Support NeoGAF

[mortal]

I recall making a similar thread a while back. I'm all for it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

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.

So you don't want good games, you want pretty semi-interactive movies. By that point i'll just be watching the whole thing on youtube.

 

[Roni]

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.

This is the way forward for VR.

 

[Danjin44]

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.

2-3 hours is not enough time fully engage with the combat or fully develop a story and characters, so polishing up what exactly? Graphics?

Maybe you could get away with having 5-6 hours for action game, shorter than that you gonna have simplistic combat with simplistic story and its not exactly worth spending that much money and time on high tech graphics for such a short game.

This is the way forward for VR.

So you expecting people spend around $800 CAD on VR for 2-3 hour long games?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

After the starting tutorial level and watching some cut scenes, you probably got about 90 minutes left.

That amount of gameplay is the same time as watching Running Man from start to finish.

Game Over. You can add 10 minutes for ending credits.

 

[TheGodfather07]

why not? theres room for different games of all types, sizes and lengths!

lol that wasnt meant to sound dirty.

 

[GametimeUK]

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......

What length does a game have to be to develop combat and give enough time to fully engage in the story?

 

[FearlessBelgian]

For 15€, ok, for 30€, nop, for 70€ ? Go to hell...

 

[Guilty_AI]

So you don't want good games, you want pretty semi-interactive movies. By that point i'll just be watching the whole thing on youtube.

And don't get me wrong, there's probably a market for that.

But thats what it is. A market, not THE market.

 

[Danjin44]

What length does a game have to be to develop combat and give enough time to fully engage in the story?

that depends, actions games maybe 8-10 hours (mostly focusing combat more than story) and for RPG 40-60 hours.

 

[Supple]

No thanks. Having a AAA budget doesn't guarantee quality.

 

[Represent.]

2-3 hours is not enough time full engage with the combat or fully develop a story and characters, so polishing up what exactly? Graphics?

Maybe you could get away with having 5-6 hours for action game, shorter than that you gonna have simplistic combat with simplistic story and its not exactly worth spending that much money and time on high tech graphics for such a short game.


So you expecting people spend around $800 CAD on VR for 2-3 hour long games?

You don't think 3 hours is enough time to tell an engaging story? Of course it is. Tighten up your writing and find new ways to tell the story. It doesn't even have to be a cutscene.
Use the medium to your advantage. Its so young its practically still brand new.

This would require devs to think of new gameplay scenarios, new forms of game design, and to think outside the box. Trail blaze. I think you're finding it difficult to grasp because its never been done in the AAA space. You're thinking of games the same way they've been shown to us for the past 20 years.

Imo this would open doors for all new kinds of design you nor I are even thinking of.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

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.

In rare cases yes, make each game 5 hours and Episodic with extreme quality…

 

[GametimeUK]

that depends, actions games maybe 8-10 hours (mostly focusing combat more than story) and for RPG 40-60 hours.

I found games that are shorter in length and highly repayable allow you to crack the combat wide open so even if the initial playthrough is short, there's lots to learn on higher difficulties and subsequent playthroughs.

Transformers Devastation was about 5 hours long and I massively enjoyed the combat. Multiple characters to choose from too. Story served it's purpose and it was overall a great game.

I honestly think OP's formula can work depending on the genre and style of game. I bet there's a creative team out there that could nail it.

 

[Sleepwalker]

I don't like it. The sweetspot for me is 6-15 hours max for main story and 20-25 including extras. JRPGs that are 50/100/200 hrs plus are not for me anymore.

But I also wouldn't like to be able to finish games in one sitting, I like to take my time with them and reflect.

 

[karasu]

We really have to stop acting like gaming and movies are the same thing. I know the lines have been blurred, but come on. Sitting and watching an actor pretend to shoot folks for 2 and a half hours may seem like a long time, but 2 hours is nothing when you're doing the shooting yourself. Divide that time between gameplay and cutscenes and you end up with an hour of each? For Seventy dollars? American dollars? Hell nah.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Here's an idea.

How about $20 AAA games that are 2-3 hours?

 

[Sakura]

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.

I'm sorry but I don't think what you are proposing here makes much sense. On some level, "quantity" is part of the quality.
For example, why stop at 2-3 hours? How about a AAA game that is 30 minutes long? Surely you would agree that 30 minutes is too short, even though supposedly quality > quantity, right? So why is 2-3 hours fine then, just because you liked John Wick?
Games and movies are two different things. Just like how the Lord of the Rings movies might be 2-3 hours each (ok maybe a bit more) but the books are not 2-3 hour reads. Different mediums work differently. We also enjoy things that are 5 minutes long, like a song. Should a game be 5 minutes? lol.

I also think you are misunderstanding the development process here, or how games work. The amount of time it would take to make super amazing gameplay, for example, would be largely the same whether the game is 3 hours long or 30 hours long. Say you make a 3 hour FPS where the gunplay etc is absolutely amazing, then that gunplay is still going to be amazing even if the game is 15 hours long. Sure maybe you will want to add more weapons or something, but the increase in time required isn't linear. In said example, the gameplay for a 15 hour game wouldn't take 5 times as long to develop as a 3 hour one. That isn't really how it works.
This is the same for many other aspects of the game. I don't think the ROI for a 2-3 hour, super polished, extremely high quality, AAA game would be very good.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

The Order 1886 did so well...

Why didn’t it? Truthfully. Gears of War has the same gameplay.

 

[Danjin44]

You don't think 3 hours is enough time to tell an engaging story? Of course it is. Tighten up your writing and find new ways to tell the story. It doesn't even have to be a cutscene.
Use the medium to your advantage. Its so young its practically still brand new.

This would require devs to think of new gameplay scenarios, new forms of game design, and to think outside the box. Trail blaze. I think you're finding it difficult to grasp because its never been done in the AAA space. You're thinking of games the same way they've been shown to us for the past 20 years.

Imo this would open doors for all new kinds of design you nor I are even thinking of.

You do know games are different than movies right? you want spend time on combat to get good at it have opportunity fully master it and how exactly are you gonna balance combat sections with story sections with only 3 hours? What you really want is interactive movie.

I found games that are shorter in length and highly repayable allow you to crack the combat wide open so even if the initial playthrough is short, there's lots to learn on higher difficulties and subsequent playthroughs.

Transformers Devastation was about 5 hours long and I massively enjoyed the combat. Multiple characters to choose from too. Story served it's purpose and it was overall a great game.

I honestly think OP's formula can work depending on the genre and style of game. I bet there's a creative team out there that could nail it.

5 hours maybe but you are not gonna get any deep story. They only type of games I can think that works in 3h is games like Journey but thats not what OP wants.

He wants full AAA budget game with well develop story and combat within 3 hours length.

 

[Knightime_X]

I agree
We don't need 20+ hour action games.
I want 2-5 hour action games.
They won't even be as expensive to make either.

 

[Aenima]

Better stick to watching movies.

Unless games start costing the same as a movie in Blu-ray then no. Not even short indie games cost that low.

 

[fart town usa]

All I can think is how bad John Wick 2 was and how it deflated the entire thing for me. Never saw 3 and don't plan on seeing 4.

Sometimes you just need to have a one and done.

 

[GametimeUK]

But I also wouldn't like to be able to finish games in one sitting, I like to take my time with them and reflect.

Is this including indie games? I love games that can be finished easily in one sitting. Matter of fact I think some games benefit from it too.

Journey, Flower, Portal, Gris, A Short Hike, Inside, Hotline Miami, Limbo etc

Honestly I need more like this.

 

[01011001]

what holds games back from looking like those gifs is interactivity, not length.
that game you show there is more or less a movie with some shooter sequences, basically almost literally an interactive movie from all we have seen from it so far.
And the Matrix demo as well.

as soon as you actually wanna make a game with player agency and interesting gameplay elements you will not be able to finetune everything like that and hide all the seams like in a movie.
which can instantly be seen as soon as you take control of your character in that Matrix demo you also had a gif of there.
in the open world the demo looks like pure garbage. because the AA, reconstruction and motion blur only work well if you show EXACTLY what you actually wanted the player to see, and hide the artifacts as best as possible.
if you walk around, the game still uses the exact same assets you have seen during that chase, but the motion blur, the reconstruction, the RT denoising... it all breaks apart as soon as you walk around with a freely adjustable camera... and as soon as you can take a closer look at reflections and other elements.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Is this including indie games? I love games that can be finished easily in one sitting. Matter of fact I think some games benefit from it too.

Journey, Flower, Portal, Gris, A Short Hike, Inside, Hotline Miami, Limbo etc

Honestly I need more like this.

No not really, as the OP explicitly talks about AAA games. Indies are a whole different thing!

 

[Killer8]

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.

Based on all of that then yes, absolutely.

I have long complained about games being extremely bloated and taking far too long to release. I've often said I would prefer something like 8-15 hours to be the 'sweet spot'. Any longer than that and the game really has to do something special to deserve the time investment.

3 hours then, is less than what i'd prefer, but if the price was around $20-30 to reflect that and the production values really were off the charts, then that would be more than fair to me. People routinely spend that much money on Blu-ray discs which often give the user less than 3 hours of film content. It's also within that 'budget game' price ballpark that people are more than willing to pay, yet here we'd be getting a true AAAA showcase of a product instead of something that's obviously budget jank.

And if a developer can get more unique experiences out then that's a win win. I would much rather have:

3 of these games, maybe sold in a $70 trilogy bundle later, giving me 9 hours of totally unique gameplay with ultra high production values

than

Waiting 6 years for 1 game that is very safe and padded to hell and back for muh 40 hours everyone seems to need.

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

I'd be down for some AAA games that are shorter and more experimental while retaining ambition and high production values

 

[Wonko_C]

This is the way forward for VR.

It already is like this for VR (short games) and people always come up with the "VR is mostly tech demos" talk.

Wonder if those same people would call those hypothetical 3 hour-long TV games "tech demo experiences"?

 

[64bitmodels]

we are paying 70 dollars for video games. if you want that type of quality to last and sell you're gonna have to turn the price down a notch

 

[64bitmodels]

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

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

actually good idea, the gamepass subscription style model would lend itself well to shorter sweet AAA projects like this. expecting people to buy a 2-3 hour AAA experience for any price is unfeasible these days. it might be possible if they were offered on a sub service though

 

[Halo is Back]

No way am I paying $70 for a 3hr game. I might as well watch a movie at that point. 8-10hrs is the sweet spot.

 

[Killer8]

If anything we currently pay too little for games. Based on historical pricing, we paid $50 for a new PS2 game in the early 2000s which would translate to around $80-85 today. No one wants to pay higher prices for things, but literally everything else in life sees prices inflate and games shouldn't be an exception. People should be complaining more that their wages aren't climbing in line with these prices.

 

[Roni]

2-3 hours is not enough time fully engage with the combat or fully develop a story and characters, so polishing up what exactly? Graphics?

Maybe you could get away with having 5-6 hours for action game, shorter than that you gonna have simplistic combat with simplistic story and its not exactly worth spending that much money and time on high tech graphics for such a short game.


So you expecting people spend around $800 CAD on VR for 2-3 hour long games?

For 2-3 hour replayable games, sure.

 

[Guilty_AI]

For 2-3 hour replayable games, sure.

At that point, rather than making an entire game, its better to just make a game with a 2-3 hour gameplay loop (maybe even less) that can repeat ad infinitum.

 

[Danjin44]

For 2-3 hour replayable games, sure.

So…..roguelike? I don’t think any developer will spend AAA budget on high tech graphics for 3 hours roguelike.

 

[Pelao]

A movie ticket in my country costs 7 dollars. That's the most I'm willing to pay if you offer me a two-hour game, and I won't promise I won't refund it if I finish it before that.

 

[64bitmodels]

So…..roguelike? I don’t think any developer will spend AAA budget on high tech graphics for 3 hours roguelike.

when you're replaying the game over and over due to dying so much im sure a point will come where you appreciate the visuals. the game is short but your playtime will be long

also, that literally happened returnal exists for a reason

 

[Danjin44]

when you're replaying the game over and over due to dying so much im sure a point will come where you appreciate the visuals. the game is short but your playtime will be long

also, that literally happened returnal exists for a reason

But I dont think thats OP wants, he want straight 3 hours long cinematic game with fully flash out combat and story, how do you even divide gameplay sections and story section with only 3 hours?

I'm curious to know how long Returnal takes to get through all stages for first time?

 

[skyfall]

 

[Warablo]

No one would buy them for full price. That's why everyone went towards open world. Made consumers think they are getting their money's worth.

 

[hemo memo]

No. Same reason why I wouldn’t go to the cinema to watch a 10 minute (movie) no matter how good the production value is.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I actually think 2 - 3 hours is too long. I'd much prefer an extremely tight, polished, visually flooring $70 dollar experience that's around 20 minutes long. The length of a TV episode is ideal. Perhaps 10 minutes is the sweet spot.

 

[hemo memo]

I actually think 2 - 3 hours is too long. I'd much prefer an extremely tight, polished, visually flooring $70 dollar experience that's around 20 minutes long. The length of a TV episode is ideal. Perhaps 10 minutes is the sweet spot.

Yeah that’s why they sell Episodes of Game of Thrones for $70 an episode.

 

[Rac3r]

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!

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.


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.

Sifu is way more than 3-4 hours on a first playthough

 

[64bitmodels]

But I dont think thats OP wants, he want straight 3 hours long cinematic game with fully flash out combat and story, how do you even divide gameplay sections and story section with only 3 hours?

I'm curious to know how long Returnal takes to get through all stages for first time?

honestly i don't agree with him that they should be sold individually but i think they'd find more success if they were on sub services day one (and were slightly longer like 5-10 hours)
2 years development for a 8-10 30 dollar game on Gamepass with AAA production values and techdemo visuals sounds like a deal to me

 

[semiconscious]

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

okay, my mistake. $20-$40? i'd have to check out the game...

 

[Danjin44]

2 years development for a 8-10 30 dollar game on Gamepass with AAA production values and techdemo visuals sounds like a deal to me

That’s reasonable length for most action games but 3 hours? Only type games works for 3 hours are games like Journeys and Flowers.

 

[CGNoire]

3hr = NO
8hr = YES

 

[Danjin44]

Now make them AAA level. oh boy!

Why any devs waste that much money and man power for 3 hour game. You do understand how game development works right?

Again I ask you, how would you divide between gameplay and story section with only 3 hours? I get that you got hyped up after watching John Wick 4, but maybe you need take a breather and think about it logically.