19 hours?

[[[LuCkY]]]

ah okay, didn't know that.

But weren't that the dudes who played on normal?

Besides that, 19 hours is pretty okay, but a bit underwhelming compared to the 30 hours mentioned by the Gabester

Thought he said something like 36 hours.

 

[SFLUFAN]

Well - we could always just email the Gabester with his quote and ask "Hey Gabe, whatever happened to that other 15 hours of gameplay?"

 

[Demonmerc]

I think it really depends on how dynamic the A.I. is, and how many different ways you can tackle a problem in HL2.

Don't forget that we will be seeing the first of many SP maps a short while after the SDK comes out. Challenge maps if nothing else.

Another way to add replayability in the game is to forgo using certain weapons. That way you will be forced to tackle enemies differently, and hopefully the A.I. will play out differently as well.

 

[Nex321]

How many hours a day do you guys play?

19-20h a little? I play upto 3h a day(if its a game that I really like), it will take me about 7-10 days to beat it which is perfectly fine.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

I'll look at everything twice, I'm the kind of player who will walk when any person would look weird running irl. And then I'll suck and get stuck at several parts in the game. I'll probably get through it in about 30 hours.

 

[seed007]

Are you people insane? 19 hours is a VERY long FPS...I don't know what you were expecting, even the 25-35 hour estimation seemed incredibly long.

 

[SFLUFAN]

Alright I just emailed Gabe to ask about this discrepancy. In the VERY RARE event that he actually responds, I'll be sure to let you know.

In all honesty, I think that Gabe said that before a lot of the "fat" was trimmed from the game to make a leaner, meaner product.

 

[mortiz]

19 hours is a decent enough length, however what people are slightly pi$$ed off about is the fact that on repeated occasions VALVe dropped the time thirty-six hours. If VALVe had said it's about 20 hours from the start then people wouldn't be moaning. Me? I couldn't care either way, I think 20 hours is long enough.

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

I still think we should not state 2 reviewers' experience as a fact. I'm sure they were very eager to play and maybe not so hardcore fanboys like we are.
So, reloading a certain level to watch what happens if you do certain things differently might not be something they did often. Maybe they spent less time with the physics-puzzles, etc.

Ah well, just trying to be optimistic

 

[Homer]

Damn, they are really starting to give up on length for games. Anyone remember dark forces 2: jedi knight? That game was 20 BIG levels long and reviewers said it was to short. did anyone play jedi acadamy(dark forces 4)? that game was about a quarter that length and nobody said a thing. If I'm gunna pay 50 bucks for a game I want it to take some time.


And by the way, 19 hours is very short. If you want a good length for a game(allthough it IS a rpg) pick up gothic 2. you should be able to spend 50 hours on a game if you want to. And about this "just play it on hard" stuff, if a game takes a extra 10 hours to complete because you have to load every 15 seconds thats not fun. If the hard setting is what it should be then it wont take much longer at all.

 

[Narcolepsy]

This has been said before, but I'll say it again:

Quality over Quantity!

Remember that. If Half-Life 2 can manage to have no boring, uninteresting, and run-of-the-mill segments for 19 straight hours, I consider that a monumental accomplishment.

 

[RoyaleWithCheese]

gothic is an rpg, kinda bad comparison with an fps

 

[joule]

This has been said before, but I'll say it again:

Quality over Quantity!

Remember that. If Half-Life 2 can manage to have no boring, uninteresting, and run-of-the-mill segments for 19 straight hours, I consider that a monumental accomplishment.

Precisely!

 

[Homer]

There arent really any new fps games that did a good job with length. It was really in the good old days that a game took the time it was supposed to. Even new rpgs dont do a good job usually, the reason I used gothic 2(1 was good too) as a point was because it was just about the only game that I felt satisfied with when I finished in the last few years.

 

[Xenome]

i mean i think call of duty was something like 20 hours. i got through with that game thinking, "woah, that game was awesome. but what the heck, i can't believe i'm done already"

Call of duty was like 3 hours..

How can you possibly say 20 hours about cod..LOL

 

[InFeRnO]

"Quality over Quantity!"


Thank you, someone that isnt mentally challenged.
Honestly, if it's the same length as Doom3 or a bit longer, that would be perfect. I play maybe 1.5/2hours at a time (if that), being in university it's hard to find the time to get on the computer, let alone play games. I think you're all worrying too much. If it's going to bug you so much, then why are you still reading this? That's what I thought.

 

[marshmallow]

So once you beat it once you'll never play it again?

 

[Edcrab]

19 hours sounds fine to me- only thing which annoys me slightly is how I pictured it being almost twice as long after Valve statements. Damnation.

But yeah, Quality>Quantity is quite right. Probably the only equation that doesn't make me want to kill people when I read it. Stupid mathematics.

 

[Homer]

More High quality Quantity>Less High quality Quantity

 

[Yombi]

er when gabe said "36 hours" he didn't say what difficulty did he? The reviewers would of been rushing through most of the plot not paying attention to more in-depth things that we would over-analyse .

19 hours on normal will probably take me 36 anyway, killing random friendly NPC's and mucking round. It's not going to die quickly with me.

 

[Narcolepsy]

More High quality Quantity>Less High quality Quantity

Yes, in a perfect world, games would be perfect and 100 hours long, everything would be free, your tie would never get stuck in the peanut butter jar, and unicorns would fly free through the land of happiness.

 

[Neutrino]

Heh, I remember when they said Doom 3 was going to be 20 hours how everybody complained and said, oh no Half Life 2 will be so much better than that....

So much for that idea.

 

[Jarman]

If I'm gunna pay 50 bucks for a game I want it to take some time

A 6 year wait to get 20 hours of gameplay? Well... IF the HL1 length estimate was the same, they will be more than enough.

The reviewers would of been rushing through most of the plot not paying attention to more in-depth things that we would over-analyse .

You reminded me this:

its not that bad of a "bug". i mean seriously when you have a headcrab trying to violate your anally, and combine shooting at you, while mines slowly rolling towards you your not suddenly out of the blue stop everything and say "O...M...G...WTF??@?@?!!!?! look AT THOSE!!!! ABSOLUTELY HORRENDUS SHADOWS!!!! ARG!!!!! ITS GONA GIVE ME A HURNEYA!!!...

 

[Vice]

i dont really know but i think i took around 10 hours for doom3 ,so 19 hours is alot

 

[Gorgon]

i dont really know but i think i took around 10 hours for doom3 ,so 19 hours is alot

I remember MaxPayne 1 took 11-15 Hours and everybody were complaining about it cause it was short.

 

[Mr. Redundant]

hmm...i remember Gabe saying that they were aiming from anywhere between 25-40 hours of gameplay...
19 hours? bahh...im sorry but lately it seems things about the game more disappointing than i'd like to remember, be it CS:Source = MP or the CE being a joke of a retail product

Valve, are u reading this?

unfortunately I feel the same, Im sure its going to be great, but as for meeting expectations they themselves had set? looking bleak.

putting ego aside, Im damn good at games... I play all my games on the hardest difficulty and I never cheat.
and besides long ass RPG games, they usually dont take more than a day to finish (not a full day either)

not that only having 20hrs of play is a bad thing... just when you hate CS, and CS is the mp component of a game you have anticipated eagerly for over a year... its slightly frustrating, as you can only play sp through so many times before it becomes boring (usually once for me.. thats why I play on the hardest difficulty)

that doesnt mean Im bitching about it, simply stating my opinion.

 

[NeMeSiS187]

max payne 2 was pretty damn short in my opinion. Doom 3 took me somewhere like 12 hours to beat on hard and thats with getting bored and busting out the chainsaw for the last 3 hours of the game and sprinting around. Hitman 2 took me something like 30 hours on hard because of the perfection and so many different ways there are to beat it. Grand theft auto I think I'm up to 40 hours or something on that game and I'm only like 87% done with it. Original Half-Life took me something like 4 hours on hard so I think HL2 should be fun. (The leaked beta itself took me like an hour to get past just one of the maps and was pretty challenging. I think HL2 will be more like 25 hours to the average gamer. Thats something like 2 hours a day for 2 weeks... One hell of a long game indeed. Nevertheless I'm sure there will be plenty of single player mods that use Gordon and the combine so no worries there.

 

[Dsty2001]

Um, 19-20 hours for a FPS is a LONG time.

 

[jabberwock95]

I'll look at everything twice, I'm the kind of player who will walk when any person would look weird running irl. And then I'll suck and get stuck at several parts in the game. I'll probably get through it in about 30 hours.

lol, the first time I played Half Life I WALKED through the whole 'Anomalous Materials' chapter, just because Gordon would look out of place running through a perfectly normal lab.

So I guess im that kind of gamer too. :cheers:

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

Um, 19-20 hours for a FPS is a LONG time.

It sure is, but someone just don't want to understand that. I barely play more than 1-2 hours a day, and I like to take my time in games. I guess the game will probably take me 2-3 weeks, depending on the mood of my fiancé. If she's in a good mood 1 week will do.

For you people that think the game is too short. Get a girlfriend, and the game will be sooo much longer, whether you like it or not

 

[DarkStar]

19 hours of gameplay resulting from a 6 year develpment cycle works out to just over 3 hours of gameplay created each year.

While 19 hours is by no means a short game, given HL2's long, long development I expected a little bit more. HL1 took me at least 30 my first run through. I must admit I'm a little dissapointed.

 

[Wraithen]

Since last year HL2 has been alluded to be about 36 hours.

Now it is 19.

That is the kicker.

In reality, 20 hours is fine, though I would rather have 25, but the fact that all the sudden the game is almost half as long as was announced by Valve is a shocker.

You mean the manager of a games company exagerated the longevity of their game? To do what, get people interested? Wow, I hope no other companies get the same idea!

To tell the truth, I was expecting it to last around the 15 hour mark, first time through. And i know I'll go back to it. I'd much rather have 20 hours of a consistently great game with huge replay value, than play an 80 hour epic (that's mostly filler) that I won't go back to because it's such a daunting and (relatively) unrewarding investment of so much time.

Besides, think of all the mods that'll be made and how much time you'll spend on them.

 

[Goldmember]

Ok guys, I don't really count my play time (well sometimes I do, but it can take the fun out of it). Review people are always faster than me. IF it is is fun, well who cares about the length?

One game that was to short was Max Payne 2 ( my first time was like 4.5 hours or somthing crazy).

If it is like HL1 then all is good, that took me forever.

:burp:

 

[Kadayi]

The speed of the game is going to depend entirely upon the sort of player you are. These magazine guys play games all the time, and they aren't playing for fun like we do, they are playing in order to assess the game and write up a review (so they can review the next game in their intray). They have set criteria to assess with respect to a games level design, weapons, creature AI, pacing and storyline (to name but a few), so they aren't dicking around like normal players do (and half the time they use developer supplied cheat codes to speed through sections in order to get to the next part).

I really wouldn't put too much stock in this 19 Hours thing. Certainly I'm sure some players will match that, but frankly why rush...the game looks lush in every respect and should be enjoyed. Personally I'm going to do as much rooting around as is possible in every level. :naughty:

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Wait! Isn't the games estimated length about 36 hours?

Originally Posted by www.HalfLife2.net (FAQ)
Q: How long will the singleplayer game last?

The singleplayer game is split into 12 chapters each lasting around 3-4 hours which is roughly around 36 hours worth of game time in all.

19 hours is a decent enough length, however what people are slightly pi$$ed off about is the fact that on repeated occasions VALVe dropped the time thirty-six hours. If VALVe had said it's about 20 hours from the start then people wouldn't be moaning. Me? I couldn't care either way, I think 20 hours is long enough.

exactly.
its like Gabe saying "yeah i play HL2's MP everyday, its great" and now it seems like CS:Source is going to be the MP.. some pple would think thats called "leading the fans on..."
but like i said in another thread, to some pple Valve cannot do any wrong regardless of what happens. :stare:

 

[pyroCow]

19 hours of gameplay resulting from a 6 year develpment cycle works out to just over 3 hours of gameplay created each year.

While 19 hours is by no means a short game, given HL2's long, long development I expected a little bit more. HL1 took me at least 30 my first run through. I must admit I'm a little dissapointed.

I think I remember reading that the Source Engine took up most of those years, so HL2 itself wasn't being worked on for 6 years.

 

[nerdcorerocks]

guys, sure 19 hours isn't too shabby. the only reason why i'm complaining is because they've had FIVE years. and thats not including the entire EXTRA delay year

sure source was being worked on during a lot of that time. but its not like nothing else could be done parallel to source. level designs and plot and models and blah blah have been worked on for 6 years.

 

[Iconoclast]

guys, sure 19 hours isn't too shabby. the only reason why i'm complaining is because they've had FIVE years. and thats not including the entire EXTRA delay year

They have a story to tell. If it takes 19 hours to play through it, it takes 19 hours to play through it.

I guess people like you would rather they took the time to really pad it out and totally destroy any of its worth, making it a repetitive 30 hour shooter?

Great idea. Really.

 

[nerdcorerocks]

omg yeah, i would have loved if valve totally destroyed its worth and made it repetitive. how do you know me so well???

edit: and on a side note, they said they have a bible of the half-life world. so obviously they could have added more of their "story" if they chose to

 

[Yombi]

guys, sure 19 hours isn't too shabby. the only reason why i'm complaining is because they've had FIVE years. and thats not including the entire EXTRA delay year

sure source was being worked on during a lot of that time. but its not like nothing else could be done parallel to source. level designs and plot and models and blah blah have been worked on for 6 years.

source and legal disputes we know now about... Its not to smart doing work for a engine that isnt done yet either. Only planning would be good to do, not making models blah blah blah since anything in the engine could change..