Gamers want shorter, better games - Dyack

By Games Industry.biz Published 3 May, 2007

Not keen on 100-hour games.

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.

"If we're going to craft an epic story we decided we had to divide it into manageable chunks for the consumer," he said, referring to Silicon Knights' proposed Too Human trilogy for Xbox 360, the first instalment of which is currently in development. "At the same time we wanted to do a game that it has a chance to evolve and take advantage of development changes.

"We think the future is all about content. By getting our flow of process together for the first game we can then look at it and evolve the way we work for the next games in the series. We didn't want to have to start from scratch again after the first Too Human. Is it gutsy to promise so much? Yes, but making games is hard."

However, Dyack warns that even if you split your story into chunks, you can't expect every player to keep up. "Each game needs to be self contained," he argues. "That was flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies. Too Human will be self-contained across each game of the trilogy.

"There'll be more background for those that play all three. It's not a hook, it's a promise that if players want something epic, this is where to come. What we're trying to do is create something that moves the industry towards a very content-rich environment. I love trilogy books and series. We've got a lot of things to say in Too Human and we couldn't do it in anything shorter than three games."

For more of Dyack's views on the current state of the games industry, including his belief that consoles must converge into one format to become mass-market, read the rest of the interview.

Part one, in which Dyack addresses the role of previews and the press, can be found elsewhere on the site.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (107) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • JediMasterMalik #1 5 years ago

    So too human shorter than expected?
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 13:45

  • Dizzy #2 5 years ago

    Agree.. I almost never enjoy a game longer that 20 hours (with a few exceptions).
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 11:53

  • jonsaan #3 5 years ago

    Sounds like he is pre-excusing charging for downloadable content.

  • killyourtv #4 5 years ago

    what a git

  • TwistidChimp #5 5 years ago

    Yeah well, I'm not so sure he can speak for "WHAT PEOPLE WANT" Short games can be great, so can long games, its when the quality is sacrificed for length that you get into trouble.

  • Steroyd #6 5 years ago

    I wonder if that includes people who spend hundreds of hours with online multiplayer.

    Personally I like 60 - 100 hour long games*cough* RPG's *cough*, it makes me feel like I get my money's worth when i plonk £40 on a game even if it takes a month or two to complete.

    But yeah if the game is REALLY 20 hours long and the other 40 hours is needlesly filling the blanks by collecting stuff to just waste time (Wind Waker I'm looking at you) then that's where i agree with him.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 11:58

  • itamae #7 5 years ago

    I read that as: "People don't want what we can't deliver."

  • kangarootoo #8 5 years ago

    I think it depends on the game in question. You try telling a hoard of Oblivion fans that gamers don't want 100+ hours opf gameplay.


    "That was flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies."

    Err, yeah. Which is why they sank without a trace.


    @itamae

    Nail, head, hit on.

  • jack_klugman #9 5 years ago

    Arguably you need to assess your priorities if you have 100 hours to pour into a video game. More high quality, film length games please!

  • agparrot #10 5 years ago

    It's nice to have the choice, though, isn't it?

    So you can burn through GTA: San Andreas in Storyline-Mission-completing mode, or spend... well.... bloody ages in there just tooling about (as I still am).

    Can't decide, really...

    edit: I, personally, DO want to spend 60 - 100 hours in games - so I simply have to disagree with Dyack on this.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 12:04

  • The_Aardvark #11 5 years ago

    I wouldn't mind shorter games - it's rare that I finish games these days. But I want shorter, cheaper games, not just shorter.

  • Dizzy #12 5 years ago

    ORLY all of you??

    Guess that is why the Wii is sinking... oh.. er... wait.

    The fact is that the hardcore crowd always think they need long games.. in reality short games are more fun for more people. We have many games and we want to move on to the next experience. Some games you can play for very long time... and some games even have this "just play for 30 minutes" quality that you can repeat for many hours but few of these "epic" games can keep me entertained longer than 20 hours.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 12:08

  • Hughes. #13 5 years ago

    Shorter games that cost the same amount as the old longer games.
    Shorter games that don't distract you from buying a new game by not having finished them yet.

    I wonder what I'll be told I want next?

    "Gamers want their games sooner rather than later, so we'll be stripping out time consuming features which gamers can then buy later as premium rate DLC. It's all about choice!"

  • Pulsar_t #14 5 years ago

    Devs should just focus on the games themselves, too much time is wasted with the technology behind then (Gabe I'm looking at you). 10-20 hours for older gamers seem fine, but kids have loads of free time so they might not like this formula.

    As for shelling out 40 notes or more for games, well gaming isn't as mainstream as film.. Which is why EA is the only real winner here, seeing that their development costs are controlled while managing to sell truckloads of their rehashed tosh.

    Personally I'd like to be given a choice of shorter campaigns in (J)RPGs.. 100+ hours of playtime is simply too much for me and many others who don't want that kind of involvement with their games.

  • Darren #15 5 years ago

    I prefer my games to be 15-25 hours at least as I'm not a bigger lover of online gaming (which seems to be where most of the longevity comes from on the 360) and never will be. The odd 100+ hour RPG like Oblivion is most welcome but generally I'd rather play more, shorter games as opposed to less, longer ones as there's only so many hours in the days and being a multiformat gamer means I'm not short on choice.

  • Nige #16 5 years ago

    Can I just say that I like some of my games to be huge... and some of them to be, well, small.

    Variety being the spice of life and all.

  • dolphan #17 5 years ago

    I've never played a game thats taken more than 45 hours to complete (and those RPGs can be done faster). What's wrong with 100 hours of content if most of it's optional?

  • skillian #18 5 years ago

    I think he's right. Lots of people just don't have the time to finish most lengthy games.

    Look at stats for Ep1: [link url=http://www.st eampowered.com/status/ep1/
    ]http://www.st eampowered.com/status/ep1/
    [/link]

    A total play time of 5ish hours, and less than half the players have actually made it to the end.

    It would be interesting if we could see stats like that for other games.

  • paulf #19 5 years ago

    guess he's never played wow then

  • crazyhorse174 #20 5 years ago

    Question then: Do we get to pay less for shorter games, than longer ones then?

    Or do we get shafted for the same money, for a shorter experience?

  • menage #21 5 years ago

    What a load of bull. Games like Okami we're like 60 hours worth of content and I loved it. Not talking about megahits like Oblivion, Warcraft, etc.

    He's just saying. Let's split 60 hours up into 3 parts and get 180 euro's instead of 60.

    Like I'm really selling out 60 for a 10 hour game.

    Well, if they made it 30, that would be different.

    I really don't understand some of these pricing rates. FFXII for 50 while GoW2 was like 60 euro. I could breeze through the latter in 14 hours. Sure is was hot, but so was FFXII.



  • aine #22 5 years ago

    Seems like he isn't advocating shorter games at all, he's advocating longer games split into shorter portions. Which will probably each be sold at full price anyway, so you'll end up paying £120 instead of £40 for the same amount of game. Because that's what gamers want!

    edit: yeah, pretty much exactly what menage said in the post before me. balls.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 12:29

  • asphaltcowboy #23 5 years ago

    15-25 is the magic number(s)

  • FunkyRenegade #24 5 years ago

    Wow.
    He needs to talk to some gamers.
    probably about 80% of my friends would pick a story driven RPG over a 10-15 level Shooter.

  • Steroyd #25 5 years ago

    Question then: Do we get to pay less for shorter games, than longer ones then?

    Or do we get shafted for the same money, for a shorter experience?

    T£H D£V£LOPM£NT CO$T$!!!

  • Lov3 #26 5 years ago

    "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,"

    Yeah, that changed from 'gamers' to 'I' quite quickly there, didn't it? I'm pretty sure people who bought Zelda and FFXII are going to disagree with you on that. You know those games, they were some of the biggest selling releases recently? Yeah.

    He's also way off the mark with that Lord of the Rings comment.

  • Artemis_Matsas #27 5 years ago

    He's full of shit. They just want more money for less effort in their part.

  • insincere_dave #28 5 years ago

    It's not the length of games that put people off, it's the repetitiveness, difficulty spikes and lack of quality that make people bored. Legacy of Kain I'm looking at you.

  • dredd97 #29 5 years ago

    It reads as

    'shorter games, developed quicker, but for a premium price, better share holder dividend, bigger bonus for me!'

    personally if it's an rpg then i expect (no demand) 50+ hours of gameplay..

    if I want a short game I'll play Pro evo, burnout or something on the psp/ds..

    perhaps their having trouble finishing Too Human... or after spending years developing the game engine don't actually have a game to put in it, and need to get some cash quick.. so it'll end up like the first fable game.. a game you really want to play...pretty to look at, but you soon find how shallow and short the actual game is and not really worth the time or effort.....Paris Hilton if you like...

  • asha #30 5 years ago

    So to enjoy the complete story he wants us to pay £120 for three 20hourish games rather then pay £40 for one 60hour game? Genius. :D

  • trevd72 #31 5 years ago

    i would like shorter games but the pricing needs to be scaled, the flat £x per game no matter the budget or life of the game needs to change too.

    Just cos people buy a 60 hour game in droves does not mean that they could be bothered to play all the way through.

    Saying that it depends on the game. i have put in hundreds of hours on the rainbow six range especially online. However when its a game like wind waker where its just padding, or that random battle shit and conversations about fairies in JRPG's, then make it shorter. I dont have much spare as a grown up and this is shown in my shift from JRPG and flight sim which i used to play all the time when i was at college and uni.



  • HiddenAway #32 5 years ago

    Nope, not buying it. Last time I fell for that was .hack :p

  • dsmx #33 5 years ago

    I don't mind shorter games but if there less that 10 hours in length don't expect me to buy them at full price.

  • Carpathian #34 5 years ago

    I think it has to be said that as long as the core of the title is well done people won't mind them being shorter.

    Note that I said "shorter" and not "short" - those two letters make a good few hours difference !
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 12:46

  • mkreku #35 5 years ago

    What the hell.. I spent over 100 hours in Oblivion! I spent over 100 hours in Dragon Quest 8! I spent over 100 hours in Gothic 2 Gold!

    I ABSOLUTELY FREAKING LOVE LONG EPIC GAMES!!

    So shut up, stupid Dyack.

  • Tonka #36 5 years ago

    The only problem I have with long games is that they prevent me from playing other games.

  • nickthegun #37 5 years ago

    I read it as 'People dont want 100 hour games, so we are going to chop ours up into 3 chunks of 30 and sell it to them that way'.

    Also

    "Each game needs to be self contained," he argues. "That was flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies. Too Human will be self-contained across each game of the trilogy"

    A) Thats a terrible analogy B) things that do that seem to suffer a quality drop and the overall story suffers.

  • Kami #38 5 years ago

    This is bollocks. 100+ hour epics are great when they are good. Likewise, a few hour action game like RE4 can be equally brilliant. The key word in it all is QUALITY, and if the game isn't any good he can shove it up his sun-don't-shine for all I care.

  • Carlo #39 5 years ago

    I agree with this.

    Shorter games please!!! I'm getting old!

  • joeking #40 5 years ago

    The problem with his statement is that it's too definitive. For instance, Max Payne was great because it was short, sweet, devoid of any padding, and infinitely replayable. On the other hand, Knights of the Old Republic was great because it was deep, epic, and felt like you were taking part in an interactive Star Wars trilogy.

    So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, it depends on the game in question really.

  • jellyhead #41 5 years ago

    He knows what I want does he? o_0
    Never met the bloke so when did i tell him that, maybe when i didn't fill in the questionnaire he sent around? Fek off, money grabbing, lazy bast. Begone with such shenanigans.

    It's the future though, they'll plough on with this extortion as they know there'll be enough fuckwits out there who will put up gladly with such plans to make it look popular. Cocks. :(

  • dudefella #42 5 years ago

    yeah why the hell is this guy in gaming news all the time. Just shut up and if your game is good, people will know.

  • sebsal #43 5 years ago

    I played WoW for 2 years. I enjoyed more than 60 hours of that

    On the flip side, i was disappointed when I finished Gears of War in a week.

  • penhalion #44 5 years ago

    Yep complete bollocks. He and people like him are the reason so many good developers are bailing or seriously disillusioned.

    He hasn't got a clue what people want. He can't make a good game (probably still smarting from the too human comments he got) and so decides to sell short sharp crap instead.

    Even stuff like Valves HL2 episode 1 was too short, given the length of time to the next one! If you do a short episodic game, then you best have something ready to release within 3 months of it. 6 months to a year is way too long. What they gonna do. Have a re-cap at the start?

    I can see it now

    "Last time we left our intrepid duo blah blah blah...."

  • sanctusmortis #45 5 years ago

    5 years ago, I'd have said he was wrong. These days, he's spot on.

    Some of us, gamers to the core, have lives that have taken over now. 40+ hours at work, 2 kids and a marriage leave little chance of finishing a 100 hour game. In fact, it's one of the reasons I wouldn't go near FFXII, and love Crackdown and Guitar Hero II.

    It's alright people on here saying he's wrong, but to be blunt he isn't talking about you. He's talking about the market as a whole, a market that to get mainstream has to appeal to more people. A lot of people can't sink commitment into a FF game, but can spare time for, say, an hour or so racing on GT or Forza, a couple of crimelords on Crackdown, a few matches of PES or FIFA, a few missions of Splinter Cell or Halo. The vast majority of people don't have the free time to chuck at long games anymore. The people who spent ages doing everything in Zelda:ooT have families now, kids and marriages and houses and 40-hour work weeks, none of which really allow for 5 hours of graft on a night taking down another FF boss.

    Gaming and gamers are growing up. Just like 5-hour operas and plays have lost their audience to time constraints, so have games. Think about it: Gone With the Wind is a very long film, and most people these days couldn't watch it at all, never mind in one sitting. The movie industry these days considers 3 hours to be the peak time anyone's interest can be maintained on a film. Games aren't really any different; only the "hardcore" would sink more than that into a game a night. So, a 100 hour game would take over a month to complete, and most gamers aren't happy to do that.

    Yes, you could argue WoW et al are proof against this, but they're not. People still sink only 3 hours at a time in, and a lot of people fast lose interest. They're also the preserve, usually, of said "hardcore" gamers, and as such can't be said to represent the mainstream in any way. As has already been pointed out, the Wii proves his point nicely.

  • WickedDeeJ #46 5 years ago

    I disagree; I prefer long games to short ones. With the price of especially console games gone through the roof, I feel sort of ripped off when a fullprice game is over in 4-6 hours.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 19:40

  • Tomnd #47 5 years ago

    so effectively he's making a 100 hour game, and trying to justify that we spend £100 + on it over the course of the 3 games.

  • kangarootoo #48 5 years ago

    @sanctusmortis

    "Yes, you could argue WoW et al are proof against this, but they're not. People still sink only 3 hours at a time in, and a lot of people fast lose interest."

    Well I've two things to say about that.

    1. Overall game length has never been connected to time per sitting. Whether your game takes 10 hours or 100 hours to finish, you are still only going to sink in 3 hours at a time. So I'm not sure of the relevance.

    2. Blizzard's bank balance may dispute your suggestion that a "lot" of people fast lose interest. As an actual number it may seem like a lot, but as pecentage their retention rate is pretty high for a subscription service.

    Its all very well saying that his comments aren't aimed at us, but the sorts of titles he makes don't agree with his comments.

    Regards point 1 above, I think the actual issue is whether the nature of gameplay allows you to dip in for 10 mins or whether it takes an hour just to reach the next save point (for example). I simply don't see that as connected to the overall time to completion (which seems to be what he is on about).

    Call me a cynic, but I think itamae got it in one. Plenty of people (such as Bethesda and Rockstar) are doing perfectly well selling games that have a long completion time. Whatever you have to say about the "mass market", those two titles are some of the best selling of our time. Dycak has tried making and selling that sort of game and he found it didn't work for him because he can't compete. So he now needs to find an angle that allows him to compete, and convince us that his new angle is what the majority of us want.

  • Syrok #49 5 years ago

    I absolutly hate it if you can play through a game in like 3 hours like PoP:SoT.
    I mean its such a good game but way too short.

  • JonFE #50 5 years ago

    Well, the problem for me is that, as I get older and my responsibilities grow bigger, I don't have the time and energy to devote to a 100-hour epic any more. So, I'd prefer playing through a 15-20 hour fast-paced game, which I can enjoy in small chunks every now and then - hopefully without forgetting where/what I'm supposed to go/do next :)

  • lemonfist #51 5 years ago

    Japanese RPG's definitely need to trim some fat. I've not completed a single one yet, and probably never will.

    I'll take the five minutes of pure joy that Outrun 2/C2C provides me any day over 100 fucking hours of grinding in Dragon Quest VIII.

  • Darren #52 5 years ago

    @sanctusmortis - While I can understand *your* reasoning, surely it is better for everyone to have a *choice* of what kinds of games they want to play, long and short? You say you don't have time for long games but what about those of us that do? Not everyone is married with commitments, not everyone buys five games a month, so what's wrong with you playing a 100 hour game over a period of a year; that'll surely please the wife and your bank manager? ;)

    I'm a single man, 40 years old, and I have oodles of time for playing games across four platforms so I do like a mixture of short games (so I can play more of them) and the longer ones like RPGs and the odd MMORPG. Everyone is different but like many on here I think that this guy is making sweeping generalisations about what gamers really want and speaking as a developer who wants to maximise his profit margins. Shorter games would certainly do that.

    Bet Too Human turns out to be a pile of crock though which would be ironic considering Dyack's shoter, better games comment! LOL

  • Azazel #53 5 years ago

    As a fan of the Baldur's Gate trilogy plus it's entire accompaniment of mods and add-ons, I personally like a bit of the epic time-sink. I wish people would make more games with such a large scope.

  • NthSimulachum #54 5 years ago

    Speaking of films, many films are far too long these days, and suffer an excess of padding. Whilst gone with the wind was an exception, and some of the bible epics, most films were 100 minutes, tops. King Kong springs to mind...far too long. Though it may have something to do with Peter Jackson shooting almost every dramatic scene in slow motion.

    As for games, I do like a good epic, but I enjoy a short game as well, as long as there;s scope for harder difficulties, multiplayer, replayability.

  • GiarcYekrub #55 5 years ago

    Basically the cost of developing Next Gen content has sky rocketted so unless the companies want to go bust they must do something... I guess Silcon Knights plan is to strech 1/2 games into 3, others just relentlessly reuse a single game engine, release games multi platform.

    Personally this sounds like what Nintendo were saying when the Gamecube launched and it was evident that the meat was missing from many early Nintendo gamecube games. IMO I prefer games of RE0-3 length when they are Narrative driven so I can complete the story in a single sitting. Lylat Wars is another game that has it length perfectly calculated with alternate routes allowing for diffent experences

  • The-Bodybuilder #56 5 years ago

    I haven't read a single post yet, but I'm pretty confident that the forumites will blast and insult him (as they tend to do for virtually EVERYTHING these days).

    Let's see if I'm right...

  • WrongShui #57 5 years ago

    Bollocks, thats a ton of shit. People don't want boring games. If you can't make your game longer without it being boring then don't bother. Just make it short and sweet and overcharge for it.

  • The-Bodybuilder #58 5 years ago

    >"I'm a single man, 40 years old"

    /paints and laughs.

    HAAA HA.

  • Rodriguez #59 5 years ago

    I think that it's a bit narrow minded of Denis Dyack to proclaim that gamers don't want long games anymore. If there's one thing I hate it's being told what I like or dislike by other people. It seems it's more of his own personal taste for shorter games that he's on about, but tries to unsuccessfully justify his opinion by claiming it's what *all* gamers want. You only have to look at the success of Oblivion and Final Fantasy XII to see that many gamers still love long games.
    I think short games can be great fun if done properly; I really enjoyed Chronicles of Riddick on Xbox and even Silicon Knights own Eternal Darkness on Gamecube, which was great. I think a short game really needs to have replayability though, if they take the cue from Eternal Darkness where you could choose to fight against one of three different evil 'gods' each time, reflected in different enemies that you had to face, then the length of a short game can be significantly increased.
    Finally, if developers/publishers really want to justify shorter games {depending of course on what is deemed short - maybe 10 hours or less??} that contain little replayability then the price of such games should be reduced, something like £20-£30 would be more suitable.

  • _Price_ #60 5 years ago

    I idea that shorter game time will naturally produce better quality titles is counter-intuitive. In order to tell any story properly significant time should be spent on developing evry major character. One of the major criticisms leveled at many movies (X-men III, I'm looking right at you) is that too many individuals aren't given the time to show their potential. Games like Xenosaga, Shadow Hearts, KotOR (and for that matter most good RPGs), whilst taking a long time to complete, give over a significant portion of the game to giving a decent background, an insight into their current state of mind and an indication of what they're getting out of being a teenager who can inexplicably save citys/worlds/galaxies.

    Yes, short games have their place (especially on handhelds) but even if I'm playing a FPS or action game, I still want a good 12-15 hours or so hours play time out of the main game.

    As for the idea that 'oh, the online mode makes up for a short game'. Well, yes, perhaps it does. But only If you're online.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 16:15

  • sanctusmortis #61 5 years ago

    JonFE seems to have got what I'm getting at - 20 hours is certainly long enough to finish a game. I sank 10 hours into Crackdown, and I've done nearly everything in it. Guitar Hero's around 20 hours, and I've done the first 2 difficulties and am wrapping up 5* medium.

    The point is not that these games don't exist, the point is they are a NICHE. You can finish GTA3/VC/SA in a lot less than 20 hours. Ditto, in fact, nearly every game bar RPGs.The guy never said games should be less than 10 hours long - that would be stupid. What he said is, 100 hours should not be what it takes to finish a game.

    People are misconstruing what "finishing" a game is. To "finish" Crackdown, all you have to do is take down all the bosses. To "complete" it, well, that's all the Achievements. No game should need 100 hours of plot. Oblvion certainly doesn't, and neither did the prequels. Heck, no Zelda does, and in fact I think only FF games could possibly have. Even then, it only took me 15 hours to finish FFVIII.

  • Splush #62 5 years ago

    I hate to agree with a known lunatic but I've been saying the same thing as Dyack for a while now. When I was a kid getting a couple of games a year I wanted them to last as long as possible, but now that I'm a bit older time is the thing I'm lacking, rather than money, I'm happy to pay for 8 hour games if they're 8 hours of quality.

    In the run up to the Wii launch when people were getting excited about how Twilight Princess was going to be 80 hours (or whatever), that really dulled by excitement for the game because I knew the chances of me finishing it were so slim.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 16:28

  • NoQuarter #63 5 years ago

    HL2 Ep1 was my game of last year, it's about 4 hours long but absolutely superb from start to finish, it literally bled polish. It had brilliant story, acting, animation and some artistically and technically brilliant visuals.

    I loved Oblivion, and I do have 95 hours logged in it, but it's nothing in comparison, to be honest there's only about 15 hours of unique content, the rest just feels (because it is) recycled.

  • kangarootoo #64 5 years ago

    @The Bodybuilder

    "I haven't read a single post yet, but I'm pretty confident..."

    Well that pretty much sums you up right there.

  • menage #65 5 years ago

    The diffeculty argument is a very solid one. I don't mind length. I'll take my time, I don't need to finish it in a week. But getting stuck is very frustating and will put me off far more frequently. GTA I'm looking at you with your weak ass restart points.

  • sanctusmortis #66 5 years ago

    I do wonder how many people actually READ IT. All he says is having to spend 100 hours to get to the end of a game is silly, and games matter more than hardware and as such a single machine would allow for a better market, as there's less messing about tweaking towards machines.

    That's a pretty good summary of what a lot of devs, and especially Sega, have been saying a long time now. After all, Sega have found having to work on multiple formats - rather than their own, single machine - a lot more difficult. That's why devs ally with a system - it's a lot easier on the design if you only work with one setup.

    @kangarootoo - he wasn't wrong though, was he?
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 16:52

  • RexRunti #67 5 years ago

    OK just so you know I have completed Jade Empire, KOTOR, KOTOR2, NWN, NWN2, BG2, a couple of Zeldas, Shenmue, Shenmue 2, Grandia 2, FFVII, FFVIII, FFXII, Skies of Arcadia, Deus Ex all with all expansions availble several times over (there others but you get my point) I like long games. That doesn't mean I don't like short games like MGS or Gears of War but I do like big engrossing games. A game doesn't have to be an RPG to be long, see Ninja Gaiden, and 'pick up and play'-ability doesn't necessarily make the game short (I put 100s of hours into Soul Calibur). But the main thing is if you buy a game and stop playing it after 40 hrs you don't fell as cheated as if you've bought a game and done everything in it after 4 hrs.

  • gingerlink #68 5 years ago

    a game with a story lasting a solid 100 hours (not a watered down 100 hours which you can actually do in about 10 if you know what you're doing) is good because if the story keeps progressing well, when you get to the end, you'll forget what happened at the start, so you'll play it through again.

    And i reckon this is all just about being able to put more games on a single franchise so they can rip us off more...

    100 hour games ARE silly, but only if they're not done well...

  • kangarootoo #69 5 years ago

    @menage

    "The diffeculty argument is a very solid one. I don't mind length. I'll take my time, I don't need to finish it in a week. But getting stuck is very frustating and will put me off far more frequently. GTA I'm looking at you with your weak ass restart points."

    I agree, though I would say that isn't so much difficulty (in the traditional scalable sense) but just poor design. In fact that is one of the areas I hoped Rockstar would kick into line after Saints Row showed tham up on that front.

  • Kami #70 5 years ago

    I enjoy an epic as much as a short game. Generally, a lot of games don't interest me so I tend to keep with one to three in a three month span - Okami and FFXII were recent titles which sort of filled that gap. So what if I have only a few hours in an evening to spare? If the game is involving, well-paced and fun to play - the fact that I can space it out over a long timespan means I just get value for money.

    I do get what people say, but I do settle down to big heavy reading at times as well. Whilst a quick read may be enough for some, at times I want something deep and heavy on plot and wordy. It depends what takes your fancy at the time, and for me I prefer there to be a good mixture and variety than a one-size-fits-all...

  • Moz #71 5 years ago

    We just need a mix of game lengths. I personally like have long JRPG type games that I take my time over completing. But at the same time I also like shorter games to play alongside these.

    Action packed games should (in my opinion) generaly be shorter then RPG/adventure games. But the have online multiplayer elements.

    Would anyone ever get round to finishing, Resistence or Gears of War, or Halo. If the game had 50hours play time. Probably not cos you'd get cought up in the online multiplayer and then not find time to complete the game.

    And think of it from an industry point of view, why bother spending time and money on content that over 50% of people are never going to see.

    EDIT/ alot of people seem to be going on about wanting a choice in terms of game length. And in some style of game that works. But other more "Cinematic" style games have to much choice spoils the flow of the story. Shorly it's just better have what we have now anyway which is a choice of games of differing lengths ad styles.

    Also alot of people mentioning MMORPGs surely these are out side of this topic. MMORPGs don't have an ending. It's a living evolving world that you spend time. Which is what some people like and others don't. But again what's the point in arguing about if short or long games are better, at the end of the day it's an individual choice.

    As for the price issue, I don't see how length along should govern price. At the end of the day as long as there are enough people who want a game and are will to £40 that is how much it will cost.

    Next you'll wanting the Cinema to charge you less for 90minute film then they do for a 3 hour film
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 17:34

  • Xiaokiraa #72 5 years ago

    I like games that last a long time. Final Fantasy just would be the same completing it in 20 hours. Also games like Half Life 2 seemed too short. Deus Ex however seemed to have everything proportionally laid out. I think short games will only succeed if they have replay value or strong multiplayer content.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 17:29

  • kangarootoo #73 5 years ago

    @Kami

    The book comparison that you make is a good one.

  • YourMessageHere #74 5 years ago

    I think GAME GOD Denis Dyack has just gone to the top of the "man who thinks he speaks for What Gamers Want but doesn't and should have his vocal cords removed" list. People clearly want lots of playing time in some things and not in other things. There is no one rule for all games.

    Also, the man's clearly not got much of an idea about games as a unique form of entertainment, judging by his frequent analogies involving the film industry. Films are inherently different from games, and to say people want similar things from games (higher quality at the expense of length) is to deny all the things that longer or more basic yet incredibly playable games can offer. To say LotR's trilogy format was a weakness is ridiculous; a trilogy's interdependence on all three parts is required for it to BE a trilogy. Otherwise it would be three linked stories, not a trilogy.

    Single console? No. Some want Brain Training on the bus, some want HD shootiness on their wall-sized plasma screens. Can't please all the people all the time. One DVD standard? What of VHS, UMD, HD-DVD, BluRay and purchased download? Idiot.

    Then again, he's one of these who thinks that repeatedly blurting the word "content" actually means something. Clearly not worth taking notice of once you read that.

  • sanctusmortis #75 5 years ago

    [link url=http://kotaku.com/gaming/size-ma tters/denis-dyack-+-less-game-is-more-257350.php
    ]http://ko taku.com/gaming/size-matters/de...[/link]

    It seems Kotaku have interpreted it a bit more like I did. Which is nice.

    The ironic thing is, I like really long books; I spend 1 1/2 hours on a bus each way to work 3 times a week (14 hour shifts FTW!), and in that time I tend to get through around 30-50 pages of a book. By comparison, I have between 2-4 hours of free time a night once the kids are in bed. The idea of, say, spending 5 hours on a single boss (as a friend boasted to me happens in FFXII) is utterly out of the question.

    Now, Guild Wars: Nightfall, that I'm enjoying. I can do a mission in half an hour, I don't have a monthly fee to pressure me into pouring all my life into it... bliss. 7-8 hours of play yielded 14 level ups so far... Guitar Hero II, similarly, is perfect. No song is longer than 10 minutes, so I can do an odd one in between other stuff, and doing the whole of easy mode in one go was 4 hours. If only I was good at it...

  • malloc #76 5 years ago

    "Personally this sounds like what Nintendo were saying when the Gamecube launched and it was evident that the meat was missing from many early Nintendo gamecube games."

    Exactly, in fact I thought he said that that was why they split from Nintendo as "SK are not made for shorter quicker games". No? Comes across as being a bit of a twit.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 18:02

  • Overlush #77 5 years ago

    ""Each game needs to be self contained," he argues. "That was flaw in the The Lord of the Rings movies. Too Human will be self-contained across each game of the trilogy."

    Oh do fuck off, please! You use the LOTR trilogy as a basis for comparison with your (thus far) panned and ridiculed game (which you were whinging about the other day like it was everyone else's fault) and THEN have the gaul to say that the LOTR trilogy is intrinsicaly FLAWED and you're going to IMPROVE upon it?

    Can't these idiots just shut up and do their job?

  • Agent_Llama #78 5 years ago

    +10 to itamae. Enough said.

  • spongebob #79 5 years ago

    I am all for 8-10 hours long games. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be 100 hour games as well, like RPGs.

  • dudefella #80 5 years ago

    "There are different types of gamers and there is room for shorter action-y games and long RPG-type games."

    Thread summed up and closed, go home people.

  • onyxbox #81 5 years ago

    This Dyack guy is getting on my tits now.

    (I just had to get that off my chest)

  • gnarl #82 5 years ago

    I just think this deity of game creation has a bit of a criticism addiction. I can think of no other reason for the LOTR analogy than to get people to tell him he's an idiot. And the broad scope for the game length comment was surely just to inflame tempers. He got berated so much last year he's decided he wants more.

    Still at least he's funny. Hope his sense of humour passes through to the game he may one day make.

  • ClansOfIntrigue #83 5 years ago

    Looks at recently completed copy of Okami...

    Don't listen, my love, the bad man can't hurt you.

  • triton #84 5 years ago

    eh? that's exactly the one and only aspect were older games beat today's generation; that they lasted longer and left you with a profound experience, if they were good, that is. Today's games can be described as children's picture books compared to the old ones, glossy and nice but oh so short and who keeps a picture book?

    kami: saw your book analogy, and yes, I do use to split a heavy book into two readings with the help of lighter book, and occasionally do it with games as well. :-)
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 22:19

  • skillian #85 5 years ago

    He managed to inflame both hardcore gamers and LOTR fans in one quick interview.

    I hope he's ready for the nerd wrath.

  • captain-future #86 5 years ago

    Reminds me about the Kristan Reed "Less is more" article from almost four years ago:
    [link url=http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=53566 ]http://ww w.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...[/link]

    I gave him a lot of FLAK in the comments then, but after some thinking I have to say that Kristan got a lot of valid points years ahead of me. However I absolutely disagree on the pricing of shorter games... I root for a market where shorter, simpler games THAT ARE CHEAPER can co-exist with the 60+h monster games.

    A great example for a game just done right ist the first God of War and Gears of War, I didn't mind that these games were short, because they were just so well done and had high production values for the price. All killer no filler.

    In the last time a great example would be Earth Defense Force 2017, clearly not an AAA-title, yet I enjoy it a lot and the price was under 40 Euro (ca. 25 GBP) so I was happy with that.
    Edited by 1 at 03/05/07 @ 23:35

  • VMerken #87 5 years ago

    His "average gamer's stance overview" is besides the point.

    In the end, after finding a concept and target audience, all that matters is the price/quality ratio. If a developer likes the short-game concept and can deliver quality at an affordable price, good for him. If he can't, then his target audience will probably state their opinion by not buying the product [unless he caters to children which are still developing their critical senses - or better stated, parents who need the latest fad their kids are screaming for].

    Basically, since this developer's thinking at the conceptual stage, he can say he thinks that after the Tony Hawk series, an entire generation of gamers just want to go outside and skate in the sun for real again - whatever - and focus his products on that behaviour. It doesn't really matter, as long as he makes sure to bring out some fine, durable skates at the right price.

  • Triggerhappytel #88 5 years ago

    I like both sorts. My two favourite games of 2006 were Shadow of the Colossus and Dragon Quest 8 - so that's one 10 hour game and one 100 hour game.

  • NegativeZero #89 5 years ago

    Someone tell Japan, I don't think all of their RPG developers got the memo.

  • tjs #90 5 years ago

    I used to enjoy longer games, but having kids as well as work and other responsbilities means that these days I'd much prefer shorter games. I think what he's commenting on is actually the aging of the gamer demographic.

    The point about multiplayer games is a relatively good one though, and I think it's because they're relatively memoryless. You can sit down, have fun for a few hours and then leave it, knowing that remembering where you were up to. This is another reason why games like nethack have such amazing replayability; in some sense, having a story is actually an impediment.

  • Vandrius #91 5 years ago

    Definately sounds like he's trying to excuse a short game, and preparing to charge us for the extra content that should have been part of the release.

    It also depends on the game genre. A FPS of 80-100 hours - gods no.

    An epic RPG of 80-100 hours? Bring it on!

  • TheUnionFrag #92 5 years ago

    Shut up Dyack. You don't know what the fuck you're on about.

  • pikemon #93 5 years ago

    yeah, shorter with more replayability... bring it!

  • Fab4 #94 5 years ago

    I'd be happy with the "better games" part, thanks.

  • Aurifex. #95 5 years ago

    Gears was too short. Just an excuse to save money on short games. PR people love to tell you what you want don't they.

  • bonker #96 5 years ago

    "He's just saying. Let's split 60 hours up into 3 parts and get 180 euro's instead of 60. "

    Indeed. I didn't catch a mention of lowering the costs there ...


    "Like I'm really selling out 60 for a 10 hour game. "

    Well unfortunately, millions did do that for a game that doesn't even last that long (GOW) which somewhat strengthens his argument of quality over quantity ...

    Oh and yes, this guy is a PR knob - can only be matter of time until he moves to Sony and/or Too Human becomes a PS3 exclusive!

  • kangarootoo #97 5 years ago

    @Aurifex.

    "PR people love to tell you what you want don't they."

    That is essentially their job :)

  • tiddles #98 5 years ago

    How about developing games that don't "start" and don't "finish" and every one can decide how long/short they want to play it. It's a different media from books and movies so start treating it differently, FFS.

    +100

    I finished chess the other day. It was good value, playtime was about 25 hours, although they obviously rushed it towards the end. AI was a bit rubbish though.

  • smelly #99 5 years ago

    "How about developing games that don't "start" and don't "finish" "

    Erm.. A vast majority of people who post here would disagree with you on that one (not me). Games which dont finish dont have "depth" or an "engrossing story line", etc.

    Which is pretty much what everyone keeps bitching about the wii.

  • Amazing Bryan #100 5 years ago

    I've probably played about 100,000 hours on Counter-Strike, so this guy knows nothing.

  • Avenger1324 #101 5 years ago

    He's just taking one extreme to justify another. Comparing 100 hour games that have millions of players, to his new game that will probably be completable in under 10.

    No doubt his accountant or finance department came up with this wonderful strategy - if they cut up a proper full length games into smaller parts, then they can charge full price for each one - yeah I'm just loving that one.

    Given many games have little replay value, if they can be completed the first time in under 10 hours then they aren't worth buying at launch price.

  • TwistidChimp #102 5 years ago

    Depends on the game i'd say. I paid full price for Ico the week it launched, completed it in about 7 hours. Still one of the best game experiences i've ever had. The number of hours it took me to finish was meaningless. After all you dont judge the quality of a meal by how long it took you to eat do you.

  • Mr_Brown #103 5 years ago

    Wow, the voice of the people. Don't you just hate it when they come out and tell us what we want. We tell you what we want.

  • CaptianFitz #104 5 years ago

    The thing is that shorter games let developers take more liberties in the development process. Think about it, in a longer game your going to notice flaws more than you would in a shorter game.
    Of course some games just suit a shorter play time.

  • Kami #105 5 years ago

    This is, of course, genre-dependant. Personally, if I buy an RPG like, say, Final Fantasy or as I've been replaying recently, Grandia, I'm expecting it to last. An RPG that lasts 5-10 hours to me is a waste of time, space, and is frankly the most idiotic idea since someone decided to sex up a dossier on weapons of mass destruction. On the opposite side, fighting games I don't particularly these days want to spend three months learning the fine mechanics of play just to be able to beat it on a normal difficulty setting. Then you have Action Adventure games like Tomb Raider, which can be short and sweet or have depth and length, so they have no real formula to dictate them, and racing/driving sims which often cater more to the obsessive fan than anyone else and usually need like fighting games, a lot of time to work out the mechanics.

    The simple truth is - I go back to books - there is no set formula as to the length. There are books of short stories which you can crash through one at a time over a couple of weeks, novels which take longer and require a little more effort to sink into, and then there are very specialist areas which most of us wouldn't dare go - comics, poetry and the like. It's entirely dependant on the genre and style of writing - short and sweet and smart, or long and deep and rewarding.

    You can't just state that the market wants shorter games, when sales of things like Okami, Zelda, FFXII and MMO games clearly states the very opposite. We can perhaps agree we need BETTER - there are lots of rather average games abound and some real doozies - but length is a much more difficult factor to focus on. I don't want endless filler to pad out a games length, don't misunderstand, but at the same time I go back to the RPG - we expect length from that genre and whilst it is changing, I think we'd feel very short-changed if it only lasted about 5 hours.

    In closing, my words to Dyack are to get on and make better games, and the length of the game will come naturally depending on the genre. Yes, some of us do have lives to lead now, we're older and we've got more on our plates and yes, therefore less time. That does not mean, however, we're thick or any less demanding. I buy an RPG, we want it to last. I buy an FPS, I want to be entertained and immersed. Whether a person as four hours or fourteen hours free in a day, the one thing I ask from a game is a sensible save system to compensate for those of us with less time to spare. I don't want dumbing-down or forced episodic content that reeks of marketing bull or that the developers couldn't be bothered, and if I see a game or play a demo of a game that is like this, I simply won't be buying it.

    Make the games, Dyack, and in the meantime have a nice refreshing mug of STFU.
    Edited by 1 at 06/05/07 @ 16:48

  • djcool3005 #106 5 years ago

    I like games as long as they are good. I do like longer games because with shorter ones you do sometimes think at the end "IS THAT IT!? I F***ING WASTED £30 ON THAT?" although there are short games that are very good.

  • SmileyDudette #107 5 years ago

    So, Dyack's stuck on level 1 of Super Princess Peach?