Support NeoGAF

[Bernoulli]

with games taking now from 6 to 10 years to make would you be happy with shorter games released in episodes, like a tv show instead of a movie
like what is done with Call of duty or Fifa but for single player games

One studio gets 2 or 3 teams working on a project each with 2 or 3 years of dev time, and you get 1 game released every year

 

[J3nga]

No, I can wait.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Sure, why not? If the price is fair for the quality provided, I'd actually prefer that.

 

[Lorianus]

We need to talk about value here, why should a 5 hour game cost the same as 100 hour jrpg, so if they want to make 5 hour games they better slash the price in half.

 

[GymWolf]

No.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[Bernoulli]

We need to talk about value here, why should a 5 hour game cost the same as 100 hour jrpg, so if they want to make 5 hour games they better slash the price in half.

it's not going to cost the same

 

[FunkMiller]

No. What I'd like is for video game companies to start being tighter on budgets and scope, emphasising creativity, supporting their devs better, and returning more lower budget, compelling and original games to the market, that are free of MTX and other money gouging practises.

Doubt that's happening all the time people keep fucking buying Ubisoft type slop.

 

[MrRibeye]

I enjoyed getting a new episode of Half-Life every 1.5 years,
and a new episode of The Walking Dead every 2 months,
but I voted no.

Modern game studios would find ways to abuse this format in a way that old-school Valve and Telltale didn't.

 

[Fart Knight]

No, no episodes

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Episodic gaming was attempted in the past but failed because if people didn't buy episode 1, no more would be made

Or in the case of Half-Life 2, Valve just got tired of doing it and stopped, leaving it forever unfinished

 

[MrRibeye]

Examples of abuse:

1. EA might charge double for the final episode of a game, because they know you want to play the finale after investing time and money in previous episodes.
2. Ubisoft might stop releasing main story episodes, and for the next 2 years release only optional side episodes, until they return to making the next main story episode.
3. Episodic format gets you one step closer to the game being a subscription, and unavailable for purchase.

 

[Lysandros]

Make it two years, whole game, ~8-10 hours and 40 dollars.

 

[MrRibeye]

4. Sony might put the first episode on PS Plus Essential, and the remaining episodes on PS Plus Premium.

 

[MrRibeye]

A 5-hour episode only takes 12 months to develop in 2024. Who's to say that a 5-hour episode won't take 24 months to develop in 2028?

Hellblade II anyone?

 

[consoul]

No!

and that's not how AAA dev works.
Hellblade 2 wants a word.

 

[Hunnybun]

The obvious answer is that there's a happy medium for SP games of 10-20 hours and the absolutely excessive ~30 hrs we've been getting with GOWs and TLOU2 are just completely unnecessary, and sub-optimal anyway.

TLOU 2 especially felt like 2 games in one. It was great, but ridiculous.

TLOU 1 is about as long as a SP cinematic games should ever be.

Miles Morales is a little short, but closer to perfect than TLOU 2; much closer, in fact.

Just do that, Sony, and get back to 3 year dev cycles and produce games people actually want, and quickly.

Solved.

 

[Luipadre]

5 hours... nah

 

[hinch7]

5 hours is a bit too short. 10-12h would be okay if the experience is tight and less bloated like a lot of todays games are. And released every 2-3 years. Much like the older generations and charged at $60 for the full package and not $70 with paid DLC's and expansions.

 

[Bernoulli]

5 hours is a bit too short. 10-12h would be okay if the experience is tight and less bloated like a lot of todays games are. And released every 2-3 years. Much like the older generations and charged at $60 for the full package and not $70 with paid DLC's and expansions.

5 hours was just an example

 

[Bert Big Balls]

Just give me a 15 hour story. I don't need some 100 hour bullshit padded out with nonsense, nor do I want the game over in 5 hours.

 

[dreamstation]

5 hours is a bit short unless they are charging 15-20 bucks. I'd enjoy 10-20 hour story campaigns with new game plus though. Thinking Stellar Blade you know?

 

[hemo memo]

AAA? No. AA/indie? Yes.

 

[Robb]

No. I’d be perfectly fine with less of a focus on visual fidelity though to speed things up. Feel free to cut down on actors, story, voice acting etc. as well and focus on new fun gameplay mechanics.

 

[Zarak]

No, episodic games turn into a shitshow.

 

[KungFucius]

Why not just a 10-12 hour game? Long enough to tell a story and enough game to satisfy.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Terrible idea.

I hate the concept of episodic content.

 

[jufonuk]

No I’d rather. A good Indy
/retro style/or a mid dev budget type game with excellent gameplay and a short ish campaign 6-11 hours and then Some extra modes that can be done couch co-op. Or online with mates.

Luigi’s mansion , hunt down. Resi rev 2 for example.

 

[hinch7]

5 hours was just an example

Ah fair enough. Yeah, games take so long these days. Yearly releases would be a bit much and perhaps a big ask. For the people working on them and the customers paying for them. And the quality will drop. Just look at AC and how CoD is handled lately.

Every two years though with a couple large teams and some support would be better than waiting 5+ years per release. A bit like how Insomniac are functioning rn for the mid-sized. And 4+ years for the big titles.

 

[Black_Stride]

So 3 years to get a 12 - 15 hour game.
But in 5 hour chunks?


Just let me wait the full 3 years for a fully fledged 12 - 15 hour sequel game and give it to me all at once.
It also gives devs those 3 years to perfect their tech and ideas.


Waiting 5+ years is what im against.....unless its like GTA level shit.






EDIT: I see the 5 hours was arbitrary......okay if each chapter/season/volume is about 8 - 12 hours or so I could stomach it..........changed my vote.


So say:

• SplinterCell - 2026 - Montreal
• SplinterCell Hades Scepter - 2028 - Shanghai
• SplinterCell Lorenz Perturbation - 2030 -Montreal (upgraded engine tech)
• SplinterCell Butterfly Effect -2032 - Shanghai
• SplinterCell Minos Judgement - 2034 - Montreal (revolution to the tech).
• SplinterCell Obviate Register - 2036 - All hands on deck because the game is following the new gaming trend of sniffing buttholes.

After that point the series dies again.

Ubisoft Milan doing support on all the titles.

 

[cireza]

Sounds as bad as TV Series. I'd rather watch full length, quality movies and wait. Same applies for games.

 

[SHA]

Real 5 hours? Cause I don't wanna see some dude on the internet beating it in 36 minutes, cause that's an insult.

 

[mancer81]

No, I wouldn't be happy with 5-hour games. Even 10h is simply too short to develop a compelling story and get truly engaged in the narrative. It feels more like a single mission or a good DLC rather than a full game experience.

The best games offer over +60 hours of content, like TW3, CP2077, or BG3. Longer games provide a richer, more immersive experience that shorter episodes just can't match. It's like watching random clips on TikTok instead of going to the cinema to watch a full movie. I can wait

 

[DenchDeckard]

Say, in an ideal world, where they 100% stuck to the schedule. I would more than welcome it.

The issue would be, because these studios suck at deadlines, that there would be delays etc. But in the hyperthetical it could be awesome if done right

 

[ToadMan]

This problem with this idea is that each game effectively has to be standalone.

There can't be a nice gameplay arc because two installments are a long way apart, and people will jump in and out mid way through the series.

On top of which this doesn't really overcome the problem - we still only end up with one AAA experience of about 15 to 25 hours per gen.

People want more games of high quality, breaking the existing games into segments doesn't alleviate the problem. it's just rationing

What I would say is that access to games before release in a beta format is probably something that should be considered - maybe as far as 12 months before release. That would mean devs have a better shot of actually releasing a complete, functional game people want to play, instead of the endless patching that seems to happen these days.

EDIT : Oh and Hellbalde still took 6 years plus to produce a substandard 5 hour game, so this model hardly guarantees a compelling output.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

25-30 hours is a very reasonable length for AAA games. More Demons Souls, Stellar Blade, Returnal or GOW.

We don't need +100 repetitive nonsense with grossly inflated budgets.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I don't want episodic content, but I'd love to see a return to 10-12 hour single player games with a solid multiplayer offering attached to it. I really fucking miss those types of games.

Bring of Space Marine 2!

 

[Filben]

Yes and no. I'd be happier with shorter games but they still don't need to come out sooner. It's just waaaay too many games to play for me and I never manage to finish one game until the next one comes around. Not to mention those 30 games in my backlog I REALLY want to play and those other 30 I'd like to try at least.

 

[ungalo]

What is done with CoD ? Those are real games made with studios alternating in the production. Some games were very lazy but at the end there's always multiplayers PvP and even PvE, it's complete most of the time.

A solo game that would be a 5 hours episode of a larger story, no way, i would never buy that full price even if it's less than 70-80.

If you want to make a 5 hours game make an arcade game that keeps you busy way longer than that, highly replayable and very hard to even finish once. If a game is very focused on its gameplay in general, with very little timeout (but still it can have a story and cutscenes) and replayable, 10 hours seem like a decent time span.

Games are currently between 30 and 60 hours if not more, so there is a margin between that and 5 hours of content.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

We need to talk about value here, why should a 5 hour game cost the same as 100 hour jrpg, so if they want to make 5 hour games they better slash the price in half.

Do you choose films based on their runtime too?

Game length shouldn't be a measure of worth, it's a measure of time, not quality or potential for enjoyment.

I'd rather 5 brilliant hours than 1000 hours of turn based random battles.

 

[jufonuk]

Or the Quake/Doom model

Release the game then free Map packs campaigns etc.

 

[dreamstation]

Do you choose films based on their runtime too?

Game length shouldn't be a measure of worth, it's a measure of time, not quality or potential for enjoyment.

I'd rather 5 brilliant hours than 1000 hours of turn based battles.

True but I'd prefer a brilliant 20 hour game over a brilliant 5 hour game, you know? If I really enjoy something I want it to last as long as possible.

 

[RoadHazard]

I like to play some shorter games here and there, feels nice to get through a bunch of them pretty quickly. But I also want my 30+ hour AAA epics. So no.

 

[RoadHazard]

Do you choose films based on their runtime too?

Game length shouldn't be a measure of worth, it's a measure of time, not quality or potential for enjoyment.

I'd rather 5 brilliant hours than 1000 hours of turn based random battles.

Those are not the only two options. If you really love a game there's nothing weird about not wanting it to be over after just 5 hours. Especially if you paid $80 for it.

Is a 2 hour game worth $80? 1 hour? If your answer is no, you clearly DO put some value in how long the experience lasts. Where do you draw the line?

 

[PaintTinJr]

No. What I'd like is for video game companies to start being tighter on budgets and scope, emphasising creativity, supporting their devs better, and returning more lower budget, compelling and original games to the market, that are free of MTX and other money gouging practises.

Doubt that's happening all the time people keep fucking buying Ubisoft type slop.

Yeah and only including cutscenes(in game cinematics) where necessary and eliminate all the skill tree padding for lack of skilled learning curve gameplay

Getting tigher with control methods that can be conveyed like an arcade machine is also sorely lacking.

For all the flack Starfox WiiU gets it has amazing gameplay controls and does all of these things correctly. There's certainly no 10min tutorial padded cutscene tax on the user costing £10m of a dev budget at the start of the game to show you a specific control config and handhold as a tax on your time like every single big budget game does, today.

Slowclap's Sifu for me is probably right on the apex between good arcade immediacy and just starting to embark on too much skill tree gating, while still being an amazing game. The game was also cheaper and is shorter with a lot of replay value, so my answer is probably, yes to the thread question.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Those are not the only two options. If you really love a game there's nothing weird about not wanting it to be over after just 5 hours. Especially if you paid $80 for it.

Where do you draw the line? Is a 2 hour game worth $80? 1 hour?

I didn't say they were the only two options? In a thread about 5 hour games, the guy said that 100 hour games were better value. I don't agree, I think the quality of the experience is worth more.

It's why I pay to go see films at a good cinema. I could wait and watch them on netflix for a month for less than the cost of a seat at the cinema, but the experience is more important to me.

I think that a one hour game that made every second of that hour the best that games can be and tailored that experience to the run time sounds amazing. All the effort that goes into making a 20hour AAA experience but condensed into one hour? I'd happily pay full price for the greatest experience the medium can offer. I can't imagine what that would be and I'd likely have to see some reviews to convince me, but in theory I have no problem with that.

I guess it all depends on your outlook. Some people would rather eat dinner at a fast food restaurant daily, I'd rather go somewhere nice once a week.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

Yeah, games take 5-6 years to develop, but there is a constant stream of AAA games being released on a yearly basis. I feel like gamers have never been fed this good. And your average gamer has such a massive backlog that it seems completely unnecessary to change the current gaming model

 

[Xtib81]

Nah I'm good, especially if it's full Price.

 

[Fabieter]

We need to talk about value here, why should a 5 hour game cost the same as 100 hour jrpg, so if they want to make 5 hour games they better slash the price in half.

It depends. You can bet that the order costed more than most jrpgs.

I dont know how they should price smaller games if they still try it male it graphical impressive. If people want shorter dev times we need to lower our graphical standards. I saw people around here hating the graphics of monster hunter wilds like wtf.

 

[IDKFA]

with games taking now from 6 to 10 years to make would you be happy with shorter games released in episodes, like a tv show instead of a movie
like what is done with Call of duty or Fifa but for single player games

One studio gets 2 or 3 teams working on a project each with 2 or 3 years of dev time, and you get 1 game released every year

No. That would suck. You just know that each episode would be full priced as well. Publishers would love it as they can get x3-4 as much money from customers by changing £70 per episode.

I know dev time is taking a long time, but soon that time span will have to reduce, most likely with the assistance of AI and better tools.

It's going to have to. Otherwise by the time the PS6 rolls out it'll be taking developers over ten years to make a single game. That's unsustainable.