• The Order 1886: Only 5.5 hours worth of gameplay
    318 replies, posted
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47157937]How does time period matter in this case? All the games in that list play pretty much the same. It's not like NES era where they had to artificially lengthen the time by upping difficulty. Sample size also doesn't mean much. If you spend a long time on 1886, you will spend an even longer time on these games and vice versa. 1886 is a short game, most of it being cinematic. That's the truth.[/QUOTE] How can he claim "Most games" if he sample size is 16 games long? And older fps tend to be shorter. I'm not defending 1886 and I'm not claiming it to be big either. As a matter of fact, I think that most games would be actually LONGER than 10 hours, and that even with it's 5 hours of lenght, 1886 has less gameplay than Doom's 4 hours.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;47157777]According to [URL="http://howlongtobeat.com/"]howlongtobeat.com[/URL], looking at some of the best action games throughout the ages and some personal favorites (main story only): Wolfenstein 3D - 7 hours Doom - 4 hours Duke Nukem 3D - 9 hours Half Life - 12 hours Blood - 10 hours Oni - 12 hours Halo - 9 hours NOLF - 13 hours Operation Flashpoint - 24 hours FEAR - 9 hours Far Cry - 13 hours Crysis - 10 hours Doom 3 - 11 hours Quake 4 - 8 hours Dead Space - 11 hours Shadow Warrior (2013) - 12 hours of pure awesome So in average most games are around 9 hours for the main plot only, usually over 12 hours at the very least if you go for some of the extras. Less than 9 hours for everything in the games seems a little thin.[/QUOTE] However, those games don't consist mostly of unskippable cutscenes.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47154949]those are MP games SP Games (like the order 1886) are different. The Developers give you a world and say "Beat it at your own pace with whatever you can do with the tools we gave you" Someone speedrunning a game or Someone who gets stuck at a part because of <reasons> is not playing it wrong.[/QUOTE] If I played the order 1886 and shot all my ammo at a wall and never left the room I was in then I would be playing it wrong.
[QUOTE=Skyward;47157671]Now, I don't want to seem like I'm white-knighting this game because frankly I have no interest in it... BUT to play Devil's Advocate... Shouldn't you all be waiting for the game to come out and hear what people have to say instead of relying on unsubstantiated rumors?[/QUOTE] what rumors? it's all there on youtube
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47158003]How can he claim "Most games" if he sample size is 16 games long? And older fps tend to be shorter. I'm not defending 1886 and I'm not claiming it to be big either. As a matter of fact, I think that most games would be actually LONGER than 10 hours, and that even with it's 5 hours of lenght, 1886 has less gameplay than Doom's 4 hours.[/QUOTE] I should clarify that by "most games" I meant most games in that list, not most games ever out of all the games ever.
[QUOTE=Skyward;47157671]Now, I don't want to seem like I'm white-knighting this game because frankly I have no interest in it... BUT to play Devil's Advocate... Shouldn't you all be waiting for the game to come out and hear what people have to say instead of relying on unsubstantiated rumors?[/QUOTE] Did you even read the thread? Theirs an entire casual playthrough on youtube, start to finish, its not rumored at all, you can see it for yourself. The guy even timed the amount of gameplay, it was only about 90 minutes of actual gameplay, the rest being cutscenes and qte shit. Cant be a rumor if its right their for everyone to see.
[QUOTE=Skyward;47157671]Now, I don't want to seem like I'm white-knighting this game because frankly I have no interest in it... BUT to play Devil's Advocate... Shouldn't you all be waiting for the game to come out and hear what people have to say instead of relying on unsubstantiated rumors?[/QUOTE] ... except it isn't unsubstantiated seeing as we know this is fact from a full playthrough of the game someone posted online? Sure it was a rushed playthrough but you are still looking at most pulling 7-9 hours from the game (especially since half the game length is cutscenes which you can't take your time on). Took me 17-18 hours to beat HL2, which I bought in a pack that included a few other things a few years after release. Would have been totally worth $50 for HL2 alone seeing as HL2 not only was an incredibly bar-raising FPS gameplay wise, but it was bar-raising in graphics, pacing, atmosphere, etc. It truly gave an "experience" that you felt like you had to have to be considered a real fan of the FPS genre. It also had lasting value through HL2-DM, modding communities, etc. This is $60 for a little less than half of that time spent. Looks visually stunning (except the people, which still look like "video game people"), but the gameplay/pacing/etc looks like a pretty watered down gears of war clone with more cutscenes involved and and the same extreme linearity (I got so much mileage out of HL2 because the level design and pacing were as such that you could really explore and take your time going through it, it wasn't so "GO DOWN THIS CORRIDOR AND DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE!").
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;47158141]what rumors? it's all there on youtube[/QUOTE] If you rush the game, yeah. But there are many gamers like me who take their time when playing.
[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;47158272]If you rush the game, yeah. But there are many gamers like me who take their time when playing.[/QUOTE] But the playthrough in question wasn't rushed at all if you actually watch it. Some episodes are even posted in this thread. He plays it at a fairly normal pace.
Operation Flashpoint 1 24 hours? My fucking ass. There's no way somebody who plays the game for the first time to beat it in 24 hours. Plus, "beat it" is a VERY bad concept for Op.Flash as you had all the side missions and the game editor....which, which hours worth of gameplay, a hundred or more
[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;47158272]If you rush the game, yeah. But there are many gamers like me who take their time when playing.[/QUOTE] The guy didnt rush the game god damn. He dies a bunch, and fucks around in some areas for a while and stays in cover a lot. Is it really so hard to believe a Triple A dev once again fucked people in the ass with a flawed game that isnt worth $60?
People are being unfair with this game, gamers expectations are through the roof... From this thread alone, people want an high quality game, with many of hours for a lower price than it was in the past. All of this with the ridiculous high standards of AAA games, like awesome graphics, story and gameplay - requiring a team of hundreds - playing >30fps in the weak consoles hardware. (Games a decade ago needed 1/10 of the people to make) I mean, there are some shady or downright bad games that justify the criticism, but this one doesn't seem like it.
[QUOTE=bunguer;47158402]People are being unfair with this game, gamers expectations are through the roof... From this thread alone, people want an high quality game, with many of hours for a lower price than it was in the past. All of this with the ridiculous high standards of AAA games, like awesome graphics, story and gameplay - requiring a team of hundreds - playing >30fps in the weak consoles hardware. (Games a decade ago needed 1/10 of the people to make) I mean, there are some shady or downright bad games that justify the criticism, but this one doesn't seem like it.[/QUOTE] for 90 minutes of actual gunplay in a 5.5 hour long game with like 3 hours of cutscenes I do not think people are being unfair or have high expectations. No ones being unfair at all actually. I dont mind paying $60 for a game, but it has to be a good game. The Order doesnt seem that way, and from watching some of the playthrough all it has going for it is how it looks, everything else is pretty shit, its writing aint good, recycled assets and animations for the final "boss", mixed in a generic cover TPS. Why is that okay when I can pay $60 for something like GTAV, Bloodborne, Persona 5, MGSV? Seriously, how is The Order even worth $60 compared to shit like that?
[QUOTE=Wii60;47154739]spoilers [url]http://i.imgur.com/L3gUxuW.png[/url] [url]http://i.imgur.com/HAfinJ4.png[/url][/QUOTE] I may be misunderstanding this, but is the joke that the final boss is an upscaled badguy you've fought before, or that they're using the same animations and they seem to be fighting in practically the same room? The Werewolves do look pretty cool however, props to them for that.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;47158422]for 90 minutes of actual gunplay in a 5.5 hour long game with like 3 hours of cutscenes I do not think people are being unfair or have high expectations. No ones being unfair at all actually. I dont mind paying $60 for a game, but it has to be a good game. The Order doesnt seem that way, and from watching some of the playthrough all it has going for it is how it looks, everything else is pretty shit, its writing aint good, recycled assets and animations for the final "boss", mixed in a generic cover TPS. Why is that okay when I can pay $60 for something like GTAV, Bloodborne, Persona 5, MGSV? Seriously, how is The Order even worth $60 compared to shit like that?[/QUOTE] Ridiculous comparison, when I go watch a movie, I don't expect every movie to be at the same level of Interstellar or The Lord of the Rings or any of my fav movies - even though they all cost the same to see. This is what I mean with unfair expectations. I'm not saying The Order is a 10/10 game or even close, but games can fall somewhere in between and still offer something to the players.
[QUOTE=bunguer;47158475]Ridiculous comparison, when I go watch a movie, I don't expect every movie to be at the same level of Interstellar or The Lord of the Rings or any of my fav movies - even though they all cost the same to see. This is what I mean with unfair expectations. I'm not saying The Order is a 10/10 game or even close, but games can fall somewhere in between and still offer something to the players.[/QUOTE] Movies are not a fair comparison to games, you also dont need to worry about it not running good, having shit gameplay, and movie tickets are pretty cheap and redbox/netflix are also insanely cheap, I can get like 100s of movies for $15. Also the ticket prices are not set by the directors as far as im aware, its entirely different from theater to theater. The order is $60 yet has way less than any of the games I listed by a FUCKLOAD, even without being fucking released MGSV, Persona 5, and Bloodborne are already more worthwhile. Bloodborne could be 5 hours as well, but it has chalice dungeons and MP for big replayability. Persona 5 is probably gonna be like 60+ hours like all the other Personas and it already looks incredible from the trailer. MGSV has already proven itself with GZ and all the gameplay videos and feature videos that its worth $60, on top of that it has the motherbase building, invasions, and MGO3. Im not straight up saying The Order is shit, im saying its clearly not worth $60, its a bad purchase compared to other $60 games. Its really not okay for this type of shit and thinking it is just lets devs continue to get away with this shit.
As I've wrote elsewhere, I'm more concerned about the total absence of any customization and character progression and the gameplay proper in general
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;47158141]what rumors? it's all there on youtube[/QUOTE] Yeah that's my bad. I heard this from another source that didn't mention it being on a YouTube playhtrough. I figured this article had the same lack of evidence without reading it.
I'm glad people are a little more open minded about expectations and judgments here but this isn't the game you should be defending. The footage and proof of what it is is clearly their
Nearly everybody who has played it is giving good impressions. [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152072864&postcount=4230[/url] [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152092925&postcount=4532[/url] And most of them are saying it took them 8-12 hours to beat it. This youtube person obviously went through it quick (and he played it on easy, which apparently is extremely easy in this game) I'm getting it because it looks fun, has an amazing setting and atmosphere, and I have no problem paying full price for a shorter game as long as it's a good experience. Also what happened to everybody hating tacked on multiplayer? Apparently it's now required for a game to be worth playing. No pointless multiplayer = no buy nowadays. [QUOTE=Saxon;47158661]The footage and proof of what it is is clearly their[/QUOTE] A short TPS with great gunplay and some fun, limb shredding weapons?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47154705] Don't play story heavy games if you don't like to see QTEs, loads of cutscenes and short titles.[/quote] QTEs can suck my dick. Simple as that. They are bad game design and are little more than a way to punish players who don't have twitch reflexes and/or are taking that cutscene as a moment to set the controller down, stretch their fingers out and sip a soda. You can, and should, do a good story game without a single QTE ever making it onto the design documents, much less the final product. [quote]Not every game has to be a massive RPG with immense replay value that takes at least 60 hours to complete once.[/quote] You're right, but that doesn't change the fact that people want better value out of their gaming dollar these days. Industry standard seems to be 5-10 dollars per hour of gameplay, fuck replayability, and that just doesn't sit well with gamers these days. Half Life 2 is an excellent example of how to do a game with a 9 hour campaign properly. It has tons of replay value, so while it may only take a handful of hours to beat it, you'll want to go back through again and again. MAybe instead of relying on one-shot one-kill tactics, you wanna run'n'gun? Maybe you want to try a melee only run? Minimal murder run? Kill everything that moves run? Maybe you'll try to speedrun it, or perhaps you wanna try to make a really detailed walkthrough slash let's play out of it the second time through? The reasoning is irrelevant, it has replayability. You'll end up netting far more gametime than a single playthrough would normally give. That is good game design. [quote] Moreover, QTEs are not necessarily a bad thing[/quote] They are a terrible thing. UNless you're doing a rhythm game, which is quite literally just a stream of QTEs set to music, you shouldn't be putting QTEs in the game. If you are you've failed as a dev. [quote] and are in fact pretty damn necessary for some cutscenes to work well[/quote] No. It means you've failed at game design. [quote] - 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.[/QUOTE] Wrong. Totally, unquestionably wrong. QTEs in non-rhythm games are poor game design. They punish players who are taking a sip of a drink during the cutscene, who don't have twitch reflexes. They shatter your sense of immersion, they stifle any chance of tactics being used to influence the battle. They amount to nothing more than an annoying 'Are you still there?' check and shouldn't be in the game in the first place. Cutscenes themselves should be used fairly sparingly, QTEs should never be used at all.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;47158764]gaf is lit the worst place to get game impressions from soz its a shit exclusive ur making a bad purchase[/QUOTE] Gaf is one of the better gaming sites, with many members who are actually part of the industry, and does a great job of dealing quickly with shitposting, fanboy war shit and trolling. And don't start with the open world thing. Not every game needs to be open world. So tired of that, and not to mention the whole "gameplay isn't next gen" complaints thrown at every other game (mostly system exclusives because those are what piss people off the most) when nobody can even define what it is (because it's bullshit)
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47154705]People who complain about this game seem to mostly be people who expected another title entirely. [B] Don't play story heavy games if you don't like to see QTEs, loads of cutscenes and short titles.[/B] 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.[/QUOTE] This is the most retarded fucking thing that I keep seeing. I play videogames primarily for the story. When I play a videogame I don't want a fucking movie. It's fucking hilarious that just because a game isn't an RPG people let it get away with all kinds of bullshit. MGS4 has been a huge joke for having 8 hours of cutscenes, but that at least had about the same amount of gameplay. [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] If I want a movie I'll go pay €10 for a good 2-3 hour experience. If I buy a game for €60 I want more than 90 minutes of gameplay and 3 hours of cutscenes.
Quality > Quantity Its a shame that The Order seems to have bugger all quality.
[QUOTE=EditOutJ;47158838]Quality > Quantity Its a shame that The Order seems to have bugger all quality.[/QUOTE] People keep using the Quality > Quantity argument, I don't see why its 1 or the other Competent game developers use both effectively
[QUOTE=Nemisis116;47158901]People keep using the Quality > Quantity argument, I don't see why its 1 or the other Competent game developers use both effectively[/QUOTE] Quality will always trump Quantity. A quality game can be any length of time. If your game is poor, it will be bad, regardless of length.
[QUOTE=Demeschik;47158113]However, those games don't consist mostly of unskippable cutscenes.[/QUOTE] Okay seriously if a game is story oriented how exactly is it a bad thing that cutscenes are unskippable at least on your first run Why do you insist on wanting to play story heavy games if you're going to skip every cutscene and rush to gameplay when the game's not designed for heavy gameplay ? Also, some of those games [I]do[/I] have unskippable cutscenes, you're simply allowed to fuck around during them. Dead Space 1 has a pretty damn long intro scene, and a lot of the game has long cutscenes with no interaction. Dead Space 2 has even longer cutscenes - and you can't skip them. Half Life does the same except you're allowed to move around, which doesn't mean much when you're restricted to such a tiny space. In 2, these scenes are again even longer - because you're able to fuck around in Kleiner's lab and knock over some stuff doesn't change the fact you're sitting in a ten minutes long cutscene of people talking about teleportation and hideouts. [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Nemisis116;47158901]People keep using the Quality > Quantity argument, I don't see why its 1 or the other Competent game developers use both effectively[/QUOTE] Competent developers don't necessarily have the team, the resources and the time necessary to take advantage of quality and quantity. Deadlines are a thing, budgets are a thing, you can't develop a single game forever unless you're valve and you have a huge source of income and the side - and valve takes five years to make a single game for 12 hours of quality gameplay. Not to mention that a "long" story game is [I]never[/I] going to be consistently over 24 hours long if it's not a rpg that requires grinding, countless retries, and several playthroughs to get through it. And if it actually is that long, then it's going to have horrible pacing issues because there is no way in hell you can make a game that long that's equally distributed content-wise. 12 hours is the most you can realistically expect from a single player story experience without it turning to shit.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47158727]Nearly everybody who has played it is giving good impressions. [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152072864&postcount=4230[/url] [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152092925&postcount=4532[/url] [/quote] Neogaf bans or deletes the posts of anyone who posts a contradicting opinion that is negative generally. They are a shithole of a forum. [quote] And most of them are saying it took them 8-12 hours to beat it. This youtube person obviously went through it quick (and he played it on easy, which apparently is extremely easy in this game) [/quote] The YouTube play through was on normal difficulty, the expected play difficulty. The AI has a tendency to stand perfectly still and shoot you. [quote] I'm getting it because it looks fun, has an amazing setting and atmosphere, and I have no problem paying full price for a shorter game as long as it's a good experience. Also what happened to everybody hating tacked on multiplayer? Apparently it's now required for a game to be worth playing. No pointless multiplayer = no buy nowadays. [/quote] Multiplayer lends itself to extending the life of a game greatly, especially if it is well designed. Now if you want a game for atmosphere and everything with tacked on multiplayer that has survived a long while as an example: STALKER. I think the multiplayer of that game was some form of capture the flag. [quote] A short TPS with great gunplay and some fun, limb shredding weapons?[/QUOTE] You mean revolver , pistol, 2 shot pistol, assault rifle?, automatic rifle, smg, sniper rifle, and [URL="http://liandri.beyondunreal.com/Lightning_Gun"]lightning sniper rifle[/URL] unique? Practically every weapon in the first 5 parts I watched was a generic gun. The only special thing is the assault rifle as a stun blast thing.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47158936]Competent developers don't necessarily have the team, the resources and the time necessary to take advantage of quality and quantity.[/QUOTE] Then that's a problem with modern game development. If you can't make a game with quality in mind, what the hell are you making.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47158978]You mean revolver , pistol, 2 shot pistol, assault rifle?, automatic rifle, smg, sniper rifle, and [URL="http://liandri.beyondunreal.com/Lightning_Gun"]lightning sniper rifle[/URL] unique? Practically every weapon in the first 5 parts I watched was a generic gun. The only special thing is the assault rifle as a stun blast thing.[/QUOTE] Every gun in Wolfenstein The New Order is a generic gun past their design and they're still fun, limb shredding and satisfying. [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=EditOutJ;47158992]Then that's a problem with modern game development. If you can't make a game with quality in mind, what the hell are you making.[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is you should promote quality over quantity because you're not going to be able to equally offer both. You're gonna have to make a choice, and even when you choose quality there's still some aspects that you'll have to leave out. Also "modern game development" is like the most nostalgia tinted statement you could make. Games have been faulty and buggy and lacked quality forever, stop acting like it's a new thing. What's new is how exactly they're faulty and lack quality.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.