Resident Evil 7: Beginning Hour

[19QOS19]

Is knowing exactly how long you've played a PC thing? Unless it's something like GTA that actually tells you, I've never been able to know for sure how long I've played a game.

[54_and_counting]

6 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

Is knowing exactly how long you've played a PC thing? Unless it's something like GTA that actually tells you, I've never been able to know for sure how long I've played a game.

final fantasy had a game clock as well, obviously early resi games did as you got achievements for finishing in under 3 hours

[accies1874]

Is knowing exactly how long you've played a PC thing? Unless it's something like GTA that actually tells you, I've never been able to know for sure how long I've played a game.

Some games have it in-game. If you have a PS4, you have to go into "system saved management" or something to see it for certain games.

[killie_lad]

8 Hours for a single player AAA title is a complete joke. The Resi games have all previously managed around the 14 hour mark for first time play thru's give or take, so to lose almost half a game compared to the previous titles is not acceptable. Resident Evil 2 was the gold star when it comes to the franchise and with 4 campaigns and 2 side games available you could easily get 60 hours from it. I dunno when it became the norm or completely acceptable for AAA titles to have campaigns that run for less than 10 hours, over the past few years we have been watching games get smaller and smaller and the prices get higher and higher and people are just happy to shut up and pay up for this.  I recently just passed 1000 hours gameplay on Fallout 4 and while im not saying i want all titles to give me this much for my money but it needs to improve or that big crash that's been looming will rear its ugly head. 

Fallout 4 is a waste of cash to me though, boring gameplay and story, uninteresting characters and full of filler. I'd rather 8 hrs of enjoyment than 1000 hours of fallout. You look at films, what £15 for 2 hours on 1 viewing? In comparison games are better value for money and the movie industry is doing just fine. Personally I'm sick of all these games with huge open world's with nothing interesting to do.

Horizon zero dawn looks brilliant but I can't get too hyped for it, I can see it following the trend of having 100 different fetch quests and stretching the story in the name of content.

[Ludo*1]

Fallout 4 was dull as f**k. It had a certain clientele which it appealed to. It was an absolute empty shell of a game though. I'd much prefer 8 hours of entertainment from a Resi game than the 'left to your own device's' that Fallout had which was miles of wasteland where there was nothing to do.

[killie_lad]

Fallout 4 was dull as f**k. It had a certain clientele which it appealed to. It was an absolute empty shell of a game though. I'd much prefer 8 hours of entertainment from a Resi game than the 'left to your own device's' that Fallout had which was miles of wasteland where there was nothing to do.

Exactly. The division, watch dogs, far cry (3 was good though), the newer assassins creeds. Rather than make actual good games they make ones where they can boast 100hrs of gametime, I know ill get more enjoyment from 8 hours playing the last of us or resi than all of them put together. The Witcher was gid though, I'll give you that.

[killie_lad]

[Ludo*1]

I 100% get an 'open world' game. They can be amazing. Skyrim, Gta, The Witcher (Although I've not played that myself) are all brilliant games and they are value for money in that you can just do whatever you want. I was extremely disappointed in Fallout 4 though. I get that a nuclear apocalyptic wasteland ain't gonna have much to it, but when you have to go wandering for miles to see a random Hut or building to take you away from the tedium of sand and desolation then it's not for me.

The first three and code veronica resi's along with SH 1-3 tell much better stories than practically any game that comes on the market these days such is the obsession with games that can have an 'open world'. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a linear game that doesn't last 100 hours.

That being said FF7, 8 and 10 are the perfect games in that regard in that they were fairly linear and had open world's (at the time).

I'm not a fan of first person and it's genuinely put me off this game until I invest in VR. That said, I'm glad it has revolutionised Resi.

[19QOS19]

Had a quick hour of this on VR last night. Nothing much happens for the first half hour and it's practically the demo. Then someone appears and there's a wee twist. Fucking shat myself a couple of times. Good start though and the squeaky floorboards and quiet surroundings are building the suspense nicely. VR really does intensify things. My guy walked into a chair and I jumped

[54_and_counting]

4 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

Had a quick hour of this on VR last night. Nothing much happens for the first half hour and it's practically the demo. Then someone appears and there's a wee twist. Fucking shat myself a couple of times. Good start though and the squeaky floorboards and quiet surroundings are building the suspense nicely. VR really does intensify things. My guy walked into a chair and I jumped

shitebag

im no playing the game at all, too scared

[54_and_counting]

14 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

I 100% get an 'open world' game. They can be amazing. Skyrim, Gta, The Witcher (Although I've not played that myself) are all brilliant games and they are value for money in that you can just do whatever you want. I was extremely disappointed in Fallout 4 though. I get that a nuclear apocalyptic wasteland ain't gonna have much to it, but when you have to go wandering for miles to see a random Hut or building to take you away from the tedium of sand and desolation then it's not for me.

The first three and code veronica resi's along with SH 1-3 tell much better stories than practically any game that comes on the market these days such is the obsession with games that can have an 'open world'. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a linear game that doesn't last 100 hours.

That being said FF7, 8 and 10 are the perfect games in that regard in that they were fairly linear and had open world's (at the time).

I'm not a fan of first person and it's genuinely put me off this game until I invest in VR. That said, I'm glad it has revolutionised Resi.

final fantasy 7 and 8 especially were sneaky as f**k, when you eventually make it to the world map you felt like it was an open, wide world game, but it sneakily continued to edge you along the storyline just enough to keep you going but not enough for you to really notice (partly due to the engrossing storylines as well)

you could argue that resi is the same to an extent although more noticable, you can explore and do shit, but when the story needs advancing you'll find the key or item needed for a certain puzzle and immediately go and do said puzzle without thinking

[EdgarusQPFC]

People have been able to speed run the game in 2 hours. The 8 hours i referred to is a normal lets play. The last Resident Evil i played (The remake of RE1) took me 14 hours, so almost double the time this one apparently takes. 

Clearly if ive done 1000 hours on Fallout(btw steam keeps logs of playtimes, i forget who but someone asked) its because i've had fun on the game. When i play a game i consider a ideal ratio being for every £1 i spend on it i get an hours fun out of it, there are plenty of well made single player games that give incentives for multiple playthru's (new game+'s with increased challenges etc) Recently completed The Evil Within, a very similar game in all respects as it was created by the guy who started the resi franchise, i spent £20 on the game and season pass, i got 48 hours out of the game with new game plus and dlc campaigns. Took me 15 hours to complete it the first time so its clear that this genre can do more than a pathetic 8 hours. 

[Boostin' Kev]

Very happy that I ditched Fallout 4 to play Witcher 3 instead, it's the first open world game I've played that I didn't like.  Couldn't believe how boring it was.

[forameus]

12 hours ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

People have been able to speed run the game in 2 hours. The 8 hours i referred to is a normal lets play. The last Resident Evil i played (The remake of RE1) took me 14 hours, so almost double the time this one apparently takes. 

Clearly if ive done 1000 hours on Fallout(btw steam keeps logs of playtimes, i forget who but someone asked) its because i've had fun on the game. When i play a game i consider a ideal ratio being for every £1 i spend on it i get an hours fun out of it, there are plenty of well made single player games that give incentives for multiple playthru's (new game+'s with increased challenges etc) Recently completed The Evil Within, a very similar game in all respects as it was created by the guy who started the resi franchise, i spent £20 on the game and season pass, i got 48 hours out of the game with new game plus and dlc campaigns. Took me 15 hours to complete it the first time so its clear that this genre can do more than a pathetic 8 hours. 

Well you can't really compare the two yet, given that RE7 appears to have a very busy DLC schedule.  Plus, RE7 appears to have been very well received by critics so far, Evil Within didn't really as far as I can remember.  Maybe it would've been better if they had condensed it a bit.

I can see your point, and it's fair enough.  You're hardly going to be alone in thinking it as well.  For me though, it's all about the context of the game.  Like I said, if they spin a good story that doesn't drag in places and get a good, solid 8 hours of gameplay into the 8 hours you're actually playing, then that's fair enough.  Put it this way, and genuine question, would you rather the game was as it was, or had been stretched to, say, 16 hours, but had the same level of original content in it?  Let's say they extended out a few sections, repeated a few, and stretched the story they had to breaking point just to eke out some hours.  Would that be better?

It's extremely rare that a game nowadays has the content to justify the number of hours it will take to play.  FO4 was a very good game, and I spent a lot of time on it, but it was pretty shallow.  Did I enjoy it?  Yeah, but to be honest I'd prefer a more focused game that was shorter rather than the artificial padding that a lot of games put in now.  For example, I just bought the Ezio Collection because I never got a chance to play the AC games when they first came out.  Looked up that it's likely to take me 30-40 hours to complete the 3 of them to a basic degree.  And reading that, with the relative lack of time I get to play nowadays, is a bit daunting.

EDIT: Plus, the best RE game there ever was (RE2) had a specific achievement for running its story in under 2 hours.  I came pretty close to it a few times.  Granted it had extra modes to add to that, but it still wasn't a long game.

[54_and_counting]

Given there are two endings to resi 7 you could argue that the playthrough time is well over 10 hours to see both endings, also imo the developers will have focused more on the first person mode, ive seen some videos where people are creeping about in the game because you dont have a full visual of your surroundings, 

You cant just wade into a room now, see where the enemies are and go to a safe part of the room to deal with them, i would say the new focus is more about absorbing the atmosphere, the surroundings, the actual gameplay instead of autonomously wading through enemies, if you have 8 hours of constant gripping gameplay then good stuff, hell for all the plaudits resi 2 got, i mind the utterly soul destroying backtracking through the same parts over and over again with nothing to do because you killed everything first time around

[EdgarusQPFC]

4 hours ago, forameus said:

Well you can't really compare the two yet, given that RE7 appears to have a very busy DLC schedule.  Plus, RE7 appears to have been very well received by critics so far, Evil Within didn't really as far as I can remember.  Maybe it would've been better if they had condensed it a bit.

I can see your point, and it's fair enough.  You're hardly going to be alone in thinking it as well.  For me though, it's all about the context of the game.  Like I said, if they spin a good story that doesn't drag in places and get a good, solid 8 hours of gameplay into the 8 hours you're actually playing, then that's fair enough.  Put it this way, and genuine question, would you rather the game was as it was, or had been stretched to, say, 16 hours, but had the same level of original content in it?  Let's say they extended out a few sections, repeated a few, and stretched the story they had to breaking point just to eke out some hours.  Would that be better?

It's extremely rare that a game nowadays has the content to justify the number of hours it will take to play.  FO4 was a very good game, and I spent a lot of time on it, but it was pretty shallow.  Did I enjoy it?  Yeah, but to be honest I'd prefer a more focused game that was shorter rather than the artificial padding that a lot of games put in now.  For example, I just bought the Ezio Collection because I never got a chance to play the AC games when they first came out.  Looked up that it's likely to take me 30-40 hours to complete the 3 of them to a basic degree.  And reading that, with the relative lack of time I get to play nowadays, is a bit daunting.

EDIT: Plus, the best RE game there ever was (RE2) had a specific achievement for running its story in under 2 hours.  I came pretty close to it a few times.  Granted it had extra modes to add to that, but it still wasn't a long game.

Not concerned that rather than give a full game they are padding the DLC instead? I do see your point about a good game vs a long game, i agree id rather get a great 8 hours than a okay 16, but when i see that overall games are getting more expensive and your getting less bang for your buck i cant help but be concerned. 

[forameus]

5 minutes ago, EdgarusQPFC said:

Not concerned that rather than give a full game they are padding the DLC instead? I do see your point about a good game vs a long game, i agree id rather get a great 8 hours than a okay 16, but when i see that overall games are getting more expensive and your getting less bang for your buck i cant help but be concerned. 

Yeah, that's fair enough.  And the DLC padding is worrying, especially when you're starting to see more games withhold content that could - and should - have been in the main game.  But as long as people keep buying it, they'll keep doing it unfortunately.  Maybe they'll be some point in the future when it all comes crumbling down and things start getting better, but I'd doubt it.

If they didn't for the Order 1886 (which was about 3 hours or something wasn't it?) then they're not going to stop any time soon.

[EdgarusQPFC]

Just now, forameus said:

Yeah, that's fair enough.  And the DLC padding is worrying, especially when you're starting to see more games withhold content that could - and should - have been in the main game.  But as long as people keep buying it, they'll keep doing it unfortunately.  Maybe they'll be some point in the future when it all comes crumbling down and things start getting better, but I'd doubt it.

If they didn't for the Order 1886 (which was about 3 hours or something wasn't it?) then they're not going to stop any time soon.

I heard about that Order 1886, a glorified tech demo

[killie_lad]

Just finished it there, 11 hours it took me, what a fucking great game. Really what the resi Franchise needed tbh and next time I see someone call it an outlast clone I'll know they're a moron that hasn't played the game, I get why they might think that from the previews but it's very much a resi game. Seriously impressed. Regarding the length, I could trade it in and get £30 for it meaning its only costing me £7 for 11 hours worth of entertainment, want to play though it again and see what the bad endings like.

[19QOS19]

Just finished it there, 11 hours it took me, what a fucking great game tbh. Really what the resi Franchise needed tbh and next time I see someone call it an outlast clone I'll know they're a moron that hasn't played the game, I get why they might think that from the previews but it's very much a resi game. Seriously impressed. Regarding the length, I could trade it in and get £30 for it meaning its only costing me £7 for 11 hours worth of entertainment, want to play though it again and see what the bad endings like.

I'm about 50 minutes in. I was given an axe so from that point on I won't be thinking of Outlast. The point of that game was to run or you died. As I've already bashed someone's head in it's certainly not Outlast. As you say, they've not played the game if that's what they think.

I had heard there were 2 endings. Do you have to start from the beginning to get the other ending?