how short is too short?

[alanschu]

5-6 years isn't long enough for you?  Why do you think people license engines?

 

To cut on prodoction time. That doesn't mean that (bar very few exceptions) EVERY dev alters the engine to their wishes. Does this always have to happen before the work on the actual game can begin... doubt it... Hell, I have a game here (Painkiller) that got a ENGINE UPDATE for all existing levels in a freaking patch! Explain that if the engine segments where needed completely in order to build up the maps and terrains...

 

Because extending an engine is MUCH different than rewriting it.

 

It doesn't....because they did more than alter the graphics engine....they redesigned the toolset.  Trust me, building levels with one toolset, only to scrap that toolset and bring in another one is not a good idea.  And it's not going to be that easy of a transition to just load stuff designed with one toolset into another.  Unless they built their toolset in that way (which would take even more time).

 

Oh yeah, they "suddenly" had a different toolset. Ofcourse if you sit at your PC for a few hours you do not advance from A to Z by B, C, D, E etc... No, after A Z is a sudden entry...

 

No, they didn't suddenly have a different toolset. They had to make it.

 

You can do it if you anticipate it from the beginning and incorporate it directly into your design patterns.  Furthermore, UE3 has been in development for a long time.  Finally, UE3 hasn't been released yet, but UE4 has already been in development for two years, so it's not like the designers at Epic are shooting from the hip when it comes to expectations of how levels are created.  They didn't decide to suddenly rewrite the graphics engine for UT2K7....the concept of the UE3 engine existed long before UT2K7 would have left preproduction.

 

No, but it is altered and edited even still. Lately the added mouth-movement and what else is yet to come. A final version (or even near-final version) of the engine is not needed to make those wire-framed levels... nor do the levels have to be completely build from scratch again after an engine update...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because extending an engine is much different than rewriting one.

[Tigranes]

But Candlekeep was super-boring after a few runthroughs. I would always give myself some xp and gold then go see ol' Gorion.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well I liked how they did Candlekeep at the beginning of BG. You did a few mundane quests, learned a few things about yourself and some of the characters, but the equipment that you need on your adventure, than leave. I doesn't need to be complex or give too much of the story away, just keep it simple and entertaining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So how exactly did Peragus fail ? Too long ?

[Llyranor]

Urg, I can't think of a single Bioware game where the intro wasn't botched. Even KOTOR's 'HEY, WE'RE UNDER ATTACK' was driven into crap by making it an awesome tutorial. 'USE THE MOUSECLICK TO OPEN THE DOOR, BUT BEWARE OF ENEMY FIRE!!!'

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But Candlekeep was super-boring after a few runthroughs. I would always give myself some xp and gold then go see ol' Gorion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok so cheating aside..

 

Can you think of any RPGs that were not like that ?

[Volourn]

"Bloodlines has much more in common with KOTOR2 than it would with NWN2, since it's built upon existing technology."

 

Um.. So is NWN2. This is an undisputable facts. While in some cases (ie. graphics) there have been (plenty) of changes); the game is being built upon existing technology.

 

Heck, there was a thread recently going on right now at the NWN2 boards with people whining how NWN domains aren't super accurate comapred to pnp. Mr. Sawyer came in squashed all that and said as far as he's aware NO WORK HAS BEEN DONE ON CLERIC DOMAINS, and they are status quo from NWN1 because there were other things that theyd rather work on. The same is supposedly for stuff stuff like discipline and knockdown where some minority of silly gooses want eradicated and from all indications they're in NWN2 as carry overs from NWN1.

 

With this mind, it's undisputable that NWN2 is being built upon 'existing technology' espicially since sinc eplenty of the stuff is being carried over to the sequel.

 

Sure, more is being changed from NWN1 to NWN2 than, say, KOTOR to KOTOR2 (which basically kept the graphics intact while NWN2 did a pretty much uniform overhaul). But, NWN1 tech... ie. the Aurora... is still be used.

 

Game over.

 

 

Back to length, as long as this possible 20 hour OC is fun and satisfying; I won't cry.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[Dark_Raven]

Well I liked how they did Candlekeep at the beginning of BG. You did a few mundane quests, learned a few things about yourself and some of the characters, but the equipment that you need on your adventure, than leave. I doesn't need to be complex or give too much of the story away, just keep it simple and entertaining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So how exactly did Peragus fail ? Too long ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too long which to me, slowed the game down. If it was shorter and got to the point, than it may not have been dull with me.

[alanschu]

"Bloodlines has much more in common with KOTOR2 than it would with NWN2, since it's built upon existing technology."

 

Um.. So is NWN2. This is an undisputable facts. While in soemcases (ie. graphics) there have been (plenty) of changes); the game is being built upon existing technology.

 

Heck, there was a thread recently going on right now at the NWN2 baords with people whining how NWN domains are super accurate comapred to pnp. Mr. Sawyer came in squashed all that and said as far as he's aware NO WORK HAS BEEN DONE  ON CLERIC DOMAINS, and they are status quo from NWN1 because there were other things that theyd rather work on. The same is supposedly for stuff stuff like discipline and knockdown where some minority of silly gooses want eradicated and from all indications they're in NWN2 as carry overs from NWN1.

 

With this mind, it's undisputable that NWN2 is being built upon 'existing technology' espicially since sinc eplenty of the stuff is being carried over to the sequel.

 

Sure, more is being changed from NWN1 to NWN2 than, say, KOTOR to KOTOR2 (which basically kept the graphics intact while NWN2 did a pretty much uniform overhaul). But, NWN1 tech... ie. the Aurora... is still be used.

 

Game over.

 

 

Back to length, as long as this possible 20 hour OC is fun and satisfying; I won't cry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The discussion about Bloodlines had more to do with the graphics engine (i.e. Source) IIRC.

 

Even then, Bloodlines rewrote less than NWN2 did.

Edited April 25, 2006 by alanschu

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Too long which to me, slowed the game down. If it was shorter and got to the point, than it may not have been dull with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I found the mini mystery enjoyable. Of course once you have played through once, it's not like you can just wipe your memory.

[Llyranor]

I was a big fan of PST's mortuary, though I guess as a whole it wasn't that popular.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Thats one game I had no inclination at all to replay.

[Tigranes]

Ok so cheating aside..

 

Can you think of any RPGs that were not like that ?

 

SP: precisely. All intros have that effect which is to the detriment of its memory.

[Hassat Hunter]

Have you EVER seen a 40 hour game with no bugs?

 

NO

 

It's like getting a QA to do 40 hours and get 80% bugfree, or 20 hours and 95% bugfree. Both are valid choices. Your talks about "capable" reduces it to "succeed" and "fail" black and whites for QA. Nobody said the QA would "fail" at 40-hour, it would just do better at 20-hour. Logical, no?

 

No... why would it do "better" at 20 hours? Is the additional 20 hours more complicated to seek through than the first. And besides that you can always hire more if the current bunch does not know enough.

Anyway, I think with the current 15 man OE should be capable of properly testing a 40 hour game. And that was the point I was trying to get across to Alanschu: That that was(/is) a very poor excuse for making a game shorter...

 

You don't need to say any more stuff about "Engine does not have to be finished" or "Graphics aren't necessary". Nobody said they were. We are in agreement on that.

 

K

 

To Because extending an engine is MUCH different than rewriting it.

 

Rewriting is just a far more advanched way of "expanding". Especially if (like Volourn already noted) there is only a part rewritten... Really, DX:IW's alteration of the Unreal 2 engine was also pretty near rewriting...

 

No, they didn't suddenly have a different toolset.  They had to make it.

 

Indeed. And I doubt that during this time game-design came to a complete stop. The created works could just advanche with the tools...

 

Even then, Bloodlines rewrote less than NWN2 did.

You know in what state Troika aquired the Source Engine? If yes...then you can post stuff like this...

Edited April 25, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Tigranes]

NO

 

 

No... why would it do "better" at 20 hours?

 

Given the same amount of time to test a smaller quantity of things, would you not naturally do better at it, being more thorough? (and no, there's no upper limit for being thorough.)

 

Anyway, I think with the current 15 man OE should be capable of properly testing a 40 hour game. And that was the point I was trying to get across to Alanschu: That that was(/is) a very poor excuse for making a game shorter...

 

It was never the excuse. It is simply an effect.

 

On the rewriting business, you just have to make sure you don't fall into the trap of thinking that everything to do with engines, or toolsets, are exactly the same. There are different kinds of things done that go into all sorts of technicalities. E.g. if you change how models are handled, you can't start any graphics work before that's sorted: but maybe you can wait if the shaders aren't done yet. 'course, on the graphical side I dont' know much.

 

Ultimately, my point was that we won't know if the OC is "too short", or how "cut" it was until we see it. If it was horribly butchered, we will know, like in KOTOR2 - it is often blatant.

[StillLife]

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

 

Not necessarily the same morality, but the circumstances aren't that different.

 

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

 

I'm not passing judgement, just stating what should be obvious but doesn't seem to be to too many 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.

 

Of course it doesn't, and a short game doesn't equal to higher quality either. Stop being ridiculous Alan. I didn't suggest people buy game's just because they're long. There's no need to make excuses for a game being short though.

 

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?

 

You're assuming too much. What I wrote wasn't specifically directed at Obsidian. I already mentioned in the other thread that with the multiplayer features NWN2 is toting, they can probably skate by on a 20 hour single-player campaign, if those modding/multiplayer features are appealing to you.

 

They also get a pass from me for being a relatively new company that's trying to build some capital. However, I wouldn't make public excuses or try to dismiss other people's concerns for the game being that short, as the reality is, it's not really in my, or other gamers best interests to have shorter games. I personally still won't be spending $50 on it though.

 

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.

 

There you go assuming again. Take a look at BioWare for a moment. They started out making long games, then has they've gone along becoming more financially successful, they've gotten shorter and shorter. It's foolish to assume that a company will invest money they don't have to out of the goodness of their hearts, when they realize they can get away with cutting corners.

 

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.

 

There's not an ultimatum for developers between making shorter games and increasing the prices of a game currently if they wish to survive. Sorry, but I'm not buying that excuse.

 

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.

 

That's because you have seem to have an agenda that doesn't fall in line with what's best for the consumer. Why does a game have to include mindless filler to avoid being short? Who's to say the same amount of fluff wouldn't be applied to a small game too? If you let developers/publishers get away with pulling crap like shoving a bunch of fluff in their games, they'll continue to do so regardless of the game's overall length.

 

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.

 

Ahhh, you're an example of the kind of person I mentioned in that speed run thread about Fallout. Don't use speed runs as an example of a games intended length, please. You know as well as I do that most people wouldn't complete Fallout in a single sitting, nor MGS or RE2 - which were among my favorite PS games.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lose the snide attitude. People will always have their own take on something, that goes without saying. But in the case of this discussion? Anyone who disagrees that game's shouldn't be short is probably basing their arguments off an irrational bias.

 

Just to clarify, I'm not claiming people shoudln't buy games just because they're short. Sometimes you have to weigh what's more important to you in a situation. There aren't a lot of developers even making CRPGs these days, so the fact Obsidian is, might override the potentially questionable aspects of their games for some people and warrant a purchase. Nothing wrong with that, but don't make excuses for them or pretend it's okay when they do cut corners and expect anyone with a bit of sense to take you seriously.

Edited April 25, 2006 by StillLife

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, if you only have 20 hours you might be stuck with a smaller area that you have to replay causing it faster to be a chore and then you'll loose attention to it. So it isn't exactly that easy to specify if it is a improvement or deprovement...

[Tigranes]

deprovement

 

 

Again, whether the length is appropriate depends on the story, gameplay style, and genre of the game, and the approach and dedication of the player.

[Volourn]

My opinion is simple. Game makers should make whatever game they want how they want for whatever reason. Through hype and what not they will tell potential cusomters about the game, and then the customer will decide if said game si worth a purchase. A game maker owes a POTENTIAL customer NOTHING. But, they do owe themselves to make the best game they feel they can that also will make the process both financially and creatively worthwhile from their perspective.

 

Period.

[alanschu]

Have you EVER seen a 40 hour game with no bugs?

 

NO

 

It's like getting a QA to do 40 hours and get 80% bugfree, or 20 hours and 95% bugfree. Both are valid choices. Your talks about "capable" reduces it to "succeed" and "fail" black and whites for QA. Nobody said the QA would "fail" at 40-hour, it would just do better at 20-hour. Logical, no?

 

No... why would it do "better" at 20 hours? Is the additional 20 hours more complicated to seek through than the first. And besides that you can always hire more if the current bunch does not know enough.

 

They'd do it "better" because there'd be less content. If there's less content, they can spend more time on other areas to find the bugs. They do not have an unlimited amount of time to test the game.

 

Anyway, I think with the current 15 man OE should be capable of properly testing a 40 hour game. And that was the point I was trying to get across to Alanschu: That that was(/is) a very poor excuse for making a game shorter...

 

They're trying to fit things within schedule, and not release a buggy game. The time is finite. Less content, means more bug testing per section of game.

 

 

To Because extending an engine is MUCH different than rewriting it.

 

Rewriting is just a far more advanched way of "expanding". Especially if (like Volourn already noted) there is only a part rewritten... Really, DX:IW's alteration of the Unreal 2 engine was also pretty near rewriting...

 

No it doesn't. And it's not just "a part." It's an entire graphics engine.

 

No, they didn't suddenly have a different toolset.  They had to make it.

 

Indeed. And I doubt that during this time game-design came to a complete stop. The created works could just advanche with the tools...

 

Which still means that additional time is required, since the tools aren't finite and may introduce new problems. It's the joy of creating new tools.

 

LOL, no it's not.

 

Even then, Bloodlines rewrote less than NWN2 did.

You know in what state Troika aquired the Source Engine? If yes...then you can post stuff like this...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because it was still the Source engine. And they didn't have to make their tools. The burden of proof is on you, since there's no reason why you or I should assume that they did significantly alter anything. They certainly did not rewrite the graphics engine.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

deprovement

 

 

Again, whether the length is appropriate depends on the story, gameplay style, and genre of the game, and the approach and dedication of the player.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who knows maybe a couple of months after they will release NWN the directors cut.

[Hassat Hunter]

They'd do it "better" because there'd be less content.  If there's less content, they can spend more time on other areas to find the bugs.  They do not have an unlimited amount of time to test the game.

 

See previous post

 

They're trying to fit things within schedule, and not release a buggy game.  The time is finite.  Less content, means more bug testing per section of game.

 

So if that IS the problem what stops them of hiring some more people as backup?

 

Which still means that additional time is required, since the tools aren't finite and may introduce new problems.  It's the joy of creating new tools.

 

LOL, no it's not.

 

Ofcourse that can happen, but that is why they are also tested... long before the actual testing of the content... that is being made around the same time

 

Because it was still the Source engine.  And they didn't have to make their tools.  The burden of proof is on you, since there's no reason why you or I should assume that they did significantly alter anything.  They certainly did not rewrite the graphics engine.

 

Do you know in what state they got it. Did it function correctly? How many issues and leaks and whatever did they ironed out themselves? Did it actually already looked like Vampire now did when they got it?

 

Who knows maybe a couple of months after they will release NWN the directors cut.

 

First the On-Horse Combat, then the Z-Axis... all for just $1.99,- !!!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

First the On-Horse Combat, then the Z-Axis... all for just $1.99,- !!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was thinking more along the lines of "deleted scenes" but you never know.

[Tigranes]

So if that IS the problem what stops them of hiring some more people as backup?

 

QA *finds* bugs. Then programmers / designers have to fix these bugs. Fixing these bugs make more problems. Each time you get a bug report you have to spend time fixing, retesting, fixing, retesting. This means that unless you hire more QA *and* more designers, which of course bloats up logistical nightmares and design inconsistencies, simply hiring cheap QA won't solve th eproblem. It helps, though - but OE is a young company and ain't made of cash.

 

See previous post

 

Oh, that post was a response to the discussion?? Listen, "losing attention" is something players do. If you are a QA it's your JOB to test things over and over again. You go to an area and find that the game crashes when an orc is on 16 health. You replicate the situation of 16 health over, and over, and over again, write down what happens, and try it differently, trying different combinations of attacks. Then a dev changes some things, and you have to try it AGAIN. That's how QA works. It's supposed to be monotonous, and sometimes you don't even test the entire game, you only test one section of it (as a single QA member).

 

Come back when you know what actually goes on with QA.

[Judge Hades]

My opinion is simple. Game makers should make whatever game they want how they want for whatever reason. Through hype and what not they will tell potential cusomters about the game, and then the customer will decide if said game si worth a purchase.  A game maker owes a POTENTIAL customer NOTHING. But, they do owe themselves to make the best game they feel they can that also will make the process both financially and creatively worthwhile from their perspective.

 

Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As a potential customer I can say one thing, 20 hour game isn't worth $50.

[Volourn]

Then don't buy it. It's THAT simple.

 

Of course, if it's good 9as opposed to sucky) and you play it 3-4 times that 20 hours can eaisly turn into 60-80 hours.

 

As an earlier example, there was a game that took 30 minutes to an hour to 'finish'. However, I played it a multitude of times making the playing time I got out of it almost imeasurable.

 

Though I wa syoung, and it wa smy parents who bought it; it was eaisly worth the money. Easily. Certain more than MW and it's hundreds of supposed hours of play time.

 

 

R00fles!