Gamers want shorter, better games - Dyack

Vikingod · May 3, 2007, 03:08 PM

Source: GamesIndustry
___________
Too Human developer thinks games have moved on from 60-hour adventures

Gamers no longer want to play games that last 60 or 100 hours according to Silicon Knights president Denis Dyack.

"Legacy of Kain had about sixty hours of play, but games have changed. People don't want that any more. I don't care how good the game is, I don't want to play something that's one hundred hours long," Dyack told GamesIndustry.biz in an interview published today.

BlueMak · May 3, 2007, 03:26 PM

No you noob, gamers want longer GOOD games. The only times you hear/read "too long" for a game is when the game is crap.
Good luck producing java games.

Asmoday · May 3, 2007, 03:53 PM

I totally disagree, I think games are far too short these days.

Vikingod · May 3, 2007, 03:57 PM

Actually, I agree with him. I'm getting older and rarely have 50+ hours to devote to a game. I can't tell you how many games I have sitting around that have yet to be finished.

Rainbow 6 Vegas is great because I can actually see myself finishing the game and its a ton of fun. Games like Oblivion are good, but unless you have a ton of free time, its hard to finish anything other than the main quest. Same thing with Stalker.

I'd personally like to see games that wow me with production and get the heart going, than one that has more content than I will ever be able to finish in my life. It seems too often more time is put into making a game long, than making a game great (Stalker, for instance). With production costs and the huge amount of time it takes to make a game anymore, there should definetly be a convergence of the two. Its rare a game thats 60 hours long can keep the average gamers attention thoughout.

dipstick · May 3, 2007, 04:47 PM

What you guys talking about? I love paying $50-60 for a five hour game! Honestly, who would want more for their money?

Vikingod · May 3, 2007, 05:01 PM

5 hours is pretty short yes, but 12-15 seems pretty reasonable to me. Plus a decent multiplayer, and you have a good game.

Judas · May 3, 2007, 05:47 PM

sure i'll take a good short game, probably be significantly better then these long winded/short as well, bad games.

But i've rather have good long games...

OmegaRED · May 3, 2007, 06:07 PM

First Person Shooters are the only games that need to get longer because every minute of it is jam packed with action whereas an RPG like Oblivion 10 hours can be spent running around the world.

Judas · May 3, 2007, 06:09 PM

i hate running around.... everyone does, that's where the old RPG excel over the new, such as final fantasty or other RPGs like lufia and breath of fire, while there is running around, it's not as long and boring.

OmegaRED · May 3, 2007, 06:14 PM

I'm with the crowd that thinks longer game=better value.

It doesn't matter what kind of game it is if you're playing for 100+ hours that means it's good and you got your moneys worth.

topbob · May 3, 2007, 06:23 PM

This is what Valve has been doing with their latest games, short and sweet. But the problem is I have tons of free time, so the longer the better for me right now

But the main reason I think shorter games are nice, like in segments like Valve is doing right now with HL2: Episodes is you can release them more often, and work a lot on not as much, instead of working for year and years for a game with 30-50 hours of game play.

Tipstaff · May 4, 2007, 12:18 AM

I find that as I get older, and more busy, that my taste in games has gone from "longer, better" to "shorter, better". I used to love playing RPGs like FF6 (or FF3 for the US crowd), NWN, Elder Scrolls, Lufia, Chrono Trigger, but not as much anymore. KOTOR, and more recently Oblivion were the only games that actually drew me back into that type of gameplay. It's not so much that I don't like playing a nice, long, drawn out RPG, but rather my attention span has decreased. I want something that I can pickup and play for an hour, and pickup again if I don't get to it for a week or so. With the long drawn out games, ones you need to invest hours upon hours into, if you leave it alone for a bit you find yourself trying to remember what you were supposed to be doing story or gameplay wise, and having to do that sucks the enjoyment of playing that game. As soon as that happens I find I almost never touch that game again.

The_Neon_Cowboy · May 4, 2007, 09:22 AM

Games are FAR too short

Zardon · May 4, 2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topbob

I think shorter games are nice, like in segments like Valve is doing right now with HL2: Episodes is you can release them more often.

I agree. however I think valve are taking far too long to release the episodic content.

Brutality · May 4, 2007, 01:20 PM

I agree with people who want better games. And there's nothing bad in short games either unless they are cheap and buggy. If game gives you a quality feeling then why the hell not? Ofcourse, it would be a disaster if all games are going to be 10 hours of gameplay and some multiplayer... There just HAVE to be games which offer you 20-30+ hours of gameplay without the multiplayer option. Not everyone wants to play with other people, they just want to relax and play... Multiplayer games are very often very fastpaced and to survive you'll have to stress yourself. So, my 2 cents

GutterPunk · May 4, 2007, 01:55 PM

Well, the only time a game is too short (even when it is long!) is when the game is really good. It could be 5 hours, or 50... as long as it is a game that is good and i finish it... I really would rather never see it ending! Duh its a great game who wants to stop? The thing that pisses me off is the same crap over and over and lasts forever... Even if that 50 hour game was 5 hours it is still crap!
All in ALL = JUST MAKE GOOD GAMES PLZ!

Tinkerhell · May 4, 2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tipstaff

I find that as I get older, and more busy, that my taste in games has gone from "longer, better" to "shorter, better". I used to love playing RPGs like FF6 (or FF3 for the US crowd), NWN, Elder Scrolls, Lufia, Chrono Trigger, but not as much anymore. KOTOR, and more recently Oblivion were the only games that actually drew me back into that type of gameplay. It's not so much that I don't like playing a nice, long, drawn out RPG, but rather my attention span has decreased. I want something that I can pickup and play for an hour, and pickup again if I don't get to it for a week or so. With the long drawn out games, ones you need to invest hours upon hours into, if you leave it alone for a bit you find yourself trying to remember what you were supposed to be doing story or gameplay wise, and having to do that sucks the enjoyment of playing that game. As soon as that happens I find I almost never touch that game again.

This is [COLOR=black]exactly[/COLOR] it for me too.
Back "in the day" I would play D&D in a friends basement for entire weekends at a time living off of chips, Mt Dew, and the occasional hamburger. Now, I have a home(read as mortgage), family, lots of outdoor activities, and a job that all keep me way too busy. I still ahven't "finished" Oblivion. I'm down to the last two missions of Bloodmoney, on the second round of Titan quest, and about 6 days into replaying Fallout.

I would much prefer shorter, better games at a lower price. I'd take 20 hr games for $25 - $30 bucks all day long over $50, 60hr games that are mediocre.

Judas · May 4, 2007, 09:31 PM

Well they are starting to make alot of games to complicated for those that want to do precisely that.

Remember the older days of the NES or SNES/Genesis games where in an RPG, you talked to everyone in town, did a few tasks, then moved on. Breakth of Fire, doesn't matter where you are or how long you've left it, you can usually pick it up from anywhere and enjoy it.

dipstick · May 4, 2007, 09:46 PM

I don't understand what this "I'm too old to play for long" talk is all about regarding the length of games. So you're telling me you would feel better just finishing off a game in one or two sittings instead of saving and continuing later? Kinda makes no sense to me unless you guys feel like you have to finish a game quick or the game doesn't allow you to save for an hour each time. If you are going to play you're going to play no matter what. New short game or continuing a long ass game like Oblivion, you are still going to be at your desk.

Sandok · May 4, 2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dipstick

I don't understand what this "I'm too old to play for long" talk is all about regarding the length of games. So you're telling me you would feel better just finishing off a game in one or two sittings instead of saving and continuing later? Kinda makes no sense to me unless you guys feel like you have to finish a game quick or the game doesn't allow you to save for an hour each time. If you are going to play you're going to play no matter what. New short game or continuing a long ass game like Oblivion, you are still going to be at your desk.

Well I'm not old but I do have 0 time left because of my fricken stupid impossible annoying time consuming university

Given that, I'd like short games (but good games) that don't take too long to finish. Now what's the difference in between this and a playing a long game like Oblivion over lotsa time and lostsa saves? Well, its just that you'll actually see an end to the game and not, like with Oblivion, take hours to seemingly do nothing. I dunno, it's just the feel of completion that everyone wants to achieve.

Judas · May 4, 2007, 09:57 PM

I still would prefer a long game which still leaves a feeling of having accomplished something.

Short games are just bad,

I couldn't stand buying a game only to complete it in a matter of minutes..

i'd be no different then downloading a demo and playing it, at least it's free, and hey, you can spend a few hours with some of them at least.

Sandok · May 4, 2007, 10:18 PM

No game is "a couple of minutes" to be honest. I dunno, I loved HL2, Doom 3 and games of that length. More is cool too, but unfortunately I don't have much time to enjoy those kinds because the constant breaks (by time constraint) ruin the experience too much imho.

dipstick · May 4, 2007, 10:29 PM

Maybe Oblivion was a bad example lol. But still there is no benefit for even the most casual of players to prefer 5 hour games over say, 20 hour games. Though I do agree that good games have little need to be over 10-15 hours long. As long as you are at least passing that ten hour barrier all is well if the quality is there. However, I still have nothing against very short games, like the valve episode series, as long as they are priced accordingly. That is where the major problem comes in where developers charge the same price as much longer and usually better games.

RoyBatty · May 4, 2007, 10:32 PM

I want a never ending Fallout and some time travel machine, so that I wouldn't loose much time with it...

BlueMak · May 5, 2007, 12:24 AM

Perhaps it has to do with how we see gaming in the first place?

I don't play a game to finish it, to reach the end credits. I play the game to have fun enjoying the game itself, and the longer it takes (if it is a good game) the better for me. Now if I was mainly interested in actualy finishing the games, because I had some desire to have this accomplishment, then perhaps I would agree with shorter=better.

May 3, 2007, 03:08 PM	#1
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,187 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	Gamers want shorter, better games - Dyack Source: GamesIndustry ___________ Too Human developer thinks games have moved on from 60-hour adventures Gamers no longer want to play games that last 60 or 100 hours according to Silicon Knights president Denis Dyack. "Legacy of Kain had about sixty hours of play, but games have changed. People don't want that any more. I don't care how good the game is, I don't want to play something that's one hundred hours long," Dyack told GamesIndustry.biz in an interview published today. __________________ *How You Can Help DriverHeaven By Using Digg*

May 3, 2007, 03:26 PM	#2
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,248 Rep Power: 326 System Specs	No you noob, gamers want longer GOOD games. The only times you hear/read "too long" for a game is when the game is crap. Good luck producing java games. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*

May 3, 2007, 03:57 PM	Thread Starter #4
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,187 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	Actually, I agree with him. I'm getting older and rarely have 50+ hours to devote to a game. I can't tell you how many games I have sitting around that have yet to be finished. Rainbow 6 Vegas is great because I can actually see myself finishing the game and its a ton of fun. Games like Oblivion are good, but unless you have a ton of free time, its hard to finish anything other than the main quest. Same thing with Stalker. I'd personally like to see games that wow me with production and get the heart going, than one that has more content than I will ever be able to finish in my life. It seems too often more time is put into making a game long, than making a game great (Stalker, for instance). With production costs and the huge amount of time it takes to make a game anymore, there should definetly be a convergence of the two. Its rare a game thats 60 hours long can keep the average gamers attention thoughout. __________________ *How You Can Help DriverHeaven By Using Digg*

May 3, 2007, 05:01 PM	Thread Starter #6
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,187 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	5 hours is pretty short yes, but 12-15 seems pretty reasonable to me. Plus a decent multiplayer, and you have a good game. __________________ *How You Can Help DriverHeaven By Using Digg*

May 3, 2007, 06:07 PM	#8
OmegaRED Relapsed Gamer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Ottawa , Canada Posts: 5,625 Rep Power: 171 System Specs	First Person Shooters are the only games that need to get longer because every minute of it is jam packed with action whereas an RPG like Oblivion 10 hours can be spent running around the world. __________________ E Penis Specs: <------------- See System Specs

May 3, 2007, 03:53 PM	#3
Asmoday Demonic Join Date: May 2002 Location: In the cold, dark north... Posts: 5,198 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	I totally disagree, I think games are far too short these days.

May 3, 2007, 04:47 PM	#5
dipstick HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,609 Rep Power: 70 System Specs	What you guys talking about? I love paying $50-60 for a five hour game! Honestly, who would want more for their money?

May 3, 2007, 06:14 PM	#10
OmegaRED Relapsed Gamer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Ottawa , Canada Posts: 5,625 Rep Power: 171 System Specs	I'm with the crowd that thinks longer game=better value. It doesn't matter what kind of game it is if you're playing for 100+ hours that means it's good and you got your moneys worth. __________________ E Penis Specs: <------------- See System Specs

May 3, 2007, 06:23 PM	#11
topbob HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: SFBA, CA, USA Posts: 463 Rep Power: 46 System Specs	This is what Valve has been doing with their latest games, short and sweet. But the problem is I have tons of free time, so the longer the better for me right now But the main reason I think shorter games are nice, like in segments like Valve is doing right now with HL2: Episodes is you can release them more often, and work a lot on not as much, instead of working for year and years for a game with 30-50 hours of game play. __________________ 12090 in 3DMarks06 on current system, 5001 on old system, 4164 on older, 1587 on oldest

May 4, 2007, 12:18 AM	#12
Tipstaff HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Real capital of Canada: Torauna Posts: 6,658 Rep Power: 187 System Specs	I find that as I get older, and more busy, that my taste in games has gone from "longer, better" to "shorter, better". I used to love playing RPGs like FF6 (or FF3 for the US crowd), NWN, Elder Scrolls, Lufia, Chrono Trigger, but not as much anymore. KOTOR, and more recently Oblivion were the only games that actually drew me back into that type of gameplay. It's not so much that I don't like playing a nice, long, drawn out RPG, but rather my attention span has decreased. I want something that I can pickup and play for an hour, and pickup again if I don't get to it for a week or so. With the long drawn out games, ones you need to invest hours upon hours into, if you leave it alone for a bit you find yourself trying to remember what you were supposed to be doing story or gameplay wise, and having to do that sucks the enjoyment of playing that game. As soon as that happens I find I almost never touch that game again. __________________ Portal: The Flash Version _________________________________ Brain: So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker? Mr. Sackett: The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

May 4, 2007, 09:22 AM	#13
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	Games are FAR too short __________________ Last edited by The_Neon_Cowboy; May 8, 2007 at 01:36 AM.

May 4, 2007, 01:20 PM	#15
Brutality DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Estonia Posts: 887 Rep Power: 39	I agree with people who want better games. And there's nothing bad in short games either unless they are cheap and buggy. If game gives you a quality feeling then why the hell not? Ofcourse, it would be a disaster if all games are going to be 10 hours of gameplay and some multiplayer... There just HAVE to be games which offer you 20-30+ hours of gameplay without the multiplayer option. Not everyone wants to play with other people, they just want to relax and play... Multiplayer games are very often very fastpaced and to survive you'll have to stress yourself. So, my 2 cents

May 4, 2007, 01:55 PM	#16
GutterPunk I = Greatest Dood Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Nebraska Posts: 5,949 Rep Power: 70	Well, the only time a game is too short (even when it is long!) is when the game is really good. It could be 5 hours, or 50... as long as it is a game that is good and i finish it... I really would rather never see it ending! Duh its a great game who wants to stop? The thing that pisses me off is the same crap over and over and lasts forever... Even if that 50 hour game was 5 hours it is still crap! All in ALL = JUST MAKE GOOD GAMES PLZ! __________________ Rock On \m/ Thank you Mousey for the Sig! --------------- Intel Core2Duo E6660 (3.4GHZ) ~ Tuniq Tower 120 ~ Enermax Galaxy 1000W ~ Corsair Dominator @ 1090MHZ 5-5-5-15 (OCZ XTC Modded Cooler)~ EVGA 8800GTX W/ HR-03 Plus 120MM ~ Asus DVD-RW LiteScribe ~ LG DVD-RW ~ Corsair Voyager 2GB ReadyBoost Drive ~ Vantec Nexus Fan Controller ~ ThermalTake Armor 25CM fan ~ Personal Finance Blog: Dent Your Debt

May 4, 2007, 09:46 PM	#19
dipstick HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,609 Rep Power: 70 System Specs	I don't understand what this "I'm too old to play for long" talk is all about regarding the length of games. So you're telling me you would feel better just finishing off a game in one or two sittings instead of saving and continuing later? Kinda makes no sense to me unless you guys feel like you have to finish a game quick or the game doesn't allow you to save for an hour each time. If you are going to play you're going to play no matter what. New short game or continuing a long ass game like Oblivion, you are still going to be at your desk.

May 4, 2007, 10:18 PM	#22
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	No game is "a couple of minutes" to be honest. I dunno, I loved HL2, Doom 3 and games of that length. More is cool too, but unfortunately I don't have much time to enjoy those kinds because the constant breaks (by time constraint) ruin the experience too much imho.

May 4, 2007, 10:29 PM	#23
dipstick HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,609 Rep Power: 70 System Specs	Maybe Oblivion was a bad example lol. But still there is no benefit for even the most casual of players to prefer 5 hour games over say, 20 hour games. Though I do agree that good games have little need to be over 10-15 hours long. As long as you are at least passing that ten hour barrier all is well if the quality is there. However, I still have nothing against very short games, like the valve episode series, as long as they are priced accordingly. That is where the major problem comes in where developers charge the same price as much longer and usually better games.

May 4, 2007, 10:32 PM	#24
RoyBatty HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 1,930 Rep Power: 115 System Specs	I want a never ending Fallout and some time travel machine, so that I wouldn't loose much time with it...

May 5, 2007, 12:24 AM	#25
BlueMak HH's Asteroids' Dominator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Hellas->Macedonia->Thessaloniki Posts: 13,248 Rep Power: 326 System Specs	Perhaps it has to do with how we see gaming in the first place? I don't play a game to finish it, to reach the end credits. I play the game to have fun enjoying the game itself, and the longer it takes (if it is a good game) the better for me. Now if I was mainly interested in actualy finishing the games, because I had some desire to have this accomplishment, then perhaps I would agree with shorter=better. __________________ The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others(Bertrand Russell)"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil,You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." - Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis This is slavery, not to speak one's thought. [Euripides-The Phoenician Women (c.411-409 B.C.)] http://www.macedonia.info/FALLACIESANDFACTS.htm *Sic semper tyrannis.*