Developer Won't Comment On The Order: 1866's Five Hour Length

i guess there are full playthroughs already on youtube and beating the game in about 5-6 hours is possible
 
Beating a game by rushing through to the end and missing 80% of the content is not the same thing as "playing the game"...;) That's a fairly stupid thing to do, imo. OTOH, if the average play-through time, hitting 80% of the content, is 5-6 hours, that pretty much sucks. I can truthfully say that if this game is that short when it's actually played, that I've never *seen* a game that short. I'll pass. However, I note that after reading that a particular expansion was only ~15 hours long--after I bought it--I was pleased to see that after 30 hours I had yet to finish it.
 
WaltC said:
Beating a game by rushing through to the end and missing 80% of the content is not the same thing as "playing the game"...;) That's a fairly stupid thing to do, imo. OTOH, if the average play-through time, hitting 80% of the content, is 5-6 hours, that pretty much sucks. I can truthfully say that if this game is that short when it's actually played, that I've never *seen* a game that short. I'll pass. However, I note that after reading that a particular expansion was only ~15 hours long--after I bought it--I was pleased to see that after 30 hours I had yet to finish it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem, though. It doesn't look like the game was rushed through. There doesn't really appear to be any exploring, and side content, etc. Half of that 5 hours is cut scenes that cannot be skipped, so there is no possible way to skip that. The rest of it looks like generic point-A-to-B third-person shooter. Add on top of that a lack of multiplayer and what you've got is a game that a majority of people will get 5 hours out of and then be done. Some people may replay it with whatever small incentive they offer, but given how cutscene heavy it is and how generic the gameplay looks, I can't imagine many people rushing into a second game.
 
So instead of making good content, they are going back to the old metric of hours of un-skippable cut scenes? Please, give me a good reason to NOT play the game...
just weak
 
Dawill said:
I have no interest in this game whatsoever, but time to finish the game is a horrible metric.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Hell, most of the time when I see that "X" game will take "Y" amount of time to beat, 9 times out of 10, it takes me far longer (I normally tend to play on hard difficulties though). Once you add in achievement hunting or completing side quests and all that crap, it can take much much longer.


I will also ad that I don't always want to play something that will take 100+ hours to complete. Sometimes having something that will take 5-6 hours, start to finish, is a breath of fresh air. My backlog is long enough as it is... When games tend to start getting long winded and drawn out, I get bored and lose interest... and when revisiting it months and months down the road, I have to start over as I completely lose my place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top