.This is not a "victimised conspiracy" it is a person trying to defend a game he likes.I have every right to do so as do you have every right to critique it.
Wasn't journey $15 at launch? That's a decent price for a 2 hr game. $60 for a 5 hr game on the other hand is crazy especially with half of the game being cut scenes (this is of course if these stats are true, I'm not saying they're 100% true but from what I've seen they're pretty close). A game that length should be in the $45 price range
A game should be reviewed for what it is, not what some people on N4G think it should be. If for the reviewer the game quality isn't up to the standards that it should be for the game length it offers it should be reflected in the review. If the review thinks it's a great game, but he wouldn't have minded if it would be longer I don't think it should. Either way it should be called out in the review how long the normal playthrough took (without rushing). Many games are longer because they artificially make it longer by padding it with unnecessary content like levels that don't add anything to the story. It took me longer to finish Uncharted 3 compared to UC2 and the second one is better. Too many reviews nowadays are more about personal views and less about providing actual facts to the reader. They have become more like opinion pieces over the years.
Yes.... this is a AAA title not an indie, it doesn't matter how nice the game looks it need to be at least 8 hours long.
That's stupid. There's no guideline as to how long a game should be based on production budget.
So you would buy a AAA game for $60 £45+ knowing it is really short and no replay value?
yes like reviews is a big deal...Who cares about what someone thinks for a game???!!!YOU ARE THE PLAYER that decide what is good for your culture and personal preferences not some random person who maybe has some other preferences...Fact!
agreed. with all of the previews games get months before they're released, reviews aren't important. I made up my mind over a month ago that i'll be playing the order - and no idiots on youtube or so-called games "journalists" can change that.
if its short and amazing then no , if its short and mediocre or bad then yes
Yes they should. Unacceptable length. Solid joke.
If you watch the youtube vid for any length of time you can see the person is "rushing" through the game. They aren't trophy hunting or looking for collectibles. If you have a short attention span and tend to play a game just to finish it, 5 hours is pretty spot on with the cut scenes which are rumored to take up half of the time. According to a gamer that has platinumed the game, it took him 9 hours to do so. http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
9 hours to 100% a $60 game is honestly a joke.
Not everyone likes trophy hunting or grabbing every collectible, if a game has to rely on trophies and collectibles to have any decent amount of content then its already failed. I never play a game first time for trophies and collectibles, it should be great gameplay that keeps you coming back for more.
Value is something we all address uniquely. For me $60 for The Order is probably more than I feel is justified for the amount of play time offered. If it had a multiplayer aspect I might have reconsidered. I don't complete all of my games. I lose interest pretty easily since my time for gaming is limited. If the game reviews well it is something I might pick up for $30 down the road.
I remember a game called Murdered: Soul Suspect. I did everything the game had to offer and got the Platinum in 9 hours. I may have been short, but I still liked it. Games are not made for length, rather they're about what you make out of their length.
No, though price/length should always be noted, like replay value and such are.
Price relative to length has been an issue for years, but a point that no one seems to discuss is just what you're DOING in that timeframe. Destiny lasted me 300 hours for $60, but at the same time most of that time was running the same repetitive missions over and over again doing nothing but grinding with minimal impact or story progress.
guess it depends, wolfenstein can be 12 hours, skyrim can be 30 - 100, which is all great! then resident evil 6 can be 23 to 30 hours and its far too long. so hopefully if it is short, its enjoyable :3
Yes. Value is a part of the evaluation.
Cool, from now on Feb 2015 All games must be judged this way! OK everyone? I think, from now on of course; The back of the box should tell me ; The amount of hours I get with cutscenes The amount of hours per speed run average The quality of gameplay vs quantity of hours = QPH Remember, The Order has set a new precedent on games; so if a new Mario game comes out with no online and can be beaten in 6 hours than it can't be very good right? /rant
"The amount of hours I get with cutscenes The amount of hours per speed run average The quality of gameplay vs quantity of hours" Let's see if these standards apply to exclusives on other consoles. I seriously doubt that they will.
If it were any one of these things it would be a non-issue. The other complaints are about lack of multiplayer and co-op. Essentially it is a shorter than normal game that relies heavily on cut scenes with very little replayability, no multiplayer support and no co-op. It's sometimes hard to over look one of these things, but all of these things combined create the controversy we are seeing today. We seem to see way too much negative press prior to any exclusive release regardless of platform. It's a shame the developer gave so much ammo to use against them. I don't think it is asking much with games of this nature to have multiplayer support to extend the games length and add value to it. With Share Play, a first party co-op game to set a standard would have been appreciated also. We don't have to look very hard at Sony's first party library to see a game that is very story driven yet checks off many of the things we have come to expect with games today. From early play throughs it looks like the Order is a step back from what we seen at the end of the PS3's lifetime. Shouldn't next gen consoles at the very least build on what we already have?
jesus feckin' christ!! every article on this site is THE ORDER!!!
I see the value in graphics, sound design, gameplay, story, art direction, not just quantity of hours.
Yes, of course it should! If you have 2 games with equally good graphics, game play and plot - you give them the same rating. If one is half as long as the other - you can't give them the same rating. If one has extremely well executed MP and the other is single player only, they can't have the same rating. For Christ's sake all you fan boys were ripping Titan Fall for not having a single player campaign. You took at least 1 point off for it. So if TLOU is a 9, and if The Order has just as good graphics, and just as good gameplay, and just as good of a story and just as good of characters - then The Order is a 6 or 7. If its all QTEs and linear/on-rails BS then its a 5 or 6.
did you break your keyboard keys while typing this? You sound like really mad after the 4th sentence, bro. You should go outside and relax
But once the community in titanfall dwindles down, it's over. With a single player campaign, you can always go back and replay it.
I'd rather play an epic, amazing 8 hour journey then an 80 hour "run to that place to collect a piece of paper, now run all the way back to where to came from to hand it in" over and over. Game length is relative to the game. Not all games have to be super long. Not all games are good short. It completely depends on the game.
Exactly! Fallout 1 on PC..remember that Game that started it all? For the fallout franchise? "You can complete Fallout 1 in 30-40mins(less if you are faster)" This was in fact true, and yet look at all that FMV the character had, but yeah you could skip freaking side mission's just so you could get the water chip but rob yourself of the other experience's Is freaking fall out 1 a bad game now? I swear , Gamer's today just complain so much over a game instead of you know just playing the [email protected] game .