700°

Insomniac Games: R&C is about 11 hours long without completing everything

Ratchet and Clank developer Insomniac Games clarifies game lenght on Twitter.

PixelGateUk3353d ago

Rachet and Clank was the original reason i bought a PS2, excited for more in 2016!

Abash3353d ago

Damn at least 11 hours and only $40 as the asking price? This game is a definite must buy for PS4 owners, cant wait to get my copy!

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

Yep. I feel like I'm not giving Insomniac enough with this game. It looks so good and the lenght sounds just right... Just for $40 bucks. They are still considering the fact this is a remake and not a total original game unlike full priced remastered games.

Thank you Insomniac; Awesome devs as ever

benji1013353d ago

Believe what you want but people on Neogaf have finished this game in 5 hours.

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago

Yeah I choose to believe the developers until I get my hands on it. There're also early players who have reported longer playtime than just that.

xPhearR3dx3353d ago

You also have to take into consideration that devs are wrong 90% of the time when it comes to their games length. Mostly because they all seem to completely underestimate the players.

I'm willing to bet that most players will get through the game within 8 hours if they're saying around 11. Which isn't bad considering it's only $40, but I never trust when a dev says their game is X length because it's almost never accurate.

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

CD project Red wasn't lying when they said Witcher3 takes more than 200 hrs to fully complete. That game took me like 3 months of playtime to get the plat. I would like PS4 to show the amount of hrs we put into games as I think I even put more than that with 2 playthoughts.

It takes longer for completionist and less for average gamers, over 11 hrs and 8 hrs respectively for this game. No way I'm leaving anything undone in this game. All looks so beautiful to explore.

This is a remake of the first game which takes like 10 hrs complete. With new Story, planets, arena(not previously in the first game) and side missions, how the hell can this game be shorter?

Btw I'm not surprise if xbots choose to believe Neogaf on this one. Not that they care about the PS4 for it to be untrue. Hopefully I'm mot wrong. I trust Insomniac

Majister-Ludi3353d ago

It's funny you computer 40 dollars to 11 hours as a fair price. I wholeheartedly disagree. This game is all nostalgia. Won't have a real story that makes you want more. No Multi-player and not much replayability. Games have come along way since this franchise started and it hasn't changed enough for me. I'll pick it up on sale at some point but not worth 40 to me.

TwoForce3353d ago

@Majister-Ludi so you saying that Ratchet and Clank should have multiplayer ? I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of demanding MP. This game is focusing on SP, which i i'm very happy about it. Every Ratchet and Clank have new game plus, so there that.

magiciandude3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

11 hours would be awesome. I will play the game on my beautiful Destiny The Taken King white PS4, to find out for myself. ;)

It better be worth buying.

FITgamer3353d ago

Can't wait either. Longer than i was expecting it will be.

Darkfist3353d ago

@benji101 you believe that one guy who speed run the game, yet ignore the others who said 10 hours? lol okey

rezzah3353d ago

Dont forget the amount of replay-ability R&C games provide.

lunatic00013353d ago

you can actually get it for much cheaper with amazon prime or best buy gamers club...most definitely worth every penny...can't wait

freshslicepizza3353d ago

11 hours isn't too bad, tools of destruction was in the 15 hour area so this is a bit shorter but 10-12 hours is quite the norm nowadays. this is also priced cheaper.

bouzebbal3353d ago

Let's support this so they release some more in the future.

Taero3353d ago

Obligatory "$32 through Amazon Prime either preorder or within 2 weeks" comment.

Retroman3353d ago

@ Abash

hope it dont take 11 hours to find 3 Ripe . you. a . new. one. gun haaaaaaaaa RYNO pieces.
then again im glad it is not 10 pieces as in T.O.D

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 3353d ago
TwoForce3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

@benji101 and xPhearR3dx Remember QB was about 4 hours on Neogaf ? But the game is 8-10 hours long. So you have to listen to yourself than people on internet. Don't be a fool. Even my friend said that the Rachet and Clank is longer than 5 hours. We gamer are also a liar, not just developers. Who said 90 % about developers lie to the gamer, huh ? We Gamer can be a troll, liar or a fool.

xPhearR3dx3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

I'm not talking about listening to people on the internet. Never once did I even mention that. I even said it's probably more around 8 hours long. I'm talking about specifically developers commenting on how long their game is. I'm sure it did take them 11 hours to beat it. The devs are usually not that great at their own games. So anytime a developer says "Our game is X hours long" 9/10 (depending on length) you take away a few hours and that's how long it will actually take most people.

@jb227

You'd be surprised how bad they are at their own games. Just because you can make a game and know everything about it, doesn't mean your good at it. I was a journalist for a few years and played at many events/preview events. 99% of the time when I played with the developers they were terrible.

Plus there's been many claims from devs prior to release that X content is this hard and took the dev team X time to beat it. Yet the community just plows through it like it's nothing. The Division is a perfect example. As much as I love their game, there's a VERY good chance the upcoming Incursions wont be as hard as they say they will be.

jb2273353d ago

@phear

"The devs are usually not that great at their own games."

Wow. Really? Beyond the fact that their internal figures are typically based off an average of the entire studio & a bunch of QA testers, that's a really nonsensical generalization to make. Any data or even a single idea that would suggest that the people who actually create the games suck at playing them?

I'm with you on the idea that some devs inflate their length in order to ease the mind of gamers, but that is typically when a game is far from release & not nailed down. Not a lot of devs would give an estimate twice as long as the actual play time 2 days from release when they could easily be called out for it.

The reality of the situation is that gameplay time is relative & can skew wildly. Maybe the game can be sped through on easy in 5 hours for one player but for another than plays on higher difficulties and do at least a bit of exploring, they can get twice that length. Either way I'm fairly certain that game devs aren't garbage at playing their own games.

benji1013353d ago

I dont think 5 hours is an accurate number but 11 hours is generous. If the game was that large the price would be inline with that.

I dont mind short games at all, but when a dev comes out and pulls a number out of the air about length then it is best to take it with a huge grain of salt.

jb2273353d ago

@phear

I'll take your word for that being your experience, but there's gotta be some exceptions to that general rule as well I'd say. I don't disagree with the idea that devs inflate length at all because we have seen that on numerous occasions, but I've always attributed that as being 2-3 hours wiggle room that inflates length.

I do think that 8 hours sounds like a good median for a single playthrough possibly, but to me it's all down to how well the world is built and how fun the mechanics & story are. If everything is on point I like to explore every corner of the world & take my time with a game, so my playthrough may very well be closer to the top of the key figure personally, but mine won't necessarily represent the majority.

rainslacker3353d ago

@Phear

Exactly where do you get your information that the developers of the game aren't good at playing those games?

These are the guys who play every part of the game, know how to play it, and know where to go within that game, and have been playing the game for a couple years before it ever releases.

I was a game tester, and tested a game which most said would be about 12 hours online, took me about 9 hours to do a full run through without trying to do everything available. I'd imaging if I hadn't spent the prior 18 months learning every aspect of the game, my first play through probably would have been 12 hours or more.

You think developers pull these numbers out of their a**?

No, they know at the time the game is designed, before the first line of code is written, before the first object is modeled, how long they want to make their game, and they strive to make it that way.

I would say if Insomniac is saying it's around 11-12 hours long, the game is probably going to be 9-10 hours for someone who knows how to get through the game, and probably 11-12 for someone's first play through.

On another note, and not directly aimed towards you,

If the time bothers people so much, play the game on hard....that was the recommendation of the guy who said it only took him 5-6 hours to complete. Other more reputable sources have said they're 8 hours in, and it doesn't appear to be close to the end.

But hey, random forum dude is always more reliable than the devs and reputable sources.

blawren43353d ago

By the same token, if anyone here has designed a level on Super Mario Maker or perhaps little big planet, the designer knows where the secrets are what seems easy to them after multiple playthroughs, seems near impossible to a new player. I'd be willing to bet the the designers don't actually factor into the posted length of playtime,as it would never be accurate.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3353d ago
TwoForce3353d ago

@xPhearR3dx I understand. But it up to us if the game is good or not.

xPhearR3dx3353d ago

True, but length doesn't determine if a game is good or not. I beat Until Dawn in like 6 hours and that game was awesome. Beat Heavy Rain in about 7 and it was amazing. It's about the experience, not the length. I'm just saying don't trust developers when they say how long their game is.

starchild3353d ago

@xPhearR3dx

I agree on all points. Well said.

IamTylerDurden13353d ago

Every reviewer is saying a normal single playthrough is 10-12 hrs. That's fantastic. If you play New game+ or go for the Platinum you're looking at 20+ hrs.

benji1013353d ago

XiKurapikaKurta
I fully completed all the main story elements of the witcher 3 in 50 hours. If people wanted to spend more time in that world with that combat system... I have a lot of respect for them.. because after 50 hours the game was getting pretty boring for me.

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

Yeah that was you!

Witcher 3 is a masterpiece and I enjoyed that game. Every sidequest had depth and theor own story. It was a fun game to explore. Worth every penny and time spent in it.

Same with this game. If you choose to not do anything other than all the main stuff then that is your choice. The value is there; take it or leave it

benji1013353d ago

XiKurapikaKurta

For me, after the bloody baron arch the whole game became boring. The characters were not interesting and the combat was far too easy to keep the game interesting. Novagrad is possibly the worst section of an rpg I have ever endured.

InTheZoneAC3353d ago

Like Skyrim, I haven't played it in a while, but every time I do I enjoy it a bunch. And I feel like I put 50 hours into Witcher and that's just barely touching the story and a bunch of side missions.

At no point did I find anything boring in The Witcher 3.

A boring game to me would be Destiny, but only after spending several hundreds of hours into it, yes I have no desire to ever touch it again.

A boring game is Tales of Zestiria or any other lame, no content, empty rpg with terrible controls, terrible environment, etc.

To say Witcher is boring, I suggest you put down the controller and go watch Golf or read some books instead...

Wallstreet373353d ago

Benji i agree

The combat imo with its ballerina bs was just off and didn't allow me to enjoy the game. Yes it bored me to death too. After playing games like bloodborne and Souls most other rpgs just seem bland and Witcher 3 along with Dragon Age Inquisition was just boring

Hey we all have opinions but ive seen many not hailing TW3 as the godsend of rpgs like most make it out to be. Do i think many ppl enjoyed it? Im sure some did, i just didn't. Mind you i love Rpgs and spent more than 200 hours on each souls game.

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago

I won't blame you for feeling like. When I made ir to skellige, I wanted the game it end already. The story is what kept me pushing forward. The gameplay became prerry stale later on
Still amazing game

Utalkin2me3353d ago

I quit the game about 30+ hours in and i couldn't force myself to play anymore. Normally i can stay longer with a game if it is somewhat repetitive, but i just couldn't with Witcher 3.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3353d ago
garrettbobbyferguson3353d ago

It's been seven years since we last had a Rachet and Clank game. I just wish it wasn't a remake of the original.

ShaunCameron3352d ago

Actually, it's been 2.5 years since we last had an R&C game. Remember Into The Nexus?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3352d ago
TheGreatGamer3353d ago

The nostalgia is strong, can't wait for this game!

Majin-vegeta3353d ago

*Completing

Cant wait almost time.

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

Ratchet and Clank game-lenght-concerned "gamers" are the worst thing to happen since Damn Daniel

TwoForce3353d ago

I remember how people play the game for fun.

starchild3353d ago

Well, to be fair there were plenty of people acting concerned about Quantum Break's length, but when I played it it ended up being a decent length. It took me close to ten hours.

I'm not worried about the length of Ratchet and Clank either.

jb2273353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

How exactly is that "fair"? Are you saying that we should just accept trolling behavior because it's fair as a tit for tat thing?

So a handful of people on one platform does wrong then it's fair game for the next, so on and so forth, ad nauseum?

This is a bad trend on any side & it should be shut down. I'm fine with people sharing their experiences, but they should be clear about the nature of their methods in that particular playthrough. I haven't played either game yet, but I already saw with The Order that, maybe in theory a game can be beaten very fast, but that doesn't represent the average playthrough in the slightest, and anyone spreading those figures is absolutely in the wrong. If Remedy lost even a couple dozen sales from those statements, or if Insomniac loses sales based off of them, how exactly is that fair?

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago

Yeah @Jb22. This is why the fanboy war will never end. The action of others justify the action of others and so on. Instead of one group trying to make the difference, they just wait for an oportinity and go for it even if they end up being hypocrites. It's nauseating

starchild3353d ago

I think you guys misunderstood me. I'm not saying it's right for people to troll Ratchet and Clank based on any reports of short game length. Quite the opposite. I was just pointing out that there were similar reports for Quantum Break that didn't turn out to be true for me. Other reviewers also reported quite a bit longer game lenths. Those that want to downplay a game will always try to latch onto the shortest reported times, but we shouldn't take those reports as gospel. I agree that those who do that are in the wrong.

rainslacker3353d ago (Edited 3353d ago )

@jb

The guy that claimed 5-6 hours was upfront about his playthrough. He said he rushed it, and didn't try to do anything extra. he admitted it didn't include any of the post game, any of the challenges, any collection stuff, or anything other than rushing through the story on normal mode.

He also said he had a blast with it, and said everyone should play it, and that he was looking forward to going back and doing all those things which have been part of every R&C game.....

Funny how people leave out the full details when relaying their time concerns though.

@star

I could see QB being as short as people say if they rush through the game, don't do any exploration or collectible stuff, and skip all the cinematic stuff. Maybe not 4 hours, but 5-6 easy. My first play through lasted longer than that though. Might go back and try it with different decisions after R&C, but also working on Tales of Xillia 2 atm, so could be a while.

IamTylerDurden13353d ago

I don't think many ppl are concerned about Ratchet and Clank's length.

A. Ratchet and Clank is reportadly a tad longet than Quantum Break (10-12hrs for R&C).

B. Ratchet and Clank is $20 less than Quantum Break.

C. Quantum Break has nothing to do with R&C, and quite honestly R&C appears to be a dramatically better game that is longer and less expensive. QB got more attention than it deserved. Ratchet and Clank honestly deserves more attention.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3353d ago
KwietStorm_BLM3353d ago

That was like a month ago, so..?

Aloy-Boyfriend3353d ago

Did I fail to entertain you?

PhoenixUp3353d ago

That's the average length of a standard Ratchet & Clank game. I will most likely try my best to collect everything worth collecting and doing.

Show all comments (119)
130°

How ‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’ Did Dual Protagonists Right (And Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart Didn’t)

Shaz from Pixel Swish: “Both Insomniac Games and Ubisoft have given us games with dual protagonists. However, where Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart’s duo feel exactly the same, Assassin’s Creed Shadow’s Yasuke and Naoe feel unique.”

Read Full Story >>
pixel-swish.com
-Foxtrot72d ago

They are exactly the same because it's another version of Ratchet within the multiverse. It's not Ratchet himself or a female version of him but it's someone else who's taken his place / role within that Universe.

The_Hooligan70d ago

Agreed! A better comparison take would have been between AC Syndicate and AC Shadows.

gold_drake72d ago

with ratchet, they are the same, they play the exact same.

im not even sure why this needs to be said, we all know.

isarai71d ago

They weren't trying to make them play differently, literally 2 versions of the same person. Wo ur saying they failed at something they never set out to do 🤨

Profchaos70d ago

What in the f who even thought of that concept and connect these two games that released years apart and have nothing to do with each other.

You could of said fuel protagonist vs other times where AC did duel protagonist or a game like GTA v that allows for on the fly switching

Like how desperate are they for clicks

Levii_9270d ago

Rivet's character was more useless and forced than Abby from TLOU2.

MULTIVERSESSSSSSS!!! Remember that trend people lol? Also remeber how a beloved vilain Dr Neferious was reduced to a braindead wimp and a parody of himself?

P_Bomb69d ago

“MULTIVERSESSSSSSS!!! Remember that trend people lol?”

It’s still going on. Especially @ Marvel.

Show all comments (9)
140°

Insomniac Collectively Decided to "Double Down on Story-Driven Character Action Games"

Insomniac's Ted Price talks about the ballooning game development costs, and how it was a studio decision to focus on single-player games.

Cacabunga93d ago (Edited 93d ago )

Wise decision, but give up a little on spiderman please as well

darkwalker93d ago

In other words, Sony forced them lol.

isarai92d ago

Literally only ever made sp games even when they left sony 🙄😒

-Foxtrot92d ago (Edited 92d ago )

Not really. These days it would be more believable if you found out Sony tried to force them do generic live service slop

isarai92d ago

Which they did and cancelled it, thank goodness 😆

Inverno93d ago

I'll be that guy. Their writing needs work cause the story in both Spiderman games were pretty bad. I'm all for more SP games, I prefer em, but man is writing in games in general just gawd awful.

Extermin8or3_92d ago

First spidermans writing was fine, second hand some points where it could have been better and based on the leaks due to the hack alot of content for cut for whatever reason. Had it managed to stick to the story that was originally written without the sometimes frankly weird changes that were made - it would have been much better written.

Inverno92d ago

I thought the first game was too crowded and the characters that should've gotten more attention didn't get enough due to having a rushed Sinister 6 inclusion. But hey thnx for the reply rather than just hitting the disagree.

-Foxtrot92d ago

"enough due to having a rushed Sinister 6 inclusion"

It wouldn't be so bad if they continued this development in background of Spiderman 2 so when Spiderman 3 comes you had the Green Goblin and the Sinister Six as the end goal.

Oh but no...they decided to have Kraven kill most of them off screen and them kill Kraven off at the end when he was part of the original Sinister Six in the comics, how dumb can you get.

Flewid63892d ago

This isn't even the consensus on these games.

-Foxtrot92d ago (Edited 92d ago )

Depends on what game

First Spiderman had a great story

Miles Morales was alright changing the Tinkerer, giving them a brand new origin as Miles old friend to give him a villain over creating his own original villain (which he REALLY needs, even in the comics) was pretty silly. Some of her decisions, writing wise, in the game just made no sense where her sacrifice in the end didn't feel earned.

Spiderman 2...I'll give you that one. They tried to include far too many things story wise and they just couldn't spin that many plates. Harry's return, friction with MJ, Miles, Miles friends and Family, Hailey, Venom, the Symbiote war, Kraven and his Last Hunt. It just felt all over the place and Peter didn't to really shine like he did in the first game.

Extermin8or3_91d ago

Second game was subject to loads of cuts which is why the story feels off I think. https://youtu.be/VEONGKG1gL...

Travesty92d ago

Where are the days where we could have both a really good story and a really fun multiplayer without sacrificing one of the two.. It doesn’t have to be a live service title to be multiplayer. I understand there’s a lot of work that goes into keeping up with it, but still.

Inverno92d ago

Those days were left on the PS360 era. I spent too much time during my depressed teenage years playing and sucking at Uncharted 2. I know people really enjoyed the Gears MP too, and Halo doesn't need to even be explained. Some games did it right, too many tacked it on, and F2P ruined it all.

isarai92d ago

I think the main problem is that everyone overthinks the multiplayer. It doesn't have to be some Grand live service game with season passes and a giant open world map with a Battle Royale mode.

Show all comments (19)
90°

Insomniac's Delisted VR Games Are Back on the Meta Store

Insomniac: "An update about our VR titles: they're coming back to the Meta Store!

The affected games should be live again: Edge of Nowhere, Stormland, and Feral Rites. 🥽

VR players, we appreciate your patience while we work with Meta restore access to these games."