• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Indivisible: Lab Zero's Action-RPG! (General Discussion)

Kai said:
I feel confident that Lab Zero will take the best parts of the genre, including replayability. Even so, it's better to have an awesome 20hr rpg than a boring 50hr rpg.

I wouldn't mind if it's 8 to 10 hour RPG which honestly sounds more likely and reasonable.
 
My feelings on length is that both can be good, depending on how they're done.

A shorter game is more fun to speedrun, no death run, or other sorts of challenges that can add some serious spice to repeat playthroughs.

A longer game can feel more "epic", and can still have plenty of tension if its structured possibly (IE there's actually penalty for death).
 
But is not just a rpg, it is a game that take influences on super metroid, so i imagine huge exploration, but a relative short campaign, with a lot of shortcuts and skips, and i imagine that it will be a game that will be target of speedrunners. =P
 
FakeangeL said:
20 hours RPG is unreasonably short, what the fuck.

Eh, not really. But it depends on a few factors.

20 hours with nothing but Grade A content and no grinding? That's a helluva lot.

20 hours if 80% of your time is grinding ala many older rpg's? No thanks.

And like Sotherius said, it's not really a rpg (?). 20 hours is fucking long by metroidvania standards.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 Eyes
I never had a problem with grinding in games. I wouldn't consider it a negative if a game has it.
I find it rewarding seeing how my grinding and leveling allow me to fight an enemy I've had trouble with before.
Especially if the battle system is enjoyable, or if there is another mechanic that makes grinding have a bigger payoff, I don't mind it. Bravely Default is a good example of this. While it is a very recent RPG, the battle system is fantastic, and I always enjoyed grinding, especially since the job system made it even more rewarding, getting new skills and abilities.
Now, to clarify on this, that doesn't mean I find grinding as padding or difficulty spikes acceptable. If a game has lots of difficulty spikes where you are expected to grind to artificially lengthen the game, that isn't okay.

I see a lot of people say "grinding isn't acceptable in any scenario", which I don't agree with. If the game gives me a reason to want to grind (I.E. item rewards, skills and levels), or if I let myself fall back in levels, I don't mind it at all.
 
Squire Grooktook said:
Eh, not really. But it depends on a few factors.

20 hours with nothing but Grade A content and no grinding? That's a helluva lot.

20 hours if 80% of your time is grinding ala many older rpg's? No thanks.

And like Sotherius said, it's not really a rpg (?). 20 hours is fucking long by metroidvania standards.
Why do I have the impression that you never really played an RPG?

Nocturne is pretty short and with almost no fat on it and it takes at minimum 35 hours, for example. And that's from a JRPG!

For a western example, The Witcher 3 can easily clock more than 100 hours and again, this game has no fat, filler or grinding.
 
I have to agree to FakeangeL here. If this was a handheld RPG game like say... Lunar Legend for the GBA, then 20 hours would be just right. But this is going to be on major consoles and PC so unless the story is ungodly short the game should span 40+ hours. But hey we will find out when the game is done, won't we?
 
My opinion on grinding:
The problem with grinding, is the repetition, like, pokemon games until 4th gen (and black and white) come to mind, where to get every pokemon to the level on the current city gym, you would spend 20 minutes for each pokemon that you have, and that number is normally six. So, 2 hours of grinding, 8 sessions, and 1 more session of grinding before the league. In black/white 2, they put the pokemon breeders to make grinding easy, so in 10 minutes you had the team on the level you needed, and in gen VI they changed the exp. share that if you just go in the game normally you'll have a over level team.

The thing is, most rpgs, and mmorpgs that require some form of grinding, make it boring, people praise world of warcraft, but man, that game is boring. Go there, kill 5 things and get 3 things of that other thing, and some games reach the: get 50 items, that item have a 10% drop change, on a monster that take 3 minutes to respawn, and the area have only 10 ~15 monsters at the same time.

I'm not against grinding, but the way people make grinding happen, if you get levels naturally by exploring, and the combat is fun (something that turn based games are not if you have to do the same battle over and over again), one game that made grinding fun for me, it was elder scrolls online (i played the beta before release only), and that game, you would gain level by doing diverse quests, and exploring finding some stone things that would give you a level, Pokemon Black/white 2 are my favorite pokemons (i never played gen VI) because i don't have to grind that much because of the pokemon breeders (and because the battles feel good, the story is one of the best in terms of pokemon, the rival is cool, the champion is cool and i love the music in this game). Skyrim is another game that i like a lot, because i grind what i need to grind, and there are a lot of exploits (and grinding exploits are the best. The witcher 2, i'm trying to finish this game, but it is so boring, and the level system looks shallow already, and i'm in the beginning for what i can see. In Diablo 3, you get levels by putting the game on a harder difficulty and just exploring too.

About Indivisible lenght, as i said before, is a super metroid inspired game, so, if this game is a "metroidvania", i can see the game being about 4 ~ 5 hours long on the main campaign, and that speedrunners will be able to do something between 1 ~2 hours depending on the category (100%, any%, low%), i think the rpg will refer more to combat and storytelling (and the game will probably have parties of characters, instead of you being in the control of only ajna). I've played some short rpgs, and i love some of them, like Fable.

And a note here: i find funny this discussion, because the guys at lab zero are probably reading this, and thinking: woah, look at this guys trying to guess what the game is about.
 
FakeangeL said:
Why do I have the impression that you never really played an RPG?

Nocturne is pretty short and with almost no fat on it and it takes at minimum 35 hours, for example. And that's from a JRPG!

For a western example, The Witcher 3 can easily clock more than 100 hours and again, this game has no fat, filler or grinding.

I have a pretty big collection, and some of my game time for particular titles is 100+

Then again, I rarely keep track of playtime. And it depends on what kind of rpg we're talking about. The Nocturne example could probably be shaved further if we discount preparation/grinding for battles, which is what I mentioned in my original post.

In terms of "true" content, how much time it takes to run through the game assuming you know where everything is and are playing near flawlessly, most Metroidvania's clock maybe 2 hours at most. Which is about the clear time most Metroid's ask of you to get the best ending pictures.

Still doesn't change the fact that this isn't an rpg, or at least not a strict one. "Why do I have the impression you've never played a metroidvania?". Most Metroidvania's can be beaten in a single day. Running Super Metroid or Sotn from start to finish can take only an afternoon/few hours if you're acquainted with their layouts, and that's not even speed running.

Meow-Professor said:
I see a lot of people say "grinding isn't acceptable in any scenario", which I don't agree with. If the game gives me a reason to want to grind (I.E. item rewards, skills and levels), or if I let myself fall back in levels, I don't mind it at all.

It depends on what the game is going for. If it's more skill-based, grinding should be more of a handicap for less skilled players. Traditional turn based rpg's are more focused on "preparation" and strategy then pure skill or tactics, so some grinding as preparation is needed. In the latter case, grinding at least needs to be fun (ie you're not just walking in a circle killing the same bunny over and over, like in most older 8/16 bit rpg's).
 
Sotherius said:
About Indivisible lenght, as i said before, is a super metroid inspired game, so, if this game is a "metroidvania", i can see the game being about 4 ~ 5 hours long on the main campaign, and that speedrunners will be able to do something between 1 ~2 hours depending on the category (100%, any%, low%), i think the rpg will refer more to combat and storytelling (and the game will probably have parties of characters, instead of you being in the control of only ajna). I've played some short rpgs, and i love some of them, like Fable.
That still seems a bit short to me.
I'd like it to at least be 8-10 or more hours, anything shorter isn't really worth the time, even if it is good content all the way through.
I don't like the idea of picking up a game just to put it down, finished, soon after, even if it is an enjoyable experience. If I'm getting a game only for a few hours of playtime, I'd rather just not bother.
I don't have much experience in the Metroidvania genre, and while I do enjoy the gameplay, I don't have much interest in them because of the length.
 
You guys are seriously underestimating the amount of stupid bullshit that goes into making a JRPG over 40 hrs. Backtracking to item shops for every goddamn thing, bad save points making for long-as-shit reload situations, poorly structured overworlds that lead to wandering... take out all that (and more) miscellaneous bad design, and your favorite, precious 40+ hr JRPG become 25 hrs, if that.

Witcher 3 is great, and a new benchmark in open world RPGs, one that took 200 Polish people over 4 years and $40mil to make (and who the hell even knows what that is in adjusted Los Angeles costs, my googling says something well over $100mil). Indivisible will have about a tenth of those resources, based on early comments. I'm ok with it not quite reaching Witcher 3's length.

And multiplayer. That's a big deal for replayability, and Indivisible might have it, unlike any of the big JRPG examples you could use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fumako, 3 Eyes, KaboomKid and 2 others
Meow-Professor said:
That still seems a bit short to me.
I'd like it to at least be 8-10 or more hours, anything shorter isn't really worth the time, even if it is good content all the way through.
I don't like the idea of picking up a game just to put it down, finished, soon after, even if it is an enjoyable experience. If I'm getting a game only for a few hours of playtime, I'd rather just not bother.
I don't have much experience in the Metroidvania genre, and while I do enjoy the gameplay, I don't have much interest in them because of the length.

Considering I'm a connoisseur of a certain genre of games that tend to last 40 minutes (although it usually takes 50+ hours to actually beat them, depending on your skill) this makes me very sad to hear :(

Actually, I kind of agree with you about Metroidvania's there. It's the same issue I have with all ten billion of the Mega Man games. I like the replayability of shmups and arcade style games, where, thanks to the hefty punishment on failure (back to the beginning of the game on game over!) no matter how many times you play through, there's always tension and excitement (and depending on the scoring system) room to do better. I don't really get that with most Metroidvania's or Mega Man titles. The "newness" feeling is kind of everything to them.

Although even that depends. Dark Souls is pretty much a 3d Metroidvania, and while it's pretty long, I feel what makes it fun and replayable has nothing to do with length. Just that it has a good source of tension on moment to moment gameplay (checkpoints punishing you for dying, the loss of souls and humanity when you die which effects how you progress through the game world) and enemies that are fairly unpredictable and challenge your reflexes each time. It's exciting simply to walk around the gameworld, no matter how many times you've played.

So there's certainly room to make an engaging and replayable Metroidvania of any length. I think the excitement factor more depends on content and structure then length (excitement and tension are usually what I look for in gameplay).
 
Kai said:
You guys are seriously underestimating the amount of stupid bullshit that goes into making a JRPG over 40 hrs. Backtracking to item shops for every goddamn thing, bad save points making for long-as-shit reload situations, poorly structured overworlds that lead to wandering... take out all that (and more) miscellaneous bad design, and your favorite, precious 40+ hr JRPG become 25 hrs, if that.

Witcher 3 is great, and a new benchmark in open world RPGs, one that took 200 Polish people over 4 years and $40mil to make (and who the hell even knows what that is in adjusted Los Angeles costs, my googling says something well over $100mil). Indivisible will have about a tenth of those resources, based on early comments. I'm ok with it not quite reaching Witcher 3's length.
Is witcher 3 any good? I got witcher 2 for 360 and that game is boring, the transition between scenes and gameplay is too much, the combat is not very fun and the game is not very interactive in general (and the characters seem so much without personality).

And the thing about metroidvanias.
Super metroid, fusion and zero mission that made me love them, is how much faster you can be by just being good at the game, and in the case of super metroid and zero mission, how much you can skip or change on your route, i don't mind the game being short, actually, i think they would be very boring if they were longer, and i actually try to get a better time every time i replay them (i'm no speedrunner, btw).

Of course, i love when the game have a long campaign that makes me engaged on the world for hours and hours, and i say that Skyrim is that game (yeah, i know a lot of people think that skyrim is overrated, or something like that, but i love that world so much), i have more than 300 hours on various characters, but, once i did almost every quest and took different paths, the game doesn't have much to offer to me, which is fine, and i still replay from time to time, try a new character or a new build.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 Eyes
Cellsai said:
Attributing an ideal flat length to a game before anyone knows basically anything about the game. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
Eh, people are kind of just talking about ideal game length's in general. Mostly.
 
yeah i'm pretty much done with this tread i'm getting out of this rabbit hole while I still can. See you guys when the beta pops up.
 
Let's No Man's Sky this shit, make it last forever.

Like honestly tho I've never liked RPG's, especially turn-based RPG's, because of how long everything takes, especially the combat. If Lab 0 could cut down what could be a 50 hour game to a 20 hour game I'd probably prefer it, since it's the same amount of story and gameplay, just with less bloated fat.
 
RE RPG length: There's something to be said for "short and sweet." I powered through South Park: The Stick of Truth in a single 14 hr session and positively adored it. I have between ten and twenty hours in each of the Penny Arcade Precipice of Darkness games, and those were plenty fun. I have about 40 hours in Knights of the Old Republic, and it was amazing. Stretching the genres a bit, my 40 hours in Deus Ex: Human Revolution and 50 in Fallout 3 don't feel "too short" at all. (Huh, didn't expect all my examples to be Western. Weird.)

On the other side of the coin, I don't know how many hours I put into Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy VII through X because I didn't play them on Steam, but I'm pretty sure it was a ton. So, whatever length, I'm sure Lab Zero will make a fun game.

RE Metroidvania: I think the closest I've played are a few GBA Kirby games? I've also watched a friend of mine play I Wanna Be the Guy, but I don't think that's exactly a fair representative of the genre. Does the 2014 Strider game count? 'Cause I enjoyed that. That was lots of fun... and a little under 20 hrs for my playthrough. Though I did accidentally mess up my resolution settings and play about a third of the game in slow-motion. (I thought the game was representing Strider being so ninja that everything was in bullet-time.)

So, I'm sure Indivisible will work out great, and really look forward to the gameplay demo!
 
The Dave said:
Does the 2014 Strider game count?
Yes, Strider is modern metroidvania. Open map, with new powerups unlocking new areas (or new ways to get through old areas).
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Dave
I can't help but remember that it used to be the trend for console RPG's to only stretch on for maybe 30+ hours on the long end. But that was back in the SNES era before multi-disk RPG's came into power during the PS1 era. I don't mind a relatively short game-length for an RPG though. It keeps things focused and can help eliminate unnecessary padding/grinding. And grinding can be a real problem if it's clear that the game is just artificially making itself difficult and forcing you to do it just to overcome it's BS. That's why I like Atlus RPG's like SMT and Etrian Odyssey. Grinding feels focused and rewarding and it goes hand in hand with exploring the level maps and completing side quests. And when I have to put in that extra time to grind at least the random encounters are challenging enough to keep me paying attention to what's going on instead of just mashing confirm like I do in Final Fantasy.

I wouldn't mind a game that is shorter than most since it is hybridized with the action genre. And if it's going to be using Super Metroid as a base I think it should be the kind of game that lends itself to replayability. I don't usually replay a 90+ hour RPG even if I didn't get the best ending because they are a huge time sink and I don't have time like I used too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 Eyes
Meow-Professor said:
I see a lot of people say "grinding isn't acceptable in any scenario", which I don't agree with. If the game gives me a reason to want to grind (I.E. item rewards, skills and levels), or if I let myself fall back in levels, I don't mind it at all.

A good way to picture grind is pouring water in a decorated glass of juice. Most juices aren't 100% concentrates and they taste just fine. Then some business people find out that they can profit more if they stop decorating the glasses and sell Styrofoam cups (e.g. what used to be "secrets" for people to collect become grind.) After that, they decide to replace more juice with water because people will still buy it anyway. Some people get sick of drinking colored water and really just want some fracking orange juice which leads to the niche of "100% Juice!"

Everybody has a different tolerance for grind, but once that tolerance has been exceeded it tends to make the person completely intolerant of grind in the future.

Interestingly, SiN Episodes tried an experiment in adaptive difficulty. An AI director was set up to observe player performance and change the difficulty sliders in response to a player's own skill level. They found that doing so in playtesting meant low and high tier players both took the same six hours to complete the storyline without filler, which is a neat-if-unexplored alternative to stuffing grind in game design.
 
I think length(time it takes to finish) is the wrong measure for games in general, though it is the easiest thing to quantify. The idea should be was the main campaign satisfying? Did it develop the world, character motivations? Has your character grown (narrative & stats wise)? Did it provide enough of a challenge? These are the things that require time. Not to mention side quests which allow you to get into the world bit more. Personally I find that a 20-40 hour play through to be satisfying.

Also I believe, grinding is cool as long as it is by and large a choice. I think pokemon is a brilliant example of grinding done at its best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chickenwithtie, 3 Eyes and Ronus
^^^Replayability is also key.

Contra 1 and 3 are about 20-30 minutes each, but I'v replayed them countless times, and will do so countless times more. They're fun every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KaboomKid
Remember this will not be a jrpg or a skyrim. This will be metriodvania-ish with rpg elements. I can't imagine there will be grinding unless your leveling up a secret weapon/ability to ungodly limits. With the prospect of globe trotting ro collect deities/legendary powers I am confident they'll be meticulously crafting the game and make just the right length.
 
Ronus said:
This will be metriodvania-ish with rpg elements
Nah, pretty sure you've got it backwards. If they're saying the main combat inspiration is Valkyrie Profile, it's definitely an RPG with Metroidvania elements.
 
It ends up being a game about really hard division problems

Everyone is shocked and Lab Zero rides the wave of people buying the game for their mathematically inept children into insane wealth
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Dave
It's just another fighting game.
 
Clawsome Bombs said:
It ends up being a game about really hard division problems

Everyone is shocked and Lab Zero rides the wave of people buying the game for their mathematically inept children into insane wealth
The final boss requires you to divide by 0 and destroys your hard drive.

Kai said:
Mike pls, I thought you were joking about the metroidvania dating sim D:

oh god
I'd play that. Don't know how it would work but I'd play it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clawsome Bombs
please have different equippable weapons that actually show during a fight?...pretty please?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronus
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back