Heavenly Sword: Part Deux

[cthellis42]

I've suddenly had a thought. Ignoring a game's actual length, how much time on average do gamers play a title for? Some of them never finish a game. Some even barely play a few hours before buying the next big hit. Is there a slim possibility that a short 7-hour long title is actually perfectly sized for most gamers habits??

Really depends on length. But usually, I do "burst play," where I'll play for hours if I'm really into it, but if it starts to slow down I get distracted more easily by real life, other games, etc., then end up playing something else for a bit and coming back to the game.

My typical "burst" will be for 5-6 hours (longer if it's an MMO or other multiplayer game that I'm hanging with friends on a lot) for most games, and 10-12 if I'm notably drawn in. Invariably at SOME point after that, I end up in a dry spot or an irritating encounter that I don't want to keep replaying at the time, and set it aside for a while.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

MS probably has some very good statistics on that, thanks to achievments and stuff...

 

[patsu]

It depends on the age and game too. My playing habit is similar to cthellis42 except that my hours are shorter (30 minutes to 1.5 hours). If the game is too long, I'll never finish it -- like FF8. So I'm not too concerned with HS's play length.

But if a game is addicitive, then I may stay up for a few nights consecutively to finish it.

If a game is addictive and highly replayable, then I will go to specific sections and replay them possibly every night, for up to 2 years. The total game length doesn't play out here since I'm only interested in the intense moments. So far only Halo 1 and Resistance made this list.

For my other casual friends, they would want a quick game that they can win on the first few tries but has enough depth to sustain their shallow interests. So I'm hoping Heavenly Sword can be it.

I showed them Lair (while playing the sea serpent level). They keep shaking their heads and whispered, "Wow PS3 is really powerful" lol. If I had shown them the bombing run level, I think they'd be completely confused.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I would guess that 12 hours is a good length for a game nowadays.

 

[Gnerma]

The age old argument that is dug up whenever a game is full priced yet short. Some games are long with ok gameplay and production values. Some games are short with great gameplay and production values. For me a super fun game with high production values that lasts 4 - 8 hours (Silent Hill 2, Half-Life 2 EP1, Gears of War, God of War) is easily worth 30 hours of mediocre RPG gameplay (FF12, Oblivion). So you pay the same for both and play both. It all evens out. I don't really see what everbody's problem is (not here, other sites).

 

[aselto]

The age old argument that is dug up whenever a game is full priced yet short. Some games are long with ok gameplay and production values. Some games are short with great gameplay and production values. For me a super fun game with high production values that lasts 4 - 8 hours (Silent Hill 2, Half-Life 2 EP1, Gears of War, God of War) is easily worth 30 hours of mediocre RPG gameplay (FF12, Oblivion). So you pay the same for both and play both. It all evens out. I don't really see what everbody's problem is (not here, other sites).

I would agree, but games that last 6-8 hour usually have to make a really big impact on gamer (reviewer) to justify 9/10 or 10/10. That 6-8 hour game usually takes elements that weren't used so often in games or even introduces new and combines them in one awesome mix with great execution. Let's take Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time for example (it's a multiplatform title, so it's safe to discuss I hope ). It has 93% average on gamerankings.com, which is quite a feat and yet I had something like 8,5 hours on the last saved game only because I was staring at the locations every now and then (something I would do in Heavenly Sword, too ). You could also say that it's just a 3D platformer with quite simple brawls and puzzles. But it's got all that scores for a number of reasons. Setting of the game is awesome, as it was taken from One Thousand and One Nights, story was simple yet interesting, dialogues and monologues were really hillarious, successful implementation of time manipulation (not new, but had the most advanced options for the time), great animations at the time, one of first implemantions of graphical features and filters such as bloom and so on, beautiful music, puzzles were simple, but they were well fit into story and game flow, platforming felt great. There was no game like that at the time (sadly, worse sequels really showed that Sands of Time was a true masterpiece). Despite short length it was something that felt incredible and fresh to almost everyone that played it.

Now, Heavenly Sword. It has great execution, but it is a game from a quite worn out genre now and isn't bringing really fresh elements to the table and isn't reinventing the genre. It has great execution, but most people have an impression it's a "God of War"-like game (some may say it's better, but that's not the point now) and apparently it just doesn't have the same impact on gamers as God of War or Sands of Time had when they launched.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Do PS3 games something similar to Achievements? If so, it would definitely encourage people to finish games (perhaps even multiple times).

Not yet, though they supposedly coming with Home.

It all evens out. I don't really see what everbody's problem is (not here, other sites).

I think it's one of plain old economies. If you can only afford one game every couple of months say, you want it to last you that time. Also if you break the game down into price/hours, you get a comparative value versus other hobbies. A 40 hour game at £40 is £1 an hour. That's very good. An 8 hour game is £5 an hour, which is becoming more expensive than a trip to the movies. Then you might start thinking 'I can get this game, or I can go see five different films this month, or I can go bowling every week.' Depending on how much you're a 'real gamer' and how much gaming is just a pasttime, these economies might matter.

 

[Gnerma]

I remember there was a huge eruption of this after the release of Half-Life 2 Episode 1, which was one of the best gaming experiences I've ever chosen to pay for. But for those who ponied up, things really worked out (about 90% felt it was worth the money).

I understand all the different methods of reasoning and its that hours x price = value equation that people really need to get out of their heads. A shorter, better game experience can be just as worthwhile as a significantly longer one. It's usually people who haven't played whatever game in question who wave that equation around. Maybe they're trying to justify their lack of purchase, I don't know. Only after you finish a game can you really say if the experience was worth the price.

If you step back, take that lame equation and average it with some uber long RPG, an online shooter you've played for 100 hours and whatever else you play. Then look at it as how much you spend on gaming per hour things will look a little different.

Anyway, I finally got my copy so off I go.

 

[cthellis42]

It depends on the age and game too. My playing habit is similar to cthellis42 except that my hours are shorter (30 minutes to 1.5 hours). If the game is too long, I'll never finish it -- like FF8. So I'm not too concerned with HS's play length.

Just in case it wasn't apparent, I wasn't talking about "in one sitting" or anything. Just "in a row until I get distracted by another game."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I understand all the different methods of reasoning and its that hours x price = value equation that people really need to get out of their heads. A shorter, better game experience can be just as worthwhile as a significantly longer one.

If you step back, take that lame equation and average it with some uber long RPG, an online shooter you've played for 100 hours and whatever else you play. Then look at it as how much you spend on gaming per hour things will look a little different.

That may suit you just fine, and good for you, but for other folk that 'lame equation' isn't so lame because they're looking for a long term experience. It's no different to choosing to eat in a $200 a meal restaurant versus a $40 a meal restaurant versus a $10 diner. Or picking a local theatre production at £10 a seat versus going to the West End for £60. Different people have different budgets, and it's not for you or I to tell them what their priorities should be and what they should and shouldn't buy

 

[cthellis42]

Silliest thing ever that you all must try... Toss something with aftertouch while one of the bosses is taunting you (like during that first fight with Flying Fox) and laugh stupidly at the dialogue warping.

Don't do it TOO much, of course, or you might miss something... But FF's voice is grating all by itself, so I figure slowing it down to 1/10th the speed or something can only help.

 

[patsu]

Just in case it wasn't apparent, I wasn't talking about "in one sitting" or anything. Just "in a row until I get distracted by another game."

I see. Lucky you !

P.S. I just got the game from BestBuy too.

 

[Gnerma]

Well I've played through the first two missions and I'm really enjoying it so far. It starts off kind of badly with a lot of cuts from scene to scene which give an unsatisfactory impression. Aftertouch is hard to get the hang of and frustrating for a bit too long. Going into the second mission (as soon as Nariko chooses to use the Heavenly Sword) the game really comes into its own. It almost feels like you're playing a fairy tale from that point on. The game starts to flow much better and everything feels as it should.

This is probably the best looking game I've ever played. The vistas are second to none. The digital actors are a notch or two above anything I've ever seen before as far as motion capture and pure detail comes. The voice acting is up there with the best I've heard in a game as well. The game really takes its time. For instance, between missions there are mini monologues by Nariko that are just plain captivating to watch.

(minor spoilers in these paragraphs) The fantastical circus like tune that accompanies whiptail is so unexpected yet absolutely perfect. It's just one element in the "grind you through one ringer to the next" presentation that continuously throws curve balls.

One problem is the game has a somewhat disjointed feel and there are a few minor plot holes. It doesn't really explain the location where the 2nd mission takes place (the demo level). Ok sure it used to be "a place of learning" but how did Nariko get there and why is it a fortress exactly? Also, the shallow water in the whiptail boss battle area comes and goes without explanation. How did it get there? How did it drain? These types of issues often show up in highly compartmentalized games (like Gears of War).

That may suit you just fine, and good for you, but for other folk that 'lame equation' isn't so lame because they're looking for a long term experience. It's no different to choosing to eat in a $200 a meal restaurant versus a $40 a meal restaurant versus a $10 diner. Or picking a local theatre production at £10 a seat versus going to the West End for £60. Different people have different budgets, and it's not for you or I to tell them what their priorities should be and what they should and shouldn't buy

I think the biggest problem is people consider an hour to = an hour. And that is not the case in my opinion. Sure if my money was limited I'd pick Mass Effect or Eternal Sonata over Heavenly Sword or Bioshock. But if you're limited on money you can always rent the shorter games for ~$8 for 12 days from Blockbuster in the US. That is plenty of time to finish them at your leisure.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are a place for all types of games including the shorter, denser type. The root of the issue is that from what I've seen, many who pound that equation won't acknowledge that a 6 - 8 hour game could ever be worth full price.

 

[deepbrown]

Yawn - I'd rather spend money on ICO, SOTC, POP, HS etc. than on Oblivion.

 

[Gnerma]

Yawn - I'd rather spend money on ICO, SOTC, POP, HS etc. than on Oblivion.

I'd rather spend money on lottery tickets than Oblivion personally

 

[patsu]

DeanoC and nAo...

Congrats again on a job well done. I see lot's of positive comments coming in.

Who played Kai ? From early indication, she might gain a following... even though she's a little deranged

 

[ban25]

I played through the first chapter last night. My first impressions are as follows:

- The visual presentation is incredible. Everything from the character models and animation to the textures (stunning facial detail) and shader work is amazing! It is truly the most visually impressive experience I have ever seen -- bar none.

- Great cinematics. Although the cutscenes do tend to be a bit heavy in the beginning, they really draw you into the story. Voice acting and motion capture are excellent and among the best I've seen outside of Hollywood.

- Nicely varied gameplay. The fighting system is excellent (personally, I think it's up there with GoW and DMC), but I also enjoy Kai's sections a great deal. Other mini-games like the Canon sequence also serve as a nice diversion.

- I don't like Sixaxis motion sensing. The implementation here is fine -- there's nothing too difficult such that I couldn't complete a puzzle or destroy the catapults without getting frustrated. However, it's nothing that couldn't be done with analog sticks (and that reminds me, I should look in the options for that feature).

- The length is fine for me. I will probably finish the game in a few days, which is great. As much as I enjoy longer games, I rarely have time to complete them. On the other hand, I usually finish shorter games, and replay them if I enjoy them. I finished DMC3 six times. I don't know if I'll make it that many times through HS, but only time will tell.

Overall, hats off to Deano and his team, they've done a fantastic job! I have to admit, looking at those amazing visuals took a little bit of the shine off our game, and it's no slouch.

 

[SugarCoat]

I've suddenly had a thought. Ignoring a game's actual length, how much time on average do gamers play a title for? Some of them never finish a game. Some even barely play a few hours before buying the next big hit. Is there a slim possibility that a short 7-hour long title is actually perfectly sized for most gamers habits??

If its the only game you were looking forward to between now and the holiday releases i'd say 6-7 hours is too short. If you buy it with a few other things then its fine. Its only going to matter if its the only thing you're concentrating on, then you really will problably finish it in a casual gaming weekend.

The acceptable length is usually ~8-10 hours.

 

[ban25]

HS makes PA!

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/09/12

 

[patsu]

Gameplay videos:

Wow at the... acting !

More here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/slasherthrasher