Paddington Game Lengths

Status
Not open for further replies.
The game isn't even out yet, and doesn't (appear) to have a strong puzzle element like Resident Evil and Zelda, so comparisons to those games (particularly glitch-chained speedruns) probably aren't the best.

Completing a game very quickly often takes lots of mastery and prior knowledge, built up over time. If you can get "speedrun" like times of 5 ~ 9 hours (including 2 hours of un-skippable cutscenes) at normal pace on first sight, it's probably not a very big game.

Which is fine if you absolutely love the game and especially if it offers lots of replayability. And I'm sure that are people that will absolutely love The Order because so much work has been put into it.

So my concern wouldn't actually be so much about the length, it would be about replayability if those custscenes aren't skippable on subsequent playthroughs. That would give a really high cutscene to gameplay ratio, especially as subsequent play throughs will drop you closer to or below that pre-launch 5 hour completion time.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Is it a 5 hour game stretched to 10-15 hours, or a 15 hour game rushed to 5 hours?

Alan Wake - 7 hours long stretched to 30 hours, or 30 hours rushed to 7?
Remember Me - 8 hours stretched to 16, or 16 rushed to 8?
Far Cry 3 completed in 4 hours. So it's a 4 hour game, stretched out by some laggards to 13 hours. Or, it's a 10 hour game some rush and some take their time with.

As ever, people are transfixed on a number that can't tell anything like the whole story. A single data point, one video on YT, provides very little meaningful data. It's provides one end of the spectrum, which isn't at all informative of the average playthrough (mean, mode or median).
Click to expand...
So following the established path during your first playthrough of a cinematic game is considered rushing now. OK.
 
L. Scofield said:
So following the established path during your first playthrough of a cinematic game is considered rushing now. OK.
Click to expand...
If you don't do any side stuff, that's one interpretation. When I played Uncharted, I wandered all over the shop looking for collectibles. If I had just gone straight through the story path, it would have been a far shorter game.

http://www.gamelengths.com/games/playtimes/Uncharted:+Drake's+Fortune/
U: Drakes Fortune play throughs from 6 hours to 14.

If you're intending to get the world's first playthrough up on YouTube before anyone else, I don't imagine you'd take your time.

Seriously, take a look at that website. It's far from scientific, but assuming the majority of contributors are being honest (and there's little reason not to) it shows game times can vary considerably. It's ridiculous to look at a single data point and use that to interpret the entire game, especially when there's contradictory information from other sources. There are lots of games people have played in 10+ hours that others have completed in shorter times, excluding ridiculous speed-runs.
 
Some people don't like to "stop and smell the flowers" while gaming. A lot of people don't search every room compulsively looking for collectibles, or experience the side material. That's not what they like to do. It seems like this game has a range of 6-15 hours, depending on the difficulty and play style. That's a bit short relative to most 3rd-person shooters, but I'm honestly ok with that. For me, most games are too long. If it's short and sweet, I think that's a good thing.
 
Scott_Arm said:
Some people don't like to "stop and smell the flowers" while gaming. A lot of people don't search every room compulsively looking for collectibles, or experience the side material. That's not what they like to do. It seems like this game has a range of 6-15 hours, depending on the difficulty and play style. That's a bit short relative to most 3rd-person shooters, but I'm honestly ok with that. For me, most games are too long. If it's short and sweet, I think that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think a game is too long if the pacing is good. It would have been better if it was longer. This game is like what Uncharted 1 was for Naughty dog. Ready at Dawn comes from been a PSP developer of Santa Monica to a AAA own property game and from probably team on the low 10's to a 120 people team.

At least the game is polish, bug free, a graphical masterpiece and pretty fun. I hope the game will be a commercial success and it will become a franchise. The second game has the potential to be much better.

My biggest concern is the lack of difficulty, but is it not only a problem for this title. Hard is the new normal and The Order 1886 probably lack at least another level of difficulty equivalent to the grounded mode of TLOU.

And a new game + with soul's game level of difficulty where you can lose your mind. I was annoyed by the lack of challenge of Infamous. If someone of RAD read, talk about this idea to RAD game designer and other dev.
 
Yeah, I'm fine with it but 8 to 10 is maybe a bit under the genre, most expect 10 to 15 nowadays. But anything longer is always acheived with time sink, or long salves of ennemie, or treasure hunts. No a bad thing either way, but it makes that metric a bit pointless.

I'm wondering if this is like mgs4, where playing on easy allowed you to just plow through a "stealth" level in 30 seconds as if it's normal, while the hard mode forces you to actually take 5 minutes to do silent take down and waiting for the perfect moments. That's why I think I I'll play on hard first time.

Has there been any reviews telling the difference between difficulty levels? I hope it's not just "you die more"
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Is it a 5 hour game stretched to 10-15 hours, or a 15 hour game rushed to 5 hours?

Alan Wake - 7 hours long stretched to 30 hours, or 30 hours rushed to 7?
Remember Me - 8 hours stretched to 16, or 16 rushed to 8?
Far Cry 3 completed in 4 hours. So it's a 4 hour game, stretched out by some laggards to 13 hours. Or, it's a 10 hour game some rush and some take their time with.

As ever, people are transfixed on a number that can't tell anything like the whole story. A single data point, one video on YT, provides very little meaningful data. It's provides one end of the spectrum, which isn't at all informative of the average playthrough (mean, mode or median).
Click to expand...

I've only played alan wake which took me 10 hours to beat. So I would say its a stretched game.

There are a lot of short games , I beat dying light in less than 10 hours and I had a great time playing it. I wouldn't say its a 30 hour game . I also wouldn't have paid $60 for such a short game.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
If you don't do any side stuff, that's one interpretation. When I played Uncharted, I wandered all over the shop looking for collectibles. If I had just gone straight through the story path, it would have been a far shorter game.

http://www.gamelengths.com/games/playtimes/Uncharted:+Drake's+Fortune/
U: Drakes Fortune play throughs from 6 hours to 14.

If you're intending to get the world's first playthrough up on YouTube before anyone else, I don't imagine you'd take your time.

Seriously, take a look at that website. It's far from scientific, but assuming the majority of contributors are being honest (and there's little reason not to) it shows game times can vary considerably. It's ridiculous to look at a single data point and use that to interpret the entire game, especially when there's contradictory information from other sources. There are lots of games people have played in 10+ hours that others have completed in shorter times, excluding ridiculous speed-runs.
Click to expand...
So, not bothering with the padding (that's what collectibles are) is rushing it? It's not like there are actual sidequests to avoid in this game.
 
MrFox said:
Yeah, I'm fine with it but 8 to 10 is maybe a bit under the genre, most expect 10 to 15 nowadays. But anything longer is always acheived with time sink, or long salves of ennemie, or treasure hunts. No a bad thing either way, but it makes that metric a bit pointless.

I'm wondering if this is like mgs4, where playing on easy allowed you to just plow through a "stealth" level in 30 seconds as if it's normal, while the hard mode forces you to actually take 5 minutes to do silent take down and waiting for the perfect moments. That's why I think I I'll play on hard first time.

Has there been any reviews telling the difference between difficulty levels? I hope it's not just "you die more"
Click to expand...

I'm probably not a normal hardcore gamer, but say if you compared it to Uncharted 2, I would say that Uncharted 2 could have been a shorter game. There were some fights where waves of enemies just kept coming, and to me that drags. Wonderful game, one of the best 3rd person shooters, but I'm of the mind that less can be more in games, but devs tend to just load in more and more because they're worried about the perception of price/hour. A really well made 8-10 single-player shooter is perfect for me ... but that's just me. Also, I'd prefer the game to have a really hard difficulty available than have it be long and easy.
 
Well, it's like movies, when anyone feel it was too short at least it means it was fun and they wanted more, but when it was too long,it means it was boring or had pacing issues (the hobbit). There very few films that deserve a 3h+ treatment.

I'm puzzled by this infatuation with game length all of a sudden. It would make sense if the game was 3h, but even 8h isn't that big of a deal, there's so much more important stuff.
 
Last edited:
MrFox said:
Well, it's like movies, when anyone feel it was too short at least it means it was fun and they wanted more, but when it was too long, it was boring or had pacing issues (the hobbit). There very few films that deserve a 3h+ treatment.

I'm puzzled by this infatuation with game length all of a sudden. It would make sense if the game was 3h, but even 8h isn't that big of a deal, there's so much more important stuff.
Click to expand...

I think it's happening because there is suddenly very little else to try and use to pull the game down. From all the feedback it seems it is a very competent shooter with a solid story and pushing top notch visuals at the same time. The focus on length is all ammo the haters have left to them. And even that seems to be false.
 
Or perhaps it's happening because there's a video showing an unreleased, linear, story driven game being finished in 5.5 hours, where more than 2 hours of that is cutscenes that will blow their primary load on first playthrough?

And it has no co-op? And no multiplayer?

And it costs $60?

You know, exactly the kind of stuff that people know from experience might harm the value proposition for them.

But if you want the game then buy the game. Other people's concerns about value wouldn't stop me if I wanted it. A short game you can replay a lot and find new depth in each time can easily be better value than a long game you just trudge through. That's why the cutscenes would be a worry if you can't skip them on subsequent playthroughs. It would kill replay dead, dead like a reveal tent.
 
MrFox said:
Well, it's like movies, when anyone feel it was too short at least it means it was fun and they wanted more, but when it was too long,it means it was boring or had pacing issues (the hobbit). There very few films that deserve a 3h+ treatment.

I'm puzzled by this infatuation with game length all of a sudden. It would make sense if the game was 3h, but even 8h isn't that big of a deal, there's so much more important stuff.
Click to expand...

It's a console game, it is an exclusive PS4 game, it attracts all the controversy imaginable. There has been plenty of other short games without the same noise.
 
Sure we all want to know how long it is (I would have canceled my preorder immediately if 3h had any credibility), but it should have stopped at 8h to 10h without hurrying. Then we wait for reviews to see if it's more toward 7 or 11, or whatever.

Everybody knows there's no multiplayer, and everybody knows it's driven primarily by cinematics, story and characters. We know it's that kind of game. It 50% an interractive film.

I don't get the playtimegate part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top