• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The industry should really try its take on 2-3 hour AAA games that are of supreme quality.

Would you be ok with 2-3 hour AAA games if they were of a quality level beyond anything we have now?

  • Yes, I would. Give me a short, expertly crafted 3 hour game thats low priced.

    Votes: 86 48.9%

  • No, I wouldn't. I want $70 games that are dozens of hours long.

    Votes: 90 51.1%
  • Total voters
    176
cash_longfellow

cash_longfellow

Gold Member
EQ6TFRm.gif
 
Guilty_AI

Guilty_AI

Member
KXVXII9X said:
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.
Click to expand...
He literally said he wants shorter games to get visuals and details like those gifs, thats what his OP mostly focus on.

And no, making games shorter will not magically result in innovative gameplay ideas. You dont need budgets for that, you need creativity. And guess what, those new gameplay ideas wont necessarely translate into john wick UE5 demo looking games, no matter how unnecessarely large you make the budget.
 
Last edited:
KXVXII9X

KXVXII9X

Member
Guilty_AI said:
He literally said he wants shorter games to get visuals and details like those gifs, thats what his OP mostly focus on.

And no, making games shorter will not magically result in innovative gameplay ideas. You dont need budgets for that, you need creativity. And guess what, those new gameplay ideas wont necessarely translate into john wick UE5 demo looking games, no matter how unnecessarely large you make the budget.
Click to expand...
There is obviously a sweet spot in length and I mentioned in my other comments that 5-12 hours would be a little more reasonable.

When you have more focused games you can push graphics, yes. Things like lighting and polygon count as well. I think they are trying to highlight that polish and presentation would increase.

Nintendo kind of does this with their shorter games like Luigi's Mansion 3, Kirby and the Forgotten Land, and Metroid Dread. Granted, they take a little over 10 hours to beat, but since they are so short, are great gameplay wise and have a highly polished presentation.

I don't think making a game shorter will magically make it better though. Talent and passion is still the number 1 role behind great looking and playing games. I do think it would help the industry though, by trimming some fat from games and not solely relying on 50+ hour games or GaaS.
 
Represent.

Represent.

Represent(ative) of bad opinions
GymWolf said:
giphy.gif



Welcome back dude.
Click to expand...
:messenger_sunglasses:

thanks mayne. I had to sell my soul

Guilty_AI said:
He literally said he wants shorter games to get visuals and details like those gifs, thats what his OP mostly focus on.

And no, making games shorter will not magically result in innovative gameplay ideas. You dont need budgets for that, you need creativity. And guess what, those new gameplay ideas wont necessarely translate into john wick UE5 demo looking games, no matter how unnecessarely large you make the budget.
Click to expand...
The potentially insane visuals is an added bonus.

I'd gladly enjoy a short, tight, 3 hour game if it looked like the Matrix Demo all the way through, yes.

However to me its just obvious that by focusing on less things.. in a shorter game, you would be able to really make whats in there amazing. that goes for combat, puzzles, exploration, whatever your game is about. And I think it would force devs to approach the game design in different ways. We'd get new mission structures. And sequels would pop out much quicker that expand on said new things.
 
Last edited:
GymWolf

GymWolf

Member
Represent. said:
:messenger_sunglasses:

thanks mayne. I had to sell my soul


The potentially insane visuals is an added bonus.

I'd gladly enjoy a short, tight, 3 hour game if it looked like the Matrix Demo all the way through, yes.

However to me its just obvious that by focusing on less things.. in a shorter game, you would be able to really make whats in there amazing. that goes for combat, puzzles, exploration, whatever your game is about. And I think it would force devs to approach the game design in different ways. We'd get new mission structures. And sequels would pop out much quicker that expand on said new things.
Click to expand...
I hope it was dark soul 2, you can live without that one.
 
H

Henry Panic

Banned
That would only work if the games aren't $60 or more.

Just because the games or short doesn't mean the budget is low, they can't sell these for $30 to break even.

2 hour games for $70 is going to be a hard sell for anyone.

Dreamcast couldn't do it at the start of the century for $50.
 
Robbinhood

Robbinhood

Banned
Abso Fing Lutely brother.

But instead of 2-3 hours, make it 4-8 hours and sell for $30.

You'll still have your mega blockbusters like Elden Ring and GoW, those aren't going away.

But add in a lot more 5 hour games that are SUPREMELY tight and well crafted experiences that look insane play great because there is a huge hole in that market space. It doesn't exist.

If games are starting to cost $100 mil to make, you can definitely make something like the OPs gifs for 20-30 mil and it's much less of a risky endeavour.

It would be like a.souped up PS3/360 generation.

I looked at my PS5 year end stats and my top 5 games made up 85% of my gaming time. I'm barely playing anything because everything is 100 hours to beat. Fuck outa here.

I want more experiences, its not just about better graphics, I want to play a wide range of games like I used to and there isn't a lot of stuff in that 4-8 hour range thats really high quality or not indie.
 
Nydius

Nydius

Member
KXVXII9X said:
Games like Stray is the quality you could expect.
Click to expand...
Stray wasn’t a triple-A game. What you’re arguing for here is a resurgence of AA games that hit a sweet spot of price and quality. I’d be all in favor of that as Stray and Evil West were in my top 5 favorite games last year — both decidedly AA quality.

But triple-A games at 2-3 hours of length? No thanks, not when I know damn well publishers would try charging “triple-A” pricing regardless.
 
Q

quest

Not Banned from OT
Honestly I like the idea of shorter games. There is to much filler and bloat in many games looking at assassin's creed as the biggest offender. Cut out the filler and put out a better 20 hour game instead of bloating it up to 100 hours.
 
Guilty_AI

Guilty_AI

Member
Represent. said:
The potentially insane visuals is an added bonus.

I'd gladly enjoy a short, tight, 3 hour game if it looked like the Matrix Demo all the way through, yes.

However to me its just obvious that by focusing on less things.. in a shorter game, you would be able to really make whats in there amazing. that goes for combat, puzzles, exploration, whatever your game is about. And I think it would force devs to approach the game design in different ways. We'd get new mission structures. And sequels would pop out much quicker that expand on said new things.
Click to expand...
The problem is game lenght isn't necessarely related to any of this. You're thinking in terms of set pieces, cutscenes, scenarios. Time-measurable content.
A game that has a solid "innovative" gameplay loop and mechanics can be extended for dozens or even hundreds of hours, it makes the whole 3 hour lenght logic redundant.
 
C

correojon

Member
Minsc said:
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.
Click to expand...
The time to beat the game means nothing, both of those games are designed to be replayed several times and I'd say that, specially in SoR4, you're barely able to scratch the surface of the combat system in the first playthrough with one character.
 
N

NahaNago

Member
2 to 3 hour games would only work if you were putting it in netflix service cause folks aren't going to be willing to spend that much money on such a short game. I do think that they should make some shorter 8 -10 hour games but even that wouldn't sell at the 60-70 price tag usually.

With a subscription service the focus should be on the quality and quantity of movies or games and not necessarily the length of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RTTP: God Of War 3 ... a simpler and better time.
2
80
3K
Bernardougf replied
Saber CEO said Space Marine 2 will retail for $70, but only because he’s concerned audiences would see a cheaper price as emblematic of poor quality
News 2
90
3K
MasterCornholio replied
ITT: Here we teach heretics of the Fallout series
40
1K
Wildebeest replied
If you like turn-based strategy, you should really try Unity of Command 2
5
607
Chairman Yang replied
LTTP: Alan Wake 2's story sucks. Best Narrative?? (ENDING SPOILERS)
2 3 4
156
7K
Roni replied
Top Bottom