The Wonderful 101 Is Focused On "Fun" And Not Game Length

I don't expect a 40 hour game at all. 8-10 for this sort of game is fine by me if it has replayability.

Interesting direction they plan on taking it. I hope it turns out good!

Well.. if it's pure fun with no filler then this might just be a good thing. I finished nano assault in a day as well, but I expect to come back to that game a fair number of times too, so this might not be a problem. However, I'm not sure if this game has that arcade-like infinite playability to it. When does it even come out by the way?

It can be long and fun y'know.

Sounds perfect for me.

So I guess we don't have to pay 40 euro's for this game when it is not that long and everytime other enemies and areas?

@SkywardLink98 But it can also be short and fun But ONLY if done realy realy well. Look at MegaMan games, i can complete some of them in approx. half an hour and still, these are the games i play the most. If Wonderful 101 falls in the same category im fine with it.
If its just...over and leaves an empty fealing inside...something went wrong.

I like a good bit of story/first play through experience. If this game becomes a "finish in one sitting" then I am not getting it. I expect more from a product I pay £40 for.

It's not a bad thing for me BUT if it is only going to last 5-6 hours (two sittings) and 70€...I won't buy it until it drops to 20-30€.

That's fine and all, but a release date would be nice.

I'm fine with shorter games, but I do think that perhaps this one should have a lower SRP

Platinum games are usually pretty short if you can complete them without dying.

Now, can we have a release date?

My best guess is that this game will have various alternate routes and secret bosses and plenty of difficult challenges for completionists like me.

Taking the Star Fox route, eh? I like that.

If it offers a free play mode with random maps etc then it's all good.

fine by me. i still have to get a Wii U first which probably won't be until my birthday.

This is so true. A lot of games, including good ones, wear out their welcome for me when they drag on. A replay isn't in the cards for a long while, but with a fun shortie, I'll gladly run through it often. Games like Skyrim and Red Dead are exceptions.

If the replayability is done right, then I'll most likely get this. Paper Mario: Sticker Star was short, but regardless I'd play it anyday.

Super Metroid is short and I'm replaying it in May.

to be honest these days i prefer shorter games, it was different when i was a kid and got one or two games a year. but now im a big boy with a quite sizable collection its the shorter games i go back to again and again. its just too big a commitment sometimes to play a 40 hour game when i can play though like 5 shorter games in that time and everything feels fresh. so it still sounds good to me!

If a game was given enough time to be developed, it could be both long and fun. You wouldn't have to sacrifice either one. Regardless this seems like the type of game I would prefer to be 15-20 hours long. If it reaches that amount of playtime with full completion then I will consider this game worth my money once it goes down cheaper.

If the game is only 3- hours long, regardless of how fun that time was, I'm not gonna be dropping $60 for it. Maybe if it went on sale, but $60 is a lot to drop for me now-a-days.

I'll definitely have to see what reviews have to say about game length first.

For quite a while after this was announced I thought it was a DL only game of the $15 variety and assumed it would be short. (This was around the time the similar looking "When Vikings Attack" came out for $7.99 on PSN which was also short but we got a lot of use out of the multiplayer.)

If this is short and $60 we won't be getting it.

Historical interlude - a funny thing happened on the way to my WiiU purchase - I started buying $10 and $15 games which could last hours and hours w/ a short single player play thru followed by multiplayer matches - Mushroom Wars, Swords and Soldiers, Plants vs. Zombies, Peggle - I realized I don't need $60 epics, $10 or $15 games can look just good enough and keep us busy long enough to more than justify the expense.

Note to developers - if you are going to make a $60 game, it needs to look like a $60 game - see "Beyond: Two Souls". This one just doesn't.

release date please!

Played this at PAX East and it looked and played really like nothing else I saw at the show. Oddly enough it gave me kind of a Gunstar Heroes vibe (?). At least the boss demo did. I'm psyched. That it's digestible and compact, all the better.

I'm really excited for this game, I hope they release a demo for The Wonderful 101 some time soon.

Awesome. I need more short retail-quality games!

Fine by me. I hate it when games gets criticized/marked down for being "too short" (the first Luigi's Mansion and Pikmin spring to mind). It doesn't matter to me if they're not that long. It's the quality of the experience, not the length. If anything I've more often been annoyed by games that dragged on too long beyond their natural length (probably in a desperate attempt to avoid such criticism).

8-10 would be fine by me.

<5 would be disappointing.

ITS A RTS GAME SO IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO PLAY WITH I BE HAPPY FOR 10 HOURS OF PLAY

Nothing against short games as long as they are fun and feels great to play from start to end ^o^
Then again there is "short" and "too short"... for example Sonic Generation for 3DS is very fun, but last barely 2 hours, not even the time for get into it that it's already over @.@;

How to say... no matter short or long, but I want to actually realize I played the game while I see the credits rolls ^_^;

Nothing turns me off more than when a game is announced to be absurdly long. I don't have 150 hours to dedicate to one game. Life is too busy for that. I prefer short campaigns with lots of bonus quests and added material. That way I can be satisfied that I completed the game and play through the rest at my leisure. So I'm really glad to hear this news. I'm now much more likely to pick this one up. I wish more developpers plotted out their games like this.

I have it pre-ordered. I hate how games live and die by an hour count. It's almost as bad as the number of megabits gimmick from the 90s. Longer games do not necessarily mean better games. In fact, I find longer games tend to have long- drawn-out parts that are strictly there to extend the length. I prefer shorter, concentrated games. That's the reason I consider Chrono Trigger the pinnacle of RPGs.

If it has replayability it doesn't need length.

Not too sure..

I'd rather a longer game, otherwise price won't be justified if there's not enough replay-ability.

I don't mind that, personally. If you can make that game worth playing multiple times, then I'd definitely call it a winner in my book. Few games do that nowadays for me.

He didn't mention replay value specifically though. That has me a bit worried.

Got to agree 100% with this:

@NESuperior Nothing turns me off more than when a game is announced to be absurdly long. I don't have 150 hours to dedicate to one game. Life is too busy for that. I prefer short campaigns with lots of bonus quests and added material. "

I finished the last story in 3 days. As long as the game is 15-20 hours long that you can play over and over again like DMC/Bayonetta/Viewtiful Joe then its perfect.

Depends on the replayability. From what I understand, if the Devil May Cry series is being compared, that means it won't be like as short as even say, Sonic Colors. I'm sure it'll be fine.

While I don't mind games being short. 30+ games with no replay value don't bother me since I got 30+ hours worth from the game. If the game is 5-10 with great replay then I am very happy.

If the game is only 5-8 hours and has no replay value then I would not play full price for the game. I rather wait till its about €15 to €20 before I pick it up.

After seeing the tweet I will wait and see some reviews just to see if there is good replay value or not.

You buy 5-8 hour games for 20$? Really? Thats way too much. ( I bought twewy for 20 dollars)

...And still no date. :/

As a teacher and a parent I have little enough time as it is. Really been looking forward to this game and the short length actually makes me keener. In fact long games are starting to put me off. Desite it looking brilliant I simply don't have time for Monster Hunter and so I'm not going to bother.

How can you say how long a game will last? It takes me ages to complete anything as I'm quite rubbish at games and my fingers don't work after I destroyed them with the NES and SNES controllers.

@LittleIrves
That's exactly the game the trailers keep reminding me of.

Looks rotten!!! Quirky Japanese manga-y nonsense!!! Hope I'm wrong but doesn't look very good from trailers.

as long as its replayablitiy is good, then i don't mind

I don't mind short, but at current game pricing short better be replayable and so much fun I WANT to replay it.

Honestly, I don't have unlimited funds to buy video games. I'm in school still, and I have to pay for my university next year, and I really don't make all that much money from my part time job. If I'm buying a game, I need it to last at least 15 hours. I mean, 3DS games are one thing, but a 60$ Wii U game has to be worth my money. Otherwise, I'll buy a game that's not as fun but lasts longer, simply because if I run out of games and don't have the money to pay for any more, I am screwed.

@Dpullam Agreed, you don't have to sacrifice length in order to be fun, as Nintendo has proven countless times already. I myself prefer games that have tons of content but are highly playable in short stints, those are the games I usually enjoy the most. If I am paying top dollar for a game then I expect to get my money's worth, no ifs, ands, or buts. For comparison I purchased Dillon's Rolling Western: The Last Ranger (one of my favorite games on the 3ds) recently and have put 40 hours of pure fun into the game, where as some retail releases are less fun with less content and cost 5 times the price and because of that, most of the time I will simply wait for a price drop if the game does not have enough content to justify paying full price.

I would never say that it is wrong to make a short game, some games are great that way and wouldn't work if they were drawn out. There are a lot of games I like that are less than 12 hours long. That said, I don't know if I can justify a full $60 purchase for only 10 hours or less. Once the summer sale starts on steam I can pick up probably 15 games or more for that price.
I appreciate the work and skill that goes into any game, but I personally can't put that kind of money down for a short game, I don't have enough cash to throw around like that.

Its an interesting move to say that out now. Especially because the game hasn't been talked about recently. Reviewers are likely to recognize that tweet, and not be so negative about it.
I prefer smaller experiences anyways. Only certain games like the Super Mario, and Pikmin series can actually go on for long without being bored out of your mind.
However, I don't see this game getting hardware sales for it due to its length (Unless they can advertise the Gamepad well)

Now that I've read this, there's absolutely no chance I'll buy it until I can get it cheap. I know some people don't mind a short game, but I'm just not like that. Games cost a lot of money, and I need the experience to be appropriate for the price. If I can buy a game for $10 or $15 and get 10 hours out of it, I expect a whole lot more than that from a $60 game.

And the problem with replayability is that devs are almost always lying when they say their game has a lot of it. Adding a hard mode does not always add 10 hours to a game. It's things like challenge modes and unlockables and whatnot that really add replayability. And unless I can happily plunk down upwards of 20 or 30 hours at the very least into this game, I'm not into paying full price for it. (In fact I don't normally pay full price for ANYTHING, opting to wait for a price drop, but that's not precisely the point.)

A short game with interesting unlockables, or extra modes, or "missions", or even a local co-op is good. On the other hand a very short game with next to no replay value like, say, Madworld, is way funnier if you paid it just €19,90 or so. BTW who developed that Madworld again?

I think players expecting long game lengths has become something of a problem in the past few generations. Games should, in my opinion, be played over and over. It's all about getting practice, and ultimately getting better at the game by learning all the tricks and trades. I like how Nintendo Life pointed out Star Fox 64 as an example of that. It's one game I have spent many, many hours on trying to master the different levels and routes.

I put 30 hours into Sonic Colors and 6 hours into COD4. Yet the former is considered short and the second is considered meaty.

The point is- wait until it's out.

Well I'm still playing Kirby's Dream Land, even though I got it a year ago and beat it in 45 minutes.

Thank goodness, I find that 30 hours seems to be my limit before I put the game down and don't touch it for half a year. Sometimes (much) less depending on the game.

Metal Gear Rising was 5-8 hours tops, and it was still amazing. I've played 60+ hours RPGs that have also been amazing. It took me 22 hours to beat Bioshock Infinite, and it was amazing as well (be it the story is filled with plot holes). I'll judge if the game is good when I play it.

As are some of the best games. So long as what's there is satifying to play, I'm good.

Short games are a plus to me these days.

Seeing as I haven't had a lot of free time lately, it 's nice to play a short game knowing that If I want to, I can revisit it later. See Portal (1).

Most I'm a long-play kind of guy, but every now-and-then a short game can be refreshing.

The game looks really amazing and the comedy and visuals have me excited. I think whatever comes out will be fantastic.

i just want a release date .. I wouldn't be surprise if nintendo decides to wait till 1st quarter 2014 with all the big titles coming Q4

Are we talking 5 hours (maybe 6)short or 8-9 short. I think there is a bit of a difference between the two if you ask me. If it's just 5 hours then that's a problem. If it's 8-9 hours then it will probably be fine.

sigh this to me just said "forget it.... next!" i mean come on the game could be at least decent long and still have fun with it everyone hates those games were you pick up and a few hrs later your done and thats it and no online either =|

+1 on getting a release date already jeez -_-

I have high hopes for this game! I hope it'll turn out as good as I want it to be, regardless of length.

Sorry but I won't be paying Retail prices for a 10/12hr game. Fun or Not, All games are made with fun in mind.
Lets be honest estimated length of games determined by developers always fall short for most players So if they are saying 12hrs, in reality most players will have finished it in 6.

Fair enough paying upto £10 of eStore for a short game, you kinda figure that at that price your not going to get a big game, but £40+ for 6hrs..12 at the max thats just a rip-off.

Sin and punishment 2 was pretty short , but I would be hard pressed to find very many games that can compete with it as far as pure fun goes. This game is right up my alley and one of the few games that could possibly tear me away from mh3u .Now release date already please !

This is an interesting topic. I really think that it depends on the type of game that's being made. If the game's campaign is fairly linear and doesn't offer much in the way of replayability you'd want a 20+ hour experience roughly. It seems that many of these type of games today fall well short of that. It tends to be about 5-8 hours including cutscenes and often tacked on multiplayer. I think because production costs are through the roof atm for AAA titles, there just isn't enough money (and perhaps time) to be creating these epic single player experiences people expect. I tend to think $1 for every hour is a good rough guide as far as value goes. So paying $60 for a 5-8 hour campaign with low replayability seems a bad deal.

That's a big reason why I think indie games have taken off. You look at games like Spelunky, Terraria and Binding of Isaac...the type of games they are lend themselves to infinite replayability. I mean, both Spelunky and Binding of Isaac can be finished in under an hour, but because you get a different playthrough experience everytime....and because they are very difficult to actually complete, people spend hundreds of hours playing them. So paying $2 for BOI, $3 for Terraria and $9 for Spelunky for hundreds of hours of fun seems an incredible deal to me.

http://www.siliconera.com/2013/04/29/platinums-inaba-says-the-wonderful-101-will-make-you-glad-to-own-wii-u/
For all you nappy headed diglets out there in a tizzy

"If u hate to finish a game the next day u buy it, u better not play TW101."
Ok then I won't
A lot of big game releases seem to have done this last generation . I don't want to be able to buy a game and complete it in only 1 or 2 sittings. This to me is a waste of money.
If there are amble bonuses I may reconsider but there are other Wii U games which I can turn to if this is not the case.

Edit. Upon reading the above mentioned article I retract most of this statement XD

So he already warns us that the game is terribly short! Not a clever way of promoting a game, I guess!!