havok75
Member
You're a statistical anomaly then.
You may be right but I have waited such a long time since E3 2013 I just want to enjoy it and get my money's worth.
You're a statistical anomaly then.
Those are speed runs by people who repeatedly play the game in order to do them the fastest way possible. It's not like some guy bought The Last of Us, played it for 3 and a half hours, and then never touched it again.
Imru al-Qays;152267348 said:Well damn, that's troubling. Maybe I'll buy the game eventually, but $60 for under 6 hours of gameplay is pretty rough.
Still hyped as fuck.
Thanks hype deflated. Going to monitor reviews and impressions closely before buying.
My point is if someone did a speedrun on the Order and finished it in 2 or 3 hours what's all the fuss about?
Edit: That's why I posted those speedruns.
You can switch the camera from shoulder to shoulder using the touch pad.can anyone tell me what this camera bias thing is? planning to play on hard in my first playthrough.
Why do people care if the game is 5 hours or 10? It seems kind of arbitrary... I can understand if we're talking 5 hours or 20 hours but the question for a game like the order I would be most concerned about is if the game was good or not.
Why do people care if the game is 5 hours or 10? It seems kind of arbitrary... I can understand if we're talking 5 hours or 20 hours but the question for a game like the order I would be most concerned about is if the game was good or not.
20-30 hours first playthrough on easyHey. Not sure if this has been asked yet, but:
How long do you think this game is?
My point is if someone did a speedrun on the Order and finished it in 2 or 3 hours what's all the fuss about?
Edit: That's why I posted those speedruns.
Hey. Not sure if this has been asked yet, but:
How long do you think this game is?
Quality of the product? It doesn't. Value of the product is a completely different thing. This was brought up when the game time for ground zeroes was announced. It's really about what you value a game at. If your ok spending 60 dollars on a game that's around 5 hours long(including a decent amount of cutscenes) then that's your decision to make. Some people don't want to do that. Personally I'm on the fence. If this game is a home run that just happens to be short, I'd still consider getting it. If it's an average to good game that is only 2-3 hours of actual gameplay, then I'll pass at the 60 dollar price point..
Since when has game length decided on the quality of a product.
Most games are short it's just most are filled with repetitive side missions and collectibles tied to trophies that artificially increase game time. even if the game is 5 1/2 - 6 hours long. Thats only 2 less then most others.
No one is talking about a 2 - 3 hours speed run of The Order so what is your point. The controversial play through we are talking about is a first time one done in 5.5 hours. That is somebody bought the game for $60. Popped in it and just played it only getting 5 1/2 hours of playtime.
It never ends.
I think we're way too busy looking at games through this prism of the economy instead of weighing a games value on its merits.
I think the fact that it's 5 hours playing normally for $60 is what they are talking about. There seems to be a lot of apologists for the short duration of a game. It's OK to expect a bit more for your money. However, for those expecting a massively long game with these visuals are living in la la land too, not unless the levels and assets are recycled over and over.
Why do people care if the game is 5 hours or 10? It seems kind of arbitrary... I can understand if we're talking 5 hours or 20 hours but the question for a game like the order I would be most concerned about is if the game was good or not.
20-30 hours first playthrough on easy
I think the fact that it's 5 hours playing normally for $60 is what they are talking about. There seems to be a lot of apologists for the short duration of a game. It's OK to expect a bit more for your money. However, for those expecting a massively long game with these visuals are living in la la land too, not unless the levels and assets are recycled over and over.
I think the fact that it's 5 hours playing normally for $60 is what they are talking about. There seems to be a lot of apologists for the short duration of a game. It's OK to expect a bit more for your money. However, for those expecting a massively long game with these visuals are living in la la land too, not unless the levels and assets are recycled over and over.
I was joking,it's got an unedited playthrough of 5 1/2 hours on youtube.Ok how fucking long is it because people keep saying 5 hours but another person is saying 20-30 lol
Ok how fucking long is it because people keep saying 5 hours but another person is saying 20-30 lol
People's hype deflated because some guy played on easy and finished the game in 5 hours?
Me too I've managed to avoid all spoilers and video's.
.. just isn't economically viable.
You're saying no one is talking about a 2 - 3 hours speed run of The Order, but that was my point...For example, it took me 2 days to beat The last Of Us which was about 12 hours total and someone beat it just over 3 hours in there speed run.
They are not playing the game like most people will. They are completionist, the opposite of the speed runners, and their completion time is equally as applicable.And for your last sentence, other people popped it in and just played it only getting 10-12 hours of playtime.
Change that to "for game developers" and you'd be a lot more accurate.you forgot to add "in my house ..."
Same. So close. Just the home stretch now.Me too, which is nice.
I don't think anyone is blaming Ready at Dawn for skimping on the game. The problem is with the fundamental concept of the game and is one of the underlying causes of the story vs gameplay debate. With this much attention to creating a carefully crafted story there is no way that a $60 game can get an acceptable amount of playtime. That's why I predicted The Order would be a short game a long while ago. This tight mixture of narrative and story just isn't economically viable.
Both are bad, but 10 hours is probably at the lower limit of acceptability for a $60 game provided that it was really good otherwise. Unless the price of video games literally has no impact on someone's purchasing decision, it's really hard to see anyone picking up a 5 hour long game that had little replayability for $60.
So are you just going to ignore the other playthroughs and focus on the one with the shortest time?
Give it a rest already. The game won't be 5 hours unless you're purposely rushing through.
I don't think anyone is blaming Ready at Dawn for skimping on the game. The problem is with the fundamental concept of the game and is one of the underlying causes of the story vs gameplay debate. With this much attention to creating a carefully crafted story there is no way that a $60 game can get an acceptable amount of playtime. That's why I predicted The Order would be a short game a long while ago. This tight mixture of narrative and story just isn't economically viable.
People's hype deflated because some guy played on easy and finished the game in 5 hours?
By rushing through you mean playing the game at a moderate pace and not looking for collectables.
Change that to "for game developers" and you'd be a lot more accurate.