You might think that a game massive enough to require two DVDs would provide a substantially long gameplay experience, but you'd be wrong.
While I can see how someone would argue that, since more space equals more room for code, etc.... But Generally extra space today is used to facilitate true HD video, uncompressed video, better textures, or more advanced game code. So the games will look better, probably play much better with added features, etc.... But the gameplay length for the most part is not effected by space, but by developer design. Disc splitting can also cause a decrease in quality, since there is redundant data that needs to be on both discs. So your not getting the whole second DVD for new content. A good example is Final Fantasy 13, PS3 version had uncompressed videos, etc.... The Xbox version had 3 DVD's, but still did not have the uncompressed videos and struggled in some departments graphically. I could sink 90 hours into GTA: San Andreas, which I did on a single DVD. Whereas a game like KZ3 will last me anywhere from 5 to 10 hours, depending on difficulty.
Agree, but every game I know of that needed more than one disc took way more than a day to beat. It's still surprising that Rage is so short.
Why would I think a game that comes on 2 DVD's, to be long? PS3 exclusies are big ass games, a game like Resistance 1 took 18GB, thats 3 dvd's. Does it mean its 3 times longer then other first person shooters on 1 DVD? No... So examiner.com's logic fails.
took me 19 hours to beat Mass Effect 2 (not counting DLC) and I recruited everyone and did all their loyalty missions an it was in two DVDs, and it's under a day
1 day = 24 hrs
Really? It took me 74 hours to do everything in me2 dlc included.
There are games on the DS that take over 80 hours to finish, max file size is 256 megs I think.
malamdra, I don't know what you were doing in that game, but I didn't get any of the DLC until after the first time I beat it, and it took me 52 hours.
Dead Space 2 can be beaten in a day as well. Like Rage it's 2 discs on 360 and 1 disc on PS3.
Mass Effect 2 took me 24 hours to do everything not including DLC on the second to hardest difficulty. Its not that long when thinking from an RPG point of view, but it was just the right length and didn't lose my interest or its charm from start to finish. Just look at Dead Space 2 I really like the game but about 3-4 hours in I just got bored and stopped playing it, I still haven't beaten it. Its one of those games that satisfied my interest for a while but somewhere along the line I decided I saw all I needed. What I'm saying is that length means nothing if the game doesn't have substance or holds your interest. Give me a 5 hour amazing game over a 50 hour "meh" game any day. Of course if they can give maximum time with great gameplay then its win win.
Lol am rather worried for the intelligence of the general N4G community when Blad3star got a disagree with that comment...
I would agree with the idea that more space does not equal a longer game except for earlier comments from Id about having to cut the title. It does not appear the visuals suffered, or the audio. The list narrows. Besides, uncompressed audio and video do make for a better title. There is a reason the internet, particularly gaming sites have progressed from sub HD to HD videos. It matters.
...so the game will be 24 hours long? cool!
By "every game I know of that needed more than one disc took way more than a day to beat", do you mean "every Unreal Engine game"? By your logic, every modern game should have thousands of hours of game-play, because Doom shipped on a single 1.44 MB floppy and had at least 20 minutes of gameplay (according to the speed run archive)...
@nilamo and Twizlex I didn't do any mining but did most of the rest and played on normal difficulty, I had everyone on board and done all their missions and when I got back from the suicide mission I saved the game and it said 19 hours 25 minutes, and it was never my intention to rush through it I didn't spend much time on the Citadel though, it felt like going back to the first game but I did all the missions now that I got Arrival I'll replay it on the PS3 with all the DLC, but I doubt it might take me more than 35 hours I can't see how without the DLC it can take 50 hours, it's not that long, the main story line is only four or five 30 minute missions
News Flash : Wait, there is no news here. Most SP campaigns outside of RPGs are less than 10-12 hours nowadays, nevermind 24.
Of course this is just a lame attempt at fishing for hits, 15 hours is a long time for a first person shooter campaign, but of course the title aims to discredit the game as if people sit down and play videogames 15 hours a day - completely ridiculous. Even the fat stereotypical gamer drinking mountain dew, living off cheetos and ring dings doesn't play that long.
@Cookigaki, funny avatar and nickname!
I give an internet cookie http://www.the-games-blog.c... and a bubble for an intelligent comment that isn't along the lines of "blu Ray is teh best!!11!1!"
But you do know that it is, right?
It depends more on the genre of the game ppl.
i agree.. plus if you choose to do the extra stuff.. i just checked and 1 playthrough with all DLC netting almost all achievements and exploring every world (mining) took me 53H but i was reading that people were complaining that it was TOO short.. so it all depends how much time u want to put into these games.. my cousin played Fallout3 for less then 15H and beat it.. i put 30+ hours and i am not even close but i have more achievements (more side quests done) so its all relative
15 hours is about as long as it took me to beat crysis 2 so that'll be fine as long as rage comes with multiplayer. People buy a $60 cod game each year and that campaign is 4 hours so what's the problem?
rblaze thats good to know about crysis 2 really looking forward to playing it dont get it till the end of the week tho dam . but yea bro i take my sweet time with a game man beat mass effect 2 in like 68 or 72 hrs kinda furgot haha the way i play i know ima get 15hrs if not more from crysis 2
Yea dude so do I. After you beat crysis 2 the first time you can start a new game on the harder difficulties using your powered up suit. It's such an awesome single player campaign. The multiplayer is starting to really shine for me also. I've already played the single player and multplayer combined for probably a good 50 hrs so it was worth every penny. Hopefully rage is just as good. Hey ndl which system are you getting crysis 2 for?
I beat Crysis 2 on Soldier difficulty and went back through and mopped up any collectables/trophies that I missed. My game timer is at just over 9 hours. I still have to play through on Super Soldier so it could end up being around 15 hours total to get all of the single player trophies.
hey bro sorry im replying soo late but ima get it for ps3 man add me if u have one my psn is ndl21
@ dragon82 super soldier will put you through your paces and you will be using stealth and cloak most of the time so your supersoldier campaign will be at least 15 hours long. Good thing is you get to use all your suit powers that you got from soldier mode at the very beginning. @ndl will do man.
RBLAZE188 You must not be very good. I beat Crysis 2 8hrs 5mins 26secs on supersoldier.
I am sorry if it takes you 15 hours to beat Crysis 2 on any difficulty and at any pace, you obviously suck.
I don't think there is a game that couldn't be beaten in under a day (24 hours). However completing a game 100% in under 24 hours is a different matter (esp. RPGs)
GT5 maybe? ;)
You either have a big EGO thinking you can beat any game in under 24hrs, or you have not played many games? What do you consider beating the game...? Getting to the credits as fast as you can? Or playing for the experience and enjoying it to the end? And are you talking in game time or actual time spent on the game? None of this should be about how fast you can beat the game... it should be on how much time you can spend in the game. If I can get to the end of the game in a day... but if played through I can enjoy up to 100hrs of game play... then what is there to complain about? p.s. A few games do exist that have NO ending... just endless play. How are you going to beat those games?
You couldn't beat ff7 ff8 or ff10 in 24 hours and that is a fact. Actually you couldn't beat many ps1 or ps2 rpg in 24 hours and under so you're wrong about your first statement.
I think he is meaning most games today you can easily beat in under 24 hours,which is true. Beating a game is beating a game regardless of what you do. @RBLAZE1988...again Did you not see where he said besides RPG's and 100%, my god you people are something else.
@ bloody napkin Get off my dick dude i never said 100% for any of those games. He said 100% for rpg games is impossible yes i agree but i meant just getting to the credits in ff7 ff8 ff10 would be impossible. Also about your crysis 2 time. The fact that you beat it faster has nothing to do with my skill. I have a different play style then you and like to go through an area thoroughly and kill everyone before i move on maybe you cloaked past every enemy you could. But if you wanna believe your speed makes you more skilled go ahead...whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
@RBLAZE1988 Quit being a defensive douchebag, i corrected the fact that you are to f#$king retarded to understand his comment. Secondly i killed almost everything in the game on my first and only play through on supersoldier and finished at 97%, well almost 97%. So yes it has everything to do with skill if it is taking you 15 hours to beat it and you are not even playing it on supersoldier.
@BloodyNapkin lol i though you unlocked supersoldier difficulty by beating it on hard?
@ujean69 Exactly you thought, supersoldier is open from the get go. Nice try to troll my little friend.
@ujean69 Obviously you didnt think nothing. Cause if you have played the game you would know that you can select any difficulty that you want from the start.
@BloodyNapkin No trolling, just a "mistake". I must have been thinking of dead space 2 which I have also been playing recently, but I guess you've never made a mistake as your probably just as perfect in everthing else as you are skilled in crysis 2. @2Spock I actually have played and finished this game, my gamertag is mr dojo, as I said earlier I just made a mistake.
Already, trying to give Rage a bad name. Way to go sir. The game is literally TWICE the length of your average shooter and yet, "it's too short". Facepalm. Edit: Not directed at you BrianG
Well its simple math, which alot of gamers overlook, the reason why more space(bluray/multiple discs) do NOT equal longer games is because longer games like a 18 hr FPS for example would increase the dev costs significantly maybe even twice as much. Think about how long it already takes for a large team of devs to make a AAA budget FPS game, each level require more animation, design, scripting, debugging, play testing, etc. 2+2=4 More space is not a major is not a major factor for increasing the graphics, between bluray and dvd, both can have superb HD graphics, blurays advantage is having the space for a longer hd game but again theres not much incentive on devs part to go out of their way to show off what bluray can do for content. Crysis2 is the best looking thing on consoles imo, its also one of longer FPS titles this gen, all on 1 DVD. Im sure if Crytek aimed for a substantianly larger game then a 2nd disc would be necessary,but my point is what incentive is there for Crytek or any dev to make a 20hr FPS which is like pouring twice dev costs to make extra content/resources/time into a product that will still retail for the same as the other 8-9hr campaign FPS games and unless the name on the box is Halo or COD theres no garauntee of a significant return on that type of investment. This is exactly why 3rd party or ps3 exclusive devs are not turning out these massive games on bluray in terms of content (longer games), simply put its a unjustified increase dev cost.
We can even broaden are talk to all genres. Fallout can easily suck up 50 hours of anyones gaming time and fit on one disc. Again, it depends on the developers design. And as I said, the majority of space nowadays, especially for newer PS3 exclusives, is dedicated towards uncompressed videos and 3D counterparts of each video. KZ3 being a prime example. I believe I've read somewhere the game code is only 9GB, but the space taken on the disc is over 40GB. In my opinion longer FPS titles do not always work out anyways. KZ3 for me was a thrill ride my first time through, sure it was short, but constantly varied and kept me interested. Crysis 2 was longer, beat it in 7 hours compared to 4 and a half for KZ3. But that 7 hours was very repetitive. Maybe that is why developers do not make 20 hour long FPS's? The cost of designing a story that would effectively capture and maintain the attention of the consumer. And longer games theoretically would take longer development cycles for play testing, etc.... So I don't disagree that longer games COULD cost more to develop. But that surely is not set in stone. A game like Grand Theft Auto 4 lasts roughly 20 - 30 hours and cost about 100 million or so to develop. At the same time I bet Fallout 3, which could roughly offer as much gameplay time, cost much less to develop. Either way more space does not equal longer game, which is what the article seems to be suggesting. Yes more space MIGHT be required to make a game longer, to support the additional levels, textures, etc.... But more space does not equal longer gameplay.
yeah, thats a better explanation, and I agree with your last post
the game looks really damn good and runs 60fps on a console. tech5 is cool more developers should license it. i cant wait for doom 4 though, hoping 2012
Longer time to completion doesn't make a game better or worse. 15 hours is a very reasonable time for a FPS. I have limited time to game so I appreciate the fact its not super long; I'm guaranteed to finish it :-)
one day means 24hrs and with me i like to ride around do some side missions and than carry on with the story i think what ID's devs said was the world is huge but unlike many other open world games where you drive 5 minutes to get to another mission in rage there is something new around the corner IS IT ME OR AFTER THE FIRST TIME WE LOOKED AT RAGE I THOUGHT I WISH THIS GAME HAS THE LOOT SYSTEM OF BORDERLANDS AND IN A OPEN WORLD RPG but since its ID i respect what they have done 60fps in 1080p if i am not wrong is amazing
Im not one for repetative quest! not at all . But I do prefer fresh action and new scenery and characters. Most of these lenghty games with open world sand boxes have serious comprimises with Graphics and immersion.Id rather be in a movie like experience such as Uncharted or KZ3 and blow through and have a so fkin Real time doin it.No thank you to phoney long repetative games like Daed space or Borderlands..OMG especially GTA.its like watching a CGI cartoon over and over.... I d rather go from one wolrd to another jungles to forest to oceans but actually brethe in the scenery .. or sunsets..Uncharted!!!
If Rage were only on 360, chances are it would be 4 player co-op & have the online features of Halo or Gears & be on ONE DISC! Yeah, I'm waiting on the 1st PS3 game to look terrific & have online campaign co-op. See, thats what uses RAM!, not disc space, disc space is NOTHING BUT "storage"!
OMG a FPS that lasts 15 hours. Really? Since when is that short? Fact is fact. Any and all games that exist can be beaten in a day. Just depends on if you have a life going on or not. I don't know about most others, but I generally work 8 of the 24 hours I am around during a typical day. I eat for say 1-2 hours of that. Sleep for about 7-9 hours. Leaving me with 4-8 hours of freetime. I don't see how I could beat it in a day maybe two days or three. I own the game if I buy it so I can play it anytime I want. Why so important that game lasts forever?
ff9 had 4 dics's and that took me 35 hours to beat when ff8 took 40+.
I just got an idea ?? How about they start to charge $250 for a 2 Blu rays set'(100GB game!!)and quadruple their staff and outsource model designs,and triple their budget to produce a games that last 50+ hours that features variety detail and stages the use many different HQ character models and 100's of Hd textures and completely different enviornments and large worlds!!! Perhpas KZ4 or Uncharted 5 or Doom 5 or better yet COD Modern Warfare campaign!!!!??? Who will pay for this level of length and immersion !!! I would!!
It's called using more than the 8.5GB space, on the 360s disc actually, you know, being filled up. For once, a console that can hold up to 50GB has the upperhand here, I.E more of the Blu-rays usage.
15 hours for any FPS is great these days. Plenty of people are already getting ripped off by COD's 4-5 hour campaign with no graphical updates what-so-ever, boring, easy and unchanged multiplayer that lets anyone win, even if they are 7 years old and die all he time.
Haha, good point! 15 hours is pretty good for an FPS, but I thought Rage was going to be more like Fallout 3, i.e. open world with tons to do.
Same here the world of Rage would be AMAZING to explore, but I realized (by looking at the game) there is no way a developer can make a game that looks that good and have it be a sandbox game and run smoothly on consoles. Unless they had very very vast knowledge of the Ps3/360s architecture that even Sony and Microsofts first party developers didn't know about. That is very unlikely since that would be very costly and would require individual teams building the game separately on each platform. Still though I'm getting my moneys worth with 15 hours plus the multiplayer.
It is open world. It's not like script script. You can drive around, do missions, whatever. I saw a preview of it at PAX.
Ah man I though it was open world too. Bummer :(
iD doesn't seem to be changing that much from what they were years ago...Rage more than anything is going to be a tech demo for TE5...their new engine... thats primarily where the game may suffer on length, although i agree with you guys its not like 15 hours is short for a fps...but its extremely short for an open world game... it is design decisions though...even if the 360 had blu ray, I don't think that would massively change Rage's overall design, or game length...so much time and money is being spent on simply finishing the engine, it doesn't leave a ton of room for the game itself... Doom 3 was the same way...a really pretty, but piss poor fps that was used more than anything to showcase their new engine...not all developers do this, many can get away with a ground breaking game that also showcases their engine...look at UE3 for example...though i don't particularly like the look of the engine, its one of the most successful middleware offerings ever created...and Gears of War was THE game when it released, that literally started this generation...I bet those two variables go together hand and hand... iD just hasn't managed to pull of the same thing since Quake III...they make great games, but in my opinion...nothing close to what they used to...
@tmoss726 I'm not 100% sure if it is a true sandbox game. It may have sandbox elements to make it last longer, but again I'm not 100% on that. I got the opportunity to check out some gameplay at last years E3 and again it looked like sections of it have open world sections with linear missions throughout that add to the story. Kinda like the short open world sections in Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. Again I'm not going to claim anything because I haven't played the game and have seen very little of it, but from what I saw you could see it either way (complete open world or game with sandbox elements).
Get it out of your head that Rage is anything like Fallout 3 or you will end up sorely disappointed. Rage is a FPS with car combat and some exploration thrown in for good measure. But it should be compared to other FPS games because that is mostly what it is. I have high hopes for Rage. If it is going to run at 60fps and look that good on the consoles it is going to look and run even better on my rig. I just hope the gameplay lives up to the outstanding graphics.
Theres no MP to support a 15 hour FPS???? id are mad.
@EazyC There is mulitiplayer Id is not a stupid developer
yea bro i hate that most developers now are focused more on multiplayer and slap together a quick campaign just to ship the game (cough cough cod ha ha ) but yea man im more of a single player tipe . i enjoy a great story instead of multiplayer just wish more developers focused on single player
Where have you been all my life! LOL jk, but yeah I totally agree with you on that a game is based on the singleplayer experience. If the singleplayer sucks how can the multiplayer succeed? Multiplayer to me is fun, but eventually it bores me because nothing draws me in as much. But I wouldn't say all developers are doing that, actually (thankfully) a majority of developers are focusing equally on both and some (Naughty dog and Bioware) are creating amazing singleplayer stories. I hope it stays that way.
I never would have thought a FPS could be beaten in 24hrs. Most are only 8hrs.
If this was a traditional FPS(cod,kz,ect) i would agree, but from what we understand this will be open world with RPG elements influenced by fallout(which was about 65 hours for me)
Its an FPS with RPG elements tacked on, and exploration made for driving around in your car. It's just an FPS. Nothing else.
15 hrs is triple the length of some recent fps so why on either is this even am issue? Everyone knows it on two dvd disc because of the graphics. Cant wait for this game