Hmm: The End Of Long Games?

News Reader · Post by **News Reader** » June 18th, 2008, 11:00

Hmm: The End Of Long Games?
Gamasutra have posted a brief interview with one of our favourite developers-with-beard, Mr Warren Spector. In that interview he talks about the fall of the long game.
"Game costs are going to be $35-40 million, even $100 million, and the expectations are huge. You have to differentiate yourselves. One-hundred hour games are on the way out... [...]

Author: Jim Rossignol
Category: RockPaperShotgun Warren-Spector
Publish Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:30:16 +0000

Gamasutra have posted a brief interview with one of our favourite developers-with-beard, Mr Warren Spector. In that interview he talks about the fall of the long game.

"Game costs are going to be $35-40 million, even $100 million, and the expectations are huge. You have to differentiate yourselves. One-hundred hour games are on the way out... How many of you have finished GTA? Two percent, probably. If we're spending $100 million on a game, we want you to see the last level!"

But do you, the player, care if you don't see the last level? Aside from the fact that GTA is a really bad example to use in this instance (given that people use it more as a playground than as a story), do we agree with Mr Spector's statement? Games with huge play-times seem to me to be very much healthy, and staying. Perhaps if anything, as Kieron suggests, it's actually the middle ground that is being lost. Games are either going to be very short, or endless.

What do you think, interbrain?

... [visit site to read more]

Read more... - Read comments...

Source: Rock, Paper, Shotgun
Description: The PC Gaming site: news and opinion on all things PC games

Post by **FatherJack** » June 18th, 2008, 15:20

Portal was one of the very few games I actually completed last year, so it's a decent point. However prices don't always match up quite as well as this with the game's length and enjoyment factor.

The others I can recall were Bioshock and Stalker, which were worth the money, but became less fun towards the end.

Post by **deject** » June 18th, 2008, 16:00

I tend to finish games I start, mostly just because I like to get my money's worth, so a game has to really be bad for me not to push through. There are some exceptions to this, mostly with older games that I'm playing through 3-5 years after release. Like Far Cry. I've played through about half of it I think, but I just can't be bothered to finish it right now.

Killavodka · Post by **Killavodka** » June 18th, 2008, 16:47

Games are getting much shorter though especially in the RPG department, I remember spending about 40 hours completing FF7, and then recently I completed Mass Effect in under 15 hours which is a bit disappointing

Hehulk · Post by **Hehulk** » June 18th, 2008, 17:11

Killavodka wrote:Games are getting much shorter though especially in the RPG department, I remember spending about 40 hours completing FF7, and then recently I completed Mass Effect in under 15 hours which is a bit disappointing

I definatly agree with this. First RPG I remeber playing (Mystaria) I must have spent 40 hours+ working my way though dungeons and the like. Most recently I (finally) played through knights of the old republic, and I don't think it took me half that.

Post by **deject** » June 18th, 2008, 19:12

I don't get how you guys are beating Mass Effect so quickly. I spent about 40 hours in Mass Effect. I didn't even do all of the sidequests either.

just most of them.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » June 18th, 2008, 19:36

deject wrote:I don't get how you guys are beating Mass Effect so quickly. I spent about 40 hours in Mass Effect. I didn't even do all of the sidequests either.

just most of them.

They're doing it wrong, ie. rushing through it.

Killavodka · Post by **Killavodka** » June 18th, 2008, 20:25

deject wrote:I don't get how you guys are beating Mass Effect so quickly. I spent about 40 hours in Mass Effect. I didn't even do all of the sidequests either.

The side-quests are just to make it look bigger than it is. If you picked up a book and saw it had 500 pages, then read it and it had 200 pages of mini-stories with no relevance to the main story you wouldn't be happy. That's the way I see it, especially when you are meant to be rushing around saving the galaxy, not wandering off to a random planet to clean people's toilets etc.

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » June 18th, 2008, 20:45

Killavodka wrote:If you picked up a book and saw it had 500 pages, then read it and it had 200 pages of mini-stories with no relevance to the main story you wouldn't be happy.

Depends, what happens if it's one of the those adventure books, with your actions having you turning to paragraphs on other pages? I'd be pretty happy to have side quests in one of them

Post by **Dog Pants** » June 18th, 2008, 21:04

buzzmong wrote: Depends, what happens if it's one of the those adventure books, with your actions having you turning to paragraphs on other pages? I'd be pretty happy to have side quests in one of them

Or even, what if those short stories are quite good? If they were stories by Lovecraft or Dahl I'd certainly read them.

Post by **deject** » June 18th, 2008, 21:09

I saw the sidequests as a way to increase my XP and get Paragon/Renegade points. I was level 49 by the time I finished the game actually.

Post by **Dog Pants** » June 18th, 2008, 21:33

One level short of a badge.

Post by **TezzRexx** » June 19th, 2008, 0:06

They should try playing Metal Gear Solid 4.. or watching the cutscenes... Aye-yi-yi!

Post by **HereComesPete** » June 19th, 2008, 5:29

That is one way of making games last longer. The need to talk to everyone who has a good 1/2 an hour of un-skippable cut scene attached to them.

I played the older mgs's because they got good scores from so many, so I they must be worth it. But I never really enjoyed them, except for pretending to be a cardboard box.

Post by **FatherJack** » June 19th, 2008, 9:53

Despite them containing infamously rather a lot of cut scenes, the Final Fantasy games still deliver 80+ hours to me.

Is the new MGS4 I've been hearing raved about basically the same as the first game, but with better graphics? Because I absolutely hated that game.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » June 19th, 2008, 17:22

FatherJack wrote:Is the new MGS4 I've been hearing raved about basically the same as the first game, but with better graphics? Because I absolutely hated that game.

I'm going to assume it is, saves me having to play it. Might rent it at some stage though.

Post by **deject** » June 19th, 2008, 19:18

deject wrote:I saw the sidequests as a way to increase my XP and get Paragon/Renegade points. I was level 49 by the time I finished the game actually.

Actually, I should also say that I didn't leave the Citadel until I was about 16-17 hours into the game, lol. There is a lot of people to talk to and places to explore.

Post by **TezzRexx** » June 19th, 2008, 20:10

FatherJack wrote:Despite them containing infamously rather a lot of cut scenes, the Final Fantasy games still deliver 80+ hours to me.

Is the new MGS4 I've been hearing raved about basically the same as the first game, but with better graphics? Because I absolutely hated that game.

Story Wise, it's exactly the same, far fetched, super complicated craziness from the first game and unless you played 2 and 3, you may feel quite confused by the story.

Gameplay wise, it still contains elements of stealth but in many ways it's significantly different from MGS1. First, there's the on going war element, where you are placed inbetween two armies fighting each other, the militia/rebels vs the PMCs, which are hired armies, hired namely by Liquid Snake. You can help the rebels fight off the PMCs or not, however it does make things easier for you if you do help them.

Then there is the way the stealth system works now. In MGS3, they introduced a new system which depended on where you were located and the cammo you were wearing. If you were in a huge patch of grass, wearing a grass cammo and lying, then you're rated at 95% hidden and the enemy could walk right past you. If you were perhaps wearing Red Tiger cammo and crawling in the grass, you'd probably only have about 35% invisibility.
This is carried over into MGS4, however this time rather then selecting cammo manually like MGS3 (although you can do this if you wish), your suit changes depending on what you touch. It's rather cool and and works really well.

It's really up to you as to how you play, as this MGS allows you to either stealth it or go out guns blazing and both ways are enjoyable.

Tl:dr - Try renting or perhaps try and get MGS3, although it won't explain too much of the story compared to MGS2, although wikipedia is your friend. Personally unless you played MGS1 and 2 and enjoyed them, you might not enjoy it, as it's extremely story orientated.

Post by **FatherJack** » June 19th, 2008, 20:42

It wasn't so much the story I hated, as I didn't actually get any of that - it was the "you've been spotted, Game Over" style that infuriated me. I never got past the very first level.

Shada · Post by **Shada** » June 19th, 2008, 21:07

FatherJack wrote:It wasn't so much the story I hated, as I didn't actually get any of that - it was the "you've been spotted, Game Over" style that infuriated me. I never got past the very first level.

It was never "you've been spotted, game over". It's more "you've been spotted, at this early stage you won't be able to fight very well so go and hide somewhere and wait for the evasion counter to go down."

And all that meant was you hide behind (or, famously, inside) a box for a bit. At later stages you got weapons and huge increases in Life and you could basically just fight your way through.

I really want to play MGS4, but I don't have a PStriple. I wanted to play MGS3 too but I didn't have and still don't have a PSdouble - I only managed to play MGS2 because that was back when my brother still lived here and he had it.

But my love for the MGS series isn't enough to make me buy consoles. Yeuch.