Video Game Length (And The Order's Length of Play)

G00N3R7883

New member
Feb 16, 2011
281
0
0
Yes, length does affect my purchases. I guess I've been spoiled by the RPG genre. When I can get 40 hours out of Dragon Age Origins (and still have some side quests that I've not done) why would I pay the same price for a game that lasts 8 hours? Its true that length and quality are not always the same thing, but my favourite RPGs usually bring the quality as well.

I really started paying attention to length after I played Star Wars Force Unleashed 2. I bought it on release for full price £35 (Xbox 360) and finished it in around 5 hours. I felt completely ripped off. I was so angry. £7 an hour? Never again.

In most cases what I try to look for is £1 an hour for average quality, or £2.50 an hour for top quality. Because I do most of my gaming on PC now games are a bit cheaper anyway. But games like Tomb Raider or Bioshock Infinite or Wolfenstein, that are around 10-12 hours long, I'm comfortable paying £25-£30 for.

If your game doesn't fit my price/length/quality calculation, I'll mostly wait for a sale rather than ignoring completely.
 

JohnZ117

A blind man before the Elephant
Jun 19, 2012
295
0
21
MysticSlayer said:
Thorn14 said:
Also I don't know how to do spoilers on this forum (does it have it?) because the final boss is...eugh.
There is the spoiler tag:

[ spoiler]Insert content here[ /spoiler]

And you can also add a comment for people to read before opening it:

[ spoiler=Get ready to have something spoiled]Insert content here[ /spoiler]

Just remove the spaces between the opening brackets and what's inside them. Or you can quote me to see an example:

This is the first example
I SAID THERE WAS NO NEED TO OPEN IT!
Not really commenting here, just bookmarking this for future reference.

Ot, if this game really is less than 6 hours long, it's just adding to my list of reasons not to get it.
 

b.w.irenicus

New member
Apr 16, 2013
104
0
0
Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming?
Hmm, 5h is short, no doubt about that, but thats hardly new, especially for Actiongames. I mean, how long did it take to finish Contra on the SNES? 2h? 3h? Despite what many people seem to think, I don't feel that game have gotten considerably shorter in recent years.
When I have a choice, naturally I'd take an awesome long game over a awesome short game, but I'd rather take a awsome short game over a game that is occasionally great, but has a lot of padding, too.
 

rvbnut

New member
Jan 3, 2011
317
0
0
Yeah. This is pretty much why I only play RPGs and sandbox games nowadays. Most other games can be chewed through in less time it takes to download the bloody things (all hail Australian shitty internet). It's not worth it, in my opinion.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
I'm not usually one for any kind of money:length ratio, but yeah near enough £50 (with a quick Google search the cheapest was £49) for only 5 1/2 hours, with a decent amount being cutscenes is kinda ridiculous.
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
Length doesn't affect really affect my purchases, when they game is good. Replay value is pretty keen to me, so a game that I want to come back to often is worth full retail price. Since the only ways for me to rent are mail order, Red Box (ugh), and the seedy local rental shop downtown, I generally don't play anything questionable until it's either on Steam for cheap or I find the console version cheap in a game shop. I haven't really been interested in most AAA games for the past 4 years anyway.

As for The Order 1886, I've watched the first hour and one half or so and it doesn't look too enticing. It really looks like Uncharted in Victorian London, with more QTEs in the place of puzzle solving, and I'm already worn out on third person action games with shooter elements and QTEs taking up the bulk of the gameplay. If anyone wants to consider buying it, I'd say wait for the reviews or spoil the first fifth of the game watching the videos. (Watch them before they get copyright strikes from a fearful Sony hoping this leak doesn't kill sales).

I wonder what preorder numbers will look like after this news gets around.
 

Poetic Nova

Pulvis Et Umbra Sumus
Jan 24, 2012
1,974
0
0
8th Gen gamign everyone.

The time of short games, day one dlc's and obvious beta's getting released.
Shame, it was one of those games that made me want a PS4.

Anyway, if I buy a game full price it has to atleast have a campaign that's either replayable through choices or longer than a handfull of hours. Which is pretty much why I only buy new Borderlands titles or Metro titles at full price. Though, I think I can say that Wolfenstein: TNO would have justified its original pricetag aswell, despite me buying it for 30 euro's.
 

Bob_McMillan

Elite Member
Aug 28, 2014
5,175
1,851
118
Country
Philippines
Thorn14 said:
So The Order 1886 has been leaked and broken street date. Youtube and Twitch playthroughs have already gone up and it clocks at a depressing....

5 Hours and 27 Minutes, with cutscenes.

And apparently several "chapters" are nothing but 10 minute cutscenes. All for $60 Dollars.

Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming? Sure the game looks pretty but...for that much money, why would I ever want such a game if its going to be that short, and likely have little replayability?

Thank god I'm renting it instead.

Does the length of a game affect your purchases at all too? Because if a game ends up way too short, I'm going to feel like I wasted a lot of money.
How sure are we about this though? I heard something like this a week ago in a video, except the guy said it was wrong. Something about getting the final trophy in five hours? He even quoted the debs on that. Unless those devs have bigger balls than Bruce Lee and are more asshole-y than Hitler, maybe we should wait until someone reviews it.
 

Prince of Ales

New member
Nov 5, 2014
85
0
0
I wouldn't buy it. I do tend to go for games with a lot of replay value or endgame potential, so that's just my thing. I could understand if someone else was less concerned about total playtime, but for me, yeah, that alone would put me off.
 

Jeremy Dawkins

New member
Oct 17, 2011
80
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Thorn14 said:
Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming?
What direction is that? This is just another launch game suffering from "techdemo fever", except it got pushed back a year. Remember Heavenly Short Sword? That game got hyped for its next gen-iness and it was only 4 to 5 hours long. Sony seems to have one of these bloody things each generation, no need to worry. The PS2 had The Bouncer, the PS3 had Heaven Sword, and the PS4 will have The Order. After which we'll forget all about it, as proper games make their way.
Wait, what's wrong with The Bouncer? It was a fun beat 'em up and also a fighting game, with Mugetsu the gimp ninja.
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
AhahahahHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAH

I'm not usually the one to feel this amount of catharsis towards...this sort of ordeal, but jesus christ ;D

Those must be some pretty great cutscenes, with that reduced aspect ratio and 1080p/30fps XD

Tech Demo, Ho!
 

Tohuvabohu

Not entirely serious, maybe.
Mar 24, 2011
1,001
0
0
Thorn14 said:
5 Hours and 27 Minutes, with cutscenes.

And apparently several "chapters" are nothing but 10 minute cutscenes. All for $60 Dollars.

Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming? Sure the game looks pretty but...for that much money, why would I ever want such a game if its going to be that short, and likely have little replayability?
I'm confused. What direction is that, exactly? It seems like you're implying that games are getting shorter? Well, I remember my first playthrough of Onimusha on my PS2 clocked in at around 6 hours, which I had bought at launch and had practically no replayability. And that's just one example of a 14 year old game. So unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is not a new thing at all.

As for the total playtime you are citing, I found information based on the source of that number that you should know.

Here's an article that sheds some light on this:

There have been wildly varying accounts on the length of The Order: 1886, but a full playthrough has finally been posted by YouTube user PlayMeThrough, and it?s pretty interesting, because it?s basically a ?bare minimum? walkthrough. He doesn?t stop to examine any of the many story-related items that can be found around the game, and almost never dies.
The full playtime accounts to about five hours and a half, which definitely puts to rest the ?rumors? about the game being three hours long. And that?s without enjoying a lot of the content included in Ready at Dawn?s title.
On the other hand, cutscenes cannot be skipped, as they have a lot of interactive elements within. We also learn that you can change difficulty dynamically at any time while you play, without needing to restart a chapter.
Interestingly, PlayMeThrough himself mentions that the game feels ?much longer than it really is,? which is often the case with heavily story-driven games.
Of course, that?s not the time a normal user will take to complete the game, as many would probably need to try quite a few challenging parts a multiple times to achieve this kind of ?perfect run,? and most will stop and catch the story clues, which take a reasonable amount of time (and some are absolutely hilarious, especially one in Nikola Tesla?s lab, but I won?t spoil it).
In fact other users that have played the game report over social media and forums times varying between eight and even as long as fifteen hours (for example, one of the first players to achieve the platinum trophy took about nine hours to complete his first playthrough, even if he had to go back to find some collectibles afterwards), if you spend a lot of time getting immersed in the beautiful world, look at everything there?s to look at, and if you die a reasonable amount of times.
That said, no more room for rumors. If you run through the game with full sails, without being sidetracked by story and flavor elements (again, I definitely don?t advise it, but to each his own), and you?re much better at shooters than I am, this is how fast you can make it.

[link]http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/02/15/heres-how-quickly-you-can-beat-the-order-1886-if-you-skip-all-you-can-and-never-die/[/link]


TL:DR - The 5 and a half hour long LP uploaded, and the one you are referencing in your post, is a Bare Minimum playthrough, rushing through the game and almost never dying.

That's 5 and a half hours long if you skip absolutely everything and rush through the game and almost never die. Which I believe not many people would actually do unless they want to speed run the game, and is therefore not generally representative of how long the game will actually be for your average player.

You might want to clarify this estimate since it is disingenuous. You wouldn't say Resident Evil "clocks in at a depressing hour and 34 minutes" based on speed runs, would you?

As for the games length, the wildly different things I've heard about it have been a little bit more clarified now. I've heard the 5 hour figure before, but this is usually followed by allegations that this time is only achieved by rushing/brute-forcing through the entire game. Which based on the article, is indeed the case. I've heard some people say it's even up to 12 hours long. With "normal" casual playthroughs going for about 8-10 hours. The article mentions another single first-time playthrough around 9 hours for someone attempting to get the Platinum trophy.

On the subject of game length, I'd say replayability is important. A game can be relatively short, but if made to be replayable, it could easily boost it's lifespan by magnitudes. And having replayability isn't an entirely difficult thing to manage.
Metal Gear Rising, for example, has a story mode that's about 6 hours long give or take. Last I checked, my primary save file for that game had gone beyond 50 hours, because of how much fun I have with the game and how replayable I feel it is. Hell, I played DMC Devil May Cry (the reboot), which had about an 8 hour long story, which after playing through the game on all advanced difficulties and doing the Bloody Palace, my playtime went over 30 hours.

Taking these hours at face value, unless you are rushing through the game, and assuming 2 playthroughs as the most standard case of replayability; a normal playthrough followed by another playthrough on a harder difficulty. You're looking at about 18 to 30 hours of playtime. That is, assuming the game is enjoyable enough for a completionist approach.

On the subject of value, the game could be worth a full price tag if the Story and gameplay are enjoyable enough to warrant another playthrough or two. This would really boil down to how much of this is an enjoyable GAME and not a tech demo. It comes out this Friday, so I'm going to wait and see just how it really is. Based on the things the devs have said, I'm definitely getting tech-demo vibes from this.
 

Palmerama

New member
Jul 23, 2011
152
0
0
A reviewed length of a game usually doesn't last as long as someone actually playing the game. Reviewers tend to be pressed for time so they do tend to have to rush things (I know as I had to review L.A Noir in only 3 days). Plus it's their job to play the game and so tha's what they do at work, whilst other people play games after work/school/whatever so more time will be needed to play through it.

The problem that's arisen about how many hours of play you get for your buck only seems to be for games. People spend money going to the cinema to watch a film then buy the film on DVD (if they like it). With that DVD they're most likely to watch it more then once. For some reason the modern gamer doesn't think about playing a game more then once unless it's for multiplayer. My entire retro library consists of games that I've played dozens of times and never questioned if I got my money's worth.

If you really like a game for it's story and gameplay it's more then likely you will play it again to experience it more then once. I've re-played the Bioshock series after each new installment, I've replayed Spec-Ops because of how great the storeyline is. I've lost count how many characters I've got in the Dragon-Age and Mass Effect trilogies.

We read books more then once, watch films & TV shows more then once and listen to songs and albums more then once. Why do games somehow not get the same treatment?
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
b.w.irenicus said:
Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming?
Hmm, 5h is short, no doubt about that, but thats hardly new, especially for Actiongames. I mean, how long did it take to finish Contra on the SNES? 2h? 3h? Despite what many people seem to think, I don't feel that game have gotten considerably shorter in recent years.
When I have a choice, naturally I'd take an awesome long game over a awesome short game, but I'd rather take a awsome short game over a game that is occasionally great, but has a lot of padding, too.
Yeah you can't compare Contra to The Order. One has less than a minute of cutscenes, hard-as-hell gameplay that requires a lot of dying and was stored on less than a moderatly sized wod document; the other is a multi-million dollar 'cinematic' experience with cookie cutter third person gameplay that only has about 30% of its time dedicated to pure gameplay (walking about shouldn't count). And I highly doubt The Order has any semblance of replayability, it's looking to be as replayable as Max Payne 3 (which at least had some extra modes and a tacked on multiplayer)
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Tohuvabohu said:
Did Onimusha have the same ratio of gameplay ot cutscene as The Order does? The kind of ratio that's on display in The Order is as bad as Metal Gear Solid's back in the 90s and if all the extra content is simple collectibles and 'world building' then it doesn't matter that it takes 10 hours to complete, only a fraction of that will actually be the game part of this video game.

Oh, and Dualshockers isn't exactly a non-biased source, especially when they literally say 'getting immersed in the beautiful world'
 

Tohuvabohu

Not entirely serious, maybe.
Mar 24, 2011
1,001
0
0
ToastiestZombie said:
Tohuvabohu said:
Did Onimusha have the same ratio of gameplay ot cutscene as The Order does? The kind of ratio that's on display in The Order is as bad as Metal Gear Solid's back in the 90s and if all the extra content is simple collectibles and 'world building' then it doesn't matter that it takes 10 hours to complete, only a fraction of that will actually be the game part of this video game.
It's been ages since I played Onimusha. But I do remember it had quite a few cutscenes, although I remember them being short and I think skippable as well. Most of the game consisted of walking about back and forth until the very end. But this is all besides the point.

I haven't found any information about exactly how much time is spent in cutscenes and walking about. The fact that these cutscenes are unskippable is grating and would ultimately harm replayability. Although I've seen some people say the game is by no means "short" on gameplay, whatever that actually means. I haven't played the game yet, so I can't say.

Oh, and Dualshockers isn't exactly a non-biased source, especially when they literally say 'getting immersed in the beautiful world'
And that has nothing to do with the length of the game, which is why I linked the article in the first place.

I've also done more digging into it from people who claim to have gotten the game early, and a lot of what I'm reading seems to go in line with what was said in the article. Most people reporting that the game takes about an average of 8-9 hours to complete (on normal difficulty), which numbers significantly higher and lower being somewhat abnormal.

Is there a conversation to be had about games needlessly padding their run-time with unskippable cutscenes and being funneled into areas where you're forced to meander around until characters stop talking? Of course. But that's not the point.

I'm not defending a game's tactics for needlessly extending it's play time, but OP brought up The Order's length of play, which was sourced from an LP done by someone rushing through the game and never dying. Which most people are not going to do. And so far, have not done, and thus resulting in playtimes 3-4 hours longer. A distinction that I think matters, especially if someone is going to rag on it for it's supposed length.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
6 hours? Would be worth a rental if you could actually rent games anymore. Replay doesnt come in to it for me because you dont know if its worth it. For instance ive replayed Morrowind 8 times but have zero interest in replaying Dragon Age Inquistion because the game world is boring. So I guess what i would want to know is does The Order have a great story? Would a new play through change the out come in a meaningful way?

Either way i think its better waiting for a price cut. Positive side, atleast you can re sell it after completing it over a weekend.
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
SonOfVoorhees said:
So I guess what i would want to know is does The Order have a great story? Would a new play through change the out come in a meaningful way?
Well, let's just say that I've seen the final 'boss' and the words "you and I, we're not so different" are said without any pretense of parody or self-reference.
 

Blood Brain Barrier

New member
Nov 21, 2011
2,004
0
0
Thorn14 said:
So The Order 1886 has been leaked and broken street date. Youtube and Twitch playthroughs have already gone up and it clocks at a depressing....

5 Hours and 27 Minutes, with cutscenes.

And apparently several "chapters" are nothing but 10 minute cutscenes. All for $60 Dollars.

Am I the only one who does not like this direction of gaming? Sure the game looks pretty but...for that much money, why would I ever want such a game if its going to be that short, and likely have little replayability?

Thank god I'm renting it instead.

Does the length of a game affect your purchases at all too? Because if a game ends up way too short, I'm going to feel like I wasted a lot of money.
I'm the opposite. If a game is too long, it's bound to be full of filler and 'content' I have to wade through to finish the game. True, there are exceptions but they are VERY rare.

Any game mechanic - be it combat, stealth, conquering cities, dialogues - is going to run its course in terms of what I get out of it, so there's going to be a point where I feel the game needs to finish. For me, that's between 10-20 hours, sometimes shorter. I've rarely played a longer game that I didn't get bored with one or more aspects of its gameplay.