inFamous more about quality than quantity, dev says

No. What they mean is that they'll have a "not awful" story mode, followed by absolutely no optional missions or replay value.

that's what she said

You're actually funny.

Frank, your avatar screams awesomeness.

Or you could wear it next year and be "that guy".

Creed's costume will still be better :P

Agreed only somewhat. Getting such an awesome experience only to be punted out 5 hours later makes me want more. If I paid full price for the game, I'd feel cheated. That's my biggest complaint against short games: they have to be damn good to make up for their lack of length. Very, very few games are like that these days...

Got any examples of a game like that?

Gears 2 is pretty bad ass start to finish, but its a bit longer than that.

Off the top of my head: Portal, Braid and Dead Rising come to mind. DR could be beat in as little as 6 hours (if you missed overtime mode), but I admit, it had a ton of replayability and I went back to it multiple times.

I would tend to argue that very high quality, but short, games ought to have some re-playability. All three of the above I went back to several times, but for different reasons. On Portal, it was screwing around with the time-trials and challenges. Braid was just to screw around with the mechanic and try to get a couple of stars. DR was to explore some of the optional story lines I had missed.

But, in all three examples, I think the length matched the story-arc/feel of the game. I don't think I needed filler in any of those games to pad the hours to make me feel better about buying them.

By all means, I don't think that every game needs to be that short, and I don't think that all short games are great. But I do think it's quite possible to build a short game that's worth the price. It just better be freaking awesome.

Short awesome games make perfect rentals. Even for replay value. Just me.

MMM yes Portal, hard to include it as it was packaged with the Orange Box, which is arguably the best deal for a game ever.

Portal was the gem in that crown.

courtney- u realize infamous will probably be a $ 60 priced game.. def not worth 3-5 hours IMO.
a weekly rental at blockbuster for $8 will more than be enough time to play this game more than 1 time if they are already talking about it being short. what happened to the 50gb capacity? "quality" can fit a lot of great scenes and gamplay onto a blu ray disc, maybe they need to call kogima. they are just explaining it in a fancy way to just create a short game and save millions on production costs.

gears campaign may be short but there are many more hours offered in multiplayer and horde modes... many many more...

portal (1 of 5 games in the box) and braid may be short, but they are also very cheap games to buy compared to a new release like infamous will be.
dead rising offers many options and can take much longer than 6 hours if you dont breeze through the game.
fable 2 can be beat in what 8-12 hours if you only do the main objective quests, however that wouldnt be enough fun for me, so ive already played more than 20 hours and havent really completed 75% of the primary quest yet. same can be said for dead rising, just not as many hours of extra gameplay.

Where are you guys getting this 3-5 hours bit? When I hear short, in reference to a game, I think in the 10-12 hour region.

Short but awesome game I've replayed several times...

Zone of the Enders 2, all MGS games, Heavenly Sword, God of War, Contra, etc. I could go on and on.

The value of a game should be the act of playing it. Replay value is a goose egg. For people who just want to check games off a list, it's nice. Gets them their trophies, etc. For people who actually LIKE playing games, there is nothing wrong with a short game provided the entire experience is awesome.

In the case of an open world game, look at Spiderman 2. I have it, never beat it. Because, in the interest of creating a "lengthy game" I'm doing the same shit over and over and over again. If I was just playing said game and worked my way through the entire experience, that was actually the experience and not grabbing balloons for kids, in under $5, that game would stay on my rack for a rainy day to be replayed. 20+ hour games rarely stay because it takes too damn long to get to the fun stuff and often have a ton of stuff thrown in just to make the game long.

None of us know how long it will be. Speculating on how long it will be is fun bit it's just speculation. I love how the regular trolls are already putting a lower value proposition on this game because of it alleged length - which no one knows!.

The entire question and answer in context from the interview ...

Mugwum asks: These days it seems like every Blu-ray release has to be a blockbuster of epic proportions. Even GTA IV, which took 30 hours to exhaust, was deemed insubstantial by some gamers. Given the worsening economic climate and rising costs of next-gen development, is this really sustainable, or will developers and publishers have to change their ways?
Nate Fox: That is an excellent question. Look at God of War, which is an excellent game - an instant classic. And it's only like seven hours long. GTA IV is 30 hours long and people wanted more? That just tells you how excellent that game is. It seems to me that it's not about length, but about quality. And because I love both of those games, I hope that developers never try to shoot for a long game, but instead opt for the most fun they can pack onto the disc - at any length.
That's what we're doing with inFamous.


Read The ENTIRE interview and you can't help but be a fan of Sucker Punch & Nate Fox. The guy is a straight shooter in every question he was asked.

I urge everyone to actually read the entire interview in context instead of simply taking one thing and running with it that was only 1/20th of the interview.

Full Interview (very entertaining)

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=293985

As far as price goes, I can think of many rather extensive games that I have regretted buying (Morrowind, GTA3, FFX, FEAR), while I can't think of any game I have regretted buying because of length. Not that it can't happen, it just never has to me.

Given what I'm willing to pay for other forms of enjoyment (a nice dinner, movie and popcorn for the family, concert tickets, a night out drinking with my buddies, a long weekend trip, golfing), I consistently find gaming to be one of the most cost effective forms of entertainment I have, even on short games.

There are many activities I have spent more than $10 an hour doing and didn't enjoy as much as a good game. I try to think of my whole entertainment budget and what I'm willing to spend on several types of entertainment rather than only consider the per hour value of a particular video game.

Rachet and Clank Quest for Booty: 4-5 hour adventure and it was only a $15 download.

Courtney,

Not to mention the article never implies the game will be extremely short. All he says is that he want's to focus on a quality experience instead of a game that has tons of length for the sake of being long. It was really a tiny portion of the interview that was taken out of context and now everyone is running with it.

Yeah, I realized that after this thread started, but I find the discussion about price vs length to be fairly interesting and figured I'd run with it just in general.

Heavenly Sword was an epic game with the best facial animations & voice acting of this generation. It was short but was easily worth the price of admission. Another example would be the newly released Mirrors Edge which has a short campaign but is a fantastic game. Finally, I would also point towards Wario Land Shake It for the Wii which, for my money was better than Galaxy and was also extremely short.

To simply play through the campaign and beat is short in allot of games. However, collecting all the hidden items, getting all the trophies or just exploring the worlds opens the game up to a much longer experience than simply a few hours.

I am currently playing Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm and the game is epic in every way possible. It has a massive open world for exploring in addition to the fast paced chapter fights. From what I understand Infamous is also an open world - sandbox type of game.

Look at Fable 2 for example. From everything I have heard it can beaten in roughly 6 hours. That hasn't kept people from enjoying the game for many more hours over exploring, doing quest and getting all the achievements. Let's wait to judge the game when we actually play the damn thing.

if the game is well received i will probably play it anyway myself.

johnny 1 question- u take Heavenly swords voice acting over MGS4?

sheppy- all the MGS games were not short. u have to add the cut scene time also which really develops the story. MGS4 was for me about 8 hours of gameplay and probably 8-10 hours of movies, cut scenes, briefings, calls, etc.

u guys and gals are right though,
there is nothing wrong with a short game, especially if it is good, however IMO a short game is not worth $ 60.00
i dont replay many games myself, i dont find the value others do.

the GTA4 comparison they make is weak though.
"leaving wanting more"
um from what i have seen many people started to play gta4 only to put it down sometime later, without completing most of the game, and not really wanting anymore.

come on! sonic 2 was TEH SHIT and got like... 1 1/2 hour gameplay. Still worth every penny.

But you could re-play Sonic and get better at it. Few modern games lend themselves to be re-played in the same way.

wasnt much room on a cartridge back then to allow for much longer gameplay.
+ i remember playing sonic for many many hours anyway.

sonic was developed as a kids games and marketed to kids.
as an adult now, i would not spend many hours playing sonic as i did as a kid.

Wow, I never realized just how inappropriate this song is.

*embarrassed*

God of War may SEEM that long, but i don't think it actually is. each game in the series took me 9 hours to beat. as long as the quality is good, i can forgive shortness. Gears of War and Uncharted aren't terribly long, and both are some of the funnest games this generation.

Agreed GOW was short but damn damn sweet. I would say that short games probably suffer from poor sales due to the fact that its an easy rent. Developers need to either add in an addictive multiplayer aspect or provide incentive for replaying it (new DLC). A perfect example is Star Wars TFU. Perfect rental, no reason to come back.

There's that Funnest word again. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-funnest-a-word.aspx

DAMN YOU STEVE JOBS!!!!

GOW clocked in around 12 hours for me.....SO thats ok I guess

Wow, you guys are pro. God of War took me forever to finish!

I hope "each game in the series" doesn't include Chains of Olympus, because I beat it in 6 hours...

Same, I've been playing God of War on and off for months now, maybe thats why it seems so long

Big [+] for Crackdown. Would've been cool if the missions were longer, but with all that there was to do (especially in co-op with a friend) I probably put upwards of 60-70 hours into that sucker, and plan on going back to it one day, probably after this mish-mash of awesome holiday releases.

Sometimes quality can actually increase quanitity, if the quality is so good that just running around doing whatever you feel like is enough to keep you entertained for hours on end, as it was in Crackdown.

Crackdown left me wanting a *real story*, but the gameplay was awesome. So disappointed when it ended though, mostly because there was NO STORY whatsoever in the game until the final moments.

Same with me for Gears 2 & Left 4 Dead. Were it not for those two games I would have already dumped my 360 off on someone else :/

Yeah and they can throw the Halo Beta in there to drive sal.....We are talkin about Crackdown right?

Going back and collecting the hidden items and secret reports added SOOOOOOO much to The World Ends With You. I like when you can go back and play specific parts again in any order. More games need that option.