By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Insomniac: RAC Takes Around 11 Hours To Complete Without Finishing Everything

Mr Puggsly on 11 April 2016
AEGRO said:
Anfebious said:
So it lasts the same amount of hours as any other R6C game? What a surprise!

Im glad they debunked the silly rumors of a 5 hour campaign.

Well bearing in mind the original game wasn't that short, why would the remake be so short?



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
midrange on 11 April 2016
Natsu said:
midrange said:
This is more like it. Games should be this long at least. That way games aren't relying on "replayability," which differs from person to person. Not every one is a completionist, and devs should take that into account when considering game size (looking at you starfox)

Yeah except starfox is fine the way it is. Every game has an audience. It's designed with replaybility in mind. 

But there's no denying that starfox could be doing a lot better (using ratchet and clank as an example). Designing for replayability is also subjective. Many other games are designed for replayability either have lots of extra features or have larger campaigns. Kid Icarus itself has a campaign of around 10 hours and is also designed for replayability. Why shouldn't starfox be the same?



midrange on 11 April 2016
KLAMarine said:
midrange said:

Which is why I use the word annoying. It's not the end of the world, just really inconvenient. In the end, both games will probably do fine. I just feel that Ratchet and Clank has been doing a lot of consumer friendly practices (the likes of which I would have wanted in starfox)

I agree.

Cool :)



zorg1000 on 11 April 2016
midrange said:
Natsu said:

Yeah except starfox is fine the way it is. Every game has an audience. It's designed with replaybility in mind. 

But there's no denying that starfox could be doing a lot better (using ratchet and clank as an example). Designing for replayability is also subjective. Many other games are designed for replayability either have lots of extra features or have larger campaigns. Kid Icarus itself has a campaign of around 10 hours and is also designed for replayability. Why shouldn't starfox be the same?

Your point would be valid if you had to keep replaying the same levels over and over again but you dont, Starfox is about the same length as Kid Icarus if you play all the levels.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

pokoko on 11 April 2016
b00moscone said:
midrange said:
This is more like it. Games should be this long at least. That way games aren't relying on "replayability," which differs from person to person. Not every one is a completionist, and devs should take that into account when considering game size (looking at you starfox)

That's like saying Mario Kart shouldn't be unplayable. Star Fox is designed with replayability in mind, and designing a game to be replayable isn't a bad thing

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  However, I sometimes think developers are given a free pass in terms of content when they simply say, "well, you can play it over again."  Why should a game with 5 hours worth of content cost the same as a game with 20 hours worth of content just because they throw in some short-cuts and collectables?  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as a consumer.  Games that required significantly less resources to create should pass that value on to retail.  That's the entire reason that 'middle-ware' gaming died in the first place--publishers were charging $60 across the board and people realized some games were really bad values at that price.  Conversely, indie games began to grow because pricing was often in-line with content.

I'm always glad to see publishers  being flexible on price points.  I think it's the right way to go to keep the middle from falling out again.  Pricing should be determined by content and resources used by the developers, not how often they think the average customer will bleed out more value by playing it over.



Around the Network
DakonBlackblade on 11 April 2016

Bunch of reviews are saying 15 hours is around the time ppl will take if they arent rushing and are exploring a bit.



zorg1000 on 11 April 2016
pokoko said:
b00moscone said:

That's like saying Mario Kart shouldn't be unplayable. Star Fox is designed with replayability in mind, and designing a game to be replayable isn't a bad thing

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  However, I sometimes think developers are given a free pass in terms of content when they simply say, "well, you can play it over again."  Why should a game with 5 hours worth of content cost the same as a game with 20 hours worth of content just because they throw in some short-cuts and collectables?  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as a consumer.  Games that required significantly less resources to create should pass that value on to retail.  That's the entire reason that 'middle-ware' gaming died in the first place--publishers were charging $60 across the board and people realized some games were really bad values at that price.  Conversely, indie games began to grow because pricing was often in-line with content.

I'm always glad to see publishers  being flexible on price points.  I think it's the right way to go to keep the middle from falling out again.  Pricing should be determined by content and resources used by the developers, not how often they think the average customer will bleed out more value by playing it over.

The thing about Star Fox replayability is that you arent just replaying the same levels over and over, it has seperate paths which feature different levels and boss battles so there truly is about 10 hours of content in Star Fox.

But i do agree with the idea that games should have more flexible pricing based on content and budget. Its good to see games like Ratchet & Clank, Captain Toad, Tearaway Unfolded, Kirby Rainbow Curse at $40.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

pokoko on 11 April 2016
zorg1000 said:
pokoko said:

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  However, I sometimes think developers are given a free pass in terms of content when they simply say, "well, you can play it over again."  Why should a game with 5 hours worth of content cost the same as a game with 20 hours worth of content just because they throw in some short-cuts and collectables?  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me as a consumer.  Games that required significantly less resources to create should pass that value on to retail.  That's the entire reason that 'middle-ware' gaming died in the first place--publishers were charging $60 across the board and people realized some games were really bad values at that price.  Conversely, indie games began to grow because pricing was often in-line with content.

I'm always glad to see publishers  being flexible on price points.  I think it's the right way to go to keep the middle from falling out again.  Pricing should be determined by content and resources used by the developers, not how often they think the average customer will bleed out more value by playing it over.

The thing about Star Fox replayability is that you arent just replaying the same levels over and over, it has seperate paths which feature different levels and boss battles so there truly is about 10 hours of content in Star Fox.

But i do agree with the idea that games should have more flexible pricing based on content and budget. Its good to see games like Ratchet & Clank, Captain Toad, Tearaway Unfolded, Kirby Rainbow Curse at $40.

Regardling Star Fox, I'm perfectly fine with NoE's pricing.  That sounds just fine for 10 hours of content.  NoA's "we want to make people pay for Guard's development costs, too" strategy is the only thing I have a problem with.  Don't charge extra when you call it a "bonus" on the box.

However, what I said wasn't really directed at one game, it was just a general response to the debate about short replayable games and pricing.



zorg1000 on 11 April 2016
pokoko said:
zorg1000 said:

The thing about Star Fox replayability is that you arent just replaying the same levels over and over, it has seperate paths which feature different levels and boss battles so there truly is about 10 hours of content in Star Fox.

But i do agree with the idea that games should have more flexible pricing based on content and budget. Its good to see games like Ratchet & Clank, Captain Toad, Tearaway Unfolded, Kirby Rainbow Curse at $40.

Regardling Star Fox, I'm perfectly fine with NoE's pricing.  That sounds just fine for 10 hours of content.  NoA's "we want to make people pay for Guard's development costs, too" strategy is the only thing I have a problem with.  Don't charge extra when you call it a "bonus" on the box.

However, what I said wasn't really directed at one game, it was just a general response to the debate about short replayable games and pricing.

i agree that you should be able to buy SF Zero & Guard seperately at retail, something like $49.99 & $19.99 with the double pack at $59.99.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

midrange on 11 April 2016
zorg1000 said:
midrange said:

But there's no denying that starfox could be doing a lot better (using ratchet and clank as an example). Designing for replayability is also subjective. Many other games are designed for replayability either have lots of extra features or have larger campaigns. Kid Icarus itself has a campaign of around 10 hours and is also designed for replayability. Why shouldn't starfox be the same?

Your point would be valid if you had to keep replaying the same levels over and over again but you dont, Starfox is about the same length as Kid Icarus if you play all the levels.

I said the campaign of kid icarus is 10 hours. Kid Icarus also has alternate paths to find and even implemented an online mode (not good now, but decent for it's time) which boost up the current play time. My point however, is not to say one is better than the other. My point is that replayability is still subjective. Someone may not want to backtrack to find alternate routes, whereas others would. I may enjoy going on every side quest, others may not. The only thing that remains constant is the main story which is why it hurts to have a less than 5 hour campaign