darkSpyro

I've been watching Extra Credits (or Extra Frames) analysing the problems with Mass Effect: Andromeda's facial animations.



The comparisons between Andromeda and Uncharted 4 in particular is kinda profound to be honest. Naughty Dog's game was shorter and linear, so they didn't need to make as many cutscenes but the cutscenes themselves accelerate as a result. Mass Effect on the other hand is 40+ hours with choices upon choices (albeit binary illusions). In fact, this goes beyond RPGs with Assassin's Creed trying to be as long with excessive collectables and bad facial animations.

Let's be honest, Mass Effect 2 was too long with planet scanning after planet scanning and most your choices are inconsequential. Wouldn't it be better if was at least 20 hours long by sacrificing longevity for replay value. Chrono Trigger is like 15 hours long but there's so many choices, consequences and alternate endings, CT actually benefits. Woulnd't it be better to have 10-20 consistently great hours over 40+ hours of repetitive tasks and below-average spectacles? The only way the likes of 60+ hours would work if pushing a graphics engine was a low priority and budget is put into gameplay design, story-telling, etc.

I'm pretty sure Andromeda's animation is so bad because they hired a literal cosplayer with little to no experience in animation as the lead animation director. It had nothing to do with the game's length.

Personally, I prefer longer RPGs. IMO the main story should be 20 hours at a minimum.

Quote: sonicbrawler182

I'm pretty sure Andromeda's animation is so bad because they hired a literal cosplayer with little to no experience in animation as the lead animation director. It had nothing to do with the game's length.

Personally, I prefer longer RPGs. IMO the main story should be 20 hours at a minimum.

I think both of you are right - not only does it require someone skilled in animation, but the patience to see the project through to the end and keep consistent quality. It doesn't help that the industry doesn't quite have the unions and protections others do, otherwise voice actors and writers may be more willing to create such quality content to meet publisher and consumer demands.

My opinion on length is thus: a game should be as long as it needs to be, regardless of its genre. Take for example the RPG Of Orcs and Men - the story is quite simply to bypass a city's walls and assassinate the emperor. I was ready for the game to be over at the 2 hour mark. It went on for about 10. The story suffered for it, even though there were some good parts, and I gave up on the final fight because I couldn't be bothered any more. Some stories are better off being that way, and should be priced appropriately.

One of the unfortunate things with so-called AAA games is that there's this idea is that they have to be £44.99/$60, and that they have to pad out the price. I don't mind paying less for a shorter, better contained story than a shallow open world collectathon. It's why I find myself enjoying a lot of expansions to base games in RPGs - I could put 30+ hours into Dragon Age: Origins, or play the ~16 hour Awakening that does things differently in a setting I prefer. The same with any Bethesda content, be it Dishonored or The Elder Scrolls. I'll probably enjoy The Witcher's DLC for the same reasons.

This is not a discussion limited to AAA or RPGs, and it's certainly not one where there's a single true answer. The old adage, "variety is the spice of life" is key in this discussion.