11 hours ago, Matias Goldberg said:

I want to clarify many things because you're confusing a lot of concepts.

All the games you just mentioned are long linear story driven narrative games. The difference between these games (DAI, GTA & Fallout vs Uncharted, Halo, The Last of Us, Half Life 2 & Persona 5). is that the former is an open world game with lots of side quests, and the latter are not open world (but rather area-based, level-based or chapter-based) and few side quests.

Technically, making long linear story driver narrative game is literally the easiest part. It's just writing a very long script, like writing a book (note: writing a good book people want to read is hard, but in comparison it's the easiest part of making the game). Early text-based game fit that description. Graphics Adventure games also fit that description.

What's hard is making a game to feel fun to play, keeping the game balanced, making all the art assets, animating the cutscenes, setting up the pacing correctly (cutscenes vs gameplay), ensuring the voice acting matches the animation, and setting up lots of side quests that are bug free (this is VERY hard) and don't contradict the main story (i.e. you can't be acting all Superman against an optional boss, reviving a forgettable character in a side quest; and then the main story treat you like you're just a regular mortal and toss in the perma-death of a main character) and many more details that make a game feel like an AAA game.

 

Zelda: Breath of the Wild is not a "story driven narrative game" at all, however it is very similar in terms of scope, length, difficulty and look to DAI, GTA & Fallout because it's open world with lots of sidequests.

I mean linear game play along with the linear narrative. 

I feel like this is shoe-horning some types of games into a bucket, as well. Sure, many linear games only take 20ish hours to complete the story, versus non-linear games that you can easily sink 100+ hours into. However, it's a difference between apples and oranges in the RPG world, and the number of hours to complete may not be the only metric you want to measure by.

Open-world RPGs like Fallout or Elder Scrolls expect the player to cover all the map, see lots of different locales and experience lots of different characters (even if they're voiced by the same person, they're still a different NPC with a different model and objectives and quests). These games are easy to sink 100+ hours into, and it's easy to see why: the sheer quantity of different content to experience.

Non-open-world RPGs, however, perform a different function. Take Final Fantasy XIII, for example. There is a very finite (some would say too finite) amount of content to experience. But, one can also easily sink 100+ hours of time into it, grinding through the Ma'habara Underground or the Faultwarrens or save/reloading the same Oretoise in the plaza fight in order to accrue Crystogen Points and Platinum Ingots in order to maximize your characters' growth and inventory (I'm sure I don't sound bitter about this). Here, the time sink isn't the quantity of different content to experience, but mastery of the same content in order to maximize the potential of the party. JRPGs may be singular in this regard, though, but the point still stands: the time isn't spent experiencing new/different content, but grinding the same things over and over again. The endless grind to perfection.

Another concept to consider is replayability of the content. Sure, you might be playing the same story, but do the players have the option of experiencing different story branches by making different choices (games like Dragon Age or Beyond Two Souls are prime examples)? Similar content might be experienced, like the same enemies fought or the same side quests completed to get specific gear, but enough content is different to warrant a second play, which will increase the number of hours spent playing.

In short, a simple metric of the number of hours played may not be the best measuring stick - it may instead be more prudent to couple it with an objective. Do you want a 20ish hour main story experience, with additional 60ish hours of side content, or do you want 100+ hours of the same main story?

The Silver Lining is a good example of what size linear game a smaller studio could produce. It was made by a team of around 20 people using there free time and over 150 people who added to it during development.

Im pretty sure a 60h long campaign for Half-life 2 would feel TOO long, even if its made well. Story-games need an start, middle and ending, just like a book or movie.

Very "long" games like GTA or WOW or Elder Scrolls have open objectives, and they repeat many times in different variations. It's quite different. And online games like battlefield or DOTA can be played endlessly, even though the player repeat the same "content" (same maps, same weapons etc)