Support NeoGAF

[Clear]

Keep pushing this line and we'll end up with games half the size but at maybe 80% of the price.

It doesn't scale linearly.

 

[Knitted Knight]

Lost Legacy type projects between big releases is a nice blueprint. They're sort of like proper expansions. We've had good ones too. Infamous SS had one, forgot the name.

 

[Gediminas]

There are already examples of this though, so it's not exactly unprecedented. Sony have released shorter & cheaper standalone titles before

Infamous: First Light
Uncharted: The Lost Legacy
Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice

Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice developed by Ninja Theory managed to strike a middle ground. It was $30 dollars at launch, with an average length of 7 hours, and was self-published.
The title ended being successful both critically and commercially, considering it was a digital only release.
This was developed by a studio that had already previously developed multiple AAA titles. So they had the means to do so.
The results speak for themselves imo. It has great production values and solid game design. The fact that it wasn't this needlessly long and bloated game made it even more appealing, well for me anyway. Considering its success, I'm not the only one that thinks so.

AAA is mostly a business model not a straitjacket. AAA is also a reference to higher budget productions.
Game development is constantly evolving over time, what was previously more expensive and harder to break into are becoming cheaper and more accessible.
Unreal Engine 4 & Unity are free, and creative tools and engines are becoming more accessible to all type of game designers, ranging from to the biggest studios to one-man indie game designers.
There are indie games being released today by considerably smaller teams that would be considered AAA during the PS3/360 era.

Also saying just go buy indie games is silly. Indie just a short hand for independent developer, it's not a guarantee of anything specific in terms of game design nor game length.
Many so called AAA games these days are full of bloat and lack and meaningful content anyway, at least imo. Many of which I wouldn't consider playing $60 for, let alone $70.

Infamous: First Light
Uncharted: The Lost Legacy are DLC, Uncharted Lost Legacy was even included into Uncharted 4.

plus, look at Spider Man MM, it is 3-4h game sold for 50$ and that is basically a DLC.

all these games are build on top of Original game.

if they will create smaller games, it would cost still 50-60$, 500-600 people will not create a smaller game for 30$, will get bankrupt pretty fast.

how as a consumer you ask that you get fked like that? if you have some extra money, just donate them, or buy five or ten copies of the same game. effect would be the same in your case.

 

[ripeavocado]

AAA should work on AAA games or who else is going to develop them?

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Lost Legacy type projects between big releases is a nice blueprint. They're sort of like proper expansions. We've had good ones too. Infamous SS had one, forgot the name.

In the case of infamous I preferred it over the full game, in the which the world didn't feel fleshed enough to hold my interest for the full length of the story.

 

[Shmunter]

Big games only please. 100 hours or get fucked.

Fucked by who tho?

 

[mortal]

Not even just that; game length can be heavily affected by difficulty. Say a game like Resident Evil when it first came out; yeah people could EVENTUALLY beat it in an hour, but that came after LOTS of practice and perfecting of their skills in the game. A fresh playthrough probably took many gamers back then over 10x that amount of time to complete, not even including all of the times they had to restart due to deaths.

AAA games today don't want to focus on encouraging players to improve and master their skills in the game, so they have to make up for that with a bunch of content. But if the content is either boring or filler, to me it's a waste of time. I think it says a lot where the average gamer's skill mastery in the games they play is at when they call Dark Souls the hardest game ever made (it absolutely isn't nor has ever been xD).

That's a good point actually. I would agree that many of these AAA games have become too bloated with what I would consider to be unless filler in order to artificially inflate the length of the games to justify their $60-$70 price tags. With the worst examples going as far as having micro-transitions slapped on top of all that filler.

That isn't to say all of the bigger and lengthier games can't also be satisfying, obviously. It really comes down to engaging game design and compelling presentation.
A bigger budget does not equate to a better game.

Big games only please. 100 hours or get fucked.

Spoiler

Well every once in a while for me.

I loved Red Dead Redemption 2. Sunk well over 100 hours into that game, and played a decent amount fo Red Dead Online as well.
I just can't do those sort of experiences back to back.

AAA should work on AAA games or who else is going to develop them?

The big, multi-team studios that already develop them?
Don't see why it needs to be an either/or thing. Smaller teams working on smaller or shorter games doesn't mean the typical bigger AAA games will go away.

 

[mortal]

Infamous: First Light
Uncharted: The Lost Legacy are DLC, Uncharted Lost Legacy was even included into Uncharted 4.

plus, look at Spider Man MM, it is 3-4h game sold for 50$ and that is basically a DLC.

all these games are build on top of Original game.

if they will create smaller games, it would cost still 50-60$, 500-600 people will not create a smaller game for 30$, will get bankrupt pretty fast.

how as a consumer you ask that you get fked like that? if you have some extra money, just donate them, or buy five or ten copies of the same game. effect would be the same in your case.

While they are technically downloadable titles, yes, they are still considered standalone titles and do not require players to own or even have played Uncharted 4 or Infamous Second Son.
Just because it included the Uncharted 4 multiplayer has no bearing on that fact. It was a bundle deal in that case, that's it. You can still purchase it on its own, as I did.

Although admittedly not by much, Miles Morales is still cheaper than the average. Even more so now that Sony 1st party titles are $70 going forward.
Every sequel is built on top of the original game, so I'm not sure that has to do with it.
You have no way of knowing the factors that would play into the success of a title made by a smaller team to say that it would straight up bankrupt them.
Sure maybe for some developers $30 maybe be too cheap, but it was more of an example for a potential price range.
Some developers would manage that just fine, others maybe need to shoot slightly above that range to make a profit, that's fine.
Buy 5 or 10 copies of the same game? lol what are you talking about? Also, I doubt they would be fucked over, that's a bit dramatic lol

I already gave you a perfect example with Hellblade and Ninja Theory, but you glossed over that one. They are nowhere near 500-600 employees.
Hell I don't even believe most premiere studios producing AAA titles employ that many people at any given time. That's certainly not the standard for the majority of studios as far as I know.

Ninja Theory have about 120 people
Suckerpunch have about 160 people
Naughty Dog have over 300.

 

[Lethal01]

No, whenever the length has never been the issue for games I like, a strong gameplay loop keeps me in for hours and hours.
If anything I wish all games were longer.

I don't hat AC cause it's long, I hate it cause it's combat is boring and it's characters are boring.
I'd love a 300 hour version of FF7 remake part 1.

 

[mortal]

No, whenever the length has never been the issue for games I like, a strong gameplay loop keeps me in for hours and hours.
If anything I wish all games were longer.

I don't hat AC cause it's long, I hate it cause it's combat is boring and it's characters are boring.
I'd love a 300 hour version of FF7 remake part 1.

Wait, are you talking about a game with an average play time of 300 hours to complete?
I'm all for a game with a solid gameplay loop and great replay value, but I think those are two different things.
The amount of hours played beyond the average playtime varies from player to player I'd imagine.

I can't imagine the amount of filler that would be required to make a 300 hour version of just part 1 of FFVII Remake.
I already found it to be needlessly longer when compared to the original Midgar section from the original.
At that point Square Enix would be better off remaking the entire game, not just part 1.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

I don't even need them to be cheaper. Just make games shorter by removing all the excess filler.

Why? Filler content is optional. If you dont want to engage with it just skip it.

 

[Lethal01]

Wait, are you talking about a game with an average play time of 300 hours to complete?
I'm all for a game with a solid gameplay loop and great replay value, but I think those are two different things.
The amount of hours played beyond the average playtime varies from player to player I'd imagine.

I can't imagine the amount of filler that would be required to make a 300 hour version of just part 1 of FFVII Remake.
I already found it to be needlessly longer when compared to the original Midgar section from the original.
At that point Square Enix would be better off remaking the entire game, not just part 1.

I loved almost all the "Filler" the solid combat made all of it feel worth doing.
That said an imaginary 300 hour version would include more areas. hell let me explore the upper plate during the day for once. Tons of great stuff could be added.

Also how long the original segment was is totally irrelevant to me. I always wanted to have way more Midgar anyway.

 

[amigastar]

I would wish that Rockstar would make a GTA more often.

 

[Raonak]

Absolutely.

Length of a game just isn't a bullet point for me anymore. As a completionist, I want to finish a game. I don't want to play it forever.

 

[mortal]

I loved almost all the "Filler" the solid combat made all of it feel worth doing.
That said an imaginary 300 hour version would include more areas. hell let me explore the upper plate during the day for once. Tons of great stuff could be added.

Also how long the original segment was is totally irrelevant to me. I always wanted to have way more Midgar anyway.

You don't think that would hurt the pacing of the game though?
I certainly do, especially for one that relies so much on narrative as a single player Final Fantasy.

 

[Lethal01]

You don't think that would hurt the pacing of the game though?
I certainly do, especially for one that relies so much on narrative as a single player Final Fantasy.

I mean if done badly sure. I don't think they are required to do it badly. But do remember that I almost all the added main story stuff was great with the return to the sewer being the only thing I considered just good since while the story was weak the gameplay was still fun.

I'd love if there were just as much content in areas of the city in the upper plate as there was in the slums and reactor. The city itself is ridiculously underutilized.

Also you don't need to make it all part of the main game and to me it's impossible for any optional content to hurt the pacing of a game.

 

[ArtemisClydeFrog]

 

[Woo-Fu]

Don't see why it needs to be an either/or thing. Smaller teams working on smaller or shorter games doesn't mean the typical bigger AAA games will go away.

I wasn't aware that studios had infinite resources. I mean they must if you think they can keep up their usual AAA development/publishing level and add on even more projects.

 

[Majukun]

i'm interested in titles with less production valuues more than them being shorter, that's what makes the cheaper to make

 

[Spacefish]

I don't want less ambition I want more. What I do want less of is the push for expensive graphical excess. I would love to see modern games with AAA budgets and ps2 graphics.

 

[mortal]

I wasn't aware that studios had infinite resources. I mean they must if you think they can keep up their usual AAA development/publishing level and add on even more projects.

Who said anything about infinite resources?

Sony has already done this before. you talk as if it's an impossible task for these studios.
I don't see how this would be somehow more difficult of a task for a smaller team to work on a shorter/smaller scaled title as opposed to current model of having multiple teams working on multiple AAA games within a studio.

 

[Zannegan]

I dunno. Most AAA games feel super short now anyways. They're usually padded to hell and back but the main quest/campaign has usually run out of ideas five hours in. I'd be happy if they cut out the fluff, but I'd prefer they find a way to add back a full-length game's worth of worthwhile content.

Instead of shorter AAA-style games, I'd like it if big studios would have small sub-teams work on creative side-projects in tandem with their big stuff.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

When it comes to games, I prioritize replayability. Doesn't matter if it's a big budget game or a $5 indie game.

If it's good and I can keep playing it with random maps, season mode in a sports game, a twin stock shooter with random enemies spawning, a big open world RPG I can do my own thing etc....

My days of paying full price for a game I beat over a week and won't touch it ever again are long gone.

Short games with little/zero replay value, I'll maybe test it out on Gamepass.

 

[Tschumi]

Think that's what they call DLC my lad..

That, or the games before they get their dlc...