19 hours?

[N0N1337H41]

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?

This is the problem with people who get caught up in the pre-game hype. They get disappointed. Is it your fault that VALVe helped you set your expectations a bit too high, yes. Is it thier fault that you are now disappointed, yes. Does every single game developer on the face of the planet do the same thing with their own games, yes.

We as a community have to learn that devs are going to lie to us. We have to realize that all of the amazing things promised aren't going to be delivered. Hype used to kill games for me, but then I realized that all devs do this so I just started assuming the features that sound the most exciting to me are going to end up getting taken out or gimped to the point they aren't even the same thing. Go read all of the early previews for Fable and then play the game. They are two different games.

Back on topic, though. 20 hours sounds perfect to me. When it comes to my FPS's I'm a run-n-gun type guy. And most FPS's take about 10 hours to beat. If HL2 can give me 20, then that would be outstanding. But I would rather have 5 hours of pure gaming bliss, than have 40 hours of an "okay" game.

 

[DigitalAssassin]

I know it will take me longer than 20 hours.. so I'm happy.

Same here, Max Payne took me 30.

 

[Homer]

I think I'll take this opprotunity to point how long tis taking Mr. Lucas to make something 2 hours long.

No, thats not in support of valve, its a shot at lucas.

 

[DigitalAssassin]

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:

It seems their responces to the public have been pretty one-sided too. When was the last time Gabe said "no, you cannot do that in Half Life 2, you can't even mod it. Sorry folks".

He might say that to something redicuous, but he's not going to risk the bad press and tell people all the things they cannot do.



I'm going back to my real life now, the one where I don't focus my full attention on the speculations of other people, but rather just wait for the product I know is coming soon. :dozey:

 

[Jamebond]

Just be happy its not 3 hours to beat it on normal like the 2nd max payne. That game was so easy to beat.

 

[Homer]

the second max payne was a great game, but I tend to think they could have made it 3 times that length easy. There just wasn't much there.

 

[johnnypoopoopant]

19 hours is pretty cool woulda been better if it took more like 26 hours

 

[Homer]

I bet I beat it in 1 session. even if, as I'm starting to susspect, pc gameplay is full of crap.

 

[blahblahblah]

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.

Exactly.

The same people who railed Doom 3 for game length and lack of multiplayer options should be complaining about HL2. I must say I am disappointed with HL2. It failed to come through in terms of game length and multiplayer features.

Its ridiculous to say a short game is okay, because it is quality. Forget that, I want quality and quantity. I'd even pay a higher price for a longer game to offset development costs. Short games suck.

 

[Narcolepsy]

Exactly.

The same people who railed Doom 3 for game length and lack of multiplayer options should be complaining about HL2. I must say I am disappointed with HL2. It failed to come through in terms of game length and multiplayer features.

Its ridiculous to say a short game is okay, because it is quality. Forget that, I want quality and quantity.

This is crazy, what do you want from these people? They're not gods, for crying out loud, they're a small team of talented developers. They've made what seems to be one of the best games on the planet, and people still complain? Why must all games have amazing multiplayer? We have Unreal Tournament 2004 for that! I don't understand how someone could be disappointed with this game from reading the reviews - they only serve to increase the game's glory.

 

[burnzie]

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.

That was pretty damn funny.

as for length, i'll play on hardest and it will prob take me like 50 hours so im not complaining.

 

[Spoonoop]

Just think about all the wounderful mods we'll be able to download to continue the story or perhaps a different one. Half-Life 1 today still isn't dead and I definitely haven't played all the different levels.

 

[Bongfarmer]

HL1 can take only 45 minutes to beat, so HL2 could be approx 25 times longer than the original!

THATS PRETTY DAMM LONG!

 

[blahblahblah]

This is crazy, what do you want from these people? They're not gods, for crying out loud, they're a small team of talented developers. They've made what seems to be one of the best games on the planet, and people still complain? Why must all games have amazing multiplayer? We have Unreal Tournament 2004 for that! I don't understand how someone could be disappointed with this game from reading the reviews - they only serve to increase the game's glory.

id Software made Doom 3 with 21 people. Valve has over 60 people on staff. You do the math.

You read my reply before I added "I'm willing to pay more for a longer game to offset higher development costs". I still stand by that.

I never said multiplayer was a necessity. I want a longer single player game.

 

[Narcolepsy]

id Software made Doom 3 with 21 people. Valve has over 60 people on staff. You do the math.

You read my reply before I added "I'm willing to pay more for a longer game to offset higher development costs". I still stand by that.

I never said multiplayer was a necessity. I want a longer single player game.

Let's see, 60 - 21 = 39. I know, there are 39 more people on id's staff! Give me a cookie!

But yeah, now that you added the part about paying, I agree that I would too. I just think that Half-Life 2 sounds too remarkable for all this rampant criticism.

 

[oldagerocker]

Half-Life 2 sounds too remarkable for all this rampant criticism.

Correct. Everyone should quit bitchin and get to their hl2 world mods to increase the game length. :monkee:

 

[Vegeta897]

HL1 can take only 45 minutes to beat, so HL2 could be approx 25 times longer than the original!

THATS PRETTY DAMM LONG!

Oh comon, thats a friggin speed run, skipping entire chapters too.

But I do think that 19 hours is plenty long.

Especially with the replayablity and all.

 

[theotherguy]

that sucks...like really. Wasnt doom 3 13 hours? and all of the previews said anywhere from 30-45 hours! Gabe said his dad took SIXTY hours to beat the game

 

[Mountain Man]

Is it just me, or is anyone else here slightly disturbed by the games length: 19 hours on normal.

19 hours is a great length for the game. I imagine someone as meticulous as I could easily stretch that into 30 to 40 hours, not to mention the fact that Half-Life 2 seems to have great replay value.

 

[Mountain Man]

Besides, wouldn't you much rather have 20 hours of pure gaming excellence than 40 hours of mediocrity punctuated by a few moments of greatness?

The latter description fits Far Cry to a "T".

 

[She]

19 hours is a almost perfect leght for a PC action...
but i dont know.. it's HL2...

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Exactly.

The same people who railed Doom 3 for game length and lack of multiplayer options should be complaining about HL2. I must say I am disappointed with HL2. It failed to come through in terms of game length and multiplayer features.

Its ridiculous to say a short game is okay, because it is quality. Forget that, I want quality and quantity. I'd even pay a higher price for a longer game to offset development costs. Short games suck.

don'tcha know blahblahblah, its in fashion to be a Valve apoligist

1 - fans were disappointed in learning CS:Source would be the MP (oh well Valve still can't do wrong )

2 - the CE is a joke to all retail game products in CE history (stupid VU, they deserve that even tho we know it takes 2 sides to have a legal battle which eventually leads to a crappy, crappy CE, still Valve can't do wrong)

3 - Gabe is quoting as saying the game would be in the 36 hour neighborhood of gameplay (cut it down to half that and the "high quality vs quantity" arguement surfaces.. really Valve can't do any wrong )

im sure someone's now gonna find some witty response to this post but it doesn't hide the attitude here.

 

[rrm]

valve has some of the best developers in the industry but due to poor planning skills they cut like 50% of what was supossed to be in early stages in the leak (including DM). sad

I also looked at the script leak and it seemed quite short, frankly. Breen says some cool stuff but I was hoping for much more. Other characters don't speak that much. Probably I didn't read the entire script, anyway

 

[Ownzed]

I thought Gabe said about 3 hours per chapter and there is 12 chapters, so isn't it 36?

 

[AJ Rimmer]

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:

That's exactly what I did. And still do! Every time I play Blue Shift. I even jump up on the seat in the tram and crouch.

 

[operative x]

I ran around doing 360's in the air, i guess i am not special.

 

[perrkele]

Look, it depends so much on how you play the game. If you play it on normal and more or less just run through the game as quickly as possible, it won't take you more than the 20h. Some of my friends seem to be like this, they never stop to listen to what the characters are saying, never just stop and marvel at the beauty of a scene, never replay anything (unless they die of course). When they meet someone, they try if they can kill him/her, and if not, they'll carry on.

They don't really care about the plot too much and so on. They thought the TV-shows in the Max Payne games were completely uninteresting, skipped them every single time and thus missed out on lot of the humour in the game. I just can't believe how someone can play a game like this, I was telling them like "what the hell are you doing, why didn't you check out that show on TV? It's really funny!" I mean they're not even kids any more, like 25 years old, for crying out loud, how can they be like that! Ridiculous!

I on the other hand am one of those who find it difficult to behave in a game(!) in a way that wouldn't be proper in real life. Just like many others said, running at among the scientists in the first levels of HL was never an option for me. It just seemed so incredibly dumb. I always try to talk to everyone I see and do so long enough as to see that they really have nothing more to say. Needless to say, I loved Deus Ex! I always try to explore every nook and cranny of a map, and often try out scenes and battles again and again to see if it's possible to do them in another way.

To me, playing a (good) game is like reading a novel or watching a film, it's not just about going around shooting bad guys, it's about the story, the characters, the world portrayed in the game. The first HL took me probably like 30-40h at least, and DX probably more than 50h. I would imagine that if a magazine reviewer needs 20h to finish the game on NORMAL, it'll take me more than 30h, and with ease really.

 

[Wildhound]

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.

They didn't spend six years making the game. Four years were spent making the engine. And a lot of the time since its completion has been spent ironing out the bugs and improving performance. The game itself would have been produced comparatively quickly.

 

[Cyber$nake]

19 hours is fine by me. Especially considering the reviewers are probably good at just about ever game in existence ;-) and they would have gone through it faster to get a review out. if it took them 19 itl take me 25.

 

[we11er]

lol, I can't help but laugh at this thread. It's strange the effects that the *BEST GAME FOR A LONG F**CKING TIME* can have on people. 20 hours people, *20 hours* of pure immersive entertainment. What is wrong with you!?

 

[Wildhound]

lol, I can't help but laugh at this thread. It's strange the effects that the *BEST GAME FOR A LONG F**CKING TIME* can have on people. 20 hours people, *20 hours* of pure immersive entertainment. What is wrong with you!?

If the reviews are to be believed, it's not just the best game in a long time, but damn close to being the best game of all time.

Just as we expected then.

 

[ItchyFish]

I thought Gabe said its at least 36 Hours Max. WTF

YES! I swear that Gabe said about 1-2 months ago the game would take around 36 hours to complete, i remember he said something like " there are 12 chapters with each chapter taking around 3-4 hours to complete. Now it might not have been gabe that said this, i cant quite recall, but i know that it was someone that was important.

whats going on.

iF.

Edit: But true this game will be great, and i know that ill take my time on the game, playing it in Hard mode so that i can sit around and really get a feel for the place.

 

[Nindoze]

FPS's get pretty boring after 20 hours if its just more of the same anyway.

Just take it slow and im sure it will be satisfying as hell, especially with all the features involved.

 

[DarkGhost86]

Hmmmmm..... I will see How long time I finish HL2?

 

[NB.]

~20 hours is fine by me, thats pretty much what i was expecting tbh.

 

[affen]

PC Gameplay BE/NL (or Benelux if you wish) needed 8 hours to complete COD on standard difficulty (in most cases, 'normal' difficulty). When I played COD it also took me around 8 hours to finish the game, so if they estimate 19 hours for HL², that'll probably be the time I'll need to finish it.
I don't think the guys from PCGP just ran through the level as fast as possible to complete the game in order to get their reviews ready. I took my time in COD to explore everything a bit and I needed the same amount of time they needed. (or maybe I'm just better than them )

About 25-30 hours of gameplay satisfy me the most, but of course quality > quantity. Now COD had a lot of quality, but with 8 hours of gameplay it was way too short IMO, so in the end I didn't like COD thát much. Doom3 took me weeks to finish, but the reason there is that I got so bored of the game that I needed to force myself to finish it. Doom3 definitely is a case where quantity > quality.
HL is still my favorite when it comes to quality versus quantity. It took me around 35 hours to complete it and I never got bored. Second best for me is Far Cry; it took me 25 hours and although it had some tough parts, I also loved every minute of it.

Since I play 2-3 hours a day when trying out a new FPS and in case of HL² probably more, I'll need about 6 days to finish it. IMHO just a bit too short, I would've liked 25-30 hours more. But then the game seems to have nice replayability and with the several mods and CS:S (never played CS before so CS:S will be new for me) I'll enjoy it much much longer than 19 hours!

 

[Wolf]

I was sick of Doom 3 by the end of it and just wanted it to be over.

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.

Actually they were complaining after Carmack indicated D3 would be a 'weekend game' and not very long so a lot people speculated that it would be well under 15 hours.

Exactly.
I must say I am disappointed with HL2. It failed to come through in terms of game length and multiplayer features.

How can you talk in past tense expressing personal disappointment about something you haven't personally experienced? Playtime is subjective to each reviewer (NOT each magazine).

Anyway, as has been said earlier the people who do breaking reviews do so under strict deadlines and they often use godmode etc to get through bits...

id Software made Doom 3 with 21 people. Valve has over 60 people on staff. You do the math.

Yes and they still haven't made a compelling single player game. EVER. Given that id cannot comprehend the idea of varying gameplay, D3 should have been shorter if it anything. I know I wasn't the only one who found the enjoyment I had playing it got diluted because it was repetetive and stretched out for no reason.

 

[brightgreen]

the CE being a joke of a retail product

Valve, are u reading this?

I'm going to have to disagreed with you there

1 DVD > 6 CDs

 

[razorblade kiss]

You guys have to understand that as games get more graphics intensive and "pretty" so all you people will be satisfied, game developers have to spend VERY long amounts of time on levels. Making immersive levels with the most amazing characters intwined into them, isnt something you just throw together. Then consider all the voice acting. Theres SOOO much that goes into a game now. A Hell of alot more than what went into HL1. The Future of Games = Game Development Time Up , Game Play Total Hours Down. Sad but true. If it's 19 hours, then it will be the best 19 hours we've ever played.

 

[razorblade kiss]

I'm going to have to disagreed with you there

1 DVD > 6 CDs

6 CD's doesnt mean 40 hours of gameplay, it means 19 hours with lots of level content. Use your head. :thumbs: