Time is valuable

Congratulations The Order 1886, you've inspired two articles in a row. Unfortunately this one is a bit more grim. While the last was sad because "game looks goooood" this time its sad because people are ratting out your time at around 5-6 hours... and I feel like some of the defenses are kind of missing the point in this panic. Lets take things back a step shall we? Several playthroughs have leaked out on youtube of The Order, and you can watch practically the whole thing and it appears like the time comes in somewhere over 5 hours, but barely. There's questions of skipped content circling around, and given the fact that I have neither played it nor am I stupid enough to spoil the entire game on youtube, I cannot tell for sure what's missing or what's whole. Still I looked at the footage enough to see they really are playing the real game, and it ain't exactly as long as I'd hope for. Also for the record, a lot of the time still is in big, big, big cut-scenes, so technically the youtuber I was looking over wasn't even playing the game for 5 and a half hours. Well the reaction to this is fairly standard. Some are throwing a fit while others are doing the whole "meh, make it good and I'll still grab it" thing. I'm... admittedly not very comfortable with any extreme here, but the common defense kind of bugged me so I wanted to discuss this a bit more.

Before I really dig into this I want to put out some decent little disclaimers. For starters, I still need to make an article further discussing the merits of short vs long games. The one you're reading now isn't totally and solely dedicated to my whole view of time for value thing, this is just a focus on this exact case and the myth that time is bad. That being said, the next thing I need to bring up is that if you are still going for this game regardless of length, and you have confidence in them delivering what you're looking for, good on you. I hope you enjoy it and find exactly what you're looking for (and maybe more). My criticisms of this decision, and my views on it from the marketing and gamer perspective are not to hate on your own individual decision as I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money. On another note remember that I have not played the game or been told of its quality by a trustworthy source, it is a mystery as to how long this game is. I want it to be good and lengthy so I'm keeping my fingers crossed the rumor is wrong. So I will be talking about this from the imaginary perspective that this game really is 5-ish hours long. However in the perspective of my own gaming habits, what I was looking for, and from a common folk's marketing perspective I've got a bit of a bone to pick with the idea of The Order 1886 being too short and those that brush it off because they think length is just a waste of time. The game developers have defended their game's length on multiple levels, which in part is interesting, but also convoluted and indecisive. They refused to give a number (even though in the past they said 10 hours per average joe), promised that some numbers were wrong, played the quality over quantity card, implied a 3 hour movie would probably suck, insisted that not all games had to play by a certain length, and have promised that the game aims to deliver high with the time goal they had in mind. I think they even brought up older game lengths. However I'm not sure all these counter-points are totally realistic at all. I mean fine quality is the best thing, that's what we pay for, period. Similarly yeah I agree that some small games, actually quite a few, are capable of hitting harder than the longest ones. However that's where most of this stops making sense.

Shhh.... Don't respond logically, they wont understand

The arguments are propped up like its playing politics, playing certain aspects up as "its this or that, one is good and the other is bad" while also sounding brave and bold, like your this great underdog taking on great things and being something more than it likely is. The reality is this is a $60 only campaign driven 3rd person shooter that as far as we know is just alterable by its difficulty modes. There might be "surprises" but based on what I know there aren't even collectibles or logs, let alone other modes. Saying quality over quantity isn't like debating mario levels, or discussing a unique indie game you got for $15, we're talking about a game that is put out there at the highest common asking price and receiving a content that is just a slice of practically any big market game out there. Now yeah some small games leave a major impact, but don't pretend you knew that going in. Don't pretend you would slam down $60 on any game that promised you it sacrificed length to give you some deeper meaning of life, because the fact is very few people take that high of a risk. Now even with that in mind, look at a massive difference between Gone Home, Unfinished Swan, Journey, and The Order1886. Most of those were focused and centered in slanted strange gameplay pieces that made the story what it was and gave you a more natural and interesting meaning through its focus. The Order is a shooter that in the team's own words is "tried and true", unless the story line is pulling a meta Spec Ops thing here you're not going to get a game that uniquely speaks to you in a big way as a video game like those small experiences. You're getting a shooter that cut back on a lot of content compared to its competitors, while still asking for the big bucks. You're not getting a magical companion lit adventure across the desert that needs to be enjoyed in one sitting, you're playing a very short shooter that plays like GOW with cool cut-scenes (shallow generalization, but you get what I mean). If you feel for something in there emotionally, it'll probably be from a good writing in a cut-scene and not an organic massive realization brought to you by unique experimental gameplay. A game that makes you feel through its cut-scenes isn't covering the same grounds as one that does so through its very existence. Journey will have a meaning you come back for and love, a good cut-scene on a bad game will still leave you feeling cheated out of the game. That being said I'm not saying The Order does have to be a weird game, I'm actually very glad to see a 3rd person shooter like this out there... its just that they need to remember they're a modest 3rd person shooter with some interesting ideas and not an edgy bold new experience. Lastly A 3 hour movie has no place in this discussion, its a sixty dollar game! How about you cut it all back to 3 minutes because I heard a really powerful song about that length? Oh right, you can't compare it to that because its blatantly stupid. Well so is this. There's different markets, prices, mediums, and competitors, so don't tell me its like I'm asking for a 3 hour movie. I'm not asking for a 3 hour movie, I'm asking for a reasonably lengthy shooter that is a sane and good investment.

Actually that wasn't the last point I wanted to bring up. The last major one up for discussion is on gaming diversity and standards. You see he's right that games do not need to all hit some magical number. As a matter of fact, the number of hours doesn't matter as long as its enough to accomplish what it sets out to do. This would be the case as an isolated statement where I just saw games as something to play through and enjoy in its own bubble, but the reality is I look at what else is on the market and pay what sounds reasonable and fun towards my tastes, so then there steps in a position of money, worth, and best deal. That's how the entire consumer base works, and keeping within a sweet spot of quality and value over other comparisons is considered being competitive. Nobody is matching a magical number for the sake of it, but they are looking at what is best for people's value and trying to deliver a lengthy awesome experience in the right time, tone, and way. If you're so far off that course yet charge the exact same, then you're simply not competing for the public's money and wont get much if they see this. Its what I was getting at earlier by bringing up small indie experimental games, those are the ones that are being sold as short amazing things, and those are the things selling themselves at a small price (which actually is comparable to movies, $10-20). However lets find a $60 bracket of those that fit more in the same genre as The Order 1886. We've got Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Last of Us, and maybe you could even count Assassins Creed and Metal Gear Solid. Every single one of those (except TLoU) in some way is getting a sequel release this year and has a massive amount of content instead of setting only for a 5 or 6 hour campaign. Actually all those in that example have multiplayer as well, and some other extras or alternate ways to play. Most major campaign driven shooter games clock in somewhere around 10-16 hours, so The Order is essentially being accused of being a 3rd of the normal campaign length of its competitors without any of the extras. It was already at great risk as it was being an IP with questionable PR, and now its got this. However what if it really is the best with its delivery and message? Well.... yeah sorry, but The Last of Us, Spec Ops, and MGS proved that you can deliver very strong emotions and big impacts without cutting corners on your length. Essentially if you have a good team of writers and designers, and have the time, you should be able to work with length and still make a meaningful result. If length really screws with your vision, than you need to adjust the price to be smaller as well. That's not me being a length=price guy, otherwise I'd expect every game to live up to Torchlight 2 standards (60-ish hours of vastly replayable and moddable fun for $15... not reasonable to expect of every game and genre). I'm speaking on a competitive and common sense marketing level, and The Order is simply not offering me anything as good as what I can get elsewhere. If they do have some secret sauce that beats everything... well I can't see it so I'm not risking such a large amount of money on it. Of course there is the concern that if this does succeed, just maybe this'll set lower standards for others which might be an even worse thought than someone being disappointed in this one game's length.

Finally this leads me back to a pretty common idealogy I hear expressed a lot now. Supposedly a short game is fine, as long as it delivers. However this is usually struck with more of an offensive tone with remarks about padding, grinding, and chores that come with length and I feel like this concept of time going wrong has gotten out of hand. Lets stop pretending that more time is somehow automatically bad, especially since the very same people are still praising lengthy awesome games. Its a strange hypocrisy that just seems weird. Remember The Last of Us? Big trek across America, multiple types of foes and ways to deal with them, a unique cast with some perfectly executed side characters, more than one big emotional moment, unique gameplay elements fused together, and two loved characters, and it all paid off with a heavy impact on the ending. All of this came from an adventure developing across 10-16 hours of play. I do personally believe it dragged a little at the beginning, but that was more due to the poor tutorial implementation and possibly to give Tess some decent screen time. The game still used each and every moment to bring you something, and it was what helps develop the characters, keeps people returning, and gave you such a big and tense sense of an actual adventure. It didn't suffer because it was long. Neither did Spec Ops, it used its length to set up context, hallucinations, character lines, and gave you some unusual conflict elements within it. Wolfenstein? It had a great campaign with well paced and timed hub sections to help pace things out and give you more time with the cast you're working with.

Nothing wrong with this lengthy campaign

Now by contrast lets look at most shorter shooters, which many are in the military sub-genre where they're considered throw away tacked on functions. The only game anywhere close to this genre I'm aware of that we've actually seen benefit from a big scale back is Crysis 2 to Crysis 3 (and arguably the original). This stuff isn't RPG talk. We're not saying time = grinding, this area we're usually covering length discussions in is instead usually an adventure from the perspective of a gun. Time is more likely your friend here. It gives you a better cast, more of the world to explore, more levels to replay if you loved the gunplay and balance, more places to stash extras, and more set pieces to be surprised by. Very few games ever overstay their welcome or screw with their plot in between 10-15 hours. Maybe some open world games and RPG games do, but this conversation is never brought up around those titles from what I've seen. Do I hear people worry about Borderlands length, Witcher 3, or Just Cause 3 despite the last one being a major grind-fest? Nope, its always linear or indie games where length is condemned. So my honest question is why are some people's response to short games is "we would have hated it if it was longer"? What do you have to gain from making such an assumption and being bitter about longer games? Do you really want awesome adventures to disappear in favor of short campaigns? Heck even if a game really was padding, what are you losing compared to the possible opposite of it cutting corners to be shorter? It don't want to make the same mistake of "it has to be quality vs quantity" fallacy like what the devs here did, but if I were to pick a 10 hour game with two extra filler levels or a 5 hour game with 4 chunky levels in total, I'd choose the one where I can jump into more levels and just relax and have a good time in. That's once again more level designs, more weapon variety, and more exploration per level, so its another piece of the game to enjoy even if it may not have been a necessary stepping stone. What was really lost in that? Well at worst, I would simply get to the ending a day later or maybe have that one level I didn't like as much. I'll take that over a game that leaves me feeling empty inside because the credits of a big game smacked me in the face on the 2nd sitting and the level select screen is too bare to turn back to.

Of course now that everything has been said and done, I want to clarify once again that this entire discussion is ify at best, and the game that is at the focus isn't even out yet. The product may easily be more like 10 hours, and even if the youtube video is a solid proof thing then I'm sure I'll still stretch it out an hour longer by my own slow pace. Still it is a bit concerning to me, as a guy that usually looks forward to cover shooters as a safe bet of a fun game I can really enjoy all the way through and then keep coming back to. I still stand by the idea that little can go wrong, but little length sure can sour the deal a little. If its a very short trip, that's less time to experience it, and less levels to be worth a replay. Of course the elephant in the room to anyone who's been a bit hyped should be this: They spent a load of energy into this project. Ready At Dawn have not proven themselves far beyond ports and portable games, but they went far here. Deep research, an imaginative plot, highly detailed animations, incredible graphics on an engine they built just for this game and the PS4, and the well picked orchestrated songs, and heck Sony has two separate collector editions made for a new IP. Looking through all the videos I have lately, its very hard to see this all going to rot in some small 5 hour game that was developed over the course of a few years and even delayed. They aren't doing multiplayer, there's no horde modes, there's probably not even little collectibles, so I have to wonder what on earth they were doing if all this work went into only a 6 hour campaign. I just... don't think that's the real case. I sure hope not, I want this game to be as great as it can be. However my lesson in the end is this: Time is actually way more valuable than many are thinking around this game. It can indeed be a key point, and I'm hoping the team didn't screw themselves over with it.