Did Baldur's Gate really have an impact?

[scient]

They require a LONG time to make and test properly (or as near as is acceptable, ha.) (That was a dry, cynical laugh there).

You know, I bet developers could accomplish a lot if they hired autistic people to test their games for them. Imagine getting somebody like wesp (or drog even) who put ridiculous amounts of time into unofficial fix patches, to make these patches official...prior to the release of the game.

This really would require the game to released to general public first, ie lots of folks playing game and reporting bugs. Having one or two individuals fixing the bugs is great but a big part of it is having player base dedicated to reporting bugs. Just have a look at bug report thread every time Qwinn and I release update to PST stuff. While I have found engine bugs in IE on my own that no one else in 10+ years it's been out have reported (luck stat among others), a lot of it is having people report problems.

 

[anomie]

The problem is that you start to expect realism from the game as a whole. Games can get away with NPCs looking like @ (as in ADOM) and acting as you would expect @'s to act, but games can't get away with NPCs looking like real humans yet acting like two lines of retarded code and walking in the air with clipping problems etc.

problem is people now think that art style and graphics are the same thing. Torchlight graphics are nothing amazing, but the art is. I fucking hate realistic graphics for this reason. RL is boring as shit, this is why exploration in Oblivion was so weak.

Sadly, consoletards don't even know the difference, so you just slap tons of bloom, "realistic graphics", and a nice layer of brown, and you've made a best-selling next gen game!

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The only genre where I like realistic graphics are combat (flight, tank, etc.) simulators and even then I find them not worth buying a new comp. After all, I can play simulators even with 8-bit/16-bit graphics.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

The problem is that you start to expect realism from the game as a whole. Games can get away with NPCs looking like @ (as in ADOM) and acting as you would expect @'s to act, but games can't get away with NPCs looking like real humans yet acting like two lines of retarded code and walking in the air with clipping problems etc.

problem is people now think that art style and graphics are the same thing. Torchlight graphics are nothing amazing, but the art is. I fucking hate realistic graphics for this reason. RL is boring as shit, this is why exploration in Oblivion was so weak.

Sadly, consoletards don't even know the difference, so you just slap tons of bloom, "realistic graphics", and a nice layer of brown, and you've made a best-selling next gen game!

You can have good art with realistic graphics, and the problem persists. But of course I agree. I'll take Geneforge 5 over vanilla Oblivion any day, just for the visuals.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

I meant short like in Fallout is shorter than Fallout 2 and Arcanum.

Ah, I getcha. That WOULD be advantageous. BUT...

Anyway, what's the point of making so long games, then? It's not like there's a competition on that market...

For starters, there is the assumption that since it IS an RPG, you need a satisfying sense of advancement set up within the gameplay time, and that 1) you end up much more powerful than when you started, BUT 2) you don't get rewards to the point where it seems ridiculous.

But mostly? If motherfuckers don't see "40+ hours gameplay" right there on the box, they won't buy it. People have an ingrained expectation (very LARGELY due to Baldur's Gate 2 being insanely long) of RPGs being massive undertakings requiring dozens of hours do to. Publishers will not let games get away with being less than 40-60 hours on average (and I can tell you unless you're BioWare, you can't make an expansion that's less than 20 hours, and I can tell you that from personal experience). It's a common perception in games - both inside and outside the RPG genre but most common to it - that length is synonymous with quality. Breaking out of that is possible, certainly (I think Portal was a game that changed the perceptions of many for how long a "good game" SHOULD be at a minimum), but it's gonna take a while, and I don't see it changing for RPGs anytime soon, sadly enough.

 

[Gragt]

That's ironic when you consider roguelikes where your life expectancy at the start is around 30 minutes.

 

[Grunker]

I'm very stupid and bad at analysing the whole development-process, but wouldn't recycling solve some of the problems?

One of the key reasons I actually like BG2 is that it's overall average quality (countered with some truly great moments and solid combat) is balanced by a vast amount of overall good "enough" content and an epic scope.
It has always been my "educated guess" that this vastness was achieved because the IE had been recycled so many times and had so few big improvements in BG2.
I.e. (c wut I did thar) developers knew the tools inside and out and didn't have to add much in term of engine and graphics, freeing up more resources for adding content and doing quality control.

If I'm by chance just somewhat correct, wouldn't this mean that a more general acceptance of old graphics and engines would allow for more content AND greater focus on the "important" stuff - such as you mention above?

Indeed my guess was that this was also the intention behind developing a new engine for Dragon Age with the intent for recycling it for the coming two titles.

Of course, with even the Codex spamming criticism at DA:O's graphics, it doesn't seem likely that such a general consensus or shift from the paradigm of "graphics r great" to a more content-focused style will actually occur.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I meant short like in Fallout is shorter than Fallout 2 and Arcanum.

Ah, I getcha. That WOULD be advantageous. BUT...

Anyway, what's the point of making so long games, then? It's not like there's a competition on that market...

For starters, there is the assumption that since it IS an RPG, you need a satisfying sense of advancement set up within the gameplay time, and that 1) you end up much more powerful than when you started, BUT 2) you don't get rewards to the point where it seems ridiculous.

But mostly? If motherfuckers don't see "40+ hours gameplay" right there on the box, they won't buy it. People have an ingrained expectation (very LARGELY due to Baldur's Gate 2 being insanely long) of RPGs being massive undertakings requiring dozens of hours do to. Publishers will not let games get away with being less than 40-60 hours on average (and I can tell you unless you're BioWare, you can't make an expansion that's less than 20 hours, and I can tell you that from personal experience). It's a common perception in games - both inside and outside the RPG genre but most common to it - that length is synonymous with quality. Breaking out of that is possible, certainly (I think Portal was a game that changed the perceptions of many for how long a "good game" SHOULD be at a minimum), but it's gonna take a while, and I don't see it changing for RPGs anytime soon, sadly enough.

So, there's another way how Baldur's Gate has declined the genre... How disgusting... It's no wonder that there wasn't another Fallout in last 13 years.

Also, it's interesting that people are willing to actually waste 40-60 hours of their free time to play such games.

Another thing that I dislike about ZOMG EPIC! cRPGs is how absurdly improbable their stories are. A 4-6 person team of adventurers is supposed to kill hundreds/thousands of enemies, including powerful monsters.

Anyway, when talking about the competition, I meant Fallout-like games which are practically non-existent.

Of course, with even the Codex spamming criticism at DA:O's graphics, it doesn't seem likely that such a general consensus or shift from the paradigm of "graphics r great" to a more content-focused style will actually occur.

Well, Dragon Age had cinematic-style graphics with cinematic characters, which obliged them to make them as good as it's possible. I got a horrible uncanny valley vibe from gameplay videos.

 

[anomie]

I meant short like in Fallout is shorter than Fallout 2 and Arcanum.

Ah, I getcha. That WOULD be advantageous. BUT...

Anyway, what's the point of making so long games, then? It's not like there's a competition on that market...

For starters, there is the assumption that since it IS an RPG, you need a satisfying sense of advancement set up within the gameplay time, and that 1) you end up much more powerful than when you started, BUT 2) you don't get rewards to the point where it seems ridiculous.

But mostly? If motherfuckers don't see "40+ hours gameplay" right there on the box, they won't buy it. People have an ingrained expectation (very LARGELY due to Baldur's Gate 2 being insanely long) of RPGs being massive undertakings requiring dozens of hours do to. Publishers will not let games get away with being less than 40-60 hours on average (and I can tell you unless you're BioWare, you can't make an expansion that's less than 20 hours, and I can tell you that from personal experience). It's a common perception in games - both inside and outside the RPG genre but most common to it - that length is synonymous with quality. Breaking out of that is possible, certainly (I think Portal was a game that changed the perceptions of many for how long a "good game" SHOULD be at a minimum), but it's gonna take a while, and I don't see it changing for RPGs anytime soon, sadly enough.

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

Console Retardation is already hiking game prices up to unbelievable prices around the world (feel bad for australians especially). I'm not going to spend 50-60 bucks on a game that isn't going to keep me entertained for a moderate amount of time.

The fact that digital delivery still hasn't done much to lower prices is very frustrating itself, but at least some people are starting to understand how it should be. The most recent STALKER game did pricing very well, I think. You can get it on steam for 20 if you own a previous part of the series, otherwise it's $30 (usd), and physical copies are $40.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I remember paying 165PLN for Fallout 1 and being satisfied with it, so 165 Euro/$ is good for Eurofags/Kwanzanians .

 

[Grunker]

I got a horrible uncanny valley vibe from gameplay videos.

Not moreso than from the talking heads in Fallout, I hope

Another point to your post: In my first run-through of Fallout I took a very completionist approach, something I don't do normally, and I easily killed as many people and monsters, maybe even more, as in a normal runthrough of BG1.

And that was just me a two party members.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

RPGs don't cost more than other games that don't sprawl over 70 hours.

A rpg without filler BS that drags for hours would be quite welcome, as that's the sort of thing that either makes me stop playing the game or never play it again, effectively shortening its lifespan. However, as Annie points out, people prefer to ignore that and just fap furiously over a game that promises a bajillion hours of gameplay, forgetting that most of that time will be consumed by banalshitboring tasks.

edit: friggin' spelling

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Well, there was something very stylised about talking heads in Fallout, which doesn't provoke the "fake thing that resembles a human too much" reaction from me.

I remember my character having over 1000 kills during my run-through of BG1. It's difficult to score more than 200 kills in Fallout.

 

[Grunker]

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

RPGs don't cost more than other games that don't sprawl over 70 hours.

A rpg without filler BS that drags for hours would be quite welcome, as that's the sort of thing that either makes me stop playing the game or never play it again, effectively shortening its lifespan. However, as Annie points out, people prefer to ignore that and just fap furiously over a game that promises a bajillion hours of gameplay, forgetting that most of that time will be consumed by banalshitboring tasks.

edit: friggin' spelling

THIS. You do have your moments, mighty lord of horrible hentai.

Shorten Dragon Age by 10-20 hours, and it would add to the game's worth.

Doesn't apply to all games though. Didn't feel like BG2 had too much filler. But of course the combat in that was actually worth a damn.

I remember my character having over 1000 kills during my run-through of BG1. It's difficult to score more than 200 kills in Fallout.

Two things:

1) I had 600 kills at the end of that first Fallout-runthrough (lotta random radscorpion encounters).

2) Would you really claim the gap in realism for 200 kills by a three-man group to 1000 kills by a six-man group is that great? I mean the big yellow sharkmonster with purple hair is unrealistic - adding tendrils, fangs and dragon's breath too it doesn't make it much worse.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Actually, it wasn't my real point. My point is that you don't have to kill all these people in Fallout to do the main quest. Most of combat is optional, except random encounters. That cuts down the amount of kills drastically.
Entering combat is usually a bad idea anyway. It's safer to leave some nasty guys like Raiders, Decker, etc. alone.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

I meant short like in Fallout is shorter than Fallout 2 and Arcanum.

Ah, I getcha. That WOULD be advantageous. BUT...

Anyway, what's the point of making so long games, then? It's not like there's a competition on that market...

For starters, there is the assumption that since it IS an RPG, you need a satisfying sense of advancement set up within the gameplay time, and that 1) you end up much more powerful than when you started, BUT 2) you don't get rewards to the point where it seems ridiculous.

But mostly? If motherfuckers don't see "40+ hours gameplay" right there on the box, they won't buy it. People have an ingrained expectation (very LARGELY due to Baldur's Gate 2 being insanely long) of RPGs being massive undertakings requiring dozens of hours do to. Publishers will not let games get away with being less than 40-60 hours on average (and I can tell you unless you're BioWare, you can't make an expansion that's less than 20 hours, and I can tell you that from personal experience). It's a common perception in games - both inside and outside the RPG genre but most common to it - that length is synonymous with quality. Breaking out of that is possible, certainly (I think Portal was a game that changed the perceptions of many for how long a "good game" SHOULD be at a minimum), but it's gonna take a while, and I don't see it changing for RPGs anytime soon, sadly enough.

Sometimes I wonder whether it's the RPG gamers or the designers who have become stuck in their habits scared that they'll waste their / lose money if they start doing things differently.

Somehow the guys (and they were mostly guys) who made Daggerfall managed to put together a shortie with four different paths that the player could take to beat the game (apparently), yet with hundreds of hours of gameplay and exploration for those who cared for such things. Build the important stuff (the story quests) with your hands, randomize the mindless & inconsequential chores that will be pretty mindless & inconsequential no matter what (the side quests and the game world beyond the main-quest areas).

Of course, you would need a toolset that you can use to build decent looking random areas and dungeons in a short time, not that shit that comes with Oblivion and both NWN's (?). (Daggerfall's randomized cities and outdoor areas look perfectly fine, for those who don't know. They all look the same, but so did Oblivion. I just spent a couple of real-world minutes the other day riding my horse from one generic Daggerfall town to another without using the fast travel option. That's the kind of shit I want to see in a game with modern graphics that don't burn your fucking eyeballs out.)

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

Man, I'll be the first person to admit game designers ain't perfect. Sometimes we gots some shitty ideas, or ideas we would really LIKE to be good but when we get them into the game, lo and behold they don't turn out like we want. Ain't no department that's perfect, and the second I say we're faultless is when I've entirely lost my shit. Just so you know.

It's kind of nice to be like "ooo, lookit, my game is LONG and CHOCK FULL OF AWESOME" but oftentimes, it's a lot of OH SHIT SCOPE MISMANAGEMENT AIEEEE that happens for a multitude of reasons. I know what publishers have required, game-length-wise, in the past, and I know the standards that other RPGs have set, and the desired game length of the minds behind the project - that all gets added to the mix. There are a lot of reasons why the length issue is so prevalent in RPGs, and trying to subvert that perceived need isn't gonna happen anytime soon. If at all. Right now I see it as something that you can only get away with in the indie game space - because I know BioWare is catching some hell for DA: Awakening's length.

As for "why not randomize stuff," it sounds insane, but getting randomization right is one of the hardest things EVER to do properly. Sometimes the time it takes to try and get it right is prrrrrrobably longer than doing each little bit BY HAND. It breaks stuff, and heck - Daggerfall unpatched? BROKEN AS SHIT. Dungeons where you can't actually complete the quest. Things of that type. You need systems that are birthed and raised together and meant to work in absolute harmony to even really consider that, and WHEEE that doesn't happen often - not due to bumfuckery or whatever, just the natural chaos and trial-and-tweaking that comes with creating systems. No system is perfect on the first try - you need to iterate them to make them workable. And adding an element of randomization to a complex system is, bar none, gonna break a whole mess of shit. You can randomize certain elements, sure, but it might end up a more negative experience instead of a positive one.

...Loot, for example! Dragon Age's loot is randomized, for example, and it turned out so poorly for me - just by chance - on my playthrough that I thought it was entirely broken. I know how tricky loot can be, because I tried to entirely revamp the loot system for SoZ, and even then, I made sure to use a lot of placed loot to offset the algorithms for the randomized stuff potentially giving the player too little stuff.

The tl;dr version? DOING RANDOM STUFF WELL IS TRICKY AS FUCK. My god is it ever.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Even Dragon Age had tiny as fuck areas, incredible amounts of repetition to the environments, secondary NPC models that were all superficial variations of the same 5-6 base models, and an insane fight rate in dungeons with the same few enemy types to artificially lenghten the game. Without these cheap tricks it really wouldn't have lasted more than 20-30 hours. Every time I went to a new area within 10 minutes I was like: "What, THAT'S IT????"... almost zero exploration to be had, it was pathetic. Denerim's downtown was about as big as a tennis court. And I don't understand because both Neverwinter Nights 2 and Drakensang had much smaller budgets and manpower, and much better environments, much more variety, and more content.

The Infinity Engine BG's had so much more content and depth that it would take 3-4 Dragon Age games to match one of them.

 

[Grunker]

Actually, it wasn't my real point. My point is that you don't have to kill all these people in Fallout to do the main quest. Most of combat is optional, except random encounters. That cuts down the amount of kills drastically.
Entering combat is usually a bad idea anyway. It's safer to leave some nasty guys like Raiders, Decker, etc. alone.

No doubt the optional elements are indeed Fallout's strong point. That, I never contested.

My question was: "Wouldn't recycling make it managable to both reach fairly large amount of content (40+ hours) and focus on quality?"

 

[anomie]

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

RPGs don't cost more than other games that don't sprawl over 70 hours.

A rpg without filler BS that drags for hours would be quite welcome, as that's the sort of thing that either makes me stop playing the game or never play it again, effectively shortening its lifespan. However, as Annie points out, people prefer to ignore that and just fap furiously over a game that promises a bajillion hours of gameplay, forgetting that most of that time will be consumed by banalshitboring tasks.

edit: friggin' spelling

I know that, I didn't limit my quote to RPGs. I used STALKER as an example of a game that did pricing correctly, it's not an RPG. I'm saying that ANY single player game without replay value should get the fuck out if they expect 50-60 USD from me, especially for a digital version. There are even more factors to add into value as well. The fact that Ubisoft expects people to pay $60 for the PC version of Assassin's Creed 2, AND require you to accept their asshole drm makes me so fucking angry...but the fact that people are still willing to suffer through a high price, drm being so bad that you can't even play because their servers get ddos'd all day, and the fact that it's a short, single player game with no replay value is the most troubling thing of all to me.

Fortunately, the people who matter (indie devs for pc) understand how pricing should work, or at least they understand that they are not uber mainstream enough to get away with the bullshit Ubisoft gets away with. I also like their method of allowing pre-orders long before the game is even released, e.g. Minecraft. Gabe Newel mentioned at GDC that he'd like to see this sort of thing become mainstream, where the consumer invests in the game during its production time. I really like the idea, mostly because I hate publishers, and doing things like using the "consumer investment" model, along with digital delivery (and the fact that viral marketing on the internet is ridiculously easy) makes publishers more and more obsolete.

I agree with you on the 2nd point. Even though I don't actually have any issue with games that are long, if they are only long because shit like Deep Roads takes 10 years irl to complete, then it just becomes fucking annoying.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

RPGs don't cost more than other games that don't sprawl over 70 hours.

A rpg without filler BS that drags for hours would be quite welcome, as that's the sort of thing that either makes me stop playing the game or never play it again, effectively shortening its lifespan. However, as Annie points out, people prefer to ignore that and just fap furiously over a game that promises a bajillion hours of gameplay, forgetting that most of that time will be consumed by banalshitboring tasks.

edit: friggin' spelling

I know that, I didn't limit my quote to RPGs. I used STALKER as an example of a game that did pricing correctly, it's not an RPG. I'm saying that ANY single player game without replay value should get the fuck out if they expect 50-60 USD from me

Uh, how the fuck does adding forty hours of banal+shit+boring to a game add to its REPLAY value? Rather it'd take AWAY from it, seems to me like it would.

Seriously, developers, reviewers, and others with some sort of influence need to teach the kiddies that a five-hour Freedom Fallout with 10x replay value will be a worthier experience than a 60-hour railroad you christened Dragon Age (here be dragons, or not) that has 0.5 "replay value", meaning you don't get through all the filler, because by the time you're half-way through your guided railroad trip you suddenly realize you've been playing the same crappy shit over and over with no signs of variety in quality in the horizon either, so you stop.

That's one of the things about manboons that I don't like. They just never get anything until they've heard it a gazillion times from an authoritative source, and even then you only get them to do the motions. A sixty-hour story-RPG is a game that FORCES you to play the same "game" twenty times over before you can say you've seen the end of the story. I'd much rather decide on my own whether some shit has enough replay value that it's worth replaying. So leave all the obligatory filler out, add multiple paths, and maybe I'll replay it. I'll be sure to replay it if it's as good as Night of the Raven, which I played through from beginning to end at least once for each of the three paths. I'd much rather buy a game I can maybe replay than a game I know I never will.

News from the vault.

 

[Azrael the cat]

snip

That sounds seriously awesome. I'll definitely try it on my next run-through. Do you know of similar mods for BG2? I think someone once suggested Ascension, but I don't think it improves enemy AI, just makes them more powerful.

Doesn't Ascension "complete" the game? It was made by one of the original designers or programmers, iirc.

DO try Ascension...for all enemies prior to the last boss fight, the main way that it makes them more powerful IS by improving their AI. It gives you much smarter dragon fights in particular.

It was made by David Gaider - he was pissed that they didn't get to do ToB as a full sequel, and so he created a free mod that not only makes the boss fights tougher, but also adds some of the quests they were planning on doing, and redesigned the last couple of areas so that the end sequencing went how they had previously ensivaged it rather than 'we're running out of time...quick throw in the end boss!!!'

It makes at least one of the 'big bosses' of the game a potential ally in the last fight (in addition to your party, rather than as a member - and this individual certainly kicks some ass) if you're of good alignment, and reintroduces a character from BG2 as a potential ally in that last fight if you're evil. And the last fight in Ascension (even with the insanely powerful good-alignent-ally) is probably the hardest fight in an infinity engine game. It's nothing like the Vanilla end fight - it isn't just 'more hp and more powerful spells' but an altogether different tactical encounter.

Right. I never did manage to get through that final battle.

I might even go so far to say that it's impossible without the bonus character.

 

[anomie]

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

RPGs don't cost more than other games that don't sprawl over 70 hours.

A rpg without filler BS that drags for hours would be quite welcome, as that's the sort of thing that either makes me stop playing the game or never play it again, effectively shortening its lifespan. However, as Annie points out, people prefer to ignore that and just fap furiously over a game that promises a bajillion hours of gameplay, forgetting that most of that time will be consumed by banalshitboring tasks.

edit: friggin' spelling

I know that, I didn't limit my quote to RPGs. I used STALKER as an example of a game that did pricing correctly, it's not an RPG. I'm saying that ANY single player game without replay value should get the fuck out if they expect 50-60 USD from me

Uh, how the fuck does adding forty hours of banal+shit+boring to a game add to its REPLAY value? Rather it'd take AWAY from it, seems to me like it would.

No, no. I'm saying STALKER: CoP handled pricing well. I have never played the game, I'm just saying that their pricing scheme was perfect, and something I'd like to see more games do in the future.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

RPGs don't cost more than other games that don't sprawl over 70 hours.

A rpg without filler BS that drags for hours would be quite welcome, as that's the sort of thing that either makes me stop playing the game or never play it again, effectively shortening its lifespan. However, as Annie points out, people prefer to ignore that and just fap furiously over a game that promises a bajillion hours of gameplay, forgetting that most of that time will be consumed by banalshitboring tasks.

edit: friggin' spelling

I know that, I didn't limit my quote to RPGs. I used STALKER as an example of a game that did pricing correctly, it's not an RPG. I'm saying that ANY single player game without replay value should get the fuck out if they expect 50-60 USD from me

Uh, how the fuck does adding forty hours of banal+shit+boring to a game add to its REPLAY value? Rather it'd take AWAY from it, seems to me like it would.

No, no. I'm saying STALKER: CoP handled pricing well. I have never played the game, I'm just saying that their pricing scheme was perfect, and something I'd like to see more games do in the future.

I was actually responding to that based on your earlier comment, which was this:

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

I haven't played CoP either, but shortening the linear length of a game is more than welcome if it means adding to its replay value (adding different mutually exclusive paths, for example, as in Gothic 2, or just making it fucking less boring by removing annoying shit).

Gamers just need to get used to the idea that the length of a game isn't a linear thing. Similarly, developers should start pushing this same idea by marketing their games as 50-hour games if they have three paths that are all around 15 hours. (Gamers who then flooded the 'net boards of the particular publisher with their complaints would be taught to know better.)

(Of course, nothing is as simple as that if you don't have balls.)

 

[anomie]

I was actually responding to that based on your earlier comment, which was this:

Changing shit around is fine, but if games (especially single player with little replay value) are going to shorten their length, then they need to lower their prices as well.

Oh, well still I wasn't trying to refer to any specific example. My point overall is that any game -RPG or otherwise- that is single player should either provide good replay value, or be sufficiently long to justify its price. God of War and its clones are perfect examples of horrible pricing schemes. They are short, single player, no replay value (unless you enjoy replaying that shit idk I'm sure there are people out there that do), but cost $60.

I agree with your points that adding tedious things doesn't give replay value.