Developer Panel Asks Whether AAA Games Are Too Long [Slashdot]

[DP ServBot]

Gamespot reports on a discussion at the Develop 2011 conference in which a panel of game designers debated whether recent big-budget releases like Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire were too long for a typical gamer's taste. Quoting: "'Gamers are losing patience,' said [Alexis Kennedy of Failbetter Games], when asked about his own experiences with Heavy Rain, 'so many people don't reach the end and lose the full impact of the story.' He wasn't complimentary of its narrative either, questioning the benefit of basing a game on long-form narrative such as film, resulting in a 'bastardized' storyline that doesn't quite work. ... The likes of social and casual games, particularly the cheap games available on mobile, have changed the expectations of gamers, the panel concluded. Since gamers are paying less money, there's less need to create 10-hour-plus gaming experiences, because consumers no longer feel shortchanged."http://a.fsdn.com/sd/facebook_icon_large.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgames.slashdot.org%2Fsto ry%2F11%2F07%2F20%2F0349207%2FDeveloper-Panel-Asks-Whether-AAA-Games-Are-Too-Long%3Futm_source%3Dslashdot%26utm_medium%3Dfacebo ok) http://a.fsdn.com/sd/twitter_icon_large.png (http://twitter.com/home?status=Developer+Panel+Asks+Whether+AAA+Games +Are+Too+Long%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FpdskOT)

Read more of this story (http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/07/20/0349207/Developer-Panel-Asks-Whether-AAA-Games-Are-Too-Long?utm_source=rss1.0&utm_medium=feed) at Slashdot.

http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/GTCkMFPYuv1mvy_z7SR6TLW1zjk/0/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/GTCkMFPYuv1mvy_z7SR6TLW1zjk/0/da)
http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/GTCkMFPYuv1mvy_z7SR6TLW1zjk/1/di (http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~at/GTCkMFPYuv1mvy_z7SR6TLW1zjk/1/da)

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~4/QZKK2D_hvzA

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotGames/~3/QZKK2D_hvzA/Developer-Panel-Asks-Whether-AAA-Games-Are-Too-Long)

[kedawa]

They're just now realizing that games aren't 20 hour movies?

[Gameguy]

DP ServBot seems to be posting more new topics now than before, is it trying to get more Meseta now that it's been added to the forum?

[Swamperon]

Not long enough? Most are too short!

[crazyjackcsa]

Too short! Far too short!

[Icarus Moonsight]

Gamers are losing patience? Projection.

[Robocop2]

I'd rather have a 6 hour game that didn't drag out things needlessly than a 10 hour filler-fest. But on the other hand you can protract a story to the point that it makes no sense as well. I guess really what I'm saying is I care far more about content than length personally.

[theclaw]

Too much filler! Grinding, nap-length cutscenes, cheap difficulty making you replay segments more than should be reasonable, unnecessary collect a thon and fetch quests, tacked on multiplayer...

[Baloo]

I definitely agree with too much filler. Between achievements and unlockables and pointless quests and activities to "100% complete" the game, I've simply lost my patience. Today you can't play a game from start to end, you have to backtrack and get a certain time, or play through it with more than one character, or walk over every square inch of space. Why am I going to waste my time with these extremely boring activities they give to fully complete a game?

Game developers should stop doing this and make the game harder and shorter, so I can feel like I actually accomplished something while having a good time playing the game.

[Gapporin]

Game developers should stop doing this and make the game harder and shorter...

That's what she said.

On a more relevant note, I don't find myself committing the same amount of time to games as I used to (or, perhaps, never did). This is why I tend to gravitate towards "casual" games, or games that really have no set ending and can be picked up and played for a little bit every time. I think Beat Hazard does an excellent job of this. Even though you're only playing the game for 5 minutes at a time, there's enough going on to where it feels like you're actually making progress in the game as a whole, no matter if your play session is 15 minutes or an hour. I think more games need to follow that kind of game design.

Then again, right now I'm 20+ hours into my Borderlands game, so perhaps I may not follow my own logic.

[kupomogli]

It's not that the games are too long. Most games this gen are crap, even the AAA. So you're having to play a shitty game well after it starts to get boring and you wanted it to end an hour in. Kind of like God of War 1, 2, and 3. Great graphics, shitty games.

[The 1 2 P]

I also think way too many games are more short than overly long. In the case of games like Call of Duty their campaigns are purposely short because of their online multiplayer. But then you have other games that drag on a bit too much, especially during the last few levels(looking at you Bullet Storm).

I've already said this in another thread and will repeat it here: paying the full $60 retail for a game with no multiplayer and a campaign that last less than 10 hours long is just unreasonable to me. The perfect example is Wanted. I liked the game but it lasted 7 hours at best and had no multiplayer. I only paid $13 for it but if someone had paid $60 for that I could certainly see them getting pissed.

[heybtbm]

Long single player games have been loosing their appeal to me for years. I can't devote that much time anymore. My gaming time has slowly turned into "multiplayer with friends on weekend nights" and maybe an hour or two during the week after everyone is asleep. Shorter single player experiences sound nice...at first...

"Shorter games" really seems like an excuse for developers to cut costs and deliver a lesser, shittier product. I'm conflicted.

That being said, I'm going to play the hell out of Skyrim. 200+ hours here I come!

[Gamevet]

I definitely agree with too much filler. Between achievements and unlockables and pointless quests and activities to "100% complete" the game, I've simply lost my patience. Today you can't play a game from start to end, you have to backtrack and get a certain time, or play through it with more than one character, or walk over every square inch of space. Why am I going to waste my time with these extremely boring activities they give to fully complete a game?

Game developers should stop doing this and make the game harder and shorter, so I can feel like I actually accomplished something while having a good time playing the game.

I try to get most of those trophies/achievements through the first run. Unless the game is super addicting, I couldn't care less about getting 100% in a game.

As far as a game like Heavy Rain being too long....have these people even tried to play a game of Fallout 3 or New Vegas?

[SpaceHarrier]

Depends on the game. Seriously.

I don't see how one can generalize this.

[Gamereviewgod]

Shorter games will change this industry and totally for the better. Development costs will go down. Time to polish and fix bugs goes up. Filler content will be eliminated. Games aren't as risky for publishers. Prices can match DVD and Blu-ray. People can buy more games. People can play more and take risks on obscure titles.

I've been saying for years games need to be trimmed (and the price needs to reflect that). I have no problem paying $30 for a four hour romp. Just on time alone that's a better value than films and I can't even count how many modern games would be drastically improved by an editor.

There can of course be room for the Final Fantasy's of the world. There will always be a place for 100 hour RPGs. Charge a premium for those if you must.

[kupomogli]

As far as a game like Heavy Rain being too long....have these people even tried to play a game of Fallout 3 or New Vegas?

Another series of games that I have no idea how they received the praise they've gotten. Fallout 3 seemed like a good game while you were escaping the vault. As soon as you escape the vault it gets slow, boring, and monotonous. It's just that the fun wasn't there. If they actually made the gameplay a lot more fun then it would have been different and maybe I wouldn't have got bored a couple hours after I got out of the vault. But 10 hours in, pretty much the same weapons, same armor, same boring gameplay.

[Gamevet]

Another series of games that I have no idea how they received the praise they've gotten. Fallout 3 seemed like a good game while you were escaping the vault. As soon as you escape the vault it gets slow, boring, and monotonous. It's just that the fun wasn't there. If they actually made the gameplay a lot more fun then it would have been different and maybe I wouldn't have got bored a couple hours after I got out of the vault. But 10 hours in, pretty much the same weapons, same armor, same boring gameplay.

I'm quite the opposite on that; I thought the vault was boring. Fallout 3 was about exploring a large open world. It had its faults though, because areas seemed too contained. New Vegas was a huge improvement, because you could explore every inch of the map.

[substantial_snake]

I'm quite the opposite on that; I thought the vault was boring. Fallout 3 was about exploring a large open world. It had its faults though, because areas seemed too contained. New Vegas was a huge improvement, because you could explore every inch of the map.

That's funny I had about the complete opposite experience with New Vegas as I was CONSTANTLY running into invisible walls as a treked around the wasteland and I never seemed to have that problem in Fallout 3. In many ways F:NV felt much more linear because around until you got to New Vegas the game was definitely pushing you as hard as it could to take a predetermined path weather it was invisible walls or devastating enemies down any alternatives. I was also disappointed at the huge 1/3 of the map section of the east that you couldn't explore as well...New Vegas really felt a ton more constrained to me then Fallout 3 where as in I picked a direction and would walk for hours picking up quests and doing random missions. The story and overall fell of New Vegas was better then its predecessor but that game was definitely way more constrained, at least it was in the way I play.

On topic:

I am rather disappointed by the length of most games this console generation because although a 6 hour campaign is more compact and focused I don't feel like I ever get my +60 dollars worth in a game if that's its only appeal. In a game like COD or Battlefield I let it slide because I can spend hours and hours online with friends having a good time. However if a game has a hastily tacked on multiplayer component (read: not very good) with a 6 hour campaign or even worse a 6 hour main single player game with no multplayer component then I feel ripped off and am unlikely to buy the sequel on release.

[Edmond Dantes]

I don't have much to say, but to keep it short I've felt games were too long for a LONG time.

Length alone isn't the problem though. The problem is variety. If the gameplay isn't gona vary much, then it needs to be 1-2 hours at the most. If its gonna vary or it has a compelling enough plot then you can go longer than that, sometimes much longer, but that usually doesn't happen. Like I quit playing Ico (and I'm about to do the same with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time) because I feel like I'm just doing the same things over and over for no reason. If both these games were much shorter, this wouldn't be a problem.

[YoshiM]

I'm conflicted. I don't mind modern games being 10-15 hours long but at the same time don't wanna spend $60 just for that. Then again I might not find any extras (multiplayer modes, challenge modes, what-have-you) appealing so even if the consensus says the game is chock full of stuff it still may not be worth it to me.

Probably the biggest issue with value is replayability. After you get through the story...then what? Play it again? If the biggest draw to a game IS the story, once you get past that, is the game play good enough to get you to keep playing?

[Press_Start]

Long or short....doesn't matter. I can list many great examples for either group. Kirby's Dream Land takes me around half an hour to finish but I still keep playing it over and over to no end and I did enjoy Persona 4's epic 100-hour dating-sim/dungeon crawler quest for every minute of it worth. Demon's Souls 60-hour addicting ass-busting, if ya lookin' for a modern gen example.

Video games, first and foremost, are a fun, exciting, and imaginative experience for the player, be it a $1 IPhone app, a $30 Gameboy cart or $60 PS3 disc. A decade or so ago, playing the game was rewarding in itself and the cutscenes you watched were a nice treat to watch but nowadays, in most modern titles, playing and watching has become a chore (or feels like it at least).

[Gamevet]

That's funny I had about the complete opposite experience with New Vegas as I was CONSTANTLY running into invisible walls as a treked around the wasteland and I never seemed to have that problem in Fallout 3. In many ways F:NV felt much more linear because around until you got to New Vegas the game was definitely pushing you as hard as it could to take a predetermined path weather it was invisible walls or devastating enemies down any alternatives. I was also disappointed at the huge 1/3 of the map section of the east that you couldn't explore as well...New Vegas really felt a ton more constrained to me then Fallout 3 where as in I picked a direction and would walk for hours picking up quests and doing random missions. The story and overall fell of New Vegas was better then its predecessor but that game was definitely way more constrained, at least it was in the way I play.


Arriving at New Vegas wasn't even 20% of the game; The world opens up once you get there. The choices you make in New Vegas, opens up multiple paths and alliances that you can abuse and work to your advantage. Picking up a secondary character also worked with where you could and could not go.

Fallout 3 used a subway system that pretty much took you to segments of the map, but those areas were pretty much blocked off from going anywhere, but where the game wanted you to go. New Vegas is just so much more open, with it allowing you to attempt to try new areas, whether you were outmatched or able to overcome the obstacles. The level of exploration was pretty deep in comparison.

[Edmond Dantes]

A decade or so ago, playing the game was rewarding in itself and the cutscenes you watched were a nice treat to watch but nowadays, in most modern titles, playing and watching has become a choir (or feels like it at least).

Modern games are church kids that sing to you? :) Kidding, I know what you mean. I've often felt the same way. It's why I often keep my Genesis and SNES hooked up and still buy games for them but rarely put any effort into collecting for my PS2.... and most of the things I DO buy are compilations of arcade classics. Call me crazy but if I was paying $50 for the Gradius Collection, it would still be more value for my money than the entire God of War trilogy.

(I've never played God of War, but they really don't sound up my alley)

[substantial_snake]

Arriving at New Vegas wasn't even 20% of the game; The world opens up once you get there. The choices you make in New Vegas, opens up multiple paths and alliances that you can abuse and work to your advantage. Picking up a secondary character also worked with where you could and could not go.

Fallout 3 used a subway system that pretty much took you to segments of the map, but those areas were pretty much blocked off from going anywhere, but where the game wanted you to go. New Vegas is just so much more open, with it allowing you to attempt to try new areas, whether you were outmatched or able to overcome the obstacles. The level of exploration was pretty deep in comparison.

I suppose that's my point, I don't like feeling like I'm railroaded through 20 percent of this style of game especially right at the beginning, hence it felt more linear then Fallout 3.

In both Oblivion, Fallout 3, and New Vegas once the tutorial section of the game was over I didn't care for following the main quest line period because in these games its not a strong point for me. In those games I literally could pick a direction and be completely immersed in the game by making decisions about where I wanted to go and who I wanted to talk to. I didn't get that feeling in New Vegas because If it wasn't massively overpowered enemies for your level it was invisible walls which threw me out of the game mindset, unlike the other two other games I mentioned.

Again since I had little interested in the main story path I just saw another subway tunnel as another way to get (relatively) quickly around the map or find something new and random to do or explore. I was about level 20ish (GOTY edition) before I continued the main quest line in Fallout 3 during my first play through by accidentally running into the Brotherhood of Steel defending Galaxy Radio after popping out of a tunnel I was exploring. I really enjoyed New Vegas but overall the game felt much more constrained to me.

[calthaer]

There can of course be room for the Final Fantasy's of the world. There will always be a place for 100 hour RPGs. Charge a premium for those if you must.

The first time I realized how much filler was in a lot of video games was playing FF7, actually. There were several plot moments that I thought really just didn't need to be in the story and could be cut, and were probably placed in there just to increase the length.

I would be in favor of games having less "main" storyline and potentially more "fetch quests" or side-things that are not necessary to plough through the core of the game (but that could yield nice bonuses). I've also been gravitating towards games that I can "chip away at" a little at a time, like heybtbm mentioned - Terraria being my current fix, but also some Lost in Blue 2 and some other ones. Even Advance Wars 2 seems to require too much commitment in its longer missions, even though you can save and pick it back up later.

[duffmanth]

For $60/game I expect well in excess of ten hours of gameplay.

[Gamevet]

I suppose that's my point, I don't like feeling like I'm railroaded through 20 percent of this style of game especially right at the beginning, hence it felt more linear then Fallout 3.

I'm guessing it's been awhile since you've played Fallout 3, but the railroad system pretty much forces you down a specific pathway, that will take you to one area of the map, or another. Once you're in that area, you can explore, but it's still boxed in with building rubble and natural blockades.


In both Oblivion, Fallout 3, and New Vegas once the tutorial section of the game was over I didn't care for following the main quest line period because in these games its not a strong point for me. In those games I literally could pick a direction and be completely immersed in the game by making decisions about where I wanted to go and who I wanted to talk to. I didn't get that feeling in New Vegas because If it wasn't massively overpowered enemies for your level it was invisible walls which threw me out of the game mindset, unlike the other two other games I mentioned.

All 3 of these games are guilty of taking you down a specific pathway, in order to advance the game. I honestly don't think you've played enough of New Vegas to experience how open the world is, once you've spoken to the right people. I can pretty much go to any place on the map, since I've talked to everyone. The invisible walls are just bad design desicions, but a lot of those walls make sense, especially with the mountains in the West.




Again since I had little interested in the main story path I just saw another subway tunnel as another way to get (relatively) quickly around the map or find something new and random to do or explore. I was about level 20ish (GOTY edition) before I continued the main quest line in Fallout 3 during my first play through by accidentally running into the Brotherhood of Steel defending Galaxy Radio after popping out of a tunnel I was exploring. I really enjoyed New Vegas but overall the game felt much more constrained to me.

You couldn't alway access every tunnel you wanted. You often had to talk to someone to get past some guy blocking the entryway.

I like the ability to warp around the maps in New Vegas. It makes it much more convenient to explore what you want to. Having to go through tunnels in Fallout 3, was the one part of the game I hated. The world offered in New Vegas is twice as big as that of Fallout 3; Its size may be a little too much to explore for some.

[substantial_snake]

I'm guessing it's been awhile since you've played Fallout 3, but the railroad system pretty much forces you down a specific pathway, that will take you to one area of the map, or another. Once you're in that area, you can explore, but it's still boxed in with building rubble and natural blockades.

All 3 of these games are guilty of taking you down a specific pathway, in order to advance the game. I honestly don't think you've played enough of New Vegas to experience how open the world is, once you've spoken to the right people. I can pretty much go to any place on the map, since I've talked to everyone. The invisible walls are just bad design desicions, but a lot of those walls make sense, especially with the mountains in the West.

You couldn't alway access every tunnel you wanted. You often had to talk to someone to get past some guy blocking the entryway.

I like the ability to warp around the maps in New Vegas. It makes it much more convenient to explore what you want to. Having to go through tunnels in Fallout 3, was the one part of the game I hated. The world offered in New Vegas is twice as big as that of Fallout 3; Its size may be a little too much to explore for some.

Everything your describing are fair sticking points for Fallout 3 but again that simply wasn't my experience playing the game.

I never felt like the DC ruins or the metro tunnels were some constricting mess because I wasn't following them to advance the story. I would hit a random entrance, which I would sometimes have to lockpick, and go exploring through the ruins. If I got bored I would quick travel out, I never felt like I had to go down the tunnels to open up the game world. It might of helped that I was a relatively high level when I had started exploring the tunnels and DC ruins but really never felt like the game gave me only one of two options. I can't emphasis enough how much I don't follow the main quest path in these games untill I'm bored enough to go ahead and try them.

Of course they are all going to have a path for you to travel down to advance the game's story, my problem with New Vegas is that it seemed to take so long before you could really explore and do whatever you wanted to. That period of time for me ended after the tutorial in Fallout 3 as it did in Oblivion. In New Vegas I never really felt like I could just pick a direction and go until about when I reached New Vegas, before that section you were pretty much forced down to follow the main highway that looped around southern part of the game world either due to gratuitous use of invisible walls to keep you "on the path" or enemies that were clearly designed to be content walls. It was frustrating to me because of the way I play these games, I didn't like being forced down a general path for so long.

Also your assumptions of me not playing through New Vegas or the game simply being too big for me to explore are wrong and are a little insulting. I wont claim to explore every section of the map in New Vegas but I did play through one complete file and another partial before I ended up selling the title. As I have said in EVERY post about this the game eventually opens up and is a really great title, but those several hours of feeling like I had to walk down this certain path was an annoying aspect to the way I play these games.

We are pretty much complaining about the same thing, the only difference is that I never felt like I had to go through the DC ruins to explore and have fun with the game where as in New Vegas you had to head down the same general path to open the rest of the game up.

(FYI I played the game on hardcore mode through both my completed play through and my attempted play through so that may have colored my opinion.)

[Gamevet]

(FYI I played the game on hardcore mode through both my completed play through and my attempted play through so that may have colored my opinion.)

Well, yeah. I can imagine the game not being that enjoyable on hardcore. Still, it's not like you had to play the game 8 hours, before you got to New Vegas. I probably got there about hour 5 or 6. I've put in about 72 hours exploring the whole map. I could probably finish the game within a couple more hours, but there's some things I'd still like to checkout before I finish it. But, I've taken a couple of months off from the game, so I don't know when I'll go back.

I just think New Vegas offers more to explore, but what might be a setback, is that the game doesn't feel all that much different from Fallout 3.

[substantial_snake]

Well, yeah. I can imagine the game not being that enjoyable on hardcore. Still, it's not like you had to play the game 8 hours, before you got to New Vegas. I probably got there about hour 5 or 6. I've put in about 72 hours exploring the whole map. I could probably finish the game within a couple more hours, but there's some things I'd still like to checkout before I finish it. But, I've taken a couple of months off from the game, so I don't know when I'll go back.

I just think New Vegas offers more to explore, but what might be a setback, is that the game doesn't feel all that much different from Fallout 3.

I seriously don't know how else I can say that I really enjoyed New Vegas, I only felt like it was more linear then Fallout 3. :roll:

That being said I actually liked Hardcore mode, even though it was a bit of a bother making sure you were hydrated, well fed, and rested it brought me into the game world even more so I enjoyed it. The biggest change however was the lack of instant-heal items, that made approaching combat situations very different from Fallout 3 and I liked it. It made me develop different tactics and to largely be much more careful playing the game.

I only really ended up selling the title for two reasons. I received my copy as a gift for the PS3 and the game was supper buggy which became highly frustrating the longer the game went on. I'm going to pick up the inevitable DLC full (and hopefully less bug ridden) version whenever that is released on one disc. Other then the linear part that I didn't like it was an amazing game.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Long single player games have been loosing their appeal to me for years. I can't devote that much time anymore. My gaming time has slowly turned into "multiplayer with friends on weekend nights" and maybe an hour or two during the week after everyone is asleep. Shorter single player experiences sound nice...at first...

"Shorter games" really seems like an excuse for developers to cut costs and deliver a lesser, shittier product. I'm conflicted.

That being said, I'm going to play the hell out of Skyrim. 200+ hours here I come!


thats exactly what i said when i read that bullshit


they'll shave single player games down to 4 hours or less, then charge us 70 dollars for the privilege

[Gamevet]

I seriously don't know how else I can say that I really enjoyed New Vegas, I only felt like it was more linear then Fallout 3. :roll:


Fair enough. I thought it was quite the opposite, with Fallout 3 feeling a little more enclosed on where you could go.