Short games are a cancer to today's game production I'm serious when I say short games with no replay value are bad most of them don't have good gameplay and story
+knightofparty knightofparty Bad games are cancer, length of time isn't any indication, watch the video again, and look at the 4 games he mentions at the end, all four give examples of what is and isn't cancer, and length of time goes either way.
Katamario2 Well, it was definitely worth it's money. Opportunity cost came down to 10 minutes of extra sleep. I could also share it with my friends for free. A bit disappointed that there were so little secret messages to be found in it though. Hope the modding community does some work on it in the near future.
"Hundreds of hours of gameplay" really doesn't attract me any more, a lot of games seem to be trying to get as much time out of as little gameplay as possible, it becomes such a chore.
+PauLtus B A lot of the time it's game padding too. Hundreds of hours of gameplay are meaningless to me if those hours are spent doing fetch quests and collecting things that I really don't care about or particularly enjoy. But then there are games like Mount & Blade Warband where after I spent 100 hours playing it and conquering all of Calradia I was immediately interested in playing again, so it's certainly down to preference.
Shmandalf Well you might just like the gameplay enough to make it worth 100 hours. But there's no way that still doesn't include a whole lot of padding.
+PauLtus B Can't blame you really.:/ I use to be attracted to the idea til I got in my teen years. Where I noticed certain games tended to drag out for *Way* too long. It's pretty hard for me to get into JRPG's because they are really long man (Hell just look at any Bethesda game or both Xenoblade Chronicle games. Damn! I don't have that kind of time anymore due to me being busy.:/) Honestly I think The Order 1886's problem is that there isn't any re-play value once you beat the campaign.:/ (No multiplayer,no secondary objectives, nothing! And for a 60$ game there's no excuse for this.-_-) Usually older games would compromise this with high replay value. (Hell I went through the entire SNES DKC Trilogy really quick but those games would have secondary objectives. Not so much for the 1st game but for the 3rd and 2nd game they do.:/) I know people tend to complain that games are too short nowadays but for me it's the opposite problem. Most games nowadays are trying to be these big openworld sandbox games which really not every game has to be this big gigantic game with a expansive world. (Hell I think Shovel Knight shows that to me a game doesn't have to have a long length to keep me interested in the game. It just needs to do what it does best.) So yeah i'm with you on this one sir.:/
PauLtus B In Mount & Blade's case, there wasn't as much padding as you might think. Everything you do in the game affects your standing in the realm for better or worse - which is mainly what the game is about. Furthering your own goals to become whatever you want. It is a big sandbox game though, and as you get closer to taking over the map for yourself it does start to drag on, especially when you're just going castle to castle and taking them for yourself. The thing is that it's actually fun while you do it, and it's what the game is all about. The game's side quests aren't boring because there is no main story - it's about what you feel like doing at the time, so if you don't feel like doing a side quest and just want to rob a caravan or capture some enemy lords the game won't try to penalize you by putting a super strong boss at the end of some story element that you needed to grind side quests just to beat. I just don't like the whole idea of 'go here, get item x, come back' being the main basis for 'side quests' in games. Or, even worse, escort quests. A lot of the time these kinds of jobs don't affect anything in the game other than maybe a bit of experience or an item or two. That's not to say that there aren't games that do side quests well, like the Mass Effect games (for the most part) or Dragon's Dogma.
Super Gamer61499 It's as simple as getting as not just getting value for your money, but also for your time. For that sake basically every game is too expensive.
gilgamesh310 Here's the thing about why one could argue Heavy Rain has less problems: Heavy Rain has replayability to see plenty of alternate endings. The Order doesn't have that, nor any of the other acceptable reasons for a short length.
UltimaKeyMaster Heavy Rain had no replay ability for me. The story was garbage and it gave me no incentive to go through it again. At least The Order has good voice acting and solid shooting.
DerBegginBlue Heavy Rain was filled to the brim with plot holes just watch the TBF let's play. I know most stories have plot holes and hell Metal Gear one of my all time favorite series. Has its fair share of them,but Heavy Rain has them to an unforgivable degree.
When you have only a small amount of butter, you naturally choose a cleverly sized slice of bread to spread the butter on nicely. Too much butter on a small slice would be disgusting, but not enough on a large slice would have no taste. That's game design. Devs just tend to have difficulty evaluate their amount of butter. And also, of course, some are under pressure to produce length to make supposedly more marketable games.
Don't blame the devs, blame their bosses. There's a reason indie games are much better at this: the devs make their own games, not the games projected to give the greatest returns to the Almighty Shareholders
@@marciamakesmusic That's totally right. 4 years ago I was not really aware of the management issues in the AAA industry. Still even as an indie dev, pacing "the butter" is still one of the toughest game design challenge.
"The reason people continue to argue about game length is the same reason people argue about review scores. Its easy. Its just about a number." "That number breaks down all the complicated subjective highs, low, and uncertainties of the experience into just one or two digits." "Its a number that's going to mean incredibly different things to different people which is why its important we remember a game's length is just one of many, many factors that can determine its quality or its success."
Skittles in excess A high framerate is pretty nice, and I won't deny that a game feels better for it. I just do not like that it is apparently a major dealbreaker for some reason. I've been enjoying 60 fps on my PC for a good while, now, but I still don't understand the enormous value put upon it.
Framerate and res are all the same as graphics. Just about any game feels better when those properties are higher, but the game itself doesn't really change. To use a weird analogy with ugly vs attractive people, its whats on the inside that counts. I like graphics and shit, but obsessing over them seems...superficial.
More games should handle replay value you like RE 2. I don't like when games give you different characters to select, but the campaigns play out exactly the same anyone. Chris and Jill's campaigns in the first RE game were slightly different, but RE 2 really expanded on it and made them very different, and both were canon. The character you didn't pick didn't just sit in a cell for the entirety of the game. Tenchu 2 did something similar but not as well.
Even some of my favorite games I hate it when it has Schroedinger's Player Character in it. Like MegaMan X4, when you picked X or Zero, the other DOESN'T EXIST for the entire game aside from Zero popping up in X's ending only to scoff at him for what he says. Come on, they're BOTH the expert Maverick Hunters that helped each other beat Sigma three times already, why is one of them sitting on their ass?
Yeah, who wants to unlock cool costumes, game modes and playable characters, i would rather spend 15$+ to get that kind of stuff, unlocking extra content by playing the game is outdated, this is the modern gaming "sarcasm off"
Brilliant video man, I was nodding my head in agreement the whole time, I like short games, 5-10 hours is good for me if the game makes every moment count, either with a fascinating story or gameplay or both. Some of my best games dont go past 10 hours, I think: Max Payne 3, Uncharted 2 and 3 all come to mind when I think of 10 hour games that I played over and over and over again, because when you do wanna replay it, you know you don't need to set aside 1 month of time, you only need 3 days and it makes replaying fun and in all 3 games I mentioned, I enjoyed the second playthrough more than the first. I'm not sure how long the last of us was but it is the best game I've ever played and I was able to replay everything again within a week and I done that 3 or 4 times, hell the only reason I haven't done it more, is because the game is so special and I like to maintain a specific mindset while playing it, I dont want to get numb to the moments which is what happens in very long games and is why I've never enjoyed a 50 hour game, I dont think I've ever finished one, actually I haven't. The longest games I've ever completed are Far Cry 3, Batman Arkham Knight, Arkham City, GTA IV and V and I only completed the story missions, once.
Portal was really short, not really cinematic. And the best gaming experience i ever had. We are spoiled by 10+ hours main campaigns, 15 side quest, 528 collectible doodads, open world/sandbox craziness.
Lovasi Péter it also helps Portal even had a hard mode unlocked after you beat the main game and man... who knows how many hours I spent figuring those out
Yeah, I thought that too. I mean now it would take me less than 4 hours to complete it, but back then it could easily been more than twice that, considering it was one of my first games ever and none the less it's a stealth game.
I think it's because that game was full of natural stopping points. I remember turning the console off after every boss battle and every quiet stopping point. My total playtime didn't exceed 6 hours back then but the game encouraged me to split those 6 hours into 1-2 hour sessions.
Chris Anderson I remember being able to finish it in 3 to 5 hours, depending on how much time I spent messing with the guards after getting the Stealth Item.
Spot on George. Could not have said it better myself. One of my favorite games of all time, that just happens to illustrate your point perfectly. Is *Super Metroid*. That game usually lasted for about 4-5 hours. At first. But with successive games you can bring that down to about 2-3 hours. Without to much of a problem. But thats not all. There are functional items, hidden throughout the game. And when I say that. I mean the game is riddled with them. With replays, your challenge becomes completion within as short of a timeframe as possible. And the genius part is. You don't get your completion rating until after the ending. Another part is that that game was inventive. With wall jumping. Super speed movements and jumps. All found throughout the game. And to this day, it still is one of the most inventive 2d platformers. Having many innovations, never seen since. (don't ask me what that's about...) Over all, it illustrates your point very well. Its short. Packed with action and content. Mystery. And edges you on, to perfect it.
I think that was the big thing with The Order. It wasn't JUST the short length. Portal had a short length and, as you said, was praised as such. But its content was absolutely satisfying from beginning to end. The Order...doesn't sound like it has very much going for it. Personally, for me, a good, engaging game is what matters first. Quality over quantity. It was only about an hour and a half long to play through, but I enjoyed Gone Home. It was a short, engaging story in what was basically an FPS adventure game. Heck, I'm a big fan of the adventure game genre and many of those are not very long, but they're very engaging. In terms of engagement, I think about, say, Spec Ops: The Line. Phenomenal story with many emotional gut-punches. But the gameplay was incredibly dry and repetitive. It was constant dull duck-and-cover shooting. And honestly, because that was about 75% (bullshit, made-up percentage) of the game, it was a slog for me to get through.
***** Sure, I get that. I've heard that argument before. But a game needs to have engaging gameplay in order to remain engaging. And Spec Ops just didn't have that. If it had been better woven into the rest of the game, it would've worked better.
Strangely enough I enjoyed the Spec Ops gameplay. It never felt like a drag for me. I really enjoyed the fact that your bullets killed the enemies in few hits for one. And I do enjoy cover based shooters. But yeah the story added quite a bit for it as well, can't discredit that.
***** I absolutely hated playing Spec Ops: The Line, and was utterly disappointed after having read so many glowing reviews. Instead of being left thinking about the FPS meta-narrative, or the disconnect between real world wartime ROEs (e.g. LOAC) and the run-n-gun nature of war games, or how collateral is almost entirely glossed over in games, I was simlply left feeling trolled out of $60. As if the developers were saying, "Haha we just wasted your time with a third-rate game that in the end told you it was a third-rate game that you should have stopped playing in the first level, also because war. The horrorrrr Lulz." I wish I had saved my money and watched it on Twitch. Conversely, The Order was a game I actually enjoyed, despite agreeing with a few of the negative points held against it. Overall it wasn't amazing per se, but it was nowhere near the travesty most reviews painted it as.
the grassninja You obviously didn't get it, all of those things you mentioned the game touches on, it's not even subtle about it, the ending of the game is straight up talking to you.
Agreed, I paid 60 bucks for Skyrim and thought it was a waste of money, but I paid 60 bucks for Metal Gear Rising and found it to be worth every penny. Content =/= value. Good game design = value.
+Kolbe Howard skyrim a waste of money!!?? damn what's wrong with you!!? I got myself Skyrim legendary edition for 40 bucks and I literally thought I owed bethesda
+Jorge PB It's got a tonne of design flaws which are unappealing to fans of RPGs (Skyrim's more of an Action-RPG); Quest Markers, how difficulty affects combat, the world's response to your actions, how it holds up to its predecessors...the list goes on. Judging by the guy's Fallout 2 profile pic I reckon he's probably in the same category.
+ThunderPsyker well yes you're right, i'm sure it's about that... on the other hand he's praising MG Rising which I think it's just a bad action game (Eventhough I love the MGS franchise). So if you are applauding a game like Rising, you could take it a little easier on Skyrim and enjoy it for what it really is.
RE2 is 4-5 hours because when you die, you restart from the last save point, so the time you spend after that and die is not registered. I remember spending alot of hours whith RE 1-3.
Zone of the Enders and Zone of the Enders: The Second Runner are excellent examples as well for short games with incredible replay value. Still have that on my old ass PS2 and it not only still looks good but plays smooth as warm butter. Original playthrough was probably six or so hours, but replaying the game and having that satisfying thrill of slamming through the game in just over half an hour, beating enemies and bosses without taking damage on the highest difficulty and really absorbing the mechanics to near perfection. One of the best but overlooked games of the early 2000's. And I just found out it's on Steam. Holy shit biscuits.
I loved Alien Isolation, but they could've cut out that one space walk to activate that communication array and it would've flowed a lot better. Reviews are just numbers but most of these "professional" game review sites feel fake now. Just look up the reviews for this year's Titanfall, Evolve. IGN in particular is the worst offender, a 9/10? All the non big time reviewers I watch like Angry Joe or Gggmanlives gave Evolve a by far more accurate review and called out the game for what it truly is, a shallow and repetitive experience riddled with crappy dlc. That Gif I saw a few years ago that shows how IGN determines their scores is true apparently. Money money, it's a rich man's world. I'm glad I made the mistake of buying Titanfall, it taught me never to buy shallow multiplayer games at launch nor to listen to all the fake hype generated by sites like IGN. As for the Order 1886, I'll wait for a sale or pre owned copy. Thank goodness we still can buy used games and return them for a full refund.
I think the problem with big news sites like IGN, is that the time they are given to review a game is very limited, and especially when it comes to larger games they aren't able to give a complete opinion, simply because they don't have enough time to let it all sink in. This is why length isn't mentioned often, and it's why value typically isn't brought up, because they got the game for free, and they have a very limited amount of time anyways, so what do they care. This is why games like Skyrim get away with murder, there is so many giant glaring issues with that game that only become apparent after you've sunk a considerable amount of time into it.
The Orders real problem isn't even it's length, its the developer's continuous excuses about making a lazy piece of shit game. The other real problem is it being a lazy piece of shit game.
Remember that behind the game you are criticizing, there are people who probably worked hard to make it. Even if it fell short for a lot of good reasons, just saying "devs are lazy" without knowing anything about their work seems harsh and unfair. Think twice before criticizing people, and bring some real arguments.
XseuguhX The Witcher 2 was working hard, as a nearly bankrupt studio at the time. The Order developers gave no hint that they put much of an effort, considering they were perfectly fine with downplaying (presuming for a moment they were not lying to gamers) poor performance, graphical downgrade, game lenght and showing interest in blacklisting sites that gave poor reviews. That strikes me as a hack, not a hardworking developer.
XseuguhX I'd hate to sound fairly mean-spirited here, but a critic's job isn't to factor in a dev team's personal experiences with making the game. It's to critique the game, not the devs themselves.
Turtoi Radu I'm not speaking for the PR team, neither for the publisher. I'm speaking for the Dev team and the Art team. In videogame studios, if you are not working, you are fired. So it's unfair to say they are lazy even though they probably crunch like in every other studio. And even if they didn't work hard (which I'm sure is false), there is no proof, and charge someone without proof is not ok in my book.
Your videos continue to amaze me George, the attention to detail and level of professionalism is striking. I hope you will continue to grow this channel and keep uploading this great content.
People keep making false comparisons to defend this game. All the games people keep using as examples for why short campaign length is fine have other factors that make up for it - unique and original gameplay, new game + modes, different gameplay modes, unlockables and higher difficulty modes, or just a more appropriate price point. The Order has none of this, it's one playthrough and you're done. They should have gone the Resident Evil Revelations route and added something like Raid Mode, which uses the same assets from the base campaign, but adds a lot of replayability. It wouldn't have taken much, just a few extras so there's something to do after beating the campaign. Alternatively, charge less for the game.
That's my favorite kind of content! I love your "Quite Time" video and this one, and probably some that I can't remember. There is really not much content like that on RUclips. I guess I like discussion about games in general and game design.
Undertale only took me and my friend 8 hours (less than that) to play through it. We were playing it blind. I did my next two playthroughs both within 7.5 hours. And I still can't get enough Undertale. People need to stop equating short games to bad games. I've played a game that's shorter than The Order 1886 for over twice as long as the average length of The Order 1886. And I'm still playing it. To quote Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation: "Undertale is a good game."
This is actually similar to a problem with regards to music albums. I know of a lot of people who complain about albums being too short, like 30-40 mins long, and feel like they're getting ripped off (regardless if they pay for it or not) if it isn't around an hour. People are so spoiled and pandered these days that they end up being picky and pedantic over the most useless nonsense. Remember all that bullshit about Ground Zeroes being beaten in like 5 mins, and people devaluing the game because of a few speedrunners? I never understood that. I can beat Super Metroid in around an hour and that to me is amazing. It handles replayability so well due to having Kamiya trademarks of game design, as in making you want to improve over several playthroughs (no coincidence Kamiya loves Metroid).
My favorite example is Titanfall 2, very short game, but is super replayable due to fun mechanics and a badass feeling when playing, and hidden collectibles.
I think that Dark Souls is a weird game, in which the first playthrough takes you a very long time (30+ hours) but then all subsequent replays take you shorter and shorter times. It's supposedly a long, epic game, but it is focused, with so many different gameplay options (weapon based, stat based, spell based) that it allows for experimentation through replay that encourages the player to learn, and then perfect. It's not a "short game" but it falls under the categories that SBH was suggesting I feel. A good Dark Souls player can beat the game in under ten hours after all.
Bloody 70 hours here, mate. Also Dark Souls is this lovely franchise with SP/MP medley. Too bad they've run out of ideas, thus the turd that is Dark Souls 2, oh lord. *grabs popcorn*
I agree, Dark Souls 2 was more of a fanservice game where the new director thought "how can we make this game harder?" instead " how can we make this game more interesting and memorable?", i had fun though but certain design decision were just baffling to me
Vultar666 I don't even think the fact that they ran out of ideas was what killed Dark Souls 2. It was the fact that they had _actual_ ideas, but decided to implement them sparsely through additional content, like the First Sin update and the Three Crowns DLC. The vanilla game felt like a load of padding and dog shit because it had nothing going for it, besides that "hurr durr, it's a cycle!" shit that seems to have become a running trend in franchises that progressively get less creative with each sequel *cough* Castlevania and Dracula's Castle *cough*.
This was a very good video. I was afraid you weren't going to touch on value, and was very happy you did. Length and value are intrinsically linked, and so, so, so many reviewers forget that people actually have to buy these things.
Excellent video George, you're always so spot on. Personally, I tend to appreciate shorter games since I have such a huge backlog, though there are games that despite being lengthy, every single hour spent in them is worthwhile. I'm thinking dark souls right now, but games such as this are the exception. By the way, Kamiya rules!!. Really laughed with the pictures xD
Demon Souls, Dark Souls, Dark Souls II, and even their predecessor Kings Field... amazing replay. I felt exceptionally rewarded for beating any of the bosses in those titles, no matter how many times I had beaten them before.. I really believe that what makes a game amazing is the accomplished feeling you have even after putting the controller down.
Alien: Isolation has an 81 on Metacritic for PC... I wouldn't really call that "panned". At most the game was a bit divisive, but overall recommended. I sure as hell loved it, and didn't have a problem at all with the length.
the length of the game was one of the major criticisms levelled at it, that and the fact the aliens AI was unpredictable (stupid criticism since thats what made the xenomorph terrifying). I enjoyed it though, I just didn't marathon it, I played it between other stuff.
Similar thing with The Last Guardian AI. Reviewers are criticizing the fact that Trico doesn't blindfully obey you as it were a robot while in fact it was designed to act like a real and independent animal.
Loving the Gates of Hell music. You have good taste Mr Bunnyhop. Also I think with regards to The Order is down to the fact that its 5 hours AND isn't a good game. If the story isn't great then the cut scenes aren't gonna be that relevant. I think another reason for complaining out the games length is because the standards for content in games has increased. After all you can pay £10 for super meat boy which offers quite a bit of content, along with being a good game. In other words if indie games offer a good amount of content for cheap then big budget games will need to offer a superior experience and or more content to justify the price point.
Think your point about new game+ and how game's can change and expand in that way was nice. Makes me think of Dark Souls, which is something I'm playing through right now - both in a NG+ playthrough and a new, separate character. In one I'm finding myself getting through area's much more quickly thanks to all the time I've invested into a character, while in the other I'm purposefully trying out new style's with a new character and - while still finding myself relatively successful thanks to the initial time investment with my first character - having a tougher time as a result of this experimentation. It gives the game not only a ton of replay value, but immense satisfaction beyond what you already feel when you conquer that tough to beat boss. I've yet to play a bunch of the games you mentioned (Metal Gear Rising, Bayonetta, etc.), but that's what it reminded me of. When the mechanics are built around the idea of getting NG+ I think it can be an incredibly rewarding process, and one that doesn't feel like the game has been padded unnecessarily. Great video, George!
Mostly agree, but trying to defend Broken Age's incomplete development by saying that it's short duration is a result of its "experimental" good humor and writing is one of the worst arguments I've seen in a while. Having a sense of humor and some decent writing is not "experimental". If anything, those are qualities that are well-practiced and well understood to be desirable. Brevity of duration is also not necessary for humor, as the many seasons of successful comedy television out there shows that people are fine with a LOT of comedy. So yeah, there's nothing "experimental" about Broken Age other than the experiment Double Fine pulled to see if their hypothesis that they could underestimate their time management and budgetary skills was true. So far, that hypothesis is proving valid.
This talk about short and sweet games with NG+ as well as your fondness for MGS reminded me of the Boktai franchise on the GBA. I'd highly recommend them, if you weren't aware of them before. If you don't want to spring for a cartridge, there's a solar sensor patch for all three games available (as well as a translation for the third game) so you could feasibly pirate and play them just fine, but I highly advocate not cheating the sensor and playing on the original hardware. That, and Boktai 3 has frequent slowdown problems when emulating. STILL, if you have a flashcart, you can play the translated Boktai 3 without the need for any emulation, meaning no slowdown at all, which is great, as the slowdown butchers some really nice songs.
Nice video SuperBunnyHop, I do believe that the reason most people complain about the Order 1886 length is because it contains none of those 3 important things and I think it can be hard to explain that, so people tend to simply it by saying it's a Short game. Same with game scores, if the game is not good, rather then taking the time to explain why, you tend to go the simple rout and just give it a score.
Great points well explained. I think what some of the problem may be is the weight put on the narrative side of games. Now, as a writer, I love it when a game gives me the feels and punches me in the gut with an unexpected revelation, but when the main focus is the story, it can run into some problems. - First, to really "sell" the characters and storyline, AAA games put a whole lot of time into making it look pretty and "real", making the story work better because of it. But if they're not careful, this can leave the actual gameplay side of the experience woefully stunted. - Because of this imbalance, a game seems to slide one of two ways. Either there just isn't enough gameplay baked into the story they've written and so it ends up too short, or the story is just too long for the mechanics they've made for it. Indie devs can have great stories, too. I _loved_ Portal's writing and the way the story developed quietly in the background let the developers make full use of the game mechanics. In Limbo, the art was beautiful, but beautiful in simplicity. It's story was very sparse and not that easy to pick up on it all, but again, that left more time for the experience of playing the game to be developed, even though the mechanics were really stripped down. I feel like indie games get the importance of this balance, and make sure there's an actual _game_ there before they spend their all budget/time/money on the story and prettiness. A game with mechanics and no story is still a game. Ideally you want some sort of narrative, but it's not required to make the game fun to play. On the other hand, a game with not enough mechanics, or ones that aren't interesting enough for the time they'll be used, just gets tedious.
well look at Max Payne 3 sure it was longer than the Order but it was still kinda short it also had a ton of cut scenes and it looked amazing but it had one better thing and that was gameplay. for what gameplay there was it felt amazing and even though bullet time was being used a lot it still managed to feel fresh The Order 1886 is a bad game even when you take away the length issue
Game james How long did you play Max Payne 3? It has some pretty solid mechanics that make for alright replay value, if you can sit through the cutscenes. If you only ever sit in cover, the enemies are meant to have ways to flank you and fish you out. Once you get gud you can shootdive your way through the game while barely even getting into cover. IMO max payne 3 does gun fights kind of better than the previous games, since you can die in like one shot, which makes it feel more like a gunfight. It also makes running into a hail of bullets in slo mo feel like MAN WITH NOTHING TO LOSE kind of move, more so than in the previous games.
Game james Wow there were a few scenes in a 10 hour where you had to be behind a wall. It's not like you could leap through the 90 percent of the game. I don't think you're very smart, friend.
Me and a friend are both gamers but nowadays take completely different approaches to what we play. I personally, due to working full time and generally having less time to spend playing through a 20-40 hour game in a few sittings (looking at you JRPGS!), I end up playing through stuff like Super Hot, Gone Home and hotline miami. Short but oh so sweet (and usually quite cheap too). Whereas my friend has even less time on his hands to play games having a full time job but also a wife and kids prefers to buy one large game like GTAV, Witcher 3 or Elders Scrolls Oblivion and pick at that over the course of months at a time whenever he's got the time to do so. It all depends on what you prefer, feel is value for money and rather explore just one big game over a few months or a few games that can be played through in an evening or 2. As awesome as it looks I just would not play Witcher 3, the lengh and content to me is just daunting!
I feel Resident Evil 5 does this the best, especially with a friend. Veteran mode and Professional are near impossible with starter weapons, but with the new game plus option you have more of a chance, and they're entirely new weapons too.
I hate to admit it but 5 did do that well. If I recall, even on your first play through you can start an old level with your current equipment. Maybe not, been a long time.
Yeah, Resident Evil games, at least before Resident Evil 6, always had some way of making you come back. I mean who doesn't want to unlock some overpowered, godly rocket launcher and go back and blow everything up?
Eddiethenotsogreat Haha, co-op may have been hated feature in RE5, but I enjoyed it. I have to say thou that co-op could fit horror setting as well, but it needs to be implemented RIGHT.
4:23 Explains why roguelikes like risk of rain and binding of isaac are so fun. Tons of decisions in getting items and surviving, but beating it only takes 45-60 mins
+sans The dev has gone on record saying something along the lines of 'I don't care how people get their hands on the game, I just want every one to experience it.' $11 is dirt cheap, where other indie games will charge upwards of $20 for an inferior product. I don't think the devs of Undertale were in it for the money.
I think that the Order would've been praised more, if it had come out around Gears of War's time. Gears of War kind of has this type of gameplay in a bunch. Hell, even uncharted, but that had platforming. But now that its 2015, people want more than cover based shooting. Another example is Heavy Rain. Pretty unique the first time around, but now he have Beyond Two Souls...Not the same...it feels not as good. Gameplay styles need to evolve throughout the years, otherwise they will be considered run of the mill.
I was able to Platinum The Order in 3 hours and 47 minutes, and I took my sweet ass time. That game is insultingly short, their are no cahllenges or modes.
I will never understand how people play through the games you mentioned so fast - "5-7 hours" - what the hell. It took me 20 hours to complete MGR first time through. Do all people just rush through their games or something? I mean it took me 80 hours to complete Witcher 2. Am I the only one who looks at side stuff and experiments with the game a bit while playing through it the first time? I like to give everything in the game a try so I know for sure how I feel about it. Rushing through a game that has content worth of 100+ hours in 5-6 hours, to me, you don't even have the right to have opinions on the game yet. That might sound a bit harsh but honestly, I don't get people that play games like that. First time I played through God Hand took me 13 hours. Since then I have probably spend another 350 hours playing it, because it's the most fun game ever made with the best combat system ever made, and I have definitely improved a lot, even though I'm still hundreds of hours of training to ever get close to the level of the "pros" that play God Hand.
Well, that's exactly what the problem in The Order is: there is no exploring, no secrets to find, no deviation from the path. There are a few items to pick up and look at, but these are mostly in plain sight and not very interesting. I can't see many people enjoying this game for more than one playthrough.
I kind of agree with you, except I don't see how on earth you got that number for MGR. I'm a slower gamer, I explore, I goof around, I mess up, and while I felt like I got 10 hours out of the game it turns out a ton of that was just cut-scenes and codec stuff, because the actual in game timer was under 5 hours when I won. Still I'm getting hung up over an example, I still agree with your general idea, and I usually get more out of the game than whatever the average time makes it sound like.
How did you spend 20 hours on one playthrough of Metal Gear Rising? The game is maybe 6-7 hours max even if you hunt down every collectible and secret mission.
"It's not the length that matters, it's the... meh." Jesus, I could probably make a Super Bunnyhop quote generator, considering how reliably disillusioned and melancholic you are. Joking aside, I haven't watched the video yet, so I'll see what I think soon.
How was Isolation panned by reviewers???? A handful of reviews were negative while the majority were positive. Not to mention to vast majority of players enjoyed it. Amnesia and Outlast didn't have mechanics or enemies to back up longer play time. I honestly though, the negative reviews were actual garbage reviews. IGN is a reputable source now eh? I feel George must not really get Isolation at all.
***** Yeah agreed.To this day it baffles me why George disliked it so much. I mean honestly he compared it to fucking watch dogs because you occasionally throw a sound device to get away from the Alien..So fucking what?
Morrowind, a game you can take your time to fully immerse yourself for hundreds of hours......or finish only under 5 minutes. Either way, Game of the Year, all years.
What, ain't imperial buildings, telvanni temples, mushroom houses and an active volcano enough for you? The isles at the north? The capital of Morrowind itself being complex place, subpar to the Vivec? Out of all, Solstheim is the blandest one.
Valdetiosi not when compared to environments in the Witcher 3 or the dark souls series, those few landmarks were cool but not good enough to maintain my interest.
Am I the only person here, who doesn't care about replay value? I actually don't have the time and too many other still non-played games in my library to replay old games. I only play my favourite games more than one times and then to re-experience the great gameplay or story.
Nah I don't care about replay value either. Only time I replay games is if I loved them originally and usually a few years down the line out of nostalgia e.g. Oblivion, Spyro, etc
It depends on how they make the replay. Just being harder? meh. Other meaningful choices and stuff you can do? That can completely change the outcome of the game. Kinda like the resident evil example.
That scene from Order 1886 where the character shoots the man on the balcony. Is that really necessary? I mean 2 seconds ago, it was a cutscene that you just watch and do nothing else. I immediately said "Hell, might as well make that shooting bit a cutscene too." Games these days... They're all so "cool and awesome".
Dark Souls does this incredibly well. Your first playthrough will probably take 50-60h since you don't know the areas and enemy patterns and can take even longer depending how bad you are. Once you replay it, the game becomes really, really short. So it is a long game on your first run, but you can replay it countless times without as much effort.
Really enjoyed this video, presented a number of good points and examples, and didn't seem to just ignore the fact that The Order doesn't have the attributes (replayability, price point, risks, etc) of other, excellent games with a shorter start-to-finish time. Quality over quantity works best when you're encouraged to come back to experience that quality again.
This video is old as hell but watching it again made me realize that using MGS1 vs The Order 1886 as a comparison of the practice of making short cinematic games is wholly inaccurate. Metal Gear Solid was a short cinematic game that compromised some aspects of gameplay but was revolutionary in others, it was a pioneer of a style and used its medium to carry one of the most mindblowing stories and scenes of that decade. On the other hand Order 1886 is a short cinematic game that looks really pretty but uses the same derivative copy-pasted gameplay and level design that its the most tired and expended ways to make a game of its decade
the difference between RE games and the order is simple. the order is filled with long cutscenes wich make for most of your time. resident evil games are basicly made to speedrun and reward you for having better game knowledge
Finally a journalist that understands what Ground Zeroes is all about. Seriously, look at how many retarded mainstream youtubers put Ground Zeroes on their 'worst games of 2014' list because of its length... Other than that, great video as usual!
***** For a prologue, it's pretty much perfect... Now of course, if you're comparing this prologue to all the other full Metal Gear games, then you're right. But then again, that's why you have to judge this game as a prologue. And still, as a prologue, it's arguably the best game I've played in 2014...
***** Judge the game as a prologue, my ass! They demanded 30-40 for it! 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of the "full" game, Phantom Pain, which is supposed to have the same game-play but be _"a hundred times bigger"_. If GZ was released after PP, it would've been universally bashed. Most people didn't care about the price compared to the length, they care about the length compared to PP's length and the price compared PP's price. I've played both longer and more enjoyable demos, and this shit just reinforces AAA publishers and devs view that the dying phenomenon known as the "free demo" is still irrelevant.
RealFear Well, considering how freaking huge Phantom Pain will be, would you pay $150 for it? No, you'd pay at most the price at which it's originally released, but I never hear anyone say that a game is too cheap for the amount of time it takes to complete. Arguing for a value-per-dollar rating is ridiculous, and if you decided that you didn't enjoy Ground Zeroes based on what it does offer, then that's no one's fault but your own. Plenty of people love Ground Zeroes on its merits in gameplay, replayability and story, and find the price tag perfectly acceptable. You aren't entitled to have your expectations met or exceeded, and the developers aren't obligated to cater to your expectations.
RealFear Except it's not a demo... If it was a demo, it would practically have zero replay-value. And Ground Zeroes offers a shitload of replay-value for its price. As a result you can easily reach 20 hours if you actually care about the replay-value (like George stated in the video). I don't have a problem with this kind of practice, as long as it's done right. And Ground Zeroes did it right. I have more problems with AAA-games like The Order that can be clocked in about 7 hours whiteout offering any replay-value whatsoever...
Alexander Pavlyak I don't know what your arguing here, Phantom Pain is $60, and it should stay that way. Ground zeroes is apparently supposed to be a fraction of that, yet its $30. Unless each hour of Phantom pain is supposed to be much less enjoyable then an hour of GZ, then this doesn't compute for me. This seems at most to be a $15 deal, if that.
It depends on genre I think, some RPGs will take a while to complete, specially for completionists like me (Full Pokédex in Pokémon Y with around 500 hours) but a lot of games only "start" after you beat them. I could beat Guitar Hero in one sitting, and be done with it, but the amount of time I've spent on that game's multiplayer and trying to beat my own high-scores ( and 5-star every song) is something which was well worth my money.
I think a good average length for an RPG is between 40 - 60 hours. I lost interest after about 110 hours of The Witcher 3 & I found out I was only HALFWAY through the main story -.-. I just can't stay immersed in one game at a time , there's too many other games I wanna play & I lose focus on the main story & eventually lose interest.
+TheScape55 But there are a large group of people, including myself, who enjoy those unimportant areas of the Fallout or ES franchises. "Cutting the fat" is the complete opposite of western RPG design.
It's not so much about game length as it is that $60 is far too much to ask for a 5-6 hour (or less!) experience. I can get that by seeing 2-3 movies for half the price. When you start thinking about the time-to-cost ratio, you start to feel ripped off with these games, even if they are enjoyable (which is almost a rarity these days due to devs getting increasingly lazy). It's hard to justify spending $10 an hour for a game. Games like Euro Truck Simulator 2 on the other hand, that offer tons of content for a mere $20, are what make the gaming world go round and I buy those types of games the most... :)
I love short games for the fact that you can realistically play every way you want and making every decision that you want all within your real life schedule. That's why I love Telltale games. I'm still waiting on the next season of The Wolf Among Us.
The problem is that they always charge that full $60, or occasionally $40. NuDoom is 13 hours long and costs 60 dollars. For someone like me, who doesn't have much money to burn, 13 hours for $60 sounds absurdly short when I can get a similarly priced sandbox/RPG that could potentially last me 60 to 100 hours. I feel that this is where the true backlash over short games is.
Gumball But that isn't the point. The assumption is that the games are of similar quality. When I go to buy a game, there are likely going to be several games of varying lengths. I, as a generally time-oriented buyer, will go for the longest, highest quality game. Obviously, I'm going to choose a shorter game if there is a clear quality difference. The problem is that they are the same price, regardless of length. I understand the reasons behind this, but it's still an annoying decision to make.
really? skipping all of the codec calls and cutscenes its not hard to beat it in 5 hours or under assuming you did skip the cutscenes, im assuming thats what you meant
Even if The Order: 1886 was the greatest game of all time, I would not be willing to pay £59.99 ($92.62 USD) for a product lasting less than a day that I would not be able to get my money back for.
RisefromyourGRAVE GAME, HMV and sometimes even CEX sell games at these prices. And that's my point, I would never pay that much for a game regardless of how amazing it is. I'm a huge MGS fan and I'm not going to buy The Phantom Pain when it releases if it costs more than £45 even though it'll probably be game of the year. We shouldn't be charged this much for video games.
NextGenVixen If I remember correctly, last gen started with games being at £50 then after a year and a bit they started dropping back down to £40. This gen however, it seems like £50 was the norm and now games have gone up to £55! It's ridiculous and I'm with you on not paying over £45 for any game, no matter how good it is.
NextGenVixen You can get pretty much any game from TESCO's for 42 quid and less (new games. Older ones are way cheaper). Only games going higher than that are Sony exclusives, but Bloodborne is still like 47 quid. I'm talking about London.
The human eye can only see 5 hours of gameplay.
Skyrim says hello
Short games are a cancer to today's game production I'm serious when I say short games with no replay value are bad most of them don't have good gameplay and story
+knightofparty knightofparty
Bad games are cancer, length of time isn't any indication, watch the video again, and look at the 4 games he mentions at the end, all four give examples of what is and isn't cancer, and length of time goes either way.
+Antti Samuli Partanen I like how no one who responded got the joke.
Alien Isolation is not cancer though.
This video was too short.
I just can't win, can I?
Super Bunnyhop I don't know. Was your video rewatchable, well paced and/or experimental?
Katamario2 Well, this is the second time I've watched it this week.
Katamario2 Well, it was definitely worth it's money. Opportunity cost came down to 10 minutes of extra sleep. I could also share it with my friends for free.
A bit disappointed that there were so little secret messages to be found in it though. Hope the modding community does some work on it in the near future.
Super Bunnyhop Where is the "new video+" mode ?
"Hundreds of hours of gameplay" really doesn't attract me any more, a lot of games seem to be trying to get as much time out of as little gameplay as possible, it becomes such a chore.
+PauLtus B A lot of the time it's game padding too. Hundreds of hours of gameplay are meaningless to me if those hours are spent doing fetch quests and collecting things that I really don't care about or particularly enjoy. But then there are games like Mount & Blade Warband where after I spent 100 hours playing it and conquering all of Calradia I was immediately interested in playing again, so it's certainly down to preference.
Shmandalf Well you might just like the gameplay enough to make it worth 100 hours. But there's no way that still doesn't include a whole lot of padding.
+PauLtus B Can't blame you really.:/ I use to be attracted to the idea til I got in my teen years. Where I noticed certain games tended to drag out for *Way* too long. It's pretty hard for me to get into JRPG's because they are really long man
(Hell just look at any Bethesda game or both Xenoblade Chronicle games. Damn! I don't have that kind of time anymore due to me being busy.:/)
Honestly I think The Order 1886's problem is that there isn't any re-play value once you beat the campaign.:/ (No multiplayer,no secondary objectives, nothing! And for a 60$ game there's no excuse for this.-_-)
Usually older games would compromise this with high replay value.
(Hell I went through the entire SNES DKC Trilogy really quick but those games would have secondary objectives. Not so much for the 1st game but for the 3rd and 2nd game they do.:/)
I know people tend to complain that games are too short nowadays but for me it's the opposite problem. Most games nowadays are trying to be these big openworld sandbox games which really not every game has to be this big gigantic game with a expansive world.
(Hell I think Shovel Knight shows that to me a game doesn't have to have a long length to keep me interested in the game. It just needs to do what it does best.)
So yeah i'm with you on this one sir.:/
PauLtus B In Mount & Blade's case, there wasn't as much padding as you might think. Everything you do in the game affects your standing in the realm for better or worse - which is mainly what the game is about. Furthering your own goals to become whatever you want. It is a big sandbox game though, and as you get closer to taking over the map for yourself it does start to drag on, especially when you're just going castle to castle and taking them for yourself.
The thing is that it's actually fun while you do it, and it's what the game is all about. The game's side quests aren't boring because there is no main story - it's about what you feel like doing at the time, so if you don't feel like doing a side quest and just want to rob a caravan or capture some enemy lords the game won't try to penalize you by putting a super strong boss at the end of some story element that you needed to grind side quests just to beat. I just don't like the whole idea of 'go here, get item x, come back' being the main basis for 'side quests' in games. Or, even worse, escort quests. A lot of the time these kinds of jobs don't affect anything in the game other than maybe a bit of experience or an item or two. That's not to say that there aren't games that do side quests well, like the Mass Effect games (for the most part) or Dragon's Dogma.
Super Gamer61499
It's as simple as getting as not just getting value for your money, but also for your time.
For that sake basically every game is too expensive.
I swear it's normally longer, it's just cold.
But what about game girth?
yeah, and how well you use it. that's what matters!
That's basically RE2
I'm genuinely thankful that you're alive. The world is a better place with people like you living in it.
This video was too short. Doesn't deserve a watch. 8/10
yup, length is the least of the orders problems
I doubt it suffers from anymore problems than Heavy Rain, that reviewers hypocritically praised.
gilgamesh310
i totally agree, cage is a hack
gilgamesh310 Here's the thing about why one could argue Heavy Rain has less problems: Heavy Rain has replayability to see plenty of alternate endings. The Order doesn't have that, nor any of the other acceptable reasons for a short length.
UltimaKeyMaster Heavy Rain had no replay ability for me. The story was garbage and it gave me no incentive to go through it again. At least The Order has good voice acting and solid shooting.
DerBegginBlue Heavy Rain was filled to the brim with plot holes just watch the TBF let's play. I know most stories have plot holes and hell Metal Gear one of my all time favorite series. Has its fair share of them,but Heavy Rain has them to an unforgivable degree.
When you have only a small amount of butter, you naturally choose a cleverly sized slice of bread to spread the butter on nicely. Too much butter on a small slice would be disgusting, but not enough on a large slice would have no taste. That's game design. Devs just tend to have difficulty evaluate their amount of butter. And also, of course, some are under pressure to produce length to make supposedly more marketable games.
Don't blame the devs, blame their bosses. There's a reason indie games are much better at this: the devs make their own games, not the games projected to give the greatest returns to the Almighty Shareholders
@@marciamakesmusic That's totally right. 4 years ago I was not really aware of the management issues in the AAA industry. Still even as an indie dev, pacing "the butter" is still one of the toughest game design challenge.
"The reason people continue to argue about game length is the same reason people argue about review scores. Its easy. Its just about a number."
"That number breaks down all the complicated subjective highs, low, and uncertainties of the experience into just one or two digits."
"Its a number that's going to mean incredibly different things to different people which is why its important we remember a game's length is just one of many, many factors that can determine its quality or its success."
***** No it's not. Higher FPS and resolution is objectively better. No one is happy that a game runs at 30 FPS unless they're actually retarded,
Skittles in excess I agree it's obviously better, but it is still disproportionately focused on due to it being easily quantified though.
Skittles in excess
A high framerate is pretty nice, and I won't deny that a game feels better for it. I just do not like that it is apparently a major dealbreaker for some reason. I've been enjoying 60 fps on my PC for a good while, now, but I still don't understand the enormous value put upon it.
Framerate and res are all the same as graphics. Just about any game feels better when those properties are higher, but the game itself doesn't really change. To use a weird analogy with ugly vs attractive people, its whats on the inside that counts. I like graphics and shit, but obsessing over them seems...superficial.
keepeetron For the most part yes.
More games should handle replay value you like RE 2. I don't like when games give you different characters to select, but the campaigns play out exactly the same anyone. Chris and Jill's campaigns in the first RE game were slightly different, but RE 2 really expanded on it and made them very different, and both were canon. The character you didn't pick didn't just sit in a cell for the entirety of the game. Tenchu 2 did something similar but not as well.
Even some of my favorite games I hate it when it has Schroedinger's Player Character in it. Like MegaMan X4, when you picked X or Zero, the other DOESN'T EXIST for the entire game aside from Zero popping up in X's ending only to scoff at him for what he says. Come on, they're BOTH the expert Maverick Hunters that helped each other beat Sigma three times already, why is one of them sitting on their ass?
Yeah, who wants to unlock cool costumes, game modes and playable characters, i would rather spend 15$+ to get that kind of stuff, unlocking extra content by playing the game is outdated, this is the modern gaming "sarcasm off"
Brilliant video man, I was nodding my head in agreement the whole time, I like short games, 5-10 hours is good for me if the game makes every moment count, either with a fascinating story or gameplay or both. Some of my best games dont go past 10 hours, I think: Max Payne 3, Uncharted 2 and 3 all come to mind when I think of 10 hour games that I played over and over and over again, because when you do wanna replay it, you know you don't need to set aside 1 month of time, you only need 3 days and it makes replaying fun and in all 3 games I mentioned, I enjoyed the second playthrough more than the first. I'm not sure how long the last of us was but it is the best game I've ever played and I was able to replay everything again within a week and I done that 3 or 4 times, hell the only reason I haven't done it more, is because the game is so special and I like to maintain a specific mindset while playing it, I dont want to get numb to the moments which is what happens in very long games and is why I've never enjoyed a 50 hour game, I dont think I've ever finished one, actually I haven't. The longest games I've ever completed are Far Cry 3, Batman Arkham Knight, Arkham City, GTA IV and V and I only completed the story missions, once.
Portal was really short, not really cinematic. And the best gaming experience i ever had. We are spoiled by 10+ hours main campaigns, 15 side quest, 528 collectible doodads, open world/sandbox craziness.
Lovasi Péter it also helps Portal even had a hard mode unlocked after you beat the main game and man... who knows how many hours I spent figuring those out
The best gaming experience you've ever had? I assume you haven't played many games.
gilgamesh310 Why do you assume that?
Miles_is_Metal Because the game isn't that good.
gilgamesh310 Maybe he has different a different taste in games to you.
I don't know how you could've beaten the original Metal Gear Solid on PSX in one night. I remember it took me quite a while to beat that game.
Yeah, I thought that too. I mean now it would take me less than 4 hours to complete it, but back then it could easily been more than twice that, considering it was one of my first games ever and none the less it's a stealth game.
I think it's because that game was full of natural stopping points. I remember turning the console off after every boss battle and every quiet stopping point. My total playtime didn't exceed 6 hours back then but the game encouraged me to split those 6 hours into 1-2 hour sessions.
I remember it took me about a week and 10-12 hours :P
Chris Anderson
I remember being able to finish it in 3 to 5 hours, depending on how much time I spent messing with the guards after getting the Stealth Item.
John Doe Stealth Camo*
Always delivering the highest quality content on youtube to us. Thanks, bunnyhop.
Spot on George. Could not have said it better myself.
One of my favorite games of all time, that just happens to illustrate your point perfectly. Is *Super Metroid*.
That game usually lasted for about 4-5 hours. At first. But with successive games you can bring that down to about 2-3 hours. Without to much of a problem.
But thats not all. There are functional items, hidden throughout the game. And when I say that. I mean the game is riddled with them. With replays, your challenge becomes completion within as short of a timeframe as possible. And the genius part is. You don't get your completion rating until after the ending.
Another part is that that game was inventive. With wall jumping. Super speed movements and jumps. All found throughout the game.
And to this day, it still is one of the most inventive 2d platformers. Having many innovations, never seen since. (don't ask me what that's about...)
Over all, it illustrates your point very well.
Its short. Packed with action and content. Mystery. And edges you on, to perfect it.
I think that was the big thing with The Order. It wasn't JUST the short length. Portal had a short length and, as you said, was praised as such. But its content was absolutely satisfying from beginning to end. The Order...doesn't sound like it has very much going for it.
Personally, for me, a good, engaging game is what matters first. Quality over quantity. It was only about an hour and a half long to play through, but I enjoyed Gone Home. It was a short, engaging story in what was basically an FPS adventure game. Heck, I'm a big fan of the adventure game genre and many of those are not very long, but they're very engaging.
In terms of engagement, I think about, say, Spec Ops: The Line. Phenomenal story with many emotional gut-punches. But the gameplay was incredibly dry and repetitive. It was constant dull duck-and-cover shooting. And honestly, because that was about 75% (bullshit, made-up percentage) of the game, it was a slog for me to get through.
The dry gameplay of Spec Ops: The Line fed into its meta-narrative of modern FPS critique.
***** Sure, I get that. I've heard that argument before. But a game needs to have engaging gameplay in order to remain engaging. And Spec Ops just didn't have that. If it had been better woven into the rest of the game, it would've worked better.
Strangely enough I enjoyed the Spec Ops gameplay. It never felt like a drag for me.
I really enjoyed the fact that your bullets killed the enemies in few hits for one. And I do enjoy cover based shooters. But yeah the story added quite a bit for it as well, can't discredit that.
*****
I absolutely hated playing Spec Ops: The Line, and was utterly disappointed after having read so many glowing reviews. Instead of being left thinking about the FPS meta-narrative, or the disconnect between real world wartime ROEs (e.g. LOAC) and the run-n-gun nature of war games, or how collateral is almost entirely glossed over in games, I was simlply left feeling trolled out of $60. As if the developers were saying, "Haha we just wasted your time with a third-rate game that in the end told you it was a third-rate game that you should have stopped playing in the first level, also because war. The horrorrrr Lulz." I wish I had saved my money and watched it on Twitch.
Conversely, The Order was a game I actually enjoyed, despite agreeing with a few of the negative points held against it. Overall it wasn't amazing per se, but it was nowhere near the travesty most reviews painted it as.
the grassninja You obviously didn't get it, all of those things you mentioned the game touches on, it's not even subtle about it, the ending of the game is straight up talking to you.
Agreed, I paid 60 bucks for Skyrim and thought it was a waste of money, but I paid 60 bucks for Metal Gear Rising and found it to be worth every penny. Content =/= value. Good game design = value.
I've spent over $90 on Skyrim and found it worth every penny.
+Adam Bonaparte That's the thing about taste :S
+Kolbe Howard skyrim a waste of money!!?? damn what's wrong with you!!? I got myself Skyrim legendary edition for 40 bucks and I literally thought I owed bethesda
+Jorge PB It's got a tonne of design flaws which are unappealing to fans of RPGs (Skyrim's more of an Action-RPG); Quest Markers, how difficulty affects combat, the world's response to your actions, how it holds up to its predecessors...the list goes on.
Judging by the guy's Fallout 2 profile pic I reckon he's probably in the same category.
+ThunderPsyker well yes you're right, i'm sure it's about that... on the other hand he's praising MG Rising which I think it's just a bad action game (Eventhough I love the MGS franchise). So if you are applauding a game like Rising, you could take it a little easier on Skyrim and enjoy it for what it really is.
RE2 is 4-5 hours because when you die, you restart from the last save point, so the time you spend after that and die is not registered. I remember spending alot of hours whith RE 1-3.
Zone of the Enders and Zone of the Enders: The Second Runner are excellent examples as well for short games with incredible replay value. Still have that on my old ass PS2 and it not only still looks good but plays smooth as warm butter. Original playthrough was probably six or so hours, but replaying the game and having that satisfying thrill of slamming through the game in just over half an hour, beating enemies and bosses without taking damage on the highest difficulty and really absorbing the mechanics to near perfection. One of the best but overlooked games of the early 2000's.
And I just found out it's on Steam. Holy shit biscuits.
I loved Alien Isolation, but they could've cut out that one space walk to activate that communication array and it would've flowed a lot better.
Reviews are just numbers but most of these "professional" game review sites feel fake now. Just look up the reviews for this year's Titanfall, Evolve. IGN in particular is the worst offender, a 9/10? All the non big time reviewers I watch like Angry Joe or Gggmanlives gave Evolve a by far more accurate review and called out the game for what it truly is, a shallow and repetitive experience riddled with crappy dlc. That Gif I saw a few years ago that shows how IGN determines their scores is true apparently. Money money, it's a rich man's world.
I'm glad I made the mistake of buying Titanfall, it taught me never to buy shallow multiplayer games at launch nor to listen to all the fake hype generated by sites like IGN.
As for the Order 1886, I'll wait for a sale or pre owned copy. Thank goodness we still can buy used games and return them for a full refund.
I'm sorry but I saw solid snake and started reading your comment in his voice
korcommander lol, that's not something to be sorry for, but praised. XD
You deserve a high five or fist bump. :)
I think the problem with big news sites like IGN, is that the time they are given to review a game is very limited, and especially when it comes to larger games they aren't able to give a complete opinion, simply because they don't have enough time to let it all sink in. This is why length isn't mentioned often, and it's why value typically isn't brought up, because they got the game for free, and they have a very limited amount of time anyways, so what do they care.
This is why games like Skyrim get away with murder, there is so many giant glaring issues with that game that only become apparent after you've sunk a considerable amount of time into it.
***** What murder did Skyrim getaway with?
Adam Bonaparte Broken ass leveling system, poor writing, more samey dungeons than ever before.
These reviews are always so original and captivating. keep up the good work bunny guy.
If only Alien Isolation cut all the backtracking. Would've been perfect and MUCH shorter.
Just noticed these are the videos I look forward to the most during the week
The day players start to care more about the pros and cons and how is the game, rather than numbers, is the day we'll had made a step foward.
This review is more relevant now than ever
The Orders real problem isn't even it's length, its the developer's continuous excuses about making a lazy piece of shit game. The other real problem is it being a lazy piece of shit game.
Remember that behind the game you are criticizing, there are people who probably worked hard to make it. Even if it fell short for a lot of good reasons, just saying "devs are lazy" without knowing anything about their work seems harsh and unfair. Think twice before criticizing people, and bring some real arguments.
XseuguhX The Witcher 2 was working hard, as a nearly bankrupt studio at the time. The Order developers gave no hint that they put much of an effort, considering they were perfectly fine with downplaying (presuming for a moment they were not lying to gamers) poor performance, graphical downgrade, game lenght and showing interest in blacklisting sites that gave poor reviews. That strikes me as a hack, not a hardworking developer.
XseuguhX I'd hate to sound fairly mean-spirited here, but a critic's job isn't to factor in a dev team's personal experiences with making the game. It's to critique the game, not the devs themselves.
Turtoi Radu
I'm not speaking for the PR team, neither for the publisher. I'm speaking for the Dev team and the Art team. In videogame studios, if you are not working, you are fired. So it's unfair to say they are lazy even though they probably crunch like in every other studio. And even if they didn't work hard (which I'm sure is false), there is no proof, and charge someone without proof is not ok in my book.
Turtoi Radu graphical downgrade? bullshit
Your videos continue to amaze me George, the attention to detail and level of professionalism is striking. I hope you will continue to grow this channel and keep uploading this great content.
People keep making false comparisons to defend this game. All the games people keep using as examples for why short campaign length is fine have other factors that make up for it - unique and original gameplay, new game + modes, different gameplay modes, unlockables and higher difficulty modes, or just a more appropriate price point. The Order has none of this, it's one playthrough and you're done.
They should have gone the Resident Evil Revelations route and added something like Raid Mode, which uses the same assets from the base campaign, but adds a lot of replayability. It wouldn't have taken much, just a few extras so there's something to do after beating the campaign. Alternatively, charge less for the game.
That's my favorite kind of content! I love your "Quite Time" video and this one, and probably some that I can't remember. There is really not much content like that on RUclips. I guess I like discussion about games in general and game design.
Undertale only took me and my friend 8 hours (less than that) to play through it. We were playing it blind. I did my next two playthroughs both within 7.5 hours. And I still can't get enough Undertale. People need to stop equating short games to bad games. I've played a game that's shorter than The Order 1886 for over twice as long as the average length of The Order 1886. And I'm still playing it. To quote Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation: "Undertale is a good game."
true. I've played portal for nearly 60 hours now and i'm still not bored of it.
I remember Max Payne 2 being just 3 hour game without pissing anybody off.
This is actually similar to a problem with regards to music albums. I know of a lot of people who complain about albums being too short, like 30-40 mins long, and feel like they're getting ripped off (regardless if they pay for it or not) if it isn't around an hour. People are so spoiled and pandered these days that they end up being picky and pedantic over the most useless nonsense.
Remember all that bullshit about Ground Zeroes being beaten in like 5 mins, and people devaluing the game because of a few speedrunners? I never understood that. I can beat Super Metroid in around an hour and that to me is amazing. It handles replayability so well due to having Kamiya trademarks of game design, as in making you want to improve over several playthroughs (no coincidence Kamiya loves Metroid).
My favorite example is Titanfall 2, very short game, but is super replayable due to fun mechanics and a badass feeling when playing, and hidden collectibles.
I think that Dark Souls is a weird game, in which the first playthrough takes you a very long time (30+ hours) but then all subsequent replays take you shorter and shorter times. It's supposedly a long, epic game, but it is focused, with so many different gameplay options (weapon based, stat based, spell based) that it allows for experimentation through replay that encourages the player to learn, and then perfect. It's not a "short game" but it falls under the categories that SBH was suggesting I feel. A good Dark Souls player can beat the game in under ten hours after all.
lmao 30 hours?
Took me 80 hours to beat it first time lol
Hence the plus lol
Bloody 70 hours here, mate. Also Dark Souls is this lovely franchise with SP/MP medley.
Too bad they've run out of ideas, thus the turd that is Dark Souls 2, oh lord. *grabs popcorn*
I agree, Dark Souls 2 was more of a fanservice game where the new director thought "how can we make this game harder?" instead " how can we make this game more interesting and memorable?", i had fun though but certain design decision were just baffling to me
Vultar666 I don't even think the fact that they ran out of ideas was what killed Dark Souls 2. It was the fact that they had _actual_ ideas, but decided to implement them sparsely through additional content, like the First Sin update and the Three Crowns DLC. The vanilla game felt like a load of padding and dog shit because it had nothing going for it, besides that "hurr durr, it's a cycle!" shit that seems to have become a running trend in franchises that progressively get less creative with each sequel *cough* Castlevania and Dracula's Castle *cough*.
This was a very good video. I was afraid you weren't going to touch on value, and was very happy you did. Length and value are intrinsically linked, and so, so, so many reviewers forget that people actually have to buy these things.
Gotta say, I really enjoy this channels and it's content! =)
Excellent video George, you're always so spot on. Personally, I tend to appreciate shorter games since I have such a huge backlog, though there are games that despite being lengthy, every single hour spent in them is worthwhile. I'm thinking dark souls right now, but games such as this are the exception.
By the way, Kamiya rules!!. Really laughed with the pictures xD
Demon Souls, Dark Souls, Dark Souls II, and even their predecessor Kings Field... amazing replay. I felt exceptionally rewarded for beating any of the bosses in those titles, no matter how many times I had beaten them before.. I really believe that what makes a game amazing is the accomplished feeling you have even after putting the controller down.
short games are fine
short games for 60$ are not fine
C Avery then explain portal 2
randomguy6679 it wasnt 60 dollars
banana1231234 it was when it came out
banana1231234 portal 2, not portal 1
+randomguy6679 The price of Portal 2 was permanently slashed on steam because $60 was NOT fine.
Alien: Isolation has an 81 on Metacritic for PC... I wouldn't really call that "panned". At most the game was a bit divisive, but overall recommended. I sure as hell loved it, and didn't have a problem at all with the length.
the length of the game was one of the major criticisms levelled at it, that and the fact the aliens AI was unpredictable (stupid criticism since thats what made the xenomorph terrifying).
I enjoyed it though, I just didn't marathon it, I played it between other stuff.
Similar thing with The Last Guardian AI. Reviewers are criticizing the fact that Trico doesn't blindfully obey you as it were a robot while in fact it was designed to act like a real and independent animal.
I just discovered your videos, at the end of each of them I wish to clap to congratulate you for your amazing job
Loving the Gates of Hell music. You have good taste Mr Bunnyhop.
Also I think with regards to The Order is down to the fact that its 5 hours AND isn't a good game. If the story isn't great then the cut scenes aren't gonna be that relevant.
I think another reason for complaining out the games length is because the standards for content in games has increased. After all you can pay £10 for super meat boy which offers quite a bit of content, along with being a good game. In other words if indie games offer a good amount of content for cheap then big budget games will need to offer a superior experience and or more content to justify the price point.
Think your point about new game+ and how game's can change and expand in that way was nice. Makes me think of Dark Souls, which is something I'm playing through right now - both in a NG+ playthrough and a new, separate character. In one I'm finding myself getting through area's much more quickly thanks to all the time I've invested into a character, while in the other I'm purposefully trying out new style's with a new character and - while still finding myself relatively successful thanks to the initial time investment with my first character - having a tougher time as a result of this experimentation. It gives the game not only a ton of replay value, but immense satisfaction beyond what you already feel when you conquer that tough to beat boss.
I've yet to play a bunch of the games you mentioned (Metal Gear Rising, Bayonetta, etc.), but that's what it reminded me of. When the mechanics are built around the idea of getting NG+ I think it can be an incredibly rewarding process, and one that doesn't feel like the game has been padded unnecessarily. Great video, George!
But Metal Gear Solid was an interesting experience, The Order is mundane, tried and unimaginative.
And didn't Kamiya have nothing to do with Rising?
I am always excited for a new video from Super Bunnyhop! :)
Good vid this week!
Finally, I've been waiting for you to say something on game length for a while now. You didn't disappoint :)
Mostly agree, but trying to defend Broken Age's incomplete development by saying that it's short duration is a result of its "experimental" good humor and writing is one of the worst arguments I've seen in a while.
Having a sense of humor and some decent writing is not "experimental". If anything, those are qualities that are well-practiced and well understood to be desirable. Brevity of duration is also not necessary for humor, as the many seasons of successful comedy television out there shows that people are fine with a LOT of comedy.
So yeah, there's nothing "experimental" about Broken Age other than the experiment Double Fine pulled to see if their hypothesis that they could underestimate their time management and budgetary skills was true. So far, that hypothesis is proving valid.
This talk about short and sweet games with NG+ as well as your fondness for MGS reminded me of the Boktai franchise on the GBA. I'd highly recommend them, if you weren't aware of them before. If you don't want to spring for a cartridge, there's a solar sensor patch for all three games available (as well as a translation for the third game) so you could feasibly pirate and play them just fine, but I highly advocate not cheating the sensor and playing on the original hardware. That, and Boktai 3 has frequent slowdown problems when emulating. STILL, if you have a flashcart, you can play the translated Boktai 3 without the need for any emulation, meaning no slowdown at all, which is great, as the slowdown butchers some really nice songs.
Nice video SuperBunnyHop, I do believe that the reason most people complain about the Order 1886 length is because it contains none of those 3 important things and I think it can be hard to explain that, so people tend to simply it by saying it's a Short game. Same with game scores, if the game is not good, rather then taking the time to explain why, you tend to go the simple rout and just give it a score.
Great points well explained.
I think what some of the problem may be is the weight put on the narrative side of games. Now, as a writer, I love it when a game gives me the feels and punches me in the gut with an unexpected revelation, but when the main focus is the story, it can run into some problems.
- First, to really "sell" the characters and storyline, AAA games put a whole lot of time into making it look pretty and "real", making the story work better because of it. But if they're not careful, this can leave the actual gameplay side of the experience woefully stunted.
- Because of this imbalance, a game seems to slide one of two ways. Either there just isn't enough gameplay baked into the story they've written and so it ends up too short, or the story is just too long for the mechanics they've made for it.
Indie devs can have great stories, too. I _loved_ Portal's writing and the way the story developed quietly in the background let the developers make full use of the game mechanics. In Limbo, the art was beautiful, but beautiful in simplicity. It's story was very sparse and not that easy to pick up on it all, but again, that left more time for the experience of playing the game to be developed, even though the mechanics were really stripped down.
I feel like indie games get the importance of this balance, and make sure there's an actual _game_ there before they spend their all budget/time/money on the story and prettiness. A game with mechanics and no story is still a game. Ideally you want some sort of narrative, but it's not required to make the game fun to play. On the other hand, a game with not enough mechanics, or ones that aren't interesting enough for the time they'll be used, just gets tedious.
well look at Max Payne 3
sure it was longer than the Order but it was still kinda short
it also had a ton of cut scenes and it looked amazing
but it had one better thing and that was gameplay. for what gameplay there was it felt amazing and even though bullet time was being used a lot it still managed to feel fresh
The Order 1886 is a bad game even when you take away the length issue
Game james
How long did you play Max Payne 3? It has some pretty solid mechanics that make for alright replay value, if you can sit through the cutscenes. If you only ever sit in cover, the enemies are meant to have ways to flank you and fish you out. Once you get gud you can shootdive your way through the game while barely even getting into cover.
IMO max payne 3 does gun fights kind of better than the previous games, since you can die in like one shot, which makes it feel more like a gunfight. It also makes running into a hail of bullets in slo mo feel like MAN WITH NOTHING TO LOSE kind of move, more so than in the previous games.
well obviously I'm the only one who liked that game
Game james I never used covers during my entire playtime. You're just stupid.
Game james it's a good game tho
Game james Wow there were a few scenes in a 10 hour where you had to be behind a wall. It's not like you could leap through the 90 percent of the game. I don't think you're very smart, friend.
Me and a friend are both gamers but nowadays take completely different approaches to what we play. I personally, due to working full time and generally having less time to spend playing through a 20-40 hour game in a few sittings (looking at you JRPGS!), I end up playing through stuff like Super Hot, Gone Home and hotline miami. Short but oh so sweet (and usually quite cheap too). Whereas my friend has even less time on his hands to play games having a full time job but also a wife and kids prefers to buy one large game like GTAV, Witcher 3 or Elders Scrolls Oblivion and pick at that over the course of months at a time whenever he's got the time to do so. It all depends on what you prefer, feel is value for money and rather explore just one big game over a few months or a few games that can be played through in an evening or 2. As awesome as it looks I just would not play Witcher 3, the lengh and content to me is just daunting!
I feel Resident Evil 5 does this the best, especially with a friend. Veteran mode and Professional are near impossible with starter weapons, but with the new game plus option you have more of a chance, and they're entirely new weapons too.
I hate to admit it but 5 did do that well. If I recall, even on your first play through you can start an old level with your current equipment.
Maybe not, been a long time.
DriscolDevil Sure could
Yeah it did. I'm glad someone praised RE5 for atleast something.
I quite enjoyed playing trough it on hardest difficulty with a friend. :)
Yeah, Resident Evil games, at least before Resident Evil 6, always had some way of making you come back. I mean who doesn't want to unlock some overpowered, godly rocket launcher and go back and blow everything up?
Eddiethenotsogreat
Haha, co-op may have been hated feature in RE5, but I enjoyed it. I have to say thou that co-op could fit horror setting as well, but it needs to be implemented RIGHT.
4:23 Explains why roguelikes like risk of rain and binding of isaac are so fun. Tons of decisions in getting items and surviving, but beating it only takes 45-60 mins
i paid about £7 on undertale and honestly, i'd have been happy to pay 3 times as much, that game has so much replayability that it's insane
+sans The dev has gone on record saying something along the lines of 'I don't care how people get their hands on the game, I just want every one to experience it.' $11 is dirt cheap, where other indie games will charge upwards of $20 for an inferior product. I don't think the devs of Undertale were in it for the money.
+sans Why would you want to play through that slog again?
+Thenextworldwar Because its fun and funny.
Thenextworldwar i dunno, because i really enjoyed it- found the combat mechanics fun, and the writing charming and funny.
Another brilliant video!
Cant wait for the next one.
I think that the Order would've been praised more, if it had come out around Gears of War's time.
Gears of War kind of has this type of gameplay in a bunch.
Hell, even uncharted, but that had platforming.
But now that its 2015, people want more than cover based shooting.
Another example is Heavy Rain.
Pretty unique the first time around, but now he have Beyond Two Souls...Not the same...it feels not as good.
Gameplay styles need to evolve throughout the years, otherwise they will be considered run of the mill.
***** True, I had less of the "Do I play or do I watch? Okay why is she standing there and doing nothing?, moments. In Heavy Rain.
Comparing Gears of War 1 to random cover shooters is like comparing Sonic 2 to James Pond: Codename Robocod.
Very intelligent and informative analysis of what helps create a strong gaming experience.
I was able to Platinum The Order in 3 hours and 47 minutes, and I took my sweet ass time. That game is insultingly short, their are no cahllenges or modes.
I just realized the Bunny at the beginning is homage to the Foxbound logo in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake on MSX.
I will never understand how people play through the games you mentioned so fast - "5-7 hours" - what the hell. It took me 20 hours to complete MGR first time through.
Do all people just rush through their games or something? I mean it took me 80 hours to complete Witcher 2.
Am I the only one who looks at side stuff and experiments with the game a bit while playing through it the first time? I like to give everything in the game a try so I know for sure how I feel about it.
Rushing through a game that has content worth of 100+ hours in 5-6 hours, to me, you don't even have the right to have opinions on the game yet.
That might sound a bit harsh but honestly, I don't get people that play games like that.
First time I played through God Hand took me 13 hours.
Since then I have probably spend another 350 hours playing it, because it's the most fun game ever made with the best combat system ever made, and I have definitely improved a lot, even though I'm still hundreds of hours of training to ever get close to the level of the "pros" that play God Hand.
Well, that's exactly what the problem in The Order is: there is no exploring, no secrets to find, no deviation from the path. There are a few items to pick up and look at, but these are mostly in plain sight and not very interesting.
I can't see many people enjoying this game for more than one playthrough.
I bet you're one of those *old* people who actually read all the text and dialogues.
/s
I literally do not know what to say to someone who took 20 hours to beat MGR. Does it take you 500 hours to play a Tales Of game?
I kind of agree with you, except I don't see how on earth you got that number for MGR. I'm a slower gamer, I explore, I goof around, I mess up, and while I felt like I got 10 hours out of the game it turns out a ton of that was just cut-scenes and codec stuff, because the actual in game timer was under 5 hours when I won. Still I'm getting hung up over an example, I still agree with your general idea, and I usually get more out of the game than whatever the average time makes it sound like.
How did you spend 20 hours on one playthrough of Metal Gear Rising? The game is maybe 6-7 hours max even if you hunt down every collectible and secret mission.
Nice video as always. I'm happy your channel is getting more attention, you deserve it.
"It's not the length that matters, it's the... meh."
Jesus, I could probably make a Super Bunnyhop quote generator, considering how reliably disillusioned and melancholic you are. Joking aside, I haven't watched the video yet, so I'll see what I think soon.
***** Being a fan of this channel ever since the MGS Critical Close-up, he just becomes a different person when gushing over games he does like.
If it's 5 hours of awesomeness I'm totally up for it, especially if there are extra reasons to replay it.
How was Isolation panned by reviewers???? A handful of reviews were negative while the majority were positive. Not to mention to vast majority of players enjoyed it. Amnesia and Outlast didn't have mechanics or enemies to back up longer play time.
I honestly though, the negative reviews were actual garbage reviews. IGN is a reputable source now eh? I feel George must not really get Isolation at all.
***** Yeah agreed.To this day it baffles me why George disliked it so much. I mean honestly he compared it to fucking watch dogs because you occasionally throw a sound device to get away from the Alien..So fucking what?
I thought it came to very mixed reviews. Some loved it, some hated it. It really was one of those games that got all the love after the fact
Which may be a good thing, considering the ending (also sorry for necroing I only just noticed the dates)
"Transistor is exactly as long as it needs to be" - Supergiant Games
Morrowind, a game you can take your time to fully immerse yourself for hundreds of hours......or finish only under 5 minutes.
Either way, Game of the Year, all years.
Valdetiosi would be nice if the world wasn't so bland
What, ain't imperial buildings, telvanni temples, mushroom houses and an active volcano enough for you? The isles at the north? The capital of Morrowind itself being complex place, subpar to the Vivec? Out of all, Solstheim is the blandest one.
Valdetiosi not when compared to environments in the Witcher 3 or the dark souls series, those few landmarks were cool but not good enough to maintain my interest.
@@Valdetiosi none of the elder scrolls games interest me, there are just so many better Rpg's in my opinion
Every Elder Scrolls game including Morrowind is severely overrated
I think you've completely nailed it here.
Am I the only person here, who doesn't care about replay value? I actually don't have the time and too many other still non-played games in my library to replay old games. I only play my favourite games more than one times and then to re-experience the great gameplay or story.
Nah I don't care about replay value either. Only time I replay games is if I loved them originally and usually a few years down the line out of nostalgia e.g. Oblivion, Spyro, etc
It depends on how they make the replay. Just being harder? meh. Other meaningful choices and stuff you can do? That can completely change the outcome of the game. Kinda like the resident evil example.
That scene from Order 1886 where the character shoots the man on the balcony. Is that really necessary? I mean 2 seconds ago, it was a cutscene that you just watch and do nothing else. I immediately said "Hell, might as well make that shooting bit a cutscene too."
Games these days... They're all so "cool and awesome".
How did you finish mugs in one night pre Internet? The Meryl codec thing must have stumped you without the box art?
+Reillytyne Systematically checking every number until you get it right haha
+Tokonon I remember I did it that way starting from the "lowest" (140.00), it only takes 15 attempts.
I dare to say your videos are as good as top class documentaries :)
Dark Souls does this incredibly well. Your first playthrough will probably take 50-60h since you don't know the areas and enemy patterns and can take even longer depending how bad you are. Once you replay it, the game becomes really, really short. So it is a long game on your first run, but you can replay it countless times without as much effort.
Really enjoyed this video, presented a number of good points and examples, and didn't seem to just ignore the fact that The Order doesn't have the attributes (replayability, price point, risks, etc) of other, excellent games with a shorter start-to-finish time.
Quality over quantity works best when you're encouraged to come back to experience that quality again.
This video is old as hell but watching it again made me realize that using MGS1 vs The Order 1886 as a comparison of the practice of making short cinematic games is wholly inaccurate.
Metal Gear Solid was a short cinematic game that compromised some aspects of gameplay but was revolutionary in others, it was a pioneer of a style and used its medium to carry one of the most mindblowing stories and scenes of that decade.
On the other hand Order 1886 is a short cinematic game that looks really pretty but uses the same derivative copy-pasted gameplay and level design that its the most tired and expended ways to make a game of its decade
the difference between RE games and the order is simple.
the order is filled with long cutscenes wich make for most of your time.
resident evil games are basicly made to speedrun and reward you for having better game knowledge
And (most) RE games are actually well designed and fun. Another advantage they have over The Order. :P
Finally a journalist that understands what Ground Zeroes is all about. Seriously, look at how many retarded mainstream youtubers put Ground Zeroes on their 'worst games of 2014' list because of its length...
Other than that, great video as usual!
***** For a prologue, it's pretty much perfect... Now of course, if you're comparing this prologue to all the other full Metal Gear games, then you're right. But then again, that's why you have to judge this game as a prologue.
And still, as a prologue, it's arguably the best game I've played in 2014...
***** Judge the game as a prologue, my ass! They demanded 30-40 for it! 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of the "full" game, Phantom Pain, which is supposed to have the same game-play but be _"a hundred times bigger"_. If GZ was released after PP, it would've been universally bashed. Most people didn't care about the price compared to the length, they care about the length compared to PP's length and the price compared PP's price.
I've played both longer and more enjoyable demos, and this shit just reinforces AAA publishers and devs view that the dying phenomenon known as the "free demo" is still irrelevant.
RealFear Well, considering how freaking huge Phantom Pain will be, would you pay $150 for it?
No, you'd pay at most the price at which it's originally released, but I never hear anyone say that a game is too cheap for the amount of time it takes to complete.
Arguing for a value-per-dollar rating is ridiculous, and if you decided that you didn't enjoy Ground Zeroes based on what it does offer, then that's no one's fault but your own.
Plenty of people love Ground Zeroes on its merits in gameplay, replayability and story, and find the price tag perfectly acceptable.
You aren't entitled to have your expectations met or exceeded, and the developers aren't obligated to cater to your expectations.
RealFear Except it's not a demo... If it was a demo, it would practically have zero replay-value. And Ground Zeroes offers a shitload of replay-value for its price. As a result you can easily reach 20 hours if you actually care about the replay-value (like George stated in the video).
I don't have a problem with this kind of practice, as long as it's done right. And Ground Zeroes did it right. I have more problems with AAA-games like The Order that can be clocked in about 7 hours whiteout offering any replay-value whatsoever...
Alexander Pavlyak I don't know what your arguing here, Phantom Pain is $60, and it should stay that way.
Ground zeroes is apparently supposed to be a fraction of that, yet its $30. Unless each hour of Phantom pain is supposed to be much less enjoyable then an hour of GZ, then this doesn't compute for me. This seems at most to be a $15 deal, if that.
Absolutely brilliant! Well done, George!
I hope Angry Joe sees this.
Angry Joe is a piece of shit reviewer who as overwhelming grown thanks to stupid people.
+Moises Munoz Why?
+Moises Munoz Why?
+Moises Munoz Why?
+Moises Munoz Why?
It depends on genre I think, some RPGs will take a while to complete, specially for completionists like me (Full Pokédex in Pokémon Y with around 500 hours) but a lot of games only "start" after you beat them.
I could beat Guitar Hero in one sitting, and be done with it, but the amount of time I've spent on that game's multiplayer and trying to beat my own high-scores ( and 5-star every song) is something which was well worth my money.
I think a good average length for an RPG is between 40 - 60 hours. I lost interest after about 110 hours of The Witcher 3 & I found out I was only HALFWAY through the main story -.-. I just can't stay immersed in one game at a time , there's too many other games I wanna play & I lose focus on the main story & eventually lose interest.
+TheScape55
But there are a large group of people, including myself, who enjoy those unimportant areas of the Fallout or ES franchises. "Cutting the fat" is the complete opposite of western RPG design.
***** ok
Playing The Witcher 3 just felt like I was watching 10 long boring seasons of Game Of Thrones... haha
Brothers: A Tale of two Sons, the perfect "short" game imo
7:09 Authur Gies is a horrible reviewer, so screw that opinion.
It's not so much about game length as it is that $60 is far too much to ask for a 5-6 hour (or less!) experience. I can get that by seeing 2-3 movies for half the price. When you start thinking about the time-to-cost ratio, you start to feel ripped off with these games, even if they are enjoyable (which is almost a rarity these days due to devs getting increasingly lazy). It's hard to justify spending $10 an hour for a game. Games like Euro Truck Simulator 2 on the other hand, that offer tons of content for a mere $20, are what make the gaming world go round and I buy those types of games the most... :)
Keegan Wood it's not all about the money
But Kamiya has nothing to do with Madworld, Vanquish and MGR.
I love short games for the fact that you can realistically play every way you want and making every decision that you want all within your real life schedule. That's why I love Telltale games. I'm still waiting on the next season of The Wolf Among Us.
The problem is that they always charge that full $60, or occasionally $40. NuDoom is 13 hours long and costs 60 dollars. For someone like me, who doesn't have much money to burn, 13 hours for $60 sounds absurdly short when I can get a similarly priced sandbox/RPG that could potentially last me 60 to 100 hours. I feel that this is where the true backlash over short games is.
But doom also has a multiplayer component and a level editor, far more than what something like The Order 1886 provided.
***** but NuDoom's multiplayer kinda sucks
+David Benavent I think it's fine, unfortunate that it's pretty dead
I'd rather pay 60 bucks for a damn good 13 hour experience than a boring mediocre 100 hour experience. But that's just me.
Gumball But that isn't the point. The assumption is that the games are of similar quality. When I go to buy a game, there are likely going to be several games of varying lengths. I, as a generally time-oriented buyer, will go for the longest, highest quality game. Obviously, I'm going to choose a shorter game if there is a clear quality difference. The problem is that they are the same price, regardless of length. I understand the reasons behind this, but it's still an annoying decision to make.
I have watched all of your videos at least three times! But I need more!
Only a savant could complete Resi 2 in less than 5 hours on a first playthrough.
Best Gaming channel on youtube.That is true game journalism
Hideki Kamiya, great, short games, totally...*remembers Okami*
I mean, I know it's an exception, but that game was so long!
TvSonic Serbia Wasn't that long. Was like 14+ hours from what I remember.
It has an avarage of 44 hours for main story and some bonus(which is kinda vague, but still) on hltb
Another great video SBH!
You beat MGS1 in one night? A group of 10 fans marathoning it and skipping most of the codec calls took us 10 hours to beat it...
I guess it depends on when he got it and how long he played it for
I was wondering that too, it's been a while since last time I played MGS, but it certainly took me some time to finish...
Ehh, while I beat it in two sittings, I beat MGS1 my first time in like four hours without a guide or anything (excluding cutscene time).
really?
skipping all of the codec calls and cutscenes its not hard to beat it in 5 hours or under
assuming you did skip the cutscenes, im assuming thats what you meant
I hope to God you were at least playing on Hard mode then. :P
"I'd rather play a 5 hour game worth playing twice than a 10 hour game barely worth playing" - Shammy
The Order 1886 would have been better if it was shorter, God knows why anyone would want to play that piece of poop for more than 5 hours.
Another stellar video George.
Even if The Order: 1886 was the greatest game of all time, I would not be willing to pay £59.99 ($92.62 USD) for a product lasting less than a day that I would not be able to get my money back for.
RisefromyourGRAVE When the game came out it was selling at £55 at retail shops such as GAME, think it might have dropped to £50 now though.
For me a 5-7 hour game translates to at least a week, assuming I even bother to finish it.
RisefromyourGRAVE GAME, HMV and sometimes even CEX sell games at these prices. And that's my point, I would never pay that much for a game regardless of how amazing it is. I'm a huge MGS fan and I'm not going to buy The Phantom Pain when it releases if it costs more than £45 even though it'll probably be game of the year.
We shouldn't be charged this much for video games.
NextGenVixen If I remember correctly, last gen started with games being at £50 then after a year and a bit they started dropping back down to £40.
This gen however, it seems like £50 was the norm and now games have gone up to £55! It's ridiculous and I'm with you on not paying over £45 for any game, no matter how good it is.
NextGenVixen You can get pretty much any game from TESCO's for 42 quid and less (new games. Older ones are way cheaper). Only games going higher than that are Sony exclusives, but Bloodborne is still like 47 quid. I'm talking about London.
I love your erudite analyses. Keep up the good work.