There's a difference between not being too long and being ridiculously short.Originally Posted by HaSoOoN-MHD Go to original post
Wow Wow Wow lets not get carried away here, I mean 20% longer than AC II is decent, but shorter is always the best ? Come on now....... HELL NO !!!Originally Posted by prince162010 Go to original post
As long as it doesnt drag and is logically long, then definitely long > shortOriginally Posted by HaSoOoN-MHD Go to original post
It depends on the game, really. If you have the content and the variety, and a strong story and solid gameplay, then people will keep coming back. In that situation, it's fine to create games that are 100+ hours in length (Xenoblade Chronicles is a good example). However, games CAN overstay their welcome and drag on. So if you don't have a large amount of content, and you don't have a large amount of variety, then it's better to keep the game shorter, yet not too short so that it feels like a waste of money. If a game has an extremely long and complex story, but sub-par, or flat-out bad gameplay, then it's going to drag on and become boring. In short, don't make long games if you don't have the variety to keep it fresh, keep people playing and keep having fun.
So, he's right, in a way. Still, don't read into it too much, he didn't seem to be relating it to AC3, so I wouldn't worry.
Its a reputation, mate..Originally Posted by BradKinn Go to original post
It also shows how passionate Alex is with his Game..