Ed from Twinfinite writes: "Control isn't going to be a crazy long game. In fact, it might be kind of short by modern standards, but honestly, I'm all for it."
Remedy games have been really short but they are great and concise.
Doesn't have to be a long slog of a game. I'm not a big fan when games fluff their story just to make it play longer.
★I am making a real GOOD MONEY (123$ / hr ) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly $30k, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart............... ════════════ HERE►►►► https://bit.ly/2QCOGd9
What great games this looks like quantum break and that was dog shit
Must be a new way of thinking, I remember when a lot of people were upset that The Order 1886 was only a out six hours long.
The Order was 4-5 hours for a lot of people, including myself. It had very little replayability on top of being yet another cover shooter. Short games aren't a problem as long as they're good, fun, and replayable. And for reference, Control is supposed to be 10-15 hours.
yeah still play max payne on my phone and max payne 2, 3 on my laptop, never get bored of them
it could be good if it would cost accordingly, like 30$.
Why is it ok for an hour and a half movie to cost $20, but if a game isn’t 20+ hours you want it to cost $20??
1 1/2 hours for a movie is pretty standard, but nobody would be willing to spend 20$ for a movie, which is only twenty minutes long. But ofcourse there are more things to factor in, other than the length of the game - replay value for example
The problem is we’re getting into perceived value. What’s worth the price for one person isn’t the same for the other due to personal bias and preference.
Who said its ok?? I dont buy movies for that reason, Redbox does the trick. Videogame less than 20 hours for $60 is just as big of a ripoff. Especially if it has no multiplayer.
I have never paid $20 for a movie
I don't go to movies for this exact reason. Why pay 20$ for a movie when you can buy a video game for the same price.
Yes, lets have more games that are more about grinding or fluff content than actual good and tight package. Rage 2 gameplay was ok, but the open world was a waste of time and effort. In the shadow of war everyone really enjoyed the grind to get to the true ending because it was behind the paywall or grind ;) Playtime to beat the game does not equal to a good game or what it is worth automatically. It's kinda like when crysis came and then it seemed that graphics was the thing that people valued. now it's how long the game is, no matter how grind/pointless fluff it has. oh humanity. Their prior game alan wake basic rundown 11h and I completed that three times. Rage 2 around 15h with some extra content and I hated half of it...so which one was more worth...hmm.
remember the backlash The Order received for being short? i loved that game and hope they make a sequel because of the story. But this game deserve the same critique if it's a short $60 game. otherwise people are hypocrites
Oh oh oh bu... bu... but that was different tho. /s I thought the same thing then saw your comment, couldn't agree more.
The order was a whole 4 hrs long.
@milohighclub keep trying, meat.
Yep, you want to get value for your money. Unless there is a ton of replay value, of course.
Every game goes on sale. If you're patient enough you can get it for $5... along with another game.
I hear there's alot of sidequests that you can easily miss. And the game is really difficult. Let's go.
Ill play it probably when it goes to 20 bucks or less
If it’s too short they should charge less than 60$
Thats not how this shit works and I’m tired of seeing people like you say that. You think these developers work less hard than other developers whos games are 50 or more hours?
And consumers should care why exactly? None of my clients gives a s**t about what my teams do, or how hard they work. They care about the quality of the output and the ROI. Simple as that bro. I'm not saying that a 5 hour game can't be brilliant, but the end-user decides his perceived value of product, no matter how much work goes into it.
They have better pacing, and higher quality moments crammed into shorter time scope compared to a 50 hour game which has less quality moments and more of the mundane. We pay the same for 1h15 minute movies and 3h30 minute movies. Some people don't want to watch long movies, some prefer to do just so. Gaming is the very same.
Right now you can pre-order it for $29 at the Epic Fail Store, I think that's a fair price, I don't know the price for consoles, but It may be my first purchase in the Epic Store. I may stop calling it the Epic FAIL Store.
I love games that I can beat in a weekend. Control definitely caught my eye
Let's hope it's not like Quantum Break short and more like Alan Wake. 10-15 hours is fine, 4-6 in Quantum Break wasn't fine.
Lol QB wasn’t 4-6 hours comeon
My first playthrough on hard was 6 hours.Took just under 13 hours to get 100% completion, including the TV stuff. It was way too short. Fortunately I was able to buy a friend's digital code for $10, since it was before Play Anywhere was locked to your XBL account.
Not paying 60 bucks for a game I can beat in a day or two. If it had MP that’s a different story but nah.
yes let's have shoehorned mp in a game that it does not make sense :) I would prefer to complete full tight narrative action package multiple times than go through rage 2 open world shitty 10h side quests or shadow of wars true ending 5-8h grind or any other game that has fluff content to "extend value" that is so precious to some than actual good gameplay. Without all that backtracking, shitty quests, grind and MT shit most games would be under 20h. I would rather play alan wake/batman arkham asylum/bioshock etc. (which are same lenght as control btw.) multiple times than waste my time for grind or fluff.
I didn’t say put MP in this game. I agree with you. Shitty side quests and boring filler sucks. But games like the Witcher and red dead are 50 hours long with great story and side quests. If your gonna make a story focused game it has to be long enough or interesting enough. Red dead and Witcher were long and interesting. Alan wake Batman bio shock while not that long are incredibly interesting stories. Control is neither long or interesting it’s just a rehash of QB imo
@Mandingo expecting every game being as long and open world is the reason why we have these half baked open world games. I would maybe correct that control "does not seem to be" long or interesting, since the game is not even out lmao. To me this premise looks to be way more interesting than QB, which to me is the "worst" game they have produced. Also I'm kinda intrigued why it "seems" to you as rehash to you. Two skills are a bit similar, but are used rather differently. Like the dodge dash in QB you were invulnerable, in control you are not and the distance is shorter. Then the barrier was used to root ppl and bullets in QB, in control you pickup pieces from the concrete as your shield around you. Then story wise there is no evil corporation or time manipulation, so how the fk is this a rehash :D
If it's a really good game, fine. But, if it isn't, I don't see why we're praising less content for the same price.
Because nobody has time for games anymore, especially people who work in the industry
Everyone has time, it's just about priorities. There's 24 hours in a day, you sleep 7, work 11, commute 1 and do your sports and routines in 2 and have 3 left for your hobbies and relaxing. Plus weekends and holidays. It's just about how you schedule stuff and where you choose to spend that time.
If you don't have as much time, play fewer games. Asking for more games to be shorter is just asking to get less for the same price. And, please note, I'm not advertising the idea of bloated content like side quests and repeatable things. I'm just not also advertising promoting short games solely because they're short and quickly digestible but cost the same as other games. The price of a game should be reflective of the cost to make it and the quality of the product itself, but also the expected investment of time into it.
10 to 15 hours is about what I expected not bad not bad noice size
I hope the gunplay is better than quantum breaks. That was the main issue I had with it.
10-15 Hrs ok. I took a while to beat The Order 1886 and that wasnt really a long game. I explore so if its 10-15 with a straight play through cool. But really i want the most for my money $60 is not a little bit of money. N if this is the case then it shouldnt have any dlc. I guarantee the people saying they want a short game will buy the dlc lmfao.... silly consumers
That is perfectly okay. I've been getting sick of games this gen padding out the games with repetitive filler just to pad out the time. My free time is limited, I don't have time for multiple 70+ hour games anymore. Just let me sit down and enjoy a single-player story that I can complete in a reasonable timeframe and move on. I'm far more likely to replay games like this (providing the story is good), God of War, Spider-Man, Detroit, or Doom than I am The Witcher 3 (even though it's absolutely fantastic) or Red Dead Redemption 2.
I'm perfectly okay with this.
Still on the fence about this game . Reviews and price drops maybe I’ll try . But if it’s quantim break v2 they can keep it .
Then it shouldn’t cost full retail. I was all for this game considering it’s basically quantum break 2, but I can’t pay full price for a game that’s done and forgotten in a couple hours.
You know what quantum break is about 10-ish hours long? Other 10-15h games Batman arkham asylum, Bioshock, Bioshock infinite, Dead space 1-2....but yeah they were full price at retail and sucked ass ;) Still played them through like three times at least. Rage 2 was like 15h, still could have 15h more of fluff but I'm done playing over fluff carbage, but I guess that game is for you then.
Oh no it’s not open world with 80+ hours full of crap stuff to find? COUNT ME IN. Sounds great to me.
Not every game needs to be 100+ hrs. I beat last of us in about 16 hrs on my first playthrough (probably 9 if I played now) and bought it twice. If I could get 10 different 10 hr games as good as that, I'd take that over 1 skyrim styled game. We have gotten to the point everyone wants open world even if it is super repetitive quests. I say no thank you
Guys Remedy games have never been long. They also tend to be cheaper in the next few months. I personally do not mind paying full price for a short but good game, if you do not see yourself spending full price for a short game just pick it up later.
There's a huge difference between a good long game, and a bad long game. OP clearly doesn't know the difference.
After reading the article, the game is a standard 10-15hrs or 20hrs with all sidequest. I mean, it's not a rpg, so nobody expected 100hrs of gameplay here. The game is long enough and not short by any mean. Misleading title?
Just give me a good game with a good story. Some games outstay their welcome and it sounds like Control won't be one of them.
I hope this game turns out to be good but I have to wait for reviews.
I am getting it for free with the RTX 2070 Super I bought. I wasn't even gonna get it if it wasn't for that. To tell you the truth I will try it, but if it's terrible, I will drop it very quickly.
Value differs between persons. I prefer paying 60$ a game that will generate 6 to 15 hours of great fun compare to 100 hours of generic. Thus said it's quite possible to find games that offer 20+ hours of great fun for the same price so in that regard 30$ to 40$ seem's to be the right price.
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.