Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Welcome to the PGRF gaming community! Everyone here is very friendly, so don't hesitate to say hi and engage in some video game discussion with all of us! From retro to modern, there's no discrimination here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the moderators and administrators! Have fun.

Registration is simple, fast, and completely free!
Join our community!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Price vs. Length
Topic Started: Feb 16 2015, 04:29 PM (910 Views)
NinjaPenguin8969
Member Avatar
I SUCK AT GAMES
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So with the news coming out that The Order 1886 is only 5 hours long this debate seems to be re-igniting about what is acceptable relative to the cost of the game. Does the length of the game impact your purchasing decisions, and what do you deem to be acceptable from these $60 triple A titles?

For me I'm cool with a game being 5 hours long if it's a quality experience. I'd rather play Advanced Warfare's campaign which is 6 hours of exciting action over Destiny or FarCry 4's padded campaigns of 20 hours+ any day of the week.

I'm still pretty stoked for The Order 1886 :]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MidiPour
Member Avatar
Power of Sardines

I like short games which can feel fresh throughout the experience, I like long games that can fully immerse me with the worlds or have me aiming for goals that might take hours to accomplish.

I don't prefer one over the other, however for a short game, the price becomes my main obstacle as to whether I should play the game. And for a long game, it's the time I'd have to invest in order to see the game through, or the time that I'd lose for getting sucked into the experience.

I don't think the happy medium between the two is always the winner either as a 10-15 hour game could feel monotonous, making me wish the devs cut half the fluff. On the other hand, if the gameplay is so good, I might wish the game had a 100 hour run time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MidiPour
Member Avatar
Power of Sardines

Ok, I see where the controversy with The Order stems from, Ninja. So people had expectations this would be the big budget exclusive that would warrant their purchase of the console. And so people are disappointed this isn't the Uncharted, and instead are welcomed with a story-driven game with QTEs comparable to Heavy Rain or Walking Dead, which is thinly veiled by the action sequences. This raises a question, wasn't the action a selling point for the game at the previous year's E3?

With this knowledge, it's hard for me to justify the purchase when I feel I could get the same experience by watching a Youtube walkthrough. Much like what I did with Beyond Two Souls. But I haven't played the game to know whether it'll grab me enough to want to own the game, besides flipping around different segments of the let's plays to get any idea of what kind of game it is.

I also read on NeoGAF of someone comparing the heavy narrative to Metal Gear Solid, so. A short Metal Gear isn't always a bad thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eSkilliam
Member Avatar
Gamer. Graphic Designer. Geek.

I think it needs to be on a case by case basis, and the end result per game is not going to be the same for everyone. A lot of people made a fuss about the Southpark stick of truth game being a little short for the money, but if someone deems that a decent experience for the price then for that person it is a good deal. I think a 5 hour game CAN be worth $60, but not all are.

I do feel that $60 for an unfinished game that is later plastered with another $60 worth of DLC is just the publishers way of pulling one over on the consumer. Of course, every publisher seems to think that every game they make is worthy of the highest price point, and truthfully, it's not a bad business move. Selling 3 games at $60 makes them more money than selling 5 at $30 and that is how they look at it.

It would be nice to see more variance in the price points of new physical releases so it wasn't always the top price points. Everything is so expensive these days. I never feel like I'm getting a good deal unless I'm buying that sodium rich maruchan ramen for $0.20.(Picante Chicken flavor drained of liquid, of course, with a splash of Huy Fong Sriracha.)


eSkilliam on Steam - eSkilliam on Wii U - CetiAlphaVI on PS4
eSkilliamgaming on Youtube - eSkilliam on Twitch - eSkilliam on Twitter
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NinjaPenguin8969
Member Avatar
I SUCK AT GAMES
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
MidiPour
Feb 16 2015, 07:52 PM
Ok, I see where the controversy with The Order stems from, Ninja. So people had expectations this would be the big budget exclusive that would warrant their purchase of the console. And so people are disappointed this isn't the Uncharted, and instead are welcomed with a story-driven game with QTEs comparable to Heavy Rain or Walking Dead, which is thinly veiled by the action sequences. This raises a question, wasn't the action a selling point for the game at the previous year's E3?

With this knowledge, it's hard for me to justify the purchase when I feel I could get the same experience by watching a Youtube walkthrough. Much like what I did with Beyond Two Souls. But I haven't played the game to know whether it'll grab me enough to want to own the game, besides flipping around different segments of the let's plays to get any idea of what kind of game it is.

I also read on NeoGAF of someone comparing the heavy narrative to Metal Gear Solid, so. A short Metal Gear isn't always a bad thing.
For me The Order 1886 looked amazing because I fucking love the Victorian Era and werewolves and vampires and all that good stuff. Based on what they showed I pretty much just assumed a great narrative/cinematic driven experience. I mean they only recently showed the gameplay which looked amazing due to the graphics but I wasn't expecting a Gears of War quality combat engine out of this game since it never showed that prior.

Personally I cannot stand watching other people play video games. They'd have to have good commentary that would educate me further about the game for me to even give it my time. I really liked Pestro's commentary on Metal Slug a week or two ago when he was on some Twitch show. Something like that is great because he was super passionate and had extensive knowledge regarding that franchise which I'm much more interested in than the gameplay itself. Otherwise I'd rather play it for myself than watch someone else do it.

Yeah, maybe this question is too broad lol. You guys made great points though but it really does depend on the individual.
Edited by NinjaPenguin8969, Feb 16 2015, 09:01 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
browland1
Member Avatar


The title of this thread is, unsurprisingly, making me think it's a penis joke ;)

Seriously though, I think it depends on the quality of the overall experience. I've played some fantastic games that were only 5 to 7 hours, and some really crappy ones that were over 12 hours. The length of the game is really no guarantee of quality. However, if the game feels rushed and provides a forgettable experience, or is released unfinished, I would take issue with spending $70 on it at launch. As others have mentioned, the short campaign might be purposeful in order to sell DLC later on; the appetizer for the main course, if you will. Because of the extensive DLC for Evolve, people are wary of games that lean heavily on DLC. I hope The Order isn't following suit.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NinjaPenguin8969
Member Avatar
I SUCK AT GAMES
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
browland1
Feb 16 2015, 09:09 PM
The title of this thread is, unsurprisingly, making me think it's a penis joke ;)
Never change <3
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MidiPour
Member Avatar
Power of Sardines

I wouldn't watch a let's play as I wouldn't want someone ruin the experience of the game with their antics, but I do think there are let's players whose commentary gives an extra layer of food for thought.

Here's a good quality walkthrough without a let's player's commentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wPf_9kmmQs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NinjaPenguin8969
Member Avatar
I SUCK AT GAMES
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
^ Looks like they got terminated. Who was it?

If you're interested in The Order at all don't go on Twitter. Fucking cocksuckers are posting the final boss like it's nothing -_- Thanks for spoiling it Twitter.

I will say though seeing the amount of recycled content makes me wary of that game now.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tr3vor
Member Avatar
This character does not exist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
With video games, It all comes down to gameplay. I'd prefer a game that is around 10-20 hours in length, and I don't mind story filler stuff, as long as the gameplay is good.

Far Cry 3 was great with that, The story could be beaten in like 7 hours or something like that, but I played it for so much more because I enjoyed the gameplay and mechanics.

If there is a game that's $60, 5 hours long and little replay value (I'm assuming that The Order has little replay value because its cinematic nature), I wouldn't think about buying it. I don't have $60 to throw around willy nilly, I want to get something with some substance that I can enjoy for longer than one night.
Youtube: Tr3vor42532: http://www.youtube.com/user/Tr3vor42532
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KingJames88
Member Avatar
Ds Games!

MidiPour
Feb 16 2015, 06:09 PM
I like short games which can feel fresh throughout the experience, I like long games that can fully immerse me with the worlds or have me aiming for goals that might take hours to accomplish.

I don't prefer one over the other, however for a short game, the price becomes my main obstacle as to whether I should play the game. And for a long game, it's the time I'd have to invest in order to see the game through, or the time that I'd lose for getting sucked into the experience.

I don't think the happy medium between the two is always the winner either as a 10-15 hour game could feel monotonous, making me wish the devs cut half the fluff. On the other hand, if the gameplay is so good, I might wish the game had a 100 hour run time.
This pretty much sums up how I feel, with the exception of I don't really want any 100 hour games any more because of the large backlog I have. While I did really love games like the dark spire and etrian odyssey that came near these marks, I'd prefer if a game didn't carry on that long (unless its a sequel to the dark spire). I can fully enjoy a 5 hour game or a 50 hour game, and I try to get all my games cheap, but never really take into account the length of a game when considering it's price.
Posted Image
>>My DS Collection Here<< 194 games and counting!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stratamaster78
Member Avatar
Level 6
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The last time I was really bothered by it was when The Force Unleashed II came out. I was mainly upset that the game was only 5-6 hours no matter the price though. But I think it was $50-60 iirc. I love the series and gameplay but that was Waaaaaayyyy too short for the $$$.

I was also one of the ones agitated by Stick of Truth being $60. An 8-10 Hr RPG should not have cost that much out of the gate, especially when it looks like it was made on an Indie Budget.

Basically my opinion is if you are spending $60 on a game you should at least get 12-15 hrs of gameplay if it's Action oriented and you should get no less than 20 Hrs from an RPG at absolute minimum.
Edited by stratamaster78, Feb 17 2015, 03:59 PM.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TNT
Member Avatar
Totally Not Thanous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
if the game costs more per hour than it takes to make that money then no flipping way. 12.50 an hour for the game is pretty outrageous, when u go to see a movie ticket is like 10-14 dollars and u mostly will get 2+ hours for it, which is like 5-7 dollars which is fine, shit saw wolf of wall street for 7 bucks and it was 3 hours of awesomeness XD almost as long as this even. but ive seen people calling this like a movie that u play or somethings like that but bruh this costs wayyyyyy more than a movie way annoying [this, as in the order]

id say more but on 3ds lmao
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thewhitepenny
Member Avatar
Level 8
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
My thoughts are like this... I went and saw a movie with my brother and after buying our tickets and something to drink it came out to 35 dollars... The movie was only 2 hours long. I did enjoy the hell out of it though and thought it was worth the experience of seeing it in theaters. I feel the same way about The Order. From what I have seen so far, based on some gameplay vids and just the setting in general I feel pretty confident I will get my monies worth out of it. I hate multiplayer and I don't have the time for long games these days. I think 7 to 10 hours is the perfect amount of time for a game these days. If it dips to the 5 to 6 hours mark I will still be happy.
Posted Image Posted Image


Currently Playing: Counter Strike Source, Dungeon Explorer (SEGA CD), Vay (SEGA CD)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
iHodor
Level 1
[ * ]
Honestly, I usually don't see an excuse for charging full price for a game that isn't at least 10-12 hours in its core campaign. The average game retails at about 50-60 dollars at release- in this case, that's about 12 dollars an hour. It better be the best five hours in gaming history if that's the case, especially since Bloodborne is doing most of the same concept as The Order is and will probably be around 30 hours at minimum.

Like, hell. Look at Asura's Wrath, for example. Fantastic game with a fun, engaging plot and enjoyable characters. It launched at about 60 dollars- and for a game that you can beat on a rainy day, that's pretty steep.

Or even look at MGS GZ. That launched for 30 dollars and it's about 2 hours, excluding the side missions. And that's honestly completely inexcusable- even though that game at least has the excuse of being released so the actual MGS 5 has a fully realized dev cycle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NinjaPenguin8969
Member Avatar
I SUCK AT GAMES
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
iHodor
Feb 17 2015, 09:04 PM
Like, hell. Look at Asura's Wrath, for example. Fantastic game with a fun, engaging plot and enjoyable characters. It launched at about 60 dollars- and for a game that you can beat on a rainy day, that's pretty steep.

Or even look at MGS GZ. That launched for 30 dollars and it's about 2 hours, excluding the side missions. And that's honestly completely inexcusable- even though that game at least has the excuse of being released so the actual MGS 5 has a fully realized dev cycle.
I loved Asura's Wrath and that's one of those games where for me quality overcame the $55 bucks I paid for it. My biggest gripe wasn't the length but the bullshit DLC practices for that game. If I recall correctly the real ending was DLC :/ Yes I paid $55 and it was short but I will never forget a bunch of stuff in that game like the fight against Augus...that fucker pierced a planet with his sword (giggity), that fight was all kinds of badass!!

I was there at PAX when they unveiled MGS Ground Zeroes for the first time and it's pretty amazing that 20 minute video was like 25% of the "game" xD
Edited by NinjaPenguin8969, Feb 17 2015, 11:20 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeavyMetalGamer
The new guy here
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
One thing we all got to remember, this is still a rumor, and is it 100% factual? Could it of been a speedrun?

With that being said. I think a game with a very deep story, or let's say story driven like The Order should have a minimum of 10 hours of the main story. People love to bring up side missions and all of that, which yeah that adds more to the gameplay, but the main focus when playing a game is the main story. For instance MGS: Ground Zeroes, that main story could be beaten in under an hour, then you have all of the side missions, tons of them. When I play a game, I don't want to play a little bit of the main story, and then a whole shit ton of side missions. I'd rather have a game with a big main story, then side missions.

Some people want to compare games like Super Mario Bros, and SMB 3 to the length of this game, and you can't do that, you can't compare a game from 1986, or the early 90's to a game in 2015. Plus comparing Super Mario Bros to a game like The Order is like comparing a Volkswagen to a monster truck. Don't get me wrong, I love SMB, and SMB3, but those games aren't totally story driven, yeah there is a story there, but not as in depth as The Order. Also Speed Running can't count in this whole deal, yeah SMB and SMB3 can be beaten in minutes, but this is about the typical time someone plays a game, not rushing through it as fast as possible.

With that being said, a short game doesn't necessarily mean a awful game, but a longer game enhances your experience, and I think these big developers are lazy and not creative. I mean easily a game like COD, if it had a lot of effort put into development, could be at a minimum of 10 hours. You have that 10 to 12 hour window, plus multiplayer, and zombies. The game might be accepted a lot more then it actually is.

Now one reason I say this has to be a rumor, because I been hearing from countless people saying that the main story of The Order was 12+ hours. People were claiming the developers said that. Although I personally haven't seen anything that said that.

At the end of the day, could The Order be good? I hope it is. I got a friend that is picking it up Day 1. I just hope the main story is longer then 5 or 6 hours. I will get to check the game out once he gets the game, unfortunately I don't have a "next gen" console, don't plan on getting one anytime soon either.

Now I don't think all games should be long or anything, there are some games out there that being short is a good thing. Mostly puzzle games, and some platformers (not all in both genres, but some), etc. Although I like to sit back and enjoy games, and just have fun. I personally think it all depends on the genre, and how deep the story is. I mean a game like New Super Mario Bros isn't gonna be 15 to 20 hours long, where a game like FarCry 3, or Wolfenstein: The New Order are lengthy games.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Edited by HeavyMetalGamer, Feb 18 2015, 04:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TNT
Member Avatar
Totally Not Thanous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
HeavyMetalGamer
Feb 18 2015, 04:22 AM
One thing we all got to remember, this is still a rumor, and is it 100% factual? Could it of been a speedrun?

With that being said. I think a game with a very deep story, or let's say story driven like The Order should have a minimum of 10 hours of the main story. People love to bring up side missions and all of that, which yeah that adds more to the gameplay, but the main focus when playing a game is the main story. For instance MGS: Ground Zeroes, that main story could be beaten in under an hour, then you have all of the side missions, tons of them. When I play a game, I don't want to play a little bit of the main story, and then a whole shit ton of side missions. I'd rather have a game with a big main story, then side missions.

Some people want to compare games like Super Mario Bros, and SMB 3 to the length of this game, and you can't do that, you can't compare a game from 1986, or the early 90's to a game in 2015. Plus comparing Super Mario Bros to a game like The Order is like comparing a Volkswagen to a monster truck. Don't get me wrong, I love SMB, and SMB3, but those games aren't totally story driven, yeah there is a story there, but not as in depth as The Order. Also Speed Running can't count in this whole deal, yeah SMB and SMB3 can be beaten in minutes, but this is about the typical time someone plays a game, not rushing through it as fast as possible.

With that being said, a short game doesn't necessarily mean a awful game, but a longer game enhances your experience, and I think these big developers are lazy and not creative. I mean easily a game like COD, if it had a lot of effort put into development, could be at a minimum of 10 hours. You have that 10 to 12 hour window, plus multiplayer, and zombies. The game might be accepted a lot more then it actually is.

Now one reason I say this has to be a rumor, because I been hearing from countless people saying that the main story of The Order was 12+ hours. People were claiming the developers said that. Although I personally haven't seen anything that said that.

At the end of the day, could The Order be good? I hope it is. I got a friend that is picking it up Day 1. I just hope the main story is longer then 5 or 6 hours. I will get to check the game out once he gets the game, unfortunately I don't have a "next gen" console, don't plan on getting one anytime soon either.

Now I don't think all games should be long or anything, there are some games out there that being short is a good thing. Mostly puzzle games, and some platformers (not all in both genres, but some), etc. Although I like to sit back and enjoy games, and just have fun. I personally think it all depends on the genre, and how deep the story is. I mean a game like New Super Mario Bros isn't gonna be 15 to 20 hours long, where a game like FarCry 3, or Wolfenstein: The New Order are lengthy games.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.
/barn
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeavyMetalGamer
The new guy here
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TNT
Feb 18 2015, 03:33 PM
HeavyMetalGamer
Feb 18 2015, 04:22 AM
One thing we all got to remember, this is still a rumor, and is it 100% factual? Could it of been a speedrun?

With that being said. I think a game with a very deep story, or let's say story driven like The Order should have a minimum of 10 hours of the main story. People love to bring up side missions and all of that, which yeah that adds more to the gameplay, but the main focus when playing a game is the main story. For instance MGS: Ground Zeroes, that main story could be beaten in under an hour, then you have all of the side missions, tons of them. When I play a game, I don't want to play a little bit of the main story, and then a whole shit ton of side missions. I'd rather have a game with a big main story, then side missions.

Some people want to compare games like Super Mario Bros, and SMB 3 to the length of this game, and you can't do that, you can't compare a game from 1986, or the early 90's to a game in 2015. Plus comparing Super Mario Bros to a game like The Order is like comparing a Volkswagen to a monster truck. Don't get me wrong, I love SMB, and SMB3, but those games aren't totally story driven, yeah there is a story there, but not as in depth as The Order. Also Speed Running can't count in this whole deal, yeah SMB and SMB3 can be beaten in minutes, but this is about the typical time someone plays a game, not rushing through it as fast as possible.

With that being said, a short game doesn't necessarily mean a awful game, but a longer game enhances your experience, and I think these big developers are lazy and not creative. I mean easily a game like COD, if it had a lot of effort put into development, could be at a minimum of 10 hours. You have that 10 to 12 hour window, plus multiplayer, and zombies. The game might be accepted a lot more then it actually is.

Now one reason I say this has to be a rumor, because I been hearing from countless people saying that the main story of The Order was 12+ hours. People were claiming the developers said that. Although I personally haven't seen anything that said that.

At the end of the day, could The Order be good? I hope it is. I got a friend that is picking it up Day 1. I just hope the main story is longer then 5 or 6 hours. I will get to check the game out once he gets the game, unfortunately I don't have a "next gen" console, don't plan on getting one anytime soon either.

Now I don't think all games should be long or anything, there are some games out there that being short is a good thing. Mostly puzzle games, and some platformers (not all in both genres, but some), etc. Although I like to sit back and enjoy games, and just have fun. I personally think it all depends on the genre, and how deep the story is. I mean a game like New Super Mario Bros isn't gonna be 15 to 20 hours long, where a game like FarCry 3, or Wolfenstein: The New Order are lengthy games.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.
/barn
????
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TNT
Member Avatar
Totally Not Thanous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
HeavyMetalGamer
Feb 19 2015, 03:43 AM
TNT
Feb 18 2015, 03:33 PM
HeavyMetalGamer
Feb 18 2015, 04:22 AM
One thing we all got to remember, this is still a rumor, and is it 100% factual? Could it of been a speedrun?

With that being said. I think a game with a very deep story, or let's say story driven like The Order should have a minimum of 10 hours of the main story. People love to bring up side missions and all of that, which yeah that adds more to the gameplay, but the main focus when playing a game is the main story. For instance MGS: Ground Zeroes, that main story could be beaten in under an hour, then you have all of the side missions, tons of them. When I play a game, I don't want to play a little bit of the main story, and then a whole shit ton of side missions. I'd rather have a game with a big main story, then side missions.

Some people want to compare games like Super Mario Bros, and SMB 3 to the length of this game, and you can't do that, you can't compare a game from 1986, or the early 90's to a game in 2015. Plus comparing Super Mario Bros to a game like The Order is like comparing a Volkswagen to a monster truck. Don't get me wrong, I love SMB, and SMB3, but those games aren't totally story driven, yeah there is a story there, but not as in depth as The Order. Also Speed Running can't count in this whole deal, yeah SMB and SMB3 can be beaten in minutes, but this is about the typical time someone plays a game, not rushing through it as fast as possible.

With that being said, a short game doesn't necessarily mean a awful game, but a longer game enhances your experience, and I think these big developers are lazy and not creative. I mean easily a game like COD, if it had a lot of effort put into development, could be at a minimum of 10 hours. You have that 10 to 12 hour window, plus multiplayer, and zombies. The game might be accepted a lot more then it actually is.

Now one reason I say this has to be a rumor, because I been hearing from countless people saying that the main story of The Order was 12+ hours. People were claiming the developers said that. Although I personally haven't seen anything that said that.

At the end of the day, could The Order be good? I hope it is. I got a friend that is picking it up Day 1. I just hope the main story is longer then 5 or 6 hours. I will get to check the game out once he gets the game, unfortunately I don't have a "next gen" console, don't plan on getting one anytime soon either.

Now I don't think all games should be long or anything, there are some games out there that being short is a good thing. Mostly puzzle games, and some platformers (not all in both genres, but some), etc. Although I like to sit back and enjoy games, and just have fun. I personally think it all depends on the genre, and how deep the story is. I mean a game like New Super Mario Bros isn't gonna be 15 to 20 hours long, where a game like FarCry 3, or Wolfenstein: The New Order are lengthy games.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.
/barn
????
Barnacle

I completely agree with this post and would like to express that but have nothing to add to it, I'm pretty sure that's what it means. Forum lingo and stuff XD
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeavyMetalGamer
The new guy here
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
TNT
Feb 19 2015, 11:52 AM
HeavyMetalGamer
Feb 19 2015, 03:43 AM
TNT
Feb 18 2015, 03:33 PM
HeavyMetalGamer
Feb 18 2015, 04:22 AM
One thing we all got to remember, this is still a rumor, and is it 100% factual? Could it of been a speedrun?

With that being said. I think a game with a very deep story, or let's say story driven like The Order should have a minimum of 10 hours of the main story. People love to bring up side missions and all of that, which yeah that adds more to the gameplay, but the main focus when playing a game is the main story. For instance MGS: Ground Zeroes, that main story could be beaten in under an hour, then you have all of the side missions, tons of them. When I play a game, I don't want to play a little bit of the main story, and then a whole shit ton of side missions. I'd rather have a game with a big main story, then side missions.

Some people want to compare games like Super Mario Bros, and SMB 3 to the length of this game, and you can't do that, you can't compare a game from 1986, or the early 90's to a game in 2015. Plus comparing Super Mario Bros to a game like The Order is like comparing a Volkswagen to a monster truck. Don't get me wrong, I love SMB, and SMB3, but those games aren't totally story driven, yeah there is a story there, but not as in depth as The Order. Also Speed Running can't count in this whole deal, yeah SMB and SMB3 can be beaten in minutes, but this is about the typical time someone plays a game, not rushing through it as fast as possible.

With that being said, a short game doesn't necessarily mean a awful game, but a longer game enhances your experience, and I think these big developers are lazy and not creative. I mean easily a game like COD, if it had a lot of effort put into development, could be at a minimum of 10 hours. You have that 10 to 12 hour window, plus multiplayer, and zombies. The game might be accepted a lot more then it actually is.

Now one reason I say this has to be a rumor, because I been hearing from countless people saying that the main story of The Order was 12+ hours. People were claiming the developers said that. Although I personally haven't seen anything that said that.

At the end of the day, could The Order be good? I hope it is. I got a friend that is picking it up Day 1. I just hope the main story is longer then 5 or 6 hours. I will get to check the game out once he gets the game, unfortunately I don't have a "next gen" console, don't plan on getting one anytime soon either.

Now I don't think all games should be long or anything, there are some games out there that being short is a good thing. Mostly puzzle games, and some platformers (not all in both genres, but some), etc. Although I like to sit back and enjoy games, and just have fun. I personally think it all depends on the genre, and how deep the story is. I mean a game like New Super Mario Bros isn't gonna be 15 to 20 hours long, where a game like FarCry 3, or Wolfenstein: The New Order are lengthy games.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.
/barn
????
Barnacle

I completely agree with this post and would like to express that but have nothing to add to it, I'm pretty sure that's what it means. Forum lingo and stuff XD
Ahh lol. I don't catch too much on forum lingo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tr3vor
Member Avatar
This character does not exist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I've never seen /barn used before.

sounds like you've made it up.
Youtube: Tr3vor42532: http://www.youtube.com/user/Tr3vor42532
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stratamaster78
Member Avatar
Level 6
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Me either Tr3vor. Plus I can't believe that was 4 straight quoted posts for a HUGE post just to make a short comment. It's easier for everyone else if you just address the person you are talking to like I have here. Or I could have said ....

@Tr3vor-

It's much cleaner for everyone else this way. Usually you only quote a super long post if you are going to respond to multiple points within it. Not trying to be a jerk or anything.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tr3vor
Member Avatar
This character does not exist
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
stratamaster78
Feb 19 2015, 07:02 PM
Me either Tr3vor. Plus I can't believe that was 4 straight quoted posts for a HUGE post just to make a short comment. It's easier for everyone else if you just address the person you are talking to like I have here. Or I could have said ....

@Tr3vor-

It's much cleaner for everyone else this way. Usually you only quote a super long post if you are going to respond to multiple points within it. Not trying to be a jerk or anything.
post pyramid start!
Youtube: Tr3vor42532: http://www.youtube.com/user/Tr3vor42532
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TNT
Member Avatar
Totally Not Thanous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tr3vor
Feb 19 2015, 06:34 PM
I've never seen /barn used before.

sounds like you've made it up.
It's mainly used in mafia but I figured it worked outside

Exact definition:
"Barn (/barn): To agree with someone without contributing independent thought; short for barnacle, it is meant to be a metaphor for riding along with someone else’s opinion. Also known as piggybacking"
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Modern Gaming · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1