Welcome To Watch UniTed STaTeS vs ColMmbiA 2015 Live FiA WoMen'S WOrlD CuP Online Tv Coverage link directly on your desktop, laptop or net-pad.Don’t worry, we are here for your help. Here you can get your all sporting event easily.
Watch UniTed STaTeS vs ColMmbiA 2015 Live Online Tv Coverage!
UniTed STaTeS vs ColMmbiA Live Stream Online
UniTed STaTeS vs ColMmbiA Live Score
Watch UniTed STaTeS vs ColMmbiA Live
Live Score: UniTed STaTeS vs ColMmbiA Live Stream
Soccer Live Score
The PlayStation 4's first big exclusive of 2015 is about to release. The Order: 1886 was revealed a couple of years ago at Sony's E3 2013 conference, and it's held a bit of attention since then. It hasn't garnered as much hype nor spotlight as Bloodborne, the other major PS4 game of the first half of 2015, but I've still seen a modest about of excitement for it. To be perfectly honest, I'm not that interested in the game; the story hasn't grabbed me, and the gameplay does not seem to be too remarkable. When I do eventually own a PS4, I might pick it up, but even if I did own one right now I probably wouldn't, since it doesn't seem to be my forte. However, I've been inspired to write this today because I'm seeing a good number of people talk about the game's length, and the discussion has genuinely irked me.
Try playing it, first.
Ready at Dawn's first (original) console title, The Order: 1886, is sort of like Uncharted in some ways. Visually it looks great, and it's a linear adventure infused with a story involving a bit of mystery. Indeed, Ready at Dawn has even stated that Naughty Dog's very successful series inspired some parts of The Order. I don't think that The Order will do well as Uncharted has critically nor commercially, but I think it'll do well enough to be a success for Ready at Dawn. Again, I know some people who are really excited about it, and right now it's #11 on Amazon for video games (and the top-selling PlayStation 4 title).
Even with a number of good things behind it, a couple of reports have taken some of the steam out of The Order's hype train. In the past few weeks, some people have come out and said that the game only takes three hours to beat, and now there's even a video online showing the entire game...being completed in five hours. It can be beaten in five hours, maybe less; this much is fact, as we have evidence to prove it. However, I'm seeing people take this fact and assume it's a $60 game with only five hours of content. They're ignoring some things that should be common sense, and it's an unhealthy way to think about games as a whole, in my opinion.
Let's start with something basic; two reports don't represent the masses. There are people talking about how short the game is, but there are others discussing how long it is as well. A NeoGAF user has said they're twelve hours in (and are still going), which is more than double what other players have claimed. In addition, the YouTube video showing the entire game features the player almost never dying, and just gunning straight through the title. The cutscenes aren't skippable, but still...playing a game and rushing through it, and then claiming the game is that short...that's not something that should be really paid attention to. All of us play games at different paces; what if I played The Order and wandered around a lot of environments? What if I died a few times? These things could easily add in a couple of hours to my play time, and that'd really diminish the argument of how short the game is.
But that's not the end of it: So what if the game's that short? What if it's a fantastic ride? Again, I'm personally not that interested in the game, but I'm not going to say it's not going to be lots of fun for those who do pick it up, excited for a title like it. This isn't Dragon Age: Inquisition nor Bloodborne; this is a third-person, story-driven shooter. It's an Uncharted-like experience. If that's not for you, you don't need to buy it, nor hate on it. I do understand that some might not want the industry to go in that direction, but again, the game isn't going to take five hours for everyone (nor for most of us, probably).
Fog. Silent Hill? Persona 4? No, it's London.
The last thing I want to mention that people sort of ignore with that five-hour statement is replayability. When Dead Space 2 came out, I beat it in about five hours...within about twenty-fours of it coming out. Then do you know what I did? I beat it again. And again. And again. And again. I played through that game a ton, and it wasn't always for the upgrades/New Game +. More often than not, I just wanted to experience the fantastic gameplay and story again. I loved them both, and that kept bringing me back. I didn't beat the game in five hours and say "well that was a waste of my money"...and people shouldn't say that with the The Order. I beat Metal Gear Rising and Portal 2 in similar timeframes as well, and then I played both of those games again (Portal 2 did have the co-op campaign, but that's beside the point). The fact remains that games are made to be replayable in this day and age. Sometimes, with a game like Rising of Bayonetta, it's done with ranking systems. New Game + is an important feature. But, there's still just the good ol' "I want to experience this again" excuse.
Why isn't this noted more? Why do I need an excuse like rankings, or some sort of "content" to justify a second run? I played through Xenoblade Chronicles, Persona 4 Golden, Virtue's Last Reward, and other games solely to experience them again. That's not something that everyone does, but it's still something that can be done with games...and The Order does look like it fits in that category. Uncharted fits in it; it's one big, wild ride. Just because it might be a bit shorter and doesn't offer multiplayer (which shouldn't bother anyone, considering how hit-or-miss multiplayer can be with new IP [or when it's tacked on a sequel] these days) doesn't mean it isn't worth the price of admission.
I have no idea if the story of The Order: 1886 will truly deliver in a way that does drive that replayability factor I just mentioned. There's no way for me to make that call...but you can't say that, either. You can't really unless you play the game yourself. If you end up beating it in several hours and you're done with it after...well, sure, you might be mad, but that was the experience that was advertised. Ready at Dawn developed a linear experience for you, and didn't promise anything else. If you want something a bit longer, you can try playing it again and explore a bit more, or maybe you can wait a month or two and experience it again, but be more methodical in your playthrough.
The point is that no game should be judged based on a couple of people talking about one aspect of it on the internet, even when it's something as critical as its length. Times can be exaggerated, and for every five hour person there's a twelve hour person too. Games can be replayable just based on their story and gameplay, and, most importantly...if you don't want to shell out $60 for an experience that's not packed to the brim with as much content as an open-world RPG, nor doesn't have a robust set of multiplayer modes like Call of Duty, you don't have to. You can buy other things, too...just don't trust be so pessimistic about a game based on someone running through it without stopping.
Peace.
from Game Informer Magazine http://ift.tt/1fuGB6r
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire