how short is too short?

[Llyranor]

"Heh, I'd have preferred NWN be accompanied by a couple of short mods like Charwood than the 60-hr epic awesomeness it shipped with."

 

too bad that ain't addressing Gromnir point.  you woulda' liked a couple of short mods rather than 60 hours of nwn.  fine.  example were that you gets charwood... period.  no other stuff and no > or < nwn.  simply answer whether or not you woulda' been satisfied with charwood, a single quality crpg story and adventure, as a stand-alone purchase.  if length not matter, then you not need more than just charwood, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, probably yes. Charwood was the only part of NWN I found even remotely worthwhile. The rest of it turned out to be time wasted. There IS such a thing as negative value.

 

EVEN then, that's not a fair question, since had Bioware only made a mod lasting a few hours, they would have invested relatively more dev time into that alone.

[deganawida]

maybe this is true for deg, but not for Gromnir.  again, a crpg is not simply a nice tight storytelling vehicle.  given the recent example of oblivion we is unsure why so few people is getting that.  eldar, for example, admits that the storytelling in oblivion was pretty pedestrian... he had to fill in the gaps with imagined content... but he enjoyed oblivion.  why?  am recalling that he liked the darkbrotherhood stuff and the archmage quests, and he liked to simply level his character and collect 1007.

 

Incorrect. This is not a function of length, but of design, and meeting the purported purpose of the game: an open world, with a story that one need not adhere to or even complete. Oblivion's length is merely a side-effect of having to provide enough content for the world to feel open, and falls under both the "gameplay" and "replayability" categories which I mentioned earlier. True, it may be a fine line to some, but it is line nonetheless.

 

'nother example?  charwood were a single tangential quest from nwn.  probably took us a couple hours to complete.  maybe we level 1 time.  were well written and had interesting characters and it were a bright gleaming moment in the nwn experience... it could also have been very easily a self-contained and independent game lasting no more than 2 or three hours... player mod length at best.  so here is the thing, for all you Qua;ity is All that Matters folks... shrinkwrap charwood as an independent product, and then be telling us if anybody would be satisfied with quality alone.

 

Possibly, though it would need to be of much higher quality than it apparently was, as I have no memory whatsoever of it. As I mentioned in the prior thread, one of the best games that I have ever played (Metal Gear Solid) only takes me two to three hours to complete, and I play it religiously. Is it a CRPG? No, but it includes more plot, story- and character-development, and more replayability than the majority of 60+ hour-long CRPGs that I have played.

 

people is being kinda odd with this "length doesn't matter" stuff.  tell it to your girlfriend if you believes it, but we just cannot believe it is true.

 

I expect more from you, Gromnir, than toilet humor.

 

regardless, at this point we is as much concerned with carification as we is with the hours of gameplay in nwn2.  would take somebody at obsidian less than 5 minutes to find out if fergie actually did give the germans his 20 hour figure.

 

Clarification from an official source would be nice.

 

Now, for clarification from me as to length: All things being equal, would I prefer a long, high-quality game or a short, high-quality game? The answer, of course, is that I would prefer a long, high-quality game. However, that's not what this debate has been about. Instead, it is being argued that length should be the primary determining factor in whether a CRPG is a "good" game or not, and those who hold this position routinely dismiss any rebuttal which points out that length is just one facet of a game's design.

Edited April 25, 2006 by deganawida

[Gromnir]

if you would have been satisfied ith a $50 purchase of charwood, then we gots little room to argue with you... whether we believes you or not.

 

 

"EVEN then, that's not a fair question, since had Bioware only made a mod lasting a few hours, they would have invested relatively more dev time into that alone."

 

sure it is. you said that length not matter... but even now you is noting that charwood would be better if material were added to it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Llyranor]

NWN was all about the toolset for me. The OC was wasted time as a whole. When it comes from a professional product which I *paid* for, that's not very acceptable.

 

Did I argue about making Charwood longer? Giving it more content != increasing its length.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Llyranor

[Gromnir]

"True, it may be a fine line to some, but it is line nonetheless."

 

no it ain't. is no way to get that additional gameplay w/o additional hours of gameplay. quibble over def. ignores fact/reality that gameplay hours must be increaed to gets.

 

 

"Possibly, though it would need to be of much higher quality than it apparently was, as I have no memory whatsoever of it."

 

maybe that is 'cause it were such a short portion of an otherwise forgettable sp oc. regardless, we assures you that charwood were oft mentioned by reviewers and fans as an excellent portion o' nwn, and when people were talkings 'bout nwn expansions they typically asked for more charwood.

 

probably missed stuff...having problems reading your post... but we tried.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 25, 2006 by Gromnir

[BicycleOfDeath]

I really have to question the "How long is the minimum we should expect for $50?" question. When you think about it, for a good majority out there, the new engine and revamped toolset is worth $50 alone. It has a single player. One could put many many hours into Everquest II and World of Warcraft. You have quests, character development and a few short stories. That's $15 per month.

 

Are the people who say that really that concerned? Perhaps you're just superior robots that can speed read, or perhaps you just blow through the dialog then skim the journal to see what you need to do. Take your time and enjoy the game. If it tells a good story, the controls are in your favor and you never have to complain about the camera - what is there really to complain about? That's worth $50 to me. Though, as I always say: To each his/her own.

[Llyranor]

is no way to get that additional gameplay w/o additional hours of gameplay.  quibble over def. ignores fact/reality that gameplay hours must be increaed to gets.

So you wouldn't be able to add more gameplay or quality to, say, the NWN OC without making it longer?

 

Right.

[Gromnir]

NWN was all about the toolset for me. The OC was wasted time as a whole. When it comes from a professional product which I *paid* for, that's not very acceptable.

 

Did I argue about making Charwood longer? Giving it more content != increasing its length.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

see, this is the nuttyness of people.

 

 

"EVEN then, that's not a fair question, since had Bioware only made a mod lasting a few hours, "

 

you brought up hours.

 

and we is always amazed at the folks that thinks that gameplay can be increased w/o hours. sure, throw in a few extra dialogues that not actually increase gameplay is possible, but the more developers add for you to do in a game area, the longer your gameplay time can be extended.

 

bio used tiles and fixed character models... so what would they has added to charwood with substantially more developer hours that would not have potentially increased gameplay hours. add to 1007 table? is that the kinda thing that woulda' improved charwood w/o giving more gameplay hours?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[deganawida]

"True, it may be a fine line to some, but it is line nonetheless."

 

no it ain't.  is no way to get that additional gameplay w/o additional hours of gameplay.  quibble over def. ignores fact/reality that gameplay hours must be increaed to gets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, actually, it is. The length of Oblivion is merely a function of the need to meet its stated goals of an open-ended CRPG with a weak (weak because one can completely ignore it) story. Length is just a by-product of the elements which I listed before. What you are arguing is that Moby **** is superior to Billy Budd based simply upon the fact that the former is a full-fledged novel while the latter is merely a novella, and that the quality of the story and how each story achieves its goals are moot.

[deganawida]

"EVEN then, that's not a fair question, since had Bioware only made a mod lasting a few hours, "

 

you brought up hours. 

 

and we is always amazed at the folks that thinks that gameplay can be increased w/o hours. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gameplay can be increased without adding hours in a linear fashion. Suppose that NWN2 only has 20 hours of gameplay on the first play-through, but each subsequent play-through, due to different consequences, choices, and dialogue options, offers an additional 20 hours of gameplay. Would that, then, be bad? The single-player campaign would still only offer the 20 hours that are attributed to Feargus, but would include multiple, different 20 hours in replays.

[Gromnir]

"When you think about it, for a good majority out there, the new engine and revamped toolset is worth $50 alone. "

 

we has thought 'bout it. bio and interplay thought 'bout it and changed their minds a couple times as they made nwn. the only clear answer we got is that you is complete wrong... 'cause if nwn is any indication, a "good majority" of nwn2 purchasers will never use any aspect of nwn2 other than the sp oc. the overwhelming majority of 2million+ nwn1 purchasers never used anything other than the sp oc... and that is a conclusion admitted to by the biowarians on more than one occasion. why is you thinking that nwn2 purchasers will be different?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kumquatq3]

I really have to question the "How long is the minimum we should expect for $50?" question. When you think about it, for a good majority out there, the new engine and revamped toolset is worth $50 alone. It has a single player. One could put many many hours into Everquest II and World of Warcraft. You have quests, character development and a few short stories. That's $15 per month.

 

MMO have a different expirence to offer

 

I HIGHLY doubt that the "majority" view a new toolset and engine as an exceptable base for a $50 Single player RPG.

[Llyranor]

"True, it may be a fine line to some, but it is line nonetheless."

 

no it ain't.  is no way to get that additional gameplay w/o additional hours of gameplay.  quibble over def. ignores fact/reality that gameplay hours must be increaed to gets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, actually, it is. The length of Oblivion is merely a function of the need to meet its stated goals of an open-ended CRPG with a weak (weak because one can completely ignore it) story. Length is just a by-product of the elements which I listed before. What you are arguing is that Moby **** is superior to Billy Budd based simply upon the fact that the former is a full-fledged novel while the latter is merely a novella, and that the quality of the story and how each story achieves its goals are moot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think this sums up my opinion pretty well. Length as a result of the design, rather than a goal. You create your story, construct good design around it, work at it to make it complete. Length is a side-effect. As opposed to assigning a minimum length, then building from that. Whoops, not enough content, add more. Sure, ideally, it'd be great to have a longer product with the same consistent level of quality, in a ideal world. Corners get cut, but some people are willing to accept that.

[Cantousent]

"EVEN then, that's not a fair question, since had Bioware only made a mod lasting a few hours, "

 

you brought up hours. 

 

and we is always amazed at the folks that thinks that gameplay can be increased w/o hours. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gameplay can be increased without adding hours in a linear fashion. Suppose that NWN2 only has 20 hours of gameplay on the first play-through, but each subsequent play-through, due to different consequences, choices, and dialogue options, offers an additional 20 hours of gameplay. Would that, then, be bad? The single-player campaign would still only offer the 20 hours that are attributed to Feargus, but would include multiple, different 20 hours in replays.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is the crux of the matter. Not only do we not have the original quote, but what we do have is a retranslation. The full quote from the jackass who gave us this little snippet is:

 

Here is a quote from Feargus Urquhart from a mini interview in a german games magazine about NWN2:

(I retlanslated it into english)

 

Q: How long will it take to beat  NWN 2?

A: Its difficult to estimate it exactly, but you'll play 20 hours for sure. We want to ensure that a maximum number of players completes the game, and there are only few who play longer then 20 hours.

 

Well NWN 2 is gonna suck anyway, but its sad to see that the game lenght of 20h which would have been the minimum limit for FPS a few years ago is now applied to RPGs.

Not to mention the fact that by "youll play 20 hours for sure" he propably means rather "the game will take you 15 hours to complete max, if you 'enjoy' the game and dont rush trough it - whatever that means- it will take you 1 or 2 hours longer"

 

 

And the logic behind making a game shorter to ensure that more ADD kiddies actually complete it is beyond me.

 

So, what does that mean? I honestly don't believe the 20 piece anyhow. I don't think anyone knows for sure how long the game will last. I believe Sawyer when he says that there's no really surefire way to guage the game length at this time.

 

I agree with Gromnir in that Obsidian clearly knows about this "quote" and has not responded in any way. Is this a matter of silence giving consent?

 

I don't want to win an argument. I want to know the truth. If we get some idea of the context, then we can judge Feargus' alleged comments much better.

[Llyranor]

I agree with Gromnir in that Obsidian clearly knows about this "quote" and has not responded in any way.  Is this a matter of silence giving consent?

 

I don't want to win an argument.  I want to know the truth.  If we get some idea of the context, then we can judge Feargus' alleged comments much better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh, sounds like FO3 all over again, alright. Sometimes silence just means silence, and we just end up jumping the gun and drawing (possibly) unfounded conclusions.

[Gromnir]

"EVEN then, that's not a fair question, since had Bioware only made a mod lasting a few hours, "

 

you brought up hours. 

 

and we is always amazed at the folks that thinks that gameplay can be increased w/o hours. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gameplay can be increased without adding hours in a linear fashion. Suppose that NWN2 only has 20 hours of gameplay on the first play-through, but each subsequent play-through, due to different consequences, choices, and dialogue options, offers an additional 20 hours of gameplay. Would that, then, be bad? The single-player campaign would still only offer the 20 hours that are attributed to Feargus, but would include multiple, different 20 hours in replays.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

give us an example. we has always heard 'bout these games using current graphics that coulds multiply quality gameplay hours using the exact same areas and models 'n such, but we ain't never seen nobody pull off, has you? again, takes charwood... 'cause length not matter, right? give different dialogue options and outcomes is what made charwood a goodly nwn quest. now somehow adds more quality dialogues that results in double gameplay time. the additional dialogues and different outcomes in charwood as they currently exist adds how much genuine additional time of game play?

 

you people want a good story... good story fits into your notion of quality... but you want the dvelopers to create an area so elastic that simply change dialogue options results in doubling of gameplay? don't be silly. the dialogues may take loads of time to write, but they not take that much time to read anyways. you ain't fuctionally doubling gameplay hours simply 'cause you play 2x to get a couple different dialogue options. if that were the case then bio coulda' claimed that bg2 had a thousand hours of gameplay... gotta play each different character type to get each different stronghold.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 25, 2006 by Gromnir

[~Di]

...  Suppose that NWN2 only has 20 hours of gameplay on the first play-through, but each subsequent play-through, due to different consequences, choices, and dialogue options, offers an additional 20 hours of gameplay.  Would that, then, be bad? 

 

Yes, it would be bad. Dungeon Siege II tried that manipulation tactic. In DSII, players had access to more party members on the second and third play-through. Royally ticked me off. I paid my money... I don't want to be forced to trudge through the same game 2-3 times to get all the content I've paid for. If I choose to play a game more than once it's because I enjoyed the game enough to do so, not because the developer withheld content from me in an attempt to force me to do so.

 

That tactic always annoys hell out of me, and makes me cross the developers who pull it off my future 'buy' list.

Edited April 25, 2006 by ~Di

[Llyranor]

So, instead they should should maintain the status quo of linearity with rare instances of possible player input which marginally influence the gameplay? Sorry, I don't bite.

 

 

.... Withholding content? How about plausible choices and consequences that are actually significant?

[deganawida]

...  Suppose that NWN2 only has 20 hours of gameplay on the first play-through, but each subsequent play-through, due to different consequences, choices, and dialogue options, offers an additional 20 hours of gameplay.  Would that, then, be bad? 

 

Yes. Dungeon Siege II tried that manipulation tactic. In DSII, players had access to more party members on the second and third play-through. Royally ticked me off. I paid my money... I don't want to be forced to trudge through the same game 2-3 times to get all the content I've paid for. If I choose to play a game more than once it's because I enjoyed the game enough to do so, not because the developer withheld content from me in an attempt to force me to do so.

 

That tactic always annoys hell out of me, and makes me cross the developers who pull it off my future 'buy' list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*sigh*

 

Di, don't take this the wrong way (you should know that I'm not being spiteful), but I'd like to ask you a question: How many time have you played through Planescape: Torment, choosing slightly different options each time through (as it is extremely difficult to do the exact same thing each time)?

[~Di]

*sigh*

 

Di, don't take this the wrong way (you should know that I'm not being spiteful), but I'd like to ask you a question:  How many time have you played through Planescape: Torment, choosing slightly different options each time through (as it is extremely difficult to do the exact same thing each time)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That isn't my point, which I apparently didn't make clear. PS:T did not withhold content from me until my second play-through, as Dungeon Siege 2 did. In DS 2, your party could only have 3 members on the first run-through, 4 members on the second, and 5 members on the third. On one other game I played (cannot recall the name), there was actual content... new areas to explore and new items made available... on the second and third run-through. This is, to me, player manipulation of the most annoying type, forcing players to play the game repeatedly not because they loved the game (as you noted, I played PS:T repeatedly, as I did BG/BG2 and IWD), but because the have to replay it to see all the content to which they are entitled as a buyer.

 

There's a big difference, in my opinion. A very big difference.

[~Di]

So, instead they should should maintain the status quo of linearity with rare instances of possible player input which marginally influence the gameplay? Sorry, I don't bite.

 

 

.... Withholding content? How about plausible choices and consequences that are actually significant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are asking. Your post doesn't make any sense to me... :"> Perhaps I simply haven't had enough coffee this morning.

[deganawida]

That isn't my point, which I apparently didn't make clear.   PS:T did not withhold content from me until my second play-through, as Dungeon Siege 2 did.  In DS 2, your party could only have 3 members on the first run-through, 4 members on the second, and 5 members on the third.  On one other game I played (cannot recall the name), there was actual content... new areas to explore and new items made available... on the second and third run-through.  This is, to me, player manipulation of the most annoying type, forcing players to play the game repeatedly not because they loved the game (as you noted, I played PS:T repeatedly, as I did BG/BG2 and IWD), but because the have to replay it to see all the content to which they are entitled as a buyer.

 

There's a big difference, in my opinion.  A very big difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then we aren't talking about the same thing. I'm not speaking of a hypothetical NWN2 single-player campaign that consists of 20 hours and withholds content, such as quests, NPCs, or items, until you've beaten it multiple times. What I was hypothesizing was a campaign where *every* choice led to a different branch, to the point that it is *impossible* to get all the content in one game, as the game is different (perhaps not radically, but enough to make each play-through feel different) each time you play it.

[Gromnir]

...  Suppose that NWN2 only has 20 hours of gameplay on the first play-through, but each subsequent play-through, due to different consequences, choices, and dialogue options, offers an additional 20 hours of gameplay.  Would that, then, be bad? 

 

Yes. Dungeon Siege II tried that manipulation tactic. In DSII, players had access to more party members on the second and third play-through. Royally ticked me off. I paid my money... I don't want to be forced to trudge through the same game 2-3 times to get all the content I've paid for. If I choose to play a game more than once it's because I enjoyed the game enough to do so, not because the developer withheld content from me in an attempt to force me to do so.

 

That tactic always annoys hell out of me, and makes me cross the developers who pull it off my future 'buy' list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*sigh*

 

Di, don't take this the wrong way (you should know that I'm not being spiteful), but I'd like to ask you a question: How many time have you played through Planescape: Torment, choosing slightly different options each time through (as it is extremely difficult to do the exact same thing each time)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you ain't pretending that we counts each additiona play through of ps:t counts as a new running of clock on hours of unique and different gameplay, is you?

 

...

 

now that is strange. trying too hard to make a point.

 

bg2 is an example of what we thinks deg is talking 'bout... and no, we ain't suggesting you needs 80-100 hours to pull off, but as we brought up moments ago, the stronghold quests, while unique to a particular character type, were existing in same areas and locales as basic critical path and tangential side-quests...

 

the problem is that those quests still take lots of time and effort to create. biowarians were asked why they has not returned to this kinda approach... ahy they has in fact gone the opposite direction and tried to allow any character type to be able to access as much of game as possible on first playthrough and there answers make some sense: additional content is expensive to make... wanna give people as much of it as possible 'cause most people only play through games once anyway.

 

so you honestly thinks the obsidian folks is gonna create 60 or 80 hours of content and then hide it in a 20 hour game?

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

That isn't my point, which I apparently didn't make clear.   PS:T did not withhold content from me until my second play-through, as Dungeon Siege 2 did.  In DS 2, your party could only have 3 members on the first run-through, 4 members on the second, and 5 members on the third.  On one other game I played (cannot recall the name), there was actual content... new areas to explore and new items made available... on the second and third run-through.  This is, to me, player manipulation of the most annoying type, forcing players to play the game repeatedly not because they loved the game (as you noted, I played PS:T repeatedly, as I did BG/BG2 and IWD), but because the have to replay it to see all the content to which they are entitled as a buyer.

 

There's a big difference, in my opinion.  A very big difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then we aren't talking about the same thing. I'm not speaking of a hypothetical NWN2 single-player campaign that consists of 20 hours and withholds content, such as quests, NPCs, or items, until you've beaten it multiple times. What I was hypothesizing was a campaign where *every* choice led to a different branch, to the point that it is *impossible* to get all the content in one game, as the game is different (perhaps not radically, but enough to make each play-through feel different) each time you play it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

go talks to the developers and ask 'em 'bout the infinite bifurcation myth.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[~Di]

Then we aren't talking about the same thing.  I'm not speaking of a hypothetical NWN2 single-player campaign that consists of 20 hours and withholds content, such as quests, NPCs, or items,  until you've beaten it multiple times.  What I was hypothesizing was a campaign where *every* choice led to a different branch, to the point that it is *impossible* to get all the content in one game, as the game is different (perhaps not radically, but enough to make each play-through feel different) each time you play it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay, then you are talking about a PS:T/BG2/IWD-type situation where one could roll different characters and replay to get a different experience. Great. IF... and it's a big 'if'... the game is worth replaying in the first place. However, those games I have consistently replayed and enjoyed in the past were all considerably longer than 20 hours. Considerably. They had lots of places to explore, lots of things to do, lots of content to peruse. A 20-hour game will have half to a quarter of what these games had in the way of content, obviously.

 

As I've said, I am obviously not Obsidian's target audience because I do not include mods, toolsets, multi-player and forced replay in my calculation of whether a game is worth my money or not. A game that can be played in two days is not worth my $50. Sorry. It's just not.

 

You may plunk down your $50 with my blessing, however.