Tony Polanco from The Koalition writes:
"More so than any other generation, the length of a video game has become a hot topic among gamers these days. While some feel that a game’s value is determined by the amount of time it takes to complete it, others feel that quality is more important than length. We on Throwdown have differing opinions on this subject and tonight we discuss it… at length (pun intended). We state why a game should give gamers as much as possible and why length doesn’t matter if the title is good."
Other topics include: Sony ditching smartphones & TVs to focus on Entertainment & PlayStation, The Last Guardian drama, and Resident Evil: Revelations 2 not coming to Wii U.
GB: "With this feature, we run down 15 of the most underrated games on the PS4 that never received the love and appreciation they truly deserve."
I've played 15, and I wouldn't consider any of those underrated TBH. Some of them are pretty high rated.
I. Not seeing anything on that list underrated. I never played concrete genie, the ASTRO vr,and one other but I forgot the name already. Nothing on there was underrated at all imo.
There’s only 4 of those games I never played, and no most of those aren’t underrated.
Digital Foundry : Released in February 2015, The Order: 1886 was a stunning PlayStation 4 game at the cutting-edge of rendering technology, with visuals that still hold up today. The game's release pre-dated in-depth Digital Foundry coverage, something we're looking to address with this new video! Ready at Dawn's game never received a sequel and never received a PS4 Pro upgrade, but thanks to developments with exploited, older firmware PS5 consoles, we can now show you the game running locked at 60 frames per second.
The gameplay was bland and extremely frustrating at times with unnecessary QTE combat at points. But the world and the lore and the characters and the story were fantastic. I’ve always wanted a sequel. I still hope Sony will surprise us one day.
And let's not forget,
Ready At Dawn showcased The Order 1886 running on PC at 60fps at SIGGRAPH 2015
https://www.dsogaming.com/n...
I still stand by my theory that this game just released at the wrong time. Almost every outlet spent a lot of time in their reviews ragging on the game for not being an online experience, everyone was in the Destiny hype train and at the time they wanted EVERY game to follow suit, bashing any game that didn't. If this were released after everyone realized how much that wasn't future, people would've appreciated it more. I loved it, and I'm always disappointed that we'll never get a sequel
That doesn't seem to be true about outlets complaining on the lack of online. The review summaries on Metacritic are very consistent: Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return.
Here's an example of how *little* time IGN spent talking about multiplayer:
"With no multiplayer, and no reason to revisit the short and stunted single-player campaign once it’s been completed, there just isn’t a lot to it."
It's the final sentence. They don't even take the time to say "online multiplayer"
"Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return."
You are right, that's what everbody was saying at the time, never heard anything about it not being online.
I've been thinking about trying this game for years, I may get it now that it's dirt cheap, no big loss if it sucks
Oh, add to that bad enemy AI, I remember that from the reviews, I saw a video of a wherewolf boss fight with a very weak AI
And there we glowing reviews for shorter games. It was one of the times where hating this game was "cool."
Can you show me the reviews that rag on it for not having an online experience?
I’m not doubting you or anything. I’m just being lazy.
That's also fake news, isarai. Again, the game was consistently criticized for what it was (Pretty but extremely short, extremely linear, hand-holding, no replayability), not for what it wasn't (multiplayer/open-world)
Nope, every review uses the term "linear" several times as if it's some inherently bad attribute. Not fake news at all. Since then there's veen plenty of short and sweet single player linear games that get lots of praise, again after the reality of everything being open world set it and it wasn't as great as everyone thought. But at the launch of the last gen everyone had open world fever, and especially the first couple years "linear" was a con in many games reviewed
That's your own contortion assuming criticism of its extremely linear design is suddenly a call for it to have been open world.
You totally made up a claim regarding an overall review consensus that isn't true. And, instead of just ignoring being called out for it, you respond with "oh actually i ment to say OPEN WORLD". Which literally isn't true either. You can't show us one review that bashed the game for "not being open world". And, somehow the other guy is getting downvoted. Over a bullshit liar.
Games were being criticized at that time for any game that wasn't open world or online. So yeah I got one mixed for the other, doesn't change my argument one bit that it would've been received better if it released later. People are agreeing because if you were not riding the "online and open world" hype train at that time, it was blatantly obvious there were biases in play for how games were criticized. Now after all that has happened since people want to say "oh wait these games were actually pretty good" cause they know better now
The gameplay was very shallow and when one says repetitive, it is by the very definition for some fights. As in, completely identical but different setting.
The game has amazing potential.
The graphics, the lore, characters…
This could most definitely have been all corrected with a sequel and became a franchise hit…
Still would love to see an attempt.
Ie fantastic premise and moments that shine…
But it had its downfalls that deserved the negative marks.
It was the "game to hate" when it launched. And right here, on this site, we saw people posting stories that were outright fabrications about the game. It was weird. The game launched, it was fun, a really cool game but the hate was too much. And so were the lies.
It was just too short....but I loved every minute of it....double dipped and grabbed the ultimate CE
That isn't true. I remember people talking about how incredibly short it was and the somewhat janky gunplay.
First I'm hearing of this. I don't know what multiplayer has to do with anything. The game was just dull. Amazing graphics, great narrative, great lore, boring gameplay sprinkled in pieces between cutscenes, and lackluster AI and controls.
People cried this game was too short. No people are crying because games are too long.
Games like Ubisoft open worlds not enjoyable lengthy games like Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate III
I get it, but people also complain about the main stories being too long or just games being too long in general because they are "adults".
With series staple Mercenaries Mode returning to the Resident Evil 4 Remake, it’s time to remind fans of another mostly forgotten mode from the RE series. Reaching the second chapter in the 2012 3DS game Resident Evil: Revelations unlocked something called Raid Mode for players to enjoy. Unlike Mercenaries, Raid Mode is not a time-attack mode and instead operates as a more RPG-lite version of the main game. While players are expected to try and hammer down on a handful of levels in Mercenaries, Raid Mode gives players a much more expansive game type to play around with.
This mode was included in ports released on the seventh and eighth generations of consoles and was part of Resident Evil: Revelations 2, which was released in 2015. However, the Revelations duology is the only time that Raid Mode has existed in the massive Resident Evil franchise, and that should change in some future release.
I'd like to raid mode make a return in the future. When Capcom was hacked there was a as of yet announced RE game in there that I was hoping might turn into Revelations 3. There were also reports that whatever that RE game was scrapped and cancelled.
An awesome debate on this episode and let me say now the overall length of a game can be a positive for some and a negative for others. With The Order: 1886 I don't think the length is the issue here, but rather the concerning comments that the developers themselves had on the game as a whole.When they mentioned that graphics and cinematic feel were most important that actually through confused me on how gameplay would be. Eventually i'll see how the final product is of course but yeah I def didn't like that statement lol
Man it was fantastic being on the show with you guys. The conversation sparked was definitely worthwhile!
The fact of the matter is, there can sometimes a be a fine line if the value of a game shouild be put on it's length. I mean if we were getting a game that's like 2 hours long and being charged full price for it, then yeah, that's bad value no matter how much of a quality title it is. But I think that games with a length of 7-8 hours should be valued on the quality of the content rather than length. And obviously different people will hold different values to games of differing length. There are those that play the long games like dragon age, and there are those that play the short game, like uncharted.
If we take the order, it's roughly 7 hours long, so I would assess it's value on what it does in those 7 hours. Same with dragon age. Just because you can get 100 hundred hours out of one and not the other doesn't mean the longer game is better. What are you doing in those 100 hundred hours?? Because the story certainly doesn't take that long, so after that, what are you doing in the game?? I've heard, and I don't know how true it is because I haven't played it, that inquisition is made up of a lot of fetch quests or something like that. So IF that's true, then for me, playing 100 hours of fetch quests in between story is not worth my money. And a game that is a hell of a lot smaller, but gives me great graphics, good story, solid TPS is more something that I want to spend my money on. But look, that's just me. There will plenty of people out there who will agree with how I place value on a game, but there will be plenty more that would place value the exact opposite way that I just said. So it all comes down to preference and taste in games once again. It seems like a lot of sites are trying to convince us that there is one way for placing value on our games, that there's a formula and if a game is does not follow that formula then it has severely less value than others that do. But in reality a game can have value in many different ways, and it's up to gamers to decide which games give them the most value for their money.
So to summarize, length matters to a degree, but after that, it's the content provided in that length that gives a game its value. That's what I think anyway!