Llyranor

Which begs the question: if one is to play a game 30-40 times through, what difference does it make if it's 10 or 20 or 40 hrs long?

You can shove it up your nose. Oh, and bypassing the CD check without using some 'patch' is nice, too.

That's one of the main benefits. I'd rather know that my money is mostly going to supporting the devs directly than have some stinking manual I'll barely read.

I'm, er, playing that too "

Well, here's what Panther's latest update (today, actually) says: Thanks for the tip, I'll check out that game. EDIT: Wait, there's no demo yet. Nor of the previous game, either. Aww. Turn-based squad-level tactical combat. Is it similar to Silent Storm, then (but with wargame-level realism)?

Hahahahaha, it's been tried before. Numerous times. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, but you also need psychological help. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, YOU need psychological help. R00FLES

Just tried out some scenarios of the Airborne Assault: Red Devils Over Arnhem demo. Very cool wargame. Little squares shooting each other, teehee. The subordinate AI is very impressive. I'll be supporting their next game.

I take you seriously! You're my American idol!

Heh, maybe you guys should focus on sandbox-type games? Bioware and Obs are trending towards shorter games. What's left? Bethesda? R00FLES

Heh, I don't even time how long it takes to me to finish games anymore. At best, I can come up with estimates after the fact. Just the realization that my fond memories of games I've played have had nothing to do with their length. Tagging a value based on length alone is like trying to come up with a mathematical formula for fun. I guess the answer is 42.

Well, better that than console mech games. Congrats.

Aww, Herve Caen isn't such a bad guy when you get to know him.

Take Command - 2nd Manassas Hearts of Iron II - Doomsday Red Orchestra - Ostfront '41-'45

Why the freak is everybody referring to their own bloody selves as 'we'? Is this some kind of Gromnir holiday?

Meh, people who play through CRPGs 30 times are lamer.

We all know POR2 and TOEE sold millions.

Heh. You couldn't pay me to replay most of those.

The lawsuits at around the same time didn't help, I guess.

And just out of curiosity, gromnie, how much did it take you to finish FO, and how satisfied were you with it?

"Learning from your mistakes usually means that you get to do new mistakes." Which is already a step up from stagnation. Though, I guess some people like the status quo of mediocrity, since it's pretty subjective.

That'd be the main strike against CURRENT digital distribution. The costs haven't gone down significantly yet to compensate for the removal of the physical product. As it becomes a more popular method of distribution, though, we shall see.

The devs already pointed out that story/writing is technically done. One wonders in a way if what happened with KOTOR2 is actually a contributing factor in a potential shortening of NWN2. Heh.

It has nothing to do with length. It's about the design. I have no problems with a 200-hr game with excellent design throughout. "10 hours chatting, 5 hours combat, 10 hours chatting, 20 hours combat" is bad design, and precisely how people can multiply a game's length by adding 'content' that really is just an afterthought. Arbitrary segmentation of the game into 'story/roleplaying' and 'gameplay/combat' elements is bad. That's where the 'let's add more combat, add another dungeon!' comes in. Their relative mutual exclusion comes through as outdated. Does the story suddenly stop because you enter a 'dungeon', or is it because design dictates that area as filler? The ultimate culprit is lazy design, regardless of the game's length. A projected length (whether false or not) doesn't show anything about the quality of the design. If the game is 20 hrs and shows better *consistent* design than what the genre currently offers, then it wins in my book. If it doesn't, then it has already lost, in which case I could care less if it's 20 or 40 hrs. It could still be enjoyable, but then all that'd matter is that I'd feel the game provided a complete experience. Would I want a 40-hr game with consistently good design? Sure, I'd want a 500-hr one, and I want Patrick Steward and awesome soil erosion and next-gen graphics and a full orchestra and top-notch writers too. People always want more, but people don't matter. Would you rather play through 20-hr FO, or 60-hr POR2? And hey, I'll admit my point of view is influenced by the fact that (if it works, of course), NWN2 is already virtually guaranteed more lasting value than all CRPGs I've played before even if it had NO campaign. Would I be happy with a singleplayer-only 20 hr CRPG? Given CURRENT design? No, but that'd have more to do with trying to compensate relative lack of quality with quantity. It might fill you up temporarily, but you get hungry again soon after. In a way, if the industry trends are aiming for shorter games (you can debate how packed they'll be, but meh), then in a sense the console trend is almost a good thing. 'Rental' games have their appeal, in a way.

Only if you want to make the assumption that most current RPGs with their 30-40 hrs have 'good quality'. You might, but I'm not.