Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Developer Panel Asks Whether AAA Games Are Too Long

Posted by Soulskill on from the attention-spans-are-so-2005 dept.

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."

5 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Short games are fine, but... by tempmpi · · 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.

    --
    Jan
    1. Re:Short games are fine, but... by PopeRatzo · · 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.

      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."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Bad metric by lyinhart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Length is a pretty dumb metric for value in video games any way. I find that games these days take many hours to complete, but there's little to no desire to going through them again. Dumb things like unlockables and achievements artificially add replay value, but don't make the game any more fun to play multiple times.

    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.

    --
    Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
  3. Looking at it wrong by Aladrin · · 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.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  4. Gamers are not just one market by Aceticon · · 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!