Gears of War

Originally posted by Mišt
Yeah but 10 hours is pretty short, especially since we are moving forward by leaps and bounds in terms of next gen capabilities, I mean COD 2 is one of my favourite shooters at the moment and its short as hell, they could easily make that game two or three times as long and still be enjoyable etc.

When I think of a game being 10 hours to complete, the first thing I think of is Fable, and the disappointment at how short is was and how much potential it had. Whats the point of spending three years making a game at cinematic quality visuals, thats only going to take a day to finish?

Being next gen has nothing to do with playtime. It's all about the developers making the game exicting, especially for the shooter crowd. The game could easiliy be 20 hours long but sooner or later, the player will get bored of playing the same enemies and the same locales and still be relative to the story and game.

Fable is a different story. For RPG's, 10 hours are pretty damn short but shooters are different. Heck, pretty much every shooter out there is around 10-12 hours long. Half Life 2 was criticized by many for having sections of the game not as good as the rest of the game. People didnt like Ravenholm or the waterboat sequence. If Valve took it out, people would complain the game is too short. Same goes with the original Half Life and its Zen levels.

Too me, I wish shooters were an 20 hours long, but if I have an choice of a game thats 12 hours long and super exiciting and filled with intense action to a game thats 20 hours long (like Doom 3), and have sections where I completly space out and forget about it..Im going to chose the first option.

12 hours is fine as long as 1) The replay value is high for the single player and 2) The game has strong online multiplayer.

And who didn't like Ravenholm? That was the best part of HL2.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Being next gen has nothing to do with playtime. It's all about the developers making the game exicting, especially for the shooter crowd. The game could easiliy be 20 hours long but sooner or later, the player will get bored of playing the same enemies and the same locales and still be relative to the story and game.

Fable is a different story. For RPG's, 10 hours are pretty damn short but shooters are different. Heck, pretty much every shooter out there is around 10-12 hours long. Half Life 2 was criticized by many for having sections of the game not as good as the rest of the game. People didnt like Ravenholm or the waterboat sequence. If Valve took it out, people would complain the game is too short. Same goes with the original Half Life and its Zen levels.

Too me, I wish shooters were an 20 hours long, but if I have an choice of a game thats 12 hours long and super exiciting and filled with intense action to a game thats 20 hours long (like Doom 3), and have sections where I completly space out and forget about it..Im going to chose the first option.

I believe that applies to all genre of games.

is it comprehensible.....

Originally posted by office jesus
App = Killer app = The GAME to get.

is it comprehensible.....

Originally posted by Smasandian
True about how shooter's are sometimes much better off with a shorter amount of playtime.

I disagree about the Halo being a good game, but thats a different topic.

To each his own 😉

Originally posted by Mišt
Yeah but 10 hours is pretty short, especially since we are moving forward by leaps and bounds in terms of next gen capabilities, I mean COD 2 is one of my favourite shooters at the moment and its short as hell, they could easily make that game two or three times as long and still be enjoyable etc.

When I think of a game being 10 hours to complete, the first thing I think of is Fable, and the disappointment at how short is was and how much potential it had. Whats the point of spending three years making a game at cinematic quality visuals, thats only going to take a day to finish?

It's a shooter, don't compare the disappointing 10 hour gameplay of Fable to a normal length for a shooter.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Being next gen has nothing to do with playtime. It's all about the developers making the game exicting, especially for the shooter crowd. The game could easiliy be 20 hours long but sooner or later, the player will get bored of playing the same enemies and the same locales and still be relative to the story and game.

Fable is a different story. For RPG's, 10 hours are pretty damn short but shooters are different. Heck, pretty much every shooter out there is around 10-12 hours long. Half Life 2 was criticized by many for having sections of the game not as good as the rest of the game. People didnt like Ravenholm or the waterboat sequence. If Valve took it out, people would complain the game is too short. Same goes with the original Half Life and its Zen levels.

Too me, I wish shooters were an 20 hours long, but if I have an choice of a game thats 12 hours long and super exiciting and filled with intense action to a game thats 20 hours long (like Doom 3), and have sections where I completly space out and forget about it..Im going to chose the first option.

Yeah it does, the technology to make the games is increasing, you wouldnt see a 20 hour shooter on N64 simply because the cartridges wouldnt hold that amount of data. Like I said before, COD 2 could easily be 20 hours or more, yes the enemies are the same Germans, the locales are different (who says the locales and enemies are going to be the same and repetitive in a next gen game anyway?), but the game itself is so good that they could easily slap in another 10 hours and not get boring.

Who says any longer than 10 hours will get boring and repetitive? Shooters are the same as every other genre, if the story and gameplay sucks, the game sucks. Obviously the gameplay in GoW doesnt suck from what the previews have shown, so whats holding them back from writing in another few hours of story? Not to say its bad or anything, but like I said, 3 years to make it, a day to finish it. Big woop.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
It's a shooter, don't compare the disappointing 10 hour gameplay of Fable to a normal length for a shooter.

Haha, Ill do what I want, kthxbai.

Mist, keep in mind the 12 hour estimate you're referring to is based on employees of Epic rushing through the game on average difficulty. The game, for someone who is going slowly and trying to find all the COG tags and while playing on a harder difficult could easily reach 20 hours.

True hmm

Originally posted by BackFire
12 hours is fine as long as 1) The replay value is high for the single player and 2) The game has strong online multiplayer.

And who didn't like Ravenholm? That was the best part of HL2.

Well, I loved it myself, but I just chose Ravenholm.

Mist, by going by your reason that next gen should have longer games would mean that by the next 3 generations we would have games going for 40-50 hours. That's totally unreasonable.

I seriously think if Call Of Duty had 10 hours of filler just to make people feel good in spending thier cash, I would hate the game. It's good because its memorable and I can play the singleplayer over and over because its so intense, but if they added 10 hours of the same battles and explosions without anymore memorable setpieces, I would seriously get bored. It aint the developers fault for thinking of more things to put in the game, its the cost of producing an 25 hours shooter thats has intense gameplay for all those hours. Just think how long it will take the make a game like that?

Next gen has nothing to do with the length of games. Next gen only refers to graphics, sounds, and innovating ideas like the Wiimote, not to increase playing time.

Two weeks away. *Whine* I want it NOW.

More like a week, really. The game's released on the 7th, so should be in most stores on the 8th or 9th.

Some places will probably get same-day shipments of it, though. I know we are, and honestly, I'm surprised we're not out of preorders.

Yeah, gamestop and Eb are putting up the buck to get their own trucks down to the MS headquarters to pick the game up at the stroke of midnight on the 7th to get it back to their stores as quickly as possible.

Oh yes, there are several new High Def videos of the game at Gametrailers.com, showing some wonderful multiplayer action. Looks like a blast. http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1650

Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, I loved it myself, but I just chose Ravenholm.

Mist, by going by your reason that next gen should have longer games would mean that by the next 3 generations we would have games going for 40-50 hours. That's totally unreasonable.

I seriously think if Call Of Duty had 10 hours of filler just to make people feel good in spending thier cash, I would hate the game. It's good because its memorable and I can play the singleplayer over and over because its so intense, but if they added 10 hours of the same battles and explosions without anymore memorable setpieces, I would seriously get bored. It aint the developers fault for thinking of more things to put in the game, its the cost of producing an 25 hours shooter thats has intense gameplay for all those hours. Just think how long it will take the make a game like that?

Next gen has nothing to do with the length of games. Next gen only refers to graphics, sounds, and innovating ideas like the Wiimote, not to increase playing time.

Unreasonable why? If Halo or Half Life 2 or Gears of War were good enough and spanned that long, and had quality gaming, why would that be a bad thing?

You keep assuming anything over 10 hours would be filler and repetitive and therefore shit. Why would they plonk in another 10 hours of gameplay that would not be memorable, if they have the capabilities to do so? How many successful expansions have been made for games like Medal of Honor and so on? They could plonk all that into a single game if they wanted to nowadays, they'd just need to spend a bit more developing time on making the story and action worth it.. At least then it would be worth paying $$ for.

No, next gen is taking games further than their predecessors. This includes playtime, as playtime is tied with gameplay, which is tied to graphics and sound and all that 'filler'. And whats the use of making a shooter on say, blu ray, if you're just going to cram in a bunch of pretty graphics and sounds and not expand the gameplay longer than typical 10 hours because thats what gamers have come to expect? Where does the shooting genre evolve, if its just about making things sound better and look better.

Oddly enough, here in Toronto Canada, the Best Buy stores here will have the collectors edition on Nov 7th first and then on Nov 30 they will start selling the regular game. I might have to get the collectors edition... but I think I can manage a few weeks without the game. So with that, Lana... is your EB store selling the collectors edition first or both?

We'll be getting and selling both at the same time. We'll probably have more extras of the Collectors, though.

Ya, I mean its odd they wouldnt sell both here at the same time. To be honest I havent checked other stores either but I will check the EB store close to me too and see if they will have it.

Originally posted by Mišt
Unreasonable why? If Halo or Half Life 2 or Gears of War were good enough and spanned that long, and had quality gaming, why would that be a bad thing?

You keep assuming anything over 10 hours would be filler and repetitive and therefore shit. Why would they plonk in another 10 hours of gameplay that would not be memorable, if they have the capabilities to do so? How many successful expansions have been made for games like Medal of Honor and so on? They could plonk all that into a single game if they wanted to nowadays, they'd just need to spend a bit more developing time on making the story and action worth it.. At least then it would be worth paying $$ for.

No, next gen is taking games further than their predecessors. This includes playtime, as playtime is tied with gameplay, which is tied to graphics and sound and all that 'filler'. And whats the use of making a shooter on say, blu ray, if you're just going to cram in a bunch of pretty graphics and sounds and not expand the gameplay longer than typical 10 hours because thats what gamers have come to expect? Where does the shooting genre evolve, if its just about making things sound better and look better.

Half Life 2 is roughly 15-20 hours. It took 5 years to make. See how I see it unreasonable for a developer to create memorable gameplay for a shooter over 40 hours. How long are you willing to wait for a game?

Why wont developers make the game longer? Because it costs alot of money and time to create another 20 hours of gameplay that still as memorable as the first 20 hours? Are you willing to pay for that extra 20 hours of gameplay?

Gameplay length has nothing to do with innovation. Next generation nowadays has nothing to do with innovation unless its tied down to the techinical aspects of the console. What' soo different about FPS today that wasnt around in 98?