GamesIndustry.Biz has an interesting interview with Silicon Knights president Denis Dyack up on their site. In it, he says "Legacy of Kain had about sixty hours of play, but games have changed. People don't want that any more. I don't care how good the game is, I don't want to play something that's one hundred hours long."
He goes on to argue that games not only need to be shorter, but need to be split up into chunks so that the masses can digest them easier. He also points out that the games need to be self-contained. "That was flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies. Too Human will be self-contained across each game of the trilogy."
Problem with the Lord of the Rings movies? We know some of you will cry blasphemy, but that one point aside, we agree with that he's saying ... somewhat. There's no argument from us that games can always be better. Shorter, however, well that depends on the game itself. We find ourselves agreeing with the man ... to a point. We definitely enjoy a huge game with a storyline and gameplay that'll net us at least 50 hours of gameplay, because then we feel like we got a good value for our money
On the other hand, we also love playing shorter games as long as the gameplay is fun and compelling. That's what Telltale Games did with their Sam & Max: Season 1 series of games. Each game was cheap (around nine bucks), short (two to three hours of gameplay) and fun (hey, it's Sam & Max, c'mon). They didn't try to choke the players all at once with 20 hours of gameplay, but rather chopped it up, had each episode be self-contained, and focused on making it more accessible to players.
However, if we purchase a Grand Theft Auto title, we definitely want to get more than five hours of play out of it. We don't mean repetitive "Drive to the other side of town and do this one tiny thing and come back" mission-based action either, give us something challenging to do, like driving through a burning building while being chased by a dump truck. Which is also on fire.
It all boils down to how much your gaming time is worth. That's for you to figure out and let the developers know.
Reader Comments (72)
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:26PM (Unverified) said
Dennis, please keep your thoughts to yourself, at least until Too Human is actually released.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:24PM (Unverified) said
No no no. Most games that have come out lately have been too short. When I purchase a game I want it to last for a while and I am sick of hearing about episodic content.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:24PM Cabal said
Shorter?!?! They need to be longer, especially action games. Its gotten to the point where once I get really get into a game its already over.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:25PM AirIntake said
I'm not sure if all games need to be shorter, but I did like the length (and price) of Half Life 2 Episode One.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:25PM (Unverified) said
He need's to give his mouth a rest for a bit.
And the new, updated footage of Too Human doesn't look any more compelling then that craptastic display they put on at E3. I've written that game off.
And the new, updated footage of Too Human doesn't look any more compelling then that craptastic display they put on at E3. I've written that game off.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:27PM aforty said
Uuuh, what? I don't want a great game to end after 8 hours. At that point I'll have just got into it.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:29PM (Unverified) said
If I'm going to consistently pay $50-60 for games, I'd better be getting 30 hours of gameplay at the LEAST.
Denis can take his opinions and put them where the sun don't shine.
Denis can take his opinions and put them where the sun don't shine.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:31PM (Unverified) said
I like long games. It keeps me from buying otherwise mediocre games once I've gotten bored/finished said lengthy game.
If a game IS going to be short, then it damn sure had better not cost me $60 bucks, either...
If a game IS going to be short, then it damn sure had better not cost me $60 bucks, either...
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:32PM (Unverified) said
I agree. I'm tired of seeing all these 60$ games with 10 hours or less of game play.
This guy definitely doesn't speak for everyone when he says he doesn't want 100 hours (or more) games.
This guy definitely doesn't speak for everyone when he says he doesn't want 100 hours (or more) games.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:32PM (Unverified) said
I agree that 100 hours is a pushing it...that said, I expect 15 or so hours out of an Action Game or an FPS and 30-40 hours out of a console RPG and 20-30 hours out of a handheld RPG. If you make it shorter than that, I'm going to be pissed. I want some VALUE out these constantly skyrocketing game prices and I'm going to get it, or I'm not going to spend any money.
Dyack is right about the self-contained part. Nothing worse than finishing a game in under 10 hours and finding out it's an incomplete story, you'll have to wait 2-3 years for.
Dyack is right about the self-contained part. Nothing worse than finishing a game in under 10 hours and finding out it's an incomplete story, you'll have to wait 2-3 years for.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:35PM (Unverified) said
Hey Dennis, those flaws in Lord of the Rings really hurt that franchise huh.... What a douche!
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:34PM (Unverified) said
Two words:
Well, really, two words and a roman numeral:
Baldur's Gate II.
Well, really, two words and a roman numeral:
Baldur's Gate II.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:35PM (Unverified) said
I can live with short games but I have trouble with $60. games that I can finish in less than a week (non-critical path).
$45-$50. short games are ok if they are REALLY good but how often does that happen?
$45-$50. short games are ok if they are REALLY good but how often does that happen?
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:39PM (Unverified) said
sounds like a cop-out to me! And at the end of the day it's not about how LONG the game is.. it's just how GOOD your game is and how much FUN you have playing it. Seems like this statement is a foreshadowing for a push for episodic style of content, I better call the bank and get that loan for all the raping my wallet will be taking on market place!
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:42PM greedycheese said
Thank god Dyack has the balls to call out LOTR. If only Dyack had been there to tell Peter Jackson how to make a movie LOTR could have had a chance instead of being the critical and comercial failure that it was.
ALL HAIL DYACK!
ALL HAIL DYACK!
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:42PM (Unverified) said
if he wants shorter game make them 30 dollars.i say new pricing system for games should be based on hours of gameplay =).yeah i know it will be impossible to do and will never come but imagine 60 for a FF game and 30 for crackdown =)im still playing ff12 70+ hours now and maybe 15hrs to be bored of crackdown.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:43PM (Unverified) said
There was a flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies?
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:44PM hosaphat said
Dennis Dyack needs to shut the f*ck up.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 7:15PM (Unverified) said
I love how Denis Dyack makes this, "games should be shorter" statement before his hyped up game comes out. So when you get Too Human and finish it in 8 hours he will just say that the thinks games should be shorter, look I said it months ago.
I have no problem with the main storyline in a game being 10-15 hours long, but for $60 you better have some side quests, a great multiplayer feature, acheivements, something else to keep me interested after I bought a game that I should have rented.
I have no problem with the main storyline in a game being 10-15 hours long, but for $60 you better have some side quests, a great multiplayer feature, acheivements, something else to keep me interested after I bought a game that I should have rented.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:49PM (Unverified) said
Check out the previous article on Gears, its full of bloggers who "have absolutely nothing to do with MS, honest" praising a 6-hour game (great game, but still short) and how USD10 for 4 maps is awesome value for money.
This is part of the MS information campaign - guys, you need shorter games so that they can fit on DVD and so that you can pay MS for additional content on the same games.
This is part of the MS information campaign - guys, you need shorter games so that they can fit on DVD and so that you can pay MS for additional content on the same games.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:52PM (Unverified) said
I'm ok with shorter games... as long as they cost less. I think the ideal price is $2 per hour for a launching title. So a $60 game should take at least 30 hours to finish. If he want to make a 5 hour game, no problem, but in this case it should cost $10.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:54PM In A World said
It would be nice if they made games more flexible in terms of length. Just look at Oblivion. You can spend hundreds of hours playing that, but I finished the main quest in about 35 hours (did a couple sidequests) and haven't played it since. That's the first game I've actually "beaten" and/or felt like I accomplished something in a while. I just got bored with FFX and Kingdom Hearts 2 and Zelda: TP... some of us have lives and can't spend years and years playing these games. I think he's right that games should be shorter, but I also think there should be a lot of sidequests to stretch out the experience.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 5:56PM Ludwig Kietzmann said
rfom,
Do you mean bloggers, or commenters?
Do you mean bloggers, or commenters?
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:00PM Mr Khan said
@ Arno: I agree with you, normally even the best games don't blow me away at first (especially Halo 2 and Super Paper Mario), its after some significant playtime that i usually discover the joy that games can contain,
But i disagree with this statement, maybe he's going for the whole "quality over quantity" angle, but there's no reason we can't have both. Look at any Pokemon game, Oblivion, any Zelda title, or Shadow of the Colossus (or the rival big upcoming 360 game, Mass Effect), or look at most MMORPGs
you can have your cake and eat it too
But i disagree with this statement, maybe he's going for the whole "quality over quantity" angle, but there's no reason we can't have both. Look at any Pokemon game, Oblivion, any Zelda title, or Shadow of the Colossus (or the rival big upcoming 360 game, Mass Effect), or look at most MMORPGs
you can have your cake and eat it too
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:02PM kingofwale said
picked on LoTR movie as an explain of it being too long and somehow it affected the quality of it??
The guy obviously needs to go out more.
But hey, if he wants you to pay 60 bucks for 15 hours of gameplay. so he can divide a normally 1 game into 3 games and make you buy it 3 times...
you sir, are an idiot
The guy obviously needs to go out more.
But hey, if he wants you to pay 60 bucks for 15 hours of gameplay. so he can divide a normally 1 game into 3 games and make you buy it 3 times...
you sir, are an idiot
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:02PM sand0789 said
In the end, how GOOD the game is counts. People oversimplify things too much. You can't simply say "I'd rather have a 120 hour game than a 30 hour game."
Take Too Human for example. If you assume SK has a set amount of resources, would you rather they cram the resources into a 20 hour experience, let it fill 40 hours, or stretch the hell out of it to 120 hours. Often these 80+ hour games are only that long because I have to repeat the same exact things, wander, back-track, etc. way more than I do in the "shorter" games.
Personally, I tend to lean towards shorter games. I loved Oblivion and Gears, so I certainly can go both ways. I would rather finish a 15 hour game wishing it was 30 hours than get 30 hours into a 60 hour game and be bored due lack of gameplay variety.
So, long story short I agree with the guy, mostly. I don't like Episodic content, cliff-hanger endings (f off Halo2), or half-assed games. I want a big budget over the top awesome kickass game where the content is stuffed into an amazingly fun 40-50 hour RPG or a 10-20 hour Action/FPS.
Take Too Human for example. If you assume SK has a set amount of resources, would you rather they cram the resources into a 20 hour experience, let it fill 40 hours, or stretch the hell out of it to 120 hours. Often these 80+ hour games are only that long because I have to repeat the same exact things, wander, back-track, etc. way more than I do in the "shorter" games.
Personally, I tend to lean towards shorter games. I loved Oblivion and Gears, so I certainly can go both ways. I would rather finish a 15 hour game wishing it was 30 hours than get 30 hours into a 60 hour game and be bored due lack of gameplay variety.
So, long story short I agree with the guy, mostly. I don't like Episodic content, cliff-hanger endings (f off Halo2), or half-assed games. I want a big budget over the top awesome kickass game where the content is stuffed into an amazingly fun 40-50 hour RPG or a 10-20 hour Action/FPS.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:03PM (Unverified) said
Caption for the pic:
Bush: Alright Dick, synchronize watches.
Bush: Alright Dick, synchronize watches.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:04PM Roxinos said
It always annoys me and surprises me when people make false assumptions about what the masses they are supposedly serving believe or like. Which makes the picture assigned to this post all the better.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:07PM (Unverified) said
"Just look at Oblivion. You can spend hundreds of hours playing that, but I finished the main quest in about 35 hours (did a couple sidequests) and haven't played it since."
I think Oblivion did it right. And for you boners who don't read well, he said just said the length of LotR hurt it. He didn't say the movies sucked , but they probably could've been better for the average fan (like me) who actually fell asleep during Return of the King's 4 endings if it were shorter. And one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time can be completed in like 3 hours, Resident Evil 1,2,3 . Code Veronica and RE4 were the first ones to need more than five hours to beat. And why do so many of you guys hate Dyack anyway?
I think Oblivion did it right. And for you boners who don't read well, he said just said the length of LotR hurt it. He didn't say the movies sucked , but they probably could've been better for the average fan (like me) who actually fell asleep during Return of the King's 4 endings if it were shorter. And one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time can be completed in like 3 hours, Resident Evil 1,2,3 . Code Veronica and RE4 were the first ones to need more than five hours to beat. And why do so many of you guys hate Dyack anyway?
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:10PM sand0789 said
Tom makes a good point. You have two sides to this issue. One side wants the gameplay stretched out into a longer experience. The other side wants the gameplay crammed into a shorter experience that doesn't repeat itself.
Think of Final Fantasy games. Great games. Long. But where does all the time go? You guessed it, wandering around fighting goon after goon. Going through towns listening to every worthless piece of dialogue.
Game length is independent of the amount of content in it. You could make a 30,000 level version of Duck Hunt that takes 200 hours to beat, but I'd hardly call it a "long" game. Just my $0.02. Quality should be focused on more than game length.
Think of Final Fantasy games. Great games. Long. But where does all the time go? You guessed it, wandering around fighting goon after goon. Going through towns listening to every worthless piece of dialogue.
Game length is independent of the amount of content in it. You could make a 30,000 level version of Duck Hunt that takes 200 hours to beat, but I'd hardly call it a "long" game. Just my $0.02. Quality should be focused on more than game length.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:11PM (Unverified) said
Uh-oh...somebody is setting the groundwork for craptacular reviews.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:12PM (Unverified) said
"I agree that 100 hours is a pushing it...that said, I expect 15 or so hours out of an Action Game or an FPS and 30-40 hours out of a console RPG"
That sounds about right to me. Recently, I can say that Gears of War was too short (2-3 more levels would have done it about right), and Resistance: Fall of Man was too long (cutting off about a third of that game would have made it more tolerable).
It really depends on the game. I think Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Final Fantasy X, Call of Duty 2, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (single player), Metroid Prime I & II, Resident Evil 4, Dead Rising, and Xenosaga I & III were all about perfect in length for what they were.
For RPG's I'd say that if you are rushing the game, you should get at least 40 hours of it. If you get into the game, you should get double or triple that in side-quests/leveling.
Remember back in the NES days when we could beat games in a few hours (or less)? We'd just play it again...now we don't do that (unless going for achievements).
That sounds about right to me. Recently, I can say that Gears of War was too short (2-3 more levels would have done it about right), and Resistance: Fall of Man was too long (cutting off about a third of that game would have made it more tolerable).
It really depends on the game. I think Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Final Fantasy X, Call of Duty 2, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (single player), Metroid Prime I & II, Resident Evil 4, Dead Rising, and Xenosaga I & III were all about perfect in length for what they were.
For RPG's I'd say that if you are rushing the game, you should get at least 40 hours of it. If you get into the game, you should get double or triple that in side-quests/leveling.
Remember back in the NES days when we could beat games in a few hours (or less)? We'd just play it again...now we don't do that (unless going for achievements).
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:18PM (Unverified) said
Alternate caption for pic:
Lincoln: "Idiots."
Lincoln: "Idiots."
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:29PM (Unverified) said
I completely disagree with this fellow. Sure, short games have their place... for the casual gamer. But for people who actually enjoy epic wide-reaching plot lines... well short just isn't good enough. And beyond that, who is it exactly that long games hurt? That's where this guy goes really wrong.
So some games are so long that it causes you to play longer than you want to, hm? Well, I have the answer right here: spend less time playing. If you're spending time playing so-called long games instead of say... going to work, that's not the game's fault. That's *your* fault for having no self control.
To go even farther... there's another reasons games shouldn't be short: buying versus renting. If I know a game is short, but still want to play, I WON'T buy it. I'll rent it, beat it, and have no need to ever play it again.
If the game has no replay value, and only takes 5 - 6 hours... what's the point? Why would I buy a game I'd never play again? Making all games short would crush the industry. Since renting out games isn't exactly going to return the development fees the developer put in to said product.
Honestly though, long games don't hurt anyone. So you don't have much time to play the game? That's fine, play it when you can. It's not like the product expires. Two hours to play? Play for those 2 hours, stop, do whatever you need to do, and then when you get some free-gaming time, play some more.
So some games are so long that it causes you to play longer than you want to, hm? Well, I have the answer right here: spend less time playing. If you're spending time playing so-called long games instead of say... going to work, that's not the game's fault. That's *your* fault for having no self control.
To go even farther... there's another reasons games shouldn't be short: buying versus renting. If I know a game is short, but still want to play, I WON'T buy it. I'll rent it, beat it, and have no need to ever play it again.
If the game has no replay value, and only takes 5 - 6 hours... what's the point? Why would I buy a game I'd never play again? Making all games short would crush the industry. Since renting out games isn't exactly going to return the development fees the developer put in to said product.
Honestly though, long games don't hurt anyone. So you don't have much time to play the game? That's fine, play it when you can. It's not like the product expires. Two hours to play? Play for those 2 hours, stop, do whatever you need to do, and then when you get some free-gaming time, play some more.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:28PM (Unverified) said
so in essence, this guy is totally against getting his money's worth from games like Oblivion and Kingdom Hearts 2.
I'll tell you what I am tired of, developers passing off an online play mode for "endless hours of gameplay" and giving me a story line that takes 10 hours to beat. Fuck that. If a game doesn't take me AT LEAST 25 hours to beat, it was a waste of my money.
This is exactly why I DON'T buy games hardly at all any more. I think what this guy is trying to say is that Too Human will take no time to beat at all.
I'm also tired of developers passing off a harder difficulty as an excuse for a better story mode. I'm looking at you Cliffy B and David Jaffe. I don't give a shit how much harder you can make the game, that doesn't change the fact that you couldn't come up with a compelling enough storyline to span at least 20 or so hours. There's no extra talent or development time in requiring me to shoot or strike an enemy 6 times to kill them instead of 2. Fuck That.
Long Ass Games FTW.
If everyone followed the examples of such games at Final Fantasy/Kingdom Hearts, Ninja Gaiden, Oblivion/Morrowind, etc. I would buy so many more games. It's as simple as that.
I'll tell you what I am tired of, developers passing off an online play mode for "endless hours of gameplay" and giving me a story line that takes 10 hours to beat. Fuck that. If a game doesn't take me AT LEAST 25 hours to beat, it was a waste of my money.
This is exactly why I DON'T buy games hardly at all any more. I think what this guy is trying to say is that Too Human will take no time to beat at all.
I'm also tired of developers passing off a harder difficulty as an excuse for a better story mode. I'm looking at you Cliffy B and David Jaffe. I don't give a shit how much harder you can make the game, that doesn't change the fact that you couldn't come up with a compelling enough storyline to span at least 20 or so hours. There's no extra talent or development time in requiring me to shoot or strike an enemy 6 times to kill them instead of 2. Fuck That.
Long Ass Games FTW.
If everyone followed the examples of such games at Final Fantasy/Kingdom Hearts, Ninja Gaiden, Oblivion/Morrowind, etc. I would buy so many more games. It's as simple as that.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:31PM (Unverified) said
But the LOTR movies were based on the books... so really it's the flaw of the books that they weren't all self contained stories... and really, that's just stupid. But I agree that games should be self contained stories, or at least have some sort of ending (ie halo 2)
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:32PM (Unverified) said
I have to agree with him, anything longer than 15 hours and I'll never finish it. I'd rather see a solid 15 hour game than a dull 40 hour game with lots of filler content.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:33PM (Unverified) said
This guy is pretty ignorant. The reason why people are playing games less, and thus making some believe that shorter games are better, is because games aren't as addictive or novel as before. I could play Shining Force for 10 hours, and I STILL can. I could sit down and play Chrono Trigger all day and all night. New games don't give me that feel. I play them for an hour or two at most. It's not cuz I'm older and have responsibilities, I mean now I have a broken ankle and am home all day, and see myself play FFXII for like 2 hours, then jump on a classic for 6-8. Ever since FFX games haven't had me hooked for more than 2 hours in a sitting, sans WoW.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:44PM zwarrior said
Didn't he read fan reactions on the length of Gears of War? 3 payments of $60 for one game split into chunks is not what the masses want.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:53PM jdsony said
Wow if he were a woman I'd call him a crack whore. Games have been getting much much too short. This is especially true for action games. I agree that a game can be too long but games should take at least 8 hours of constant play with that being the minimum the replay value better be damn good otherwise the price isn't justified. Crackdown as an example was too short. There are other things to do in the game but it is pretty boring once you beat it and it's damn easy. Gear's of War was fairly short. It felt long when I first started playing it because I only played in short bursts at first and it was hard until I got the hang of it. HL2 was probably the perfect length for an action game. HL also has an excellent balance of action and exploration.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:48PM (Unverified) said
Dyack's complaint about LOTR wasn't that they were too long. His complaint was that they were not self-contained, and he's right. The first 2 movies had no endings. It's basically one huge 10 hour movie chopped into thirds. But that's the way the books were written, as one gigantic epic, so his complaint is kinda awkward. Making games that aren't self-contained is a bad idea, so he's on the right track, he just picked a really bad example with LOTR.
Either way, let's crush him like we crushed Jaffe, eh?
Either way, let's crush him like we crushed Jaffe, eh?
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:50PM rowd149 said
Personally, I'd go for shorter console games and longer handheld games. Why? Everytime I sit down to play a console, I have to wait for it to boot up, and load, and I can't move away from the tv, and I feel as if I won't be able to get anything out of it if I don't play for atleast two hours; so, it makes it hard for me to be able to get to the game on days other than the weekend, and that makes the game a whole lot longer. Kingdom Hearts 2's 35+ hours was perfect for me; not too short, but just long enought that it took me a month to beat and I could move on to the next game.
With handhelds, however, I can just carry the game around with me, pop in 10 minutes between classes, 30 minutes during lunch, a few hours when I'm waiting after school. Handheld games just seem to allow for a shorter time commitment each play, so I can feel okay about clocking in, say, 20 hours on my Pokemon Diamond over the course of a week, because I'm not tethered to the tv; it's little bits throughout the day. So, I'm perfectly fine with a 150 hour game on my DS or Gameboy, but not on my PS2.
With handhelds, however, I can just carry the game around with me, pop in 10 minutes between classes, 30 minutes during lunch, a few hours when I'm waiting after school. Handheld games just seem to allow for a shorter time commitment each play, so I can feel okay about clocking in, say, 20 hours on my Pokemon Diamond over the course of a week, because I'm not tethered to the tv; it's little bits throughout the day. So, I'm perfectly fine with a 150 hour game on my DS or Gameboy, but not on my PS2.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:56PM Starbuck2907 said
Overall, a good game should take at least 8 hours to beat. I might accept six hours if the game was incredible and had awesome multiplayer. Even for a "good" game, $60 dollars is too much unless the game is spectacular and has loads of replay value (like gears of war co-op and online). For me, Oblivion was worth every penny. I've got 147 hours+ and still enjoying the game, although the bugs have almost ruined the experience for me at times.
In the end, if the multiplayer doesn't rock or the game doesn't have at least 10-15 hours of gameplay, I won't be shelling out $60 for it. $60 is too much money for a game that you can beat and be done with in one rental. I'll spend $7 on a rental, and return the game. End of story, and sales will go down.
I will not pay $60 for a game that I'm basically "done" with after only a few days of play.
Episodic content, especially via digital distribution or discs that "verify" the game is legit (cough--Valve Software--cough), is a plague upon gamers and a boon for publishers. Without an internet connection, I can't play HL2 (on pc) or use my oblivion downloaded content (on xbox360). So basically, I paid for content that I can't access without getting the companies permission each time I use it. WTF????? I mean, I did *pay* for that content. Now I have to check with you before I use it?? So, if my internet is down, I'm just screwed. This is bullcrap. To use a crude analogy, it's like having to call Chevrolet before driving my truck in the morning. I bought the truck, but now I have to call so they know I'm not illigimately using the vehicle. It's my fricking vehicle!!! I paid for it!!! --all this talk of shorter content seems like a setup for episodic content... this does not sound good. They'll try to nickel and dime gamers to death.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:59PM (Unverified) said
@36: Tolkien wrote LOTR as one book, it was his publisher that split them into 3 volumes, and it was something he wasn't happy about.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 6:59PM (Unverified) said
It all depends on the game...
If I get an RPG and the main story line takes less than 40 hours it better be a damn good RPG!
Gears of War was waaaay too short, to the point where I felt disappointed and annoyed when I completed it. I had no inclination to replay it, or even take it online as I just felt ripped off.
However, at the moment I'm playing God of War 2. I'm about 8 hours in, and if it ended right now I'd be fine with that as 99% of the game so far has been an absolute joy - interesting story and great game play.
Sounds to me like Dyack needs to get Too Human out soon so he can fill the bank up with funds to start making Too Human 2 (or a load of downloadable content which 'they didn't have time' to put in the retail version).
I'm 50/50 with his comment about making games self contained, but either way, using LotR as an example is really dumb.
I can see what he's getting at. It would have been tough watching The Return of the King if you hadn't seen The Fellowship of the Ring. The last thing Dyack wants to do is make Too Human 2 inaccessible unless you have played the first one. However if you are going to make a trilogy of games then it's nice to have some minor plot threads carry over alongside the main story arc.
If I get an RPG and the main story line takes less than 40 hours it better be a damn good RPG!
Gears of War was waaaay too short, to the point where I felt disappointed and annoyed when I completed it. I had no inclination to replay it, or even take it online as I just felt ripped off.
However, at the moment I'm playing God of War 2. I'm about 8 hours in, and if it ended right now I'd be fine with that as 99% of the game so far has been an absolute joy - interesting story and great game play.
Sounds to me like Dyack needs to get Too Human out soon so he can fill the bank up with funds to start making Too Human 2 (or a load of downloadable content which 'they didn't have time' to put in the retail version).
I'm 50/50 with his comment about making games self contained, but either way, using LotR as an example is really dumb.
I can see what he's getting at. It would have been tough watching The Return of the King if you hadn't seen The Fellowship of the Ring. The last thing Dyack wants to do is make Too Human 2 inaccessible unless you have played the first one. However if you are going to make a trilogy of games then it's nice to have some minor plot threads carry over alongside the main story arc.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 7:20PM (Unverified) said
Long story short I'd rather have a good game than a crappy game.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 7:29PM (Unverified) said
Prediction time!
IN THIS INTERVIEW: Denis Dyack makes excuses for the fact that each of the chapters of "Too Human" is going to be about 20 hours or less.
Just like CAPCOM making a big deal about how easy RE for Wii is going to be (which tells us that it's going to be TOO EASY and not have a difficulty adjustment setting), Dyack is bellowing abou thow "GAMES SHOULD BE SHORTER" and letting us know that his game is going to be TOO SHORT.
UGH.
IN THIS INTERVIEW: Denis Dyack makes excuses for the fact that each of the chapters of "Too Human" is going to be about 20 hours or less.
Just like CAPCOM making a big deal about how easy RE for Wii is going to be (which tells us that it's going to be TOO EASY and not have a difficulty adjustment setting), Dyack is bellowing abou thow "GAMES SHOULD BE SHORTER" and letting us know that his game is going to be TOO SHORT.
UGH.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 7:30PM (Unverified) said
How is the Lord of the Rings being split up into 3 parts a flaw?... that's how it was in the frakking books! besides, you try and keep a theatre of people to stay put for 9-10 hours, I've had LOTR movie marathons that go through all movies and I'm fine, most people wouldn't try, it's not like we didn't know what was going to happen in the movies anyways... at least those of us cultured enough to read the books
Posted: May 3rd 2007 7:46PM gLitterbug said
Has there ever been any developer doing this much pre-release damage prevention before?
So according to Mr. Dyack it's the gaming journalists fault that games come out unfinished or don't live up to expectations, the short length of games is because that is what the customer wants and if Too Human bombs, it's probably the fault of the moonlight mushroomfairy because her skirt was too short and colorful.
I think Mr. Dyack put his head into the ice bucket this time instead of his hand.
So according to Mr. Dyack it's the gaming journalists fault that games come out unfinished or don't live up to expectations, the short length of games is because that is what the customer wants and if Too Human bombs, it's probably the fault of the moonlight mushroomfairy because her skirt was too short and colorful.
I think Mr. Dyack put his head into the ice bucket this time instead of his hand.
Posted: May 3rd 2007 7:52PM (Unverified) said
Oh, so I should spend $35 bucks on a SHORTER game? Of course, how stupid am I? If its split into chunks, I could spend MORE money, on LESS game. GENIUS.
HOWEVER, if they sold like 10 buck segments of a game and you could transfer save files and continue playing, I would consider that. Make em more affordable for me.
HOWEVER, if they sold like 10 buck segments of a game and you could transfer save files and continue playing, I would consider that. Make em more affordable for me.
Featured Stories
The politics of making games: Disconnect between 38 Studios and Rhode Island in quotes
Posted on May 24th 2012 6:45PM




