Support NeoGAF

[Represent.]

Hear me out.

The ultimate Quality > Quantity approach.

Just came back from seeing John Wick 4, and my god it was great. A thoroughly enjoyable 2.5 hour experience.

It had sublime combat, an engaging story, and fantastic visuals. It got everything across it set out to do in under 3 hours. And it had me thinking, why do games have to be any different?

We constantly enjoy things that are 2-3 hours long. Why do AAA games always have to be 20+ hours long?

Imagine a game that nails addicting gameplay/combat, tells a compelling story, sells for 20-40 bucks, takes 2 years to make instead of 6, and looks absolutely stunning.

One of the major things holding games back from looking like this:

Is.. This level of detail just isn't possible to produce over 30 hours of gameplay. So just give me 3.

I think at first people would whine and complain about the length to price ratio value.

However, if you have intelligent marketing with this approach, sell it at an appropriate price, and really fucking deliver on the quality of the games... Gamers would come around. I know I would.

I wish we had a trailblazer in the industry to just... try it. See how it goes.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Tag checks out

 

[Fuz]

No.

 

[ungalo]

It seems you like movies more than video games.

 

[kiphalfton]

The Order 1886 did so well...

 

[Represent.]

Tag checks out

What would you have against a short, 2-3 hour $20 game that does everything it wants to do? Already happening in the indie space:

Inside.
A Short Hike.
Portal.
Sifu. (more like 3-4, but still quite short)

Now make them AAA level. oh boy!

The Order 1886 did so well...

That game was 10-12 hours. And had repetitive/poor combat. DOA because of that. Doesn't mean every dev will fail the gameplay like they did.

It seems you like movies more than video games.

Nope. I think this is an approach most would scoff at at first (as shown in this thread), but I think if a few devs nailed it, it would take off.

 

[DaGwaphics]

The options in the poll are too loaded IMO. Dozens of hours long is maybe too much of a minimum requirement.

But, I can say that I would never pay full price for a 3hr experience. Maybe if it is a more infinite type game, think Crazy Taxi or the skirmish mode in AOE or something like that where the loop itself is short but it is addictive and you can enjoy it over and over again. A linear 3hr experience, no way.

If it looked really good maybe $20 tops and I'd probably want that on sale.

 

[farmerboy]

I'd pay $15 aud for 3-5hrs of something episodic in nature.

Story would have to keep me interested though.

 

[skyfall]

Call of duty campaigns get this right, perfectly paced and doesn't waste your time, 5~ or so hours long.

 

[Represent.]

Call of duty campaigns get this right, perfectly paced and doesn't waste your time, 5~ or so hours long.

True. forgot about them. MW2 campaign was a banger. Give me more of that approach. Simple. High quality. Short. Great.

But even shorter, and really push the platform.

 

[Teslerum]

2-3 hours is not enough. 8-10 is the sweetspot for shorter, more bombastic experiences.

Should be replayable though.

 

[Super_Chicken]

OP,
I think the reason you won't see this is because a lot of the effort of making a game would go into building a very polished and technical engine. This would be wasted if you tried to then save effort crafting levels and a story that was only 2-3 hours long. You might as well invest a little more capital to make it a 10-20h story and justify getting more sales from selling the game at full value.

 

[Celcius]

You just want a 3D movie lol

 

[DaGwaphics]

I'd pay $15 aud for 3-5hrs of something episodic in nature.

Episodic would be the best way forward for a dev that wanted to do this. Would address @ S Super_Chicken point as well.

 

[ungalo]

Nope. I think this is an approach most would scoff at at first (as shown in this thread), but I think if a few devs nailed it, it would take off.

A 2 hour experience is doomed to be either a contemplative experience or something that push replayability to the next level (probably something very arcade). That's as simple as that.

As you said they already exist because the game design and budget fits.

As for AAA, it's a competition, visual fidelity is one variable among many that they can work on. So except in a completely artificial situation where they would all sit at the same table and agree to make only 2 hours game, no it won't exist because it's not what players want, truly. And creatively i think it just narrows the perspectives.

 

[kicker]

Hear me out.

The ultimate Quality > Quantity approach.

Just came back from seeing John Wick 4, and my god it was great. A thoroughly enjoyable 2.5 hour experience.

It had sublime combat, an engaging story, and fantastic visuals. It got everything across it set out to do in under 3 hours. And it had me thinking, why do games have to be any different?

We constantly enjoy things that are 2-3 hours long. Why do AAA games always have to be 20+ hours long?

Imagine a game that nails addicting gameplay/combat, tells a compelling story, sells for 20-40 bucks, takes 2 years to make instead of 6, and looks absolutely stunning.

One of the major things holding games back from looking like this:

Is.. This level of detail just isn't possible to produce over 30 hours of gameplay. So just give me 3.

I think at first people would whine and complain about the length to price ratio value.

However, if you have intelligent marketing with this approach, sell it at an appropriate price, and really fucking deliver on the quality of the games... Gamers would come around. I know I would.

I wish we had a trailblazer in the industry to just... try it. See how it goes.

Level of Detail, does not a good game make. Graphics are good for looking at, but gameplay systems are the reason for playing.

I don't think the experience would be as amazing as you imagine. It would essentially drag you around. What's the point in making a detailed city if the player will just see it for a few minutes during a car chase scene? Games deliver a closer experience to an epic or a really good string of episodes in a show. More time with characters, a lot of different environments to really explore, gameplay systems that are slowly built up over time. Granted, a lot of the time the activities in larger, longer games can drag out, but ask yourself, how would the exploration in Elden ring, the plot in The Last of Us, the mystery in the Outer Wilds, or the open world of GTA be better experienced if they were condensed into short, fast-paced qtes across 3 hours?

 

[German Hops]

 

[ChiefDada]

I'll be the first one to tell you the industry has focused way too much on quantity/bloat and not enough on a quality experience, but 2-3 hrs sounds a bit too short here for what you're describing. Something like that would have to be crafted as episodic content, which could perhaps be enticing if designed well enough.

 

[InterMusketeer]

The gameplay is either gonna be stupidly simple, or half your game is gonna be tutorials and by the time the players has grasped the mechanics it'll already be over. I don't see the point in this.

 

[rofif]

Sure but why if we have supreme quality games like re4r that are 15 hours

 

[semiconscious]

hear me out: how much did you pay to see john wick 4, op? $70?...

no, i'm not interested in paying full price for 2-3 hour game...

 

[Represent.]

hear me out: how much did you pay to see john wick 4, op? $70?...

no, i'm not interested in paying full price for 2-3 hour game...

I mean, right in the OP I said these games would be reasonably priced at around 20 bucks. Not 70

The gameplay is either gonna be stupidly simple, or half your game is gonna be tutorials and by the time the players has grasped the mechanics it'll already be over. I don't see the point in this.

Sure. But thats only if you follow the same design tropes developers have been slaves to since the PS360 era. This would actually force game design to evolve. Think about it

 

[lughnasadh123]

While not feasible or desirable for a host of a reasons, There's room there for them if replayability is factored in like in Roguelites/likes. Same goes for speedrunning.

If it's a one shot 2-3 hour length game that's even smaller than some demos - no. Actually lmaonoooooo. It would have to be an premium experience not even possible with home consoles where I'd start to even consider paying that much for so little. Not even going to touch the fallacy the there's some choice right now between quality vs quantity.

 

[Laptop1991]

No chance, 70 quid for 3 hours isn't going to happen for me.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Price it appropriately, and I'm down.

 

[tommycronin]

Impossible. The human brain has been conditioned to long ass game tropes and filler for the last 10-15 years that no matter the quality, the shorter the game = bad and not worth the money. Why buy a 3 hour game for 70 euro when I can download fortnite for free and play that until the end of time.

Only a few games have really perfected that sweet spot of asking price and time to me. Games like Inside. It doesn't overstay its welcome and does what it sets out to do.

 

[Kadve]

Only if it has some serious replay value.

 

[ANDS]

What would you have against a short, 2-3 hour $20 game that does everything it wants to do? Already happening in the indie space:

Indie development is not a good peg for development in the "AAA" space and vice-versa. As someone mentioned in the thread below, why would you waste development time on designing an engine that had TLOU2 level graphics for a game like PORTAL if you're going to sell it for 20 bucks?

Also, AAA games tend to be narrative heavy (or MP focused): how do you propose to do that without taking incredible short cuts in storytelling and player engagement. As someone snarked, you'd just be watching a movie at this point.

. . .also, it feels REALLY unsatisfying to get to the end of a game whose gameplay you are enjoying and it's just. . .over.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I'm with you OP. Would totally go for this. Sounds awesome! Amazing 3 hours making you want more...sequels coming out once every year or so, would be amazing.

Add lots of replay factor and I think it would be a winner.

Just need super titpght combat, a bit of variation.

You're onto something 100 percent and I've thought similar before.

Would need to be like 35 to 40 dollars tops.

 

[ByWatterson]

For the price of a movie?

Maybe. Not for game prices, though.

 

[A.Romero]

They have already done this with episodic gaming.

 

[Represent.]

No chance, 70 quid for 3 hours isn't going to happen for me.

See below

Impossible. The human brain has been conditioned to long ass game tropes and filler for the last 10-15 years that no matter the quality, the shorter the game = bad and not worth the money. Why buy a 3 hour game for 70 euro when I can download fortnite for free and play that until the end of time.

Only a few games have really perfected that sweet spot of asking price and time to me. Games like Inside. It doesn't overstay its welcome and does what it sets out to do.

Again. Not $70. I said $20-40 lol

I'm with you OP. Would totally go for this. Sounds awesome! Amazing 3 hours making you want more...sequels coming out once every year or so, would be amazing.

Add lots of replay factor and I think it would be a winner.

Just need super titpght combat, a bit of variation.

Exactly - this is the approach. Could get sequels every 1-2 years instead of 6.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Does the 3 hrs include unskippable cut scenes?

 

[LordOfChaos]

But they'd realistically just price them at $70 anyways

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Lets hope Game Pass/PS++ enable such projects.

with the traditional business those kind of games are doomed to fail.

 

[Laptop1991]

See below

Again. Not $70. I said $20-40 lol




Exactly - this is the approach. Could get sequels every 1-2 years instead of 6.

I never played just a 3 hour game even in the 90's when PC games were 20 quid and the games i play the most are Bethesda's open world games and some other's like The Witcher or AC, so i won't be buying 3 hour games, i never have. it's not worth it to me even if it's the best game in history which it won't be lol.

 

[Guilty_AI]

What would you have against a short, 2-3 hour $20 game that does everything it wants to do? Already happening in the indie space:

Because the solution to bloated games that drag themselves for far too long isn't in the extreme opposite direction. Short playtime work for some games, will never work for other types. Imagine a 3 hour long RPG.

 

[Danjin44]

At least be honest what you really want, you just want a game so you could drool over the graphics.

 

[GametimeUK]

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

The sweet spot for me as an adult gamer in my 40s with a fulltime job is 10-12hrs for a full priced game. I can do a big 30+ hr game maybe once or twice a year.

The problem with your idea OP is that while your intentions are good, $70 for a 2-3hr game wont cut it. Devs and publishers wont put in the massive quality and content and NOT charge $70 whether its a 2-3 hr game or a 20 hr one

 

[Represent.]

Because the solution to bloated games that drag themselves for far too long isn't in the extreme opposite direction. Short playtime work for some games, will never work for other types. Imagine a 3 hour long RPG.

Not really looking for a solution to bloated games in this case. More like a solution to games taking over half a decade to make, costing hundreds of millions, and being repetitive and of low quality.

And imagine an RPG that was 3 hours long, but was infinitely replayable, had actual great combat (not just "good for an RPG"), and the sequel released a year later.

Just a different approach. The industry has been doing the same thing forever. Im just thinking it would be nice for a dev or 2 to try something new and brave.

 

[ReBurn]

Instead of games the length of movies I wish there were more investment in arcade-type games with actual replay value that don't rely on narrative to be interesting.

 

[Danjin44]

2-3 hours is not enough time to properly develop a combat and not enough time to fully engage with the story.

All you going to get is......

 

[Guilty_AI]

Not really looking for a solution to bloated games in this case. More like a solution to games taking over half a decade to make, costing hundreds of millions, and being repetitive and of low quality.

And imagine an RPG that was 3 hours long, but was infinitely replayable, had actual great combat (not just "good for an RPG"), and the sequel released a year later.

Just a different approach. The industry has been doing the same thing forever. Im just thinking it would be nice for a dev or 2 to try something new and brave.

You're thinking that by making games shorter all the other aspects will magically become more enjoyable. Thats not how this works. A RPG thats 3 hours long would grow stale and boring by the 3rd playthrough no matter how good and replayable it was.
Not to mention its mechanics would have to be far too simplistic as some RPGs take that long for you to just learn how to play them.

If you want games to take less time to make, there are much better solutions. Like reducing graphics whoring.

 

[Danjin44]

And if you want games to take less time to make, there are much better solutions. Like reducing graphics whoring.

He can't have that, thats his entire reason he want this type of short games.

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

Fuck no bro!

 

[Pedro Motta]

No fucking way. I like to buy a game and enjoy it for weeks.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

OP,
I think the reason you won't see this is because a lot of the effort of making a game would go into building a very polished and technical engine. This would be wasted if you tried to then save effort crafting levels and a story that was only 2-3 hours long. You might as well invest a little more capital to make it a 10-20h story and justify getting more sales from selling the game at full value.

Yes, and no.

If design, assets, etc. Weren't a serious part of a project then we'd see more games that were just running on the exact same engine, more story dlc, etc.

I get it though, it seems to make sense.

 

[Wildebeest]

How much would people really be willing to pay for this super deluxe 3 hour single player game? 200 dollars? 500 dollars? I don't know how the economics work for game with a game like this with limited appeal, since standard full price for a game with limited content would be niche. Let's say it sells 300k copies with a budget of 200 million. A breakeven sales price for it would be 400.

 

[Represent.]

You're thinking that by making games shorter all the other aspects will magically become more enjoyable. Thats not how this works. A RPG thats 3 hours long would grow stale and boring by the 3rd playthrough no matter how good and replayable it was.
Not to mention its mechanics would have to be far too simplistic as some RPGs take that long for you to just learn how to play them.

If you want games to take less time to make, there are much better solutions. Like reducing graphics whoring.

Im saying that by making games shorter, you have more time to really tighten and polish whatever your game is. Instead of polishing 30 hours of content. You polish 3. You would objectively end up with a higher quality product.

Your example of an RPG is probably the hardest example of a genre to make this work in. So then don't make an RPG.

Action games, FPS, adventure games, slashers, character action, etc, etc. Theres plenty of genres to choose from where this could easily work.

Hell, create a new genre.

And no I don't want worse graphics, that reduces the quality of the product. Which is the exact opposite of the goal.