The Order 1886 - does more than 0FPS on PS4

I'm not defending this game - as it holds zero interest to me but to be fair all these classic games people constantly rave about (mario, zelda, metroid etc) were insanely short and full priced games. Most were just an hour or so.

Games like Sonic 1 were less than 20 minutes long.


Just think people sometimes forget how little content was in games in previous decades.

Saying that though, I'd never pay £40+ for 6 hours of entertainment (which may or may not even be entertaining). So it's a bit of a catch-22 I guess.
 
blitzwing85 said:
I'm not defending this game - as it holds zero interest to me but to be fair all these classic games people constantly rave about (mario, zelda, metroid etc) were insanely short and full priced games. Most were just an hour or so.

Games like Sonic 1 were less than 20 minutes long.


Just think people sometimes forget how little content was in games in previous decades.

Saying that though, I'd never pay £40+ for 6 hours of entertainment (which may or may not even be entertaining). So it's a bit of a catch-22 I guess.
Click to expand...

those games were only tiny and came out decades ago and considered state if the art at the time.
 
blitzwing85 said:
I'm not defending this game - as it holds zero interest to me but to be fair all these classic games people constantly rave about (mario, zelda, metroid etc) were insanely short and full priced games. Most were just an hour or so.

Games like Sonic 1 were less than 20 minutes long.


Just think people sometimes forget how little content was in games in previous decades.

Saying that though, I'd never pay £40+ for 6 hours of entertainment (which may or may not even be entertaining). So it's a bit of a catch-22 I guess.
Click to expand...

Lol, can I get a spoon from your hyper bowl.
 
I love TLOU and Uncharted games and none of them are particularly long. I'm not that interested in The Order but will probably pick it up at some point.
 
blitzwing85 said:
all these classic games people constantly rave about (mario, zelda, metroid etc) were insanely short and full priced games. Most were just an hour or so.
Click to expand...

What? :confused:

Zelda and Metroid are not "short" games. Arguably even Mario wasn't depending on which version you are talking about.

I await your 20 minute Sonic playthrough video too ;)
 
Back in the snes days, I remember challenges to finish course 1 , easy mode for those who've not had the pleasure to play super Star Fox on snes, and some would report. Completions within less then an hour..

Still was a great game, and had three courses which did take me a few attempts to crack.. resident evil hd as a trophy to complete the game in less then three hours I think?

Oh I just played and completed the story mode of batman arkham on ps3 in less then 6 hours on normal mode which shocked me as previous batman game story latested much longer...

Edit will say, batman I didn't do any side quests, but just shot through it quickly to see the story unfold
 
Last edited:
Will probably pick this up when it drops in price. Currently have a backlog of games I've played full price for that I've hardly touched. Should learn my lesson and complete a game before buying another.
 
Looks nice graphically, but I simply can't muster an interest in these type of linear shooters these days. I saw a video and it looked like a wave after wave of enemies type of an affair which just switched me off.
 
It wasn't meant to be taken at face value - just a quick comment to make a point that people complain about problems in modern games that have always been there - even in the golden age. don't get me wrong, I much prefer those old games myself as despite being short, they had charm and were fun to play.

So sonic is 30 minutes long, not 20...not much difference. There is a trophy to finish it in less than 40 minutes and it wasn't hard to do for someone who is not very good at Sonic. Took me 33 minutes but I'd already beaten it once before. It's still a classic game, but even doing every single thing in the game didn't take long so not much content there.

Each Mario level in super mario world and mario 3 or whichever one it was (with the world map) were only a couple minutes long at the most. That's just what games were back then - quick fire, fun levels to blast through.

Super Metroid was about 1 hour long if you just did what you had to do to complete it. It was probably 2 hours or 2.5 hours to 100% it if you don't already know exactly where to go. It's in my top 3 games of all time.


The problem is, games back then were fun star to finish. If this is 6 hours, then by the looks of it that's TOO long because the gameplay will get boring after 1 hour.
So it's a no-win situation in my eyes. Too short to justify full price, but not interesting enough to play for any longer!!

I sent evolve back because while it felt OK I didn't see any point in playing it beyond 3 hours. Going to rent this as my last rental before next billing date and cancellation.
Doubt I'll like it, but might as well give it a try.

Just wish Bloodborne would hurry up so I can FINALLY play a good looking game that has good gameplay!
 
Well, there were 90 odd levels in Super Mario World, if you spent just a few minutes on each one that's already 4-5 hours. Generally, those playing to for the first time are going lose lives and take their time in places, and then there's the time to find the alternative exits. I'm sure most people that played it back then would have got more than 10+ hours out of that game easily.

It took me far longer than 2.5 hours to 100% Super Metroid too, some of the secrets were not that easy to find. So I think most people would have got more than 10 hours out of it when playing it for the first time back when it came out. According to howlongtobeat.com, most finish the main story in 7.5 hours these days.

I have no interest in The Order although visually it looks amazing.
I'm keeping a close eye on Bloodborne though - it may contribute me purchasing the console at some point.
 
Last edited:
megalomanic said:
Well, there were 90 odd levels in Super Mario World, if you spent just a few minutes on each one that's already 4-5 hours. Generally, those playing to for the first time are going lose lives and take their time in places, and then there's the time to find the alternative exits. I'm sure most people that played it back then would have got more than 10+ hours out of that game easily.

It took me far longer than 2.5 hours to 100% Super Metroid too, some of the secrets were not that easy to find. So I think most people would have got more than 10 hours out of it when playing it for the first time back when it came out. According to howlongtobeat.com, most finish the main story in 7.5 hours these days.

I have no interest in The Order although visually it looks amazing.
I'm keeping a close eye on Bloodborne though - it may contribute me purchasing the console at some point.
Click to expand...


yeah I think the key is you 'could' get a lot of hours out of them - just exploring and having fun. They were what you made them.
I may have completed them in a couple of hours, but I've completed them a bunch of times and can still go back to them even today and enjoy them.
And it's not for nostalgic reasons alone - some of them truly still stand the test of time and play just as well now as they did 20 years ago.

A game like the order 1886 - well no you're just going to plough through and be done with it as it will have no charm or character to draw you back in.
So the time for 1st completion is the total time the game has to offer.

I finished Demon's Souls in 5-6 hours but have since spent another 150 hours on it doing different builds, more complete runs etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom