Support NeoGAF

[existensmaximum]

No but 10-12 hour games. With 75% less dialogue and meaningless cutscenes.

(Like God of War 1+2 for example)

 

[PaintTinJr]

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.

The real food for thought on that strategy for me is that MGSV: Ground Zero is everything you would want from that model. Great pricing, amazing graphics, minimal hand holding and amazing gameplay and lots of replay value. But the big problem is that you would lose 80% of MGSV:GZ buyers after 2 or 3 episodes, as shown by why HL2 to HL3 ended development by Valve. Without providing the whole product in one go the fall off for buyers of episodes is pretty rapid.

Commercially that might not be a problem if new different buyers replace those dropping out, but the idea of seeing a game story to completion would be lost for the vast majority of episode 1 buying customers.

 

[Hypereides]

I lean towards 10~12 hour games (if rushed) where 90% is pure gameplay focused, 10% cinematics, and graphical fidelity that doesn't cost a fortune or north of 100~150 $USD million to develop. That's how I'd compromise. 5~7 year devcycles are way too long for what they end up releasing these days.

No but 10-12 hour games. With 75% less dialogue and meaningless cutscenes.

(Like God of War 1+2 for example)

This man knows what's up.

 

[FunkMiller]

Feels like 15-30 hour games made for less than $100 million, and sold for $60 is the sweet spot for most of us.

 

[Clintizzle]

Short AA episodic single player content that release every 3 months is perfect for something like GamePass or Playstation Plus.

 

[Fabieter]

No but 10-12 hour games. With 75% less dialogue and meaningless cutscenes.

(Like God of War 1+2 for example)

For the same 70 to 80 bucks price point?

 

[Fabieter]

Feels like 15-30 hour games made for less than $100 million, and sold for $60 is the sweet spot for most of us.

I already see People complaining about graphics in this case.

 

[FunkMiller]

I already see People complaining about graphics in this case.

The constant pointless graphics chasing has stunted this generation, no doubt.

 

[The ninja farmer]

I voted yes

But a game takes as long as it takes to be done. History is littered with rushed or ‘early access’ games that then went nowhere

But gamers are fickle and don’t normally tolerate broken or unfinished games

But perhaps an event series running shorter episodes over multiple years might work, with the right game and marketing and cost range

But hiding dlc as a full priced game, well I’m not sure that will be as successful as it could be (thinking cod recently, but I am sure there are other examples)

 

[Bernardougf]

Hellblade 2 fan ??

How about no ?

12 to 15 hours is a nice game experience.. 4 to 5 hours is a extended edition movie or a game tech demo

 

[Fabieter]

The constant pointless graphics chasing has stunted this generation, no doubt.

Don't go to the monster hunter wilds thread haha.

 

[existensmaximum]

For the same 70 to 80 bucks price point?

If they were at the level of quality and as memorable as as GOW 2, sure. It's not like I'm enjoying all the 40+ hour games with filler content and stories that manage to be both convoluted and retarded at the same time, for 80 bucks.

But sure, preferably cheaper if the development timea and budgets are lower. I would only buy them on physical media though.

 

[Sephimoth]

Yes, but the price needs to reflect that (less time to make = less cost)

 

[Fabieter]

If they were at the level of quality and as memorable as as GOW 2, sure. It's not like I'm enjoying all the 40+ hour games with filler content and stories that manage to be both convoluted and retarded at the same time, for 80 bucks.

But sure, preferably cheaper if the development timea and budgets are lower. I would only buy them on physical media though.

I doubt it would make a big difference budget-wise. Callisto Protocol seemingly had a budget around the same as Spider-Man 2, yet it was even shorter and more linear. Budgets in games aren't only linked to length.

Let's say the next God of War has the style and graphics of God of War 3. Would you still buy it, and what would you pay?

 

[LazyParrot]

I bet games would take even longer to come out (counting all episodes from start to finish). They would probably also cost more overall and be no better in terms of quality.

I suppose there is a chance this could incentivize developers and publishers to take more risks and come up with something other than the slop they're serving us today, and I'd certainly welcome that. I have zero interest in fragmented game experiences, though, so I'd just wait until the inevitable complete edition is on sale for 50% off or whatever.

 

[Lambogenie]

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.

I guess I feel the same.

People used to bitch about expansions but I think I'd prefer 1.5 year expansions without the constant live ops crap. Live ops just makes me want to play less, ironically. I want to play when I want to, not with devs fomo peddling bs.

 

[freemandos]

Episodes? No. Full games? It depens on the game itself and, of course, the price.

The main thing isn't about being short or long, it's about having the necessary length for the game and an appropiate price.

 

[mdkirby]

Nope, but I would pay £80 for a “big game”, then another £40-£50 every year for 30hr ish expansions in the same world / engine, until the sequel releases 5-6 years later.

 

[sigmaZ]

Yeah. They should sell the levels À la carte for 20 bucks each.

 

[Damigos]

No i can wait
Gimme 12-30 hour games, its the sweetspot for me
Not everything has to be 50+ hours

 

[Laptop1991]

No, not at the price the current industry wants to charge for new games, they would put in the bare minimum effort as well, they don't want to make games quickly anymore, they just want live service games to make money continuesly, if they wanted to make longer, better games the likes of Fallout or TES etc. they would do so, and they don't want to. it's all money now.

 

[Evolved1]

this has never worked. every few years some dev makes this noise about episodic or some crap and it always ends the same... pushed deadlines, scope and budget creep, annoyed fans, worse unfinished games that get pushed out, damage to the perception of the IP's value and quality.

ironically this was the context around ninja theory's first Hellblade. iirc it took way longer than planned. it was okay as a game, but the strategy was a bunch of hot air, and we all see how the follow-up turned out lol.

 

[Humdinger]

Yes, please. I am tired of long, bloated games. I lost interest in gaming because of them (partly). I'm just not willing to sink 80 hours into a game anymore.

I've been playing shorter games lately, and I've found my interest in gaming returning. The more of these, the better.

 

[diffusionx]

Hellblade 2 is a 5 hour AAA game that took five years to make though.

It’s interesting to go on YouTube and see like, a full Crash Bandicoot walkthrough. It is a 3 hour long video. So Naughty Dog essentially did just that in the 1990s and put out a game a year. But a game like that can’t really be made these days in that way and people certainly won’t spend $70. People expect a game like that to come out for $20 on digital.

 

[FunkMiller]

Hellblade 2 is a 5 hour AAA game that took five years to make though.

It’s interesting to go on YouTube and see like, a full Crash Bandicoot walkthrough. It is a 3 hour long video. So Naughty Dog essentially did just that in the 1990s and put out a game a year. But a game like that can’t really be made these days in that way and people certainly won’t spend $70. People expect a game like that to come out for $20 on digital.

That's can't be for a first time playthrough on the original game on PS1. Either that, or I was super shit at it

 

[adamsapple]

Depends on the game. A 5 hour action game is fine, but a 5 hour RPG may not be received as well.

 

[ahtlas7]

5 hours? I learn all the mechanics and buttons for 5 hours? Hell, no!

 

[Represent.]

I’ve been asking for this for years.

Yes. And honestly fuck what gamers say, just force it on them. 7 years a game is ridiculous

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

 

[midnightAI]

Depends on the game, obviously

 

[Kssio_Aug]

You mean like cutting the game content and releasing it in parts? If so, then I wouldn't like that at all. I prefer to wait.

But I don't mind shorter games if they were intended this way. I don't think a game needs X amount of hours, and I don't like the way most AAA devs nowadays insert useless content just to inflate play time to around 30-60 hours.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

Absofuckinglutely.

Games are too bloated now. I would rather have a tight 5 hour experience then a bloated 20-40. Hell even JRPGs are too long now.

Wait. I don't want episodes though. Just shorter tighter experiences.

 

[thefool]

I mean, sure. Half of gow ragnarok is filler, boring shit nobody really needs.
If that game was cut in half and allowed me to do the cool shit i want, namely easily replay the berserker fights with different builds, i would probably still play it from time to time. Instead, it's a one and done.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It really depends on the game. A 5 hour empire building game doesn't sound very appealing to me.

 

[Minsc]

Let's be real a 5 hour AAA game is going to be 2-3 hours of bs story/cutscene gameplay and 2 hours of actual gameplay. It might work a few times, but across all genres as a whole? Nope.

 

[squarealex]

15h-20h - 60$, no more, no less

 

[Vlodril]

Unless it's 20 or less no. I would pay for a 20 hour max game though instead this 50+ hour games. 10 to 20 hours i would think is optimal with some rpg's maybe getting into 30. Do not want 100 hour games there are only a couple i liked or even tolerated for that long.

 

[The_hunter]

I prefer well-paced re-playable short games, like MGS or Platinum games.

I don't like episodic games.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

I doubt it would make a big difference budget-wise. Callisto Protocol seemingly had a budget around the same as Spider-Man 2, yet it was even shorter and more linear. Budgets in games aren't only linked to length.

Let's say the next God of War has the style and graphics of God of War 3. Would you still buy it, and what would you pay?

Callisto Protocol had Hollywood actors. Those don't come cheap.

 

[intbal]

No.
Development time is their problem, not mine.
If they want to reduce their time (and thus costs), they should make their games on simpler engines with simpler graphics.
Crysis 3 graphics is beyond anything I ever need out of my games. I'd be perfectly happy with Half-Life 2 graphics forever.

Oh, and fire all the hollywood talent. The company accountant's nephew does a perfectly adequate job voicing Rogslar The Butcher.

 

[FunkMiller]

Callisto Protocol had Hollywood actors. Those don't come cheap.

There is zero need for a game to employ anyone from Hollywood. Biggest and dumbest waste of money going.

 

[diffusionx]

That's can't be for a first time playthrough on the original game on PS1. Either that, or I was super shit at it

It's not, of course, so they made it difficult and packed with secrets to, ultimately, pad out a 3 hour game. That was the norm back then, devs can't do that anymore. You have to make like 30 hours of content for your 30 hour game.

 

[existensmaximum]

I doubt it would make a big difference budget-wise. Callisto Protocol seemingly had a budget around the same as Spider-Man 2, yet it was even shorter and more linear. Budgets in games aren't only linked to length.

Let's say the next God of War has the style and graphics of God of War 3. Would you still buy it, and what would you pay?

100% - if it was as memorable as God of War 2, I'd happily pay 70-80 dollars for a physical copy.

I didn't think God of War 3 was nearly as good as parts 1 and 2, so story- and gameplay wise a game like that would be worth maybe 40-50 dollars to me.

Again, for a physical copy. I would never buy it otherwise, regardless.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

No. Just make AA games instead. Quality AA games could probably be done in two or three years.

 

[RaduN]

It's been talked to death many years ago. Devs attempted, didn't work. It's a bad idea.

 

[El Muerto]

No, with how much grass i smoke i would forget the first episode by the time the second episode releases.

 

[daninthemix]

No, I want 100 hour epic games that take 10 years to make, that we only get 1 of every few years, and I can decline to play.

 

[Bernoulli]

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.

If they keep pushing graphics it won't get better
This is viable only if the games are 29,99 or 39,99

 

[Bernoulli]

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.

Games like uncharted or the last of us
Imagine they split each game in 2 or 3 parts at least 10 hours each, and you get the new game each year
One downside is to not expect big graphics jump

 

[Deerock71]

I'll stick with indies and their AA level boomer shooters. That shit is lit!