Too Human Developer says "gamers dont want 100 hours games"

  • 69 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for sonofabear17
sonofabear17

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 sonofabear17
Member since 2006 • 1941 Posts
A Too Human developer says that "These days gamers dont want a 100 hour game. The shoter the better" I have just one thing to say WTF... Link: http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=4559
Avatar image for lawlessx
lawlessx

48753

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 lawlessx
Member since 2004 • 48753 Posts
you could atleast post the article where you read this
Avatar image for uncyherb
uncyherb

76

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 uncyherb
Member since 2007 • 76 Posts
I actually like shorter games. Maybe I have a short attention span. Gears, Lost planet, Prey, all plenty long enough for me.
Avatar image for sonofabear17
sonofabear17

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 sonofabear17
Member since 2006 • 1941 Posts
Sorry i forgot http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=4559
Avatar image for YourLastDay86
YourLastDay86

1073

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 YourLastDay86
Member since 2004 • 1073 Posts
100 hour is way to long. You need to cut that in half or even 3/4 that and that is a decent game. But I don't believe in his rationale that gamers want it shorter. Personally, I want a game that when you end up beating it you feel like you've accomplished something with about 15-35 hrs of game play....
Avatar image for joejoe160
joejoe160

745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 joejoe160
Member since 2004 • 745 Posts
I 100% agree with the developer, however if a game lacks MP then it should be longer than 8 to 10 hours of game play.
Avatar image for skbmassive
skbmassive

210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 skbmassive
Member since 2007 • 210 Posts
I think he is right. i cannot see myself playing a shooter Sp campagn for 100 hours. that is just rediculous.
Avatar image for death1505921
death1505921

5260

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 death1505921
Member since 2004 • 5260 Posts
Guys, don't forget this is like Oblivion. Oblivion would suck if it only had 15-20 hours of gameplay.
Avatar image for sonofabear17
sonofabear17

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 sonofabear17
Member since 2006 • 1941 Posts
wow really i think the longer the better more bang for your buck... but hey alot of ppl have A.D.D. so whatever
Avatar image for wreak
wreak

4645

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 wreak
Member since 2005 • 4645 Posts
i don't want 100 hr games. me and most other ppl don't have time for that kind of game, i personally view it as a chore almost to get that involved for like 2-3hrs w/ lil pay off.
Avatar image for suzukigsxr
suzukigsxr

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 suzukigsxr
Member since 2005 • 697 Posts

it depends on the genre. I personally want non RPG's to be around 20 to 30 hours in length and RPG's to be around 60 or more hours

Avatar image for madskills6117
madskills6117

4172

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#12 madskills6117
Member since 2006 • 4172 Posts
It depends on the genre imo.
Avatar image for SemiMaster
SemiMaster

19011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 81

User Lists: 0

#13 SemiMaster
Member since 2006 • 19011 Posts

Short Game with awesome replayabilty = great

Long game with a huge goal that makes you keep wanting more (Read : Good RPG) = great

Short game that you only play once for 60$ = ripoff.

 

Avatar image for Master__Shake
Master__Shake

6214

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 Master__Shake
Member since 2002 • 6214 Posts

Guys, don't forget this is like Oblivion. Oblivion would suck if it only had 15-20 hours of gameplay.death1505921

Most of oblivion is not active.  It's traveling or doing mundane things.  

Avatar image for LTZH
LTZH

2704

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#15 LTZH
Member since 2003 • 2704 Posts
wow really i think the longer the better more bang for your buck... but hey alot of ppl have A.D.D. so whateversonofabear17
lol owned
Avatar image for Thomasdeleo
Thomasdeleo

1984

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Thomasdeleo
Member since 2006 • 1984 Posts
100hrs is too long but 20-25hrs is a sweet spot depending on the game. I hope Bioshock is at least 15hrs+.
Avatar image for JumpingMirrior
JumpingMirrior

11495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#17 JumpingMirrior
Member since 2004 • 11495 Posts
Well i dotn want all 8 Hour games liek GEars and Halo throw at us.  For example. i dont like Gears online...its single player is 8 hours or so..i realyl dont get my 60 dollars worth.  I want some longer games.
Avatar image for ag1002
ag1002

13499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 ag1002
Member since 2004 • 13499 Posts
The longer the better.  I think they are just making up excuses to be lazy.  I played Oblivion for over 100 hours, and I had fun with every minute.  The trick to it is the game actually has to be fun and stay fun, they obviously can't pull that off.
Avatar image for WillT12345
WillT12345

3123

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 WillT12345
Member since 2004 • 3123 Posts
wow really i think the longer the better more bang for your buck... but hey alot of ppl have A.D.D. so whateversonofabear17
More like if you can devote 100 hours to a single game then you got OCD. For shooters with a compelling story that 15 hour mark is a good sweet spot. When you start getting to long the story takes a backset and all you get is pointless fetch quests. Id always rather play a 15 hour shooter a couple of times then drag myself through a 30 hour shooter that just keeps going and going with a complete lack of story or reason. RPGs are a different story, but still the main story line should be able to be completed within 20 or so hours for anyone to possibly be able to follow it. The purpose of buying games is not to waste hours away, I buy them to enjoy them for all there aspects, story, action, gameplay and so on.
Avatar image for sonofabear17
sonofabear17

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 sonofabear17
Member since 2006 • 1941 Posts
100hrs is too long but 20-25hrs is a sweet spot depending on the game. I hope Bioshock is at least 15hrs+.Thomasdeleo
20-25 hours? why would you buy something you can only play for a day(in hours terms). well maby for a shooter... but for an RPG..O_O
Avatar image for splat2007
splat2007

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 splat2007
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts

Gamers want short games? I've been playing Oblivion for 170 hours+ now on one character and 80 hours on another. I want nothing else.

 

But to be realistic :

 FPS 20 hours (Single player)

 RTS 30 hours (campaign) 

 Action/Platformer 20 hours

 Adventure 20 hours

 RPG 40 hours+ 

Avatar image for kintzer
kintzer

806

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#22 kintzer
Member since 2003 • 806 Posts

it depends on the genre. I personally want non RPG's to be around 20 to 30 hours in length and RPG's to be around 60 or more hours

suzukigsxr

I agree w/ the quote.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#23 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts
Depends on the gametype.  I hate long areas where I can't save.  I am busy and don't always have 4 hours to get to the next save point.  There are some games that I just want to finish as well.
Avatar image for c0mplex
c0mplex

15382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 c0mplex
Member since 2002 • 15382 Posts
i wonder if Dennis Dyack includes MP when talking about game time.  if he isn't, then except for RPGs, 100 hour games is obviously too long.
Avatar image for sonofabear17
sonofabear17

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 sonofabear17
Member since 2006 • 1941 Posts
[QUOTE="sonofabear17"]wow really i think the longer the better more bang for your buck... but hey alot of ppl have A.D.D. so whateverWillT12345
More like if you can devote 100 hours to a single game then you got OCD. For shooters with a compelling story that 15 hour mark is a good sweet spot. When you start getting to long the story takes a backset and all you get is pointless fetch quests. Id always rather play a 15 hour shooter a couple of times then drag myself through a 30 hour shooter that just keeps going and going with a complete lack of story or reason. RPGs are a different story, but still the main story line should be able to be completed within 20 or so hours for anyone to possibly be able to follow it.

hehe thats funny. but im thinking 100 hour rpgs=good 100 shooter=bad. i was thinking about rpgs when i posted this cause i got it off of the Mass effect site.
Avatar image for loserboyone
loserboyone

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 loserboyone
Member since 2003 • 66 Posts
 i think it really depends on the type of game.  rpgs and some sports games would probably be fine that long.  but shooters and action games should probably be shorter to hold attention.  i mean i love shooters but i don't think the gameplay would be fun for that many hours.
Avatar image for zedjay
zedjay

146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 zedjay
Member since 2004 • 146 Posts
i dont agree with the statement. theres different types of gamers who like long games like WoW with months (literally) of gameplay. Others prefer to spend their time in short bursts of online FPS multiplayer even though the hours add up to quite a bit. others are completely casual and generally like short games, and thats still sorta stereotyping the kinda gamers there are. This person is making a huge assumption IMO and a vast majority of videogames do not get a high score or good reviews because of their storytelling. How many times have you heard or thought to yourself "great game but too short"?...often enough for me. I felt that way especially with gears of war. Unless this developer plans on making a mediocre game in which the player will be like "thank god its over" then i dont see why they would not want to boast a long replay value. If a game is good why would you want to put it down?
Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
nocoolnamejim

15136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#28 nocoolnamejim
Member since 2003 • 15136 Posts
Yes, we do. So long as they are 100+ QUALITY hours. Obviously I don't want a 100 hour game filled with junk. But I DO want games like Dragon Quest VIII for the PS2 or Oblivion for the 360 that give awesome amounts of GOOD play time. I DO want games like the Knights of the Old Republic Games that, when you factor in their replay value, top the 60 hour game mark. That developer is being intellectually dishonest. OBVIOUSLY nobody wants crappy games to last indefinitely, or for games to sacrifice storyline believability just to make the game be longer. That doesn't mean we want short games with no plot or replay value.
Avatar image for FearlessSpirit
FearlessSpirit

2015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#29 FearlessSpirit
Member since 2007 • 2015 Posts

Well, it's true that I rather have a short and action packed game like Gears, then a long stretched game with allot of walking around, doing nothing. However, I mostly prefer just having both at the same time. Really, I wouldn't mind if Gears was 50 hours long and as action packed as it is now. Offcourse, that's not possible to create. That doesn't mean I don't want it. It would be the perfect game.

I have to say he is really wrong. They just need to keep things interesting in a game, fun and make it long at the same time.

So I take it Too Human will be a short game? Lame. I was just getting hyped up for it. I understood it was a 30 hour game from what they explained before. If I have to settle for allot less then that, then I'll certainly skip it. Shorter the better... it's like he's not a gamer saying that.

Avatar image for WillT12345
WillT12345

3123

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 WillT12345
Member since 2004 • 3123 Posts
[QUOTE="WillT12345"][QUOTE="sonofabear17"]wow really i think the longer the better more bang for your buck... but hey alot of ppl have A.D.D. so whateversonofabear17
More like if you can devote 100 hours to a single game then you got OCD. For shooters with a compelling story that 15 hour mark is a good sweet spot. When you start getting to long the story takes a backset and all you get is pointless fetch quests. Id always rather play a 15 hour shooter a couple of times then drag myself through a 30 hour shooter that just keeps going and going with a complete lack of story or reason. RPGs are a different story, but still the main story line should be able to be completed within 20 or so hours for anyone to possibly be able to follow it.

hehe thats funny. but im thinking 100 hour rpgs=good 100 shooter=bad. i was thinking about rpgs when i posted this cause i got it off of the Mass effect site.

If your saying strictly RPGs then yeah, or actually more like they should be developed so they could practically go on forever. But I think a general rule of thumb should be if the main story takes 30+ hours to tell expect it to take a backseat or get lost in the players minds. Which is why I said what I said cause I enjoy playing games for storylines and good gameplay rather then 100+ hours of headshots.
Avatar image for JaviBonilla23
JaviBonilla23

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 JaviBonilla23
Member since 2007 • 912 Posts
I enjoy short games more. For example I was thrown away by the size of Oblivion, it was intimidating for me so I didnt played it. But a rare irony is that my favorite game is Pokemon wich have an infinite lasting time, at least for me.
Avatar image for al-128
al-128

304

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 al-128
Member since 2005 • 304 Posts
30 hour games win in my book, as long as they don't have sections in the gameplay where you can tell the developers just rushed it as they cba
Avatar image for SpookyX
SpookyX

156

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 0

#33 SpookyX
Member since 2003 • 156 Posts
30 hours is prob the sweet spot for most games.  Even with some RPGs I started to get bored around 30 hours because they add so much filler just to get to that point.
Avatar image for sonofabear17
sonofabear17

1941

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 sonofabear17
Member since 2006 • 1941 Posts
[QUOTE="sonofabear17"][QUOTE="WillT12345"][QUOTE="sonofabear17"]wow really i think the longer the better more bang for your buck... but hey alot of ppl have A.D.D. so whateverWillT12345
More like if you can devote 100 hours to a single game then you got OCD. For shooters with a compelling story that 15 hour mark is a good sweet spot. When you start getting to long the story takes a backset and all you get is pointless fetch quests. Id always rather play a 15 hour shooter a couple of times then drag myself through a 30 hour shooter that just keeps going and going with a complete lack of story or reason. RPGs are a different story, but still the main story line should be able to be completed within 20 or so hours for anyone to possibly be able to follow it.

hehe thats funny. but im thinking 100 hour rpgs=good 100 shooter=bad. i was thinking about rpgs when i posted this cause i got it off of the Mass effect site.

If your saying strictly RPGs then yeah, or actually more like they should be developed so they could practically go on forever. But I think a general rule of thumb should be if the main story takes 30+ hours to tell expect it to take a backseat or get lost in the players minds. Which is why I said what I said cause I enjoy playing games for storylines and good gameplay rather then 100+ hours of headshots.

yeah im talking pretty much just RPGs. so the the game is like Main story=30 to 60 hours(depending on how deep the story is)+side quests and such should be the rest
Avatar image for rdo
rdo

10314

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 rdo
Member since 2004 • 10314 Posts
he's wrong.  look at all the sequels that sell,  it because cammers wanted more of the same game they already played.publishers will try to tell you what to like so you'll like their game. that way they make more money.  the would also have you believe that we like paying more for games and dlc,  that it makes the game more special.  that nobody would even bother playing halo3 in ms gave it away for free.  cliffie b also thinks short games are better,  it's one of the things he's wrong about.  there wouldn't be thousands and thousands of maps made for ut if we didn't want more.  there wouldn't a gears of war 2 or 3 if we didn't wnat more.  there wouldn't be a gta4, ut3, halo3, etc...  .  almost all the anticipated games are sequals.
Avatar image for zedjay
zedjay

146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 zedjay
Member since 2004 • 146 Posts
agreed with rdo
Avatar image for ikwal
ikwal

1600

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 ikwal
Member since 2004 • 1600 Posts
It all comes down to what kind of game it is. In my opinion shooters should be about as long as Half-Life 2, rpg games should be at least 25-50h. I think dividing shooters up into kinda short and cheap episodes like they are doing with Half-Life 2 is a great way to do it.
Avatar image for cashnmillions
cashnmillions

993

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#38 cashnmillions
Member since 2004 • 993 Posts
I know I don't, I usually don't want anymore than 40hrs.
Avatar image for strycon
strycon

1167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 strycon
Member since 2004 • 1167 Posts

100 hours is for sp in a shooter is great as long as it stays fun and compelling. Look at hl2, if that game was originally released with all the episodes it would have been pretty long. But since hl2 is so damn good it would have been fun the whole time. It's only really hard for developers to make a long shooter that stays fun and ofcourse, 20 buks for each episode is good money for them...

Avatar image for tlcain
tlcain

3769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#40 tlcain
Member since 2003 • 3769 Posts
Completely wrong.  He should say gamers don't want 100 hour MAIN QUESTS, but they could pack 300 hrs of side quests in there and who is going to complain about that.
Avatar image for contaminated
contaminated

5373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#41 contaminated
Member since 2005 • 5373 Posts
oh on the contrary i do like 100 hour games its just that you can never make everyone happy now can you?
Avatar image for master-renagade
master-renagade

537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 master-renagade
Member since 2006 • 537 Posts
IMO that statement is to vague. he doesnt say what genre or how much free time the players have or like. i mean i agree with many of the posts that RPG'S should be a lot longer then action or shooters becuase in RPG'S the point is to level up through tasks and challenges and by beating progresivly harder monsters, whilst in shooters and action games the point is to be exciting and a thrill ride so the gameplay needs to be faster and over in a shorter period.
Avatar image for CharmedGamer
CharmedGamer

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#43 CharmedGamer
Member since 2004 • 340 Posts
I think that it depends entirely on the type of game. If Oblivion was about 10 hours long I would have been pissed. If Gears of War was the length of Oblivion I would say that is too long for its type. If the last Zelda game had been about 10 hours I would have broken my copy. It's all about context and type people.
Avatar image for SuperVegeta518
SuperVegeta518

5960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 SuperVegeta518
Member since 2005 • 5960 Posts
I want 8-15 hour long shooters, and 25-45 hour long RPGs. Anything longer than that usually becomes boring. The only exception is free roaming games. It's okay to fill those up with quests.
Avatar image for kambion313
kambion313

712

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 kambion313
Member since 2006 • 712 Posts

[QUOTE="sonofabear17"]A Too Human developer says that "These days gamers dont want a 100 hour game. The shoter the better" I have just one thing to say WTF... Link: http://www.gametrailers.com/viewnews.php?id=4559[/QUOTE]

well...then he is retarded......i want 300 hr games....and games that dont end....and last i cheked...i game

Avatar image for Pwnosaurus_Rex
Pwnosaurus_Rex

291

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Pwnosaurus_Rex
Member since 2007 • 291 Posts
well, i kind of agree and kind of no, for example, a game like zelda, I would love one that lasts that much but  a shooter like gears, 25 - or more hours would make it boring for me..so it depends of the genre of the game
Avatar image for thegame27_basic
thegame27_basic

1980

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 thegame27_basic
Member since 2002 • 1980 Posts

I want quality.  If you can make a shooter that lasts 100 hours and it doesn't get repetitive and boring, go ahead.  If you want to make an RPG only 10 hours, you better make it one hell of a ride.  It all depends on the quality of a project.  God of War 1 was only 8 or so hours.  Perfect length with the right amount of substance, if it was too get any longer, it probably would have fell into the repetitive category. 

For example games like Dead to Rights, 6-8 hour game.  And thank God.  The game and story is awesome, it is just that it gets repetitive.  If you can't make your game not be repetitive then don't make it long.  If it changes and excites every hour up to 100 hours, then go right ahead.

Quality will win out over Quantity.  

Avatar image for thomass60r
thomass60r

1928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#48 thomass60r
Member since 2006 • 1928 Posts
Guys, don't forget this is like Oblivion. Oblivion would suck if it only had 15-20 hours of gameplay.death1505921
yes but oblivion is not that kinda game i prefer from 5-20 hours of gameplay
Avatar image for blue_tape
blue_tape

2868

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 blue_tape
Member since 2007 • 2868 Posts
The game industry doesn't want 100 hour games, that's for sure.
Avatar image for KniferHitandRun
KniferHitandRun

211

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 KniferHitandRun
Member since 2007 • 211 Posts

it depends on the genre. I personally want non RPG's to be around 20 to 30 hours in length and RPG's to be around 60 or more hours

suzukigsxr

Absolutely! 8 hours for an "Epic" (pun intended) campaign, no matter how good, is too short. 20 hours will take a couple of weeks top complete at a marginal speed. I hate getting absorbed into a game, playing through the night, only to find I beat it within a day. C'mon $60 should at least get me 20 hours ($3 an hour), as opposed to about $7.50Â