NWN2 Premium module announced.

[Keldorn]

You mean they might give us a whopping 16 hours of gameplay ? Holy fuck !

If you calculate the $ per hour you pay for it, you'll clearly see how 2007 "free-market" corporatism is so GREAT for the CRPG consumer.

Supertastic !

 

[aweigh]

15-20 hours of game is more than enough to warrant full-price. It's about the quality, not the quantity, folks.

 

[EliotW]

15 hours sounds reasonable. Its more than you get in most single player expansions.

 

[MLMarkland]

I'm not speaking about MoW in particular, but just generally-

People need to stop measuring games in terms of absolute linear length.

I'd much rather have 5 hours than can be played 50 different ways, than 250 hours that can be played one way.

 

[aboyd]

I'd much rather have 5 hours than can be played 50 different ways, than 250 hours that can be played one way.

QFT

 

[Keldorn]

The quality vs. quanity argument usually has merit, though it is not infinite.

If you want to shell out significant cash for a hi-quality 3-day play, go ahead. Many will refuse to join you.

 

[aboyd]

/me shrugs

Apparently so many have been willing to join me that they're starting to roll 'em out for NWN 2 now.

I bought every premium NWN 1 module, except Infinite Dungeons & the Witch's Wake bundle. It didn't seem like a lot of cash to me. And since I'm only able to play maybe 5 hours a week, a "short" 10 or 15 hour game will last me multiple weeks.

 

[CrimsonAngel]

Well i will give it a chance and get it because maybe it will be great.

If sales are good we will maybe see more and better CRPG's and then we can all rejoice because CRPG's are back.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

I'd much rather have 5 hours than can be played 50 different ways, than 250 hours that can be played one way.

QFT

Well, I definitely would NOT. 5 hours is absurdly short for a computer game. Yes I agree that multi-path games are better than linear ones but 5 hour length? Come on MLMarkland are you serious? 5 hour length, about the length of HL2 Episode One? I can't believe a game developer like yourself actually came here and said that. It's a disgrace to charge the public for a game that will only give 5 hours of gameplay, unless it is at a VERY cheap cost.

 

[doctor_kaz]

You mean they might give us a whopping 16 hours of gameplay ? Holy fuck !

If you calculate the $ per hour you pay for it, you'll clearly see how 2007 "free-market" corporatism is so GREAT for the CRPG consumer.

Supertastic !

If it's $15 that's pretty good to me. To me, it's all about how long the module is for how much you pay for it.

I'd much rather have 5 hours than can be played 50 different ways, than 250 hours that can be played one way.

Send me a postcard when you find an RPG that can be played 50 different ways. Or even 3 different ways. Most games, in general, are lacking in replayability and with RPG's, you tend to replay 80% of the game like you did the previous time and then the other 20% are a few minor choices that you make. Today's five hour games (e.g. Half-Life Episode 2) aren't short because the developers made the games replayable. They are short because they are just short.

 

[roshan]

I dont see how anyone can derive any sort of satisfaction from a 5 hour long RPG. I dont care whether it is sold for 50 pence or 20 pounds, a five hour long RPG is worthless as far as I am concerned.

 

[RK47]

Hm. adventure books, like Lone Wolf...how long was it?
I'm not seeing the problem here. I basically love a good story added on my RPG, if the first time hits the spot, good enough. The second time is just an excuse to 'break'/ experiment new stuff/powergame.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Weren't premium models like, 10 dollar a piece? That sounds reasonable for 20 hours of gameplay.

 

[cardtrick]

10 dollars for 20 hours isn't just reasonable, it's great. Compare that to $30 for the 20 hour MOTB campaign, or $50 for the original NWN2 campaign with no more than 10 or 15 hours of decent material.

It would still be a pretty good deal at $20, but more than that gets iffy.

 

[Starwars]

The first part of an interview about the module have been posted here:
http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=In ... ail&id=311

Sounds good. Here is a nice quote:

Mysteries of Westgate has been designed to provide a balanced experience for all character races, classes, and alignments. As the module is very role-play-focused, classes with varied skills such as bards and rogues will, in some situations, have an easier time of it than melee-orientated classes. Conversely, characters with strong martial skills may have an easier time overcoming the terrifying array of enemies pitted against them, should combat prove inevitable. Paladins, and priests of good deities, may have a small advantage against the more fiendish or unholy enemies in the game.

I wanted to make alignment a real factor in Mysteries of Westgate. Most modern RPGs allow the player a certain amount of freedom, but draw the line at anything that will really affect the outcome of the story, funneling the player down a certain path as a story reaches its climax. While I appreciate the advantages of this approach, I wanted to do something more, to empower the player to make the choices a real chaotic evil character might. Therefore, in Mysteries of Westgate, actions have huge consequences. Whether the player is the scourge or savior of the city is ultimately up to them.

 

[MLMarkland]

Send me a postcard when you find an RPG that can be played 50 different ways. Or even 3 different ways. Most games, in general, are lacking in replayability and with RPG's, you tend to replay 80% of the game like you did the previous time and then the other 20% are a few minor choices that you make. Today's five hour games (e.g. Half-Life Episode 2) aren't short because the developers made the games replayable. They are short because they are just short.

I wasn't talking about Half Life 2 Ep1 or Ep2, or really any game released. HL2Ep2 is irrelevant to this discussion. Bringing HL2Ep games into the discussion about wider vs longer crpgs due to HL2Ep2's length is a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (an example of the logical fallacy of unsupported generalization)

What I'm telling you is that if you measure the quality of games by their linear length you are encouraging publishers and developers to produce and create linear crpgs without choice and consequence.

It's quite that simple.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I dont see how anyone can derive any sort of satisfaction from a 5 hour long RPG. I dont care whether it is sold for 50 pence or 20 pounds, a five hour long RPG is worthless as far as I am concerned.

Uhhhhhhh......so I guess you wouldn't like a highly replayable game that lasted for about 5 hours, yet had around 5 ways to ply through it and plenty of quality?

I'm with the quality side here. Length is great in other genres, but in an RPG kind of sucks, seeing as filler content in the genre tends to be some of the most boring shit imaginable. Orc caves anyone?

Then again, I want a game with default and forced ironman mode as well....so I'm on the EXTREME end....

 

[Ladonna]

Sorry, 5 hours is not good enough for me.

Fallout 1 is about the shortest length of game I enjoy when it comes to an RPG, and it doesn't have to be filler either. Especially if the game has any sort of character interaction.

If we were talking about a game with TBC, this would be even worse.

Call me old fashioned, but I like to build my character over time, and have a nice setting and plenty of interaction to go with it. Not go out on various quests, using different characters and having it totally unrelated in every 5 hour session. If others like that, go hard, but I am personally not interested.

Murrow, are you suggesting a one hour game that can be played 5 different ways? Plenty of content in that I am sure...Unless you are suggesting a game that takes 5 hours in each playthrough. Even then, 5 hours isn't a very long time when you are gaming.

You would need to have virtually NO travelling. NO party interaction. ONE quest (If that). NO character progression to really speak of. And this predisposes that the combat (If any) would require a real time clickfest to be able to hold other content.

If somebody could make one of these super RPG's that last an hour, then please do so. I promise I will play it and give it full feedback.

Edit: If a company made a weekly or fortnightly 1-5 hour 'Adventure' module, that continued from the previous module, then that might have some merit. This is impossible however, as having 5 choices that meant anything would no doubt mean ever more content as the modules continued to branch away depending on previous choices.

 

[OSK]

Sorry, 5 hours is not good enough for me.

What a size queen!

 

[The_Pope]

I'm not speaking about MoW in particular, but just generally-

People need to stop measuring games in terms of absolute linear length.

I'd much rather have 5 hours than can be played 50 different ways, than 250 hours that can be played one way.

Does this mean purgatorio only takes 20 minutes?

 

[spacemoose]

Sorry, 5 hours is not good enough for me.

sig material. too bad mine's full already

 

[MLMarkland]

Does this mean purgatorio only takes 20 minutes?

No, Purgatorio is a 20 hour game. But we didn't have to make an engine and get it into shape to develop a game with. We also reused a ton of art assets from the NWN2 OC.

Longer linear time = shorter non-linear time.

You have X amount of time to put into your game. Would you rather it be stretched out as long as possible? Or would you rather layer it in more of a matrix fashion (like Fallout).

I am bored to tears by a railroad plot line that has more in common with novels and movies than it does with a game.

There are people who are great at making linear plots -- they are novelists and film directors. Game designers should design games.

Part of what makes a game a game is that it offers manifold choices that lead to significant replayability.

It's a simple fact that if you offer more content at each point along the way, you have to offer fewer points or extend the time you spend making points, but it's not something you can extend ad infinitum.

I don't think anyone is suggesting people pay $50.00 for a 5 hour crpg.

Nowhere in this thread is that suggested.

However, paying $10 for a 5 hour crpg that is one in a series of installments is perfectly acceptable, especially if those 5 hours are really 25 hours, because there is five ways to do everything (a vast oversimplification just to make the point clear).

If I want to watch a great movie, I'll go to the theater or rent something. If I want to read a great book, I'll buy a great book. I want less movie and less book in my game and more game in my game.

That's why Fallout was a great game. It would not have been as good if the publisher had focused on it being a bajillion hours long.

----

Anyways, back to the topic of the thread, those screenshots of the water snakes/hydra /whatever they are look badass. I wonder if BatInTheHat of CODI fame made those.

 

[The_Pope]

Does this mean purgatorio only takes 20 minutes?

No, Purgatorio is a 20 hour game. But we didn't have to make an engine and get it into shape to develop a game with. We also reused a ton of art assets from the NWN2 OC.

Longer linear time = shorter non-linear time.

You have X amount of time to put into your game. Would you rather it be stretched out as long as possible? Or would you rather layer it in more of a matrix fashion (like Fallout).

I am bored to tears by a railroad plot line that has more in common with novels and movies than it does with a game.

There are people who are great at making linear plots -- they are novelists and film directors. Game designers should design games.

Part of what makes a game a game is that it offers manifold choices that lead to significant replayability.

It's a simple fact that if you offer more content at each point along the way, you have to offer fewer points or extend the time you spend making points, but it's not something you can extend ad infinitum.

I don't think anyone is suggesting people pay $50.00 for a 5 hour crpg.

Nowhere in this thread is that suggested.

However, paying $10 for a 5 hour crpg that is one in a series of installments is perfectly acceptable, especially if those 5 hours are really 25 hours, because there is five ways to do everything (a vast oversimplification just to make the point clear).

If I want to watch a great movie, I'll go to the theater or rent something. If I want to read a great book, I'll buy a great book. I want less movie and less book in my game and more game in my game.

That's why Fallout was a great game. It would not have been as good if the publisher had focused on it being a bajillion hours long.

----

Anyways, back to the topic of the thread, those screenshots of the water snakes/hydra /whatever they are look badass. I wonder if BatInTheHat of CODI fame made those.

I agree with you, it was a joke

By the way, can you release it on wednesday? AoD is on thursday, and I want time for it.

 

[Ladonna]

However, paying $10 for a 5 hour crpg that is one in a series of installments is perfectly acceptable, especially if those 5 hours are really 25 hours, because there is five ways to do everything (a vast oversimplification just to make the point clear).

As I said, how is this possible when it comes to installments?

5 branchs, 5 different endings right?

Ok, the next installment has another 5 different ways of doing things for each 5 possible endings from the first installement, right? And so on.

I can see time blowouts happening, along with more and more work on the part of the developers. Better off just making a Fallout 1 sized RPG. Or bigger if you have more content you wish to put in.

 

[MLMarkland]

I agree with you, it was a joke

lol, I better put my tin foil hat back on and regain my sense of humor.

Ok, the next installment has another 5 different ways of doing things for each 5 possible endings from the first installement, right? And so on.

You're right that it is hard, but making the game longer doesn't make it any easier, it makes it even harder (and therefore riskier and therefore less likely to be developed).

The "endings" you're positing as a stumbling block exist whether the game is functionally divided into installments or not, it's just that they are transparent when viewed from a macro perspective.

It's just as easy to take 5 snapshots of the game state at the end of 5 hours, as it is to not take those snapshots and just let things continue (from a technical standpoint).

The trick is not linking installments, the trick is producing a manifold reactive world in the first place.

I think design theory will advance over the next few years to embrace new ways of doing things (perhaps also re-embrace some old ways of doing things) such that it isn't as challenging as it is now to create a reactive world.

The bottom line is that it is -not- that hard, it's just that it is extraordinarily time consuming. And time consumption = risk and high risk leads to a lower chance of development.

So one way to mitigate the risk of developing advanced gameworld models is to shorten the linear length of the game, then when the new technologies that come about are more mature you can start to increase the length again and find some happy medium (and probably repeat the whole process again at a later date).