Dungeon Siege 3 - Interview @ RPS
 

Chris Taylor (the Gas Powered Games' Chris Taylor) has been interviewed at Rock, Paper, Shotgun about Dungeon Siege 3. As a consultant only, he often doesn't have much to say about the game directly but he does make some interesting comments on game length and other issues:
While we're on this game, PC Gamer has a short preview:
More information.

Sounds like he has fooled himself into believing we want to play the minigames they put out nowadays. If I spend $69 on a game, and it lasts only a few hours, I get quite upset. Guess I won't be buying his stuff anymore.

Chris, if you're reading this, the reason Dungeon Siege was bad, was because it had no real story. It was boring.

That's so not true at all! The 'fun factor' is the most important to get me talking about it with friends.

I agree with you. I have played a lot of games I never finished and still talked a LOT about with friends.

If that wasn't the case, then what about games without a real ending (like sports games, simulations, the Sims, etc.) or really long games (like strategy games)?

I'm glad he isn't making this game.

This guy is a moron in terms of making great games.

He's also ignoring perspective, which is what drives a lot of people. I'm certainly driven by the IDEA - that a game will be long-lasting. Whether I "complete" it or not, is largely irrelevant. I hate the trend of short consumable games, that are more like tiny snacks than a fulfilling experience.

Also, did anyone "complete" an MMORPG, ever? Do we need to look at the money they're making to completely bury this ridiculous argument? ;)

Well, shooter games actually develop into "mini games" right now. They become shorter and shorter.

8 hours is too short, and the sole reason why I didn't buy a few games.

Well… I wouldn't personally be so absolute that he's wrong.
I've noticed myself that I often have lower opinion on games that I didn't finish because of their size… And yeah, that sounds bleeding obvious until I look back and realize that I've been playing that game exclusively for a month before I started losing interest. The problem might partially be that all the fun I had ends up being replaced by the boredom of the few last sessions.

Then again there plenty of games that I've never finished but I still have a very high opinion of, so that is certainly not the only factor.

Naturally, if a game is boring - it doesn't help if it's a long game.

The thing is, though, that you can't use that as some kind of universal guideline.

Reading between the lines, this is about how much it costs for developers to make easily marketed explosion-games, that the average consumer will find appealing.

That doesn't make the games better, it just helps when you need to turn a profit with sure-fire development procedures.

8 hours of explosion after explosion will sell, and it will be profitable because you can market explosions easily.

Afterall, how can you resist something that goes boom all the time? ;)

It's different if it takes 100 hours before it starts getting boring though.
I can't blame a game for not keeping entertained for more than that.
It would, however, make more sense if I was to blame a game for not keeping me entertained all the way to the end.

Your cynical 'between the lines' observation finds me mostly in agreement, but I still think there's a fair chance that the meaning of that quote could be something like: we are not going to make a game that will drag for a length longer than necessary to achieve a complete and satisfying experience'.

Well, again, I'm very much driven by the perspective of a game. Like, when I sit down to play something like Oblivion - I'm fascinated by the possibilities. It's not that I will necessarily play it for 100 hours, but the fact that I COULD do that, makes me interested in investing myself. Because I tend to find games that are very short extremely unappealing, because I know they'll end at any moment. That makes it hard for me to enjoy and immerse myself, because who likes having good things end ;)

So, I generally ignore "short" CRPGs - especially in a game like Dungeon Siege. Dungeon Siege is, basically, a watered down Diablo clone - and it's ALL about building a powerful character.

Why would I want to invest in building a powerful character and salivating over loot, if I know the game will end in a few hours? That seems incredibly counter-productive to me.

That's why I think his point is way off. It'd be different if the game was a strong story-driven shooter, or whatever. Something that you don't really invest in - as much as simply an experience as a pleasant snack.

Yeah, I'm quite the cynic when it comes to the industry. Especially with a developer like Chris Taylor, who went from being a visionary developer, to a completely dull cookie-cutter developer.

Can you say Space Siege? ;)

But I'm happy for you, that you have this trust in their best intentions. In fact, I think they DO believe they're doing the right thing. It's just that their "right thing" is about return for their investment, and that's not really the optimal motivator for the best game - from where I'm sitting.

Often true for me as well but then… Fallout (1)

(it's not the size of the game etc…)



Fair enough. I haven't played any of the 'siege' games so I certainly can't comment. (and I'm not even interested about this one yet) My thoughts were exclusively in regards with the quote in the op.

I just think that a good way for a company to get that return for their investment is often doing a good job. We might end up with a product simply intended to draw money from us, but if it's a product made well and professionally it would still worth it.

Worth it, well, sure. I don't mind paying for McDonald's once in a while - as I know what I'm getting.

But consider that we're supporting mediocrity - when we could be supporting superiority.

That's really the gist of where I'm coming from.

I'd rather have 1 great game than 20 mediocre or "ok" games.

In fact, I'd be fine paying much more for a great game, than the average price.

So, my point is:

It's easy to make a mediocre game and sell it, if you're competent and you have the financial backing.

But is it the best game it could be, and is it worth it?

Sure, if you're about money.

If you're about the game… I think not.

But I'm not talking about mediocrity… I'm talking about a professionally constructed product. ie if I want to make a lot of money selling food, I might start a fast-food restaurant or I might start one that serves good healthy food and expect that this quality is what will eventually get me noticed.

So if I say 'I'm going into the food bussiness because I hear there's a lot of money to be made there', I'm not offering enough 'data' for negative or positive criticism on the quality of what I'm going to serve.

Something isn't good because it's professionally made. At least, that's not how I see it.

Personally, I think Avatar (the movie) is a fantastic "product" made with a ton of skill and craftsmanship. Yet, I think it's one of the worst crap movies I've ever seen. It's not even mediocre, it's just plain bad.

The two concepts don't connect, for me.

Not in your experience, I guess.

In my experience, it's the drive and the goal that determines the outcome - not the skill involved.

The more people are involved, the harder it gets to be precise about this, because they can all contribute based on different motivations. But ultimately, on any big project - it's one guy at the top with the overall vision, and that's the guy who will have the largest say in the outcome.

The way I see it: If it's just bad then it's not made with a ton of skill and craftsmanship.
A skilled and scrupulous craftsman would not just accept to produce mediocrity.

So ultimately the way I see it it's not just about one's motivations but also about one's sense of professional 'honor'.


And about that I don't think we're going to agree so lets leave it at that and go back talking about the appeal of torturing naked ladies in dark dungeons (also because I don't care at all about this game but the Witcher… no contest).

I think most CRPGs are too long.

40+ hours? The vast majority of the greatest novels ever written in any language wouldn't take that long to read. CRPGs are bloated with filler to justify the $60 price tag.

There's cost, and there's value. I have a good income and don't mind shelling out cash for games. Long length does not mean good quality.

Face it, CRPGs are at best decent examples of interactive genre fiction and most are full of clichés. I wish they'd cut the fat out of them and make them leaner and less likely to bore me with repetitive crap so they can put a blurb on the box telling you how long it is. A timesink is a timesink.

Yes, I agree. "Length' is irrelevant on its own because it's all relative to the content. I think it's harder to do a good RPG in a very short (say, < 10 hours) game because you need a sense of character and story development but, otherwise, each game should be judged on the balance of its merits. I'd much rather the filler is jettisoned and have a good, shorter game with denser content in many cases.

You don't make a good game simply by having it shock full of dense content. You also need to allow the player to breathe.

Some of us adore the non-linear open world structure CRPGs - and you can't make such a game without perspective and you don't strictly script every single encounter.

Dungeon Siege 3, if it's ANYTHING like the past games - and if it's ANYTHING like Diablo - needs to be big. If not, then at least it needs to be replayable with increasing levels of difficulty.

If they're just calling it Dungeon Siege 3 - but are really making something else entirely, then I guess a shorter game could work. I just don't see the reason why you'd go about it, like that.

Then again, I was never much into snacks. I prefer hearty meals more or less all the time.

"Hearty' implies rich and flavourful, so of course you'd want more. DS1 and DS2 were wildly different. In my opinion, the first didn't have the content or gameplay to sustain it and could have been much shorter.

My point is, the length needs to be appropriate for the content, not just long for the sake of it. Neither DS1 nor DS2 were non-linear open worlds, so what does that have to do with it?

I didn't say they were non-linear, that was just an example of where length is important.

DS1 was utter crap, and cutting crap short doesn't make it any better. That's certainly a pretty sad argument.

The length wasn't an issue at all - gameplay was the issue.

Improve gameplay, and the length would have been quite appropriate.

But there's no disagreement here, really.

You like short games, no problem with that. I just don't, that's all.

I liked DS2 a lot. It adressed several of the concerns I had with the first game. It was obviously more inspired by Baldur's Gate than by Diablo, with deeper companions, companion quests, a somewhat non-linear progression, sidequests, a richer background story etc. To bad the expansion went back to the DS1 approach.

No, I don't "like short games". I'm just not focused on length as a goal in itself.

I'm very focused on length (please, no penis jokes). Very few short games interest me, and length has A LOT to do with that.

You don't seem to care about length, as long as the game is good.

That's just a matter of taste, and again - there's no disagreement.

I rather play Splinter Cell: Conviction (takes a day to finish) than Assassin's Creed 1 (takes a week). The quality of experience is more important than length. If a game is longer due to more quality content, fine, but length doesn't equal good in it's own. If a game is short due to lack of content, then it's still the level of content that is bad.

I don't really care too much, but it needs to contain enough content to be interesting. You just can't present a good story or interesting characters in a few hours.

The fact that quality is more important than length, doesn't mean length isn't important. Splinter Cell is an ok game, and I think that last one would be a lot better as a longer game.

Assassin's Creed was a one trick pony, and it was crap after 30 minutes - when I realised that it was just endlessly repeating itself. I don't care how short or long it is, I'd never play it through to the end, regardless.

Length is important to me, and I mean VERY important.

Can I enjoy a short game? Yeah, it's happened - but it's very rare, and I actually stay far away from short games, because I know they're not for me.

Again, it's a matter of taste.

Some people don't mind short games, and they don't need perspective and a sense of being able to enjoy a game for several hours.

Some genres can handle a short length better than others. Something like Dungeon Siege, specifically, could never appeal to me as a short game - no matter how brilliant the gameplay was.

Rather, it might appeal to me - but it would still be a LOT worse as an 8 hour game, than a 30 hour game. I'd rather have content "spread out" for 30 hours, so I can enjoy the gameplay for a longer time. But nothing is that simple, and it depends on your vision as a developer.

When I play "designer", the last thing on my mind would be a short game.

Anyone truly believing the original Dungeon Siege would have been better as an 8 hour game, with all the "content/story" placed in those 8 hours - are not thinking this through. The hack and slash genre doesn't lend itself well to short games.

That game suffered because it had incredibly simplistic gameplay, and a non-existant story. Chris Taylor is a moron as a designer, if his conclusion is that the game was too long.

I think it's reasonable to instead say "the game is too short", say "the game is lacking in content". I have seen attempts by developers to make the game longer, by implementing mechanics that simply take longer to do. The large amount of "do X # times" quests in Assassin's Creed make the game radically longer than neccessary, so did the "guide NPC to LOCATION" quests in Forsaken Gods. Skipping these and radically reducing game length in hours, is acceptable by my standards.

A game rich on content is automatically longer.

We can agree that a game without meat on it, is a boring game. Assassin's Creed is such a game.

Even so, I'd rather have a 30 hour game than an 8 hour game - if there was meat on it.

But I wouldn't want a 100 hour game, with 8 hours worth of meat.

It's a balancing act - and yes, there are exceptions.

I generally don't care for shooters, but I play them occasionally. Shooters are "ok" as short games, but it's still not about length. It's simply about how long I can stand doing the same things over and over, regardless of story.

Strong gameplay and story will carry something for much longer - and again, I'm a huge fan of perspective. That's a gigantic part of the immersion factor for me, that I'm not worrying about ending the game too soon.

When looking over the pile of games still on my list I decided to look up the amount of hours promised by the game. RPG's usually boasted 60-120 hours. The longest actiongames ended up around 15-25. RTS games are an entirely different beast. You will probably do a map at a time which depending on your strategy, skill and general perfectionism can take longer and shorter time.

Personally I tend to save the longest games to summers, but the games that takes a very long time to play tend to grasp me in a way that shorter games do not. The Final Fantasy games took so long to play that when the ending credits began to roll it was like saying goodbye to a family. I enjoy that kind of game, but it's impossible to play during most months of the year.

I prefer the shorter and more packed games during spring/autumn when I study. I want to be able to finish a game during a weekend and if I happen to enjoy a game too much I need to get it done quickly so it doesn't stop me from my studies.