81 - Descent and demos

[ranger_lennier]

How many levels are you expecting? I don't necessarily think it would be bad to put the first two levels into the demo. That way, people can start to get a sense of the descent, and can immediately purchase and continue the game after completing the demo. If it's a compelling experience, I think most people will want to keep going.

[matt]

I think the first two levels would be too much content for free. While nothing is set in stone, we are planning on the first playthrough to be 6 levels. I suspect it'll be between 1.5 and 2.5 hours long. I think giving away more than the first level would be too much. The branching narrative is going to be a bit challenging to do, and I don't think we will have as much alternate paths as I had hoped... I suspect the branches will add maybe another 2-3 hours of content if you aren't starting through the game at the beginning again. (If you are, that would stretch out the playtime more)

While I am bummed that we probably won't be able to do as much branching content as I had hoped, I think the content that we will have is going to be even better than I was thinking. I think a shorter higher quality game is a better idea.

[Grabthehoopka]

That sucks, I feel the same way when I'm editing. After the initial butchery of chopping out all the bad parts and cutting it down to something lean and good, you're always left with something just a little too big for the strict specifications it needs to be. After that, it really does feel like you're cutting through flesh and bone to get it to something that fits, and it's agonizing.

But, that's what we call art through adversity, right? Better that 10 good parts got left out than 1 bad part got left in.

[matt]

Better that 10 good parts got left out than 1 bad part got left in.

I strongly agree! I think too often game developers are afraid to cut things they spent a bunch of time on, which is why games have difficulty spikes and unfair sections. I'd much rather make a game like Journey than a 20 hour game or whatever the "standard" is.

[RightClickSaveAs]

Better that 10 good parts got left out than 1 bad part got left in.

I strongly agree! I think too often game developers are afraid to cut things they spent a bunch of time on, which is why games have difficulty spikes and unfair sections. I'd much rather make a game like Journey than a 20 hour game or whatever the "standard" is.

I'm finding myself more and more drawn to shorter games. It's been a long time since I've sat down and really dug into a 20+ hour epic like Dark Souls or Dragon Age or something, and I've found the ones that I've played in the past have had a lot of filler, and I'm increasingly preferring the more tight and focused games. Two of my favorite games in general from the last couple years were the Telltale Walking Dead Season One and Gone Home.

[matt]

I think as you get older and busier, shorter games are more appealing. Personally, I'd rather play several games than one game for a long time. That's probably because I don't have much time. If I were still in high school, I suspect money would be short, and maybe I'd rather play a game with a lot of replay value.

I am always concerned about making a "short" game though because while reviewers were kind to "Journey", that was the major complaint with "Retro/Grade". Reviews are interesting, but perhaps since we are creating something pretty unique on a lot of fronts with Neverending Nightmares, we will get a bit more leeway.