Watch Dogs Director: The Game's Main Story is 35-40 Hours Long

Watch Dogs Director: The Game's Main Story is 35-40 Hours Long

WatchDogs

Watch Dogs creative director Jonathan Morin says that the game has close to 100 hours of content.

A game's play-time is a pretty big deciding factor for many gamers, because slapping down $60 for a game that only lasts around four hours is not a good feeling (I'm looking at you, Halo: ODST). Thankfully, Watch Dogs creative director Jonathan Morin has assured fans over Twitter that his game will be more than satisfactory, explaining that the game's main story will last "an average player" around 35-40 hours.

He added that full completion would probably take close 100 hours, "And these don't really consider online stuff in the mix..." He did admit that these estimates assumed that most players would free roam a bit, so those who simply try to blast through the main story quest will probably find themselves at the end a bit quicker.

Either way, this is good news, as that's more than a healthy figure for the game's play-time, especially considering open-world sandboxes generally have additional ways for gamers to "make their own fun." For example, I sometimes play Grand Theft Auto pretending to be a law-abiding bus driver, picking up people and dropping them off, all while obeying the rules of the road.

Morin previously revealed that the game would feature a 8-player free-roaming multiplayer mode, which should also serve to mix things up a bit for those who get bored of playing solo.

Watch Dogs releases on May 27, for pretty much every console (except the Wii U version, which has been delayed).

Source: Twitter via Gamespot

Permalink

Well at this point I assume they are exaggerating and want to make up for that technical fiasco in a form of that last trailer.

james.sponge:
Well at this point I assume they are exaggerating and want to make up for that technical fiasco in a form of that last trailer.

Ahh, credibility. So hard won yet so easily lost.

Steven Bogos:

Watch Dogs releases on May 27, for pretty much every console (except the Wii U version, which has been delayed).

I'm assuming isn't getting the standard 'Ubisoft PC tax' and is releasing the same time as consoles?

When companies rate laptop batteries, for example, they turn off the backlight and basically put it into standby mode until the power runs dry. So what is rated for 72 hours might reasonably only last 10 ect...

Similarly, the fact that he admits he added free roaming to his "calculations" makes any estimation completely pointless.

Oh Watch Dogs. I was so excited for you when you were revealed. But then your graphics turned out to be a lie, and your faint promise of offering something different in a game - a world where you'd use wits and mischief to get your way, with your grinning protagonist - was utterly dashed when you not only changed him to another Grim Dark-Haired 30 Something White Guy With Guns, you let it be known that the story was going to be Yet More Gritty Manpain (avenge your daughter! ...yes, let's whip some more bloody out of that flogged horse of a trope shall we).

Ugh, fuck this. I'm going back to play more Dark Souls 2. At this rate Watch Dogs'll be a rental or a used buy.

How much of the story is railroaded tutorial that is completely unskippable?

Yes the story will be really long and fun and well made just like how the graphics were incredible and not at all a lie.
Most people would be really excited and hyped up upon hearing this if not for the complete and total lie that was the graphics you showed off.

You lost credibility by doing a stupid marketing move, now you will have lost a lot of hype Ubisoft. This is the kind of stupid mistake EA makes, don't make stupid EA mistakes Ubisoft.

Hell, I'd even take half that amount. A game with more than 12 hours of play? yes, please

almost lost interest after being delayed and the graphical lie. this sure sounds interesting but i dont really believe it. i think i just wait before i buy it. maybe whens on sale.

I hope so, I honestly don't care about graphics(even if lying is still bad) as long as next gen games are better and longer.

It's probably 1/3 of that realistically, judging by Ubisoft's measurement of time in the past. That happens literally every fuckin' time they come out and say how long it takes to beat their game and DLC. It's always 1/3 of what they say.

Ok yeah sure... A guy from the company is telling me how long the game is... Considering that they lied about the launch date, lied about the "graphics" thing and now they're trying to sell it on duration... It just smells to me like pure desperation, even more considering how much of a sandbox game's playtime is increased by the free roaming aspect.

Dunno why I'm reading this though, I never cared about this game at all, but the hacker thingy did look a bit engaging when it was first announced.

Ed130 The Vanguard:
I'm assuming isn't getting the standard 'Ubisoft PC tax' and is releasing the same time as consoles?

Yep, the only version that's getting delayed (so far) is the WiiU

OT: As expected really, this isn't news to me. I also do a lot of my own thing in this type of game, so I'm expecting to get a lot of play time from it. That said, do we have any information at all on what the online portion will be? Are we looking at GTA V:O (hehe, five-o) or what?

Longer does not mean better.

I'd rather a game absolutely wow me for 5-10 hours than drag myself around for 40 hours. It's why I stopped playing Bioshock after that Andrew Ryan scene. It's why I stopped playing Bastion after the hunt for cores becomes a hunt for something slightly different to make you play for longer.

I hate it when games stretch out their content and prolong the story for stupidly inconvenient reasons, especially when they don't add some game changing mechanics because you end up doing the same shit for stupid amounts of hours just to finish the story.

Parshooter:
How much of the story is railroaded tutorial that is completely unskippable?

Such a question can only be answered by Graham & Paul.

Still, 40 hours with a theoretical 100 total, is a pretty good thing. If true. They did do the bait and switch with the games graphics after all.

A lot of people are whining over graphics, yet the games that seem to be well received are the ones that have gameplay over graphics, such as Demon/Dark souls, Minecraft and indie games too numerous to name. I did not get excited because of the graphics, I got and still am excited because of gameplay, which has a level of interactivity that I seen in very few games, if any at all.

In conclusion, don't screw yourself out a potentially brilliant game just because the trailer lied about graphics, which most games practically do anyway.
(If you have other reasons, like you don't like the gameplay for example, by all means don't get it.)

Edited because of typos.

CardinalPiggles:
Longer does not mean better.

I'd rather a game absolutely wow me for 5-10 hours than drag myself around for 40 hours. It's why I stopped playing Bioshock after that Andrew Ryan scene. It's why I stopped playing Bastion after the hunt for cores becomes a hunt for something slightly different to make you play for longer.

I hate it when games stretch out their content and prolong the story for stupidly inconvenient reasons, especially when they don't add some game changing mechanics because you end up doing the same shit for stupid amounts of hours just to finish the story.

Exactly. I've always been in the "quality over quantity" school of thought, myself. It's why I don't get why some people were upset at The Stick of Truth for only being 10-12 hours long--at least they were 10-12 awesome hours.

And I'm less worried about the length than I am about the gameplay itself. Because when it first came out, it seemed like the emphasis was more on being clever and hacking stuff and outwitting people, and now, well...

Ariseishirou:
Oh Watch Dogs. I was so excited for you when you were revealed. But then your graphics turned out to be a lie, and your faint promise of offering something different in a game - a world where you'd use wits and mischief to get your way, with your grinning protagonist - was utterly dashed when you not only changed him to another Grim Dark-Haired 30 Something White Guy With Guns, you let it be known that the story was going to be Yet More Gritty Manpain (avenge your daughter! ...yes, let's whip some more bloody out of that flogged horse of a trope shall we).

...yeah, pretty much this. Looks like it's evolved into Yet Another Goddamn Shooter. And even if it hasn't, even if they're doing the Deus Ex thing of "you can get through the game by being smart or just shooting shit!"...well, personally, I've kind of turned against that lately. Gamers who want to just shoot shit have thousands of just-shoot-shit games to choose from already. I'd have been more excited if they'd just focused on the hacky-sneaky-run-around-being-clever bits and done that as well as they could, myself.

Desert Bus provides from 8 to 33 hours of gameplay. Just sayin'

Dominic Crossman:
A lot of people are whining over graphics, yet the games that seem to be well received are the ones that have gameplay over graphics, such as Demon/Dark souls, Minecraft and indie games too numerous to name. I did not get excited because of the graphics, I got and still am excited because of gameplay, which has a level of interactivity that I seen in very few games, if any at all.

In conclusion, don't screw yourself out a potentially brilliant game just because the trailer lied about graphics, which most games practically do anyway.
(If you have other reasons, like you don't like the gameplay for example, by all means don't get it.)

Edited because of typos.

Boom! This is my opinion on the matter as well. Yes they lied about the graphics, which is wrong. But the gameplay still looks awesome.

It's funny you mention Dark Souls by the way, as it appears they did something similar to what ubisoft did and a majority are giving them a free pass. Why? Because gameplay trumps graphics. People can be such hypocrites when it comes to things they like.

idarkphoenixi:
When companies rate laptop batteries, for example, they turn off the backlight and basically put it into standby mode until the power runs dry. So what is rated for 72 hours might reasonably only last 10 ect...

Similarly, the fact that he admits he added free roaming to his "calculations" makes any estimation completely pointless.

That's not a very good comparison. Expecting people to eternally keep their computers in standby mode is not a reasonable expectation. Expecting players to do a little bit of free roaming is an entirely reasonable one.

Dominic Crossman:
A lot of people are whining over graphics, yet the games that seem to be well received are the ones that have gameplay over graphics, such as Demon/Dark souls, Minecraft and indie games too numerous to name. I did not get excited because of the graphics, I got and still am excited because of gameplay, which has a level of interactivity that I seen in very few games, if any at all.

In conclusion, don't screw yourself out a potentially brilliant game just because the trailer lied about graphics, which most games practically do anyway.
(If you have other reasons, like you don't like the gameplay for example, by all means don't get it.)

Edited because of typos.

I think people are more angry about how the game seems to have undergone a graphical downgrade over the last couple of years. If it was originally advertised with that level of graphics, people probably wouldn't be throwing a tantrum over it. Unfortunately, the game likely wouldn't have generated nearly as much hype if it hadn't displayed itself with such shiny graphics.

OT: From my experience, developers tend to overshoot the number of hours the game will take, or they just assume players of a lower skill level than everyone I know. I take my time in games, and I still often find myself only coming to about 3/4 the advertised length, sometimes even as little as 1/2. At best, I'd expect about a 20-25 hours for the main story, which is plenty to keep me pleased. With all the free roaming, extra stuff to do, and potential replays if the game is as remarkable as it looks to be, then I'm sure I'll get my money's worth of content.

Grabehn:
Ok yeah sure... A guy from the company is telling me how long the game is... Considering that they lied about the launch date, lied about the "graphics" thing and now they're trying to sell it on duration... It just smells to me like pure desperation, even more considering how much of a sandbox game's playtime is increased by the free roaming aspect.

Dunno why I'm reading this though, I never cared about this game at all, but the hacker thingy did look a bit engaging when it was first announced.

That's called a delayed. It's when a publisher/developer was planning on getting something out in a certain timeframe, but due to some sort of trouble during development, they were unable to do so and had to push the release date back. It's not a lie, it's a mistake.

Even if it's true, it's about a guy that can instantly hack literally anything computerized using his magic smartphone. I'm sure that would be 35 hours of riveting storytelling.

The issue here is that Watch Dogs is a sandbox game and, as with almost any sandbox game, the majority of the 40 hour figure quoted will be spent in going from point A to point B in the city. That isn't exactly the most enthralling gameplay. MMOs also force players to slow travel on foot or mounted, from point A to point B. While it is more immersive, there's not really any more actual content than a game that loads the player into the start of each level after completing the last without the drudgery of getting to the actual "content".

Travel time in open world games and MMOs is not "content", it's "padding". Further, I strongly suspect that Watch Dogs won't have a save system, but a checkpoint system since console players apparently don't know how to save their games themselves. Taking an "average" of the time spent reloading and replaying between checkpoints and the point at which the player was made to reload is not "content" or at least new content, it's the same thing they just did already, possibly more than once.

Anyway, Watch Dogs looks interesting, but not interesting enough for a pre-order or full price purchase. Might get it in this December's Steam Winter Sale.

Still unsure how I feel about that graphics fiasco, and that colors their credibility here. However, the gameplay length sounds amazing! This is the sort of thing I like to hear concerning immersive/open-world or RPG games.

"And by 35-40, we of course mean 20. God, why are you gamers so entitled? There's more to a game than just length, ya know??????"

Why I agree with most of the post in regards to the gameplay estimate, I'm less inclined to agree with the graphical disappointment. For some time now people have been quite hung up on resolutions. Almost every other time it's a story about how game X isn't at 1080p 30fps on system Y or Z. Something I'd consider would take a backseat to mechanics and story. Nope. Everyone wants better rez. I think Penny Arcade long informed us of the bullshot, and yet here we are crying "foul" Of course they're going to make it look at amazing as possible. It's like a commercial for those "As seen on TV" products you find in the story. Everything looks picturesque, but game duration has become horrible, and replay values even worse. I'm guessing most people don't notice since multiplayer provides hours of playability. I looked at my game files and found a save game of Assassin's creed II. I had 20hr clocked on it, and only 38% competition. Saint's row I had 14hrs and I know I have yet to finish that game. So if Watch_dogs is open world and I can hack anything and go anywhere, chances are I will do just that. If I'm told the next mission is West, I'll be going North, East, and South first. Just the way I am. But of course there are those that will plow through the main story and complain that the game is too short. I've seen LP that barely clock 2hrs since they're using a guide or at least know what they have to do.

so I guess I would take about 4 hours to beat the game then.

seriously, took me less than 11 hours to beat South Park: The Stick of Truth and that was supposed to last roughly as long.

to be honest though, most of that time was wasted because of some severe lag with my PC while playing it.

I wish developers would just be truthful about how long their games would be. it would save me time buying a game with "100 hours of content" and beating it in ten hours.

st0pnsw0p:

Grabehn:
snip

That's called a delayed. It's when a publisher/developer was planning on getting something out in a certain timeframe, but due to some sort of trouble during development, they were unable to do so and had to push the release date back. It's not a lie, it's a mistake.

Considering how you know where your limits are when it comes to having a product ready to lunch, and the considerable amount of advertisement that went into making the game "THE" flagship for next-gen, that's more of a f*ck up than a simple mistake.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here