Poll: The Order 1886 - Our critics are bullies

[DementedSheep]

Length shouldn't matter. The game should be judged on the merit and execution of its story and game play.

Just like a arbitrary page count is a bad way to critique books so is arbitrary game lengths. No one in their right mind would go "this book is bad cause it only has 150 pages. It takes at least 300 pages for a book to be good!"

If a game can tell a story in an interesting and satisfying way in 5 hour then good on it.


If for example The Order fails to tell an interesting story in a satisfying way in 5 hours critics need to explain why it failed instead of taking the lazy route and complaining solely about the length.

The length is an important factor in determining whether its worth price, even for books. The Order might be able to tell an interesting story in 5 hours (and I doubt it actually has a brilliant story) but it's still not worth $60USD. For a game being too short is worse because games aren't just about the story, its also about game-play. A game not having enough actual gameplay is an issue that should be mentioned.

 

[Yopaz]

I think you need a third option here - It depends.

Some games are best as shorter experiences. Limbo comes to mind immediately.

Some games are better as longer experiences. Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age: Origins, etc.

That still falls within yes though.

If a a game being too long negatively affects quality then game length is a factor in the game's quality. Let's say Limbo had been expanded with lots of pointless sections of walking down a straight line with no obstacles or the same obstacles being repeated 5 times in a row for no reason. Then the game being longer would affect the quality. So the answer would be yes, length is a factor.

If Dragon Age had been too short to properly set up the story and to get a feel for the characters when you were done then that would negatively affect the quality. Again the answer here would be yes.

Both your examples here are examples of quality being related to game length.

I do agree with what you're saying though. A longer game isn't better for being longer and a short game can be great. And the importance of considering the price vs game length. I want value for my money regardless of what I am buying. How many cups of coffee can my coffee machine make before it breaks? How much do I pay for one kilogram of meat? The same goes for games. I got Monster Loves You for ?5 and I have played it for about 3 hours. I'm satisfied with that. I've also paid $20 for Saints Row 2 and played that for 120 hours and I am extremely satisfied with that. The problem is the whole "AAA games have to cost xx(x)". If The Order had been presented as a compact game priced at 40 or 30 dollars they might not have to deal with these complaints. Of course I might be wrong about that, we do like to complain and exaggerate things we feel strongly about and I am no exception to that.

 

[NPC009]

Thing is you're also talking about a small game with a small budget and team that is tightly designed. A lot of six-hour actions set-piece games is that their short length is clearly not having any ideas or polish and trying to distract with some admittedly good presentation. There's a world of difference, especially where budgets are concerned. Gunpoint has an excuse, 1886 doesn't

I'm pretty sure Gunpoint doesn't have an excuse, it has a reason.

Some of my favourite games are 2-10 hours long. Most of them were the perfect length despite being short compared to the JRPG epics I play so often. These games featured things such good level design with tons of variety, storylines that weren't stretched out with mandatory sidequests and so on.

It's actually fairly easy to make a long game. Randomly generated content helps enormously, as do things like random encounters, reusing assets (easily done in dungeon crawlers) and elaborate crafting systems. The real challenge is designing a game that feels like it has something new to offer after many hours despite having been build with a (very) limited amount of building blocks.

 

[prowll]

I totally agree with the comments here, in the main. "It depends", and "This is a factor of value, not quality."
As an example, I liked Papers Please, a lot... But I paid 5$ for it. A great value for that price. However, if someone tried to charge me full 60$ AAA pricing for that... no. If I'm paying full price, I'm expecting to spend 50-60 hours with that game, MINIMUM. This is one of the reasons I love the sandbox games, such as Prototype, Grand Theft, Skyrim, ect. (Skyrim has 1200 hours according to Steam on it.) So if I am expected to beat a shooter in 5 hours... I'll just reload Half-Life, thanks....

 

[Vykrel]

really needs to be an "it depends" option. a game can be as short as The Order, but it needs to make up for that length. from all accounts, 1886 is just a typical linear third-person shooter with nothing really going for it besides the graphics.

games like Journey or Limbo are under two hours long but both of them were sold at a reasonable price and offer a completely unique experience that is not found in any other game.

 

[loa]

Game length a weird, almost bipolar thing.
Take metal gear solid games. Can be completed quite quickly yet they're still regarded as classics.
Vanquish. 4-5 hour gametime. Amazing game.
Final fantasy 13, 13-2, 13-3. 5 million hours of misery.
Persona 3. Amazing game but with 50 hours, almost too long for its own good.
Dark souls. Can take anything from 30 minutes to 15 hours to complete depending on you knowing what you're doing and finding out what to do kind of is the game.
Starfox 64. You can beat it in 1 sitting of ~2 hours yet it's a critically acclaimed game.

Game length is really hard to measure and it's even harder to evaluate how it affects the quality of the game.
I'd say if there is a lot of replayability, a short gamelength can be forgiven and is to be expected.

 

[crotchdot]

I'd much rather a game be short and sweet than overstay its welcome. Some of my all time favourite games have been what most people would call short (Portal, Journey).

So it does depress me a little when people are so quick to deride a game because of its length. Also, asking people what they think about game length whilst simultaneously referring to the decision to make a game short as "asinine game design" is somewhat biased. It's clear what you were asking from the vitriol of your comment, but it's interesting that many have still voted yes because a game can also be too long.

 

[deathbydeath]

Thing is you're also talking about a small game with a small budget and team that is tightly designed. A lot of six-hour actions set-piece games is that their short length is clearly not having any ideas or polish and trying to distract with some admittedly good presentation. There's a world of difference, especially where budgets are concerned. Gunpoint has an excuse, 1886 doesn't

You're quite right, as Gunpoint was developed by one dude while he worked at PC Gamer. However, you didn't stipulate that condition in your post ;P.

Still, there isn't much that Order does that's out of the ordinary. According to the article in the OP a playthrough will take 8-10 hours, which afaik is par for the course. It is quite unfortunate that the hornets nest that is The Internet can be stirred so easily with so little.

Still, it'd be nicer to see games that focused on high productions while intentionally remaining concise (and adjusting the price tag to match). iirc this is what Call of Juarez: Gunslinger and Blood Dragon tried to do a while back.

 

[F-I-D-O]

I'd rather have a tighter, contained, and well paced short game over a bloated, filler-loaded long game.
I'd rather have a quality long game over a short game that doesn't go anywhere.
Etc.

Length is a factor, but not the deciding one.

The Order:1886 is mediocre because it has relatively generic combat, a standard story that feels like an opening chapter more so than a full narrative, and takes control away without giving anything in return.
Many sidequests in DA:I kill a quality experience with generic fetches, kill x missions, and slow flower picking. Running from resource node to resource node is not a compelling high fantasy experience.
[sub]inb4 "Get out of the hinterlands" - the entire game has this issue[/sub]
Portal is amazing because it has a consistent pace, a fantastic learning curve, and fun game play. It can be beaten in 90 minutes. It costs $10 on Steam, and launched as part of a $60 collection.

I like Deus Ex: Human Revolution over Far Cry 4 because the side content mattered more in HR, whereas FC4 had more content, but it was all filler. HR felt better paced, and as such felt like a stronger title, despite both having relatively similar gameplay.

I care if the game plays well. Then I care if there's compelling things to do in the game. Then I care if the story's any good. Then I care about length. Naturally, if any of those components are lacking, something has to pick up the slack. And if nothing does, then I hope the price points adjusts to match.