Game Length

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Nightblaze1

I'm sorry but this thread has gotten me disappointed about the game, and now I am kind of regretting that I pledged money for it. The biggest concern I have with any game I play is its length. I feel I should be getting the amount of content I payed for and then some.

I guess the amount you paid for it is subjective GD costs about $20, D3 cost about $60, so 1/3 the length / playtime would be ok ?

I like really really long games, whether they are shooters, action games or role playing games.

If I like a game I wish it were larger / longer, if I don't like it, length at best makes no difference, at worst becomes a nuisance (if I still want to finish it)

I was pretty disappointed with the length of D3 that I had to make it longer myself. I spent 13 hours in act 1, 12 hours in act 2, 10 hours in act 3, and 3 hours in act 4 (disappointingly short). From 38 hours and 35 mins of total gameplay on normal difficulty, that was no where near long enough for me. I was expecting at least 50 hours.

it's about as long as I thought it would be, certainly did not expect 50 hours

So, now I fear Grim Dawn will not meet my standards of game length. The only ARPG that has met my standards of game length is Sacred 2, however, the gameplay of Sacred 2 was very repetitive.

sounds like GD will not meet your standard, yes. As for Sacred 2, that would was too big for me, I got bored by the size of the world (and the gameplay) and stopped playing.

[Roros]

I'm an arpg locust and will jump on anything I see. Sacred 2 and Loki are the only arpg's I've played but didn't finish.
S2 was pretty fun for the first portion, but eventually progress stagnated so bad that it started feeling like an mmo. We'd play for hours only to gain a single level which only yielded us an intangible tiny increment in attributes or something.

It's interesting as progress wasn't much different in S1, but we enjoyed it in a completely different way where navigating and exploring the world was somehow much more fun.

[eisprinzessin]

Originally Posted by medierra

Well, I'd keep in mind that the game won't be short, just the first installment will be. Basically we don't have the budget to make enough content for a full-length game as our first release. So, instead, we're doing it in installments and using the profit from the first to help fund the next. Think of it like we're currently making Greece.

Originally Posted by medierra

We also wouldn't really want to turn this into a giant TQ-scope project. TQ cost way too much to develop given what the market is now. I think the smaller initial release we're shooting for is good. The problem is that the more funding you use to build the game - the more sales you need to make and the longer it takes before you start to see revenue. We don't want to spend several million dollars making the game and then go out of business in the 8 months it takes after release before the game becomes profitable and royalties start coming in.

... pre-KS feedback

[Nightblaze1]

Originally Posted by mamba

I guess the amount you paid for it is subjective GD costs about $20, D3 cost about $60, so 1/3 the length / playtime would be ok ?

No, 1/3 of the length of D3 will certainly not do at all. That is why I said further on in my post that D3 was too short. I would love Grim Dawn to be longer than D3 if anything, but I know that isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by mamba

it's about as long as I thought it would be, certainly did not expect 50 hours

If D3 had only taken 4 or so years to make like a normal game, than I would expect around 20 - 30 hours or so of gameplay. But, since it took them 10+ years to make, what had they been doing all that time? I know, a few years prior to proper development there was trouble with the company, but at around 2005, they began proper development of the game. So it essentially took them 8 years to make what Runic Games are making in 2 years and a bit. See my frustrations?

Originally Posted by mamba

sounds like GD will not meet your standard, yes. As for Sacred 2, that would was too big for me, I got bored by the size of the world (and the gameplay) and stopped playing.

I don't expect GD to meet my standards for game length, that is why I am having regrets. Though don't get me wrong, I know that it will definitely deliver in gameplay, graphics and replay-ability.

But hey, I would have purchased it anyway, so I am not worried, just a little annoyed I didn't see this thread before I pledged haha.

[eisprinzessin]

Originally Posted by medierra

It is hard to judge exactly how long it will be in terms of gameplay time from start to finish relative to TQ. We're designing the world a little bit differently and we plan on having a higher density of optional quests. So, a huge factor in play-time will be how many optional quests players choose to finish and what percentage of the more open levels they clear out.

TQ was somewhat of a narrow corridor of levels from beginning to end. Grim Dawn will have wider, more open areas with more in them. So the distance from stand to finish in a straight line might be shorter but the amount of actual playable world-space will be larger, at least when comparing it to Greece. Based on the way we're designing it, there should also be a huge amount of replay value.

All in all, you can expect that Grim Dawn will be smaller than TQ as a whole, which is why we're planning to sell it for less than half TQ's price at release.

Originally Posted by medierra

We've already said that the first release will include about as much playable area as Greece or maybe a little larger. I think we're close to that now and should have a pretty decent playable area once we finish laying out the world. This is the first installment of a $20, so I wouldn't expect the world to be as big as all of TQ. We're planning to keep building it out though with expansions packs, so eventually it should surpass TQ.

The levels also play a little differently. TQ was basically a long, linear corridor. A lot of the area in each terrain region was taken up by boundaries and unplayable area. In Grim Dawn, it is a larger open space where most terrain regions are almost completely comprised of playable area. [...]

I think play-time will be even more variable in Grim Dawn since it is less linear. With a wider, more open space, you could spend a huge amount of time exploring an entire area or race across it in a relatively short time since you don't have to follow a long, winding, linear path. [...]

Originally Posted by medierra

I think play-time for GD might actually be greater than Greece, I just don't want to over-promise. How long does it typically take you guys to play through Greece?

It is also a little harder to estimate an average since the open design of GD means that it will probably take less time to complete the most minimal run-through, going straight from one objective to another but much more time to explore everything.

... more feedback

[mamba]

Originally Posted by Nightblaze1

No, 1/3 of the length of D3 will certainly not do at all. That is why I said further on in my post that D3 was too short. I would love Grim Dawn to be longer than D3 if anything, but I know that isn't going to happen.

yep, saw that, so you will be disappointed in D# length and GD length, sorry.

I meant this more as a general rule, that if something costs a third and playtime is a third, is that then an acceptable playtime for people in general ? If you had been ok with the D3 playtime, would you be ok with GD being a third of that since it cost a third or would you still expect the same playtime ?

If D3 had only taken 4 or so years to make like a normal game, than I would expect around 20 - 30 hours or so of gameplay. But, since it took them 10+ years to make, what had they been doing all that time?

beats me, but I assume much of what was done in the first 6 years did not make it into the release at all, it's not like they created content for 10 years

I don't expect GD to meet my standards for game length, that is why I am having regrets. Though don't get me wrong, I know that it will definitely deliver in gameplay, graphics and replay-ability.

hey, I would like it to be longer too, but I will have to wait for expansions for it eventually be as big - and hopefully bigger - than TQ + IT

[Nightblaze1]

Originally Posted by mamba

yep, saw that, so you will be disappointed in D# length and GD length, sorry.

I meant this more as a general rule, that if something costs a third and playtime is a third, is that then an acceptable playtime for people in general ? If you had been ok with the D3 playtime, would you be ok with GD being a third of that since it cost a third or would you still expect the same playtime ?

I wouldn't be happy with the play-time if this were the case, but I wouldn't expect any longer and would be content. $20 bucks is definitely worth it. If Grim Dawn manages to take me around 20 hours to complete, it would be beyond worth the money. =)

I am one of those types of people that likes to explore absolutely every part of the map, stop and absorb it all. So I feel that I will easily get my moneys worth with play-time alone.

[Rolo42]

A short initial GD would disappoint me but that's a good thing: too many games left me with, "Whew, glad that's over!", or didn't hold my interest long enough to complete (cut my losses).

I prefer quality, not quantity when you can't have both right away. Besides, my time is limited--as is everyone's--and I prefer to get the most from it.

I am going to believe that the blood, sweat, and tears that will have gone into GD will have created another perfectly satisfying game that I will inevitably have to refer to as, Crack Dawn.

[yerkyerk]

I'm not sure if gaming time plays that big a role in GD; TQ was maybe 50-60 hours for a complete playthrough for an experienced player (not sure, estimation from start Normal Act 1 to completion in Legendary), I still spent hundreds of hours on Titan Quest with farming and trying out different class combo's. If the replayability is well done, you'll easily get ten times your money's worth out of such games.

[Calvin]

The problems I had with Titan Quest's lengthy acts & areas were:

1. You take 12 steps, you fight a group. A tidy little group with 1 bone pile, a few normal mobs, and 1 or 2 supporting mobs. Then you take another 12 steps and do it again. Forever. And ever. And ever.

2. You don't hit the monsters, you attack at them. And not in a threatening fashion. And they don't bleed, they just instantly ragdoll. Instead of killing monsters, it just feels like you're poking stuffed animals.

3. Everything is aggressive.

4. The towns were so boring (voice acting, quest dialogue etc) that you didn't have a better option. It's like I kept praying for the next town to get away from the boring areas, only to pray to get away from the boring town.

5. The bosses. They were infinitely childish and drab. The Telkines are probably the lamest bosses I've ever seen in a video game. When the boss fights are the only thing to look forward to, and they're pathetically cartoonish and bland, it ruins the whole game. The game would have been so much more epic if you fought gods instead of telkines. Or anything instead of telkines.

6. The skills. What made the long areas of Diablo 2 tolerable is your skill set. If you can cast hurricane or frozen orb, teleport around, blowing up herds of naked demons by the second, then you could play it over and over. You don't get skills like that in TQ. Often times it's just countless 1v1 battles, instead of 1v25.

The whole game felt like the secret area. I took it about as seriously. It was just disheartening that a game with such a cool setup & idea, coupled with great historical weapons like the falcata was made for people that play Candyland all day.

I could play a 500 hour long ARPG if it didn't suffer from these things.

Edit: Or a 15 hour ARPG over and over and over.