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."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.






More...

[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.