-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Shawn Layden: "I would welcome a return to the 12 to 15 hour AAA game"
- Thread starter Deleted member 51691
- Start date
Get this man a long-form interview show on Netflix!
I would watch the shit out of that
I'm 16hrs into TLoU Pt.II and no idea how long is left but I hope there is a lot more....so fucking engrossed in this game!
So, what do you want to say? Companies shouldn't make games that customers want?
And just making a "bloated game" shorter doesn't mean that the developer could magically release a compact, enticing product without the bloat.
I would, too. Most content in open world games these days are not really good, tbh. I miss smaller, more focused and a lot of time, better games.
This is why renting games works so well for me. I'm a one and done player and can beat a 10 hour game for a few quid.
"i'll buy fifteen hours but not at full price!!!"
you children
all right how bout $60 for 20 hours
how bout $90 for 50 hours
how bout $150 for a clean hundred
something's gotta give
people demand perfection in games and are angry when they don't get it - anyone remember when they removed a puddle from spider man and the whole world lost their goddamn minds - which makes creating more content even more expensive
he's right, this isn't fucking sustainable
ps length is not comparable to quality stop STOP you're hurting yourself if you believe that
you children
all right how bout $60 for 20 hours
how bout $90 for 50 hours
how bout $150 for a clean hundred
something's gotta give
people demand perfection in games and are angry when they don't get it - anyone remember when they removed a puddle from spider man and the whole world lost their goddamn minds - which makes creating more content even more expensive
he's right, this isn't fucking sustainable
ps length is not comparable to quality stop STOP you're hurting yourself if you believe that
That depends a bit on what you consider playing again. If we think about a sandbox like just cause or Far Cry 4, the open world bases are already kind of "playing again" the basic loop, so it's kinda natural that you wouldn't want to replay that after it's done.
I'm not doing that. Instead, it's that $/hr should not be the metric we use to judge games. A bad 5 hour game that costs $10, or "$2/hr," is as bad as a bad 30 hour game that costs $60, also $2/hr. If you have a 5 hour game that is just 5 incredible hours-- like so many games are, of course-- then the idea that you won't pay full price for it because it's not 60 hours long can only be creatively limiting to designers.
Long games aren't necessarily bad but short games aren't necessarily "bad value." I do not buy entertainment by the hour.
You're only supposed to get all the moons if you're a freak though. That had less to do with the price and more to do with facilitating a smooth campaign/postgame
Interesting responses here; I love shorter games and generally get way more out of them than longer ones. I can play through multiple times and usually guarantee I'll finish eventually if I start, improving every time, trying different set ups, difficulties, etc. 10 hours to get the story or whatever, then another 70 over time just playing my favorite bits, getting better and faster, and really enjoying the game how I wish.
Example: MGSV Ground Zeroes; 30 minute main game, about an hour or 2 of additional missions. But from release to now, I've gotten 60+ hours out of it because I know if I start it, I'll finish it, and can try tons if approaches to have fun with.
If a game is 30+ hours, I'm going to take the path of least resistance every time, because I just don't have time to putz around with extra stuff in a game that long. It's like paying for the whole buffet and only being able to enjoy 10% of it before the rest gets cold, dusty, and unappetizing.
Example: MGSV Ground Zeroes; 30 minute main game, about an hour or 2 of additional missions. But from release to now, I've gotten 60+ hours out of it because I know if I start it, I'll finish it, and can try tons if approaches to have fun with.
If a game is 30+ hours, I'm going to take the path of least resistance every time, because I just don't have time to putz around with extra stuff in a game that long. It's like paying for the whole buffet and only being able to enjoy 10% of it before the rest gets cold, dusty, and unappetizing.
This take is so bad. Hours = Value. Lol
I would rather replay something like Metal Gear Revengeance or RE3, 20 times, than play Skyrim once.
So many AAA just don't have the mechanical depth to be stretched over 12+ hours.
I prefer shorter, replayable games. You've often mastered the mechanics by the second playthrough, so it's a lot more enjoyable and 'intended'. I hope I'm not the only one who'll often repeat a gameplay segment if they did something poorly or out of character. Bonus points if you can use late game unlocks from the beginning, or better yet, all new content.
I prefer shorter, replayable games. You've often mastered the mechanics by the second playthrough, so it's a lot more enjoyable and 'intended'. I hope I'm not the only one who'll often repeat a gameplay segment if they did something poorly or out of character. Bonus points if you can use late game unlocks from the beginning, or better yet, all new content.
I agree. I don't see how some people still clamor for 40+ hour games. I don't think I can do it anymore. Dragon Quest and Persona 5 Royal, while both extremely appealing, have been sitting sealed on my shelf since I bought them. It's just not something I can do anymore.
Honestly, agreed. If a game is more than 20 hours, I really think it needs to justify it's time. There are some great 20+ hour long games, but bloat and padding a more serious than ever. Ubisoft is a huge perpetrator of that right now.
I'm playing AC Origins right now, and I keep running into the padding wall between every major assassination target. People! You got me interested in the plot! I want to keep moving forward with it! Let me! I don't want to go grind out 3-4 levels so I don't get wasted by the first guard I encounter.
I'm playing AC Origins right now, and I keep running into the padding wall between every major assassination target. People! You got me interested in the plot! I want to keep moving forward with it! Let me! I don't want to go grind out 3-4 levels so I don't get wasted by the first guard I encounter.
Your take is bad as well. You don't like Skyrim. You like some other games. What is this supposed to prove?
I finished P5R by the end of May. Didn't feel long, either.
Or even the same game. Don't people swap games? If I'm on a gaming binge, rarely is it the same exact game.
To give a hard number for a popular game that's about 30-40 hours long, 50%of FF7 Remake players had finished it within two months of release.
The only country in the world where it didn't go up was the US.
Pretty fucking sad isn't it ?
All these bloated ass games have completely poisened the actual meaning of value in the medium.
Persona kinda sorta gets away with it because its broken up into easily digestible story arcs that are ~10 hours or so in length. But yeah, sometimes the thought of starting one of these beasts is so daunting it removes any desire to actually start it.
RE2's a perfect example of short games worth the full price. Really the key here is replay value. You can give me the best damn story ever but I ain't tossing 90$CAD if you don't give me a reason to play a second time.
Of course though, what people consider replay value is subjective.
I've really enjoyed the lengthier narrative games from Sony's exclusives. I just think pacing has to be good regardless of length. I loved all the RE games this gen even if 2 and 3 felt really short
This needs to happen. I think dev time would be considerably shorter too if they weren't forced to make every game open world and add a million dull boring side quests to artificially extend the game time.
Make more super polished, linear based games like the last of us, devil May cry 5, re2, re3.
Games come out quicker, you can beat them quicker and move on to the next game quicker too.
It's win win.
Make more super polished, linear based games like the last of us, devil May cry 5, re2, re3.
Games come out quicker, you can beat them quicker and move on to the next game quicker too.
It's win win.
I'm not paying £59.99 for a game that will last me less than 20 hours. Prices in the UK/EU are absurd.
If prices come down, I would completely agree with his statement. Far too many AAA games feel like a slog, so I tend to just not bother with them.
If prices come down, I would completely agree with his statement. Far too many AAA games feel like a slog, so I tend to just not bother with them.
Hmm, if that's the case I'll likely never play through it.
This feels like you are arguing against both sides. You don't want games less than 20 hours, but also think most AAA are a slog to play.
The reason I haven't played many of the Sony's critically acclaimed games this gen (despite owning most of them) is that I know I won't be able to stick through them to completion so I'd rather spend less time playing other games. HZD was an exception, but even that took me a well over a year to get through.
Last edited:
People seriously bringing up TLoU2? I don't want this game to end. I'm deliberately spacing out my time with it so I don't race through it too fast.
Games are like essays - they can be everything from short to long, and it only matters if it's meaningful. Not every game is "bloated" to every player, even at 20+ hours.
Games are like essays - they can be everything from short to long, and it only matters if it's meaningful. Not every game is "bloated" to every player, even at 20+ hours.
Outer worlds is quite the opposite of bloated lol. I'm speaking more of Ubisoft games and Doom Eternal.
I'm okay with lengthy games as long as there's no filler. AC Odyssey was a prime example of FILLER and we need less of that
I take the intent of the comment not as being prescriptive about how long games should be ("every game should be 12–15 hours") but as meaning that publishers and devs should be more willing to challenge (and hopefully reset) customers' expectations of value as they relate to game length/content for the price, and sell them on quality over quantity, if only out of business necessity. So all the comments in this thread to the effect of "sure, if the game is cheaper" are exactly the obstacle to that.
Some games work better short and focused (e.g. linear story-based action/adventure), some benefit from a large scope or a more relaxed pace, but I certainly see more games that I think would benefit from some editing than I do any that feel too short.
(Even if you want to be super reductive and look at your entertainment in terms of $ per hour, $60 for ~12 hours is hardly out of line. It's similar to paying $10–15 to see a 2-hour new-release movie. (I get that games and movies don't have the same relative pricing everywhere.) And I'll certainly pay much more per hour for a concert, or sporting event, or fancy meal. If that's too expensive for me, either because of what I can afford, or my enthusiasm for the specific game, I have the same option as with a movie—wait for it to be discounted over time.)
Some games work better short and focused (e.g. linear story-based action/adventure), some benefit from a large scope or a more relaxed pace, but I certainly see more games that I think would benefit from some editing than I do any that feel too short.
(Even if you want to be super reductive and look at your entertainment in terms of $ per hour, $60 for ~12 hours is hardly out of line. It's similar to paying $10–15 to see a 2-hour new-release movie. (I get that games and movies don't have the same relative pricing everywhere.) And I'll certainly pay much more per hour for a concert, or sporting event, or fancy meal. If that's too expensive for me, either because of what I can afford, or my enthusiasm for the specific game, I have the same option as with a movie—wait for it to be discounted over time.)
Last edited:
He's right, a tighter experience with shorter length is infinitley better than padding something out with brain dead Ubisoft checklists or stretching the narrative too thin to double the run time. Acting like the length of the game should be tied to the price is poison for the creativity and artistic integrity of this industry.
There's something really nice about starting a new game and finishing it the same weekend, having a fantastic experience with it.
It really is the sweet spot for a story driven campaign, in my opinion.
I do really enjoy replaying games, though, so I can't relate to people worried about paying $60 for 12 hours worth of enjoyment. Uncharted 4 lasted me 20 hours, I don't ever want to play it again. I've played Uncharted 2 for far, FAR more than 20 hours, however, across multiple playthroughs.
Pacing is more important than amount of content.
Though I'd also argue that you can always just wait for price drops, you don't have to pay full price for anything.
It really is the sweet spot for a story driven campaign, in my opinion.
I do really enjoy replaying games, though, so I can't relate to people worried about paying $60 for 12 hours worth of enjoyment. Uncharted 4 lasted me 20 hours, I don't ever want to play it again. I've played Uncharted 2 for far, FAR more than 20 hours, however, across multiple playthroughs.
Pacing is more important than amount of content.
Though I'd also argue that you can always just wait for price drops, you don't have to pay full price for anything.