Same amount of time as RDR?

[GarrowsKai]

So it says on the front page ( http://www.gtav.net/facts/ ) that the game will take as much time as RDR to complete. Does anyone else feel as if this might be a bit short for a game with three protagonists? I'm worried that we won't get the time to really get the most out of each character if this is the case.

[jamieleng]

A lot of people thought RDR's story dragged a bit (I'm not one of them). As long as the story is well written & each protagonist has their own character arc, then it will be fine. Don't forget, a lot of the missions will have great replayability due to the switching mechanic.

[Knife]

I think Rockstar are focusing on making each mission far more epic and interesting, or at least that's the impression I get. GTA IV has a lot of filler missions and GTA V will benefit from making sure each mission actually progresses the story. Rockstar can then put more side-missions and content in the game.

[GarrowsKai]

Good point, I hadn't really considered being able to play the same mission from different perspectives, however this will obviously not be applicable for all missions. Still I am confident R* will do it right, I'm really just hoping it's longer than RDR, I don't mind playing a long game just needs to not be long for the sake of it.

[bowling...?]

Even though Heavy Rain is a completely different game it has four characters that you play as and the story is about 10 hours. IMO the story was great so I'm fine with GTA V being the same length as Red Dead.

[Red XIII]

YES GTAIV is like a bag of weed, GTAV is like a highly concentrated THC extract.

[Mokrie Dela]

I think Rockstar are focusing on making each mission far more epic and interesting, or at least that's the impression I get. GTA IV has a lot of filler missions and GTA V will benefit from making sure each mission actually progresses the story. Rockstar can then put more side-missions and content in the game.

I disagree. Speaking from a writing point of view, if you had the story as constant action, it would grow tiring. The best films and books i've read work well not because of action, but because of where there is no action. It's almost like a tension, the slow parts help emphasis the thrilling ones. Think of a roller coaster - if it was ALL downhill fast, it'd be Wooooo... oh.... yawn. But there are very carefully thought out climbs where you relax slightly, but then know more is coming.

 

A game made entirely of filler (SRTT for example was 75% filler), would indeed suck, but a game that is 100% thrill and excitement would not be as good as one that has a balance. i argue we NEED the boring "drive Bob here" missions every now and then - more so in the beginning but we can have all the bank raids we want, but we need something to offset that, and whatever "filler" should contribute to something - GTA IV tied everything together well, and even SA had the filler missions and imo they served their purpose. Disregarding them just because people with low attention spans think they're "boring" isn't a smart idea imo

 

 

 

 

 

The length of the story - with 3 characters - isn't going to be a black and white thing. I hope that each character has about 30-50 mission each (inclusive of any cross overs). I know that's optimistic, and i fully expect GTA V's mission structure to be closer to EFLC with each character having closer to 20 each*

 

I really hope that there' 90, split between each character, with a branching storyline - the latter is something i crave from GTA so damned much, im amazed they havn't done it yet!**

 

 

 

*im aware that the conventional mission structure will likely be gone and that most missions will likely involve two or more protags

 

**GTA IV did NOT have a branching storyline - one little choice resulted in the same mission but with a different vehicle. True Crime LA did, iirc, have branching story strands, but they sucked!

[Dr Kain]

Seeing as how I got 42 hours of RDR to 100% it, I say that is excellent time. If a game goes on for too long, it will get annoying and boring, especially when I'll have PS4 games to play like Watch_Dogs.

[Honest Bill]

It took me ages to complete RDR. but that's because i spend a lot of time f*cking around and doing my own thing. If i were one of those 'try to complete the game as quick as possible' type players, then maybe it would be a concern. But i really don't have any idea how long RDR took to complete, so i'll never notice either way.

[DrewyR]

It all depends on how you decide to play, as if you're just rushing through the missions without exploring then it's going to seem short.

[rare.steak]

A lot of people thought RDR's story dragged a bit (I'm not one of them). As long as the story is well written & each protagonist has their own character arc, then it will be fine. Don't forget, a lot of the missions will have great replayability due to the switching mechanic.

To be honest I'm not fond at all of replayability and I believe a lot of other gamers feel the same way.

 

I'd much rather play through a game once, and that it has a huge lasting appeal that has little to nothing to do with replaying anything. There has to be a lot of options to explore and a lot of redundant creative talent to do so. For a 2004 game, SA lasted extremely long and I enjoyed every bit of getting 100%, and never replayed it until years later.

[Knife]

I think Rockstar are focusing on making each mission far more epic and interesting, or at least that's the impression I get. GTA IV has a lot of filler missions and GTA V will benefit from making sure each mission actually progresses the story. Rockstar can then put more side-missions and content in the game.

I disagree. Speaking from a writing point of view, if you had the story as constant action, it would grow tiring. The best films and books i've read work well not because of action, but because of where there is no action. It's almost like a tension, the slow parts help emphasis the thrilling ones. Think of a roller coaster - if it was ALL downhill fast, it'd be Wooooo... oh.... yawn. But there are very carefully thought out climbs where you relax slightly, but then know more is coming.

By "epic" I don't mean every mission will be explosive and crazy, I just mean each mission will be relatively unique and also move the plot forward. I think the game will play just like how you say, with big build-ups to each heist mission.

[GarrowsKai]

It took me ages to complete RDR. but that's because i spend a lot of time f*cking around and doing my own thing. If i were one of those 'try to complete the game as quick as possible' type players, then maybe it would be a concern. But i really don't have any idea how long RDR took to complete, so i'll never notice either way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to rush through them and I felt that RDR was a perfect length for one character. My issue is that that length split between 3 might feel a bit weak, leaving us under-developed characters.

[Honest Bill]

It took me ages to complete RDR. but that's because i spend a lot of time f*cking around and doing my own thing. If i were one of those 'try to complete the game as quick as possible' type players, then maybe it would be a concern. But i really don't have any idea how long RDR took to complete, so i'll never notice either way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to rush through them and I felt that RDR was a perfect length for one character. My issue is that that length split between 3 might feel a bit weak, leaving us under-developed characters.

The thing is that Rockstar have stated in some other interview, that they were very conscious that they didn't just want to make a game with three different stories you can choose from. All 3 characters will be integral to the plot most of the time, and of course you will be able to switch back and forth, this allows for them all to get 'screen time' during all the major missions. So i don't really think we need worry.

 

Also, RDR's story did ok in my opinion, and JM didn't really 'develop' much. It was all about the plot and the relative gameplay. If Rockstar gives plenty of other stiff to do and actually makes it all feel part of the world, then it will give the game a feeling of scope and the passage of time will seem much greater. It worked pretty well in RDR.

[killahmatic]

A lot of people thought RDR's story dragged a bit (I'm not one of them).

Must have been people who bought the game specifically for multiplayer, because the story was pretty short.

[evoluon--720]

the story could be the same length as San Andreas or Red Dead and i would be cool with that.

 

as long as the environment is more interactive and has deeper content to get involved in.

[œaœa]

Like Knife said, I think they are going hard with each mission to compensate for this. And when you count side/dynamic missions, the replay value is insane.

[Dick Valor]

I agree that RDR-length is too short. RDR can easily be completed to 100% without skipping any trips or cut scenes (and casually f*cking around) in 30 hours. IV and SA, under similar constraints, take roughly 45-50 hours to get to 100%. Of course, this is partially due to the hidden packages/flying rats and stunt jumps, so hopefully R* isn't taking those into account when comparing V and RDR. Otherwise, I would say that V (if the same as RDR) is way too short both for the three characters, and the vast map size.

 

Of course, RDR is plenty long by gaming industry standards... just not by GTA standards. So much for R*'s "biggest and most ambitious game ever."

[Dick Justice]

RDR wasn't a long game, but that doesn't mean it didn't drag in parts. It's when characters become too disassociated with their original goal or intentions that these games drag - GTA IV, RDR and San Andreas are all examples of where this happened in one part of the story. GTA IV it was working for the mob as none of those characters were ever going to help Niko or be anything more to him than a "boss." In Red Dead it was the Mexican Revolution segment because John really had no interest in that conflict outside of Javier and Bill were somewhere in Mexico. In San Andreas it was Las Venturas which isn't to say opening a casino wasn't cool, it just had nothing to do with freeing Sweet, restoring the Grove or stopping drug flow.

 

I guess all I'm trying to say is that having three characters won't make them underdeveloped, if anything they'll flourish because they won't get bogged down in areas and situations they don't belong in (and that's what the other characters are for).

[thebestgameever]

I do hope there are some filler missions, they help make the epic missions feel a lot more epic and standout ( why SR3 got so boring and the missions were not as special as they should have been)

 

 

[ChocoFrosty]

I thought RDR definitely dragged in the beginning. The first 10-15 missions (I don't remember exactly) had some pretty long cutscenes and were mostly centered around teaching you basic skills. I enjoyed it, but for someone with a short attention span who isn't really interested in dialogue-heavy character development (my roommate), it felt very slow to get to the action and I had to work very hard to convince him that it was worth it later on.

 

Essentially, you had to want to be engaged in the story of RDR in order to not get bored (at first). It didn't reach out and hook the casual gamer right from the beginning. I hope V starts a little stronger, but I loved RDR so I personally wouldn't mind if it was the same.

 

Edit: RDR felt very much like a movie where if you don't pay attention in the beginning, you might not care about what's going on, get bored and lose interest. But I kind of like that RDR didn't just spoon-feed you every bit of action. It made you earn it.

Edited March 20, 2013 by ChocoFrosty

[omer19992010]

It took me ages to complete RDR. but that's because i spend a lot of time f*cking around and doing my own thing. If i were one of those 'try to complete the game as quick as possible' type players, then maybe it would be a concern. But i really don't have any idea how long RDR took to complete, so i'll never notice either way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to rush through them and I felt that RDR was a perfect length for one character. My issue is that that length split between 3 might feel a bit weak, leaving us under-developed characters.

I think each characters story will be 10 hours.

[SmoothGetaway]

@ChocoFrosty: My gf (who isn't a gamer) has a similar attention span and she was hooked by the time John wakes up in McFarlanes Ranch. GTAIV (and any other game for that matter) couldn't hold her interest for any amount of time. To each their own, but your roommate must be on heavy meds if the first 15 missions didn't do the trick, lol.

 

Also, I too like the way R* tell stories and how you'll hear peds make references to things the player does for example after John and Shaky get ammo from Theives Landing you'll hear people in the saloon talk about 'Two fellas came in guns blazin, and ran off with some ammunition'

 

@DickValor: How you 100% RDR in 30 hours with any amount of f*cking around is beyond me. Takes me at least 45 and that's skipping cut scenes and running. IV and SA took me over 100 hours my first play throughs as well. I bow to your gaming prowess

Edited March 20, 2013 by SmoothGTA

[ScottishHeist123]

I agree that RDR-length is too short. RDR can easily be completed to 100% without skipping any trips or cut scenes (and casually f*cking around) in 30 hours. IV and SA, under similar constraints, take roughly 45-50 hours to get to 100%. Of course, this is partially due to the hidden packages/flying rats and stunt jumps, so hopefully R* isn't taking those into account when comparing V and RDR. Otherwise, I would say that V (if the same as RDR) is way too short both for the three characters, and the vast map size.

 

Of course, RDR is plenty long by gaming industry standards... just not by GTA standards. So much for R*'s "biggest and most ambitious game ever."

I completely disagree, and I respectfully think you're wrong. When playing the game at normal speed (with watching cutscenes & free roaming) it takes about 60 hours to get to 100%. The story itself is 25-30 hours. I think it's impossible to complete RDR in 30 hours without rushing through it.

 

And as for GTAIV? It took me 60 hours to finish the story! GTAIV is a 100 hour game to get to 100%, in my opinion. The cutscenes themselves are 10 hours long. It's a long game.

 

I wouldn't be worried about GTA V's story & completion length.

[Diesleman]

Rdr 100 percent in 30 hours of game time and that's taking my time and really soaking in everything. I'm not sure what you guys are doing if it takes you 40-45 minimum. I have about 10+ hours of gameplay after 100 percent as well for going around and getting trophies exploring every inch and testing theories and what not as well

 

[GR7]

To be honest I think that is the perfect length, hell if it wasn't for multiple protagonists I would have said even shorter (around 50-75 missions) so more people actually complete the game this time, and for the people that wanted more use the resources that would usually go towards filler missions and make more side missions around the game world instead. But obviously that might not be enough to flesh out all 3 of their stories probably aswell as all the heist planning and the heists themselves so I think there will be around 80 missions.

 

The reason I think it's better to go with less missions is the last two mainline GTA's dragged on a bit towards the end especially IV which didn't have the mission diversity SA had that at least made the 100+ missions tolerable enough. But compare that to Vice city which had a decent sized story but didn't outstay its welcome, it left you wanting more instead of being tired of the game. The same could be said for the episodes mainly TBOGT which is only 25 missions if I remember correct but I've replayed that games countless times while I've only played IV twice.

 

Quality not Quantity

[GrandMaster Smith]

I thought RDR definitely dragged in the beginning. The first 10-15 missions (I don't remember exactly) had some pretty long cutscenes and were mostly centered around teaching you basic skills. I enjoyed it, but for someone with a short attention span who isn't really interested in dialogue-heavy character development (my roommate), it felt very slow to get to the action and I had to work very hard to convince him that it was worth it later on.

 

Essentially, you had to want to be engaged in the story of RDR in order to not get bored (at first). It didn't reach out and hook the casual gamer right from the beginning. I hope V starts a little stronger, but I loved RDR so I personally wouldn't mind if it was the same.

 

Edit: RDR felt very much like a movie where if you don't pay attention in the beginning, you might not care about what's going on, get bored and lose interest. But I kind of like that RDR didn't just spoon-feed you every bit of action. It made you earn it.

RDR did kind of drag on. The first half of the game just felt like a damn tutorial to me.. I really like all the people you meet in the first half and it really sets you into the old west lifestyle before diving into the story but they just didn't have alot of variation going on as for what was driving all of it.

 

Hopefully this is one thing multiple protags will solve, instead of following one story the whole way through we're going to have each character having their own motivations collaborating into a massive and complex story that should keep us drawn in till the last missions.

[Dick Valor]

@DickValor: How you 100% RDR in 30 hours with any amount of f*cking around is beyond me. Takes me at least 45 and that's skipping cut scenes and running. IV and SA took me over 100 hours my first play throughs as well. I bow to your gaming prowess

Ha! Let me explain... I don't use auto-save and boot up the game again after I fail a mission. This cuts down on the overall game time in the general stats. So, my estimations are based on playing a "perfect game" with no mission fails, retries, busteds, hospital visits, etc., and a moderate amount of f*cking about. By that I mean, multiple repetitions of side activities like pool or drinking (in IV) or night watch, bounty hunting, hunting, and gang hideouts (in RDR). I did nerf my IV completionist estimate a bit based on players who may not repeat the friend activities as much as I do. I usually take 60 hours since I play so much pool, but I've done it in 50 and know others who have gotten 100% in less time.

 

@StewartWilson1992

Like SmoothGTA, you obviously play a very casual game, which is great... have you gone for 100% in IV or RDR more than once or is this your original game save we're talking about? You'd be surprised how much quicker it gets (and more efficient you get) the second time around. I'm trying to play a very slow game of SA, IV, and RDR atm. In IV, I'm at 90% now and my game time is about 55 hours. I'm going for 100% in RDR for the third time and again, my game looks like its going to be around 30 hours. I consider my pace pretty casual, but your definition of "rushed" may differ from mine. In any case, you're completion stats support mine that IV is a longer game than RDR, which was my main point.

[rare.steak]

The cutscenes themselves are 10 hours long. It's a long game.

Source?

[Eazy 357]

Nice, I still haven't completed the RDR storyline and i'm about 28 hours in so i'm more than satisfied with this.