The Order: 1886 (PS4)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bVork

That's fair. As I get older, I am less and less happy with games that are light on the "crunch." I want depth to my gameplay, not semi-automated theme park rides. I want games that do what games do best, not games that do their best to be like movies.

---

I also enjoy depth to my gameplay, but I'm ok with living in a world where these cinematic gaming experiences can co-exist with real games. I wouldn't want every game to be light on gameplay, but an occasional game like Beyond Two Souls or Murdered: Soul Suspect are a nice change of pace.

From all the previews I've seen of The Order, they seem to emphasize that it's a Gears of War-like shooter. Perhaps the developers would've been better off with marketing it and developing it as a Beyond Two Souls type of cinematic adventure game with shooting and stealth "mini-game" segments....I guess I'll have to wait til tomorrow to find out just how bad the game really is.

Well, I'm not saying every game should cater to me. It's nice that there are these AAA thrill rides for those who enjoy them. I'm just saying that I won't play games that don't give me that depth (except for visual novels, which I basically treat as novels and not games), and The Order looks about as shallow as a kiddie pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I think the controversy is that the shortness is a bit of a myth. Jeremy Parish (who wasn't apologizing for Nintendo as usual) said it took him 11 hours. That's not really short. The claims of 4 or 5 seem like bullshit, even if you rush.

---

Someone posted the whole game on Youtube, and that's the length. Maybe Jeremy Parish just sucks, or maybe the Youtuber cut parts to make it seem shorter. But people didn't arrive at that number arbitrarily.

Weird to see you defending this game.

Eurogamer says it took them 6:35 to finish, with a third of that being cutscenes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Really?

This game looks like one of those subpar Gears of War clones that came out after 2007. Except it looks really nice.

---

Yeah about the sub par Gears of War clone thing.

I don't give a shit that this game is short - as others have said, that's a plus for me. My problem is that it doesn't look good to me at all. Sure, the graphics may be well rendered and the game has a high resolution, but when it's either raining or there's a blanket of fog (as there has been in every vid I've seen) and you're ducking behind ugly brown architecture, that doesn't do a lot for me. Just a very boring look to me personally. Combine that with the lack of depth, no new game+, and obligatory stealth sequences, and this game is starting to sound like a genuine piece of shit. Also, worthless if not bloodborne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I can't explain to you why, but I watched some of the IGN PlayStation podcast yesterday, and they made an interesting point that adults appreciate the 7ish hour length, while kids who can only get a few games a year will feel let down.

---

Even as an adult, I feel like you have to be pretty well off to appreciate a 7 hour experience that costs $60. To everyone I know, that kind of playtime means you rent or wait for the bargain bin regardless how good those 7 hours are. IMHO for a game to be worth buying at any given price point you need to be getting at least 30 minutes per dollar, whether in the form of a long single playthrough, strong replay value, or multiplayer (that isn't tacked on).

I understand what you're saying there but I don't totally agree. I mean, if the wife and I go to the movies and get stuff at the concession stand, I'm out just about $50. If the movie was good and I've enjoyed my time, it was well worth it.

I guess it really comes down to if you are consumed by making/keeping money. I've never given a shit about money. I make enough to do the things that I want to do, so spending $60 to have a good time is more than worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Space Pirate Roberts

IMHO for a game to be worth buying at any given price point you need to be getting at least 30 minutes per dollar

---

I guess you don't go to the movies, sporting events, or really any other kind of entertainment then. Time is more precious than money, and I sure as hell don't want a 10 hour game padded to 15 to justify some arbitrary "value" statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

Weird to see you defending this game.

---

I'm really not, since I haven't played it at all and damn near canceled my preorder. I was just trying to explain what Glass Joe meant by controversy. I will absolutely defend the concept of short single player games though.

If this was One exclusive Yoshi would be first in line with a torch and pitchfork.

I don't mind short games. A good game is a good game. This is not suppose to be. I would still like to try it sometime though.