Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hellion

Gameplay lenght

How many hours of gameplay do you think is sufficient (main + sidequests)  

164 members have voted

  1. 1. How many hours of gameplay do you think is sufficient (main + sidequests)

    • at least 20
      3
    • 20 - 50
      29
    • 50 - 80
      46
    • 80 - 100
      20
    • 100+
      45
    • I dont care unless its quality + quantity sweetspot
      43


Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Hellion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by szpada87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Littlefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want it to be a good deal of content, I mean I played Vegas for 250 hours (because love :cat: ) 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Listen to my home-made recordings (some original songs, some not): http://www.youtube.c...low=grid&view=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

You work for Bioware and I claim my ten dollars.


sonsofgygax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Littlefinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Gurkog

Grandiose statements, cryptic warnings, blind fanboyisim and an opinion that leaves no room for argument and will never be dissuaded. Welcome to the forums, you'll go far in this place my boy, you'll go far!

 

The people who are a part of the "Fallout Community" have been refined and distilled over time into glittering gems of hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :lol:


“Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


"Some men see things as they are and say why?"
"I dream things that never were and say why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw

"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

 

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

- Some guy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Seagloom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...