how short is too short?

[deganawida]

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

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a hypothetical, Gromnir, used originally in an attempt to both clarify various stances on the debate, and in an attempt to get you to answer whether or not replayability is an accurate measure or substitute for arbitrary, linear length. Quit being obtuse.

[Llyranor]

You'd rather have 40 hrs than 20 hrs.

 

I'd rather have 2 choices than 1.

[Gromnir]

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

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's a hypothetical, Gromnir, used originally in an attempt to both clarify various stances on the debate, and in an attempt to get you to answer whether or not replayability is an accurate measure or substitute for arbitrary, linear length. Quit being obtuse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lord knows we ain't being the obtuse person here... am actually trying to be very patient with you. the bifircation issues (not literal infinite, but that is title it gets,) is real and makes your suggestion highly impractical... and functional impossible. you won't listen to Gromnir explain, so we suggest getting a biowarian or obsidian (likes chrisA if he ever dcides to discuss this issue on boards rather than in interviews,) to go into why it is not possible.

 

non-linearity is an illusion... 'specially if you thinks that story is important. you can fakes it by having optional tangential side-quests, but those adds additional gameplay time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

You'd rather have 40 hrs than 20 hrs.

 

I'd rather have 2 choices than 1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

2 choices is easy... and it not results in half gameplay time. typical is it you see your meaningful choices where? you likes to bring up fo. such choices occur at end of game, or at end of an optional and tangential side-quest. why? 'cause you not have no bifurcation issues.

 

your non-linearity is an illusion, and it only seems possible w/o addition of playable content.

 

HA! good Fun!

Edited April 25, 2006 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

regardless, it takes somebody only 5 minutes to tell us if fergie did say 20 hours to germans, and what he meant by it. is no different for Gromnir than if we were buying those steak knives... got simple kinda questions that seem reasonable from consumer pov.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Drakengard II was like that. Each completion would open up new items areas and endings. Which sounds great in theory. But since the first time through took me 80 hours I wasnt really in the mood to play the game for another 160. Although thats not to say I wont go back an play the extra levels at some point. It is nice to know they are there if I want them.

 

Kind of funny that had the game been more in the 20-30 hour region I'd have been more likely to play the "extra's" but I was perfectly satisfied with the game anyway. That many hours for an action RPG totally blows away the cost/value ratio.

[Hassat Hunter]

Llyranor and deganawida;

 

Your arguments that if you make a 20 hour game it probably has that kind of stuff where a 40 hours game has not is FALSE.

 

Let's look at OE's first game; produced in 1(!) year; having 40+ gameplay hours; high replayability due to a large amount of things you could do differently. Despite the begin (Peragus) and the end (after Dantooine meeting) the game had some perfect quality

 

Now OE has 3 years. why In gods name should they spend 3x the time to make a good story half-the-size of their one year game with about the same replayability.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

If a company can make a quality 40-hours-game in 1 year do you really think they have to work and put all of their creativaty into a game to make 20 hours of content... sorry, but I don't believe that nor accept that IF it is the actual happening.

 

Making tools for gamers (which should have been almost already done at the begin of the project) or a new engine (which is actually an update of an old one) should not take up so much time that the gameplay hours of NWN2 go to waste...

 

Now about the DS2 argument... do you find "another character" really additional content? I would sooner bring in the fact that that is the only place higher-leveled items popup. IMHO the Veteran and Elite mode of DS2 actually have FAR too little additional buff than they should have gotten... as beside a char and items almost everything is the same... bonusses like aditional areas/quests and such would have been very welcomed

[deganawida]

Llyranor and deganawida;

 

Your arguments that if you make a 20 hour game it probably has that kind of stuff where a 40 hours game has not is FALSE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's funny, considering that I never made that argument. What I have argued is twofold: First, that judging a game solely upon length and no other factors is folly, and second, that a game could theoretically have multiple play-throughs of 20-hours each, and provide a longer gaming experience than one in which game length was purely linear (even if it were only 3 play-throughs, 3*20>40). Nice try, though.

[Darque]

Judging it "only" on length?

 

Yeah, that's not a good idea.

 

But it DOES matter.

 

Length is always important.

[Hassat Hunter]

That's funny, considering that I never made that argument.  What I have argued is twofold:  First, that judging a game solely upon length and no other factors is folly, and second, that a game could theoretically have multiple play-throughs of 20-hours each, and provide a longer gaming experience than one in which game length was purely linear (even if it were only 3 play-throughs, 3*20>40).  Nice try, though.

 

Well, you did try say "if they made it 20 hours they are likely to put in content to have it last 3 times". Well, guess what; OE also did that (even more playthroughs too) in their 40 Hours game. And even if 3x20 = 60 2x40 = 80, but wait, it HAS the same replayability so that would even be 120 . If NWN2 has a 20 hour campaign I would be dying to know where that 2 years of development time went into... making sure soil errosion was 1.000001023x beter than in Oblivion? Developing a help file took up the other 20 hours (and 2 year dev time)? Doing 2 year of field research by playing PnP games and doing nothing like programming?

How you turn it, it doens't make sense that OE can make a good 40 hours campaign, as they have already proven, and then spend 3x the time needed for that to turn up a 20 hours campaign

 

Length is always important.

 

Edited April 25, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[alanschu]

Let's look at OE's first game; produced in 1(!) year; having 40+ gameplay hours; high replayability due to a large amount of things you could do differently. Despite the begin (Peragus) and the end (after Dantooine meeting) the game had some perfect quality

 

Looks like you already pointed out problems. The beginning and end are subpar. Not to mention the large amount of problems people have had with playing the game at times.

 

There's also people that would argue that it isn't a 40+ hour game.

 

 

Now OE has 3 years. why In gods name should they spend 3x the time to make a good story half-the-size of their one year game with about the same replayability.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

If a company can make a quality 40-hours-game in 1 year do you really think they have to work and put all of their creativaty into a game to make 20 hours of content... sorry, but I don't believe that nor accept that IF it is the actual happening

 

Because they are doing much more than just making a single player game. Half-Life 2 was in development for much longer than Half-Life, yet it doesn't have a longer game (in fact, it's probably shorter too...though neither game is really all that long).

 

 

If NWN2 has a 20 hour campaign I would be dying to know where that 2 years of development time went into... making sure soil errosion was 1.000001023x beter than in Oblivion?

 

Making an engine? Making a Toolset?

Edited April 25, 2006 by alanschu

[Gromnir]

Judging it "only" on length?

 

Yeah, that's not a good idea.

 

But it DOES matter.

 

Length is always important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

true... and we thinks deg is coming in with some missing info. now the theoretical game that would have been 40 hours but were reduced to 20 to give 2x as much gameplay value is an interesting theoretical question (though he is wrong,) but the game and situation that inspires this and other recent threads is not theoretical... is nwn2. the reality is that nwn2 had X number of areas and Y content planned for release.... but josh informs us that X and Y values both had to be REDUCED so that quality of game could be maintained while still being able to reach target release date. were no magic distillation process... were some unpleasant butchers work, trimming away what they coulds to maintain integrity of game. josh ain't sure that game is as ittle as 20 hours... but we ain't talking 'bout girth as 'posed to length type arguments. is simply less nwn2 than there were but a short time ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

That's probably a fair statement.

[deganawida]

That's funny, considering that I never made that argument.  What I have argued is twofold:  First, that judging a game solely upon length and no other factors is folly, and second, that a game could theoretically have multiple play-throughs of 20-hours each, and provide a longer gaming experience than one in which game length was purely linear (even if it were only 3 play-throughs, 3*20>40).  Nice try, though.

 

Well, you did try say "if they made it 20 hours they are likely to put in content to have it last 3 times".

 

Quote me. Go ahead, quote me even implying that. The closest that I came was making a hypothetical where a game could have multiple play-throughs of 20 hours each, with each play-through offering enough of a difference to make it worth its while and feel different, and that hypothetical was made to prove a point that game length need not be linear.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Looks like you already pointed out problems.  The beginning and end are subpar.  Not to mention the large amount of problems people have had with playing the game at times.

 

There's also people that would argue that it isn't a 40+ hour game.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is nothing particularly wrong with the begining. Just like any RPG the further in you get the more things you have to play around with. The end, well it's well known that the end wasnt as intended so you it's not really anything you can relate to another product.

 

People said the same thing about Irenicus' dungeon in BGII and Telos as they did about Peragus. It's one of those RPG things.

[alanschu]

Looks like you already pointed out problems.  The beginning and end are subpar.  Not to mention the large amount of problems people have had with playing the game at times.

 

There's also people that would argue that it isn't a 40+ hour game.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is nothing particularly wrong with the begining. Just like any RPG the further in you get the more things you have to play around with. The end, well it's well known that the end wasnt as intended so you it's not really anything you can relate to another product.

 

People said the same thing about Irenicus' dungeon in BGII and Telos as they did about Peragus. It's one of those RPG things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with the beginning either. It was BW that brought it up.

[Darque]

true... and we thinks deg is coming in with some missing info.  now the theoretical game that would have been 40 hours but were reduced to 20 to give 2x as much gameplay value is an interesting theoretical question (though he is wrong,) but the game and situation that inspires this and other recent threads is not theoretical... is nwn2.  the reality is that nwn2 had X number of areas and Y content planned for release.... but josh informs us that X and Y values both had to be REDUCED so that quality of game could be maintained while still being able to reach target release date.  were no magic distillation process... were some unpleasant butchers work, trimming away what they coulds to maintain integrity of game.  josh ain't sure that game is as ittle as 20 hours... but we ain't talking 'bout girth as 'posed to length type arguments.  is simply less nwn2 than there were but a short time ago.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that's not a good thing either.

 

Personally, I think Obsidian is screwing itself by choosing to do "safe" games as they are fettered by the limitations other companies impose on them.

 

K2's ending and editing for example, and the reduced game here.

 

Maybe we'll get lucky and at least get a "complete" game, chopped as it is, rather than one that tapers off at the end

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well, that's not a good thing either.

 

Personally, I think Obsidian is screwing itself by choosing to do "safe" games as they are fettered by the limitations other companies impose on them.

 

K2's ending and editing for example, and the reduced game here.

 

Maybe we'll get lucky and at least get a "complete" game, chopped as it is, rather than one that tapers off at the end

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well if you are going to do some chopping it's best done in the middle where it's less noticable.

[Hassat Hunter]

Looks like you already pointed out problems.  The beginning and end are subpar.  Not to mention the large amount of problems people have had with playing the game at times.

 

If you got 2 extra years of dev time I doubt anybody with ANY competance would choose to "just scrap that then"...

And what problems do you talk about? The technical ones? That has nothing to do with lenght or design but with QA doing it's job... which was done badly in Kotor2's case. Since the arrival of internal QA at OE technical issues encountering through the game should be reduced (or hopefull almost completely gone)..., but that doesn't make any need for a gametime reduction at all, as a matter of fact, it could greatly benefit into making the game last longer without people leaving during that time...

 

Because they are doing much more than just making a single player game.  Half-Life 2 was in development for much longer than Half-Life, yet it doesn't have a longer game (in fact, it's probably shorter too...though neither game is really all that long).

 

Nice example. I assume Electron has been hacked and posted all over the net? "

 

Making an engine?  Making a Toolset?

 

An engine was already there... that should not block terrain generation/story creation/quest creation etc.

Toolset... wasn't the toolset of the users supposed to be (a slighty modified) version of the one that the devs used to make the main quest... then how can creating that prevent them from making a longer game since they clearly can use other toolsets (more complicated/not for users) for other games and still bring out 40 hour games...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ok got a question.

 

Anyone played an RPG where the "intro" (first couple of hours) is the best part of the game ?

[Hassat Hunter]

Quote me.  Go ahead, quote me even implying that.  The closest that I came was making a hypothetical where a game could have multiple play-throughs of 20 hours each, with each play-through offering enough of a difference to make it worth its while and feel different, and that hypothetical was made to prove a point that game length need not be linear.

 

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.

 

Also this one is funny:

So basically what you're saying is that a game can't be too short if what's there is good?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. Quality should outweigh quantity in every aspect of game design. More isn't always better; is more crap better than less crap?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If they put in enough content to allow 3 totally different playthroughs through NWN2 that would have been more content, no? If there are 3 different paths, why do you assume THAT quality...as it is another method of quantity?

Edited April 25, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[alanschu]

Looks like you already pointed out problems.  The beginning and end are subpar.  Not to mention the large amount of problems people have had with playing the game at times.

 

If you got 2 extra years of dev time I doubt anybody with ANY competance would choose to "just scrap that then"...

 

WHat?

 

And what problems do you talk about? The technical ones? That has nothing to do with lenght or design but with QA doing it's job... which was done badly in Kotor2's case. Since the arrival of internal QA at OE technical issues encountering through the game should be reduced (or hopefull almost completely gone)..., but that doesn't make any need for a gametime reduction at all, as a matter of fact, it could greatly benefit into making the game last longer without people leaving during that time...

 

Would a shorter game not be easier to run through QA?

 

Because they are doing much more than just making a single player game.  Half-Life 2 was in development for much longer than Half-Life, yet it doesn't have a longer game (in fact, it's probably shorter too...though neither game is really all that long).

 

Nice example. I assume Electron has been hacked and posted all over the net? "

 

Even at 5 years, Half-Life 2 was still in development longer than Half-Life 1...before Source was leaked.

 

 

Making an engine?  Making a Toolset?

 

An engine was already there... that should not block terrain generation/story creation/quest creation etc.

 

Which engine is it? The graphics of NWN2 don't really look like NWN.

 

Toolset... wasn't the toolset of the users supposed to be (a slighty modified) version of the one that the devs used to make the main quest... then how can creating that prevent them from making a longer game since they clearly can use other toolsets (more complicated/not for users) for other games and still bring out 40 hour games...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm talking about the toolset that comes with the game for us to use. Resources have been spent to significantly improve the toolset (I think Llyranor even posted a PPT presentation about it) to make content creation for the end user less of a challenge.

Edited April 25, 2006 by alanschu

[Hassat Hunter]

Ok got a question.

 

Anyone played an RPG where the "intro" (first couple of hours) is the best part of the game ?

 

Deus Ex

[deganawida]

Quote me.  Go ahead, quote me even implying that.  The closest that I came was making a hypothetical where a game could have multiple play-throughs of 20 hours each, with each play-through offering enough of a difference to make it worth its while and feel different, and that hypothetical was made to prove a point that game length need not be linear.

 

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}>

 

 

BEEEEEPPPPP!!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!!! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!!!!!

 

"Suppose" is the operative term there, and it sets up a supposition (see the second definition; also see synonyms), which places that whole passage firmly in the realm of the hypothetical, per my previous assertions that such comments were made as hypotheticals.

 

An implication would be if I had started that statement with something along the lines of, "It's my believe that...", or "I think that we'll see...".

 

In other words, incorrect, try again, so long.

Edited April 25, 2006 by deganawida

[Tigranes]

HH, do you have any idea how game development works? Actually, I suspect you do, but there's an odd mix of knowledge and illogic that is confusing me.

 

When you modify engines and toolsets to a great degree, you can't just bomb forward and make the campaign at the same time, that's like trying to write on paper that is still in the factory being converted from tree kaka. You're going to have to go back for things, to check for thigs, to change things, to add things. It's called, Shortcut to Bugs and Inconsistent Quality/Design.

 

Also:

 

Toolset... wasn't the toolset of the users supposed to be (a slighty modified) version of the one that the devs used to make the main quest... then how can creating that prevent them from making a longer game since they clearly can use other toolsets (more complicated/not for users) for other games

 

Uh.... no. What "other toolsets"? They don't make more than one "toolset" for a single engine and game, now THAT would be a premium waste of time. If you mean the version that is not "slightly modified for users", again, you think it took them only 2 months to get it up to that level? You have to finish the engine first, THEN you have to finish the toolset. Then you do the campaign, amongst other things.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Tigranes