"Legacy of Kain had about sixty hours of play, but games have changed. People don't want that any more."

So says Denis Dyack, president of Silicon Knights, in a recent interview. Dyack spoke on several topics, including the company's long-delayed Too Human, which received negative press after being previewed at E3 2006. The game, originally announced in 1999, has hopped platforms and publishers before landing at Microsoft. He also speaks of what he considers to be gamers' shortened attention spans, which is a rather bold statement to make.

Too Human is one of those games that has been in development hell for a while. One of those vaporware titles that one wonders if it will ever see the light of day. Whenever it is released, we'll know whether the reception is warm or not. However, Dyack says the company likely won't be releasing any more on the game until it's done or at least close to done. With those statements, he criticizes gaming press as a whole:

"We're probably at a much further advanced stage than a majority of
games that developers are showing to the press right now but we're just
not talking about it. And the reason for that is after E3 2006 we
really started to rethink previews and the way games are shown to the
press.
We're getting to the point where we don't ever want to show a game
again until it's finished. It's almost pointless. The media has a hard
time with looking at games before they're done. If you take the movie
industry as an example, how often do you see a movie before it's
completed? You don't."

Now, some of his criticisms are valid, in that some reviewers and press outlets might be too judgmental in previews, either positively or negatively, before a title's release. However, even movie studios show preview clips, still photos, or inside looks while the film is still in production. Teasers are quite common. Starting the buzz early is a marketing tactic used even with the most successful franchises. Take something like Harry Potter, or the recently released Spider-man 3. Promotional releases for those were up and in front of potential consumers' eyes before the films finished production. One of the most powerful marketing tools is word of mouth advertising. It's vital and it's free. Studios, whether they're producing films or games, need to try and take advantage of that. They need the "Did you see that?" talk the next day, even if it's weeks, or even months ahead of release. To me, it sounds like the drubbing his game received in 2006 led to an "I'm taking my toys and going home" type of attitude.

Dyack's other major point of interest is his assertion that gamers have somehow moved beyond long titles:

"[G]ames have
changed. People don't want that [long titles] any more[sic]. I don't care how good the
game is[,] I don't want to play something that's one hundred hours long.
As much as I love World of Warcraft [,] I pulled myself out of it.
If we're going to craft an epic story[,] we decided we had to divide it into manageable chunks for the consumer."

Making any game is a risk. Most titles don't go on to become blockbusters. However, it's a valid suggestion that it's not gamers that want shorter games, but studios are producing fewer epics due to budgetary concerns. The gaming industry is in a state where it's very successful in terms of revenue, but there's a constant balance struggle between  creative ingenuity and appeasing the bottom line. Making any game is a risk, but producing a longer game is a bigger risk, since it generally involves more production time and money. Many titles these days are shorter as a result. Final Fantasy is still around, but more and more games are clocking in at under 10-15 hours these days, while still getting more expensive to produce and to buy on the consumer end.

Personally, I love a good epic. If the gameplay is quality and the story is well-planned and written, there's almost nothing better. I also feel like I'm getting more bang for my buck, so to speak, since I'm paying less per hour. of enjoyment. When I get an 8-hour game that ends with the door open for a sequel (I'm looking at you, Halo 2), it sometimes feels like a ripoff. Granted, I enjoyed Halo 2 very much and actually didn't mind the cliffhanger ending so much, but there's no denying it was a short game, albeit a pretty satisfying one.

Dyack explains how Too Human will now be a trilogy. Is this a cost-cutting move? Instead of releasing one 100-hour game, you release three 3-hour ones, so you potentially make triple the profit, although marketing costs might be tripled as well; less if you get that coveted word of mouth and maintain buzz. Each game is supposed to feel self-contained, lending credence to the idea that this was a budget decision, at least in part. "That was the flaw in The Lord of the Rings movies," he claims, which is misguided, since those films were intentionally meant to feel like parts of a whole, and that "flaw" captured people's attention. So much so that all three parts cleaned up at the box office despite being a distinct beginning, middle, and end, and and over three hours long apiece. The comparison is a false one and supports the reverse of what he's claiming: that people will accept lengthy, involving entertainment provided it's made well and pay for it. That there's no need to compartmentalize and chop our entertainment into "manageable chunks" in order to spoonfeed it to us, especially as a cover for trying to pad the bottom line.

Game developers, please continue making epics. Diversity can only be good for gamers and for the industry as a whole. People with a narrow view like Denis Dyack, unfortunately, cannot see that.