The Order 1886 -- only 6 hours long

Everyones upset that the game is "too short" only 5-6 hours long, including cutscenes and no multiplayer. Now I know the old argument about quality vs quantity will come up but according to the reviewer even the quality of the content isnt that good. Too bad you couldnt pick it up for a rental at your blockbuster anymore (because there is no more blockbusters).

 

They're going to make a The Order: 1887 DLC.

 

Sure if you ignore everything around you and bee line for every goal right away. I think its been blown out of proportion.

 

Skyrim clocked in at around two hours if you focused solely on doing the main story as fast as possible.

http://www.geek.com/games/skyrim-completed-in-2-hours-16-minutes-by-determined-game-testers-1430075/

 

Yes but in skyrim you can do other stuff and most players need much longer for the main story.
But the Order looks like a linear shooter, so you play for that time and that's about it. And all the rest they say in that video does not sound positive.

 

I'm really surprised to find fellow developers in a community as great as this one usually is jumping on the bandwagon.

I've played plenty of great games that can be finished in less than 6 hours, and some of them are classics with cult followings.

 

They don't complain because it's only 5-6 hours long. They complain because it's only 5-6 hours long but costs around 60 bucks - full price game. I personally don't see the big deal. If it's a great game (even if it's "too short") it can be worth the money.

 

Anyone who measures value in units of time probably shouldn't go to the cinema, and should spare a thought for those who have to take their entire family!

There's nothing wrong with short but sweet. I think I completed Heavy Rain in a similar amount of time, and I enjoyed it very much.

 

Sorry, had to...

 

Warning: devil's advocate

Yeah guess what? a lot indie games clock in at 1 play since they suck or look terrible, which makes the order pretty good value really. If a film lasts 1.5 hours in the cinema and costs 20 bucks, then 5 hours should be worth 60. If going by that logic.

In any case the order has around 12 hours of gameplay for those wanting to discover all the things it has. The skyrim point above was a very good one. Personally, I have no qualms about a game being short, but that's just me

( http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/02/16/the-order-1886-will-take-you-more-than-five-hours/ )

 

$60 for 12 hours of interactive entertainment seems reasonable. It'd cost me $96 to get 12 hours of non-interactive entertainment at the movies and possibly up to $240 if in the form of dvd / blu ray. People have such a cheap view of games these days. I don't know why that is other than the massive flood of games supply and demand dragging the perceived value down. I honestly think there are many people who think games like this should cost about the same as a candy bar. Oh yeah what am I thinking... of course there are and those people play games on their cell phones.

 

Yes I agree. But if the game is boring and has zero replay-value, it is a little different. And the guys in the video clearly make these 2 points.

The only positive point is that they start with a promising story but in the end it is not resolved, they do absolutely nothing with the promising start. Their rating of the game is more or less "do not buy at full price if at all".

 

A shame, given the race to the bottom is pretty much what everyone's saying: wait for steam sale for everything, and $1 is too much for a mobile game.

If this carries on then quality will suffer for sure.

Also this sort of attitude prevents developers from bothering with free DLC.

 

That depends. There are games I really want to play immediately. I pay full for those. And then there are things like Bioshock Infinte or The Witcher 3, which I want to play before they are out. I preorder these.

But games that seem average or worse? Sometimes a sale can convince me to buy them. If I ever play them is another question (75% of my steam library have never been played...).

.

The Witcher 3 has tons of free DLC announced. So happy I preordered. Soon it is here...

 

That's why I mentioned it. Optional content is a big part of modern video games and they will seem short if you skip it.

 

Unless I know without a doubt I'll enjoy a game, I don't buy it until reviews have been released.

 

Isn't that a matter of taste, though? There are plenty of games I think are boring that other people love and play over and over again. I might not want to pay anything for those games, but others are happy to pay full price for them, and I don't feel the need to hop on the Internet and tell all and sundry how crap they are. Y'know, different horses for different courses and all that.

Also, on a semi-related note, there have been a few times lately where I've found myself wishing a game was shorter, though of course this typically indicates a flaw elsewhere (if it was good enough I wouldn't be in a rush to get to the end).

I don't understand why this game is singled out. How is it different to the many, many other games before it that it gets panned for things we let slide elsewhere?

 

That in no way sets it apart from other games mentioned here, or the large set of games I was alluding to in my post. Plenty of stuff released at "full price" can be blitzed through in well under 6 hours if that's how you decide to play it.

 

I don't think anyone would have been upset about the price-to-length ratio if the game was any good to begin with.

 

After seeing a play trough, it feels more like an movie with some interactive parts. But the steampunk setting isn't my cup of tea anyways.
The graphics and the attention for detail are awesome though.