PS3 News: inFamous Developer Says It's All About Quality, Not Length - PS3 News

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

inFamous Developer Says It's All About Quality, Not Length

You know, this is the second or third time we've written a specific piece about a common topic of conversation in the games industry, only to find some developer echoing those same thoughts a day or two later. Seriously, who's spying on us? Not that we mind, or anything.

You may recall our article pondering the inherent quality of certain short titles, which is in stark contrast to a lot of the whining from gamers who believe games should be longer. Well, according to an interview with Eurogamer, Sucker Punch creative director Nate Fox said developers need to focus "on quality, not quantity." This is the team working on the highly anticipated inFamous, so we can probably expect a relatively short adventure, but as Fox says, the quality is of the utmost importance.

"Look at God of War - it is an excellent game, an instant classic, and it's only like seven hours long. GTA IV is 30 hours long, and people wanted more? That just tells you how excellent that game is. It seems to me that it's not about length, but about quality. And because I love both of those games, I hope that developers never try to shoot for a long game, but instead for the most fun they can pack onto the disc - at any length. That's what we're doing for inFamous."

We have to agree. A game is about balance, and if the story and adventure in question best suits a 6-8-hour time frame, than so be it. And we have plenty of confidence in a game that looks good, regardless of length, so we'll continue to pay close attention to inFamous. Fox says we can expect some media on the Store when the game gets closer to its release date next year, and he also confirmed they would include Trophy support. In fact, he seemed surprised at the question and responded thusly-

"We'd be complete and total jackasses not to support them. They are videogame crack and everybody knows it."

Heh...videogame crack. Well, maybe for some people. :)

Related Game(s): inFamous

11/12/2008 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 (27 posts)

WaR_HaWk
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 @ 10:19:55 PM
Reply

i prefer GTA vice city, imo thats the best GTA game ever. LOng games r always boring.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

John Shoemaker
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 @ 10:42:17 PM
Reply

If they made the game 15-16 hours, I'd be happy. It's all fine and great that a game looks and plays good but if it doesn't take me long to beat it where is the point then? I don't want to play the same old levels in only a few minutes.
I want to play alot of different levels of the same quality for hours.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MetalHead09
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 1:01:04 AM
Reply

john you do have a point but eventually no matter how good a game is at the start, eventually it will lose its charm and newness or novelty or whatever if it goes on for to long.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

FeyeR
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 1:03:38 AM
Reply

As much as I respect your opinions Ben, Im going to have to disagree with you on this one. And remember, this is only MY opinion.

As a gamer, I expect more and more out of games. Spending $60 on a game that will last me less than 10 hours doesn't feel worth it.

Look at Metal Gear Solid 4, now that was worth it. And when I compare that to Heavenly Sword (though a great game), which lasted me about 5 hours, I feel that I have wasted my money in a way.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 1:22:55 AM
Reply

Having a game I can complete in one day and still have time to do the housework isn't worth full retail even if the story is enthralling. Am I supposed to play it a dozen+ times to keep me going until I can buy my next game? I can't do that with even my favourite games.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 2:57:14 AM
Reply

Why can't there be both long and medium/short games?

People are just choosing one or the other....

I love both

FFXII: 248hours(one playthrough
Heavenly Sword: 8 hours

Love both...

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wage SLAVES
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 2:59:33 AM
Reply

I have to agree! Don't you hate it when your playin a game and wish it were held over a couple of months. You say in your head now "THAT could've used some POLISH," or ''THAT voice over was kinda Unnatural".

I don't care how long GoW III is I'll buy it. Just please let it be in all that 1080p Glory like that awesome trailer! Kratos is a BAD ASS!

Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 11/13/2008 3:01:00 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TheRaPtuRe
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 4:47:03 AM
Reply

video game crack! lol, he's funny

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LunaticFringe
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 6:11:58 AM
Reply

6 hour games are fine, but they should focus on DLC , online/multiplayer/co-op/, overall replay value.


I think they nailed it with little big planet. they made an open ended game, that will grow and grow and grow.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

whooka
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 6:20:14 AM
Reply

I think it depends on the game as well. Some games/stories merit longer game play but at the same time if it looks like the game is getting repetitive in plot/action/level design, then it's somewhat obvious the designers were spreading it thin like mayonnaise. Also some of us have to work for a living so may not have endless hours of time to spend on a game so sometimes I like the idea of a game that you can jump right into and not have to spend a lifetime trying to complete.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gabriel013
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 9:44:52 AM

I only get a handful of hours per week to play but I would still rather have a game that takes a few weeks or even months to complete. I have managed to clock up over 100 hours in Mass Effect (in my 3rd playthrough now) and I'm still loving it months after purchase. Some of these shorter games I'd only be 24 hours in to have completed 3 full playthroughs.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tim Speed24
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 7:30:08 AM
Reply

Take COD4...it was a short game with high quality. I just wish in the single player there were 2 sniping missions as good as "All Ghilled Up". And also I wish there were 2 of that airplane type mission when you got to shoot the big guns.

I tend to think it was made short to fit on that other console...because of the format they use.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 8:09:57 AM
Reply

Willmorse

I agree with you, If you're going to make a short "pretty" game then there should be some great online to back it up to justify the cost. I'm kind of past the days where I will pay 60 bucks for a game that I play for 6-8 hours and then don't touch anymore. For really long games they can get away with it a bit because by the time you've played 60 - 80 hours (or more) You've got your money's worth and feel justified, but a shorter game even with great quality, you still feel kind of ripped off when you beat it the day you bought it.

Last edited by CH1N00K on 11/13/2008 8:10:24 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Buckeyestar
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 8:22:01 AM
Reply

I think a short quality game can be great. I look at it like it's a favorite movie. Every so often you put your favorite movie in to watch and then put it on the shelf. The same goes for the quality short games. Every so often you dust it off and play the whole thing through without investing huge amounts of time and then move onto whatever new games captures your interest, only to come back and play the short one again later the next time you want to relive it. If I have a favorite movie, I never just watch it once and the same applies to games. In which case shorter allows me to replay it and move on.

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

Aftab
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 9:42:35 AM
Reply

I think it to be highly dependent on the genre. I would most certainly expect a longer playthrough for an rpg then that of an action-adventure. And I'd probably expect more playtime through repetitive play from a racer or fighter than even from a rpg (although I don't know about mmorpg).

And ofcourse, although the number of hours of play isn't nearly as important other elements of the game, it can heighten or increase the overall sense of quality. For example, although I wasn't really a fan of the sluggish feel of Gears, I was impressed how much more gameplay was in Gears2, both through a larger single player campaign, and additional modes such as Horde.

Last edited by Aftab on 11/13/2008 9:44:20 AM

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

Vivi_Gamer
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 10:17:44 AM
Reply

FFXII'san example of a painfuly streched game, i got so sick of it i began rushing through it, still took me 80 hours, You'd walk through fields and temples, vist towns where there was nothing to do in them so you travel more andbash enemies on the way, by far the most agonising game ive had to play though. I dont mind about A games lenght, unless its RPG's which should be over 50 hours

but any other game genre i dot mind, if the main games short you can stil have online play,multiplayer and extra goodies which can keep you occupied, the PS3 thropie system is also a nice way of keeping them lasting longer

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

Joe_III
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 11:25:23 AM
Reply

It's not that short games can't be great, it's If someone can put a great game out there that lasts 15-20 hours, why should consumers have to pay the same price for a game equally good at half the game length?

This isn't a quality v. quantity issue. Game length is certainly a factor for the overall quality of a game. Rather, plot is. And most developers don't have the ability to tell a great story while keeping the game fun and exciting in under 12 hours.

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

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 12:30:43 PM
Reply

Good responses all. :) Personally, I've never cared much about the length of games, provided they're good. The only time it bugged me was during my PS1 RPG kick. I loved most all RPGs so much that I just wanted them to last as long as possible, so I was disappointed when something like Lunar: SSSC only took 20 hours or so. Heh.

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

coverton341
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 2:23:39 PM
Reply

I suppose in todays economic climate development times are becoming a factor for these companies. I just would really love to see an epic odyssey of a game in the near future. I mean if you do absolutely everything in Fallout 3 it can take you some time but if you stick to the main quest and blow through that its 10 hours max and then what? You have to start all over. Argh! Well I would love to have a good, plot thick, story driven, epic to put on my shelf to sit along side Uncharted and Dead Space.

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

shaydey77
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 4:38:09 PM
Reply

Im sure that the infamous game developers wife would not agree with that headline.

Last edited by shaydey77 on 11/13/2008 4:38:48 PM

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

Aftab
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 9:49:07 PM

Haha, good ole length joke. If you must know, if you're too long, you'll miss her "spot", and hit the "wall". She won't enjoy that because it can cause internal bruising and even tearing (you can see that when she starts holding her lower abdomen region). Samething with girth...too much of that, too, isn't too comfortable for her. I've had those problems, and believe me, it is furstrating when you know you can't enjoy your woman without causing her some pain.

Last edited by Aftab on 11/13/2008 9:50:05 PM

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

Aftab
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 10:08:32 PM

The other misconception about "conjugal relations" is how the woman sounds. Just before the "height of excitement", she's not predisposed to screaming. On the contrary, she most likely will be holding her breath (and may let out a gasp or two thereafter). The surest sign of your "performance", is her pulse, particularly noticeable betwixt her throat and colar bone. I know that it is off-topic, but it is clear some of our brethren here are lacking some, how would I put it, basic education.

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

xStatiCa
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 5:09:24 PM
Reply

"Im sure that the infamous game developers wife would not agree with that headline." - shaydey77

He will have just as difficult time convincing me about games too. You can not take length of gameplay over quality or vice versa. You need both to have a great game. Some developers deliver both and some deliver on only one. Why choose only one when when you can have both? If some developers can deliver then others should be able to too.

Last edited by xStatiCa on 11/13/2008 5:10:47 PM

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

shaydey77
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 5:27:21 PM
Reply

@ xStatica I think you hit the nail perfectly on the head.But then the same can be said about everything in life. theres alot of car manufactureres but they dont all make great cars..sadly its the same with developers..and funds i guess!

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

Daedusian
Thursday, November 13, 2008 @ 6:52:08 PM
Reply

Coming from the dev, this has to be good news about the game! Saying that quality is more important to them could mean that they created a great story for inFAMOUS. On the other hand however, they could be trying to save their @sses b/c they feel the game might be too short. Let's hope it's not the latter. =)

I do agree tho, the length of a game does not bother me, unless I am really enjoying myself. Like he basically stated, it's better to fit the disc with as much "fun" and less repetition than to have both.

Last edited by Daedusian on 11/13/2008 6:53:52 PM

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

WorldEndsWithMe
Saturday, November 15, 2008 @ 12:07:57 AM
Reply

Still want infamous, but this news worries me.

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

Xplicit
Tuesday, November 18, 2008 @ 4:38:59 PM
Reply

i think COD4 and COD5 are perfect examples, there both very good and short while playing the solo mode, but there still packed full of action, however, nowadays most people buy a game just for the online multiplayer mode, i know as soon as i got COD5 i sat down put the difficulty to 3rd hardest and completed the game in one sitting (under 10 hours) but i still enjoyed it and i still play the online mode, which i think makes up for the length as you know your going to spend days on end playing online!!!!!

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

Got the Wii U?
Yep, had mine since day one.
Yeah; I just recently picked it up.
No, but I might get one soon...
No, and I don't ever want one.

Previous Poll Results