Long games are dead, says Spector

By Robert Purchese Published 18 June, 2008

And he's tired of black leather and guns.

Iconic game designer Warren Spector has said he believes lengthy adventure games are "on the way out".

The Deus Ex creator, who now heads Junction Point Studios for Disney, believes game designers need to work out how to meet a new generation of demands.

"I love working with Disney because I'm so tired of making games about guys in black leather carrying guns. I don't want to make those any more," Spector told Gamasutra.

"Building a game is as complex as making as a Hollywood movie. We are in a business that is both software engineer and entertainment, and we have to balance it. It used to be that you could trade off gameplay for graphics, but you can't do that any more.

"100-hour games are on the way out. How many of you have finished GTA? Two per cent, probably. If we're spending USD 100 million on a game, we want you to see the last level!" he added.

However, casual games have their own set of problems, according to Spector, who said, "If you don't make it on the front page, you don't get your game seen."

Spector has yet to put his name to a project since Ion Storm (Deus Ex series, Thief: Deadly Shadows) was closed by Eidos in 2004.

All we've heard of his Junction Point project is a teaser quote from the man on the studio website:

"When we do announce what we're doing, half the world's going to think we're crazy and half the world's going to think it's the coolest thing since sliced bread - how great is that?!"

Read to the full interview to find out what sort of people Spector wants to hire to help him. You'll need to love "chaos" and "change", apparently.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (81) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • thefilthandthefury #1 4 years ago

    I hate this thinking, it's idiotic. If the quality is there, gamers will play a long game.

  • bad09 #2 4 years ago

    The way thing are going he is right. Everyone seems more interested in the casual gaming as that's where the money is now. Us "hardcore" gamers are becoming less important now mum dad and gran are all having a go. Thanks Ninty, thanks a lot.

    I sense a PC gaming revival in the next few years.

  • hjarg #3 4 years ago

    Finished GTA as in getting 100% score? Nope, thanks. Finished GTA as in getting storyline done, having fun and enjoying the free-roam. Yes, please! I finished it around 70+hrs gametime and loved every minute of it. :)

  • robg #4 4 years ago

    It's bigger than that!

    MAKING SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS BASED ON LOCAL MINIMA/MAXIMA....IS DEAD!

  • mischief #5 4 years ago

    So what he means is that he can make more money on short games that take less time and money to build, but retail for the same as long games. Gamers end up spending more as they have to buy more titles.
    He is a nob jockey.

  • thefilthandthefury #6 4 years ago

    What it boils down to is he's too lazy to make a proper game anymore.

  • muscleblade #7 4 years ago

    I for one prefer quality over quantity any day! 6 - 8 hours for campaign is the sweet spot imo. Ive completed the GTAIV storyline in about 18 hours and that felt like a shore towards the end imo.

    Ninja Gaiden 2 is more my kind of game in that way. Short - but very very sweet.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/08 @ 11:34

  • jachap #8 4 years ago

    Yeah. Everyone wants small, casual games which don't require a large commitment of time. Like World of Warcraft.

    GTA isn't a good example, either. Surely, just by driving around the city for an hour or so, listening to the radio and occasionally shooting people, you've actually "experienced" 60% of what the game is about. It's actually the ideal example of exactly the type of long game people should be making. It's a long game which you can play in twenty minute - half/hour instalments or seventeen hour marathons, depending on your lifestyle/commitments.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/08 @ 11:35

  • gingerlink #9 4 years ago

    I don't see long books on the way out?

  • Stuz359 #10 4 years ago

    I don't know. I half agree. COD4 was brilliant but short but probably my favourite games of all time are Final Fantasy and zelda games so I do like long involved games as well. Guess it's just finding the time

  • JonFE #11 4 years ago

    Gaming time grows thinner with age, I'll give him that. Nowadays, if I manage to play for 1 constant hour per day I'm happy man...

  • TipTop #12 4 years ago

    I love the current crop of 'self justification' currently sweeping the industry. If he moved to Rockstar I would be expecting 'Sand box gaming the only way forward'. Long games are not dead. Short games are not dead. Gamers prefer variety and quality. His one size fits all commentary is a tad naive.

  • Zomoniac #13 4 years ago

    I finished the GTA story in 29 hours. Loved it. But I don't spend that long on a game unless it's mindblowingly spectacular. There are just too many good games coming out these days that if it's more than 10 hours and isn't a 94+ scoring game, it doesn't get a look in for me. The shorter the better. Games like GTA are the exception. I like my games like Heavenly Sword, Gears and Halo, 6-10 hours long.

  • Olemak #14 4 years ago

    He's got a point; at some point most games start feeling like a chore. "Casual gamers" would like to get on with it. There's a reason that most feature films lasts about 2 hours and not 70 hours :)

    However - GTA IV is a rather bad example. That is an open world game, and they need to be huge. OK so Rockstar went over the top, but still: an open world game that feels constricted is not really all that open. So them games need to contain hundreds of hours of gameplay - but the main plot might be made clearer and even easier to complete, with side quests, exploration, co-op and online being the real time-sink.

    The thing is - if the GTA IV story could be finished inside 12 hours of focused gameplay... I still probably would have been doing side missions and races with Brucie, not to mention going to Split Sides with Little Jacob - which is what I'm doing righjt now anyway. The point is: why not do both, and statisfy both?

    Will I ever listen to all the radio stations, to completion? Will I complete all the stunt jumps? Will I see all the performances at the clubs?

    Most likely not. And that is perhaps what makes GTA IV so great. Even though it does become a little boring and unwieldly at times. But this game is special, in a sea of shovelware this game stands out as - dare I say it - a work of interactive art. Maybe 99 % of the people who have bought it won't finish it - they won't get to see the whole picture - but that's the thing with art. You don't neccesarily finish looking at a sculpture, or a picture, or a dancer - you just admire it until you sort of thet the idea, or until you're full, and then you walk away. Sure, there's a market for disney shovelware, but don't believe that is the only business model in the industry. Just because the Wii is so poular with "casual gamers" right now, that don't mean that all restaurants must become McDonalds francises instead, or that all movie producers have to start making porn instead of character-driven drama.

  • paulf #15 4 years ago

    i think long games are fine if you can play them in small (say 1 hr) chunks. However if you make the game good enough people will play it till the end no matter how long it is

  • bitesize #16 4 years ago

    Gaming time grows thinner with age, I'll give him that. Nowadays, if I manage to play for 1 constant hour per day I'm happy man...

    exactly. this is why he's saying what he's saying - the gaming demographic is maturing. i've read various studies placing the average age of gamers at mid-20s, up to early 30s - there aren't many 30+ yr olds that can afford the amount of time a really long game needs, we've all got wives, children, jobs etc. obviously, most posters here are probably in the 'hardcore' category, ie uni/school students, unemployed, single - people with lots of time to spare, so will rail against shorter games wherever they can. but in terms of most normal gamers (who fall halfway between some invented hardcore/casual divide), we just don't get the time to play epics any more.

    the other point is the amount of resources it takes to crate a game - as he says, if they're gonna put 100s of man-hours into creating a game (at vast expense), they want most people to actually see what they've worked on...

  • mischief #17 4 years ago

    i think you have hit it on the head about the bitesize chunks paulf. That is why I really enjoyed Oblivion.

  • paulf #18 4 years ago

    also being able to save/restart at any point would be really useful, one of the worst gaming experiences is when you are half way through something that will take say 1hr to do and something interrupts you so what do you do continue and ignore the interruption, or switch off and start again later (losing the time you've put in).

    advance wars is a great example of getting this right (maybe because of the turn based structure) but really you can save/restart at any point - hence being my friendly tube companion for a good 9 months :)

  • andromeda #19 4 years ago

    long games are teh awesome.
    Fuck off with your casual disney crap
    Bring on DX3

  • Farzlepot #20 4 years ago

    What's wrong with both? There's a market for both - longer games like WoW and GTA4 have proven that many times over, as have shorter games like COD4. I'm not a student, I work for a living, I have friends and responsibilities, but I still love a long, well-made epic. It's only the crappy games that feel like a chore after a certain amount of time, or those gamers with a mysterious urge to complete a game as fast as humanly possible.

    Plus... what's wrong with black leather and guns?!
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/08 @ 12:11

  • drumbaby #21 4 years ago

    Tbh I think different coloured motion controllers in the shape of cooking implements being released every month is the future of gaming. Anything with any more scope or ambition than that should be canned.

  • SteveB #22 4 years ago

    I think you have to make the distinction between short games and “casual” games.

    As has already been said, as you get older you have less time, so short games are good. However that doesn’t equate to you wanting to play simple short games. You still want to play the same type of game, but in a shorter form. Half life 2 Episode 1 & 2 for example.

  • monkie_king #23 4 years ago

    I think he's making a Mickey Mouse RPG.

  • Thalanos #24 4 years ago

    Some of my favourite games recently have been short (Portal, Beyond Good and Evil, Half-Life Episodes) and no worse for it.

    I only have a problem with long games if things begin to feel repetitive.

    The best long games are either open-world with plenty of short missions (GTA, Oblivion) or are linear with evolving gameplay and environments to keep things fresh (HL2, COD4). If the play stays the same, long games do begin to feel like a chore to complete (Gears of War and Bioshock were pushing it in my opinion).

    So Specter has a point, but only if making games long for the sake of being long.

    Edited by 1 at 18/06/08 @ 12:49

  • Moz #25 4 years ago

    I half agree, though i see something like GTA as a single player MMO something to dip into when i've got a couple of hours to kill. It balances the games that don't last long enough for how much they cost.

    You just have to look at GTA's sales figures to know that there are plenty of people want that kind of lengthy involved experience.

  • RexRunti #26 4 years ago

    The problem he has is that people will complain if a game is too short (see Heavenly Sword) but just won't complete it if it is too long. Of course the quality of the game makes a big difference, I've completed Oblivion, Mass Effect and Lost Oddessey but not Two Worlds. Secondly how much time is needed to invest in the game? I only play MGS4 at the weekends incase I have to sit through a 90 min cut scence but play Ninja Gaiden whenever as I know it won't be too far until the next check point (or I die).

  • Farfarer #27 4 years ago

    So long as there are long adventure games (especially long adventure games like Deus Ex) I will play them.

  • agparrot #28 4 years ago

    "If we're spending USD 100 million on a game, we want you to see the last level!" he added.

    But why?

    Surely if they are spending USD 100 million on a game, they just want people to buy it. I don't imagine rockstar are crying over their piles of gold because not everybody has finished the story, or the time and effort they have put into hiding pigeons has been wasted on the majority of the game buying public.

  • Hypercube #29 4 years ago

    Surely this depends entirely on content? I've completed almost every game I've bought, but the ones I haven't completed were left that way because they were crap...

    I like long games. I like games where I really get immersed into them. I don't like games that force you to play for hours until you find the next save point (consoles, I'm looking at you), and I don't like games that make it hard to jump back into them if you've been away for a couple of weeks and forgotten exactly what you were meant to be doing.

    In short - people don't finish crap games, length has nothing to do with it (in my opinion).

  • NthSimulachum #30 4 years ago

    Deus Ex is still one of my favourite games of all time. Mainly due to the depth, but also the variety of ways which you can approach the missions, the number of paths available to you, even the minutia of the game's plot which you can influence.

    Heck, even if games are shorter, doesn't mean they can't be deep! Better a short game with many paths through it(literal paths), than a long linear game which simply begins to feel like a repetitive chore.

    I hope Mickey Mouse will have many choices in his way to the warehouse to take down an illicit generator, protected by weak groups of NSF. Rewind.

  • GiarcYekrub #31 4 years ago

    I have the key to the city!

  • kangarootoo #32 4 years ago

    I rather like long games too sometimes. At other times I want games that are short I suppose. Story driven games are still high of my list of loves though, and they tend to be long by their very nature.

    I really like a lot of the stuff WS has done in the past, and hold him in far higher esteem than other apparent visionaries that I won't mention. However, this does all smack of "dev says how thing he is working on right now is exactly the thing he wants to be working on". He is hardly likely to say "I love making long story driven adventure games, far more than the 3 hour stuff Disney are making me work on" is he, so I take it all with a pinch of salt.

    Eventually, every visionary becomes redundant, and the best thing they can do at that stage is talk PR without getting in the way of proper development (again, naming no names, but I'm sure some spring to mind). I respect WS a great deal, his record speaks for itself really. I'm interested to see what he works on next, even if it turns out not to be my bag.

    P.s. People who use the word lazy in this sort of context have no f*cking clue what they are talking about. Making games is not the same as making little houses out of lego you know. Its a complex business, with no one person calling all of the shots. And to suggest that games that take less time to play must obviously take less time to develop is just idiocy.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/08 @ 13:49

  • GiarcYekrub #33 4 years ago

    Well I think Resident Evil 0,1,2,3,CV all got the length of game about right RE4 on the other hand isn't something you can play through in a single sitting

  • Aurifex. #34 4 years ago

    Hope games are not as long as Gears of War, oh wait...........

  • anomagnus #35 4 years ago

    i LOVE long games.

    I also wonder how this links to his previous statements about longing to return to the deus ex franchise

  • BiscuitBase #36 4 years ago

    I agree with Warren Spector

  • Olemak #37 4 years ago

    Another thing: when 100 million dolars is spent on making a gam, it's not like 99 of those millions were spent on level- and quest design, with the rest being game mechanic programming. It's rather the opposit: the gameplay IS the game, while the quests, the levels and the charaters you get to interact with (IE shoot in the face) simply allows the gamer (customer) to experience said game(play).

    So - a game that allows the customer to drive all sorts of cars, helicopters and boats + shoot all kinds of weapons + go to clubs et cetera et cetera - just vide variety of differen gameplay mechanics - needs to give the customer a lot of time to enjoy and experience thaose mechanics. Makes sense, no?

    Whereas a game that is basically about just running and gunning don't really need to be all that long. That would certainly become boring fast.

    One thing tho: GTA IV could hav had a lot more flexible retry system. Retrying a mission always starts immediately after the cutscene briefing - which isOK - but the commences with a long drive over to the first part of the objective, which is useually to enter a car or something that starts the real mission. Having to do those lengthy drives again and againg are gettin on my nerves, it's just meaningless repetition that fluffs the game up dozens of boring hours. I have started hopping in taxis for all my dates and "hanging out" things; driving is just too boring - picking up people, going to a club, having fun for 5 minutes and then dropping the contact off again is really pretty boring. So: I'm all for getting rid of boring time-fillers like that.

  • GordonCaladan #38 4 years ago

    black leather carrying guns

    It's all about guys in black leather, carrying swords.

    Or even better, gals in black leather...

  • hybridial #39 4 years ago

    Sorry, but anyone who thinks GTA IV is a piece of "interactive art" don't know what they're talking about. Killer7 was art, Ico was art, System Shock 2 was art, there are a few more but I've made my point.

    GTA IV is just a myriad of poor design choices masquerading as an openworld game. It's substance and usage of time and space was severely limited. A visionary game should not be judged on size and certainly not on subject matter. I remember reading an article by a movie critic that said GTA IV's story was better than the majority of movies released so far this summer. Unfortunately the guy was talking shit, because GTA IV's story was an amateur take on ground treaded already by Coppola and Scorcese, and Tarantino to an extent. It also is artificially lengthened to a ridiculous degree. Pacing to me is the most important thing in a story and GTA IV is hampered by both poor gameplay and story pacing.

    The game is the most overrated game of all time, a piece of shit that doesn't do a thing to advance on it's already rather superficial predecessors. The newer hardware just exposes it even more. And that brings me to what Warren Spector said. Frankly I can't say if he's onto something or not. I mean, GTA IV, for better or worse (way worse) did sell very well, so I guess in a way it proves him wrong, yet he's right to a degree because not very many games commands the sheep quite like GTA does through marketing and appealing to the lowest common denominator. Dues Ex certainly didn't take the easy route, and game that doesn't is going to struggle if it's high budget.

  • canuter #40 4 years ago

    This can't be the same man that bore Deus Ex.

  • paulf #41 4 years ago

    'Sorry, but anyone who thinks GTA IV is a piece of "interactive art" don't know what they're talking about.' so the 66+ professional reviewers who rated it one of the best games of all time don't know what they are talking about? overated maybe but calling it a 'piece of shit' just shows a lack of knowledge of the medium as a whole

  • hybridial #42 4 years ago

    "so the 66+ professional reviewers who rated it one of the best games of all time don't know what they are talking about?"

    They don't rate games as art, they just rate them based on a mix of hype, marketing and schewed opinion. You want to disagree with my assessment, that is fine, but you're doing yourself, not only me, a disservice to try and bring those idiots into this because no, they don't know what they're talking about and they rarely do, because they're not and never were very good critics. Have the balls to forge your own argument about why GTA IV is great or don't bother.
    Edited by 1 at 18/06/08 @ 15:23

  • Svecke #43 4 years ago

    Uh-huh, long games are dead...?

    Please! I want less content for my money! 'kaythxbai!

    ...moron.

  • paulf #44 4 years ago

    I don't see why i should have to forge an argument against someone who's most eloquent point is concluded with .. a piece of shit'
    and since when did you have the authority/experience/knowledge to criticise the gaming press in such a generalised fashion, I respect your right to have an opinion but when you use it in such an uncultured fashion I cant take it seriously.

  • hybridial #45 4 years ago

    "when did you have the authority/experience/knowledge to criticise the gaming press in such a generalised fashion"

    Since when did they have the right to judge games for everyone else? Where did they get the authority/experience/knowledge? I'll give you a clue, it's from the same place as everyone else. I don't respect them, any more or any less than I respect you, in terms of deciding what is a good game or not. That is, none of you are telling me what is a good game with any kind of authority. And I suppose I did let me eloquence go a little, I guess I got my arguments mixed up. Calling GTA IV that should be more my response to the guy who said it was just a very good game. Much simpler argument, and I'm quite happy to go that way, it's just a lot easier and I don't feel the urge to slap someone for saying it's a good game than when I do when someone tries to claim it's something more than that.

  • Freek #46 4 years ago

    "100-hour games are on the way out. How many of you have finished GTA? Two per cent, probably. If we're spending USD 100 million on a game, we want you to see the last level!" he added.

    No, that's up to the player.

    Some people play to the end, some half way, some start over a couple times. There's allot of game there so you can do what you want, that's the beauty of it.

    It's not the end that matters, or even reaching it, it's the journey that's important.

    Then again not every game needs to be a 100 hours long, it all depends on the experience you are trying to make.

    Just don't force a particular length onto a game because you think players might not make it to the end.

  • space_ace #47 4 years ago

    heh, i still can't find time to reach manhattan... lol

  • paulf #48 4 years ago

    reviewers - review games for a living - that is their job, you would hope as a part of that job they would gain a wide variety of experience that enables them to view things not just from a personal point of view but also in the wider context of gaming.

    As in all professions some are able to do this well, others not so well. One of the joys of the internet is that it lets us all spout our opinions - however some of these are ill researched and lack context - I suppose that you learn which opinions/views to respect over time whether that is someone on a forum or a professional reviewer, that said I am more likely to take notice of a review from Eurogamer/Edge than I am to take notice of Joe 'that game is da rubbish' Bloggs on a forum

    as for the rest of your point - fair enough, and i do agree with you about the overhype - but that seems to be with gaming in general not just gta4 - and lets not start on the whole 'are games art' argument ;)

  • L42yB #49 4 years ago

    All my favourite games are really long...

  • hybridial #50 4 years ago

    paulf, I'm glad you're being reasonable, but in my experience, I've never found anyone to trust. Everywhere I've gone to for reviews, I'll find something I vehemently disagree with them on. Edge and Eurogamer are quite bad for this, but everywhere is for me really. So I've found my only option is to judge for myself, to me nothing else at all will suffice. And to me, GTA IV, I just can't see how those reviewers can rate it that highly. For one, not everybody likes what they do, so they are biased towards a particular audience, second, GTA has always attempted to be a jack of all trades but has never mastered a single one, and third, GTA IV bored the hell out of me so badly I just can't accept that it's a good game, it just won't compute because games aren't meant to be boring like that. There's almost nothing about it that tries to engage me. And no amount of 10/10s will make it a fact that it's a great game... that will always be based on individual perception.

  • IronCladChicken #51 4 years ago

    @hybridial
    "Sorry, but anyone who thinks GTA IV is a piece of "interactive art" don't know what they're talking about. Killer7 was art, Ico was art, System Shock 2 was art, there are a few more but I've made my point. "

    Nope - none of those games were art. They were all damn good though.

  • hybridial #52 4 years ago

    I truly beg to differ on Killer7. The game actually made gameplay choices that literally went against what is considered functional or acceptable to most players. I can't help but see it as a work of art because 99% of it's appeal seemed placed in it's content than how it actually played.

  • SleepyMagpie #53 4 years ago

    Spector is getting old. As in - in the mind. Shame, he had a hand in many good games over the years.

    Enjoy the moolah and your retirement sir. Relevance will soon be a thing of the past, alas.

  • rudedudejude #54 4 years ago

    hybridial +1

    You can't however define a game as not being art - what is the definition of art?

    Art can be anything, this turd on my desk, some tubgirl clip on my machine. Even that annoying banner >>>>>

    I agree that long single player games suck, but games like WoW which go on and on and on, with persistent characters, items etc are continually fun, as once you've completed it you don't just trade it in.

  • Triggerhappytel #55 4 years ago

    He really believes only two percent of people finished GTA? I'd expect it's more like two-thirds.

    Anyway, I too like my long games. Incidentally, most of them seem to come out of Japan.

  • paulf #56 4 years ago

    @ hybridial - you don't have to agree with a review score to still respect someones opinion, case in point for me was Oblivion - I just didn't get that game - I suppose the important bit is not the score, but the words that come before it, and hopefully the chance that you will experience the same joy as they do when playing it :)

  • mkreku #57 4 years ago

    I used to think Warren Spector was a genius. Now I think he's outdated, wrong and Disney-fied.

    Also annoying.

  • bonker #58 4 years ago

    Guns suck.

  • thepiedpiper #59 4 years ago

    i feel that if a game is really short, even if it is good, that i have been slightly duped

  • kangarootoo #60 4 years ago

    @hybridial

    GTAIV is a game like any other. The whole "this is art but that isn't" argument is pointless, hollow and unending. ICO is no more, or less, art that GTA.

    You seem to feel very angry about the fact that some reviewers have different opinions to you, and cite the word "trust" as being part of the equation. It simply is not. Game reviews are entirely subjective, there is no authority, only experience. Nobody is right or wrong. If you disgree with a reviewer about a game... well thats cool, its just the way of the world. Neither of you are wrong.

    What is about GTA that pisses you off so much. You started off by announcing in no uncertain terms what a big pile of shite it was, citing other titles sucha s ICO and Killer 7 as examples by which to lead. Its just horses for courses. I personally got bored with gears of War (I tried twice), but loads of others love it. They aren't wrong, neither am I, and frankly whether or not Gears is art is nowhere near being the point.

    So, GTA, why do you hate it so?

  • kangarootoo #61 4 years ago

    @mkreku

    "I used to think Warren Spector was a genius. Now I think he's outdated, wrong and Disney-fied."

    That is to some degree the way of things. Its like the rock and roll of yester year. Those that died early are legends, those that got old just... well... got old.

    Name me one games industry luminary still in the business that is kicking ass the way they did in their hay day, and I'll bake you a cake.

  • kangarootoo #62 4 years ago

    @hybridial

    I am likely to inflame you with this comment, but hear me out :)

    "The game actually made gameplay choices that literally went against what is considered functional or acceptable to most players. I can't help but see it as a work of art because 99% of it's appeal seemed placed in it's content than how it actually played."

    To be honest it sounds from that statement as if Killer 7 was art, because its appeal did not come from its presentation rather than from it actually being fun to play.

    So my question is, if it has been fun to play, would it have been less artful?

  • hybridial #63 4 years ago

    You pose good questions, Kangarootoo.

    My dislike for GTA IV is just your basic dislike, I didn't find it fun, I didn't enjoy it. Other people like it, fine, but some things are hammered into you way too much. GTA IV got more perfect scores than any game in recent memory, it's the fastest selling game of all time and for 3 weeks I could not go anywhere online, or in real life, without seeing an ad for it. Familiarity breeds contempt, is the cliche, but it's true.

    As for Killer7, I did find it fun to play, personally. But that's because what that game succeeded at for some people, but not everyone, is it got them to accept how it played, and then they just enjoy the ride, kind of like once you accept that wandering around an art gallery isn't really the most active or fun thing to physically do in the world, if you get into the paintings, they make it worth it.

  • Darren #64 4 years ago

    The industry wants to make shorter games so they can spend less time making them and make more money since people will have to buy more games to compensate for their length. Personally I like long games if they're exceptional good, i.e. Oblivion, Zelda: Twilight Princess, GTA IV and RPGs. Then again I'm not interested in playing games online so that's probably why as I want to get my £40's worth.

  • RyanT #65 4 years ago

    GTA 4 has shown pretty well that many journos in gaming are hacks considering the large amount of stories coming out about how companies have often essentially "bribed" and embargoed certain things coming out about their games, and the journos have simply gone along with this without much forethought for what they're actually doing.

  • HermitArcader #66 4 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • VMerken #67 4 years ago

    Hello games developer, meet Market Segmentation. He is your friend.

  • gaselite #68 4 years ago

    I love hyrbidial's GTA4 post. I agree with him in many ways, although I don't think it's a piece of shit, but hey, the unfair extreme negative helps to counterbalance the unfair extreme positives spoken about the game.

    Calling any type of game 'dead' is a bit rash. The medium has such a broad reach that many types of game can appeal to many types of people now and thus be successful. Although I must say I feel drawn to concise, well crafted 6-8 hour games these days, there's still scope in my gaming diet for something massive, as well as things like sports games that don't truly have an end but I could play for hours.

  • kangarootoo #69 4 years ago

    @hybridial

    I have to say that in a general sense I agree with you in many ways about GTAIV. I found that GTAIV was very much cut from the GTA block; in other words it had scope and ambition and atmosphere, but sometimes it just drove my bloody mental with its mixed delivery of basic good game design.

    I think GTA follows a formula something like this. "Huge scope is what GTA is about and that is what sells it. If the devs focus on detail and polish in level design and contruction, they will have less time to spent making content. More content equals more scope, which equals more sales. Less polish of mechanics will likely not make any difference to sales. So scope wins out."

    Its a shame, its a poor show when one of the defining feature of a series of games is its apparent inability to get some basic design right..... however.... what GTA does well is its open world building. When you think about what it actually gives you, its really quite extraordinary and unlike any game that has come before it.

    In some ways it is like the Sims, with a bit of Morrowind thrown in. You can taxi around the city is you don't feel like driving. Or you can fly a helicopter if you want. It has side missions coming out of its ears, and has some of the best character acting seen in any game EVER (I know others have done a good job in this area in the past, but none of them deal so consistently with soooo many characters). The combat is even passable in GTAIV (which is a damn first for the series).

    My point is that in many ways GTA is a huge achievement, and on that basis it might be described as an artistic achievement. Its not perfect, but I suppose it poses the question "Do you want a few things perfectly stitched together... or do you want everything, with a few rought edges?" I'm not sure what my answer would be, 'cos GTA drives me bloody mental sometimes, but at other times it leaves me very impressed.

    I am rambling, so I'll stop.

  • Kami #70 4 years ago

    "100-hour games are on the way out. How many of you have finished GTA? Two per cent, probably. If we're spending USD 100 million on a game, we want you to see the last level!" he added.

    Okay, I have to admit it, I dislike GTA, not interested in it. Herein likes a point that seems to be missing.

    It doesn't matter how much you spend on making a game, for a start if the game is good enough then people will stick with it. But equally, there are people out there that - and this may surprise you - may not like particular genres (for me it's Footie games, pointless and expensive they can go f**k themselves with something sharp!). So you can spend $100 million on whatever game you like, the simple truth of the matter is that there will be a lot of people that WON'T be interested in your product, even if it is the second coming of Jesus H. Christ in data format (please see Wrath of the Lich King for further details).

    Secondly, it depends on the type of game. If I buy an RPG, I expect it to last me more than 20 hours or the developer is cheating me. If I buy an FPS, I expect four to five hours of shooting fun. If I buy a party game (dear god I don't! I swear!) I would expect something to dip in and out of every so often when people are around my house - preferrably something that is idiotproof as said visitors are likely to be drunk enough that you wouldn't want them exposed to a naked flame. There is no hard and fast rules, it's up to developers to make games they think work - see Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft and Portal.

    Lastly, if a game costs $100 million and sucks it doesn't matter how long, short or well marketed it is, it doesn't matter if there's a leather-clad Regina-type in there and it doesn't matter if one of the guns has an altfire that jerks you off in the midst of combat. It will end up not recouping back it's costs. I truly believe no-one sets out to make a bad game, but stupid things happen.

    In short, the market is a lot more complicated and diverse than a lot of people make it out to be - goes for forums posters and people like Spector. Why isn't there room for everything? There are still 3 hour+ movies made. Requires a little more commitment from the audience and they probably know the subject material beforehand but if it's good enough, and engaging enough, everyone is happy. Then the next week they can go shut their brains off for a quick 75-90 minute gunfest. Then maybe next week they can go watch something animated. When the market becomes stale - that's when problems begin, and whilst some genres have been stagnating, there's plenty of life out there yet...

  • FenderMaster #71 4 years ago

    if theyre gonna make games 5 times shorter, then they better make games 5 times cheaper too...

  • timberwolf #72 4 years ago

    ARGHHHHHHHH! someone please shut these people up. i'm sure developers want to make short games... it makes them more money. But i swear as soon as the new final fantasy, or elder scrolls is under 50 hours i'm burning my console and buying a pc. also a little thing called replay value would be nice. the number of games i've completed this year only to unlock custom art and making of... ARGH! pleeeeease someone just try... developers that's all i'm asking just try... XD

  • MGG #73 4 years ago

    Its not about the long ball or the short ball, its about the *right* ball a wise man once said.....

    Change "ball" to "game" and theres the answer.

    Also, "only 2% will ever see the end", yes but thats 2% of a MUCH LARGER MARKET. If GTA was half the size, how many would not have bought it? Wouldn't people complain that it was nowhere near as big as the previous versions?

    Sorry Warren, I think you're wrong here.

  • Darren #74 4 years ago

    Not every game should be long but the strong sales of GTA, Oblivion and other RPGs suggest that people do want decent length games. After all when you spend £40 on a game you want to feel like you're getting your money's worth even if you don't finish it. Nothing worst IMO than playing an amazing game only to find it ends seemingly abruptly leaving you gasping for more, e.g. The Darkness, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, etc., etc.

  • Darren #75 4 years ago

    Should add that I'd prefer my games to all be 15-20 hours longs as opposed to the sub-10 hour ones most are these days. BioShock was a good example of a game that was the perfect length... in fact, it took me over 30 hours to complete it on my first playthrough as I insisted on exploring each level thoroughly and even backtracked.

  • the_dudefather #76 4 years ago

    what if gta was half its current length but the game itself was of a much higher quality?

  • kangarootoo #77 4 years ago

    Well it would have annoyed me less probably.

    As I mentioned up at the top of the thread, Warren is just waxing lyrical about the kind of game is is working on right now, and poo pooing the sort of game he sin't working on right now. That is kind of his job these days, which is a shame. As soon as great game creators start doing the PR job instead of just making the game, they tend to annoy people as we are seeing).

  • muscleblade #78 4 years ago

    I like playing alot of different games. I like variety. I dont have time for long games. I rather play 3 short high quality games than one long quality game. Too me time is something i dont have enough of. Games are so cheap these days that i can easily afford all the games i have time to play. Nes games cost about the same 20 years ago ffs. How long where those?

  • muscleblade #79 4 years ago

    "what if gta was half its current length but the game itself was of a much higher quality? "

    That would be fantastic imo.

  • Salt_The_Fries #80 4 years ago

    I just have a feeling that most of guys commenting this article don't actually know who Phil Spector is.

  • uk_john #81 2 years ago

    So what if it is true that only 2 percent have finished GTA 3, Vice City or San Andreas, how many multi million units have Rockstar sold? If the next GTA was a 15 hour game, would it sell in the millions like earlier GTA's? I doubt it.

    So this is just another stupid comment from an industry leader, and once again it points to a fall in modern gaming unit sales and an increase in retro gaming, something that has actually already started about 2 years ago. I mean look at the grown of X-Box Live or Sony Marketplace, or what about Steam and GOG.com - and of course the 5 million DOSBox downloads are nothing to sneeze at!

    Hang onto your old games. Decisions being made by gaming leaders, combined with the supine media that has never stood up to them, is destroying gaming.

    One day there will be no one called a 'gamer', you'll be a retro gamer, an indie gamer or a Facebook gamer - because that's all there'll be!