Slashdot Mirror
Developer Panel Asks Whether AAA Games Are Too Long
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."
obviously not for 50-60 bucks. If you make a 2h AAA game you must be able to sell it for 10 bucks.
Jan
"There are people who role-play zero percent; they're dull f***ers. The people who role-play 100 percent; they're mental." Alexis Kennedy on how role-playing can influence a player's experience of narrative.
Hopefully the conversation then shifted to that middle range of 0%<X<100% role-playing where 99% of their paying customers exist. It's not really a binary feature ... I'm not talking like an idiot but every now and then it's fun to pretend in my mind just to get away from the real world for a few hours. Like watching a movie or reading a book, I'm not dressing up like the characters but I do enjoy reading books and imagining the story in my mind.
I think length is much less of a problem than the forced narrative. My own anecdote causes me to wonder just how much the market of gaming has shift since I was a kid. I played Gauntlet endlessly and it had little to no story arc and was nearly impossible to finish yet provided me endless entertainment. Even games that had a story arc -- like Final Fantasy -- allowed me to explore and dick around for as long as I wanted to. What I cannot comprehend is why games now have moved away from that to a relative straight jacket and lack of freedom. The most recent Final Fantasy (13) was a real eye opener for me. They simply don't make my kind of games anymore. I just figured that the market for people who like these forced story-lined games must be far larger than the market I exist in. Or maybe game developers are just lazy and a forced storyline is far easier to code and debug than an open world.
If you wonder why World of Warcraft has such a large and loyal player base, it's probably because there's not a lot of other games to satisfy the explore and dick around urges that were once filled by console or even offline single player PC games. You can have your long-form narratives but I know myself and many of my friends will just stick to games like Oblivion and Diablo.
I'll admit my enjoyment of video games seems unconventional. I could spend hours making blaster schematics and roping people into setting up buildings for me in Star Wars Galaxies and then flooding the markets with cheap blasters bearing my character's name. I didn't really make anything off of this, I just loved the concept. When you open games up to achieve some sort of tangential enjoyment like that, I think you provide more originality than any murder mystery with a surprise twist could provide for me.
My work here is dung.
In the same way that Youtube has meant that people no longer want to watch feature-length movies any more.
I know this is a crazy statement to make but there is actually room in the market for more than one kind of thing. You can have 5 minute long iPhone games and pointless 1-click "social" games as well as, you know, games that have some depth and character to them.
Personally, I like long games that have time to build a decent plot and develop the characters.
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.
I'm not entirely sure why they're skewing this around the desires of mobile gamers. Mobile games need to be quick to pick up, quick to put down. Length doesn't really factor into it, as long as it's enough fun to justify its costs (including abusive advertising).
I'd argue that games are too short. The annual Call of Duty saps us of £20-40 (depending on when you buy it) and takes 6-10 hours to blast through. Some people don't play the SP game and some people don't play the MP game so, naturally, people's mileage varies. The best games I've ever played have been epics (40-120 hours) with strong stories. In the case of Neverwinter Nights or KotOR, I've both bought and played them through multiple times. That, to me, is what those sorts of games should be aiming for.
Games whose format is supposed to be short-and-sweet or mobile can be as short as the market will support.
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
Videogames are not books or films; they are a different medium altogether. Consequently, videogame developers should be focusing on the interactive aspects of videogame play that are unique, not trying to imitate the linear aspects of other media. Never mind that the videogame stories are inevitably dreadful imitations of book and movie plotlines that have been done before by legitimate storytellers.
And you videogame players that are vocally insistent that developers focus more on story and less on multiplayer and other uniquely interactive aspects of their craft: Stop! Go read a book. You don't attend a ballet and then complain that none of the performers sang; stop complaining about lack of story in your videogames.
Anti Aircraft Artillery?
American Automobile Association
LR03 1.5v batteries ?
Amateur Athletics Association ?
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm ?
and so on.
I remember playing games based on the first of those (Ack Ack gunner) about 30 years ago
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!
They just really, really want it to be true because it means, if they hit upon the magical formula, they will make a fortune selling the same game experience to everyone. It's the game developer equivalent of alchemy's belief of turning lead into gold - it would be nice if it's true but you're far better turning your focus to the real world.
A good book/movie/game will alway leave feeling it was too short, regardless of the number of pages/duration. A lousy story will be too long even if it fits on half a page. So it would seem that the only solution to the problem is to start making good games/movies instead of churning out dozens of shooter/racing clones and remakes. I think the problem is that many companies are headed by guys like Robert Kotick, who don't play games - just sell them.
That was a dumb analogy. If you're going to use ballet, then you should say "don't complain when they don't break dance in the middle of Swan Lake."
Games can be interactive AND tell a story. A video game isn't defined as 'interactive button mashing repeatedly doing the same thing over and over, ad nauseum, for hours on end." If a game doesn't have a story to push it forward, or at least some type of goal, then it really isn't worth playing.
Sure, Portal would've been fun without a story. But with that little extra bit of story added in, it went from something mediocre to something fantastic. All because of STORY.
There's a good deal of sandbox style games, but I think I know what you're getting at. The problem most people have with games like the old Final Fantasy's is that there is sometimes too much choice, since you can often wander around without finding the character you're supposed to. These days, games tend to follow a constant reward system, where the player is constantly making progress, or is given a proverbial carrot to follow. There's really no more of the "wander the F* around until you find something useful", because it doesn't play on human psychology in the same way. The short, easy reward
games are more addicting and more immediately rewarding (Though certainly not necessarily better).
There's games like Oblivion and Morrowind(Though thats probably considered a classic by now), which kinda have the free-roaminess of certain classic RPGs, but in Oblivion especially, you're always given an easy, surefire way to track someone down.
However, for the most part, I think game designers have noticed the psychological reward system sells games because its so addictive. You're constantly getting positive feedback for completing challenges that are just hard enough to not be boring.
It's a matter of value. It always was about that too.
Designing a game requires a basic set of resources. Programming, art, and content.
No matter how long your game is, you have to program the mechanics. That's essentially a fixed-cost.
Content is what determines the length of the game - the number of levels, the number of puzzles, the scripted scenes, etc.
Art investment is roughly linear in proportion to content. You don't necessarily need to generate new art for every scene, but you also can't make (much of) a game with one character in one room with nothing ever new.
Therefore the costs to develop a game have some floors.
Your customers' willingness to invest falls off as you increase price or decrease length (perceived value). $50 for a 50 hour game seems to be an acceptable price point for many, so lets call the commercially viable curve $1/hour (all the while aware that this may not be a consistent relationship over the length of the curve, but let's go with it). So a 10 hour game would sell at $10.
Can an AAA title be developed - including the 'floor' costs of basic programming and art - and generate per-unit revenue at this price point? Arguably, there's SOME market (essentially DLC is trying this out already - we'll sell you some more content with a small amount of new art and no new programming - for $10). But that's usually for a game that they've already sold successfully, so there's already a consumer market 'primed' to like it.
Otherwise, buying games are a risk, like buying a book or movie. There's no way to tell if you'll like it. So gamers may be more willing to drop $10 for a 10 hour game just because the absolute risk of loss is less than the $50 for the full game.
Right now, the paradigm is to give away 15min-1hour of content as a 'demo' (free) to allow potential consumers to test the game and see if they like it. While the content is substantially longer, there's the possibility that consumers would still see the 10-hour game for $10 as 'trying to sell the demo'.
-Styopa
Right on man.
I remember Betrayal at Krondor, Baldurs Gate I and II, and a shitload more. Back in the days when the bottom bar was 80 hours, and 80 hours of pretty good continuous storyline, not 20 hours of story and 60 hours of forced grind like some of the so-called AAA titles of today.
I think you sort of alluded to why publishers have taken this approach now, much to the disappointment of us hardcore gamers. We, as serious gamers, are not buying enough games for one reason or another. In my case, it's a matter of free time. For others it might be a matter money and $50 to $60 for a title might be too much to spend.
Marketing departments are always looking for additional revenue sources. From their standpoint, we serious gamers have no serious business growth to them, so they need to find a way to grow the company more. Enter the casual gamer. This would be their new target audience for growth. If they can create games on a smaller budget, have it be over and done with in 10 hours of game play, and create a more consistent revenue stream (meaning that they buy another game after they finish the previous game) then it's a win for them.
The optimist in me would still like to think that they would make AAA titles for us serious gamer types, but reality has usually proven me wrong.
Two games for me stand out: (1) Demon Souls and (2) Ratchet & Clank (the last two killed R&C for me) all others ....
Place in time DukeNuke, HalfLife, Unreal, Wolfenstein, RedFaction (a few others) were very good.
Game play in any of the above mentioned games did not cause nausea, irritate me, or instantly bore me.
I have played many games over many years. The game length is of slight consideration. The best take me three to seven days to run through an kill the big boss. I suspect I have another decade or two of gaming remaining in me. The retro-gamettes for tablets/smartphones... have never held my interest beyond a few hours.
Good graphics and path transition continuity keep me interested (I like to look at the scenery sometimes). Start...End the path should have options (the overly obvious path hints of pointers and magic lines are for kids games only) be discernible (not blatantly flashing obvious), and require player-choice. I like character a/o avatar selection with personalization options, weapons/abilities that mature according to player-choices of skill and interest.
At the local GameStop store the young folks said Demon Souls (DS) was very hard. I started DS on release, and I (Z21 or X21) am still playing DS (R&C was the same until the last two games). The flexibility of play is exceptional and scaring, hacking, bumping... a RedPhantoms off a deadly high point is still fun, and the chase with a back stab is fun. DS BluePhantoms always get an "S" from me, the Summoners get an "S" unless "D" they are part of a RedPhantom ambush for easy points.
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Too Short?
Are they mad?
Looking at most of the AAA games and they are way too short. COD with a 5 hour campaign and no re-playability.
The problem with so called AAA games is not that they are too short or too long is that they are simply too boring, same-y well, just plain unoriginal. Why bother improving COD 117 when you're getting ready to can sell COD 118 next month (and 3 DLC hats in the mean time).
In larger games (LA Noire) the problem is not so much making things for the player to do but making interesting things for the player to do. Here is where a much hyped about concept is creating problems, procedural generation. Now to game developers and publishers this seems like a good thing(TM) because dynamically creating things to do rather then manually frees up developer time for other things such as cut scene rendering or DRM implementation, they consider it a godsend but to the player it results in something quite horrible. You end up doing the same thing over and over again in the same looking places.
I'm going to use two games that use procedural generation for examples. Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is a game that had a lot of reuse (how many times did we see the same textures in the tunnels/subways) and randomly (procedural) generated both combat encounters (the odd goul, merc or super mutant) but also scripted encounters Fallout 3 by and large was considered a very good game. Far Cry 2 was a game that would randomly spawn enemies almost everywhere without any consideration for the player, in effect the player had to stop what they were doing, kill some random dudes, fix your radiator and move on. Far Cry 2 was by and large considered a very bad game.
So what is the difference, Fallout 3, for all the texture reuse was a game that had a lot of original sequences (mostly scripted) but had a lot of replayability due to several factors not the least of which was the fact that the scripted sequences could be played differently each time. In Far Cry 2, the procedural generation basically was the game, you would do four things, 1) kill enemies (on the road or in guard posts), 2) fix your radiator 3) fix your health/malaria 4) get told to do 1 by guys with baad saaf ifrican iccents china. Once you did 1 and 2 for an hour or so, you got sick of it.
TL:DR huh?
The idea that game content for a AAA game can be generated, rather then created is absurd and only results in the all the missions/levels being minor variations of the same level. Thus it becomes an exercise in tedious repetition to the player as opposed to the relaxing entertainment that they hoped for.
So Dev's and Publishers, pull some people off the DRM infestation and e-peen shining teams to work on some actual scripting and level design. Thank you and goodnight.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It scares me that a study like this could be so far off base. Yes, the rise of mini-games for a new type of gamer are based around short addictive fun. You know how many smartphone games I have in that variety that I've actually had to pay for... about 2 and that was because I was bored out of my mind in an airport with no internet connection. The people that play AAA titles are not the same people that play mobile. For me at least, it is all about the experience of the game. I want a long unwinding storyline that I can play through. Unless the storyline is crap or the game is unplayable, I finish almost every AAA title I start. The better ones I will play multiple times. I don't give a crap about most competitive multiplayer and hate AAA titles that only provide 3 to 4 hours of content to play through. I rarely find them to have any replay value, but games with good solid stories that can take a day or two to get through, I will regularly play through multiple times. Also, co-op capability is a huge plus.
AJ Henderson
Films are a passive medium with the narrative densely packed whithin 2 hours, often less. Games depend on player interaction and a standard AAA game is expected to have 10+ hour gameplay. While movies are usually finished in one sitting, games have to stay engaging so that the player will come back as many times is needed to finish it. They are very different media.
I would say games are more like TV series, but likening it to any non-interactive medium would be putting aside games' most important difference: the ability to act and make choices. Unfortunately, many games put this aside. While it doesn't stop the game from being engaging, it misses the point of delivering the narrative through a game. And that's not the only problem of narrative in games.
Separating chunks of gameplay from chunks of narrative, something that is often done, it's the worst possible way to create an engaging experience. Those interested only in the gameplay will skip cutscenes or be forced to watch them. Those interested only in the narrative will force themselves through the gameplay. Only those in the middle ground will enjoy it, as long as the game is compelling overall.
The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
You are a young boy, forced into a chess competition to save your family from being murdered. Since you are a gifted child, the chess matches should be cake... except you are playing chess against other gifted children who also had their families held for ransom. It's a fight to the death and you are but a pawn in a greater underground chess tournament. Mortal Chessbat!
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
What normally happens with the story though is something more like this though:
You are a young boy, forced into a chess competition to save your family from being murdered. Since you are a gifted child, the chess matches should be cake...
The game makes the kings pawn available to move forward 2 squares.
except you are playing chess against other gifted children who also had their families held for ransom.
The games allows you to move the bishop... You didn't move the bishop fast enough, go back to the savepoint and try and move the bishop faster.
It's a fight to the death and you are but a pawn in a greater underground chess tournament
Your 10 hours are up, pay $x for the next version.
Mortal Chessbat!
Reading the article, it sounded like the developers were whining because it was too much effort to make a good game. Instead, they want to churn out quick as possible drivel and make as much money as quickly as possible. The programmers certainly don't feel this way - and in most cases, have to leave massive amounts of work out of the finished product because some pinhead doesn't understand.
GTA 3 (any of the series). How long did that take? 20+ hours. Best of the series was San Andreas, and it was 40+ hours. If you just did the missions and didn't go stealing and looting too much.
Deus Ex. 20+ hours the first time through.
Vampire Bloodlines: 20+ hours. Mostly because like Deus Ex, you had to sneak around a lot.
More modern games:
KOTOR 30+ hours. More if you do the side missions.
Persona 3 or 4. 60+ hours, if not more. (my son has 120 hours on one of the Persona titles - ouch...)
Final Fantasy. 50+ hours for most of them.
Star Ocean. 50+ hours.
I could go on and on. The biggest, most epic games that shaped the industry and that are considered classics are also very long. (btw, longest FPS I ever played was Unreal, at 55 *long* levels including the expansion pack - worth downloading on Steam) The idea that 10 hours is too long is just the project manager and marketing pinheads thinking of it as a product-of-the-month that they are selling and not as true entertainment.