how short is too short?

[BicycleOfDeath]

I'd say over 10 hours at the absolute minimum. It really depends on how I feel when I come to the end of the game. Generally, if a game is ends with just a boss battle... and then cuts to the credits, I'm going to feel a little cheated - if that's the last game in the series. If a game only lasts 5 hours of actual play and 60 hours of scrolling through dialog, I'm going to be disappointed as well. It really all depends on how I feel about the game as a whole. Most cRPGs really aren't RPGs in my opinion. They're just story telling action/adventure games with choices in dialog, but it's all a matter of opinion. If I'm statisfied when the I confront the reason I bought the game, then the game is worth it.

 

Street Fighter only takes 10 minutes to beat yet I've gotten well over a few thousand hours and counting in my life thus far. But, it's not a cRPG.

 

NWN's OC, well, lengthening or shortening it couldn't have saved it from my absense of pleasure with it.

[Gromnir]

"It's the demanding or the self arrogant expecation that he will or should that gets me."

 

it is arrogant to ask for clarification?

 

Gromnir is real clear on what influence he gots, and what he can demand. we gots 0 individual influence and we expect almost nothing. how many times has we said in past couple of days that our only real leverage is our purchase power? we got no illusions.

 

but you know what? as a consumer we gots the right to demand all kinds of stuff... and as a Reasonable consumer we should feels obligated to demands stuff. fergie may not wanna answer, and he ain't obligated to answer, but only the worst kinda fool simply accepts whatever he is told. buy a toaster or set of steak knives or hemorrhoid ointment... whatever. not matter what is product. if you as a purchaser gots questions 'bout the product then what kinda yutz thinks that asking those questions is arrogance. some jerk rep. of a co. refuse to answer reasonable questions about a product we wish to purchase? what kinda industry you gonna have to accept such treatment?

 

how many steak knives will i get with your Premium set?

 

I won't say.

 

huh?

 

At Henckels, we have discovered that consumers are never satisfied with our estimates about the number of knives we will include with a given set, so we make it a policy not to actually announce the number of knives we will include in our various kitchen knife packages.

 

wait a second, are you saying that if i want to buy your Premium knife set i cannot find out what knives are included in the set unless i actually purchase a set, or speak with somebody else who has purchased a set?

 

Exactly, and I am personally offended at the temerity you have shown by actually broaching the subject. Good day sir.

 

oh, and fergie is using us as much as we is using these boards. is advertising space. whenever sp or llyranor or somebody else complains 'bout hype surrounding games where you think that hype gets started? one place is boards like this. obsidian and every other game developer uses boards likes these to builds hype... and good for them. is a smart practice. is cheap advertising compared to print adverts in PC Gamer or other similar sources.... but do not for a second thinks that fergie is simply doing out of the goodness of his heart.

 

So why we ask questions?

[alanschu]

I'd probably rather have a game that is good and 40 hours than fantastic and 10 as well.

 

Depends on what "good" is of course. I love Baldur's Gate, and would love to have another game that is long and keeps me captivated. I found Deus Ex to be an excellent long game as well.

 

But with the cost of game development skyrocketing, I think the chances of a good game also being long is decreasing. Being 40 hours is no indication of quality, and I don't think that 10-20 hours is an insufficient period of time to tell a quality story either (mostly because there are many, many games that do tell excellent stories in significantly less time than 10 hours).

[Llyranor]

Hehehe, isn't this reminiscent of FO3's announcement?

[alanschu]

Probably.

[Cantousent]

Are we not talking about integrity? Llyranor, what if some sort of statement cited Feargus as saying, "We're going to include more content within the same amount of time by doing away with extended dialogue trees? Instead, we'll have an enhanced menu system." The point is not game length. It's clarity.

 

Good Lord, angry Eldar is taking over. I'd better just leave the discussion for a while.

[alanschu]

I'd be more upset if it wasn't 100% following the status quo of publishers not talking.

 

 

He isn't clarifying himself, so just assume it's 20 hours and let it die.

[Llyranor]

Heh. Maybe someone competent should get hold of that German mag.

[Atreides]

Are we not talking about integrity?  Llyranor, what if some sort of statement cited Feargus as saying, "We're going to include more content within the same amount of time by doing away with extended dialogue trees?  Instead, we'll have an enhanced menu system."  The point is not game length.  It's clarity.

 

Good Lord, angry Eldar is taking over.  I'd better just leave the discussion for a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[StillLife]

What I lack in eloquence, I'll make up in persistence.  Ulitmately, I may be insignificant, but I will speak in the hopes that eventually, if others agree, I will not speak alone.

 

Sure, we can be jaded.  We can avoid drama at all costs.  We can lay down before powers the powers we perceive greater than our own and go quietly where we are led.

 

No.  I guess we can't.  You can.  I won't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Amen. If more people took that attitude concerning the things they purchase and insisted that the expectations of quality and value they had for a product be met, services and goods would be so much damn better and worth every penny of their price. Instead you get:

 

"Oh, you're not buying their stuff won't do anything."

 

"Bugs/glitches/exploits in PC games aren't so bad, I'm sure they'll release a patch/moders will fix it."

 

"There's nothing wrong with [insert questionable practice here], companies are in the business of making money after all."

 

"I don't mind games getting shorter as long as they're good."

 

I don't understand why people defend business practices that negatively impact consumers and possibly the entire industry, unless they work for said company. If you are merely a consumer in an issue - then act like one. Don't let your expectations(within reason of course) diminish simply because you realize it's not as profitable for a business to meet them.

 

For the love of all that's holy, don't attempt to dismiss someone who is disatisfied(again within reason) and vocalizes their problems with a business practice/precedent. Adopting that position more often than not harms you. The business in question most likely isn't going to send you a care package for defending and providing excuses for them, or even remember you as anything other than that complacent chump(fanboy) that encourages them to cut corners.

 

There shouldn't really be anyone in this, or the last thread expressing that it's okay for games to be short(er). Unless of course you work for Atari/Obisidain, or have ADD - which doesn't appear to be the case with most of the posters on this board. Good games can be short or long. I'd rather have a good, long game, than a short one.

 

Laying your money on the table to buy something is always a vote. Sometimes it's good to refrain from voting on things you know might lead to inevitably bad things for you or whatever it is you enjoy. Let a companie's PR/marketing department handle the positive spin...unlike you, they get paid for it.

[alanschu]

"Oh, you're not buying their stuff won't do anything."

 

"Bugs/glitches/exploits in PC games aren't so bad, I'm sure they'll release a patch/moders will fix it."

 

"There's nothing wrong with [insert questionable practice here], companies are in the business of making money after all."

 

"I don't mind games getting shorter as long as they're good."

 

You hold the last one to the same morality as others?

 

 

There shouldn't really be anyone in this, or the last thread expressing that it's okay for games to be short(er). Unless of course you work for Atari/Obisidain, or have ADD - which doesn't appear to be the case with most of the posters on this board. Good games can be short or long. I'd rather have a good, long game, than a short one.

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

Why don't you try practicing what you are spouting off before you go passing judgement on people.

 

I like good games, short or long. Of course I'd rather they be longer. But I understand that, with finite resources, a longer game does not equate to higher quality. Demanding longer games for the sake of longer games, and then buying those games simply because they are long is just as bad as not buying a good game because it's short.

 

Lets say you like the quality of Obsidian's games, but they just aren't long enough. So how do you vote? You can buy it, or not buy it. Since it's not long enough, you don't buy it. Ok, so Obsidian makes no money. Obsidian's publisher makes no money. So how does Obsidian find the capital to make the longer game that you are looking for?

 

Recognize, that to create longer, quality games, you will require more money. Which means you have to have more sales in order to recoup the losses.

 

How many of us are, realistically, willing to start spending more money on games? Which has the negative side effect, of course, of not selling as many units. Which means that, in the end, they might not actually make as much money as they needed to stay in business.

 

For the love of all that's holy, don't attempt to dismiss someone who is disatisfied(again within reason) and vocalizes their problems with a business practice/precedent. Adopting that position more often than not harms you. The business in question most likely isn't going to send you a care package for defending and providing excuses for them, or even remember you as anything other than that complacent chump(fanboy) that encourages them to cut corners.

 

I'll happily voice my opinion against people like you whom are "disatisfied," because your interests have no guarantee of making good, long quality games. The business in question may not send me a care package, but they may not include mindless, pointless filler in a game to artificially increase its length.

 

Laying your money on the table to buy something is always a vote. Sometimes it's good to refrain from voting on things you know might lead to inevitably bad things for you or whatever it is you enjoy. Let a companie's PR/marketing department handle the positive spin...unlike you, they get paid for it.

 

Fair enough. And if I still find a game experience wonderful despite its shorter length, I'll buy it. I mean, some of my most favourite game experiences were over in a few hours. Metal Gear Solid, one of my favourite games of all time, with awesome memories of the experience, to the point where I can gladly pick up the game and play through it again because I enjoy the story, can be beaten in two hours. Resident Evil 2, can be beaten with both Leon and Claire in under three hours. Fallout can be beaten in a single sitting. I certainly don't feel Fallout is a subpar game because it's not as long as Baldur's Gate. While I enjoy both games, my Fallout experience is much more memorable than my Baldur's Gate experience.

 

Get off your high horse. If you want to voice your opinion on a subject, expect that some people might just voice a different one.

[kirottu]

the "correct" length of the game an rpg is subjective. thus developers try to make it so that you can rush it in a few hours (15 or so) but if you try to savor it for the fact of savoring it you can stretch that to close to 40 hours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I totally agree. Except I would say 20 and 50... :D

 

As for Feargus not posting I

[Walsingham]

I've thought a lot about this, and I've decided that time is irrelevant. Take that, Einstein!

 

Sorry.

 

Seriously, though. What I want is to be moved and shaken by the story. I can have this done to me in two hours at the movies. However, given the price of the games I expect more time.

 

I also think that having gone to the trouble of building a game platform, and a main plot, adding in a host of side-quests need not be that hard. It could be done by auxiliaries and sub-contractors IMO.

[astr0creep]

I didn't read all the thread so forgive me if this is a repeat.

 

 

 

Here's my narrow view:

 

I expect 1 hour for every dollar I paid for the game.

 

60$ = 60+ hours.

 

Of course what I mean by that is that the player can play for that amount of time, not necessarily the time it has to take to go through the story.

For example: Minigames and/or sidequests and/or exploration and/or other.

 

That goes for all games, not just RPGs but it is especially expected by me for RPGs.

[Dark_Raven]

Exactly!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really that practical where $$$ are concerned.

 

You get what you pay for, but when you pay 50-60 bucks you expect to get your money's worth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My feeling as well. A game that has quality 30+ hours of game play is something that I would consider my money's worth.

 

Quality as in a good story, decent character development, good npcs you encounter or who join you, and not many issues with bugs.

[astr0creep]

My feeling as well. A game that has quality 30+ hours of game play is something that I would consider my money's worth.

 

Quality as in a good story, decent character development, good npcs you encounter or who join you, and not many issues with bugs.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is a quality 5-6 hours game still worth 50-60$?

[Dark_Raven]

Of course not. Look and see I included 30+ hours.

[astr0creep]

Of course not. Look and see I included 30+ hours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know and I agree with you.

 

I was just asking if you thought quality justifies a 6 hour game at 50-60$.

Because I value your opinion. :D

[Volourn]

"Is a quality 5-6 hours game still worth 50-60$?"

 

Is the quality of the game good enough that you polayed it multiple times putting time played much higher than one play through. Or is your required time per dollars spent count only on the first play through?

 

I played a game when I was younger.. it was 30 minutes to an hour to complete... I played a billion times so the hours spent on it was unmeasurable.... It would surely be worthy of $50+...

 

I've played games that supposedly give hundreds of hours of play time that i hated so much that i quit after just a couple of hours. Total waste of money despite all the hours one can supposedly play...

 

 

Hmm..

 

 

P.S. I've also experience the opposite as well. Short crappy game, and long awesome game.

[Dark_Raven]

Different strokes for different folks. I like to lose myself into a game for hours on end. But hey that is me.

[Volourn]

So do I; but it's got to be good. Length itself is not the reason I buy (or don't buy) games.

[Dark_Raven]

So do I; but it's got to be good. Length itself is not the reason I buy (or don't buy) games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even though I have played them way past the point of keeping track, games like Baldur's Gate and Fallout have the length and the ability to make me lose myself into it's "world". The only recent game so far that has done this to me is Bloodlines and now Morrowind. I can not wait to get Oblivion, I am sure it will have endless hours of game play.

[astr0creep]

"Is a quality 5-6 hours game still worth 50-60$?"

 

Is the quality of the game good enough that you polayed it multiple times putting time played much higher than one play through. Or is your required time per dollars spent count only on the first play through?

 

I played a game when I was younger.. it was 30 minutes to an hour to complete... I played a billion times so the hours spent on it was unmeasurable.... It would surely be worthy of $50+...

 

I've played games that supposedly give hundreds of hours of play time that i hated so much that i quit after just a couple of hours. Total waste of money despite all the hours one can supposedly play...

 

 

Hmm..

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes that is absolutely valid to me.

Fighting games and racing games are usually very short but you can play for hours and days with them and have a ton of fun.

I played Metal Gear Solid(1) for dozens of hours, even though it can be completed in 5 hours(or less).

Multiplayer plays a great deal in replayability as well and it almost always justifies a high price tag because even though the single player can be short(Return to Castle Wolfenstein) the multiplayer extends the game's lifespan considerably.

 

Of course I will not buy a game for the length of the single player experience alone but I, like Dark Raven, like to immerse myself in a game and that usually takes more than 6 hours(King Kong?). And I will not buy any game that I can finish in one rental...

 

I suppose however that a 50-60$ pricetag is always justified in the eyes of a publisher since everyone plays and enjoys different things in their games?

[Hassat Hunter]

Seperated into 3 new topics, both growing fast... it looks like we have an epidemic.

I still believe Feargus AT LEAST meant that rushing speed would be 20 hours, but just in the case that it would be 20 hours:

 

In Ultima VII, I got stuck at one point and ended up doing some adventuring through the lands.  I found a locked door and was able to solve the puzzle to open it, which had me talk to the person inside.  I told her about the state of the world (she was an old friend from other Ultimas that was magically put asleep).  She gave me other tasks to do, and in doing so I was able to piece together how I was stuck on my first task, and successfully complete it.

 

And how are you supposed to put something like that in a 20 hour game (including all main and side quests)?

 

That's the one reason I don't like most of the games that are being rated well right now. Grand theft auto and most other games that come after it are little more than glorified sandboxes. It's gotten quite pervasive in that most adventureish games try to take after it (spiderman 2, ultimate spiderman, hulk, True Crimes, Driver, Godfather...)

 

Agreed. I like Vice City way better than San Andreas just because it becomes a chore and is spread way too far out than is good for the quality of the story. Still (even if I find VC better) I spend more time playing around in San Andreas... thus got more money of value... weird, maybe, maybe not...

 

Having said that I NEVER played a RPG less than 30 hours that I deemed anywhere near good. The platform where there should be some item-scavanging and combat to get levels does not allow "only combat when the story asks for it", unless you wan't every goblin to wield 5000XP and every secondary Fed-Ex quest 10000XP as so to compensate the fact that you actually advance through a story where you SHOULD start weak and gain power and more power to be finnally able to do the main thing, be it saving the world, the girl, your village or some other goal like finding yourself (PS:T) or just taking revange.

If you make a RPG last 20 hours with the complexity of using the D&D system you either get

1) Storystreamlined... as mentioned you should get enormous XP-boosts per meagerly available battle and it is just the question if the story would be so compelling and complex as to make up for the lack of confrontations, as there is no time for it

2) Hack&Slash... Meaning that in order to hit the 20 hour limit alot of combat has to be done and the main-story snows under since you need to kill kill kill in order to proceed on that path, which can never hold a compeling plot.

 

And now when you start "but I have played other games with a nice plot in xx hours" think before... Is it a RPG? FPS tend to be shorter due to the fact they are that, FPS, and thus based on fragging and killing usually. Just your avarage Hack&Slash. Games like Solid Snake can be shorter because you do not NEED to gain these levels to advanche nor need to engage into alot of combat (prefered not to engage at all). Items should not be sought since they are given, and your char stays the exact same the entire game through. Sure, some games can do that but with a RPG that just ain't possible...

[Llyranor]

Heh, game hours are not all made equal.

 

EDIT: Hmm, you know, maybe I'd be less adverse to having long games just for the sake of it if CRPGs generally had 'good non-repetitive gameplay'.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Llyranor