Winterbottom devs think you're tired of 80-hour games
by Justin McElroy 
{ Oct 21st 2009 at 11:15PM } 
As studio co-founder Matt Korba told Gamasutra, "People are tired of 80-hour games ... so, I think the other thing about these indie experiences and these vignettes is you get something that's really good and really satisfying in a short amount of time."
Even if the game length discussion isn't particularly interesting to you, the full interview is worth a read if you're curious at all about the indie perspective.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
roger @ Oct 21st 2009 11:19PM
10 hours isn't enough when your playing a fantastic game like Uncharted 2, yet 1hour of Wheelman was all I could take.
Ridgecity @ Oct 22nd 2009 4:36AM
I agree. I rather stop playing myself than the game ending too soon.
uncle jesse @ Oct 22nd 2009 9:40AM
But if you stop playing yourself, does that mean that the game was longer than it should have been and got old?
Or I guess it could have just sucked, too...
Shagittarius @ Oct 22nd 2009 11:46AM
The game industry is releasing too many games now, an 80 hour game use to be great because you could play it for the next 2 months until a new exciting game came out.
Asking consumers to buy more games by making them shorter and releasing them more often with more iterations is a stupid ass thing to do that will only hurt the industry in the long run.
Huey2k2 @ Oct 21st 2009 11:19PM
I could take 80 hours of a game if the game was really really awesome for the entire 80 hours.
ryanpaulmcgowan @ Oct 21st 2009 11:30PM
I could take 80 hours of a game if any game ever had 80 hours worth of gameplay in it.
AvA (ice~) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:42PM
Fallout 3 says hi.
Alton Brown [ XBL: LordToastington] @ Oct 21st 2009 11:44PM
Persona 3 and 4 say hi.
Huey2k2 @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:03AM
I tried to play Fallout 3, but the PC version was so buggy I had to uninstall it, it was basically unplayable.
Well it wasn't unplayable per say, the game just stopped functioning all together if I tried to use VATS.... maybe the bugs have been fixed, I would really like to actually be able to play it at some point.
Viney @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:08AM
Haze says hello? .. Anyone? Hello?!
Avatar @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:11AM
@ Alton
Only reason Persona is such a long game is because the story parts are soooooo long and dry. That doesn't make it good.
Ghen @ Oct 22nd 2009 7:13AM
GTA4 and Tales of Vesperia also dropped in to say Hi Ryan.
xboxer @ Oct 22nd 2009 10:28AM
I've got to laugh... When I attempt one of those "40+ hour games", invariably
Kyle @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:53PM
Yeah I've clocked in over 80 hours with Fallout 3 and I've only just started the DLC. And I still have plenty of side quests I can do.
It all depends on the game really.
Zexion_VI @ Oct 21st 2009 11:22PM
lol with games running at $60, I better get more than 80 hours. Hell, I can get 250 hours from a $30 game. Twice over. THanks Dissidia and Persona 4.
roger @ Oct 21st 2009 11:24PM
I know what you mean, I won't pay anything over $40 for a new game thankfully because of Amazon I have 5 left to get and not one cost more than $23.
cknblade @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:01AM
Fallout 3. Steam sale $40. Anchorage + The Pitt, $20. I've probably dropped 100 hours + on fallout over the three times I've played it through...
Einhanderkiller @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:01AM
I personally use GoGamer. I love their 48 Hour Madness.
MagusDF @ Oct 22nd 2009 9:04AM
Price as an argument to play time is a a fairly shitty point.
No ones asking you to pick something up the day it comes out, just wait for it to be on sale.
The last thing I want to see is a bunch of 90+ hr games for 60$ that are extended to be that time without much thought.
Id much rather see a 4 hr game with some extended reason to come back to it such as multilayer, rankings what have you.
kal326 @ Oct 22nd 2009 8:19PM
I'd be ok with an 8 hour game if they where ok with a $6 price.
Vcize @ Oct 21st 2009 11:23PM
There's too many great games nowadays. I just have to skip the uber long ones, which unfortunately means I still haven't played Fallout 3 or finished Tales of Vesperia.
Otis Whitaker @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:05AM
ToV is only 20 hours long or so.
About 15-18 if you're decent with RPGs.
R (Planeteers | Power of Penile Pulse) @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:15AM
Otis is talking out of his ass.
I spent 68 hours in ToV, and I am well experienced with JRPGs. And I still didnt even come close to completing/finding everything in that game.
Otis Whitaker @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:32AM
Well, IF you do everything, maybe?
But just finishing the game itself isn't going to take you that long at all :x
Zorak000 @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:18PM
That is like saying Halo 3 is a 5-minute game if all you ever play is a single game of slayer.
nutman @ Oct 21st 2009 11:23PM
I stopped playing Twilight Princess because people kept saying it was 70 hours or whatever. I just don't have time for that.
Huey2k2 @ Oct 21st 2009 11:25PM
Twilight Princess took me around 40 hours my first playthrough. It might take you 70 hours if you are going for 100% completion, but for most people it shouldn't.
CheeziePotato @ Oct 21st 2009 11:33PM
Took me about 70hrs on Twilight Princess . I always complete 100% of every Zelda game.
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:24PM
This is stupid.
80hr games have a target that they are trying to reach.
Shorter games have a target that they are trying to reach.
Claiming you can take the "best of both worlds" is absurd.
I don't want an 5hr version of Demon's Souls.
MC Double Def DP @ Oct 21st 2009 11:27PM
I love me some demon's souls
SpyderTaco (PSN: Ar4chNova89) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:28PM
I think I've mentioned the game in almost all of my posts.
Even if it didn't make sense...
nighttime @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:35AM
a 5 hour version of Demon Souls sounds like a oxymoron.
devilsei @ Oct 22nd 2009 11:21AM
I can't blame ya, its just too awesome not to talk about, hell I have to control myself on other sites I post on so I don't talk about it on there (hell, been tempted to talk about it on WoW.com and that has nothing in common with Souls).
And if Demon's Souls was only 5hrs long... god I frakin suck at it cause I've easily spent at least 30 so far, with two bosses in boletaria, one in stonefang, one in the tower of latria, and one in the swamp area dead... so hell I aint close to beating that...
darkandlong @ Oct 21st 2009 11:24PM
Yeah, 10 hours of great game is nice... If it didn't cost 60-70 bucks.
Paul @ Oct 21st 2009 11:28PM
This sums it up very well. I like a great short game but I wouldn't want to buy it for full price, that's why I pretty much just rent games now, I get sick of all but a very few after less the the week I have the game.
The few exceptions are the 80 hour games that I just play over and over, I wouldn't hesitate the price on a game like that.
CtrlBurn @ Oct 22nd 2009 9:37AM
Case in point, Star Wars Force Unleashed. It was a fun game, but I've never gone back to it since I beat it. There wasn't anything worth going back to find. I don't see why games like that get such good reviews.
nasalbaton @ Oct 21st 2009 11:26PM
I agree... as long as the great 10 hour game also has great multiplayer. I just don't have enough time for super long games anymore. Never finished Fable 2 or GTA 4. Great games, just didn't have the time.
MrKlorox @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:35AM
Fable 2 is MUCH shorter than GTA4. There's only like seven or eight primary missions in Fable 2.
Yes GTA4 is long, but the sad part is that most people hear how long it is and give up on that fact even if they aren't very far from the beginning. I had a friend give up and sell his copy as soon as he reached Algonquin because he heard that he was less than half way to the end. And for those people, EFLC is coming out.
Gamer4Life @ Oct 22nd 2009 4:05AM
They probably give up on GTA IV cause it's shit, I've got it. I gave it a couple of hours and that's it, I'm just glad I got it for less then $7 (Value Village).
More on topic about 20-30 hours is good, not too short, not too long, provided the game play is good (GTA IV's isn't).
WINterfang ( Now with the power to piss you off ) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:29PM
I'm tired of Multiplayer games with a tack on 10 hour campaign.
RKN @ Oct 21st 2009 11:32PM
I'm surprised Modern Warfare 2 even bothers with a single player campaign, since the vast majority of gameplay will be online. I know that some will skip the campaign altogether.
They should ship a multiplayer only version of the game and it will still sell like crazy.
I will gladly pay extra for more SP missions in Call of Duty games.
Special Agent Steve @ Oct 21st 2009 11:33PM
"I'm surprised Modern Warfare 2 even bothers with a single player campaign"
The first one was amazing. What reason would there NOT to ship a campaign.
RKN @ Oct 21st 2009 11:35PM
I loved the campaign of the first game as well. Its just that you know that developers are going where the money is, so IW is placing the PC version on the backburner.
But the money is also on MP rather than SP. Its not only cheaper to create MP maps, but they also sell very well and are played through a shitload of times.
In the future, COD titles may only be MP, who knows...I don't like it personally just like IW pissing on the PC market but it may happen.
CheeziePotato @ Oct 21st 2009 11:37PM
Single Player > Multiplayer
WINterfang ( Now with the power to piss you off ) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:40PM
There's no reason both features can't coexist together, Pokemon and Sports games are a good example of that.
Sly @ Oct 21st 2009 11:42PM
oh god, let's not start another single vs. multi debate again. if we do, tmac's anti-gamer senses will kick in and he'll come troll us to oblivion how multiplayer gamers aren't gamers. let's just keep it civil.
WINterfang ( Now with the power to piss you off ) @ Oct 21st 2009 11:47PM
Multiplayer gamers aren't gamers? what kind of Bullshit is that? I'm just mad because I don't have online on my console so I can't enjoy playing with my friends and I don't have local friends to play on couch, One of my biggest disappointments this gen was KOF XII, the gameplay is fantastic but without someone to play beside it just fall apart.
BTW how is Borderlands? It's an RPG so it can't be that short.
tmacairjordan87 @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:00AM
Way to twist my words yet again Sly, you might have a career lined up at Faux News down the road. I said multiplayer ONLY people aren't gamers.
Crayfish @ Oct 22nd 2009 12:03AM
Wasn't tmac's thing actually about how gamers who refuse to play anything BUT multiplayer games aren't gamers?
I mean I don't really know about the semantics of the issue, but not playing a (quality) game because it doesn't have multiplayer is pretty dickish.
Charlie_Six @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:42AM
I agree w/ RKN. I wish multiplayer was sold separately from singleplayer, so I could save a few bucks by just buying the multiplayer.