Dyack Says Gamers Want Shorter Games

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather pay $60 for one 60-100 hour game than $180 for three 20-30 hour games. I like my RPG and Action/Adventure games long thanks.

As much as I love what he and Silicon Knights have done for Canadian gaming, I can't help but feel like it's (Too Human Trilogy) either a ployto try and sell more games, or exposing the storage limitations of the DVD9 format used for Xbox 360 and PC games.

From gamesindistry.biz 

would rather have shorter games then a game with 70 hours, it takes me for ever as i can only spare around 6 hours aweek on gaming.

If a game doesn't have that replaybilitiy then if the game is short they shouldn't be charging full price for a game.

would rather have shorter games then a game with 70 hours, it takes me for ever as i can only spare around 6 hours aweek on gaming.

 jukieuk

And there are tons of people just like you. Totally understandable. Before I had to go on disability I was the same way.

Thing is, most people that play Action-Adventure/RPG type games usually do so because the games are so long and involved.

would rather have shorter games then a game with 70 hours, it takes me for ever as i can only spare around 6 hours aweek on gaming.

 

jukieuk

Cliffy B agrees with him.  Cliffy wants $20 games that can be bought on impulse, which would mean shorter games.

As I'm growing older, I find I have less and less time for video games.  I am becoming less of a hardcore gamer every day I suppose. :(  I guess I personally do want shorter games just because I don't have the time or stamina to play long games anymore.  However, that being said I want longer replay value for my games!  I'd say any single player that takes between 10-50 hours to beat is right down my alley.  But I struggle paying attention to games the longer they are.  Replay value is of highest concern!!!  Small pick-me-up minigames and online multiplayer are what appeal to me the most atm.Nitrosoft1

As I'm growing older, I find I have less and less time for video games.  I am becoming less of a hardcore gamer every day I suppose. :(  I guess I personally do want shorter games just because I don't have the time or stamina to play long games anymore.  However, that being said I want longer replay value for my games!  I'd say any single player that takes between 10-50 hours to beat is right down my alley.  But I struggle paying attention to games the longer they are.  Replay value is of highest concern!!!  Small pick-me-up minigames and online multiplayer are what appeal to me the most atm.Nitrosoft1

It depends. While that is also one of the reasons that deviates the gaming media from others, if I were to choose a 25 hour RPG that offered a more memorable plot and characters, music and gameplay then an 80 hour RPG, I would definitely go with the first.Imo, it all depends on the level of the quality of the content, whether long or short.

Concerning what Dyack Said, lets hope Too Human does reach that level. Its a bad thing trying to force the opinions of gamers in general into his own and somewhat show an arrogant facet towards the quality of the other games he is adressing.

Tho I might agree with him, I would still laugh in his face if Too Human turns out to be something that I would consider far from being impressive plot wise, specially in the overall quality of such, in the gaming world.

I'm all for the Norse Mythology and their promisses but, instead of wasting their time doing this they should concentrate on changing my mind about it while I play their game.    

I don't think ONE planned game trilogy has ever worked. I think they should stop annoucing that its going to be a trilogy and just try and make ONE good game before they try to make THREE. With that said...I like games that are 15-20 hours long. Anything longer I simply don't have time for.

Most casual gamers DO want shorter games.  The amount of time and effort involved in many long games is daunting to many consumers, and, along with complicated button setups, can cause a lack of interest in games.

This doesn't mean that all games will suddenly become shorter.  There will always be a demand for epic adventures, and some genres are simply going to require longer game times, but for games that appeal to a wider audience, expect the main mode of gaming to be shortened.

The industry has been talking about this for years now. 

The problem is games like Gears of War are ruining longer games. Devs are taking too many resources working on the graphics and online aspect of the game. Devs are seeing that rather than being more creative with games, they can slap on a few multiplayer maps and let the online sell the game. This is why Gears of War is ruining the game industry. No longer is the single player campaign important anymore. It started with Halo 2 with its mediocre single player and concentrating everything on online. Other devs see this and rather than making a great game with a great offline experience, they concentrate on the online and it costs them a lot less money to implement. Zhengi

I actually somewhat agree but not on the Gears part. Its not that difficult to think that a game such as Gears could be as great as it is and offer a great online experience at the same time.

What I'm starting to hate this Gen is the online situation being forced as a must own on any game, it's kind of like the 2d situation to 3d. Its like you see the Metroid series being always regarded by many gamers as having an awsome single player experience and now everybody expects it to have online.............. WTH. What is Metroid now an FPS?  

The problem is games like Gears of War are ruining longer games. Devs are taking too many resources working on the graphics and online aspect of the game. Devs are seeing that rather than being more creative with games, they can slap on a few multiplayer maps and let the online sell the game. This is why Gears of War is ruining the game industry. No longer is the single player campaign important anymore. It started with Halo 2 with its mediocre single player and concentrating everything on online. Other devs see this and rather than making a great game with a great offline experience, they concentrate on the online and it costs them a lot less money to implement. Zhengi

I don't mind shorter games (episodic) if they cost less too.

like 10 bucks for 2-3 hours (like a movie)

as long as they are relevant hours and not filler. too many of the long games are just filled with filler content. 

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]The problem is games like Gears of War are ruining longer games. Devs are taking too many resources working on the graphics and online aspect of the game. Devs are seeing that rather than being more creative with games, they can slap on a few multiplayer maps and let the online sell the game. This is why Gears of War is ruining the game industry. No longer is the single player campaign important anymore. It started with Halo 2 with its mediocre single player and concentrating everything on online. Other devs see this and rather than making a great game with a great offline experience, they concentrate on the online and it costs them a lot less money to implement. StealthSting

I actually somewhat agree but not on the Gears part. Its not that difficult to think that a game such as Gears could be as great as it is and offer a great online experience at the same time.

What I'm starting to hate this Gen is the online situation being forced as a must own on any game, it's kind of like the 2d situation to 3d. Its like you see the Metroid series being always regarded by many gamers as having an awsome single player experience and now everybody expects it to have online.............. WTH. What is Metroid now an FPS?

I prefer a game to be atleast 15-20 hours or longer... 10 hours is pushing it.. I want my moneys worth... but ofcourse if it's a superb game like gears of war with a decent amount of multiplayer content, I don't think I'd mind... but it's better in my opinion if the game has lenghy campaign.

What I don't like though is developers purposely making the game short so they keep can release downloadable content later on instead of having that content in the game in the first place.. milkage..

[QUOTE="Zhengi"]The problem is games like Gears of War are ruining longer games. Devs are taking too many resources working on the graphics and online aspect of the game. Devs are seeing that rather than being more creative with games, they can slap on a few multiplayer maps and let the online sell the game. This is why Gears of War is ruining the game industry. No longer is the single player campaign important anymore. It started with Halo 2 with its mediocre single player and concentrating everything on online. Other devs see this and rather than making a great game with a great offline experience, they concentrate on the online and it costs them a lot less money to implement. DrinkDuff

Gears of War on Hardcore or Insane is not a short. Its in the middle but I'd rather have a short game thats REALLY fun then a long game thats really boring.

[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="Zhengi"]The problem is games like Gears of War are ruining longer games. Devs are taking too many resources working on the graphics and online aspect of the game. Devs are seeing that rather than being more creative with games, they can slap on a few multiplayer maps and let the online sell the game. This is why Gears of War is ruining the game industry. No longer is the single player campaign important anymore. It started with Halo 2 with its mediocre single player and concentrating everything on online. Other devs see this and rather than making a great game with a great offline experience, they concentrate on the online and it costs them a lot less money to implement. Bread_or_Decide

Gears of War on Hardcore or Insane is not a short. Its in the middle but I'd rather have a short game thats REALLY fun then a long game thats really boring.

But it would of been so much better if it had been longer wouldn't it, but microsot rushed them into releasing it.

Yes, this Dyack fellow's a bit of an idiot, isn't he? And do you have any proof that he said that anyway?ShmenonPie

try the link in the first post.

Urggh this was my big problem with consoles for so long. I've been a PC gamer for as long as I can remember and I love games that require some effort and ability to be able to play. For a long time PC gamers have accused consoles of dumbing down games (ie Oblivion). I love some of the games I play on the 360 - Gears, Guitar Hero, Dead Rising, Oblivion and on the old xbox such as GTA, KOTOR 1 & 2 and esp morrowind and Halo, but PC games such as Civilisation, Total War, Football manager, Baldurs Gate, etc are games you can plunge into for easily 100 hrs without noticing. It depresses me so  much to hear people calling for a 10 hr game for $60.

I don't have anywhere near as much time as used to to play games but I don't want a game I can blow through in a Saturday afternoon and certainly never an RPG. If an RPG isn't at least 20-30 hrs long its not worth it IMO.

EDIT: I agree with  those who said its generally casuals who want shorter games - a plague on their house!

Most casual gamers DO want shorter games. The amount of time and effort involved in many long games is daunting to many consumers, and, along with complicated button setups, can cause a lack of interest in games.

This doesn't mean that all games will suddenly become shorter. There will always be a demand for epic adventures, and some genres are simply going to require longer game times, but for games that appeal to a wider audience, expect the main mode of gaming to be shortened.

The industry has been talking about this for years now.

karicha9

Most casuals want there money worth too, if games are 7 hours long, people feel riped off, the only reason Gears didnt seem like a ripoff is because that multiplayer is fun, no matter how much people complain about it..

If there gonna make a 10 hour SP game, then it should cost less than 60 dollars... seriously... games like tomb raider are rediculus, you can beat them maybe... 2 3 times at the most, 20~30 horus of gameplay at best... thats rediculus... With gears me and my bro have gotten at least 100 hours outa that thing, and its still the only 360 game (he has a bunch) we play when we play games...

SP done right = ff's, RE's (the replayibility is rediculus, especially with RE4), DMC.

SP done wrong = tomb raider (though fun... short.. I wont buy them for full price, personally) and many others (I'm lazy)

[QUOTE="karicha9"]

Most casual gamers DO want shorter games. The amount of time and effort involved in many long games is daunting to many consumers, and, along with complicated button setups, can cause a lack of interest in games.

This doesn't mean that all games will suddenly become shorter. There will always be a demand for epic adventures, and some genres are simply going to require longer game times, but for games that appeal to a wider audience, expect the main mode of gaming to be shortened.

The industry has been talking about this for years now.

cheatymcshifty

Most casuals want there money worth too, if games are 7 hours long, people feel riped off, the only reason Gears didnt seem like a ripoff is because that multiplayer is fun, no matter how much people complain about it..

If there gonna make a 10 hour SP game, then it should cost less than 60 dollars... seriously... games like tomb raider are rediculus, you can beat them maybe... 2 3 times at the most, 20~30 horus of gameplay at best... thats rediculus... With gears me and my bro have gotten at least 100 hours outa that thing, and its still the only 360 game (he has a bunch) we play when we play games...

SP done right = ff's, RE's (the replayibility is rediculus, especially with RE4), DMC.

SP done wrong = tomb raider (though fun... short.. I wont buy them for full price, personally) and many others (I'm lazy)

Hell most of the games in the series you have in your sig, could be finished in less then 10 hours. 

I find it hard to believe the majority of casuals want shorter games... I mean theres a save feature in almost every game.. thats what it's there for... save come back and play another day.. how is completing a game in 1 day fun and value for your money.Dahaka-UK

A pick up and play experience is very important to the casual market. 

Max Payne 2. One of the best games last generation, could be finished in one sit down session of gaming.

Problem is, that four hour game was some of the best gaming I had. A game can be as short as it wants to be, so long as it's really good the whole way through. Max Payne 2 certainly was. So that $50 spent was fine by me.

Gears is a great game and all but this is one of the aspects it fails at.. it should of been a hell of a lot bigger than it was.. you can't deny it would of been a better game if it had more content in it. Dahaka-UK

The casual merely asks, "Is it fun?" 

I think most games are still all about the single player campaign.  Multiplayer being a must is only a standard for shooters and that is because they work great as multiplayer games.  There are definite exceptions to this rule also like the upcoming Bioshock and the recent Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay.

It's kind of strange how in this industry a game is judged by its length too.  People don't buy DVD's thinking "I'm not getting my money's worth because the movie is under two hours," They judge it by the quality not the quantity.  I think gamers just do this because of how expensive games are.  If money weren't an object I don't think length would be an issue because a game that is short and to the point is often better than a game that is padded with bonus quests and things like that.