Gameplay lenght

[Hellion]

I know, that this is gonna change according to amount of funding you will get, but what can we be looking forward in terms of hours? 50? 100? What are your plans?

[Monte Carlo]

60-80 out of the box at least.

[WorstUsernameEver]

6 intense action-packed hours with plenty of setpieces. Duh.

[BSoda]

20ish seems to be today's standard for sp RPGs...I hope it'll be a lot longer, though.

[Frusciante]

Hard to say I think. This is not going to be a full priced (60 dollar) game, I think it will cost about 25-30 dollars. Also the budget is relatively small (even 3 million is very small for a game these days). So I would be happy with a 30-40 hour game that is polished and of high quality. In general I'd rather have a short (20 hours or something) rpg that is of good quality and polished then an unpolished game with bad design.

[Hellion]

20ish seems to be today's standard for sp RPGs...I hope it'll be a lot longer, though.

Honestly, I would be disappointed with 20h. I would like to get at least 50 (main + sidequests) anything more than that and I am happy. But budgetwise, I dont think we are getting that much.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Hellion

[szpada87]

20ish seems to be today's standard for sp RPGs...I hope it'll be a lot longer, though.

 

Sorry but 20 hours is not a standard for a real RPG, especially when developer is trying to resurrect good old IE based game genre. I think that 100 hours (all quests and sub missions) is a decent value.

 

First of all full voice acting with shorten the game greatly, secondly the graphic design - please do not attempt to make ultra realistic high end gfx. This will only consume development time and will shorten the game greatly.

 

Please try to stick to the basics, I wouldn't mind to have text based npc dialog and 2D graphics.

Edited September 16, 2012 by szpada87

[Littlefinger]

20-40 hours would be nice. Maybe 60. 80 might be overdoing it.

 

But in the end, it's all down to quality versus quantity. And replay value. Can't forget about the replay value.

 

If backtracking does not feel like a chore and exploration is not pointless, I can see myself sinking over a hundred hours into the game, immersion and all. Heck, I hear there are people who played Fallout 3 for over 300 hours... on a single play-through.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Littlefinger

[WorstUsernameEver]

Honest question, though: do you guys value a game based on the length, rather than the quality of the content and the experience you have with it? I feel this kind of expectations have lead to stuff like the horrible padding we've seen in Dragon Age: Origins and Neverwinter Nights 2, and I'd prefer not to see that kind of design again.

[Hellion]

Honest question, though: do you guys value a game based on the length, rather than the quality of the content and the experience you have with it? I feel this kind of expectations have lead to stuff like the horrible padding we've seen in Dragon Age: Origins and Neverwinter Nights 2, and I'd prefer not to see that kind of design again.

Best case scenario is some sweetspot between quality and quantity . I think this isnt an FPS, RPGs should be lenghty, but i would definitely take 50 hours of great game over 100 hours of suffering.

[Hellion]

poll added

Edited September 16, 2012 by Hellion

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I want it to be a good deal of content, I mean I played Vegas for 250 hours (because love ) and I don't even want to comtemplate the amoutn of time I sank into BG and ID :| I think they should definately provide lot's of content but I want something to sink my teeth into. Somewhere between 50 and 60 hours would be great, any less and I will be slightly dissapoint.

[WorstUsernameEver]

Well, I mean, obviously I'd take 100 quality hours over 50 quality hours or 20, but between the crowdfunding budget not being enormous and Obsidian's notorious polish problems, I'd rather them concentrate on making a campaign that is as good and polished as possible (not 6 hours of course, but that was a joke) than a long padded one.

 

Think of Fallout.. it was an RPG, made in 1997, it was short (even shorter if you ignore the side content) and it's still considered a classic today. Length is a nice bonus, but it's not everything.

 

P.S. : I'd also like to see Obsidian carefully consider how to split the content. I've recently played Arcanum, and while it's an excellent game, the main quest really drags on.

[Littlefinger]

Honest question, though: do you guys value a game based on the length, rather than the quality of the content and the experience you have with it? I feel this kind of expectations have lead to stuff like the horrible padding we've seen in Dragon Age: Origins and Neverwinter Nights 2, and I'd prefer not to see that kind of design again.

 

The quality, of course. Take New Vegas, for example. A good game, yes, and pretty long, too, but hardly something I'd play more than once. And yet I've replayed Gothic - a rather simple, short game - over twenty times, even when knowing every corner of its world by heart. I think it's obvious which game I value more. The quality of the game is important, but the quality of the experience is even moreso. Community patches will fix the former, but only the developers can provide the latter. And that's why Obsidian should concentrate on the quality of content first, and the quantity of it second.

[Starwars]

And besides, how do people even measure these things in RPGs? I don't think I've ever read reports of gameplay hours from any given RPG that actually matches my own playtime in them. Add to that it can vary a *lot*. Just look at New Vegas. You just can't measure the gameplay time accurately because there are so many factors in terms of optional content.

 

So yeah, I'm not sure how developers do it but I say just focus on producing good content where it fits and don't aim for some weird "gotta have this many hours of gameplay!" quota.

And of course, don't use filler content to just pad the game.

[Monte Carlo]

6 intense action-packed hours with plenty of setpieces. Duh.

 

You work for Bioware and I claim my ten dollars.

[Littlefinger]

So yeah, I'm not sure how developers do it but I say just focus on producing good content where it fits and don't aim for some weird "gotta have this many hours of gameplay!" quota.

 

Maybe it's the minimal gameplay time? As in, skipping all optional content, just doing the main quest? Then again, you don't hear developers bragging about "at least" so-and-so hours of gameplay, it's always about the estimated time for all the content. So maybe that's just it - no pointless running around, no unnecessary interaction with NPCs, just an estimate of how long it takes to bee-line through all the areas and dialogue lines?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Littlefinger

[Gurkog]

If a developer/publisher is spouting the play time of a game, there is probably a lot of padding. I have endless fun with tower defense games like Orcs Must Die!, but could only get myself to play Dragon Age 2 once. Although, long + great gameplay trumps short any day.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Gurkog

[Zed]

I would rather have 40-50 hours with good replayability than the double with very little replayability.

However with the announced amount of companions (if they do indeed go for 6-character parties), I don't think I will be very interested to replay it. In BG2 I could basically play through the game with an entirely different set of characters. Classes will have to be very deep as well.

As for story and C&C, I trust Obsidian to deliver on that.

[LadyCrimson]

Quality and replay value over single playthru time, for me. Altho, if the quality/experience of the first playthru leaves me completely blown away so at the end I'm practically left open-mouthed drooling, then I tend to be a little less demanding about replay value.

 

Also, I tend to be slow, so whatever "most" people end up thinking it takes, time-wise, I'll likely end up doubling or maybe even tripling it.

[Troller]

Quality over quantity anyday

[Jozape]

Honest question, though: do you guys value a game based on the length, rather than the quality of the content and the experience you have with it? I feel this kind of expectations have lead to stuff like the horrible padding we've seen in Dragon Age: Origins and Neverwinter Nights 2, and I'd prefer not to see that kind of design again.

 

I agree, but games that don't have a lot of content tend to be shorter than others. The shortest RPGs that I've played that didn't feel rushed or incomplete were 30 hours or so. I've found 50-60 hours(average) of content if you do everything to be satisfying, as a much more fleshed out world allows for more character development and replayability.

[The Sharmat]

Are we counting replays in terms of game length? a 20-30 hour main game can turn into 100+ if multiple playthroughs are rewarded by a branching plot.

[Meshugger]

Well, if it is intended to be a long epic journey of self-discovery or whatnot, then of course it should be reflected in the length of the game. Or on the other hand, the goal is to be a gaming experience equivalent of an orgasm, then of course it should be done in an explosive burst. But you want to play another round soon enough.

 

Point being, as long as the length is consistent to its 'grandness', then either way for me.

[Seagloom]

Honest question, though: do you guys value a game based on the length, rather than the quality of the content and the experience you have with it? I feel this kind of expectations have lead to stuff like the horrible padding we've seen in Dragon Age: Origins and Neverwinter Nights 2, and I'd prefer not to see that kind of design again.

 

This about covers it. I can live with short gameplay length if there is no padding. Bad filler is the death of replay value. I find trudging through act 1 of NWN2 painful because of it. Most of my games fall apart once I reach Old Owl Well. If I finish it, I can usually push myself through to at least act 3. Ideally I want a longer game, but if the added length is thin on non-combat content, forget it. Waaay too much filler combat in RPGs.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Seagloom