Gamers want shorter, better games - Dyack

[wraggster]

via gibiz (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=24738)

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. :D

[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).

[gronne]

well, considering most of you are the "elite" at gaming, I figure games should be long so that you get value for the $60 you've paid. However, as a mediocre gamer, I rarely have the interest to play games longer than max 20 hours, so I rarely ever complete games. But on the other hand, I have finished FFVII and was really sad when it ended after ~50-60 hours. I do consider it as probably the best game I've ever played and was worth every penny. But even though I'm sure I'd absolutely love playing FFVI on SNES, I'd probably wouldn't start it up as I'm sure I'd never finish it.

So whenever I play games, I play them for 30 minutes and then I'm up for something else.

[wolfpack]

a long game thats also quality makes it worth the extra buck, short games however...well... ill buy it if it has excellent multiplayer :D

[SSaxdude]

I just like my games to be as good as possible. If it's short but I play it multiple times through, that's the best way to go.

[gdf]

i am at 100 hours in oblivion and still have loads to do, that is without the expansions as well. this is bullshit, i hate short games except if they are PROPERLY good and worth repklaying like gears was.

[Thanatos 2.0]

Well it really really depends one of my favourite games is LoZ:Links Awakening on the GBC
its a short game beatable in one sitting (if you know what to do :) But the Quality and story of the game is rich and awesome infact its the one of 3 games (and the first) I ever cried at the end of the story.

That is a short Great game

Though I do like my games like FFX i have a file 230+ hours on it where i have just about EVERYTHING it is a great fun lengthy game. You don't spend 230 hours on crap.
Basically I spent 9.5 Days on 1 game for $30 (Greatest hit) and it was worth it

I spend $60 on God of War i enjoyed it but it didnt last me even close to as long and i feel as if tthey cheaped me out of my money.

Espcially when back in the day one could get FF (the original) for lower and spend way longer then half of the Games out right now playing that FF

[gdf]

lol you cried! sorry that is harsh:p!

[Shadowblind]

Plain out lie. I want LONGER, BETTER, MORE IN DEPTH GAMES. Not some short, cheesy FPS with 4 levels of greatness then nothing.

[eatnooM]

I'm gonna have to go with the general trend of the topic and claim that I do indeed love a long game. I just think it sucks when you're playing a game thinking "Wow, this game is really good... Shame I only have a few hours of gameplay left."

[Larry]

Longer games are generally better.
I'd be willing to pass on graphics and sound quality, if the game has length and a good story.

If it takes you 8 hours to make $50 to buy a game, you dont want a game that only last 4-5 hours.

It should never take you longer to make money for a game than to play the game.

Long games with freedom are the best, when you can choose where you want to go, and what you want to do. If you want to step aside from the story line and just explore, you should be allowed to do that.

a 4-8 hour game, should only cost 1/8th the price of a longer game. I wont mind a 4 hour game, if its only setting me back 8-10$ or so.

[jmendes]

what a stupid dumbass opinion! a game thats worth its salt should me good AND long! sure he thinks shorter is better, it makes room for episodic sequels/expansion sells.

[Lodis]

Sometimes I wonder where they get these ideas from, even basic logic and common sense will give you a better idea of what gamers want. I am no hardcore gamer but I want long indepth games. Maybe they should try doing a real survey on real gamers for once.

[jpolz]

Maybe I'm just showing my age, but it seems like games that are longer these days tend to be stuffed with worthless filler. I'm old enough to remember playing FF1 when it first came out on the NES and as far as I'm concerned, XII was a pile of rubbish.


Keep in mind, that the entire SHMUP genre is based around games that take 20-30 minutes to beat. (unless you're playing Radiant Silvergun) and they are some of the most satisfying game experiences I've ever had.

Whatever happened to playing for score? Or trying to beat a game with 1 life or one credit, instead of continue after continue??

[Broadus]

Why would people not want long games?
I don't care if a game is only ten hours long and it'd be delightful if it was a hundred hours, I just like any game where you can play any level at any time without having to worry about "leveling up" first, like any Call of Duty game.

[Gold Line]

the bigger the better

thats why the snes is so great because of the long 500 hour games

[solid12345]

I actually have to be a dissenting opinion and say that some of us gamers do want shorter games.

I am a senior college student, I got Final Fantasy XII for Christmas and I haven't played it more than 4 times, I am just too damn busy to sit through and play a RPG for a few hours. I tend to spend more time playing quick 10 minute rounds of Street Fighter on my PSP.

Of course shorter games should cost less though.

Why do you think the Wii is so successful? Cause older gamers like me who used to be able to sit for hours wasting time playing nintendo only get maybe a good 20 minutes a day to play games (if even that). Alot of Wii games you can just pick up and play, no hassle, like the old arcade days of pac-man and space invaders.

[nal]

I do not think I would get my moneys worth even if the game was made excellent but short. A point of this for me at least was Castlevanina symphony of the night. I bought it the first day it came out and fell in love with that game. But with in a few hours I got to the first ending of the game (unknowing at that time they had multiple endings) and was extreemly saddened and pissed that it ended so soon. after a few days i read and found out i didnt truely beat the game was very happy. Games need to be long and good. not just good. or not just long. For the shorter attention span people maybe make a quick play mode for them so they can enjoy and then go to newer things. But always keep them long and sweet for the rest of us

[oooooomonkeys]

what a load of rubbish if ive ever heard it who in the right mind wants shorter games? crazy people thats who the type of people that need cheats to finish games. games these days are to short as it is and to easy they need to be more challenging and not be able to be completed in under a day :mad: :mad: :mad:

[jdnation]

Maybe the fact that he's developing for the Xbox 360 and that DVD is too small for long games might have something to do with it? :)

But anyway, no way do I want shorter games. I know people's attention spans are dropping like flies, but that's bullshit! Some games are good shrot. Others and great long. It depends... I'd love for MGS4 to be 100 hours long... The FF series are definately great because of how long the experience is... it's more bang for your buck.

[Balthasar00]

ya, all wrong, who's that tard anyway? The old Legacy of kain ps1 was really good. Silicon knight seams death to me.

[gronne]

I could actually rephrase my words a bit by saying that, I don't need games to be long at all, but I'd like to play a game for about 100 hours. Meaning, it's got such replay value that the total hours of replay would be up to a 100 hours, even though it only takes 10 hours to complete it. NHL is a short game, but I've played it for a lot more than 100 hours. So I'm happy because it's lasted a lot more than some RPGs have.

[dark heart]

no way! longer games with good game play are value for money!

[PLZKLLME0080]

what? people want shorter games? i must not be a person then, i want games i can play for 50+ hours and not get bored of it, like final fantasy. and not just RPGs either, any genra will do if the game doesnt suck.