RF Generation Message Board

After reading a very interesting article in a Dutch games magazine I would like to know what you guys think that should be done in the future.

At the Games Education Summit (Dallas) in July, Warren Spector (known for games like Wing Commander, Thief and Deux Ex) stated that 100-hours singleplayer games are a thing of the past. He also said that only 2% of the people who have played GTA4 actually finished it. If he means by "finished it" getting 100% complete, I'm sure it's even less.
RPGs are probably the "worst" kind of games when it comes to being overly lengthy. Recent games like The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or Final Fantasy 12 come to mind. They often take up 60 hours to finish the main storyline alone and go well over 100 hours if you want to finish all sidequests, defeat all monsters and get that strongest weapon. (Don't get me wrong, I love RPGs ;))

As you all know, making videogames is no longer cheap. Especially with the next generation consoles and their fabulous physics and visuals, production times get longer and longer. Spending $40.000.000 to develop a videogame isn't anything spectacular anymore and companies are strugling to make a profit like they used to do 5-10 years ago. Especially when your game stands in the shadow of a Triple A title, sales can't always make up for the costs.

If most gamers stop playing GTA4 at 40%; that basically means 60% of the game's content is money down the drain.

Would you like to see shorter games, knowing that most (read: the not-so-hardcore) gamers don't finish these games? Wouldn't it be great if companies could make games for less money and therefor take some more risks? It would mean more diverse games for us for sure.

Do you really want the Full HD graphics and 7.1 surround? Maybe some gamers do, but the rest of us are forced to walk the same path. I wonder why nobody seems to have the guts to make an HD 16-bit style 2D RPG for Xbox360 or PS3. If the story was good and the gameplay rock-solid, wouldn't that make for an amazing game?

Please note that you can vote twice because there might be multiple choices that you agree with.

Please share your thoughts and let us know how you feel about this subject :)

I completely agree with you. I dont feel the need to have every game coming out with 3D graphics or state of the art sound. I'm hoping games like Mega Man 9 sell like crazy so that some companies will put at least a bit of thought into making games that have graphics and sound quality take a step back in order to produce a solid intriuging game that doesnt break the bank. I would however prefer Mega Man 9 to come in some sort of physical media rather than just a download, but ill take it.... for now.

Same here.

Although I didn't mention it, changing to online distribution is another area where publishers can save money to get more profit in the end. The production costs however are the same in terms of developing.

I hope that most games will keep on being distributed on physical media because if the whole industry would switch to downloadable games, collecting as we know it would be a thing of the past.

I feel that games are right where they should be, with a healthy mix of short and long games. I have no problem blasting through a 20 hour RPG, a 5-6 action game, or the 140 hours I spent on Oblivion.

But as to the second poll option... Gears of War's fairly short single player game left me feeling that they skimped on it simple to focus more on multiplayer, and needless to say, I'll be waiting for Gears 2 to hit the bargain bins before I buy it. I know that's some people's main thing, but if the single player part disappoints me, then when I'm done with the game, I'm disappointed.

And as for downloads, I refuse to pay for them, unless I can back them up on something permanent and use them at my discretion.

I personally like games that I can devote tons of time to, like Final Fantasys and what not. If I don't feel like spending the time on it, I play something else. :-)

Personally, I like my small DS games. Those large clunky NEO GEO carts are waaay to big.

:)

He meant actual game content size, not physical game size  ;D

Not sure if you're being serious or not :P

Kinda mixed, depends on the game really. There have been really great short games I wish never ended, and then there are games that should end earlier.

In the end I feel I get the most out of short games with a lot of extra detail that I can play through over and over and always find something new. I refer to Snatcher when I say this, not a very long game but having beat it something like 20 times and always finding something new was incredible. Unfortunately I have played it to death and haven't fired up the game since the 90s :D

Bottom line, best game ever!

2D would be great to us retro players.

But really, what casual modern player [and yes, that's most of them] would be interested?

This has all been discussed to death though, I'm sure.

A game that was bleeding excellent, but felt waaaaay too short was the original Sam & Max. I wish there was more than just the one case to solve, like an additional two more after the 1st one.

A lot of things can happen, people don't always take the best graphics: look at the DS vs. PSP.

Also remember that the people reviewing games are most often older gamers who have some experience. When they are convinced the game is really good, the readers/viewers will follow.

Just imagine that your 2D RPG would cost half the money to develop than its 3D counterpart. (say $20M vs $40M) Then you'd be able to spend maybe $5-10M on advertising your game (which influences sales greatly; seeing how crap games that get much marketing end up selling well) and still be below the $40M production cost of the 3D RPG.

I suppose the question really depends on the type of game.

Most of the shooters these days have a campaign about 8-10 hours long. However, the majority of them are focused on a multiplayer component to give it it's replay value. Further, though, a "shooter" like Bioshock (which is more of an action-adventure) takes about 15-20 hours, but has good replay value due to the variety of ways to play it and the AI.

RPGs, on the other hand, really do NEED to be longer due to the fact that if they were under 10 hours to play, most people would feel ripped off unless there was something really special about the game that inspired replaying it at least 3 or 4 times. Otherwise, most RPGs in the 30-40 hour range seem "about right" and those that have 100+ hours of content are really up to the player to play them that long because the main adventure in such games usually takes about 30-40.

I would say that most games are appropriately time-balanced. 

I agree with you but the thing is that alot of games are too long for most mainstream gamers as they don't finish them.

Your working from the assumption that 2D is automatically cheaper than 3D. That's like saying it would be cheaper to produce cassettes or VHS again. The fact of the matter is, for good 2D, you need training, the staff who can do it, the tools to downstep from 3D to 2D and better marketing to prove that this is still a high quality product. It's not like you can just click the "no 3D button" on your workstation and whip something up. 2D requires a different toolset and skills and in many ways, even more creativity to pull it off. All that for what many would consider a riskier project with anticipated lesser sales results.

The DS isn't a 2D haven any more than the PSP is. People choose the DS for it's price, control style and franchises available. Zelda Phantom Hourglass is a great example of all three while being a 3D game with innovative features. That the DS sells more only makes 2D gaming on it more appealing to recover those development costs hoping for higher sales figures.

Take Zelda Minish Cap for GBA and Zelda PH as examples. The GBA sold double or more what the DS has so far, but Zelda PH has sold multiple times over what Minish Cap has and they are both fantastic games. The difference being one is 2D and traditional, the other 3D and innovative. Even the LttP re-release on GBA coupled with Minish Cap still doesn't exceed Phantom Hourglass by itself. Seeing as this is a business, it's all about the numbers at the end of the day.

That's a fake argument; the specific case that we used to call "comparing apples with pears" in school. :P

And yes, I'm working from the assumption that it's cheaper to make a 16-bit style 2D (birdseye) RPG than a 1080p 3D FF13 style one. I'd be surprised if that's not the case.

What I said in a comment on my blog about the DS/PSP:

Handhelds seem to be a haven for RPG-developers who can't afford to spend all their money on making next-gen RPGs. Why do you think FF13 will be released on Xbox 360 aswell? The costs are just too damn high.

So yes, a company like Square will rather make a quick cash-in (like Dragon Quest Monster Hunter or however it's called) for the DS than a risky RPG for one of the main consoles.

That's all I was saying about the handhelds :)

Apples and Oranges? Hardly. It sounds like your trying to say because 2D is older technology, it's easier to use. Making a 2D game nowadays may perhaps be faster, but not easier or much cheaper. Most companies can't afford to maintain legacy support for older systems or different types of game engines all at once.

For every game engine needing to be built for a 2D game, there is an Unreal engine out there that is already built for 3D gaming and can be licensed saving you R&D time. So why would they invest in a new development team and build a new game engine for a game that will more than likely not perform or sell as well as a 3D game would? Cassettes and VHS, you can't assume that a company can go out on a limb like that and take those kinds of chances. Four Swords on the Gamecube anyone? :P

Make no mistake, FFXIII on the 360 is, while a good idea, still a risky one. You can't just port a PS3 game to the X360, it's not like the PC in that regard. They have to double their teams and make two versions from the ground up doubling the cost of development. Very risky considering they could end up splitting the market for that game. With a FF game the chances of that are low, but not every company has such history and reputation to be able to risk it at all.

All I'm saying is you can't oversimplify the argument and say because it's 2D, it's easy, cheap and doable. There are way too many factors and variables to consider.

I thought Oblivion only takes like 15-20 hours to beat the main story without doing side quests; haven't played it though but I could have sworn I heard that from an unreliable source.

Typically though, most JRPGs range anywhere from 25-60 hours for the main storyline. From personal experience I'd say the average for post SNES era RPGs is about 35-40 hours, SNES and before is roughly around 25 hours average, then there are super awesome JRPGs like Chrono Trigger where the main storyline is like 12 hours but focuses on replay.

As for me, I enjoy lengthy games. It can be a bit annoying if you just want to finish it and move on, but if that's the case then it isn't a very good game to begin with now is it?

*Oh and my favorite game of all time is Super Metroid which my average run through the game ranges from like 40 minutes to way longer depending on the type of run I am doing. So I'd say it's all about having spectacular gameplay for me.

Maybe even less than that, say 10-15 or so. Mass Effect is the same way, 35 hours to beat every side quest, mission, main quest and to explore every system and planet. But you can beat the main quest along in say 5-6 hours.

The fun of games like these are to grind and unlock new abilities and upgrades. I played Mass Effect 3 times to reach the lvl 60 cap picking up more equipment and whatnot along the way, something like 70 hours in total in 3 playthroughs. Games like Front Mission 4, I put in 80 hours or so of battle simulations and perfecting my core teams and their wanzers while maxing out every ability I could.

I still tinker with the cars in my Gran Turismo 2 garage and do a few laps in the speed ring to test new settings.

^Agreed. And that supports the popularity of the Wii this generation. Its puzzle-type games and the simplicity of the controls are appealing to a large audience this generation.

And such an audience is one that may only play for maybe 30 minutes at a stretch. Plus, they don't have  to worry about accomplishing more challenging goals (or any goals) that are often found in more sophisticated titles (or those appealling to more "hardcore" gamers) because the sole purpose is to have fun for a little while and then put the game away.

Aren't there any 2D engines out that companies could buy?

You're very right about the Unreal III engine though. It's easy to just buy it and begin programming. However I don't like how a lot of games look alike because they're all based on the same engine. It's a drawback caused by consumers being used to these next-gen graphics...it's easier buying an engine than taking the risk of making one that could end up not so good as Unreal III.


You're probably right but I don't want to discuss it anymore because this thread was about the lenght of games anyway ;)

Still, wouldn't a 2D game be a breathe of fresh air on the PS3/360? :D Just look at the response LittleBigPlanet got (even though it's not completely 2D)

It's ironic, they want to treat gaming a bit like the educational system. Since so many are failing or quitting, they figure maybe lowering the standards, making things shorter or easier, will help more succeed where once they would have failed.

"Yay little Joey! You finished the 10 question multiple choice exam!! Good for you!"

"Thanks you, I fel so smart know.(sic)"

"Yay little Joey! You finished the 5 hour game and beat it!! Good for you!"

"Thanks you, I fel so hardcore know.(sic)"

Seriously though, perhaps they need to offer a multi-tier completion system. Remember how some older games used to offer beginner, intermediate and expert at the start screen which would dictate how long the game would be? Something like this:

Beginner: 5 hours long or 5 levels long
Intermediate: 10 hours long or 10 levels long
Expert: 20+ hours long or all levels

Write the story, organize the gameplay and offer 3 endings or more to make each one worth playing. Actual difficulty is a separate option to choose altogether. Don't have the time to spend playing it for 20 hours? That's ok, you can wrap it up in half or a quarter of the time and beat it. If you want to later on you can always go back and enjoy the entire game later on.

Like this:

[img width=256 height=224]http://www.rfgeneration.com/images/games/U-039/ss/ex/U-039-S-00130-A_00.jpg[/img]

But expanded and modifed for today's games on a "as per" basis.

You got a point there. But if you're a company, trying to make a profit, will you rather make a retarded game for the Wii like Wii Sports or Wii Fit knowing it will sell millions or put your hopes up on a hardcore, expensive game?

The arrival of casual gamers this generation has showed companies that the money isn't necessarily anymore in top-of-the-line products but rather in Nintendogs, Mr. Tamagochi Brain Training (I made the name up), etc... So I'm guessing alot of companies will start making products aimed at the easy-to-please casual gamers than at us.

That is a very good idea but companies would have to put in even more work into a game by having to make not just a long game but a medium and short one aswell (with the endings, like you say)

Did you ever read "Harrison Bergeron"? We're heading in that direction...in too many ways. :P

Well personally a hardcore game because gaming to me is more than just mindless fun, but it could still be on the Wii though. Some developers are in it for pure profit, others for the art and creativity, you can always tell who is who.

They wouldn't need to make 3 games, just take the main normal length game and add the option for two condensed versions that would have levels or gameplay removed to make them shorter. Think of it as an extended version of a movie versus the theatrical or made for TV versions. All the content is already there, you just have to snip and edit out chunks to shorten it for various mediums.


It reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. A shame if that's the case because people like Kurt foreseen this possibility nearly 50 years ago and we didn't do anything to prevent it.

Now you put it that way, you're right. I was thinking of having to make 2 alternative endings for the story to end sooner (= more work) but your way works just as well :P

A lot of games implemented that type of set up through the difficulty settings. It was always so cruel  making it through a game, and then getting told to play it again on the harder difficulty to get to the next level. The end result is I always played games on the medium setting at the lowest just in case.

Interesting concept I hadn't really thought of. Depending on how well my game goes, I'll have to do something like that in a future game.

How long are you planning your game to be? Should it be beatable in like...an hour? Or more?

really a game should be as long as it needs to be . meaning that as long as the story is told clearly and the gameplay doesnt begin to feel like crap was crammed in there just to fill it out more. this counts for any thing like side quests and extras, they have to fit the game. the quality of the game experience shouldnt be based around how long it is.

My current game will be relatively shortish. I'm working more towards re-playability. But I do think it is an interesting idea for a future game.

For an action adventure game I think a solid 8-10 hours is good. Anything less and I wonder why I spent the money, anything more and I tend to get tired of it. There are games, however, that have eaten more time from my life than I care to think about. And if you'll excuse me I need to go play Medieval II.

MMO's are sneaky bastards, aren't they? :P

You go have fun on Medieval II :D

The main attraction of these long games is that you don't have to do anything, but can choose to do the things you like best. I, for example, played through Morrowind twice, but never completed all quests. I never bothered to join some guilds, because I wasn't interested in them. I did, however, really liked having all these options to choose from.
Having the option to do what you want and not do what you don't want is what makes games like this great.

This is also why saying only 2% of the people who played GTA IV finished it is a poor argument against long games, because most people that have played GTA IV got out of it what they wanted and that might have been something different for everyone. You can't compare these long, 'open' games with shorter games that only have a story to play through and no sidequests.

That's also why I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement like 'games are too long', because it depends on the game. I love some 100+ hour games like oblivion, but other games are perfect at 15 hours.

I also don't think the rising costs of developing videogames will make 100+ hours games a thing of the past. Mostly because video game developers aren't all cold and calculating accountants yet, bust mostly people who make games they love to play.

Long time no see arrr! How is der Nederlande? Still awesome? :laugh:

Welcome back Arrrhalomynn :)

And you said some very interesting things. Although what you said about having a long game where gamers can choose what they do or not makes sense; it doesn't make sense to make these games from a profit point of view. I think a company would rather make 4 games each having a certain focus than 1 very big game with so many things in it.

I just realized that this is the first time that arr has been on since May! Sirgin, you have never had the pleasure of meeting the coolest cat on this site (other than Dave and everyone else, INCLUDING YOU).

Just check out his ugly mugs pic. It is dripping with 'I am soo much cooler than all of you.' :laugh:

You're right, I've never seen him online. Hopefully he'll visit frequently again :)

And of course he's the coolest cat on this site...after all he's a co-founder and Dutch speaker, can't beat that  8) :P

Oh yeah? OH YEAH? Well!...


I have no comeback...

He's an ass, and he'll be pissed that you turned the conversation away from the subject.

Yes, you people are creepy.

Anyways, I don't understand why a company would want to develop 4 games with a specific focus when they could also make one super awesome game that has everything in it. Profit isn't the only reason people make games. Developers want to push the available technology as far as it can go, express themselves, make something new and exciting or simply a game they'll love to play themselves. 

Besides, games like GTA IV and Oblivion have sold extremely well, so even from a profit point of view there's no reason not to make such games.

Maybe so, but even how idealistic these people are, if their game doesn't sell, they won't be in the industry for long ;)

That is true but then again you take two Triple A (if not Quadruple A) titles as an example.

It's the games who are just below the absolute top, with less "known" names but still take loads of money to develop, that barely sell enough to cover the expenses. Or worse: those that don't even sell enough to cover expenses.

And that is why we must, as a collective whole, buy the smaller title/lesser know games (that are good, of course), so that those small companies that make just as good games as the big guys don't go belly up. Granted, that is kinda hard in today's economy, but I digress...

The thing about supporting the small fish is that is only applies to so many genres. I mean really, played a great racing game, fighter or RPG that is on the level of FFXII or Oblivion or Gran Turismo or Forza lately? Sure you may be able to name a few exceptions but that's all they are...exceptions. Have any sports titles that are better in scope than Tiger Woods, NHL 2k/EA or Madden? Small fish and Indie devs seem to flourish with Action Adventure games like platformers, puzzlers or strategy. But that's only a small portion of variety. It's hard to compete with official licenses, music artists and top notch voice acting when your budget is significantly lower.

Keep in mind also that as game connoisseurs we have a much more critical eye and take more notice of titles that escape the average gamers notice. Most people buy what is being aggressively sold to them. Audiosurf? No, we have Guitar Hero waiting for you $10 off if you buy today. Calling all Cars? Nah, but you definitely want the latest Need for Speed title as seen on TV and in-store. 

It's a vicious cycle but Hollywood talent, physics engines, millions in marketing and household names are just about all the industry has room for. The rest have to be satisfied with maybe getting a lucky break or worse a second job. :P

I agree with you 100% but it's sad to see that almost any "industry" where money is to be made can't escape these rules. There's so much monopolization and company fusions that 10 years from now there'll be 3-4 big publishers and they'll dictate what we get to play.