Gamers no longer want to play games that last 60 or 100 hours according to Silicon Knights president Denis Dyack.
I think most gamers will say on the surface they want the huge long game...but I think very few actually finish those games. Either they just dont have the time to devot to it, or they get bored over the long haul. With so many new games constantly coming out game creators no matter how good the game is will constantly be being one upped if you will by the next good game to come out. We as gamers tend to be a "oh look at the new shinny object" kind of people when it comes to games so games shelf lives have drastically shortend over the past 5 years. Games that have replay value will stand the test of time, Halo 2 comes to mind...but those are few and far between. For me I want a good story, and something i can finish inside of a month with my work schedule and family life. I cant devot every waking hour to the game..but I still want to finish it in a reasonable time and enjoy it.
for devs to cut down development time and production costs, that's all.We'll end up with mindless, complete in 10hrs games that provide very little entertainment, but look stunning. I'll stick to 40 - 60 hr games that take time to build and tell a story etc.It appears the new generation of consoles is heralding the overall decline in quality titles in favour of wonderous graphics.I for one don't want to pay for a game that takes less time to complete, than the time it takes to earn the money to buy it!
where are they getting that 'gamers' are all wanting shorter games. by all means don't skimp on the quality but this sounds like an excuse for chopping up their game into a trilogy which will cost gamers 180 bucks opposed to a flat 60.
calm down my friends !i know for an fact that i don't buy games that aren't at least 20+ .i fell that if you get an action or any game besides sports the game should be long to beat .whats the point of buying an 60dollar game if you beat it in an week .i think thats an waste of time and money and system power.
thats not about: -Numbers -Sales -Gimmicks -Pixels a perspective on games and gaming. Back in the day, games seemed to be shorter when you think about, but they were somewhat challenging. There was less Continues, lives, and you literally had to start from scratch when you died. There was no save points in between. The 2-d games made it easy for you to fall to your doom, unlike 3-D games. Today, with the inclusion of HDD and memory carts, you play a game a little at a time and go back to where you left off. Most gamers can play like 3-4 different games at once. Back in the day I could not afford 3-4 games at once so I really took the time to finish and locate all the secrets in most games. These days don't have all the time in the world to roam around and get every little secret. As soon as I'm done with a game I just jump to the next, or there are times, where I might be playing 3 games at once. Gears of War was probably one of the best games I've played to date, and while a lot of people thought it was kinda short, they also forget, that developers, can sometimes be like movie makers, they are not going to give you a trilogy all in one package. We all know there will be at least 3 Gears. For what it was, I enjoyed it. For one thing, Japanese developers seem to know how to write a good story, then western developers. The Ironic thing is Westerners are better at writing movie scripts. When can these same movie directors start working on scripts for for games. I'm an avid RPG gamer and I don't like RPGs that are somewhat open-ended. I need to know that I have something to do, I have no time to waste just walking around, unless the worlds are pretty and interactive. I guess I'am an old-school RPG person. I need to know I'am working towards something, not just lolly gagging in the bushes. I rather a medium length games depending on the Genre. Platformer - 30hrs FPS - 15hr, these game get repetitive unless the story is great. RPG - 60+ is fine with me, as long as the story is great. Sports - pick up anytime and kick @ss Fighter - 1-2 hrs, depending how many times a tough boss kicks my @ss. Racing - is like sports games, you conquerer a couple of tracks a week. With the idea of Achievements on the Xbox360, I do find some time here and there to go back and locate items, secrets and best my times and such, which can only help the replay value, and lets not forget Xbox Live.(The fun never ends) Currently Playing: FFVII-ps2 Wii-Zelda Waiting for Elite and Forza.
that's a view and i respect that, but please explain 'lolly gagging in the bushes'is this some kind of ambush tactic used in RPG's ? What the hell is 'lolly gagging' and why does need to be done in the bushes?
Lollygagging, or lallygagging, means to loiter, to hang about, perhaps in a relatively aimless way. So I was being sarcastic in a way, I don't want to be aimlessly walking around, hanging around or hitting bushes with a stick because of nice physics or something. figure of speech..bro
denis dyack. denis dyack. games can be great and long too. i don`t need to list of a bunch cause we`ve all played one before. great games can be short but.. come on. thats not what you should aim for. Maybe he`s talking about Too Human. is "Too Human" gonna be "Too Short" i`m just saying if not, why would he say this. but then again this is coming from a guy who thinks games shouldn`t be previewed.
I agree and disagree I think action games are a good length how they are now, I would say about 8-10hrs is ok for an action game. BuT I do expect RPG's to be longer of course.
This is BS, that his "epic" triolgoy is going to be 15-20 hours. I wanted long chapters to play. I already have this game on pre ordered, but like Halo 2 i wish had another 5 to 10 hours on it. There was so much that could have been expanded.
you can keep your too human.. ii'll stick with japanese devs. RPG for the win.
So ,for more money you get less play time.....good idea. When games are reported as way too short ,I dont buy them,I demand my moneys worth.With the exception of MDK and GOW,both were reported as too short but I bought them anyway. But its rare for me to do so.
Gamers want better shorter games? I understand the better part but shorter?????????? who the fvck wants to spend $60 on shorter games? Yeah.... i know... instead of releasing a 40 hour play game... lets release a 10 hour really good but not really good it just saved us a ton of dev money because we made it shorter\better.... well... still not better... just shorter. This dev dude SUCKS!
Developers shouldn't get lazy and cut off a large portion of their game, but he may be on to something. My situation is that I have all 3 consoles and both handhelds and also play the BC games that I never got the chance to play earlier. That makes for a lot of games I end up with. I also work and the friends I hang out with are generally not gamers. I usually only get the chance to play games on my days off. Sometimes I find myself wishing games were shorter so I could finish the stack of games I have laying around. So yeah, I see the guy's point. I can also see where an avid gamer that plays games every day, plays only one console, or can't afford every game he or she wants would not have my problem and would want longer games. Either way Silicon Knights is an awesome developer. Long or short, Too Human will most likely be very good.
my time is short... i've had GRAW2 since it came out, and haven't beaten it yet... same with Splinter Cell: DA, Hitman, etc... i'm all for long games, but 8-10 hour games are cool with me as well.
We are all complaining about paying $60 for games that are 10-15 hrs of story play time...and pretty much infinite online time. Yet we pay $10+ a pop to go see a 1 1/2 to 2 hour movie that for the most part usually will have very little replay "entertainment value" in the theatre experience. It's just funny how everyone perceives the value of stuff differently and what we choose to voice up about and not. Me? I am fine with 10-20 hour games as long as they are truly engaging in story and offer up a solid online element.
longer games = better
I can only assume his reason to say a silly thing like that is because he is releasing a 'Trilogy'. Yes one game spanned through 3 games. Why make a 100 hour game when you can make 3 games that are 35 hours(if that) each for 60 bucks a pop. Gamers want long games. Well least I do ^^ 100 hour games I hope so! Oblivion was almost there but we need more games like it. Hella long and hella in depth. FFX was a weekend :( and so was FFXII. I want an rpg that lasts over a weekend next time.
longer games would be nice to have we all expect RPG to be long but how about action games?? their is a false believe that because the blu-ray disc is capable of it that the games will be HUGE. Theoretically they could make the length of two games in one, maybe even 3 games in one disc, is that going to happen? NO. The only thing I am disappointed in, is the fact that developers are blaming the x360 as the reason why the PS3 version of games will also have the same "limited/identical" content. examples: GTA and DMC. If this is true why don't they just make the extra content for the PS3?? and then just release the extra content for the X360 via Xbox Live downloads??? That way they can continue to screw us xbox360 owners and we still have to pay for the content?? 1 - we could say that it's too much work to have extra content on one system and not the other - well then that just means developers are being lazy and they don't want to do the extra work when they can 2 - we could say that sony could pay to have the extra content on their system but they wont 3 - us x360 owners get screwed, we have to pay to download stuff that maybe was supposed to be on the game to begin with but it wasn't because their was not enough room on the disc
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.