Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

For those looking for their next Souls-like fix, you might want to take a look at HexWorks’ upcoming Lords of the Fallen. If you’re wondering what the Lords of the Fallen game length is, we have the answer to that straight from the devs.

MP1st: How long is the game’s single player, will there be incentives to replay the game? New Game plus modes?

Saul Gascon – The single player experience for us, like we know whatever enemy spawns, we know everything about it, think around 25 hours. For a new player it’s gonna be somewhere around the 30 or more.

Cezar Virtosu – Seeing that the tutorial area takes more than an hour and a half. For us, it takes like 25 minutes tops. So we are looking, I have some 30 hours or something.

Saul Gascon – 30 plus more or less. Then you have different endings. Like you have three different endings depending on which factions you align with, so that’s one of the replay values. Plus the different classes, so you want to try different types of builds and etc.

On top of this, is NG+. We have quite a few surprises waiting for players. Just as a brief one, you’ve seen (referring to our hands-on experience) that you have the Ancient Vestiges that are always there, they are present. You have the ones Vestige Seedlings that you can build yourself.

 

[TransTrender]

Shit!
Wrong game.
I was thinking Atlas Fallen.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

To short...

 

[GetInTheRobot]

30 for main story only is fair. But how much of the game incentives you to explore? I think a lot of developers just have big worlds but don’t utilize game design techniques to push you or reward exploring. Post Elden ring world the bar has been raised.

 

[Fbh]

That's great. Gives me hope it will be well paced and varied content instead of hours of padding.

Skill-Up review by Austin said he took about 10 hours, admittedly not doing all the chores. Still incredibly short.

Game comes out in October, I doubt Skill Up has played the full game

 

[TransTrender]

That's great. Gives me hope it will be well paced and varied content instead of hours of padding.



Game comes out in October, I doubt Skill Up has played the full game

Shit!
Wrong game.
I was thinking Atlas Fallen.

 

[March Climber]

To short...

Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 were each, individually 30ish hours and they felt nearly perfect in length.

Dark Souls 1 is about 40-50 hours.

I think the perfect RPG length is within 30-50 hours.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 were each, individually 30ish hours and they felt nearly perfect in length.

Dark Souls 1 is about 40-50 hours.

I think the perfect RPG length is within 30-50 hours.

 

[Represent.]

To short...

Games do not need to be 100 hours. That shit gets redundant. This is perfect imo

Should be well paced and actually impactful throughout instead of 70hours of bullshit.

Plus it looks fantastic visually

Shaping up to be a day 1 buy

 

[Gojiira]

Id rather know how much side content there is, is there optional areas/bosses,is there more than just endings for replay value?
Idk Im not convinced this is going to be anything more than meh.

 

[Represent.]

Saul Gascon – 30 plus more or less. Then you have different endings. Like you have three different endings depending on which factions you align with, so that’s one of the replay values. Plus the different classes, so you want to try different types of builds and etc.

Lmao. This guys was terrified to just say “30 hours. Well paced. High quality throughout.”

He had to try his best to justify why it’s “only” 30 hours.

Devs are being pressured into padding shit into their game to make it 1 million hours just to satisfy the whiny ass gamer community.

Son, focus on quality, not length. They will cope

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I think that’s a good length. I want more shorter, more well paced and structured games honestly. Every game doesn’t need to be 100+ hours long full of tedious, pointless side quests and filler.

 

[Northeastmonk]

I’d like to see a 20 hour game if you’re skilled and maybe 30-40 if you’re first starting out and leveling up. Then each NG+ shaves it down a couple hours from 20. If it’s filler then it’ll get boring before you ever see the ending.

 

[Fuz]

30 hours is good, but since this is a statement from the devs

Spoiler

 

[VN1X]

Perfect length for a game like this imo.

 

[March Climber]

30 hours is good, but since this is a statement from the devs

Spoiler

At this point you might as well make this image your avatar lol.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Games do not need to be 100 hours. That shit gets redundant. This is perfect imo

Should be well paced and actually impactful throughout instead of 70hours of bullshit.

Plus it looks fantastic visually

Shaping up to be a day 1 buy

Right... they need to be hundreds of hours for $70+

 

[Represent.]

Right... they need to be hundreds of hours for $70+

Lmao yeah, no you're simply wrong.

First off, 30 hours of entertainment for 70 bucks is a goddamn bargain.

Secondly, quality over quantity always and forever.

100 hours of padding and repetitiveness is not worth more than 30 hours of a well paced, well crafted experience.

 

[MALpractice311]

30 hours is good, but since this is a statement from the devs

Spoiler

Yeah. I knock off 10 to 20% off of a game's length when the estimate comes from the devs or a professional hames journalist.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Lmao yeah, no you're simply wrong.

First off, 30 hours of entertainment for 70 bucks is a goddamn bargain.

Secondly, quality over quantity always and forever.

100 hours of padding and repetitiveness is not worth more than 30 hours of a well paced, well crafted experience.

No I'm not as opinions are opinions.

$70 for ~30 hours is disappointing.

Nobody said anything about quality not being included.
For $70 the games should be long and high quality.
Games like this do exist, sadly not enough because of gamers like you settling for less.

 

[DavidGzz]

I'm so happy devs are delivering great graphics with a great aesthetic these days. From the first game to this one and from D3 to D4. Great stuff. I'm also glad this game was revealed late in development because we now don't have to wait years.

 

[Represent.]

No I'm not as opinions are opinions.

$70 for ~30 hours is disappointing.

Nobody said anything about quality not being included.
For $70 the games should be long and high quality.
Games like this do exist, sadly not enough because of gamers like you settling for less.

There isn't one single 100+ hour game that isn't full of repetitive padding.

30 hours is not short.

Like damn, why are gamers like this? So cheap.

We're talking about 30 HOURS here, not 3. 30. For 70 bucks. That is objectively good value.

100 hour games usually means 30 hours of actual game and the rest is repetitive fetch quests and abysmal padding. No thanks. Spend that extra time polishing the content that is actually good.

 

[Akuji]

I take 10hours of fun over 200hours of boredom.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

There isn't one single 100+ hour game that isn't full of repetitive padding.

30 hours is not short.

Like damn, why are gamers like this? So cheap.

We're talking about 30 HOURS here, not 3. 30. For 70 bucks. That is objectively good value.

100 hour games usually means 30 hours of actual game and the rest is repetitive fetch quests and abysmal padding. No thanks. Spend that extra time polishing the content that is actually good.

Repetitive padding? A new spin.

GTFOH with it.
Elden Ring offers hundreds of hours of AAA gaming.

Spin it Repetitive...
Won't change its high review scores,high sales and the most GOTY awards ever it received.

It also had devs h8ing on its greatness.

Baldur's Gate 3 is another example as is TOK.

 

[stickkidsam]

No I'm not as opinions are opinions.

$70 for ~30 hours is disappointing.

Nobody said anything about quality not being included.
For $70 the games should be long and high quality.
Games like this do exist, sadly not enough because of gamers like you settling for less.

Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Odyssey both take less than 15 hours to beat. Both absolutely amazing games.

No need to worry so much about the size of the boat ya degenerate

 

[Represent.]

Repetitive padding? A new spin.

GTFOH with it.
Elden Ring offers hundreds of hours of AAA gaming.

Spin it Repetitive...
Won't change its high review scores,high sales and the most GOTY awards ever it received.

It also had devs h8ing on its greatness.

Baldur's Gate 3 is another example as is TOK.

Every single game you listed has repetitive bosses and other repetitive shit in general. Whatever, enjoy it - as you can see you are in the minority in this thread lol

 

[March Climber]

Repetitive padding? A new spin.

GTFOH with it.
Elden Ring offers hundreds of hours of AAA gaming.

Spin it Repetitive...
Won't change its high review scores,high sales and the most GOTY awards ever it received.

It also had devs h8ing on its greatness.

Baldur's Gate 3 is another example as is TOTK.

If you take into account the vast ocean of RPGs that can't do what those games you've listed can do, you'll quickly realize why every RPG game/studio simply isn't built to provide endless entertainment or shouldn't.

A great counterpoint to your example are Ubisoft games. There was literally a collective sigh of relief across the internet when they announced that the latest Assassin's Creed game will take way less time to beat than Valhalla. Another perfect example: Final Fantasy 16. The reception on that game went sour rather fast due to the immense amount of MMO-like padded side quests.

However, from saying all of that, if you still just want to be immersed for hundreds of hours, Starfield is just around the corner. Until then, this Lords of the Fallen game should be a decent appetizer for you.

Edit:

$70 for ~30 hours is disappointing.

...And everyone saying stuff like this(especially during the 360/PS3 gen) is the exact reason why we're in the mess we're in right now. I'm not sure who started this garbage, the devs or the gamers, but equating 1 dollar to 1 hour/2 hours in a game has been poisoning the well for two generations now. Now you have genres that should not be long, being way too damn long in playtime. Action games that are 30-40 hours long, First Person Shooters that are 25-40 hours long, Stealth games that are 30-40 hours long, etc. The minute you pull back the curtain and realize that you've been doing the same exact mission type 10 times in a row fighting the same enemy type(but this time blue!), just with different NPCs in a copy-pasted open world zone, is when it's time for devs to cut back a bit.

Two of my favorite games of all time are Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden Black. They would be nowhere near my top list if either game were above 30 hours long. Why would anyone pad out either game? That's what a harder difficulty replay is for if you like it that much. That's what new game+ is for. Both games were fully worth 50-60 dollars back then. The value should be based on fun, not on hours spent. Padding so that the number of hours looks good on the back of a box is a fool's gamble.

 

[mrmustard]

I'm more a fan of shorter games (except sandbox games), but i liked the game so much, i'm buying it anyways.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Cool, give me a great well paced 20-30 hour game over a 50+ meh game.

 

[Fuz]

At this point you might as well make this image your avatar lol.

It should be everyone's avatar tbh

 

[Portugeezer]

Roughly the time it took me to beat Demons Souls remake (which included grinding for stupid item drops).

 

[Roufianos]

Sounds like the perfect length. Something my female companions regularly enjoy.

 

[Pasta la Vista]

These blatant souls ripoff games are never good.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

If you take into account the vast ocean of RPGs that can't do what those games you've listed can do, you'll quickly realize why every RPG game/studio simply isn't built to provide endless entertainment or shouldn't.

A great counterpoint to your example are Ubisoft games. There was literally a collective sigh of relief across the internet when they announced that the latest Assassin's Creed game will take way less time to beat than Valhalla. Another perfect example: Final Fantasy 16. The reception on that game went sour rather fast due to the immense amount of MMO-like padded side quests.

However, from saying all of that, if you still just want to be immersed for hundreds of hours, Starfield is just around the corner. Until then, this Lords of the Fallen game should be a decent appetizer for you.

Edit:

...And everyone saying stuff like this(especially during the 360/PS3 gen) is the exact reason why we're in the mess we're in right now. I'm not sure who started this garbage, the devs or the gamers, but equating 1 dollar to 1 hour/2 hours in a game has been poisoning the well for two generations now. Now you have genres that should not be long, being way too damn long in playtime. Action games that are 30-40 hours long, First Person Shooters that are 25-40 hours long, Stealth games that are 30-40 hours long, etc. The minute you pull back the curtain and realize that you've been doing the same exact mission type 10 times in a row fighting the same enemy type(but this time blue!), just with different NPCs in a copy-pasted open world zone, is when it's time for devs to cut back a bit.

Two of my favorite games of all time are Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden Black. They would be nowhere near my top list if either game were above 30 hours long. Why would anyone pad out either game? That's what a harder difficulty replay is for if you like it that much. That's what new game+ is for. Both games were fully worth 50-60 dollars back then. The value should be based on fun, not on hours spent. Padding so that the number of hours looks good on the back of a box is a fool's gamble.

TLDR all of it.

I didn't mention any of the games you did for examples and they all pale in comparison to my mentions.

Again we are in situations like this because of gamers like both of you who settle for less.

Every single game you listed has repetitive bosses and other repetitive shit in general. Whatever, enjoy it - as you can see you are in the minority in this thread lol

Again award winning highly acclaimed games.
As a person who's day one-ing LOTF.... I know it won't end up being half the game as the games I mentioned.
I don't need other posters for help or to make my opinion.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Odyssey both take less than 15 hours to beat. Both absolutely amazing games.

No need to worry so much about the size of the boat ya degenerate

Different types of games.
Mario 64 is legendary though

 

[AJUMP23]

Cool.

I feel like the first act of BG3 is 30 hours.

 

[March Climber]

Again we are in situations like this because of gamers like both of you who settle for less.

Next time please read posts that you quote and respond to. That way you aren’t blindly making baseline arguments against S-tier games and using them as an example to say that someone is “settling for less”.

I hope you enjoy Lords of the Fallen.

 

[Roman Empire]

If the game is good enough, the length doesn't bother me. I'm here for the experience.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Next time please read posts that you quote and respond to. That way you aren’t blindly making baseline arguments against S-tier games and using them as an example to say that someone is “settling for less”.

I hope you enjoy Lords of the Fallen.

You mentioned ASScreed,DMC3,FF16,NGB and SF.

Only the latter is S tier,none should be used as a comparison and all of them is what I consider settling for less if they were $70.

This opinion of yours is why actual lengthy AAA games are few and far between.

I hope to enjoy LOTF but don't expect much meat on its bone sadly.

 

[FunkMiller]

30 hours is more than fine if it's a very good game.

Play time should never decide whether you buy a game or not.

 

[March Climber]

Only the latter is S tier,none should be used as a comparison and all of them is what I consider settling for less if they were $70.

Since you’re adamant about sticking to RPGs let’s go back to my first post. By your logic in this thread, Mass Effect 2 and Dark Souls 1 would not be S-tier. Make it make sense.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Since you’re adamant about sticking to RPGs let’s go back to my first post. By your logic in this thread, Mass Effect 2 and Dark Souls 1 would not be S-tier. Make it make sense.

It's 2023 now.
You can get hundreds of hours out of Dark Souls.

Edit:I never said a game had to be lengthy to be S tier.

We do have examples of S tier RPG's that are lengthy so it can and should be done more often.

 

[March Climber]

It's 2023 now.
You can get hundreds of hours out of Dark Souls.

Guess how else you’d get hundreds of hours out of Dark Souls?

Spoiler

By replaying the game/New game+

You can do it with Lords of the Fallen too.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Guess how else you’d get hundreds of hours out of Dark Souls?

Spoiler

By replaying the game/New game+

You can do it with Lords of the Fallen too.

Dark Souls is longer than ~30 hours and it gets even longer if we add the DLC but I'm not.

Taking a guess... id say DS has more incentives to play multiple play throughs than LOTF.