CGI-Quality said:
This is the kind of post I was hoping for! I completely agree on the type of game. I'm sure a 6-10 hour Final Fantasy would get laughed all the way backed to the warehouse, but a 6-10 hour action and/or adventure title can be phenomenal if done correctly. That's generally what I gathered from the author. |
Kinda funny about that, I think that's the biggest problem with the last FInal Fantasy, it was a 20 hour game stretched to 40 and it would have been significantly better had it been shorter. Though I say it really depends the game you make, even an RPG can be good at a short length, it really depends on the content. like with shooters there's nothing but shooting things in the first/3rd person view so I wouldn't want the game to be more than 8 hours. Same with action games. Though there are some exceptions like Resident Evil 4 was great at the 25 hours it took for me to beat it, but there was so much to do in that game, exploring areas, shotting, following the story, etc. On the flip side look at Resident Evil 5, takes about 6 hours to beat, but I don't think it would have been better had it been 25 hours with the same kind of gameplay (Not enough content in Resident Evil 5, just go foward and shoot things, no going back and forth to unlock keys and open up rooms with those keys). I think the biggest problem is people just don't wanna replay games anymore, and with the way devs have cut release times to 2 years from 3 (games seem to be hitting 1 year releases now) by the time you beat one game the sequel is out and there's no time to sit down and enjoy a game. I mean if it was years past I'd have played Final Fantasy XIII and XII 2 times by now.
