The controversy surrounding the recent release of The Order: 1886, brings up the issue of the length and replay value offered by a new triple A video game release. The Order: 1886 has received major criticism for having a short, or perhaps average-length campaign, as well as the fact that it offers next to no replay value after beating the game. According to critics, there is really no other reason to play the game again after beating it. Develop recently interviewed The Order: 1886 game director Dana Jan, and Jan spoke about quality video gaming vs. quantity. However, why does a major triple A game release have to choose one over the other? Quality video gaming and the amount of time and replay value a game offers are not opposing ideas. In fact, the best video games offer a high quality gaming experience in addition to a hefty quantity of game time.
The advent of modern multiplayer content has offered a lot of additional gameplay value and time to new games. All games do not have multiplayer, but the feature offers a new competitive outlet to games. Multiplayer provides players with another way to play and enjoy the game longer, outside of the main campaign. That is reasons that the Call of Duty franchise is so lucrative. Another boon is the New Game+ Mode that many new triple A games offer. New Game+ allows players to re-experience a game, but they have all the perks, abilities, weapons and upgrades accrued over the course of the game. The difficulty for New Game+ is typically harder than the normal setting, but the extra perks give players an added edge to tackle the increased difficulty. Unfortunately, a game like The Order 1886 has nothing to offer in terms of multiplayer or new game plus.
Some of my favorite games have no multiplayer, but they feature high-quality graphics and detail, along with a heaping quantity of content. A good example is Batman: Arkham City. Even without the DLC, the single-player campaign has a lot of content. It offers an open-world sandbox players can continue to explore even after the game is complete. In addition, the single-player campaign features a great deal of side quests that offer added story value. Arkham City, like Arkham Asylum, has no multiplayer campaign. However, there are objective-based challenge maps that offer additional play. The challenge maps also rank players on a leader board and offer a competitive outlet of sorts for Arkham City.
Another favorite of mine was the PlayStation 2 version of Resident Evil 4. Resident Evil 4 had a pretty nice, sizable single-player campaign. The game offered a ton of additional content for added gameplay after beating the single-player mode. This included the Separate Ways campaign. Separate Ways campaign was a short story add-on showcasing the story of Ada Wong during the events of the actual game, which focused on Leon Kennedy. There was another added mini-game called Assignment Ada, where players again assumed the role of Ada to battle through enemies and retrieve samples. Finally, there was The Mercenaries minigame. The Mercenaries was basically a short, battle royale. It now seems that fewer games are following the example of a Resident Evil 4. Resident Evil 4 was a groundbreaking and amazing third-person shooter. However, it was a high quality game that also offered a lot of content.
The argument that a big triple A game release has to be a smaller size steak that tastes a lot better is invalid. More often than not, the best games find a way to achieve both amazing visuals and incredible replay value.
0 Comments