The length and Price Does Not Matter For Mind-Blowing Games

WorstnBest: Conversion of hours spent with the game on the buck is nonsense. At the beginning of the Declaration: I have not played in The Order 1886 , which is in this respect I am on a par with, I think, majority of those who complain about the “5-hour gameplay

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
The_Infected891d ago

Off topic but nice name you chose there.

nicksetzer1890d ago (Edited 890d ago )

"The length and Price Does Not Matter For Mind-Blowing Games"

Except, the order is not a mind blowing game (in fact, it is simply decent at best) and has no replay value on top of being short. I don't understand why everyone blindly pretends the only issue with this game is the length. For many it is ONE of many issues, but it is far from the only issue. On a side note this is probably the most unreadable article I have ever seen. for example:

"At the beginning of the Declaration: I have not played in The Order 1886 , which is in this respect I am on a par with, I think, majority of those who complain about the “5-hour gameplay"

InTheLab890d ago

Agreed on both points. I stopped after page 2 because I felt punished for clicking pages filled with jibberish, or poorly translated bad ideas..

As for the gameplay, as in the respect that I too have yet to pay $60 for 6 hours of beautiful graphics with early 2000's gameplay, but on par with others who choose to not reward lazy game design with my hard earned such? Or something.

Joking aside, you simply cannot compare video games to any other for of entertainment. It should be compared to its peers like Gears and Uncharted. When you compare it to even the first Uncharted, it still fails. There's simply not enough game here to be compared to anything when 3 hours of your game is unskipable cutscenes or walking to mask loading....

The_Infected891d ago (Edited 891d ago )

Sorry i have to dissagree. If you're paying $60 for a game you'd want more than 5 hours of actual gameplay. Also The Order: 1886 isn't mind blowing other than graphics.

I_am_Batman891d ago (Edited 891d ago )

"If you're paying $60 for a game you'd want more than 5 hours of actual gameplay."

I honestly don't understand why games are being criticised for it's length at all. I don't think that people realise how easy it is to extend a game's length without adding any new content. I'd rather have a short game that keeps me interessted than a long game that reuses the same content over and over again just to extend the playtime. A game's length doesn't directly affect it's value.

Tiqila891d ago (Edited 891d ago )

most people criticise the value, not the length. No one complained about Journey and its 3 hours playthrough time. But it did not cost you 60$.

I haven't played it and therefore will not judge it. However, I can understand that people dislike paying 60$ for a 5hour experience. Just like eating in an overpriced restaurant where the food tastes really good, but the servings are so small that you are still hungry afterwards.

I_am_Batman891d ago

@Tiqila: I understand that. However I think the way some people seem to calculate the value of a game is missing a lot of important factors. The value of a game isn't solely dependent on game length and price.

We have to factor in the overall quality of the time we spend with the game. That's where value becomes subjective. Not to mention that $60 for a teenage paperboy aren't as easily spend as the $60 of a grown person with a fulltime job.

And then we have to factor in the production value of the game itself. AAA games are much more expensive to make than indie games even though they don't nessessarily offer me a more enjoyable expirience. Yet I would pay much more money for a AAA game.

andibandit891d ago

"A game's length doesn't directly affect it's value."

So you'd buy a game that was 1 second long, if it was mindblowing?.

I_am_Batman891d ago

@andibandit: You can always go to the most unrealistic extremes where the normal rules do not apply anymore. How would a 1 second game even be considered a game. And what would need to happen in that 1 second to be mindblowing?

Do you think a grass growing simulator would be a valueble experience because it takes a lot of time to grow grass in realtime?

InTheLab890d ago

Doesn't the Order attempt to artificially extend game length with unskipable cutscenes and examining objects for no apparent reason?

Genova84887d ago

I have no problem with the order's length. I rented it yesterday for $3.19 tax included from redbox. I beat it in 6.5 hours and returned it. Better value than a lot of games I buy costing me only $.50/hour.

The story was interesting, graphics were great but I wanted more gameplay. Max payne 3 and wolfenstein the new order had a better balance of this. I didn't love that a good number of chapters had no action whatsoever.

Glad I rented it, because I would never play it again. I will likely do the same thing with any sequels that come out.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 887d ago
Lord_Sloth891d ago

Want more than 6 hours? Play it twice. I know, I know, it's hard to understand but we used to have to do this with the old 30 minute games in the 80s and 90s.

Seriously though the game is fine for $60. If you don't think so than that's fine, wait for a price drop or don't buy it but I'm a bit tired of all the reviewers complaining about length instead of talking about the actual gameplay/story.

Yetter891d ago

when half of it is unskippable cutscenes?? no thank you

Genova84887d ago

The difference in the 80's and 90's was you could ALWAYS beat the game. Most people need the 30 lives code for contra. I do not. Same with super c. Also, many of those games were multiplayer whixh added to the value.

I will say, that games like ninja gaiden, battletoads, and ghost and goblins were so hard that a "1 hour game" will take 15-20 hours to beat. I beat the order on hard in 6.5 hours.

Also, this game wasn't that fun. Sure the story was cool and the graphics were amazing, but I'd never play it again. This ... is why I rented it for $3.19. :-)

Genova84887d ago

At me, meant to say you "couldn't" always beat the games in the 80's and 90's. Not the same today.

Spotie890d ago

I have to disagree.

I don't care if the game is an hour long or 400 hours long for $60. What I care about is that, whatever the time spent, I fully enjoy the game.

This "price for length" argument is only being used to compare to how short a game CAN be, but ignores the other side of the coin: longer games must then cost more.

Now JRPGS and MMOs will costs hundreds of dollars apiece, since you can spend hundreds of hours playing them. Puzzle games, too. Shooters would be worth twenty bucks, unless they have multiplayer, and then they're in the range of the other games.

And how do you determine what the "average" play time is? Whose playthrough gets chosen? What if it turns out that the originally suggested average play time turns out to wrong, and the game is shorter? Do people get their money back? Do they have to pay more if they're well off the average and so take more time?

I didn't exactly time myself, but it took me about ten hours over the course of the past few weeks to complete The Order. Does that automatically mean it should cost more for me than the people who beat it in 7, or those who CLAIM to have beaten it in 5?

Sorry, but I can't see how there's an objective way to include time into value, not with any sort of definite or recommended duration.

Ark_891d ago (Edited 891d ago )

Writing skills, get some.

Edit: Length does matter, price does matter. But it's not about longer and cheaper. It's about hitting the sweet spot for what you offer.

N311V891d ago

That must have been written in Polish and then translated via Google prior to publishing. At least I'm hoping that's what happened.

jonboi24891d ago (Edited 891d ago )

I hate this hole debate about game's price and length. If people want to pay less for shorter games then by default they should pay more for longer games. A game should be as long as it needs to be.

Bodge891d ago Show