Spec Ops: The Line. Halo 3. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. What do all of these games have in common?
I feel like all the stories blasting The Order for length are focused on the 5 hour mark, when it seems like the site that posted the mark in the first place blasted through it and DS said that's if you skip everything you can - who plays a game like that? I'll be picking it up day one, and will take my time soaking up the environment, setting, animations, everything that RaD has taken time to create there. The point that the three titles mentioned as having under 9 hour play times while factually true, ignores that all the games have multiplayer which arguable extends the life and playtime.
itll be sad if people genuinely avoid the game for that alone, spec ops the line was a bloody masterpiece, too bad the marketing was piss poor and it carried the no mp,5hr sp stigma. well atleast the order has marketing part covered so the game will sell well and the devs wont have to suffer @jalva. i know that. but it was nothing but a terrible tacked on component that the devs themselves criticized http://www.ign.com/articles...
Spec Ops: The Line had multiplayer. @imt558 I just said it had multiplayer, I didn't say it was any good...
But MP is shit in Spec Ops, Jalva. So, what's the point having a bad MP?
Sadly 2K forced Yager to include MP in Spec Ops The Line
The author has a valid argument regarding the way our demands can stifle creative vision by requiring it to fit into a particular sized box. However, I think there's also some merit to the claim that a developer ought to be cognizant of the prices they charge in light of how much value the consumer will receive. There's certainly a middle ground to be found in there, and I think I would like to see some games with reduced prices in light of that consideration. A slightly reduced price could certainly help in overcoming any undeserved playtime stigma and provide an opportunity for these games to receive the positive attention they deserve.
I hope the people who are excited about this game and those who lost interest can see beyond all the constant hate this game has got prior release and realize it could be a great game. Just how fast negative articles about this game pop up on this site and how every story is almost the same with different titles makes make me think that there's something fishy going on. I'm getting this game because since it was announce, I've been getting a amazing-story vibe that I would like to experience. If the game has standard or average TPS gameplay, then fine. The Story will be its saving grace. I like story driven experiences and try new stuff, and The Order is neither the first nor the last game that has had this approach.
We WANT A NEWS IP. But when one is about yo cone out let's bash it. Let's keep buying the sane sequels yearly but to look cool we should talk about wanting new ip's I hope order 1886 dOes really El to out slap on faces of those who ate so dam stuck on game length Here I will explain It's a 5 hours game if you run though it and skip the cut sceneS. There are some linear parts but there are also some open ares on normal it will take good 10 plus hours so please stop beating the dead horse
"I feel like all the stories blasting The Order for length are focused on the 5 hour mark, when it seems like the site that posted the mark in the first place blasted through it and DS said that's if you skip everything you can - who plays a game like that?" Exactly, yet people seize on this one video as if YouTube wasn't full of videos that make games look much shorter than they really are. It's just plain idiotic, but that's the nature of the troll. I was watching streams of The Order last night and there were more than a few reports of play time between 9 and 12 hours, but no let's take this one speed run as the "real" time. smh @ the current state of "gamers".
Well said. I typically take my time with all games. Usually when someone drops a game length quote I can double it easily. I like to replay chapters and take my time searching everything and taking screen shots of environments
This game is going to separate the gamers from the true game enthusiasts. Those that will see this game for what it is, no matter duration just for the story and experience and those that will not bother because it doesn't cater to their whims by not having MP or 20hr playthrough. We will see who sees gaming as art and who sees it as time killer.
It's funny to talk about length then if you really look at how Many games have stories under 6-7 hrs. People are pathetic with the story. I remember people saying it about MGS4 one of the very best games last gen and the truth is it's all jealousy and that's it. Sad little loser fanboys with an agenda.
"it's all jealousy" That's been my impression for sure. The jealousy and fear of this game is real, and it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. All it's done is make me take a closer look at all the available videos and info about the game and make me want it. I already had a low opinion of gaming journalism so the intense fud campaign has only further confirmed that opinion.
That's exactly it, fear of this game. People don't put this much energy into bashing something that sucks, they just don't. They do it when they are afraid of the power of something. I'm not sure it's just fanboys acting on their own. Organized FUD campaigns aren't unheard of- The amount of hate this game gets is simply ridiculous.
I could have swore I passed an article the other day that was talking about someone organizing a group that hates on anyone that plays on anything other then xbox. If people are willing to sink that low, then that should tell you something about the state that gaming is in.
Bargin bin game though. Or a rent
That's definitely not what I'm seeing. I'm trading in Metro Redux and Battlefield 4 for The Order today.
That's what I plan to do. My decision has nothing to do with the game length, though. I just haven't seen anything compelling about the game that makes me think it's going to be something great. Just my opinion of course, but other than the graphics (which are phenominal), it hasn't shown me much.
Gamefly. It was made for games like this, and Wolfenstein, Ryse, and Bioshock Infinite. Good games, but little/no replay value and any game that can be finished off in 1-2 sessions is too short for a $60 price point.
There's no guarantee that you well get the games that you want to rent, plus there are people that would rather support game devs that make game experiences that people enjoy to kind of make sure that the company can make more games for people to enjoy, you know? What you consider short, others consider worth the price of admission. What makes you buy a game that you want to play? A game with a tacked on MP? A game with a story that drags on and on with no end in sight? A game that's pretty much a fetch quest? I'm curious.
"Those that will see this game for what it is" a 5 hour interactive movie with a Hollywood action flick tier cliche story? Honestly ,how dare you say someone isn't a true game enthusiast for not wanting to play what seems to barely even be a game at all.
I'll be happy enough for games to evolve into any range of shapes or sizes. But the prices should evolve with them...
Dude, I don't know how old you are but gaming is still cheaper then it used to be. SNES games could cost anywhere from $60-$80 or more depending on the game. There is less years where games where cheaper then $60 then there are when they were more expensive then $60 and guess what at 5hr for $60 it's already cheaper then most SNES Sega genesis games and those could be speed run in an hr.
Age doesn't really come into it, and the industry today is barely similar to the NES days... The fixed retail price of games is a problem not because gaming is too expensive. It is a problem because it has a detrimental impact on the quality of games. Developers shouldn't be burdened with trying to justify a $60 price tag. They should be encouraged to make the game they want to make, the game they are passionate to make. Then they should charge a fair price for what it is. That isn't the same as whining that I want the hobby to be cheaper.
@Blacktar you are right games nowadays are more expensive to develop so back in the 90's we were really being ripped off. The cost of developing the engine for The Order must be significant but the good news for any potential sequel they will be able to add more content as there already is an existing engine. The internet has spoilt most gamers with content but this does not mean every game has to follow suit!
Volkama, Are you the person they should be talking to about what they should feel is a fair price for their work? I think you're taking the entitled tagline a bit to the letter. @benni I agree. Just imagine $80 back then was like $100+ today. Games are much bigger more detailed and more scrutinized. If people acted like they do today gaming would have never left the SNES and would have died back then.
Why yes, I am precisely the person they should be talking to. Well, me and every other gamer. Indirectly, via the publisher's marketing team. I'm not suggesting I should just pay whatever I feel like paying, but consumer opinion probably should factor in if the publisher has any sense. My whole point was that I don't think it makes sense for publishers to set a price completely independent to what the game offers, and I think it is even less healthy for a publisher to say "we're charging $60 for this so you had best make it longer". How do I sound remotely entitled?
You guys aren't looking at the cost of media and factoring it into the price. With some of the SNES/N64 carts, the cartridge alone was $30. This left $30-$40 for the publisher and retailer. Today you or I could go on Amazon and buy a Blu-ray case and disc for about $1. Of course we need to factor inflation into the mix also which should have increased game prices if it weren't for the reduction in media costs. I wouldn't call it a wash, but it's not as simple as saying prices haven't increased in the past 20 or so years. As for the Order being panned by some gamers because it's too short, that is up to gamers isn't it? We all define value differently. Some people are not willing to pay $60 for 5 hours of gaming. It is up to the developer to provide value to consumers. If the game doesn't sell well and is received poorly, that is the result of decisions made by the developer and their publishing partner. If there is an agenda against all things Playstation that is artificially creating negative press or "hate", then that is something that shouldn't be tolerated by any gamers. At the same time if these are legitimate expressed opinions of gamers, what makes their opinions less valuable than those saying 5 hours without platinum and 9 hours with is ok? Personally I don't think making games shorter is an evolution of gaming. The Last of Us set a very high bar last generation of what consumers should expect of a triple A game. The Order lacks multiplayer, co-op which would have been great for Share Play, and is relatively short. When you add on the heavy reliance on cut scenes you are left with a youtube vid that has 2.5 hours of gameplay and about 2.5 hours of cut scenes. I'm not sure how you can market that at $60.
I bought Secret of Mana for like $70 when I was 10. Genesis games were $49.99 and I beat most of them within hours. I'm 33 now, talk to me about gaming I'll let these youngsters now how good it is now. By the way can't wait for The Order.
@Wookie, I bought Destiny a few months ago for $60. I have hundreds of hours into it. Gaming has evolved a little since the '80s and game size is no longer restricted to cartridge based media. You can't make a blanket excuse for a game with a couple hours of game play today when so many other games exist that offer much more value. You and I may be ok spending $60 for a couple hours of fun, but many "youngsters" are on a much tighter budget and they most likely perceive value differently. It is up to the developer to offer as much value as possible to attract a wider range of gamers. As we see more stories hit from people that completed the game, it is looking more and more like the developer missed the mark on providing value the appeals to a larger audience. As you know this is all speculation until the game releases and people have the opportunity to actually buy it. Sales will determine how many see value in the product.
Atari 2600 games were often created by one guy in 6 weeks, they were primitive and most fit into a 4K cartridge. Yes 4 kilobytes! For that they charged $30 (about $85 in today's dollars) Games today spend years in development, have more content than ever, their price is falling in real dollars. Yet so many gamers are convinced they are getting ripped off, when they have never had it so good in terms of how much content you get when you buy that game.
The Atari 2600 also sold 30 million consoles from the mid 70's to 1990. The PS4 sold more than half the amount in less than a year. There are many, many more gamers today than there were in the days of the 2600. Perhaps those games released at $85 in todays money is the reason why the market crashed. I'm not sure how quick I would be to justify a game today with the 2600 era.
Sony tried to experiment last gen with $30 R&C Nexus, $40 Puppeteer, and $40 Sly 4. Those 3 games it didn't seem to help with the sales compared to the launch revenue they lost. Now that was largely due to marketing not being present at all but still you can see Sony experimented with it and was punished financially.
Yes there have always been little examples dotted around. Rockstar's table tennis game was a good price, and did benefit from that. The golden standard is PC gaming, where game prices do already run the gamut. But PC gaming is largely free from physical distribution so it's a bit easier to be flexible. No manufacture and distribution costs, no Gamestop wanting their cut. Things like Child of Light suggest the console ecosystem can support a similar model, but it will be a while before AAA games become part of it.
Dude I'm sony all the way, I love the last of us and uncharted series but this game is too short and not that very fun. I saw the 5 hour story.and I can say with certainty that if anyone expects to do anything different than what the guy did in the videos.....Your gonna have a bad time. Its cover, shoot,push, move,rinse and repeat. It does not try to do anything new. Please purchase this game at a lower price tag.Because if everyone is expecting a journey of a game. I have say it does'nt go past the grocery store.
how did you find it "not fun" if you haven't played it yourself? This is really upsetting and unfair to the order.
hey its your money. Please comeback and say the gameplay is amazing. You've been warned.
Wow you watched the whole game?That just proves that you never had the intention of buying the game.
I've watched complete LPs of P3 (FES and Portable) and P4G a grand total of 4 times. Currently watching another LP of P4G (my third one). If I still had my ps3, I'd have bought P3FES from PSN after the first LP. I am currently saving up for a Vita so that I can buy and play P4G.
"Please comeback and say the gameplay is amazing. You've been warned." Hmmm well I guess I can take your word for it, or I can watch some streams (which are already happening with early copies) and see that the game looks great and the people like it. It's funny how many trolls show up in stream chat too. I'm pretty confident that the game will be substantially longer than 5 hours, but go ahead and keep on repeating it like it's fact. I'm curious though, why is the short time report valid in your view but the longer ones aren't? Don't say it's because of that video, because YouTube is full of videos that make games look much shorter than they are.
what a truly idiotic personality you are my friend...
Short single player games are a rent only for me. Want to play this to check out my brand new tb elite 800's.
Can't wait, if it is short than I will just have to enjoy that gameplay over and over. Graphics are nice too! Platinuming this on my GF's PSN as well! The Order has changed the video game landscape for ever! It's funny how people complain about 100 hours in Destiny being boring. $60 vs The Order (i'm assuming it will be a great story) being 9 hours will have a great story. $60 I've boughten both, at Collector's edition prices mind you. Destiny vs The Order what's your vote?
You putting a lot on this game saying it's changing the landscape of games forever when it sounds like it's taking a lot of aspects from other games.
It's changing the VG landscape because of the haterated being thrown at it. I realize other VG's have been similar ("movie game") What was the last game to receive such hate?
Phoney! That guy's girlfriend is a big phoney! She didn't earn her PSN trophies!
LOL, shes' helped me platinum some games too! Like Portal 2, so much fun platinuming! To her credit she has platinumed Rayman Origins on the Vita, and let me tell you HOLY SPIT! That game is insanely hard to platinum, watch this to understand. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Seeing those other games had a multiplayer makes your argument a little invalid. Its all about how the order is gonna make you feel in that 5 hours.
i agree, whats not mentioned is some games overstay their welcome. Some games are bit too long and if not paced right, you start to feel it hang a little but the order hopefully moves at a brisk pace. But i guess people prefer longer, dragged out games then short but brisk games that use time wisely like a good film or book.
name a game that has overstayed its welcome that you purchased. Because I didnt want games like GTA 5 to end. No multiplayer ,a short story and no new game plus extra. The story.....well the story is not groundbreaking either. A fool and his money shall soon part.
I would gladly oblige.Darksiders two,Dragon's Crown,The Evil within(Although I loved the game it was just too damn long), Alien Isolation,Assassins Creed two(Great game but too long).Those are a few games that were way too long.
when you start the argument with 3 games that had multiplayer (admittedly spec ops probably isn't the best multiplayer but it's still there) as a basis to why a subjectively (depends on the player after all) short singleplayer game is ok you're argument is kinda nulled. personally i don't care if the order is short (won't be getting it straight out as i'm on a game buying hiatus due to backlog), i get maybe 30 mins of gameplay a day these days (sometimes barely that in a week) so a 5:30 game will take me at least 10 days assuming i'd increase my normal pace massively
"when you start the argument with 3 games that had multiplayer... " The thing that pissed me off about that statement is that there are so many great games that are single player only and are extremely short that you could have easily picked. God of War can be done in 2.5 hours, Metal Gear Rising is like 2 hours, Bayonetta is in the 2 - 3 hour range, Muramasa has a trophy for beating it in under 3 hours, etc. All solid games that are short and these are just ones off the top of my head that I mostly remember from trophy hunting. With that being said, I don't see how/why this even became a thing in the first place. A lot of games are short, especially if you rush through them (GoW) and likewise other games are tediously long if you don't play them perfectly (Disgaea, Destiny). A lot of this has to do with the person in question and just because one person made the claim and someone else got the platinum in 10 hours, doesn't automatically mean the game is going to be that short for everyone (like my first run of GoW was like 8 hours, then my speed run was 2.5, but most people will be in the 8 range not 2.5). Finally... "Should we deduct points off a review because a game was too short? How about when it’s too long? It’s a precedent that frightens me" has been happening for YEARS. This stuff has always been a cornerstone of value, though it might not be explicitly stated in every review. Like if you read a Disgaea review you might see mention of how much there is to do, Destiny might have someone noting it's a tedious grind, Binding of Isaac had many remark on the replay value and so forth. It's quite hard to access value without looking at how much you get, but there ALWAYS needs to be a quality factor involved. A pointless grind is always going to be a pointless grind without there being a point at the end.
Like I said in my other comment "A fool and his money shall soon part". These guys dont do any research. which was my downfall with destiny but at least it has a multiplayer component.
so if they throw in a crappy online mode that makes it a better game? what is wrong with people!? That's like saying this movie isn't worth the ticket price as much because it's only an hour and a half while this other one is obviously worth twice the ticket price because it's 3 hours long. This song must be half the price of the other because it's 3 minutes as opposed to this 6 minute song! Throwing in pointless hours/modes is a waste of time for devs and gamers. What's more fun playing a rich varied story mission or collecting 100 flags in an open world? A man is referring to AC where they throw in collectibles just to fill in an hour length quota and it adds nothing when they could have focused on more story missions. But oh our precious hour counters want their 20+ hours and it's easier to just sprinkle things around an open world and have you run around for 7 hours doing something boring than playing a well crafted hour of SP. A man has never spent as much time on a MP game as he has on a great SP. You can enjoy a SP game for unlimited hours because the experience is always fun. A man knows people who still play through Star Fox 64 time to time and guess how long that game is? LESS THAN 5 HOURS!
i never once said it made it a better game, multiplayers extend the life of a game beyond the single player game. as admiralvic pointed out they had plenty of other games to choose from that don't have multiplayer but they went with ones that did, 2 of which are heavily weighted towards being multiplayer games. also i'm not ragging on the game (or it's length) was explaining the poor choice of games by the author... if i was to get the order (will down the line most likely due to the previously mentioned hiatus) if i finished it in less than 12 hours i'd be impressed.... hell far cry 4 has a 100% completion time of 41.5 hours ( http://howlongtobeat.com/ga... yet i've pumped in more than 30 so far and haven't even reached northern kyrat
@Jaqen, Multiplayer adds value to a game. A short campaign with a multiplayer mode isn't unheard of. Titanfall had limited sales because many people felt it was only half a game since it had no campaign. The Order is getting similar reactions due to it's relatively short length and no multiplayer. If you aren't trophy hunting while playing the Order and deduct the amount of time viewing cut scenes you are left with a couple hours of actual game time. You honestly don't see how some may find that lacking? Let me turn your first question around, if they included a great multiplayer mode would it make the game worse? To be fair if they throw a crappy online mode on top of a short game you will have people complaining about it being a short game with a crappy online mode. If they took the time and added a competent multiplayer mode we most likely wouldn't be having this conversation.
I bet if this game had multiplayer, tbe hype and resulting sales would be more than double.
I can't imagine Halo or Gears without multiplayer. Fact is Gears is a superior game with an online component. And i am fairly certain Uncharted and The Last of US two of the best games last gen for Sony too had an online experience. Single player games have to suit the genre and be lengthy or whats the point? Playing a game for 5 to 7 hours be done and thats it honestly how many people realistically think this is the way to go? Games are not cheap i pay up to seventy Euros for some games and i want value for my money. If i owned a PS4 i probably would get the order but not at the current price.
yeah but a man doesn't play those online modes. Online modes are usually something a man just tries a few times then the SP is what keeps him coming back because you can replay a great cinematic SP over and over for all time. MP gets boring after a week at most for 99% of games (not many are regularly played other than COD after a year).
The SP mode of Gears isn't very good.People might enjoy the online but the SP was not that good.Its clear that most of their resources went into online.
I enjoyed the Gears campaign. It was designed to be played co-op though which added to the fun when you played with a friend. I would think the Order would have been a great game to showcase Shareplay on the PS4. I would like to think more fans would ask for this feature to be implemented instead of fans saying short games that rely on cut scenes and no multiplayer are an evolution of gaming. People that condemn a game because it's not their system of choice are a bane to gaming. The apologists on the other side of the coin are just as bad in my opinion. I don't see why you can't support a platform holder while also acknowledging things that you would like to see improved. A co-op mode, multiplayer or longer campaign would have been a welcome addition to the Order and would most likely resulted in higher game sales. I'm not sure why anyone would argue that.
I have never touched the mp on gears. Uncharted 1 also had no mp. God of war also never had mp (until the new one, wich is amazing) Infamous has no mp. Wolfestein doesn't I just made an example and don't tell me any of those games I lised sucked? Because they were some ofbthe greatest videogame experiences I had in gaming
As far as the more hardcore informed gamers go, I think the length of the game may have killed the hype. Only time will tell how it affects overall sales though, as I'm sure it will at least sell a million copies with the advertising alone. I'm probably going to hold off on this and keep playing Evolve until Bloodborene drops.
I disagree - real gamers play for the fun and experience - they don't whine and cry on the internet for weeks about a game they haven't even played.
You have a unique definition of "real gamers". I have always found "hardcore gamers" are the ones that are always looking for information before they buy a game. They are typically the early adopters too. At times they are also the most vocal. Criticism before a game releases are the result of these gamers that follow gaming news and previews more than others. It's great that you can play and enjoy a game with relatively lower standards or a broader definition of value, but it's not easy to apply that definition to all "real gamers".
another story justifying this or that. How about make your own decision...No?
It's funny one of the most influential games in the minds of developers is Ico & that game has a trophy for finishing it in under 2 hrs. I love Ico to death & just like the Order it is a single player, story driven, 'cinematic' experience. So what makes the Order that much different than Ico. When did we gamers bec