The Order 1886 came out today, but even before it came out full game playthroughs were leaked on youtube and this lead to a lot of complaints about the length of the game being around 5 hours.
For me, at this stage in my life, it was actually a relief when I heard. Since I started the parker power hour, each Thursday I am starting new games and every time I do, I want to finish them. But this just wont happen. Most games are long, even 20 hours is a real grind for me. I have a lot on my plate(I know boo hoo there's too many video games to play). So I am now really looking forward to this 5-hour, story-driven, triple A game.
But the question is now, should it be 60 bucks? My gut instinct is to say yes. That game length should not be correlated to game price. If you give me a high quality game I don't care how long it is. But this argument begins to fall apart when you get lower than 5 hours. What if a 60 dollar game was 1 hour, with no online aspect. Just an hour, and your done. I would think people would have trouble buying it. So there is some merit to how long a game should be.
What's funny is that I remember games always being at the 60 price range, and that some of the old games were really short. Like starfox was maybe an hour or less. But when I was younger I could replay the same game over and over no matter how many times I beat it. Nowadays once I beat a game I am done and happy to have it checked off my list.
I hate to say it but maybe I am turning into Danny Glover (I'm too old for this shit).