Gamers want shorter, better games - Dyack

[wraggster]

via gibiz

Gamers no longer want to play games that last 60 or 100 hours according to Silicon Knights president Denis Dyack.

"Legacy of Kain had about sixty hours of play, but games have changed. People don't want that any more. I don't care how good the game is, I don't want to play something that's one hundred hours long," Dyack told GamesIndustry.biz in an interview published today.

"If we're going to craft an epic story we decided we had to divide it into manageable chunks for the consumer," he said, referring to Silicon Knights' proposed Too Human trilogy for Xbox 360, the first instalment of which is currently in development. "At the same time we wanted to do a game that it has a chance to evolve and take advantage of development changes.

"We think the future is all about content. By getting our flow of process together for the first game we can then look at it and evolve the way we work for the next games in the series. We didn't want to have to start from scratch again after the first Too Human. Is it gutsy to promise so much? Yes, but making games is hard."

However, Dyack warns that even if you split your story into chunks, you can't expect every player to keep up. "Each game needs to be self contained," he argues. "That was flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies. Too Human will be self-contained across each game of the trilogy.

"There'll be more background for those that play all three. It's not a hook, it's a promise that if players want something epic, this is where to come. What we're trying to do is create something that moves the industry towards a very content-rich environment. I love trilogy books and series. We've got a lot of things to say in Too Human and we couldn't do it in anything shorter than three games."

Do you agree or disagree with the "Gamers want shorter, better games" comment ?

[goity]

This is a ridiculous lie that can be disproven just by looking at FFXII in the charts. It's just developers wanting to release half-assed attempts at games, and trying to brainwash people into buying them. Pretty much like nearly every 3rd party attempt at a game for DS.

[irishwhip]

if i play a game for that long, i feel i have gotten my moneys worth.
there will always be room for epic adventure games if you ask me
(currently loving starwars: kotor on the xbox, 55 hours so far )

[Sonicboy 101]

Wrong.
Think Oblivion. Lasts about 100 hours of play, and people love it.
People do not want shorter games at all.

However, Dyack warns that even if you split your story into chunks, you can't expect every player to keep up. "Each game needs to be self contained," he argues. "That was flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies. Too Human will be self-contained across each game of the trilogy.

You obviously wasn't patient enough to watch it all.

[tvrstl]

well, I kinda like the long, Final Fantasy games

before, when I were 'bout 7 years old (just about the release of Final Fantasy VIII) I thougt I'd like best the largest game, With 4 Cd's after all, but I only bought Final Fantasy VII.

Now I'm happy that I only bought VII, it's a much better game.


but Final Fantasy should be long lasting games, or else I wouldn't think of it as a traditional final fantasy game.

to tell it in few words: Final Fantasy Is ment to be a Large game!!

[gamev8]

I would have played
The Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past
if it were 1000 hours long and it could be now

ROM Size (PC) 1MB
Disk Size (Wii) 8.5GB
Thats a 8704 times bigger world or longer story
or more items or . . . (you get the idea)

[mfz64]

that's all crap! no one wants to pay at least 50 bucks and the game turns out really good but only 5 hours long! All they need to improve on is how good the game is.

[Basil Zero]

Wrong, Star Ocean till the End of Time, over 100 hours of gameplay, GOOD game

Its not because of length, its all about quality.

Infact I still think games are too short, anyone think about God of War?

[MagicCake]

Well, I know there are definitely some people who feel the way he does, but I personally disagree. Like irishwhip said, if I get a long game I'm more likely to feel I've gotten my moneys worth out of it. It's why I have a hard time paying $60 for games these days when I've gotten games like Star Ocean for $20 and enjoyed them for 80 hours.

I guess I do see some value in a short but high quality game, as long as the price is right. I think even the "average" gamer can agree with this: if someone figures he can buy something like Oblivion for $60, then he might be somewhat disappointed with a 6 hour game that cost him just as much.

I think this short-but-sweet way of thinking partly comes from developers seeing the success of episodic games like the Half-Life 2 episodes...and then quickly forgetting they're only $20 a piece. Or games like God of War and Gears of War, which were highly-succesful titles that were designed to be memorable and intense, albeit only for a few hours.

This may ultimately lose money instead of make it. I know I would opt to buy the cheaper, used version of a game (in which case the company who made it gets no money) if I knew it wasn't going to last very long.

Edit: I see Basil Zero thought of two of the same games I did while I was writing this, heh.

[Cloud_35]

Of course not!!! A short game is a bad game for me (normally).