Support NeoGAF

[cash_longfellow]

 

[Guilty_AI]

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.

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.

 

[GymWolf]

Welcome back dude.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I’m all for it. I’d be fine at full price too.

The uncharted spin off. Was a good example, short, but super fun.

Just make them really good.

 

[RagnarokIV]

And what a treat that was. Pound for pound better than Phantom Pain.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Short games (10-15 hours) have worked it’s not like AAA short games is unheard of.

 

[nikos]

As somebody who plays a ton of games but rarely finishes them, this would be perfect.

 

[DeepEnigma]

What's this from?

 

[KXVXII9X]

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.

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.]

What's this from?

 

[Flutta]

10$ for a 3-4h AAA game? Sure, otherwise take a hike.

 

[TerribleAtThisGame]

It's called DLC, we already have that.

 

[KXVXII9X]

10$ for a 3-4h AAA game? Sure, otherwise take a hike.

$20-30 is kind of reasonable. Games like Stray is the quality you could expect. I believe Journey was around $20 and won GOTY.

 

[Represent.]

Welcome back dude.

thanks mayne. I had to sell my soul

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.

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.

 

[GymWolf]

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.

I hope it was dark soul 2, you can live without that one.

 

[Henry Panic]

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.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Honestly, I'd be fine if both existed. But it also depends on pricing for the "2-3" hour AAA game.

 

[Tiamat2san]

For 10 or 20€/$ ok
At full price, no way.

 

[Robbinhood]

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.

 

[Eiknarf]

Good question, OP. Good debate/discussion.

 

[Fuz]

The industry can't make "supreme quality", you'll just end up with $70 3 hours long mediocre games.

 

[Portugeezer]

What makes you think they haven't thought of this?

They don't do it because it would fail.

 

[Nydius]

Games like Stray is the quality you could expect.

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.

 

[quest]

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.

 

[Games of Today]

Play the game Journey. You can beat it in under 2 hours. It's incredible to play straight through.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Sure, if they only cost $20 a pop.

 

[Guilty_AI]

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.

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.

 

[kingwingin]

5 or 6 hours is my preferred length

 

[correojon]

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.

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.

 

[adamsapple]

Yes. Not every game needs to have open world elements and a map full of icons.

We need more 5~6 hour long, well produced games from bigger studios to even it out, priced at $39.99 or so.

 

[L*][*N*K]

and yes we will all either borrow a friend's copy or wait for it a sale on at a 2nd hand store

 

[NahaNago]

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.