Brink 2? Ouch lol.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dishonored |OT| The belle of the ball
- Thread starter Salsa
- Start date
Brink 2? Ouch lol.
Allonym
There should be more tampons in gaming
No, if you watch the gameplay walktbroughs of the glolden cat, you can clearly see that its takes the developers much longer to get inside the golden cat and kill their two targets via undetectable means but it took a fraction of that to violently kill everyone by the direct approach. You could also play the game at a heightened difficulty if you really crave challenge.
In future games where stealth is an option, I think that it would be really neat if developers had only the enemies you were spotted by alerted to your presence. They could expand on this by having enemies yell to draw attention to the area, run and attempt to sound an alarm or call in their distress over a walkie talkie or light a flare. Enemies also wouldn't return to their regular patterns if a body were found or someone didnt report in and would actively search for any sign of foul play. Enemies could also have vital monitoring systems similar to enemies in the Arkham series that would also serve a s a deterrent to run and gunning. This also gives rise to strategic possibilities for the player that would enforce stealth gameplay, possibilities such as; taking a page from MGS, walkies could be shot, or DX, alarms and surveillance cameras could be hacked or destroyed. Subduing or killing everyone in the area would also render a victim's screams useless as well. These are things i hope grow increasingly important in the future to make the A.I. appear more human.
The Wizard
Member
How did you even come to that conclusion? The only thing this game has in common with Brink is Bethesda publishing it, which means nothing in terms of length or quality of the game itself.
Hell no.
Paying £20+ for a 4 hour game is ridiculous. I'm not a fan of replaying things though so that factors into it.
The Wizard
Member
Everytime I check this thread you guys have a different hour estimate, probably best waiting for the embargo to lift to get any concrete estimates.
Then don't buy the game. I'm perfectly fine with a 4 hour game if it's fun three times over for 60 dollars.
I'm not saying the game will be worth it for sure, just that it's ridiculous to dismiss a game built around large amounts of branching gameplay off of a timestamp.
hahaha I hope not
Glad I decided to hold off on picking it up. I'm usually not one to replay a game just for a different mode(stealth vs runNgun), so if it indeed is as short as some are claiming then probably a wise choice for me.
About the way I am trying to look at it as well, but I still want it to last long enough to feel like I am actually in the world and have an uphill climb in front of me. Too short, and it's easy to miss this. Or at least it can severely lessen the impact it would otherwise have.
I'll hold on my decision until reviews are released.
If it's over 15 hours I'm fine with it.
Do you realize how little 4-5 hours is? Start playing the game at 8am and you've finished by lunch time.
That is a horrendously short amount of time for a game that isn't $15.
All this length talk is seriously freakin me out. I wouldnt pay much attention to it but on the previous page where it was mentioned there are only
about 10 +-
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Yeah, that's seriously awful then, if it's also possible in higher difficulties for more skilled twitch gamers. Again, stealth is good and makes games last longer when it's necessary, if you can be as effective by just playing it like Doom or something then the whole point of stealth beyond challenging yourself because the game itself cannot is lost. And I'm not one to challenge myself by putting arbitrary restrictions like, don't kill anyone, at least not on the first play through. For similar reasons I didn't enjoy Conviction...
It's really not acceptable for any AAA game to be 4-5 hours under any circumstances.
That's just a psychological distinction though. You see the least time spent as the most effective, that's not objectively the case. Someone could just as easily see as killing the fewest innocents as being the most effective.
Uh, yes, I understand how long 4 to 5 hours is. The point is a game that is built around and encourages multiple playthroughs while remaining enjoyable for these multiple playthroughs, doesn't abide by the laws of total story length. If the point of the game is to play it and make different choices each time and the choices are really varied and meaningful and the game remains fun, you should not be caring about campaign length.
This looks like a game where the start of the game to the ending's time doesn't strike me as an important quality. The most important quality is how enjoyable is doing that multiple times?
Games do not abide by some magical law of "MUST BE X LENGTH TO BE FUN". I think everyone should wait and see if multiple playthroughs are important and well executed. If they aren't, then the complaints are well deserved.
FrenchMovieTheme
Member
who said it was 4-5 hours long?
I'd be fine with it at a budget level pricing of around 30 bucks (near release). The further from release the higher the discount would need to be.
It's not enough time to really get immersed into the world in a single play through, and that is what worries me. Oh well, I am locked in with my PSN pre-order, so I am just going to take my time and go from there. But at least it is looking highly redeemable in terms of replay value. If it ends up being too short of an affair, maybe at least we will have that.
I think you are generally right that the length shouldnt matter if the game was designed around it, but if the game could be designed about the same aspects while having twice the length, not many would complain.
The problem I see here is that they need something to sell the player on, and a 4-5 hour campaign sounds rather unappealing for most players that are supposed to pay 60 bucks for it.
I mean FTL had a super immense replay value as well and cost me 10 bucks. For 60 hours with dozens of replays.
A livestreamer who played a leaked copy.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Effective as in, I can complete the game, see much of the content, all the primary targets, etc. Even if the ending is different. If some people are truly innocents then do it like Thief, where in some missions you fail if you kill any guard, forcing stealth further in those. Anyway, I was just speaking for myself. I could perhaps do a personal challenge ghost run but only if I seriously love the game on the first run, I wouldn't care to invest more time in it if it's flawed in those ways.
Which brings me back to mod support, is there anything planned? A level editor alone couldn't fix every potential issue but some light mod support on top of that could, if people made enemies tougher, more aggressive, disabled certain overpowered skills etc.
YianGaruga
Banned
Another post deserving of your tag.
I just wanted to add that if we had flexible pricing models for AAA games, a 4-5 hour game would be totally acceptable, if it was priced ~$20. You can make a pretty awesome short game, but don't charge $60 for it.
Yeah, I can understand that hey, this might not be a game for everyone if it's following the standards I'm laying out. A game can have a very short campaign and be very good at sixty dollars. The key here what is it executing on and how does it execute?
If everyone here wants a 15 hour story, if it doesn't have that, don't buy it.
Nothing is wrong with a 4 to 5 hour game. I'd rather have it than another bloated 10 hour game.
If the game actually provides the sandbox experience. It'll work in its favor too. Much easier to go back and get a completely different experience with shorter titles, than another 20-30 like most RPGs do.
If the game actually provides the sandbox experience. It'll work in its favor too. Much easier to go back and get a completely different experience with shorter titles, than another 20-30 like most RPGs do.
Yeah, I think its rather hard to make a good 10 hour game feel bloated. Even the Army of Two games were fun for a while and 10 hours isnt really that much game time.
Exactly. 15+ hrs in a world vs 3x 5hr chunks....I can tell you that I'll be WAY more "into" the 15hr game world than the other(not to mention the repeated content you will see in those 3x replays).
Also, as far as stealth goes: stealth should be included in a game because of the challenge and the mechanics it gives to the game, not simply to inflate the length of the game.
I probably didn't explain myself well, but my point was to see all the content makes perfect sense, but to do it in the shortest possible time is not. You might well have that as your personal approach to games, but that's not inherently true. Maybe people like to spend lots of time in games, would like to poke around with various game systems, and approach certain types of games with a specific focus.
I don't believe for a second this game is a good combat game, no one has got even close to first person sword play well, this looks no different. If I brute forced through the whole game killing everyone, I'm sure it wouldn't be at all fun, so I wouldn't, even if it means I get to the end slower. And in fact, I don't want to get to the end of a game in five hours, so all the better.
Deus Ex is my favorite game of all time. I felt completely immersed and I never once felt like "shoot I think I'm getting close to the end". I naturally took my time and explored where appropriate and in the end I set down the controller feeling incredibly satisfied probably over 20 hours.
Thats all I want from this. And everyone saying 4-5 hours is plenty, you are seriously out of your damn minds. This isn't a PSN download. Its not Journey for god sakes. This isn't a 150 page novel.
The experience needs to last.
Thats all I want from this. And everyone saying 4-5 hours is plenty, you are seriously out of your damn minds. This isn't a PSN download. Its not Journey for god sakes. This isn't a 150 page novel.
The experience needs to last.
MikeE21286
Member
Single player games <10 hours are just setting themselves up for failure.
Vinterbird
Member
Why does it need to last? Would it be better if they added a bunch of filler and needless content in order to reach that wonderful bulletpoint of 20 hours of gameplay?
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
That's fine, but I'd like to play a well designed game that can challenge me on its own without me saying I won't use skill x or weapon y for a more aggressive approach. I'd probably use it anyway when facing failure/game over if it's there (which is why mods disabling it altogether could help) purely instinctively. Not to mention I won't know all of what's overpowered (and at the same time not required anywhere, or where exactly it is so, so that I wouldn't run around trying to get past a given part without using those with that being impossible) before finishing the game once anyway, or reading about it in much more depth, which I won't before playing. Or at least playing it for a few hours. Which apparently can be one and the same. I could be expecting it to ramp up in difficulty any minute now, making it challenging, making stealth more necessary, etc, and discover I'm already done.
Im not asking for filler. Im asking for plenty of good content. What is this notion that length means "filler"
I love how every game that lasts more than ten hours automatically has to have filler and needless content just because
denshuu
Member
5-6 hours is pretty really short for a game like this. There's always replayability, but you'd hope there would be more than a couple movies worth of content to replay in the first place.
Name one RPG that has 100 hours of content. The biggest I can think of is Morrowind, and you'll complete that game in half that time if you find the combat interesting enough.
Name one RPG that has 100 hours of content. The biggest I can think of is Morrowind, and you'll complete that game in half that time if you find the combat interesting enough.
I finished RAGE the other day. Like 6-7 hours to complete, and those driving sequences added nothing but annoyance. Side missions and a few main missions took place backtracking the same areas.
So many developers can't make a solid 8 to 10 hours. Why would you want more?
I can't think of any 100 hour RPGs that have the content to support it for this generation. Enlighten.
This is perhaps the scariest part and could end up really hurting this game in the end, despite how fun it is to play. Very valid point.
Xenoblade Chronicles.
Did he say if it was good?
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
It shouldn't be possible to blast your way through if the game can be finished in 4-5 hours.
dark_inferno
Member
Wrong game fo that. The game was meant for replaying (multiple Endings, choices etc) and not for 1 time play.
Felt like a MMORPG to me.
He said 100 hours of CONTENT not of grinding.
Some JRPGs are that long, DQVII for example.
Allonym
There should be more tampons in gaming
FFXII
Omg I feel like I am going to get a nose bleed from this thread.
So because of a lack of creativity on the developers part we should all just lower our expectations from now on?