According to noted industry developer Denis Dyack, the era of milking a game for replay value is over, as more and more consumers want shorter, better games.
Price can go up, but gameplay hours can go down. I love this logic.
So we pay $60 for a game....its totally awesome graphically...but the replay value and game length is short...
Games that are 100+ hours have so much filler, and to be honest I get too bored to continue playing. I would rather have a shorter game and have a nice progression, and the satisfaction of actually completing a game.
...so stop acting like you know everything. If you're making a single player ONLY game, then I personally would expect it to be long, cuz really... like ConsoleCrusader said, you're dishing out $60 a game, so you want it to last. If it's both Online and Multi-player influenced, then the single player doesn't need to be THAT big in my opinion. Gears of War is good example of that... while I would have liked to see more story, I enjoy playing with my friends online all the time.
So what does Mr. Dyack think about all the players still playing Counter-Strike, Halo 2, and WoW (I know he commented on WoW but only in his experience). You're paying for an experience you hope will last, otherwise gamers aren't going to buy the game, they're just gonna rent it.
translation: the game I'm making is short but good.
I love my 80 + hour RPG's.
I for once would hate to play a game for 6 months before moving into another. There is only so much content due to the cost of making games that developer will start dragging... RPG games will spawn an ememy ever 5 seconds in order to create the ilution of longer gameplay, action games will make you go the entire level and then ask you to go the begining to rescue another character. I think the story of a game shouldn't be driven by how many hours of game play should be put into the game. There are other methods of adding replay value. Microsoft has done some such as achivements, other developers have done side quest, hidden levels, ect. Other games have huge replay value when they add online. How many hours do people play Halo 2 after years? I think most of us want to play games to beat them, we don't want to play a game that by the time we beat it, we forgot how we started or what the game is about. Obviously, wouldn't want a game that I can beat in 2 hours.
i love 100 hour games. sorry dennis, but i do. now stop telling gamers how to think, and try and finish your own game that you've been working on for 10 YEARS. i know that you don't want to take the time to put any content into it above the first 10 hours, but i would guess the majority of gamers like games that keep you occupied after the first day or 2.
Seriously, I don't want a 100 hour game that sucks Gimme a shorter game if you can make it good but WTF?? Really, what Moron would be like "Hmm a kick ass 10 hour game or a kick ass 100 hour game for the same price ....... can I just have the 10 hour game, I'm really lazy."
I like long games 80 + hr rpg's and 54+ day per toon mmorpgs
anything less would be uncivilized.
25 hour long game, with replay value, than a game 100 hours long, and by the end you never want to play the game again because you've just spent 100 hours beating it. I beat morrowind, no cheats, no guides nothing, I have NEVER played the game again because I simply do not want to go through it again.
hey if you have nothing else to do a 100hr game is good, but i remember oblivion taking up major hours. Really the last thing i need is a bunch of 100hr games.
I would like maybe more a 50 hour games, but still limited of course.
Mostly though, like Xi said, a 25hr game with replay value would be good for me.
Maybe a 100hr game once or twice a year.
It depends who you are for the most part he's correct,the demographic has changed so much in the industry the hardcore are not the leading force in gaming anymore, the mass wave of new older consumers/gamers are family and career based, try getting an average Wii fan to sit through Oblivion or Blue dragon, they sold well or will but personally i got rid of Oblivion due to its lenth nothing wrong with something like that every once in a blue moon.
You're only fooling yourself if you don't think theres a growing number of people that just want complex action arcade style gaming they can pick up and play socialy with friends and family in between their tasks in their busy lifes. Some of the most successful games this gen and last are just what i explained above can you guess what they are?.
For his game being split up into 3 games. This game appears to not have one thing going for it, length, gameplay, and even graphics aren't that great. I personally don't care for this game for many other reasons, and he has solidified my belief that this game will suck. Did I watch the same video as you Denis Dyack? The ign weekly was supposed to be Too Human ressurection, and the gameplay looked god awful. I don't want to play a 10 hour rpg that has mediocre gameplay thank you very much.
I'll just keep playing zelda, mass effect, ff13, and oblivion for the time being.
Obviously, I think its all due to personal preference. I love oblivion but at the same time I love Gears which is far shorter than oblivion but immense replay value (online multiplayer). Obviously, I dont want to get cheated out of my money but as long as the game is good and is decent length like rpgs with 50 hours or more but at the same time I wouldnt want to play a 30 hour shooter so really as long as devs dont try some bullsh!t with the games, I dont think the length will be a problem.
And to ngg12345- If you are not anticipating the game thats cool. I mean to each his own but until the game has been released I dont think you have any ground to comment on the length, gameplay., or graphics simply because it isnt done yet.
If you go to gamefaqs.com, the poll on the front page is asking this. It doesn't go up too 100hrs, but so far the most popular answer is 40+ hours.
Personally, I don't like HUGE RPGs where I will play for a few weeks, then get frustrated/bored after 30 hours and then quit playing, only to pick up the game where I left off 2 weeks later and not know what the F#$K is going on.
I prefer games which are 15-20 hours, (Oblivion is an exception because I didn't have to follow a direct path as in linear games). Also, Oblivion (and others) now have the "quest logs" where you can see what your objectives are for review at a later time.
Action games are fun but after a while, they become repetitive. I mean, you rarely get new equipment/moves/abilities/magi c/whatever after a certain point in the game. After that it's just killing stuff.
Ok well after toking I ramble on and on. I'd like to continue, however I think it's best that I draw the line somewhere. Ok bye.
as it stands now 6 hours of game play gets blasted. Even 8 or 9 to 12 hours of game play get dubbed "short" when in some sense they are; at least with great games which you leaving wanting more. I've even heard gamers complain about 12-20 hour games being to short. The bottom line is that just like numerous other topics and gaming there is no happy medium. Gamers will always find something to complain about be it length, graphics, game play, they'll find something to complain about. Then of course there's little notion that points out, different strokes for different folks.
Truth be told the length of a game is an afterthought in my book. If a game can deliver an excellent experience and clock in at about 9+ hours then I'm normally happy. A game only lasting about 5-7 hours should have a lighter sticker price. I think $4o last gen was kinda stretching it so with prettier graphics, better physics, etc, $4o for an uber short game might be worth it. Plus there's little factor called genre. In which an RPG should be no less than 40-50 hours and expand for upwards of 100 or 200+ hours. Granted not all RPGs have to be mind numbing long, but it's always nice to get into one every now and then...
Anyway that's a pretty whack statement. Last gen all to many games weren't worth their sticker price at $4o or $5o and this gen not much has changed other than the eye candy. Granted some games have used the next gen hardware for better physics, and game play, but much of what we're seeing are games still milking that price sticker and not offering anything that new. So here's an idea. Why don't you developers try making some next games that really utilize the hardware, then make it pretty and make sure it's worth the money you're asking...
btw: as for gamers not wanting 100 hour games. What!? Yes, Gamers do want them. We just don't a MILLION of them every year. There's nothing more that screams value and allows you to play it till you're done than a 100+ hour game. It doesn't leave you wanting more. It doesn't leave you feeling ripped off for your hard earned $5o-6o...
Before this news everybody loved Oblivion, now they hate it
Peter Moore Says Gamers Don't Want FPS Games
Everebody: "Halo 3 will suck"
people do like 100 hr games
well all the rpg fans do
im playing ffxii and got 75hrs now and im not done yet
But if a game doesn't have a lot of replay value, the main story better pack in the content and leave a lasting impression for 60 dollars. Games don't have to drag on, but so many games seem to end just as soon as they really start to pick up.
While 10-20 is perfect for FPS or action games.
One of the things that tends to put me off on shooters is the severe lack of story telling throughout them. They're made too short to really immerse me. With modern consoles theres really no excuse for it anylonger. They could easily throw in some "radio communications" or "platoon exchanges of conversation" throughout the games without cutting to a CGI or story section. Add more areas that you may not need to go through to advance the game. Something.
I just feel with most shooters I feel like I'm being hustled through the plot... "Your part of an elite squad of [insert hokie name here], shoot the Germans and\or Aliens with these 6 guns, Wow theres a hot chick you can't have cuz your too busy fighting to stay alive, did you survive for 5 hours? YEAH!!! You won.... or did you?!?!? Stay tuned til' net year for the not very thrilling continuation and/or conclusion, and remember to drink your OVALTINE KIDS !
Every shooter just seems to randomly skip through alot that could be both fun levels and a good chance for the dev's to actually get me to care why I'm shooting something besides it just beeing "mean looking", and give me a reason this character gives a rats ass about saving the world.
It kinda makes me sad that one of the most active genre's in gaming tends to have less depth than the Mario or Sonic series. They need to really step up the effort or in a couple of years the whole thing may go the way fighters did for the last 4 or so years and give a good howdy to the DODO bird for a spat. But either way you look at it, if they're gonna make the games shorter to keep the masses happy then why do they still think they can charge the same amount for admittedly less work.
EDIT: Yes, if GOW or R:FoM were 100 hours I would have loved them that much more.
I agree. No one with a normal job has 100 hours to spend on a game.
@Jason xg1 - True indeed. Although, personally I'd cut it to 40-50 hrs for an RPG.
i think all games should be at least 25-30 hrs. with games like gta, fable,mass effect,lair in the 70 range or more.
I completely agree with him. Nowadays I prefer games that are 10-15 hours long, 25-30 hours is absolutely the most I'm willing to put up with (The Elder Scrolls games are an exception, but I have a very special relationship with Bethesda's babies).
Quality is much more important to me than quantity, especially since free time becomes so precious when you grow a little older (I'm 27).
To look forward to unless you just want to buy it and make Microsoft even richer but than again the way there doing there losing money so I dont even think buying this game is going to help them be richer considering they make counterfit patents like the one that I read about Microsoft got sued over something and now there going to lose $1.5 billion dollars if they keep doing that there going to lose more than a $1.5 billion maybe like $160 billion I wonder how many counterfit patents that Microsoft made so they can save alot of money.
I haven't read an article from a game developer this friggin stupid in a long time. I think he is using this nonsense as a ploy to release his BS game trilogy, where he conveniently forgets to name the price, although most of us can guess it's going to be $60 a disc.
So, he feeds us this crap, telling us we want shorter games, and because of that he will be releasing his game in a set of three. I cannot believe that. I truly believe this to be a tactic to milk more money out of everyone. I don't honestly believe he thinks users want shorter games. It's apparent that users do NOT want shorter games.
World of Warcraft. A community of 8.5 million players. It's a game that never ends. It doesn't have 100+ hours, it has thousands.
The Sims. The best selling game in history. It's a game that has complete replay value. You can play it, quit it, play it again, quit it, play it again, and keep building and rebuilding.
Morrowind/Oblivion. Two games that got console players to dedicate numerous time towards. Definitely not as popular as the above two games, but two games that sold extremely well. Oblivion also keeps coming out with new content to expand it's 100+ hours to even more.
Counter Strike. One of the most popular online FPS games ever created. Never ending, just like any other FPS you play online. More proof that gamers want unlimited replay value.
Myst. One of the most popular adventure games known to man. And, needless to say, another game that sucks hours upon hours out of your life.
There is no more need to continue to pump out more examples, these are enough. It's bloody obvious gamers enjoy long games. Nobody in their sane mind wants to pay $60 for a game they can beat in 8 hours, and have no reason to play again after it's over. Everyone wants the most for their money, and a game with replay value gives you that.
I'll agree with one thing. Maybe gamers don't want a game that is 100+ hours. It would be a pain in the ass if every game you played actually took 100 hours to beat, but guess what, no game ever comes out to be 100+ hours long except for titles like Oblivion, which are few and far between. It's retarded to make a statement like that, making it sound like MOST games are that long, when everybody knows that most games don't come near 50 hours, let alone 100. So many games can be beaten between 8 - 12 hours. That, in my opinion, is too short. Even games like Final Fantasy don't come out to being 100+ hours long. I really don't know where he gets this number. Maybe it's because he's an idiot trying to market his rip-off trilogy idea.
I believe most people want games between 25 - 35 hours long, with good replay value. I don't think many people would disagree with that.
in my opinion when u CAN,u MUST make a good 100hrs worth of playing and all of consumers love it and play it to the end..
u said many titles that people Love them for their huge gamplay time..
Perfect dark zero for 360 is a good eample for FPS and shooters... may be it hadnt perfect graphic and story, but its gameplay make it an amazing product..
he want to make games with lower prduction cost.. thats all
I think to just say "gamers don't want 100hrs gameplay" is wrong. Now, I don't want to SPEND 100 hrs on certain games, specifically when that games involves me having to replay a level over and over again because the developers and stingy with their savepoints. A good example is Dead Rising. Playing a game for 12 hours to get one achievement, and then dying, almost accidently, and having all that time wasted. I don't mind if a game is hard, because then it makes it more rewarding, but I hate having to go through a tunnel filled with bad guys, have all my health drained, and then fighting some bad-a$$ boss who kills you, making you restart the checkpoint and go through the tunnel again. More frequent save point makes it much easily for me, especially as a working man.
Before, games didn't have save points, so you had to complete it in one go. Hence, a 12 hour game seems much longer, because should you switch off your console for any reason, you have to start from the beginning next time. I definitely prefer being able to save, but I don't see any problem in making the game longer because to compensate.
But if games should be 12 hours, instead of 100 as Dyke is saying, then doesn't it make sense that a shorter game should cost less? So before, we spend £50 on a game and play it for 100 hours...now, we want to play several 10 hour games instead...so why are we still paying £50?
And if gamers don't want to spend 100 hours on a single game, then how come I've spent 260+ hours on Oblivion? And I wonder how much I've spent on Gears, and Halo 1 & 2?
So basically, I'll buy Too Human, enjoy it, unlock all the achievements, and then go back to halo 3/Mass Effect and wait until Too Human 2 comes out.
Sounds like a fair deal to me.
Where does he get his claims from? He's probably saying that as an excuse for his game (too human) being short. "oh, the game is short, because ppl want a short game". We dont want short games. Look at how many complaints fable1 got. People even said halo2 was short (even for an fps). Anything below 15 hours is too short. 20 hours, ok, not happy but not upset. 100+ hours = nice to know its there incase i do decide to go all out on the game. For me, personally, with a good story line, i would put in ~80 hours into a game (action adventures/rpgs)
I like a mixture of both - for example one could beat fable relatively quickly if you didn't want to mess around a whole lot. The last dragon quest was like that for me as well. Not sure if this makes sense exactly but I know what I'm trying to say dammit!
Games that are long as in LONG bore me at some kind of moment.
Oblivion is even boring me after 3 hours of playing!
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.