Winterbottom devs think you're tired of 80-hour games

"I wish multiplayer was sold separately from singleplayer, so I could save a few bucks by just buying the multiplayer"

Ewww, we've got one of them casual gamers amongst us. Quick, grab your copy of Fallout 3 and Demon's Souls and chase him away, they don't like good games after all!

I've got to laugh... When I attempt one of those "40+ hour games", invariably less than 20 hours in, there is a boss or other activity that is next to impossible for me to finish (I speak just for me - a member of the Atari generation). I've got plenty of friends who agree they most often skip finishing a game out of frustration - a single point that we've played over and over without success and throwing controllers at the wall (or worse the TV if you really lose your mind,

Thankfully, in GOW, when I couldn't get past the "train-level" near the end (I'm talking HOURS of trying), I found what I'm sure was a 9 year-old kid on XBL to co-op through it. Thank god! We finished in one attempt - otherwise I'd never have finished the game.

Aside from difficulty causing me to quit a game, I think of Assassins Creed, where I couldn't stand the tedious repetition. ... and the tedious repetition of planet exploration in Mass Effect - I must have a level of OCD to have dealt with that enough to have finished that game.


I'm not into competitive multi-player, so I'm floored by the $60 games with an easy 10-hour storyline that is "compensated by" a killer death-match mode I'll never use.

Oh yeah, definitely. I can't remember the last long ass game I played to completion.

Games that last less than 10 hours do have a market, but they should also be priced accordingly. For 10 hours I would pay $20 for a game (maybe even $25).

Dead Space was a good game. I wasn't upset I bought it. Just annoyed I spent $60 on it. To me thats not a value. Yes my 14 hours playing the game was good, but it could have been a little longer, or less expensive.

I have been playing Fallout 3 for over 120 hours. Been through all the DLC and replayed it twice. It's a game (like Oblivion and GTA IV) that I go back to just to enjoy the immersible worlds.

I think developers will have to come up with a pricing structure that focus on length of play and innovation of play. Dead Space was a great innovative play game, worth paying a little extra.

Not sure if people are done with 80+ games. The facts really do not support that.

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...

The best thing game creators could do is to include all the online multiplayer part of the games as downlable content.

That way they could optimize the disc size, create a compelling single player campaign and split screen multiplayer, and keep the cost of the games under control.

All the online content, just download it you want to game online

Yes and no.

World of Goo was always meant to be a 6-7 hour game but Okami was always meant to be a 40-50 hour game.

There are some games that work better long, and others where they are short and sweet.

Personally I don't have time for a lot of gaming now so when I do get some single player gaming, I prefer quality over quantity but then come the Summer break from medical school, I get some of the longer games played and enjoyed.

It depends on how well they are paced. DQ8 is an excellent example of how to pace an 80 hour game. I prefer longer games to short for the most part, but there needs to be content that is entertaining to play, not just filler to trudge through.

If Uncharted 2 was an 80 hour game, I think I can safely say I'd disappear from the world for a month and just dedicate my life to it.

Here, here. I'm glad someone said it. I hate it when developers boast about the length of their game, because I don't want a game that's ridiculously long. I want a game that I can be reasonably expected to beat within my lifetime even if I don't slavishly devote myself to it. I'd rather have a game that's short, REALLY good, and has a lot of replay value. I've played very, very few games that had long playthrough times and didn't eventually wear out their welcome. Heck, a lot of 40-hour games get repetitive and redundant before they're through, much less 80-hour games. The only really long games I can think of that I actually finished and didn't get to be a pain by the end are Baten Kaitos and the Final Fantasy Tactics Advance games. Again, the most enjoyable games for anyone but hardcore RPG nuts are those that are short, consistently engaging, and offer lots of replay value - think Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania, Chrono Trigger, or most good shooters.

ugh, told you guys. and tmac, that is what you said, but later you said that i was one of them even though you know damn well that i play single player too. last time i checked, arkham asylum and infamous don't have any multiplayer to speak of...

I play tested this game not too long ago and its mehhhh. The art style is new to XBLA and with the music as well. The game was extremely short in the time we played it. some of the testers even finished it in the short time we were testing it lol.

"People are tired of 80-hour games, so..."

Uhh... dumb. People are tired of playing games that are worth the 60 bones? I have logged a day in Borderlands, haven't finished it, and am having a blast. If I finished it in 10 or 20 hours I would've been sorely disappointed. This comment is ignorant and incredibly stupid. I have a feeling I'll be taking about 8 seconds to take a mental deuce on "The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom" when I see it on XBLA. This game looks horrible. The art direction is absolutely retarded.