PS3 News: GDC 2008: Indie Devs Advocate Quality Over Quantity - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

GDC 2008: Indie Devs Advocate Quality Over Quantity

It's a common saying- "quality over quantity." In the game world, this means we should value the quality of the product rather the length of time it takes to beat the game. However, when the product costs $60, you tend to want the most out of your experience, and the longer it is...well, the more you get. Of course, nobody wants to play it if the gameplay is horrendous, so there's a fine line to walk. At this year's GDC, independent game developers have stepped up and advocated quality over quantity, no matter what.

According to GameSpot, a trio of indie devs - Kellee Santiago from thatgamecompany (flOw), Jon Mak from Queasy Games (Everyday Shooter), and Pekko Koskinen from Playsign all said they dislike it when the industry insists on scoring games based on length.

"Now games are for the most part experienced and--more importantly--measured linearly," said Santiago. "Game X is better than game Y because game X is 20 hours, while game Y is pretty good but it's only 10 hours long. Sandbox games have a sense of increased value, because they last 'forever.' An example is Katamari Damacy, which was a value at $20. The reviews for it qualified that it was a short game, but I don't think I'm alone when I say I logged more hours on Katamari Damacy than I did on God of War II, which I finished. I'm not saying God of War II is better or worse than Katamari Damacy--I really like God of War II, actually--but what I'm saying is I don't think this is an appropriate ruler anymore to measure the quality or the value of a game."

They have more than a few good ideas on the issue, and Santiago continues by suggesting that developers focus on the quality of time spent playing; in other words, don't treat "quality" and "time" as separate entities. Many will continue to claim a title "needs" to be of a certain length if they are to consider a purchase, but recent games like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare are capable of changing that viewpoint. Mak went further by saying a game's lasting effect on the player is of a greater value than the time spent playing.

"It's not about how many times you replay the game. You could play it once, and that game can stick in your head for the rest of your life. To me, that counts as replay," he said.

Well, it's bound to be a topic of conversation for quite some time, but we have to say we agree with these sentiments. If the experience is wholly entertaining and you emerge completely satisfied, who cares if it took 5 hours or 50 hours? You definitely got your money's worth, one way or the other.

2/18/2008 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (1 post)

Zapix
Monday, February 18, 2008 @ 6:23:52 PM
Reply

A good example of a good game vs time spent playing a game would easily be the Devil May Cry games imo. A good player can beat most levels of say DMC4 within a 15-20 minute range. For the sake of time, let's say it's 20 minutes per level at 18 missions (mission 1 and 20 are only like 1 minute). That's 6 hours of gameplay. It took me maybe twice as long as that to to win my first time around on EASY. Now playing on NORMAL mode, I'm doing it around 15-20 minutes a mission. The game itself is great though, so yeah, 12 hours or 6 hours, it's enjoyable. Plus you get to go back and play the game harder, unlock more things.

Call of Duty 4 which you mentioned, I beat the single player campaign in 6 hours flat on EASY. Enjoyed it, but the main reason here for CoD4 is to play it online, and that in it's own is the long lasting winner there. Taking time to unlock custom setups, perks, etc!

On the otherhand, I expect RPG games to be in the 40 hours range when I'm done, and give a long lasting enjoyable storyline. This is often no issue for me though since I like taking my time and leveling, buying equipment, exploring, etc.

In general, for shorter games, I think the important factor is 'replay' quality, not just quality of the first time around.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

How do you see Assassin's Creed Unity?
I see an awesome game, period.
I see a good game with a few bugs.
I see a fair game with big problems.
I see a glitchy, crappy mess.

Previous Poll Results