I disagree with your response opinion and reasoning. IMO Feedback about a game being "too long" should not be considered at all.
I disagree with your response opinion and reasoning. IMO Feedback about a game being "too long" should not be considered at all.
Don't think it's the best of analogies, but I'll play along, since it's pizza.
I love pizza, and I've had some awesome pizza and some pretty awful pizza. The prices between those were not that different, but a truly good pizza is worth the sacrifice in quantity, if the choice is strictly about the money.
And no, CDPR never promised a large pizza. Only their best pizza yet.
We will have to see if you you end up with the W3 pizza or the ME3 pizza ( based on the player rating (PC) on Metacritic as I don't trust the critic rating based on the difference between the critic and player rating on ME3 as you can see the player and critic rating on W3 is much closer.)
They may not have "promised" anything and I can't remember how much W3 cost at release but If Cyberpunk is the same or more at release than W3 then the example works because say for example Cyberpunk is "truly good" then they essentially sold a shorter "truly good medium pizza" for the same price of a previous " truly good large pizza" "W3" ( unless you disagree W3 was a truly good pizza)
If they both fall under the category of "truly good" then again you paid more for less for reasons the devs have stated which I also disagree with.
Last edited:
Let say I ordered a large pizza. I love it, its great. However it was to much for me to eat, I left some on the plate every time I ordered it. Many others do this, it's a common complaint every loves the pizza but its to much to eat. So the shop, when they create their next large pizza makes it a bit smaller but still the same quality.
Now, they still sell it at the same price because that's what the market is willing to pay for such good pizza and it isn't that much smaller in the first place.
Should they have just ignores the people and continued to waste time and ingredients on the larger pizza for a large portion to never finish it?
Should it be cheaper even though the cost of making it didn't decrease and people are still happy to pay?
Yes. Because people that eat whole pizza are restaurant regulars. Others are just passing trough.
1 Yes IMO they should ignore all feedback regarding length. see MAXXVOLTAGE answer in their post.
Also Unlike pizza a game does not "go bad" people who bought it today will not have finished it. That means that if someone bought it on release and didn't finish it because it was "too long" its still sitting on their hard drive all they have to do is boot it up again so
So let me ask you this is it the games fault the player didn't finish a game that has no time limit?
2. See my response to Sild .
Obviously I disagree with that, but what if 95 percent where "just passing through" (casual /regularl gamers) and 5 percent are big cdpr /rpg fans/elitests, and even within that 5,4 percent are OK with the change.
Post automatically merged:
Let's drop the anology now, because its getting to complex. But the fact is, people don't just have one interest in games and even those that do other games are released even within that. So naturally as time goes on they will start playing other games and coming back to that game isn't as enticing as it was when it was "new".
So sure, it's there to boot up again. But now I have other games I both have started since and are now waiting for. And for most gaming isn't something they decide to or can devote all there time to. You have to make a choice in what to play. And now I'm more interested in playing either the new thing or just something else I am now more in to.
Last edited:
why does those designation even matter.? we are not talking about something that expires .
Post automatically merged:
IMO Again that is not a problem with the game .
IMO The game should not suffer because the player wants to play other games. It simply should not happen ever
Whether or not a game "suffers" is based on the perception/reception/opinion of the game. If there is only a small unpopular opinion that this is a bad thing, the game has not suffered.
27% are not 5,4%. 27% are those guys, like me, who got his brother to sit on my own pc and started Witcher and said: Play! And after 3 hours brother went home and bought the game even if he, by then only played FPS. Guys that called their best man from the wedding and told him to get the game. Guys who came to work and told colleagues that Witcher 3 is the best game ever made.
These are guys you make happy, because when you start to do things by lowest common denominator you end up with ME3, ME4 and Anthem and from the best studio in the business you became Bioware.
Also, if main thing you love about CDPR games are story, you are not elitist.
These are guys you make happy, because when you start to do things by lowest common denominator you end up with ME3, ME4 and Anthem and from the best studio in the business you became Bioware.
Also, if main thing you love about CDPR games are story, you are not elitist.
I'll just step in here and remind everyone again that early estimates regarding The Witcher III's length, and the two expansions' contents, were all under-calculated, both by CDPR and the press. People managed to play the game for hundreds of hours, if not thousands, and still found plenty of gratifying content, and replay value. So, I'd recommend taking these pre-release estimates with a bit of a grain of salt -- or, to continue the pizza metaphor, a wee dash of Pecorino Romano.
True forgot this was taking place in a thread claiming the game was 30 hours. It could be where done of the ill thoughts towards the decision come from. I do think the story line is not going to be (mostly) that short.
(not that I personally think a strictly story completion is necessarily "to short" - if there is similarly 20- 30 hours or more of side content)
Last edited:
We will agree to disagree. Incorporating feedback is important. While it is true that it would be a terrible idea to make a game based solely on what gamers ask for (and thus abandon any sort of personal vision for the game), it is also a terrible idea to not consider what it is that players want at all. I mean, getting player feedback is one of the reasons we have forums.
Only 58% of players on GOG, 42% of players on Playstation, and 27% of players on Steam have ever finished the game. I saw a couple threads saying Xbox % was in the 20s as well, but couldn't find any current data to back that up quickly. I know those percentages are common for longer games, but that's kind of a problem IMO if you are interested in players getting value for money. Half the players who are playing aren't even finishing. So making the game a bit shorter, and adding in some high quality side content to allow players to keep enjoying the world if they want to makes a lot of sense to me. That way they both those who want to rush through and those who want to take their time can each enjoy the story CDPR wants to tell their own way.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I personally loved TW3's length and played through it 4 times. But I get why they would be concerned if they got feedback the game was too long.
Last edited:
Hmm, I'm saying if a game drags on and a player gets bored it's not because said player was given X extra hours of stuff to do. It's because this stuff to do doesn't hold their interest over it's lifetime. It would be like reading an 800 page book and stopping after 600 because you lose interest. The issue here isn't the book being 800 pages instead of 400. The issue is the book failed to keep you interested for the entirety of the 800 page... journey.
I don't have a problem if someone were to say a game narrative felt too long because it didn't hold their interest over the course of the time it took to complete. I do think it's incredibly silly for someone to say a game is too long because of the time it takes to complete. Yes, I absolutely think that specific type of feedback should be tossed in the garbage bin.
I'm just going to take my time and not rush it. That said, I see some long days ahead.
Awsome
Post automatically merged:
completely disagree with you point of view and statistics.
again if this is your view
superpunked2077:
"So sure, it's there to boot up again. But now I have other games I both have started since and are now waiting for. And for most gaming isn't something they decide to or can devote all there time to. You have to make a choice in what to play. And now I'm more interested in playing either the new thing or just something else I am now more in to. "
That proves the point MAXXVOLTAGE said:
"Really this type of game should be made with as much story based content ( Story > combat ) as budget and time will allow with absolutely no regard to "length" again since it does not matter. the game is not going anywhere. It may take some 1 month to finish it may take another 6 months to finish and it may even take someone 1 year to finish or more.
In my mind a game that tries to shorten a game that already has no time limit to make the 6moth or 1 year shorter because they simply don't want to put in the time necessary just plain wrong
Last edited:
Ok, lets say I made a game that takes 1 year to complete at 10 hours per day.
No one plays the game because that isnt reasonable. Tons of people like the concept and gameplay thought it was cool, but literally no one puts in the "put in the time necessary" to complete the video game.
I tell them all to get fucked because "why should I make my game suffer" and that "IMO Feedback about a game being "too long" should not be considered at all. "
Is that reasonable to you?
We will agree to disagree.
that is probably for the best. I do want to respond to your post however
"it is also a terrible idea to not consider what it is that players want at all"
My point is taking feedback that something is "too long" when you literally have no time limit to finish is a "terrible idea" should not happen it should not be a category of feedback because that is not a game issue that is a player "personal choice" issue.
"Only 58% of players on GOG, 42% of players on Playstation, and 27% of players on Steam have ever finished the game. I saw a couple threads saying Xbox % was in the 20s as well, but couldn't find any current data to back that up quickly. I know those percentages are common for longer games, but that's kind of a problem.
Ok if its a problem a question
What was the cause that lead to those statistics?
Is it the game? ( players not "able" to completed the game for a game related reason ( time limit)
or
The player that simply does not want to commit the time need to complete the game as its made for "personal reasons" not related to the game itself?
You stated stats. Here is some of mine. Unlike ME3 look how close the "critics" and "Users" score is . Almost perfect.
If the game truly was too long and boring do you think it would have rated that high?
Metascore
93
Universal acclaim based on 32 Critic
User Score
9.4
Universal acclaimbased on 17724 Ratings
"So making the game a bit shorter, and adding in some high quality side content to allow players to keep enjoying the world if they want to makes a lot of sense to me. That way they both those who want to rush through and those who want to take their time can each enjoy the story CDPR wants to tell their own way"
Sorry IMO the people who like longer still lose.
The way I interpret what you said is " there is no time limit to finish this but the good stuff stops here. For those who want to continue here is stuff that does not really matter at all for those who go past that part"
How is that an everyone wins scenario?
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. I personally loved TW3's length and played through it 4 times. But I get why they would be concerned if they got feedback the game was too long.
I finished it three times all side quests and expansions.
Post automatically merged:
yes it seem perfectly reasonable also you just described a mmo. Only they are playing a game they will NEVER FINISH until the servers shut off.
Mixed in among all the research findings, however, the article also drops one particularly mind-boggling statistic:
That's very nearly six million years of World of Warcraft played worldwide. How fortunate we are, then, that these moments seem to rewrite the brain in a positive way, and not a negative one.
Source
Not bad for 1 game. So really does 10 hours a day for a year to FINISH a game sound more ":reasonable" than that now ?
Don't forget they are paying $15 a month to play a game that is $180 dollars a year.
With your example the player is getting 3600 hours of playtime for what $60 -70 and it takes them multiple years to finish it . The value grows even bigger.
I think that is not only completely reasonable I Disagree " no one would play it" as the above average hours on wow example would indicate.
Last edited:
I miss the 50 cent Saturday matinee at my hometown theater when I was a kid.
Monster and horror movies are good for kids!
I've played one.
Matrix Games
www.matrixgames.com
Last edited: