Support NeoGAF

[Rayderism]

The only way I could see a 2-3 hour AAA game being worth it is if it had what I call "infinite replayability", which for me are games like pinball or classic arcade games, where how long they last is based entirely on your skill, and you can always replay it to do better. So like, they basically have no real "end" other than you losing all your lives.

Most AAA games lack replayability and are usually one-and-done affairs. Multi-player has replayability of course, but I'm strictly a single-player gamer, and it's extremely rare that I play a AAA SP game more than once through.

 

[Represent.]

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

Its a 3 hour game. The entire point is to minimize the manpower and money needed to make the game. Teams could be 1/3rd of the size and get fantastic results.

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.

Again, you're thinking about games the only way you know how to. This would require actual effort to make advancements in game design.

I dont have all the answers for you.

A bunch of creative, smart people sitting in a room thinking of how to do it, could do it. You're acting like its impossible to make a compelling 3 hour game when its literally been done before. I gave 4 examples in this thread. Now up the production values and we have a start.

 

[Danjin44]

Again, you're thinking about games the only way you know how to. This would require actual effort to make advancements in game design.

I dont have all the answers for you.

A bunch of creative, smart people sitting in a room thinking of how to do it, could do it. You're acting like its impossible to make a compelling 3 hour game when its literally been done before. I gave 4 examples in this thread. Now up the production values and we have a start.

3 hours is very short time to do anything, this is not about being creative or smart, you asking Full AAA cinematic game with meaningful combat and story with only 3 hours.

Games like Journey can work 3 hours because the gameplay super simplistic and story mostly told none cinematic way.

 

[Lupin25]

Fuck no op.

2-3 hrs just isn’t enough to justify a $70 ($90 CAD) price tag no matter how good it is.

Hades is amazing and can be beaten in this timeframe, but if it dropped at $70 (which it wasn’t) I’d still draw the line.

It’s just personally not enough (especially for story-driven games).
Maybe episodes? But I’m not in favor of $70 episodes either.

 

[Represent.]

Fuck no op.

2-3 hrs just isn’t enough to justify a $70 ($90 CAD) price tag no matter how good it is.

Hades is amazing and can be beaten in this timeframe, but if it dropped at $70 (which it wasn’t) I’d still draw the line.

It’s just personally not enough (especially for story-driven games).
Maybe episodes? But I’m not in favor of $70 episodes either.

Again I never said $70, they would be priced at $20. Similar to a movie ticket

 

[Iced Arcade]

2 years on a $20 2 hour game sounds like bankruptcy.

 

[RaduN]

Hello, episodic content.

Thought we were well past that...

 

[Guilty_AI]

Its a 3 hour game. The entire point is to minimize the manpower and money needed to make the game. Teams could be 1/3rd of the size and get fantastic results.

Again, you're thinking about games the only way you know how to. This would require actual effort to make advancements in game design.

I dont have all the answers for you.

A bunch of creative, smart people sitting in a room thinking of how to do it, could do it. You're acting like its impossible to make a compelling 3 hour game when its literally been done before. I gave 4 examples in this thread. Now up the production values and we have a start.

In order to have a 3 hour game, you'd need minimalistic stories and very simplistic gameplay. Either that, or a game that's essentially a giant cutscene.
Its not impossible, but:
A: You're actually limiting creativity rather than enabling it
B: 'Lenght' in a videogame is much more subjective and flexible than it is with a movie. There are tons of games that may be completed under 3 hours, but can also last for as long as 10-15 depending on player skills and mindset.
C: Would even like those games? Because it sounds like what you actually want are action games that look like movies, and have set-pieces like movies, and you think you can get them by trading off for lenght.

Or rather, just go play boomer shooters, they sound exactly like what you want.

 

[MadPanda]

If the price is right yes, I would. So 20 to 30 but not 50 or do. But I still think that's too short. I consider 8 to 20 hours to be optimum. If it's on the shorter side then I expect some replayability. Of course, it depends on a genre and what a game wants to be. I don't expect diablo 4 to last 8 hours ans that's it, but I hate how every other game has to be open world or semi open world with some chests to open to prolong its duration. Examples of this would be star wars jedi fallen order, gow 2018, gears 5 etc. These 3 games for example could've been linear and nothing od value would be lost. But I digress now, so I'll stop.

 

[AncientOrigin]

„This level of detail just isn't possible to produce over 30 hours of gameplay. So just give me 3.“ is absolutely nonsense
Horizen West has same quality graphics then those demos and it is a open world game.That it can’t look better is because ps5 has only 10 TF of power.And besides that 1 modder makes better graphics in a few weeks than the whole of bathesda in Skyrim that shows you that your statement is not true.

 

[Majormaxxx]

Fuck that at the proposed prices.

A 3hr game should be 5-10 bucks Max.

 

[bitbydeath]

Could be great if done right.
Like -


OR



Something that just feels open where you can do whatever you want.

 

[TheDraconian]

What's wayyyyyy more surprising to me is that OP resurrected from a fucking PERMABAN.

And no one's mentioning this....

 

[bender]

Some of the greatest games of all time were full priced and could be finished in a few hours.

 

[DavidGzz]

I think that would be fine. I enjoyed Resident Evil 3 remake and it was pretty much that. Short and sweet. Highly replayable for me as well with all of the addictive unlocks. More like that seems perfect for Game Pass as well. I still want the longer Dark Souls like games though. Give me both.

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

Give me $70 8-12 hour linear and level selectable adventures I say. The uncharted series? Wasn't that fun? Given AAA games were $60 so it would be a slight change with the time but why did that suddenly become a bad thing to have linear full priced games?

 

[Rykan]

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 what you suggest can't be done for a retail price of 20$.

 

[ahtlas7]

A game that takes longer to download than complete?

 

[Roni]

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

There's ways of doing it, just hasn't caught on yet.

 

[Schorschi]

I like 2-3 hour games, i also like 100 hour games. I think that is a Budget Problem, but with love and passion making games, that is for me that matters. Excuse my English, i'm from Germany

 

[Rockondevil]

For a game I'd finish after my kid goes to sleep I don't think I'd pay more than $5.
If it's on a subscription service, sure. Otherwise I'd wait for a sale, or just never bother.

 

[Robb]

If the price is right I wouldn’t be against it I guess.

I would still want the longer AAA games to be made though.

 

[NahaNago]

I think the only way 2 to 3 hour aaa games would happen would be in something like gamepass. They can pump out several of these a year so that you can have something new every month. I think thought that it should be aa instead of aaa. Have the AAA go back to the length of ps3 games so that would pretty much cut down games to half or nearly a third of the length of current gen games.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

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

Should be replayable though.

Why replayable? There are too many games coming out for you to replay old ones. From thousands books I read I re-read probably less than 10 of them. Same with videogames.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

No. If I’m paying £60-70 for a game, it better be too quality and not only last me an afternoon. I don’t want single player games that are 50 hours long either. RPGs I’m happy at around 20-30 hours for the main story and a few side quests. Anything else can be up to 20 hours for me to keep engaged.

If you want a top quality 3 hour experience, watch a film.

 

[Braag]

I wouldn't pay full price for anything that is less than 8-ish hours and I expect it to be of high quality if its that short and full price.
RE games are a good example of this. Pretty much all of them can be finished in under 10 hours easily but they are high quality games with impressive production values. They're also highly replayable if you want to unlock extra weapons, outfits and cheats.

 

[Hunnybun]

Films aren't games, and novels aren't films or games.

Each of them has a natural length. I'd guess a lot of that is just based on how they're consumed.

Sitting through a 4 hour film is generally pretty tortuous. Playing through a 4 hour game is a breeze, even in one sitting.

I don't know how short a short, focused AAA game should be, but it doesn't really have much relationship with how long a good blockbuster movie should be.

I think games like Miles Morales and Lost Legacy are what you're really talking about, and they're what six hours or so? If that's the question then yeah personally I'd rather have 2 of those than one overlong slog like TLOU2.

 

[Nico_D]

If the price is right, sure. For a two hour game, I'd say 10 €. About the same as seeing a movie.

 

[SmokedMeat]

No thanks. The games I’ve played that last 2-3hrs are mechanically simple, cut back in features, or walking simulators.
Not saying I don’t still enjoy those games, but they’re not how I want all games to be.

I want a full meal, not a cookie.

If you want shorter games, then buy shorter games. That’s not how the rest of the industry should be though.

 

[Badlucktroll]

I could see something like an interactive movie with super realistic graphics

 

[Gaelyon]

Astro is 4 hours long and I love it. Would i've paid 9€ to play it ? Maybe, but not more than that.

 

[skit_data]

It will either lead to these games being kinda samey or developers quitting because you’ve pretty much asking them to build a Ferrari, let them drive it for a couple of hours and then you go

”Yeah, now you’re gonna turn this Ferrari into a Koenigsegg using nothing but a mallet and this limp, overcooked spaghetti straw. Looking forward to driving for a couple of hours tomorrow before we’re onto repurposing it into a Corvette by means of a guitar pick and gummi bears, see you guys”

 

[Ozriel]

AAA is mainly a function of cost, not visuals.

It you’re selling a $50 million title for $30, you’re on the fast track to financial failure. Nobody’s going to pay $70 for an ultra short game

 

[qbxwhi]

yes

 

[\m/etalStorm]

If the price is something like 10$-20$ that would be alright.

 

[Ainem Enamas]

These are video games.

 

[Minsc]

I'll just watch it on Youtube for free instead of paying for a 2 hour game, good luck with that.

Edit: Hmmm. I wonder if that's piracy? I don't think so, it's a fairly common behavior - to watch let's play or whatevers on YouTube, but for a 2 hour game maybe they'd be stricter on their streaming policy, it would basically be like putting a new movie on YouTube for free with commentary I guess. I guess maybe I'd just skip it if I felt it was piracy, not really sure where I land on that yet.

 

[Ryllix_]

I’m willing to pay $20 for a great 3 hour game with some replayability. Asking $60+ for a 3 hour game would be a rip off and probably instant death to almost any game that tries it. Take the order 1886 as an example.

 

[KXVXII9X]

I would agree. At least 3-12 hours would be perfect.

A lot of my favorite gaming experiences are much shorter games with much more focused gameplay.

Stray is a very short games and the environmental design and lighting are superb. Same with Sifu. Both of these games have lasted me a while because I can play in small increments and still feel like I'm making progress. Same with Abzu.

It is easier to implement more complex systems and new gameplay ideas in games these lengths and really push the graphical fidelity.

I think addiction and the "bigger is better" marketing is a main component of making every game so long. I feel like these shorter games every now and again would be so much healthier for the industry. Dev cycles would be a bit shorter while being able to push new ideas at a lower risk.

It also doesn't have to be used with the top of the line photorealistic graphics either. Hi-Rush (while longer than 3 hrs) really pushed their presentation to the max with their art direction and were able to make a nice, focused, shorter game.

 

[StereoVsn]

Sony tried that with Order 1886 .

But no, vast majority of people won't pay $60-$70 (or more in Europe/Canada/AU) for a 3 hour game.

 

[april6e]

This is a fun thought experiment but not how things work in real life. It's the opposite. The longer devs spend on a game, it more often than not leads to better storytelling and content. Same with the film industry. Shorter than average movies often are mediocre while longer than average movies often are higher quality.

Also, the vast majority of games (modern or old school) are 10 hours or less in campaign length. This recent narrative that games are too long lately is utterly false despite the popularity of the open world genre and RPG genres.

 

[GreatnessRD]

If its $30, yes. If its $60-$70 United Murica dollars, FUCK NO.

 

[correojon]

I don't think it's possible to develop a good combat system that can be fully learned and enjoyed in 3 hours. For once, if the combat is good enough I won't have enough of it in just 3 hours. And on the other side, if you can experience all there is to it in just 3 hours, then it's probably too simple and shallow. A combat system is not just the list of buttons the player can press, it also contains all the different enemy types, behaviours, weapons, special moves, level design, challenge design and all the interaction between all these pieces.

 

[PC Gamer]

Go watch another movie.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

A bunch of creative, smart people sitting in a room thinking of how to do it, could do it. You're acting like its impossible to make a compelling 3 hour game when its literally been done before. I gave 4 examples in this thread. Now up the production values and we have a start.

If there was money to be made with 3 hour games the industry would have been doing it a long time ago.

 

[Minsc]

I don't think it's possible to develop a good combat system that can be fully learned and enjoyed in 3 hours. For once, if the combat is good enough I won't have enough of it in just 3 hours. And on the other side, if you can experience all there is to it in just 3 hours, then it's probably too simple and shallow. A combat system is not just the list of buttons the player can press, it also contains all the different enemy types, behaviours, weapons, special moves, level design, challenge design and all the interaction between all these pieces.

Hmm, I was thinking more, can't come up with AAA games but if you go to a 2D fighter like the beloved Streets of Rage IV or the classic 4-player TMNT, those are going to hit close to that 3 hour range (howlongtobeat lists SoR4 at exactly 3 hours), wonder if they're too simple/shallow though, I'd guess not given the reception of them, but still, I don't think it'd work for AAA.

 

[KXVXII9X]

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.

They never said that. They said it could be any genre where it would make sense for the 3 hours.

It seems like some people are very quick to jump to conclusions and hate on interactive games at any chance.

The whole point on making a shorter game would be so you can create newer gameplay ideas with a much larger budget.

I personally think 5-12 would be the perfect sweet spot though.

 

[makaveli60]

2-3 seems a bit too short, but 6-7-8 would be great. I’m tired of these neverending checklist games.

 

[KXVXII9X]

I would personally bump it up to 5-8 hours, but the idea of more focused games, using new gameplay ideas with a higher budget sounds very appealing.

 

[Business]

2 hours is probably too short for this medium, there’s barely any time to gain skill and keep adding difficulty to the game’s mechanics as you progress. 8 hours starts to look good to me. Definitely not up for 30, 40 or 50 hour games these days.