View Full Version : What If AC Games Were 6-8 Hour Long games?

11-07-2013, 06:46 PM
Okay, so I just got done watching this review here (warning there is a small spoiler about the beginning of the game! watch until 1:17 then Skip to 1:30 to avoid it if you watch it)


so basically what the guys say is that the series is plagued by its predecessors and that not only was this game a good stopping point to take a break in the series since it's been 6 games in 7 years and we need to get excited about AC again because it's an amazing franchise, but we need to breathe.

Also the other guy says, that everything feels so redundant and that the AC games should really hit the gas and move and get to the meat and point of the game faster instead of playing 40 hours be cut down to 6 or 8 hours and everything be really tight.

So my question is too you guys is, do you think something like this would work? A 6-8 hour game that puts you right into the action or should everything be fleshed out?
would it even be worth the money at that point?

x Kolyana x
11-07-2013, 06:52 PM
A sandbox game that is 6-8hrs long? Eh, no, just no. I want to see *more.* I want it to be bigger, more imersive, greater plot lines and more diversity.

11-07-2013, 06:55 PM
You could still have "sandbox" just the actually story line would be really short. But everything is in there that you need to know. No time for filler. but you are still welcome and encouraged to explore everything else. It would be like an "optional" fun.

11-07-2013, 06:59 PM
Metal Gear Rising is like 5 or 6 hours long and it's one the most fun and satisfying games i have played in recent years, Final Fantasy XIII for example is like 10000 hours long and nearly bored me to tears.

11-07-2013, 07:07 PM
Exactly the point! so do you think the franchise can/would benefit from doing something like that vs. a 15+ storyline?

11-07-2013, 07:15 PM
NOPE. 6-8 hours are too short for a linear game, for a sandbox game like AC? NOPE!

11-07-2013, 07:28 PM
You could still have "sandbox" just the actually story line would be really short. But everything is in there that you need to know. No time for filler. but you are still welcome and encouraged to explore everything else. It would be like an "optional" fun.

That was called AC:B. Well... lengthwise anyway.

11-07-2013, 07:29 PM
I much prefer the longer games we have now. I don't have a need to rush through it and the developer should take the time to flesh out the world and the characters who inhabit it. But eve then, as long as the gameplay is fun, the length really shouldn't matter either way. I just have a preference to a developed story.

11-07-2013, 07:50 PM
Revelations was way too short for me. I think I'd be pretty ticked to get through the main plot of a game in just 2 or 3 sittings.

11-07-2013, 09:30 PM
It'd be one thing if the game wasn't so historically based, but trying to boil the historical events in each game, particularly very significant ones, to under 10 hours would be a detriment to the story. And by who's definition do you mean by 6-8 hours? A 6-8 hour game for a regular gamer might be 2 hours for a hardcore or speed gamer and 20 hours for a slower one. Unfortunately, you have to balance for those that like the story and those that don't care about it. I like the story more than the gameplay. It's why I'm pissed about recent events on reddit and twitter, but that's another topic.

I play plenty of games that are quoted to be 6-8 hours and I finish them in under 4 more often than not, then they get thrown into the uninstall pile to never be played again. They're mostly hidden object games and I never spend more than $7 on those. More often than not, I wait for sales and pick them up for $3. If AC got the story reduced to roughly the length of a hidden object game, I have no interest paying more than $6 for it even if there's a wide open world. So if the story got reduced as did the price, I might not complain. But if the story got reduced and nothing was added to compensate, I'd just walk away. If AC4's story got cut down to 25% what it is now and remains the same everywhere else, not sure I'd find as much value in spending $60 for it. I'd wait for it to hit the $5 bin.

11-07-2013, 09:44 PM
No, that's way too short for a sandbox game. The problem IMO is not the length itself, but rather what they spend it on. AC games tend to have REEAAAALLLY slow openings. AC4 wasn't as bad, but it was still what, 3-4 hours before you even got the Jackdaw? And another couple hours before the world really opened up? Additionally, I feel like they have a tendency to force in historical events just for the hell of it, that don't really have that much to do with the story of the game. Again, AC4 was better about this than AC3, but there were still a couple of moments I questioned the need for (won't discuss them here, to keep it spoiler-free). If the story was really focused, there's no reason it couldn't be many, many hours long and still have every moment be relevant.

That said, I totally agree that the series could use a break. I'm not saying there needs to be a huge five-year gap between the games like GTA or anything, but one or two years without an AC release won't kill us, and it'll be good for the franchise in the long run.

11-07-2013, 09:51 PM
lol the story of ac games is only 10 hours and it feels too short for me. Make it 6 hours and i won't buy the game.

11-08-2013, 10:51 AM
Well, I wouldn't be playing them, for one. I like long games.
But what I don't like in that length are parts like sequence 4 and the beginning of sequence 5 (in AC III) which are basically glorified tutorials. Even Haytham's ship journey could've been shortened. At the least, the YOU GOTTA WALK SLOWLY CAUSE YOU CAN'T SPRINT IN HERE LOL has to go.

11-08-2013, 11:05 AM
I wouldn't care, if the story was amazing.

Though that is a bit short. I still think 20 hours is the perfect length.

11-08-2013, 11:21 AM
ACR was the shortest campaign (or at least it felt like that because of the lack of side content) and it's one of the reasons I was so disappointed by it. If they made another game as short as ACR, I don't think I'd even bother with it.

11-08-2013, 02:36 PM
If you take out the 3h cinematic + 5 hours of getting to the mission, you find yourself with a 10hours campain.

11-08-2013, 03:08 PM
Don't know why everyone is in such a hurry to get to the end of the game. I like to take time and enjoy the amazing graphics and missions and instead of running from one place to the next I often like to just walk and immerse myself in the opportunity to walk thru an historically correct city. In AC3 I spent a lot of time in the fields and forests just wandering around enjoying the nature sounds and the realism that the programmers built into the experience. I'm 76 years old now and I'll guarantee you that you'll eventually find the hours and days slipping by much to quickly so just slow down and enjoy the days and the hours spent playing Assassin's Creed games. Heck I've been playing ACIV since I picked it up at midnight on the 29th and I'm still only 50% completed. Granted there is some frustrating game play in ACIV as attested to by the many posts in this forum but overall it's a neat experience to be able to travel the Caribbean in an early sailing ship and experience life as it was many years ago.