Developer Panel Asks Whether AAA Games Are Too Long 342
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."
Short games are fine, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
obviously not for 50-60 bucks. If you make a 2h AAA game you must be able to sell it for 10 bucks.
Bad metric (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the success of games like Angry Birds are showing developers that they don't need to make an overbudget game that takes 20 hours to complete. Even games that can be played through in an hour or less can have great longevity on multiple playthroughs. Look at the Cave shooters - deep scoring systems and challenging mechanics keep players coming back for more. And linearity and repetition have nothing to do with it either - every game (even real life sports) has both, what's important is that the game is fun to play over and over.
Looking at it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
They're looking at it the wrong way. If someone quits before the end of the game, you've failed to make the game compelling enough to finish.
Most FPSs fall into that category for me. They start out with some amount of story, but quickly devolve into just shooting people in new locations over and over. The few FPSs that I've finished have either been really short, or had a compelling story that I wanted to see the end of.
Even most new RPGs are in that category for me. There's so much bland same-old-same-old fighting in the middle that I just can't care about the plot.
On the other hand, when I'm actively engaged, I can play for a long, long time. Oblivion - 250+ hours. Fallout3 - 250+ hours. Fallout New Vegas - 200+ hours and counting.
"Videogame Stories." I Always Chuckle at That... (Score:2, Insightful)
Videogames are not books or films; they are a different medium altogether. Consequently, videogame developers should be focusing on the interactive aspects of videogame play that are unique, not trying to imitate the linear aspects of other media. Never mind that the videogame stories are inevitably dreadful imitations of book and movie plotlines that have been done before by legitimate storytellers.
And you videogame players that are vocally insistent that developers focus more on story and less on multiplayer and other uniquely interactive aspects of their craft: Stop! Go read a book. You don't attend a ballet and then complain that none of the performers sang; stop complaining about lack of story in your videogames.
Gamers are not just one market (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking that "gamers" are just one market with one mind and one set of tastes show an incredible lack of business and consumer awareness.
Is somebody said "The recent explosion in take-away, fast-food outlets shows that restaurant-goers are not interested in sitting down and having a long meal in a pleasant environment. The likes of cheap takeaway sandwich sellers have changed the expectations of restaurant-goers. Since restaurant-goers are paying less money, there is less need to create nice-evening-meal-in-the-restaurant experiences because consumers no longer feel shortchanged" you would think them to be morons and yet that's what this "panel" said about games.
To put things bluntly:
- The production values of the cheap crap you can play on your own on your mobile when riding the subway to work have absolutely nothing to do with the expected production values for a game you play at home in the evening or during the weekend, on a dedicated game machine connected to a big screen, probably with friends, just like the quality of the food and service from the local sandwich vendor from where I pick-up my lunch when at work has absolutly nothing to do with the quality of the food and service I expect from a good restaurant where I go to in the evening or weekend with my friends, family or someone special.
They're different markets!
Re:The assumption they make is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Short games are fine, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
if it's got replayability value, it would be good.
it's just that boring games are boring. if there's MAGIC in it, it doesn't matter one flying fuck if it takes 1000h to play it. you will play it. problem is if the long playtime comes from shitty cutscenes everywhere, unimaginative levels and an engine that is extremely boring(doesn't make a good illusion, contrary to what some producers believe, the illusion doesn't get better if you add environment mapped tears or focal blur to make it seem like a shitty movie set the game is in). maybe many people don't finish heavy rain because it sucks - as a game. good luck making a sequel then.
Re:Short games are fine, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
obviously not for 50-60 bucks. If you make a 2h AAA game you must be able to sell it for 10 bucks.
Perhaps what he really means is long and fun games are being selfish because people can play them sometimes 100+ hours instead of buying dozens of shitty 2 hour long games, each for the same price. What these greedy developers don't seem to get is that there is only so much disposable income that can go on games. If a single game is played for a very long time or pirated, the money doesn't disappear it just goes into something else and if the piracy and long games ceased to happen, there is still the same amount of money to go around. No magic pot of gold will suddenly appear.
If I loose interest in a 10 hour+ game, its not because its too long, its because its a shit game.
Re:Wait... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing departments are always looking for additional revenue sources. From their standpoint, we serious gamers have no serious business growth to them, so they need to find a way to grow the company more. Enter the casual gamer. This would be their new target audience for growth. If they can create games on a smaller budget, have it be over and done with in 10 hours of game play, and create a more consistent revenue stream (meaning that they buy another game after they finish the previous game) then it's a win for them.
The optimist in me would still like to think that they would make AAA titles for us serious gamer types, but reality has usually proven me wrong.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Short games are fine, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guarantee that when the game developer decided that games are too long, the notion that they were also too expensive did not enter his brain for even a microsecond.
I don't know about this guy, but when I finish a "AAA" game lately, I'm much more inclined to say "This is too short, I feel ripped off." than "Gee, that was waaaay too long".
Here's a RULE for the genius who thinks "AAA" games are "too long":
"If it feels like's it's "too long" then it's not a "AAA" game, it's just a crap game that somebody spent too much marketing money on."