JonahFalcon on 27/11/2003 at 18:27
DX: IW is reportedly 15-20 hours long.
Come ON. Every friggin' game this year is wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am.
Call of Duty? 4 hours
Max Payne 2? 4 hours
Tron 2.0? 12 hours
In comparison, DX2 is Berlin Alexanderplatz, but lately, EVERY game is short, and it has NOTHING to do with console versions (Tron 2.0 is PC only).
Developers are just LAZY.
ESpark on 27/11/2003 at 18:43
Personally, I think its because devs are realizing that their primary market doesn't want to deal with a game that would take sitting at a computer for a week to play it.
You or I might be willing to sit at a PC for that long (well, you maybe, I can't stand sitting at a computer for more than 2 hours), but the general public ain't.
Fred Chook on 27/11/2003 at 19:03
Man... what can I say? Computer games are too commercialised nowadays?
At least we can still enjoy a good long game of Civ.
Liliel on 27/11/2003 at 19:24
this doesn't feel good. If a game is "reportedly" 15-20 hours long, that general means for experienced gamers it will be 10 hours long the first time through, and 4 hours long the second time through... :weird:
Uncia on 27/11/2003 at 21:56
Only if you play it the same way, which is exactly what DEIW is designed against. Also, SS2 was damn short, but I'd really like to see someone finish it in 4 hours on their second run. Especially on Impossible. But, we'll see...
JonahFalcon on 27/11/2003 at 22:20
No, the Gamespy review is an experience DE guy and it took him 15 hours.
I already have a preorder at EB (free T-shirt), so I'm going to try to savor every moment. At least he said it was very Deus Ex-y.
Too Much Coffee on 27/11/2003 at 23:14
Quote:
You or I might be willing to sit at a PC for that long (well, you maybe, I can't stand sitting at a computer for more than 2 hours), but the general public ain't.
(scratches head and wonders how long games like Half-life, Thief, Deus Ex, etc, etc became classics)
Tej on 28/11/2003 at 08:32
I have been contemplating the length of the games. I used to like games that took forever to finish. But then, I also had plenty of time to play them.
Nowadays I have a lot of stuff called real life, and I have much less time on my hands for playing games. So now I'm in a situation of having a pile of games I haven't played or I started playing and stopped somewhere through first quarter, for another game comes. So in this respect I'd prefer having a game shorter, so that I'd start another game soon.
But does that make me a legitimate reason for voting for shorter games? I don't think so. We can discuss how many levels in Deux Ex would not be missed if they weren't there. But on the other hand, every one of them was memoriable. We all agree that in SS2, Rick could use with some additional, better parts.
In any case, if I pay €45 for a game, I'd want to spend an appropriate amount of gameplay value. If the time for playing through shortens, then the game should cost respectively less.
screwed on 28/11/2003 at 15:42
Well, this is the clencher for me. The rest of the stuff, I could probably get used to(althought the unified ammo makes me want to cry). But a 15 hour game? This blows. I have a policy of only buying Class A games that are at least 25 hours long, which I thought this would be. The fact that they have Max-Payned this game now means there is no chance in hell I would drop $50+ for this thing.
Please don't make T3 a short console game! It's our only hope! :erm:
Brem_X_Jones on 28/11/2003 at 15:46
Quote:
Originally posted by screwed I have a policy of only buying Class A games that are at least 25 hours long, which I thought this would be.
I'm interested - what was the last action-lead game you bought? I can't think of an action game in the last two years that lasted for 25 hours, and I'm really trying.
KG
