Long games are dead, says Spector Comments by Robert Purchese

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

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 ;)

All my favourite games are really long...

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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 :)

@triggerhappy

I agree with his two percent. It's a very long game. Can anybody tell me how quick it can be finished?

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 Now I think he's outdated, wrong and Disney-fied.

Also annoying.

Guns suck.

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

@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?

@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.

@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?

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.

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.

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.

Its seems odd for Spector to suggest short games are the way forward, when you consider the rise of community based online features in games, online modes which gamers, even console gamers now play for hours on end, so trying to suggest everyone wants to play the same types of games is pointless.

Anyways, I think what is most important, and has been hinted at by others is pacing, what is it that you do in the game, and how the game enables you to do it in a way that is consistantly engaging. Personally rather than a dislike 'long' games, my problem is with games that feel 'long in the tooth' that make you perform repetitive tasks that are of no challenge of consequence to your overall engagement and enjoyment of the game, namely fetch tasks, random battles, excessive combat, difficulty spikes, lack of save points causing you to repeat sections and end up feeling like a chore to play, and a waste of my time.

Viewtiful Joe is doing this for me right now, replaying the game, suck at it right now of course, playing for the first time in years, but I noticed how these annoyances really hamper my enjoyment of an otherwise accomplished game.

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

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.

@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.

"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...

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

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

What's cool to me is that there are lots of developers who feel strongly about making different kind of games, and they put their heart and soul into it.

For me it means choice between short, long, cute, brutal, clever, stupid, funny, serious and fat games.... GIMME GIMME GIMME

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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?

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

That would be fantastic imo.

"I love working with Disney because I'm so tired of making games and now I can focus on cranking out crap"

FIXED :)

GTA4 could certainly be more refined and benefit from it.

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