Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Company News Larian Studios RPG Survey

Fenix

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 18, 2015
Messages
6,458
Location
Russia atchoum!
Done.
Didn't mark any game as "love" because I think it's too strong and inappropriate word for this.
 

Bohrain

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
1,442
Location
norf
My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
CUSTOMER CHARACTERS

You see three financial analysts. Do you choose to (a) fight, (b) debate fiscal economy?

(b)
Keynesian policy solutions are based on mathematic models with unrealistic assumptions and are enforced by economically illiterate politicians, who are incentivised to run a constant budget deficit by the short electoral cycle.
It's garbage what you say. Budget deficit is not a problem if the economy grows faster than the debt (this however does not include times of crises, because during crises, recessions and depressions deficit naturally balloons due loss in budget revenue and simultaneous growth in unemployment payouts, bailouts etc. Btw, Keynesian assumptions are still better than those used previously, although they did not account for things like stagflation they were improved since then. It's the bubbles that is the main problem and form due to lack of oversight (2007 crisis was caused by Clintons abolishment of controls of banks) and are funded by running deficits (stimulating the economy) like the Bush's desire to fund the wars prior to 2007. Hence, the 200 K USD payouts for each speech for Hillary and Bill.

I agree that running a deficit itself isn't a problem, sound investments exist and so forth, but the emphasis is on the long term. While raising public debt slower than the growth of taxable GDP can mean the relative amount of public spending towards repaying debt doesn't rise, it is done on the assumption that interest rates stay relatively constant. And it just happens that in times of serious recessions, countries with relatively small domestic economies face high interest rates. In times such as these having a say, 10% public debt (Finland in the early 1990's) as opposed to over a 100% (Greece less than a decade ago) can mean the difference between raking up the debt a bit more until the recession ends, or becoming unable to get any loans from the market and becoming a lapdog to the IMF.
 

l3loodAngel

Proud INTJ
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
1,452
CUSTOMER CHARACTERS

You see three financial analysts. Do you choose to (a) fight, (b) debate fiscal economy?

(b)
Keynesian policy solutions are based on mathematic models with unrealistic assumptions and are enforced by economically illiterate politicians, who are incentivised to run a constant budget deficit by the short electoral cycle.
It's garbage what you say. Budget deficit is not a problem if the economy grows faster than the debt (this however does not include times of crises, because during crises, recessions and depressions deficit naturally balloons due loss in budget revenue and simultaneous growth in unemployment payouts, bailouts etc. Btw, Keynesian assumptions are still better than those used previously, although they did not account for things like stagflation they were improved since then. It's the bubbles that is the main problem and form due to lack of oversight (2007 crisis was caused by Clintons abolishment of controls of banks) and are funded by running deficits (stimulating the economy) like the Bush's desire to fund the wars prior to 2007. Hence, the 200 K USD payouts for each speech for Hillary and Bill.

I agree that running a deficit itself isn't a problem, sound investments exist and so forth, but the emphasis is on the long term. While raising public debt slower than the growth of taxable GDP can mean the relative amount of public spending towards repaying debt doesn't rise, it is done on the assumption that interest rates stay relatively constant. And it just happens that in times of serious recessions, countries with relatively small domestic economies face high interest rates. In times such as these having a say, 10% public debt (Finland in the early 1990's) as opposed to over a 100% (Greece less than a decade ago) can mean the difference between raking up the debt a bit more until the recession ends, or becoming unable to get any loans from the market and becoming a lapdog to the IMF.

This is not an investment. A lack of employment opportunities during crises is a direct contribution to suicides (correlation between male unemployment rate and number of suicides), thus it (economic stimulus to keep employments) is actually life saving.
Interest rate size depends on public perception rather than anything solid. Countries with no serious plan of actions will always pay extra and stay insolvent. Japan > Greece for example.
The thing is that those countries which swim in debt are actually those, whose debt stock growth exceeded economic growth for a long time. For example Greece handled by IMF is not such a bad thing, because they sure as fuck can't do it themselves. Besides, IMF policy is just there to make them leave the Euro zone, which their economy and people cannot handle. And they cannot even get that right.
 
Last edited:

Artyoan

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
635
The ideal length of an rpg is such a vague question. Thats so dependent on the game and if there is 'extra' post-game-ish stuff.
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
I think 40-60 hours is universal answer.
It is stupid question to be honest.It heavily depends on the player's playing speed.Some people like to spend a lot of time reading shit.For me was 80-100 hour because i know that i will finish it in 40 hours.
 

Daedalos

Arcane
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
5,559
Location
Denmark
Great survey LARIAN, will this actually mean, that D:OS 2 won't have a shitty story, writing like D:OS 1?

Marked Real-Time and RtwP combat as HATE!
 

Ruzen

Savant
Joined
May 24, 2015
Messages
238
I hope they release results about gender :lol:
X6RRhmZ.png
 

commie

The Last Marxist
Patron
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,865,249
Location
Where one can weep in peace
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
I think 40-60 hours is universal answer.

That's what I put...it's the optimum range for epic scale and length for progressive depth without losing focus, growing stale or increasing repetition. I can make exceptions for well crafted blobbers like Might and Magic that exist for the exploration and secrets, but by and large the modern RPG shouldn't be much more than this.

Between being disappointed that a game ended 'too soon' and wishing for the game to end due to petering out, I'll take the first option every time.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
SĂŁo Paulo - Brasil
I think 40-60 hours is universal answer.

That's what I put...it's the optimum range for epic scale and length for progressive depth without losing focus, growing stale or increasing repetition. I can make exceptions for well crafted blobbers like Might and Magic that exist for the exploration and secrets, but by and large the modern RPG shouldn't be much more than this.

Between being disappointed that a game ended 'too soon' and wishing for the game to end due to petering out, I'll take the first option every time.

Nope, sorry. Since Grimoire is coming out, obviously the answer is 600 hours.
 

Jaedar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
9,839
Project: Eternity Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pathfinder: Kingmaker
I think 40-60 hours is universal answer.
I don't agree, at least not for modern RPGs. For it to last that long without getting stale and boring, the systems, story, etc need to have a certain depth to them, so you are still discovering new things, new strategies, abilities, enemies, etc even after 40 hours. But these days of streamlining, that's so very rarely the case, because after 10-20 hours you'll have reached the bottom of the mechanics and the only thing left will basically be repetition and various tiny alterations.

Divos1 is a very good example of a game that ran out of new stuff after about 10 hours, but still continued for another 30 hours after that.
 

hello friend

Arcane
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
7,847
Location
I'm on an actual spaceship. No joke.
I put 10 hours. Would rather play four really tight games than one game that tries to stretch it's content over 40 hours. There are conceivably devs that could make a 40+ hour game without a lot of padding, but that's once in a blue moon. Why take the chance?
 

Shin

Cipher
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
677
I put 10 hours. Would rather play four really tight games than one game that tries to stretch it's content over 40 hours. There are conceivably devs that could make a 40+ hour game without a lot of padding, but that's once in a blue moon. Why take the chance?

my character creation usually takes longer than that... 10 hours? really?

how about 20 minutes?
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
I put 10 hours. Would rather play four really tight games than one game that tries to stretch it's content over 40 hours. There are conceivably devs that could make a 40+ hour game without a lot of padding, but that's once in a blue moon. Why take the chance?
But there are not 4 10 hour games,it is only one.Game developers don't do 4 games in the time to make one.
 

hello friend

Arcane
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
7,847
Location
I'm on an actual spaceship. No joke.
I put 10 hours. Would rather play four really tight games than one game that tries to stretch it's content over 40 hours. There are conceivably devs that could make a 40+ hour game without a lot of padding, but that's once in a blue moon. Why take the chance?

my character creation usually takes longer than that... 10 hours? really?

how about 20 minutes?
Spending 10 hours in character creation doesn't mean the game should be completable 10 hours on average. If you boot up a 20 minute game and spend an hour just staring at the screen, that doesn't make it an hour+ long game.
 

Jasede

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
24,793
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut I'm very into cock and ball torture
I don't mind short 10 hour games if they are good. Honestly, the younger I was, the more important length was - for money reasons. If you only get 1 game a year, you want it to be a long one.

Now it's very hard to grab my attention for 40+ hours - the game has to be really good to justify that time that I could use to experience other, better games. So essentially if your game is going to be long, it better be fucking amazing all the way through.

I am not saying I don't -want- 60-100 hour epics - but I want them to be extremely good or else I will just get bored. I don't have 20 hours to sink into some trash to wait for it to 'get good'. It has to be good all the way.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom