• The Order 1886: Only 5.5 hours worth of gameplay
    318 replies, posted
The gameplay honestly doesn't seem all that appealing to make it worth the purchase.
Honestly, as long as it's a very good 6 hours, i'm okay with it. I bought Bulletstorm for ~10 bucks and it lasted me only 5 hours but it was a fucking BLAST.
I totally agree with quality over quantity, but from what I've seen of this game it doesn't seem like there's much quality about it. Another cover based shooter with a probably average story is about the last thing I could care about right now. The one thing it has going for it is the aesthetics, and I don't want to pay full price for a game just to go "ooh pretty" for the first 5 minutes.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47153293]Why not both?[/QUOTE] Quantity isn't always that great of a thing to be fair. There are some short games that feel like they are the perfect length. Stretching out a games content to live up to peoples expectations is a good way to make a game worse.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47152799]spoilers PRESS X TO NOT DIE[/QUOTE] every time i see a qte boss fight in a video game, [url=http://youtu.be/rs53c0q6kHg?t=1m8s]this[/url] immediately comes to mind
Quality is important but I'm not comfortable with only 5 fucking hours of gameplay, that sounds like utter bullshit. Too bad because this game looked interesting when I saw the first trailer for it. If it was maybe like $30 I would buy it. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] especially with this game, it looked like it would be a long, awesomely-told tale that I was ready for.
i'm not going to lie, this game doesn't look like it has quality or quantity going for it
[QUOTE=fudge blood;47154257]Quality is important but I'm not comfortable with only 5 fucking hours of gameplay, that sounds like utter bullshit. Too bad because this game looked interesting when I saw the first trailer for it. If it was maybe like $30 I would buy it. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] especially with this game, it looked like it would be a long, awesomely-told tale that I was ready for.[/QUOTE] If what people said about the play through is correct, the guy totally missed all the actual plot and world development in favour of "beating" the game as fast as possible for bragging rights/ "lmao console shitlords" snippets. If you don't pick up any shit lying around or investigate areas you can make almost any game laughably short.
[QUOTE=fudge blood;47154257]Quality is important but I'm not comfortable with only 5 fucking hours of gameplay, that sounds like utter bullshit. Too bad because this game looked interesting when I saw the first trailer for it. If it was maybe like $30 I would buy it. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] especially with this game, it looked like it would be a long, awesomely-told tale that I was ready for.[/QUOTE]Its actually three hours of gameplay and two hours of cut scenes.
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47151587]I dunno maybe this isn't all bad. Remember when Portal first run would take 45 minutes minimum? Maybe this is another one of those games were it's experimental like Portal.[/QUOTE] Portal didn't cost 60$ did it? in fact you got TF2, and HL2:EP1 bundled with it can't exactly compare the two [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;47151650]True it didn't but Order is also much longer then Portal. As Ganerumo said, game time doesn't really matter.[/QUOTE] game time is extremely important I can either play the game and actually keep playing and have a great time, or have a great time and beat it in one sitting and never ever enjoy it ever again. 60+ hours of solid gameplay can either cost 60$, or 300$ for a bunch of titles that only last like 5 hours at best. I've had so many more games that I've found far more enjoyable have a much longer playtime than 5 hour games. obviously there are exceptions. If a game only lasts about 20-30 hours but has EXTREMELY good gameplay, it sure as shit is worth it. But 5 hours? that's kind of a joke. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;47151643]He just went through the main portion of the game, didn't stop to listen to audio logs or NPC conversations. Another guy tried to do everything, including restarting segments to grind trophies, and he clocked at 9h.[/QUOTE] 9 hours restarting segments and grinding is actually insanely low. Especially for an "Action adventure" genre game. like, what the fuck, I got 14 hours from crysis 2, a piss easy linear shooter. And that was with a choppy computer. 14 hours isn't exactly that much more. But that's from a linear shooter. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] this all being said, Shadow of Morder seriously needed some cutting. That game is too long for what it has (which is pretty much killing orcs and... that's it) a proper game for me should have a solid amount of hours for what it has in it.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;47154293]If what people said about the play through is correct, the guy totally missed all the actual plot and world development in favour of "beating" the game as fast as possible for bragging rights/ "lmao console shitlords" snippets. If you don't pick up any shit lying around or investigate areas you can make almost any game laughably short.[/QUOTE] i can't believe so many people play a game wrong they need to play it the way i want them to
[QUOTE=Wii60;47154503]i can't believe so many people play a game wrong they need to play it the way i want them to[/QUOTE] i don't know man DarkSydePhil has unironic followers. more people play games wrong than you think. It's an extremely common thing these days I hear.
[QUOTE=J!NX;47154519]i don't know man DarkSydePhil has unironic followers. more people play games wrong than you think. It's an extremely common thing these days I hear.[/QUOTE] People play their own way whether they are playing it wrong or not is subjective, not objective.
Maybe there's a reason for multiple playthroughs?
apparently someone cut out all the cutscenes and its only 90 minutes of actual gameplay. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Ph1Pd6m.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Wii60;47154565]apparently someone cut out all the cutscenes and its only 90 minutes of actual gameplay.[/QUOTE] you can't be serious at this rate why not just go see a movie instead of playing a videogame pretending to be one
[QUOTE=dai;47152670]if what makol guessed about the difficulty is true, this post is a major reason some developers would be justified in putting up embargos (regardless of other problems they may have). One twit walks through the game on easy just to be the first to post it all up to youtube and suddenly everybody thinks the game is objectively short and the AI is N64 levels of dumb[/QUOTE] I'll also be honest that most AI in games are N64 Level Retarded.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47154503]i can't believe so many people play a game wrong they need to play it the way i want them to[/QUOTE] Oh fuck off with that shit. You know what I meant. There's a difference between playing a game as fast as possible, and playing the game as originally intended, you don't base the play time on the fast runs because it misses out a lot of content used for building the story up and other things. You base the play time on an average run, where a player actually does explore and look for the bits of plot dotted around if it's available.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47152242]Half Life 2 pads fucking levels in, the entire car sequence could be thrown out for the amount of effort spent on it.[/QUOTE] Do you know what pacing is? Do you know how important it is for narrative driven games (or any non-arcade styled games for that matter) to have down-time? Take a look at Call of Duty. CoD campaigns are non-stop action, with no down-time. And they are exhausting to play.
[QUOTE=OutspokenGolf;47154576]you can't be serious at this rate why not just go see a movie instead of playing a videogame pretending to be one[/QUOTE] "why play any of the telltale interactive games" "why play any of david cage's games" "why play any of the old fmv games"
[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;47154601]Do you know what pacing is? Do you know how important it is for narrative driven games (or any non-arcade styled games for that matter) to have down-time? Take a look at Call of Duty. CoD campaigns are non-stop action, with no down-time. And they are exhausting to play.[/QUOTE] The entire car section could be reduced to 3 maps and still hold all the narrative it had before. The game has excellent pacing, even with the airboat sequence, but the car sequence literally doesn't need to last as long as it does.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47154613]"why play any of the telltale interactive games" "why play any of david cage's games" "why play any of the old fmv games"[/QUOTE] except telltale actually has gameplay and a defined difference rather than just a linear plotline and hours of cutscenes it isn't just qte's, you can actually make choices, that's the whole point. It's a story that you play with. Rather than just... watch... and that's it and it doesn't cost 60$ starting price.
[QUOTE=dai;47152262]two things nobody seems to be asking: what difficulty did he play on? You're all mocking how dumb-as-bricks the AI seems to be, but from what hits the dude was taking, he wasn't really feeling any damage. I've listened to people bitch and moan about various halo games' campaigns being piss-easy and beating it in 4 or 5 hours, spoke a lot to the fact they put it on easy and walked to the end And, has anyone confirmed you can't skip cutscenes [i]after beating the game/individual levels?[/i] Because Ive seen that a handful of times[/QUOTE] Stuff like this, combined with the early complaining in this thread makes me wonder a question I typically wonder. "Are we just complaining about this kind of thing because it's a bad thing? Or because the game isn't up to our personal standards and we're just crying because of it? Do we really understand what the dev's thought process was making this game? or are we just bitching about how evil they can be rather than understand?" Because when gaming problems happen I feel we never put "us" into the equation at all sometimes.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47154628]The entire car section could be reduced to 3 maps and still hold all the narrative it had before. The game has excellent pacing, even with the airboat sequence, but the car sequence literally doesn't need to last as long as it does.[/QUOTE] Personally. I've always loved Highway 17 due to how quiet it was. Long drives and stops where you get to listen to the ocean, with the occasional shootout.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47154545]People play their own way whether they are playing it wrong or not is subjective, not objective.[/QUOTE] It absolutely is possible to play games wrong. Games are a a structure of mechanics and rules, if you try to break those rules or don't use the mechanics you are playing it wrong. Refusing to pay attention to the information the game gives you is also playing it wrong.
People who complain about this game seem to mostly be people who expected another title entirely. Don't play story heavy games if you don't like to see QTEs, loads of cutscenes and short titles. Not every game has to be a massive RPG with immense replay value that takes at least 60 hours to complete once. Moreover, QTEs are not necessarily a bad thing and are in fact pretty damn necessary for some cutscenes to work well - if you complain about the final boss of a game being a giant QTE then chances are you're not the kind of people who should play that sort of game to begin with.
i'd rather everyone talk about how boring actually playing that game looks like
[QUOTE=kapin_krunch;47153303]Quantity isn't always that great of a thing to be fair. There are some short games that feel like they are the perfect length. Stretching out a games content to live up to peoples expectations is a good way to make a game worse.[/QUOTE] A good example is Silent Hill 2. It's very short, only about 5 or 6 hours, but it's absolutely loaded with depth and emotion.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;47154613]"why play any of the telltale interactive games" "why play any of david cage's games" "why play any of the old fmv games"[/QUOTE] This thread is really not factoring in Story nuts who go into games for story, not caring about gameplay length, or cutscene length, just good story and world building. [sp]I'm one of those people.[/sp]
[QUOTE=J!NX;47154640]except telltale actually has gameplay and a defined difference rather than just a linear plotline and hours of cutscenes it isn't just qte's, you can actually make choices, that's the whole point. It's a story that you play with. Rather than just... watch... and that's it and it doesn't cost 60$ starting price.[/QUOTE] The Walking Dead to only cite one example doesn't actually have any decisions that make a real impact. It allows you to briefly take an alternate route but you're quickly brought back to the same path as you were on before. Even choosing who lives and dies has no actual impact because you'll either never see this person again, or if they allow them to live they'll die anyway when the story needs them to go away. The game lets you think your actions have importance by shaking unimportant effects in front of you to hide the linearity of the story and it works. A game that actually did branching stories a lot better (but horribly failed at having a compelling story) was Heavy Rain, where you could actually just outright end the game early if you fucked everything up and had everyone die before the killer could be revealed. And even then, the game had to eventually cheat to actually put the player back on track.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.