How many hours should SCR take to complete? How much should it cost?

In a separate thread, I thought the game should take 20-30 hours. Cuorebrave replied and said...

20-30 hours for the story, some side quests, and some exploration, and 40-50 for the full thing. I don't want it to be too long, or else the game will feel repetitive and fatiguing. I also don't expect this to be a AAA $60+ game but instead be a $30 game at release. Judging from the original SC2, there isn't enough depth to warrant anything longer or costlier.

I'm hesitant to add extra depth or systems just to pad the game playtime. I don't want the game to wear out its welcome.

If you were using a game guide (walkthrough) meaning that you knew all the options and story and do not stop to read stuff then the gameplay should be at least 30 hours long. If that is what you call the story then yes I agree with poster before me saying 30 hours for the story.

But no one can play a game as if they were reading from a walkthrough (unless they actually are). So with exploration, management of all kinds (crew, inventory, stats, etc), battles, and just plain reading, I would expect the game to stretch to over 100 hours of gameplay.

Or in other words:

First playthrough: Minimum 100 hours

Fourth playthrough: Minimum 30 hours

I wouldn't want to be able to sit down after years of waiting and be able to blast through the game in a weekend of isolation gaming (i.e., 30 hours of ignoring the outside world), so yeah, I think 30 hours is a little on the cheap side.  However, if it's something I come back to every evening for 1-2 hours a night, I would like to be able to approach the ending within a few weeks to a month.  So.. 40ish hours perhaps?

Maybe as important, I'd like the game to be paced such that it is possible for casual players to make meaningful progress with as little as 1 hour in a session.

As for price, I think the going price for AAA games is getting ridiculously high.  I think they should aim for a mid-range price.

And here I thought my 60 hours of Mad Max over my 2 week holiday was binge gaming...

But I agree with everything you said. Especially about wanting to make meaningful progress. With family commitments, I only get 2-3 hours of gaming a night. It would be nice to feel like I've made progress.

Also, this is where saving comes into play. I posted in another thread that I didn't want saving to take forever. That eats into playtime.

Well, my general rule of thumb is that for every USD I spend on a game, I should get a minimum of 1 hour of content. Obviously this doesn't apply to every game and genre, but it's safe to assume that this could apply to Star Control. Sandbox games have tendency to meet or exceed this ratio, which is perfectly fine. That means I never feel like I've wasted my money on the purchase. Especially considering that this Star Control is supposed to have full blown expansions AND dlc, that means, when all is said and done (that is once ALL major content has been released), I'd estimate that a single playthrough of ALL content should last between 200 and 400 hours.

Average time for a good game with a mix of side mission and main plot 72hrs. That's taking time to enjoy the game. 50hrs to blaze through and up 90hrs to hard core side mission or resource gathering. Maybe less if they plan to keep adding DLC to develop side missions or continued story.

Something like 30 to 40 hours seems to be my sweet spot these days. Longer is fine if making it that way doesn't make it repetitive. Shorter can be OK, if it's quality content. As for DLC/expansion stories, I prefer them as self-contained. I hate it if I have to, after already finishing the game, start the whole main campaign again or load an old save just to be able to play the new expansion sidequest. That's generally for RPGs at least. Maybe I'd mind it less if it's done in Star Control, because SC universe is supposed to be huge. Perhaps a good compromise would be having a post victory state where you can still travel the galaxy and do some quests (especially these new DLC ones) even after winning the game.

I also think it matters a lot what content is added by DLC - for example a DLC may provide a "bounty" quest system (i.e. semi-generic but with meaningful rewards); the amount of time such a DLC adds to the game varies heavily from player to player and even playthrough to playthrough.

A cool post-story thing might be something similar to maps in Path of Exile.  You could find star charts that reveal quisispace portals to whole new areas.  Sort of maps within the existing starmap that was used for the adventure game.  Each would be it's own little self contained quest with a custom map made just for it.

Wow.  Thinking about this more, this could be a very cool post-story focus.  The story could end by sending the victorious captain "on a 5 year mission to seek out new life, and new civilizations.  To boldly go where no man has gone before!"  You know, on a mission to explore the galaxy with his recently aqcuired quasispace portal technology.  Then in the post game the play can find "masps" that allow them to visit far away places containing any number of systems... even a full sized star map like the original game, but might also be smaller shorter quests.  You would then have an unlimited potential to add new content within a cool "story" framework of having been assigned to explore the galaxy.  It's a pretty cool way to leave an open ending to let a player keep going after the story is over.

Yes, this is a good idea for post-victory focus. This new area might become accessible at some time point of the main campaign, but should definitely be available and maybe even really intented to for after the victory. Either a new full-size map that would get all the DLC content or a number of smaller ones. One for each DLC. Maybe they are pocket universes or the star maps just are smaller with no explanation. The problem with former is that with just one DLC, the full map would be too empty. I like the big map better, but the pocked dimensions would be more manageable in that sense. Might also be a cool way to include user generated content if it works that wat.

Yes.  That is the whole idea.  Each map could be it's own self-contained location somewhere in the galaxy.  You might have small maps with a single quest, larger maps with a "campaign" of quests, or even a map as large as the original storyline map.  The "warp speed" jumping represented by these maps creates the potential for a :galaxy" of unlimited size... as many "maps' as you want to make is how big the galaxy is.

Wha-... You-... Are you mad?! Did we even play the same game? Are you talking about Star Control II??? 

"the game will feel repetitive and fatiguing" after 20-30 hours: This is nonsense. 8x I've beaten the game completely, and all 8x I cannot WAIT to start over and go mine the planets some more. You're really selling the fun factor (as solution to repetition) short. Just because you're doing the same thing more than once doesn't mean it feels "repetitive". After all, isn't a shooter just shooting dudes over and over? And therefore everything after Doom is repetitive? And Minecraft should fatigue after dropping a few blocks since block-dropping is basically all you do? And don't get me started on racing games. If Star Control II had an almost infinite universe to explore like Elite:Dangerous or No Man's Sky will have, I would literally explore forever if there was a reason to. If there was more story to chew through. If there were more aliens to possibly meet. If there are more artifacts with story behind them to discover. The only way even the best game mechanics get repetitive and fatiguing is when you run out of content. In Fallout IV when I was certain I'd already found the best guns and armour, only then did exploring cease to be fun. Same with SCII for me. Discovered all aliens, upgrades for my ship and artifacts... Not much fun after that till the next play through. But that LITERALLY means they could make the story and game as long as they WANT just so long as they give us oodles of content to go through. And that's the point. A game with fun mechanics can stay fun infinitely. There's no built-in fun factor timer that clicks off after 20 hours. 

"Be a $30 game at release... There isn't enough depth to warrant anything longer and costlier." WHAT? I just... Can barely believe these words are coming out of your mouth?!? $29.99 for the new StarControl?! You have to be joking here, Nobody! Lack of depth? Lack of depth! Star Control was the most deeply entertaining, intriguing, mysterious, multi-leveled, multi-faceted, well planned out media experiences I've ever experienced. And I say "media" because I'm talking not just games, but movies and books and TV shows. It's enthralling and deep on so many levels that I shouldn't even need to list here. And lumping it in with discount-binware at Law unch is not only preposterous, but downright offensive. This is not a budget Game Nobody. A looooong time ago, I posted that Kotaku did an informal reader-poll list of their most lovingly remembered games from their childhood. It wasn't ranked or official... But they had to write a followup think-piece on the ONE game that somehow, shockingly, informally WON their poll:

Star Control II 

And the ONLY reason that this game lives on in the hearts and imaginations of the gaming public even over 20 years later is NOT the arcade combat or "repetitive" flying and resource gathering. But because it is THE most deep and lovingly-crafted sci-fi universe that many, many, many people have ever witnessed. 

$29.99... For one of the most highly regarded classics of all time... yeesh. 

I am. Setting the story aside, there isn't much to do in the actual game. Compare it to a more modern system-based RPG. SC2 had no inventory, no crafting. no skill trees, and only one end-form for the main ship. That's what the game would need in order for it to be worth $59 now.

I'm not asking for that. (Well, maybe the main ship thing...) I'm fine with SC2's level of investment in mechanics. That's why I think $29 is a fair price and that a 20-30 hour completion time (for non-completionists, of whom you are not one of) is reasonable.

So you see, we aren't that different. We are both pro-content. I just don't feel that having a bunch of extra computer-generated filler planets is worth doubling the price of the game.

Just tossing a feature into a game for no other reason than other games have it is the ABSOLUTE WORST thing a designer can do for a game's design. Game design is about building on the foundation of the core game loops that are needed to play the game. Just tossing in a feature because XYZ game has it is why the game industry is littered with games that don't play well. If the game has a core game loop or sequence of player actions that will benefit from the feature then it makes sense. Just tossing in features and saying it needs to have XYZ is building a game by guessing and hoping it will be fun and not designing a game to be fun, or you are just building a clone (ending before I go on my clone rant). 

I'd rather have the development team spend the time on giving everyone a great game experience with the features and story content that makes the game fun, than spend time adding frivolous features that don't actually impact the gameplay of the game. 

I'm not trying to disagree with the content of your post, but I've got to ask...

Aren't you building a clone? Isn't that what we want?

They're building a new and improved clone with (compared to SC2) better visuals and gameplay.  This clone will be familiar to the original, but likely in many parts will be unrecognizable.  Whether that clone will actually be better though... only time will tell.

Its not really a clone, it is a re-boot.  A clone is every first person shooter you've played since Doom.  Or every RTS you've played since Command HQ (probably too early... so we'll go with) Age of Empires.  The computer game industry mostly makes clones.  Imitations of past successful games, and they generally stick with the 5 or 6 that sell the best like FPS, RPG, RTS... you know them already.  So you'll don't often see more niche games (basically anything that isn't a clone) like my favorite example, a space exploration game that works kind-of like a submarine simulator.  I'd love to play that game, but it is so far removed from the popular "clone genres" that it isn't likely anyone will ever make it.

*Every RTS you played since Dune 2.

fixed.

Nope. They made it very clear in the original documentation that they don't want to make a clone. Plus, look at it this way, what would the point of making all of these improvements and added mechanics and hiring an entirely new, full-fledged team be if they wanted to just copy the original, line by line, mechanic by mechanic? It would make more sense to just make an HD overhaul at that point, and plenty of fans have already done that. You wouldn't need nearly as large of a team for that.

I appreciate all of the responses, but I'm more curious as to how Vaelzad sees it. How can one be critical of copied content while working on a "remake", "spiritual successor", or any other synonym for a clone?

A clone is usually defined as a copy of a competitive product that has the same or close to the same mechanic features and systems. Typically a clone's design is a copy of a successful design but is not implemented correctly or executed as well, and is released while the competitive product is considered viable in the market. There is typically very little to no iteration or innovation in the systems between the cloned product and the original. This is specifically in mechanics and functionality, aesthetic differences are not a factor that is used. A football team that has a different jersey color and logo is still a football team.

A competitive product is best defined as a game in the same genre that has its own core gameplay loops that are different or uses different mechanics to solve the same core gameplay loops. 

A sequel product is another title that may retain aspects of the original, but is still within the same franchise and isn't competing with it's predecessor. A sequal product also builds upon the foundation of the product that came before it. Identifying where its faults were and refining those areas. Sequel products are much easier to build upon because the solutions that are in place that worked well can be kept, and the areas that didn't work well or need to be improved are pretty clear.  The primary differences between a sequel product and a clone is that the sequel product iterates on the features of its predecessor and isn't competing with its predecessor. 

That being all said, the Star Control we are actively making is a sequel product to the franchise. 

Ok. Thank you for the clarification in terminology. I said in my previous message that I wanted a clone, but you are right. I want a sequel product. 

We've been schooled.

Trust in SD.  Have faith in SD.  SD will not do us wrong.

That said... don't mess it up SD! 

... And sequels aren't usually budget-title, bargain-bin mini-games in the $20-30 range. The stigma that goes along with a budget title is a huge turn-off for most people, relegated to episodic games and expansion packs. A Destiny character level-boost from level 1 to 25 costs $29.99. Two months of WoW from 2004 costs $29.99. The expansion for Dying Light that adds a dune buggy and a new area costs $29.99. Shoot, Dying Light Enhanced Edition (with addons) to a year-old game costs $59.99.

A full sequel to one of gaming's most epic and beloved franchises... that costs $29.99 is a disservice to Stardock and an insult to all the fans, who have been waiting for it for decades. I just couldn't possibly disagree any MORE. This is a AAA title, as it deserves to be. And Stardock should make a game that's worth the $59.99 that this year's Call of Duty release gets automatically.

^ Then the question to SD is:

Is SC a "AAA" title? Or is it a $5M budget indie game?