More Than 200 Hours Of Kingdoms Of Amalur

Perhaps proving that you can have too much of a good thing, a recent total completion playthrough of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning clocked in at more than 200 hours, which has the lead designer wondering if maybe they might have overdone it a little.

One would think more than 200 hours of content would be one of the big selling points of an open-world role-playing game like 38 Studios' Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. Speaking to Strategy Informer at a recent EA event, lead designer Ian Frazier said that even the quality assurance folks that have been playing the game for months and know how to cut corners took more than eight days total playtime to experience everything the game had to offer.

"That means easy difficulty, skip all cutscenes and dialogue, sprint everywhere that's sprintable, fast travel everywhere you can, don't do any combat you don't need to do... that all took around 200 hours, and that was a speed run."

For a normal player that might seem like a great deal of value. As the Kotaku writer assigned to review the game, it makes my stomach hurt, especially after just finishing up Final Fantasy XIII-2. Luckily for me the main quest in Amalur only runs 30-40 hours.

I'll do my best to finish the core quest, but I can't see myself investing 200 hours in this world, which leads me to think that Frazier might be onto something when he wonders if his team went a bit overboard.

"I think in terms of a selling point — bang for your buck — I think it's great. It should be on the back of the box. But as a developer I have to look at it and think "did we overdo this?" I really don't know."

Reckoning has over 200 hours' worth of content, dev wonders if they overdid it [Strategy Informer]


Comments

    It doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. It sounds like a game I can keep coming back to and not feel like I'm just re-doing everything I've already done.

      Unless there's a lot of filler. In which case those who are actually looking for 200 hours worth of game will feel a bit cheated. Though if the main quest is engaging then the other stuff is just extra anyway.

        Yeah, if there are 190 hour-long quests that are 'fetch x of the y's and bring them to the z' then that would be an affront to our humanity... And now that I've said that, I'm thinking that's going to be that situation precisely, because my default is 'cynicism' :-P

          Just for the record, I am not saying that you are with the following post.

          Considering that a lot of people have been wanting an off line World Of Warcraft, you would think that fetch x or y quest fillers would be acceptable, since that is what you mainly do in a lot of the MMOs.

          It makes you wonder if maybe they made it 100 hours or so of additional game play, where would they have put the extra resources in to the game? Regardless, I am still very interested in this game.

            Yeah, I suppose some people were expecting, or even maybe wanting, that sort of thing. I think my hopes for this game in particular were more "Like Fable, but with more 'meat' on the bones" and less "offline WoW"... so maybe I'm just coming into it with the wrong expectations. Either way, I can see myself getting this game once the finances line up ;-P

            kingdoms of amalur does have fast travel so fetch quests would not take up all those 200 hrs.

    I don't see this being a bad thing so long as I don't level cap at around 100 hours. I need incentive to keep playing other than just quest completion.

    I'm hoping there are optional bosses that demand high level characters to beat them, that would definitely keep me hooked. Just like the FF series.

    I think he might of just run around in a circle for 199 hours then finished the game in 1 hour. This is EA after all.

    200hr is pretty big.... Makes me worry it's just gonna be a tonne of filler.

    One of the longest main quests I can remember is Final Fantasy 10, it was like 50hrs for the main quest alone, and it was pretty big and went through a lot of varied locations. It also had a giant budget.

    If this game claims to be 4 times longer, you'd expect it to have 4 times as many locations/events, but I would be very very surprised if that was the case. I'd be surprised if it was as varied as FFX, let alone 4x that.

      The main quests is only 30 - 40 hours so somewhere between 20 - 40 % less than that.
      The 200 hours was a 100% run which is all side quests etc...

    That'd be a complete bitch to debug...

    200 hours? Looks like they leaned a bit too far to the left on the "gameplay over graphics" scale based on what I saw in the demo...

    After playing the demo, I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It's a light game so to speak, with pretty easy combat and pooploads of loot. Being a loot whore I think that's the main thing that will keep me going until Diablo 3.

    @Lachlan the main quest is only 30-40. All content complete is about 200.

    I think what most people forget is a lot of those quests are probably optional. I have over 220hrs in Skyrim and barely through the main quests.

    Er? Since when was having indepth and long content a bad thing? It's a welcome change from the recent vapid overhyped over in a blink of the eye (see:skyrim *gasp*) rpg's we have gotten in the last year.

    The Kingdoms of Amalur demo was one of the buggiest things I've ever played. There is no way, for any amount of money, I would invest a further 200 hours into that thing.

    Honestly, even without the bugs, I just know I'd hate this game.

      Having beaten Amalur without encountering any bug (except a few quest items stuck in inventory after the quest was done) the demo bugs got squashed.

      Skyrim and Demon's Souls were buggy games. Amalur is not.

    For a new IP this is an extremely ambition number of hours to throw out; i can't see many companies doing this even with long standing IP's.

    Bethesda, being the major standout, have obviously been doing this for a long time and i would expect nothing less after their proven track record but BIG HUGE GAMES?...

    Now don't get me wrong i am totally psyched for this game - I've been waiting for it since Mid Year 2011 when i first saw the trailers - but a 200 hour experience is a difficult thing to make feel engaging and interesting even for 50% of the time (kinda like Skyrim) so i can only hope that the good people at BIG HUGE are up to it.

    Side Note: GOD DAMN AMERICA/CANADA for getting the amazing special editions while the rest of the world has to suffer through with just the DLC - i am a HARDCORE Dungeons and Dragon's fan and when i found out there was a special edition coming out with Amalur themed dice i flipped, then proceeded to nerdrage to everyone about how Australia has been screwed over AGAIN with this gaming business.

    Why why WHY!?

    Why do I read this and go yeah 200 hours you are dreaming.... that's like when somebody said mass effect was 200hrs I just don't beleive it and if it is true then the game must be super boring, games should be decent length but have solid replay value like Mass Effect, Skyrim and Super Mario world, plus I played the reckoning demo and I'm not impressed... Hopefully the full game is decent but I'm sceptical

    I don't see any problem with a 'here's a 40 hr main quest.. btw there's all this extra shizz over here if you're interested'. It's the Elder Scrolls model (funny, seeing as two lead Elder Scrolls devs worked on the game).

    The guy that's been doing the press (the former MLB star) seems to really care about his product.. the fact he's thrown a butt-ton of his own money setting up the studio is testament to that. I'm cautiously optimistic and for once happy the US gets it first. Read reviews, decide..

    In the case of Skyrim vs Witcher 2: Skyrim boasts a longer play time by everyone, but I felt like it was nowhere near the quality of The Witcher 2.

    200 Hours of a shit game isn't going to make it good. (I hope it's good)

Join the discussion!