Just how big a game are we talking about here?

[Metabot]

 

Yeah, I didn't realize how cutthroat and greedy people were in the game production community. I figured it was all gumdrops and teddy bears. Now it's darker to me. Much, much darker.

 

Bethesda are really a bunch of a**holes.

[incubus9]

Another point to bring up is that the first game in any series will be the most expensive to develop. If they are going to use a new in-house engine for the game then it will take a lot of development time and money to make. Once they have released the first game, depending on commercial success, they can release further content as expansions or DLC. If I don't immediately get a 100+ hour epic game, I'm fine with that. I think focusing on making an interesting game with an engine that runs bug free will be the most important part at first. Further content will come down the road at a much lower production cost.

[DarthAdamRG]

Difference in opinion here might come from play style, some people can rush through a game in 7 10 hours that it may take someone else 40 50 to complete, I myself like to explore every little nook and crannie while some just want the fastest route to the end.

[Monkcrab]

I'd say that 20 hours is what I'd expect to get the sense of place right for a large, detailed world suitable for a new IP hoping to go on forward. 30-40 hours would be ideal, of course, but that's a luxury I doubt we can afford right now. 10-15 hours MIGHT just do it, but I don't know, it feels a little odd to me. They still need to sell to interested non-backers, too.

 

That said, I'm also a slow exploration-type player, so an average 15 hours RPG might just take me 20. It's just how these things typically translates into amount of content when people say 'hours'.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Monkcrab

[Chaos Theory]

Another point to bring up is that the first game in any series will be the most expensive to develop. If they are going to use a new in-house engine for the game then it will take a lot of development time and money to make. Once they have released the first game, depending on commercial success, they can release further content as expansions or DLC. If I don't immediately get a 100+ hour epic game, I'm fine with that. I think focusing on making an interesting game with an engine that runs bug free will be the most important part at first. Further content will come down the road at a much lower production cost.

 

Yes and no. "Talent" often gets far more expensive in sequels. As an example, the chick who did Hunger Games got $500k for the first movie, but she's getting $10mil for the 2nd. Obviously a game like PE won't have that kind of inflation, but still, whomever ends up voicing the next Minsc or Aribeth can probably hold the company hostage for a wagon full of cash in any sequel. They're that important.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Chaos Theory

[NateOwns]

Aren't they contracted for a WoT game?

[Hurlshort]

Aren't they contracted for a WoT game?

 

They are in an advisory role, but that project seems pretty stalled, so I doubt that helps.

[JWestfall]

I had heard that, but thought it some gamer urban legend or something. F:NV is amazing, and it makes me sick knowing the reason for the layoffs is true.

 

One article about it, google could probably reveal others:

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/

 

I'd be suprised if metracritic based conditions in contracts wasn't pretty widespread among the traditional publisher model - the unfortunate part of this story is the single point making such a large difference. From a publisher's point of view (and the shareholders they are legally bound to make money for), it probably makes perfect sense.

[Sensuki]

EIGHTY HOURS MINIMUM (INCLUDING ESTIMATED TIME TO READ ALL THE DIALOGUE).

 

Come on guys. The Witcher 1 was a pretty long game, and that was all voiced. I'm sure you can do it too.

 

15-20 hours ?? hahaha, that's either coming from a very disillusioned old school cRPG fan or a person who's never played an infinity engine game.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Sensuki

[Jaesun]

I am pretty much guessing the game will hour wise be possibly in scope/length wise of Baldur's Gate, but probably a bit less. If this continues it's current funding (2 MIL) perhaps a good old 50+ hours or so. Which would be great. MORE story and content allocation for this would be a very good thing.

[Flouride]

EIGHTY HOURS MINIMUM (INCLUDING ESTIMATED TIME TO READ ALL THE DIALOGUE).

 

Come on guys. The Witcher 1 was a pretty long game, and that was all voiced. I'm sure you can do it too.

 

15-20 hours ?? hahaha, that's either coming from a very disillusioned old school cRPG fan or a person who's never played an infinity engine game.

 

I'm pretty sure The Witcher had big budget and lot more staff members working on it. There's only so much you can do with 2 or 3 million dollars and with the 20 people they are aiming at. Even if there isn't that much voiced dialogue.

 

I feel like some of you guys are in for a huge disappointment with your expectations of 80-100 hours worth of gameplay.

[Nakia]

The longer the time for one playthrough the more content needed the more content needed the longer it will take to make the game. I would rather have a shorter game say 30 hours with re-playability than 100 hours and have to wait years for the game. Good story, good gameplay, good companions, interesting side quests, a stable amd bug free game are my hopes. I hope they plan an expansion rather than trying to do every thing at one go.

[Merin]

EIGHTY HOURS MINIMUM (INCLUDING ESTIMATED TIME TO READ ALL THE DIALOGUE).

 

Come on guys. The Witcher 1 was a pretty long game, and that was all voiced. I'm sure you can do it too.

 

15-20 hours ?? hahaha, that's either coming from a very disillusioned old school cRPG fan or a person who's never played an infinity engine game.

 

Well, I don't think I'm very disillusioned (about BioWare, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish)... and I'm fairly certain I've played every Infinity Engine game, most multiple times (I never finished BG1 nor Planescape: Torment, mind you, but BG2, IWD 1 & 2 all got multiple playthroughs.)

 

You aren't really taking money, scale, or resources into consideration.

 

I can't speak to The Witcher - haven't finished it, but I know it used the Aurora Engine from BioWare and, outside of (yes, I'm sure this took effort) doing the backgrounds themselves instead of using tiles, they basically made a heavily-modified module for Neverwinter Nights, based on a novel. I've not clear concept of what that took, so I can't speak to the specific example.

 

But this won't be some AAA release. This is a small project for a niche market. Lower your expectations about the scope, at least until Obsidian tells us otherwise.

 

DFA, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, Banner Saga - these are all going to be "short" games compared to AAA, publisher backed releases. I'm fairly certain each one of those have said as much.

[Troller]

Quality over quantity anyday, better to have a 5 hour awesome game than a 30 hour boring one

[limaxophobiacq]

If it gets up to 3 million, which I think it might, I'd expect about 30 hours or so (or otherwise I don't know how they expected to make any game at all with 1.1 million), which I think is about as long as Torment and MotB. While it has a lot less budget than a AAA title, 2d-isometric & no voice acting also requires less resources than a 'modern' game, I can't imagine PS:T cost much more than 3 million even adjusted for inflation.

Edited September 20, 2012 by limaxophobiacq

[Sarkus]

DFA, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, Banner Saga - these are all going to be "short" games compared to AAA, publisher backed releases. I'm fairly certain each one of those have said as much.

 

I don't know about the others, but IIRC Wasteland 2 is supposed to be on par with Wasteland in length, and that wasn't a short game. The whole idea with these retro projects is that the devs are supposed to be saving money by not targeting "AAA" level production values when it comes to things like 3d environments and full voice for every character.

 

As I said, I don't expect the game to be on par with the truly monster length games in the IE series, but the shorter length games were in the 40-50 hour range as I recall, so that's where my expectations are coming from. Some of the budget tiers should add to that.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Sarkus

[Merin]

DFA, Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, Banner Saga - these are all going to be "short" games compared to AAA, publisher backed releases. I'm fairly certain each one of those have said as much.

 

I don't know about the others, but IIRC Wasteland 2 is supposed to be on par with Wasteland in length, and that wasn't a short game. The whole idea with these retro projects is that the devs are supposed to be saving money by not targeting "AAA" level production values when it comes to things like 3d environments and full voice for every character.

 

As I said, I don't expect the game to be on par with the truly monster length games in the IE series, but the shorter length games were in the 40-50 hour range as I recall, so that's where my expectations are coming from. Some of the budget tiers should add to that.

 

I just played Wasteland again maybe three-four months ago. I think I clocked eight to ten hours. No, I didn't wander around places, I kinda stuck to exploring set piece locations and following my missions, I could have killed time forever truly - but the game's end came about ten hours of play after I started, at most.

 

Wasteland 2 will also be open world, so you could waste as much time as you want - just like a Bethesda game! If you think because you clock fifty hours gathering ingredients and making potions in Oblivion added 50 hours to the game play, that's your call.

 

But I think most people here are talking neither rushing nor delving, but a "normal" or median playthrough. People finished DA:O in twenty-five hours, others took well over a hundred. The consensus for it came down to being about 40-50.

 

How Project Eternity is built will decide how much wandering and screwing around you can do, but as for story content? You aren't going to see (until we reach higher tiers) more than 20 hours. You just aren't.

[limaxophobiacq]

I think you (Merin) are being a bit too pessimistic unless you're talking about a situation where donations just freeze at the current level. They did launch the kickstarter on the promise that they could actually make a game for 1.1 million, so unless they were lying about that* they should be able to make a decent-length game give 2-3 times that money.

 

*and I'm fairly convinced obsidian is better than that

Edited September 20, 2012 by limaxophobiacq

[Merin]

I think you (Merin) are being a bit too pessimistic unless you're talking about a situation where donations just freeze at the current level. They did launch the kickstarter on the promise that they could actually make a game for 1.1 million, so unless they were lying about that* they should be able to make a decent-length game give 2-3 times that money.

 

*and I'm fairly convinced obsidian is better than that

 

Well, I did say this earlier -

 

For the money they are getting and from what they are saying, I expect they initially planned on a game that would probably take (understanding that different players play games faster and slower) about ten hours for a playthrough.

 

Depending on where stretch goals go, they may go higher. Since we hit the 1.6 goal, I'm thinking about 15 hours of gameplay. And if they hit 2.2 I think suddenly it expands a bunch and you might see a 30 or even 40 hour game at that point.

[limaxophobiacq]

I should read threads more carefully*. Yeah, 30-40 at 2.2-2.4 or more seems pretty reasonable.

 

*in my defense, it's 7 am over here

Edited September 20, 2012 by limaxophobiacq

[Pop]

I have no actual notion of a rough dollars-spent/hour ratio (if there even is one), but I would expect, with the density of what the game is trying to achieve, that it be about MotB length, so substantial Xpac length.

 

I'm gonna put my money on 10 hours for the base $1.1 mil game, plus another hour for every $200k is added. So right now we're at about 13 hours.

[Bos_hybrid]

I have no actual notion of a rough dollars-spent/hour ratio (if there even is one), but I would expect, with the density of what the game is trying to achieve, that it be about MotB length, so substantial Xpac length.

 

MOTB was a more enjoyable experience than, most 'big' rpgs.

 

Quality>Quantity

[Sensuki]

snip

 

snip

 

I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT MY CAPS LOCK SPEAKING WOULD HAVE GIVEN OFF A SARCASTIC NOTION

 

obviously not.

 

Yes I am aware that it will probably not be that long. However I still think that anything under 40 hours including time to read dialogue and travel is pretty depressing.

 

One of the excuses that developers have been using to explain the cutting of the game length has been because of the switch from 2D to 3D, "it takes longer to realize content" etc.

 

I think with a 2.2M+ budget and the same design philosophy as Baldur's Gate 2 (area designers fill their areas themselves), quite a large size game could be achieved.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Sensuki

[Monte Carlo]

Obsidian have made it clear that extra game length is contingent on funding and stretch goals. As I am confident that the Kick Starter will yield at least 3 million dollars (added to the games they are referencing) I would hope for an Icewind Dale length game.

[alanschu]

I think you (Merin) are being a bit too pessimistic unless you're talking about a situation where donations just freeze at the current level. They did launch the kickstarter on the promise that they could actually make a game for 1.1 million, so unless they were lying about that* they should be able to make a decent-length game give 2-3 times that money.

 

*and I'm fairly convinced obsidian is better than that

I think you (Merin) are being a bit too pessimistic unless you're talking about a situation where donations just freeze at the current level. They did launch the kickstarter on the promise that they could actually make a game for 1.1 million, so unless they were lying about that* they should be able to make a decent-length game give 2-3 times that money.

 

*and I'm fairly convinced obsidian is better than that

 

Keep in mind that the stretch goals involve things like a new companion and a new race. We don't know all that that means, but much of the dollars will go into creating stuff that, while adding a lot to the game, may not add a lot to the actual length.