Uncharted: The Lost Legacy Suggested to be Over Ten Hours

Uncharted: The Lost Legacy Suggested to be Over Ten Hours

uncharted the lost legacy

Naughty Dog director of communications Arne Mayer has hinted that The Lost Legacy will be over ten hours long.

Back when Naughty Dog announced Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, it claimed it would be the "biggest expansion yet" for the franchise, and now, thanks to a hint dropped by Naughty Dog director of communications Arne Mayer, we have a bit of a ballpark of exactly how big it will be. In an interview with IBtimes, Mayer suggested that the game will be over ten hours long.

Years ago, when we were asked if we were ever doing a single player expansion for Uncharted we always said, 'Well, we don't have the self-discipline to do that'. If we tried to do that we'd create a full game," Mayer said.

"There's no way we could, sort of, constrict and restrain ourselves, and that's exactly what was happening here. When we were doing story pitches, we were coming up with a game that would be over ten hours long and so we suddenly realized everything we said was true and we couldn't keep it short."

Naughty Dog had previously stated that the DLC would be much longer than The Last of Us' Left Behind expansion, which clocked in at around three hours.

The Lost Legacy stars Chloe Frazer and Nadine Ross, who appeared in previous games in the franchise. It is set in India and sees Chloe hire mercenary Nadine "in order to recover a fabled ancient Indian artifact and keep it out of the hands of a ruthless war profiteer."

Uncharted: The Lost Legacy is expected to be released later in 2017, exclusively for PlayStation 4.

Source: IBtimes

Permalink

10 WHOLE hours?! Oh please, you temptress tell me there's day-one DLC and controls! OH OOOOOHHHH! Ten entire hours for $65+ dollars! Oh so ready!

Silentpony:
10 WHOLE hours?! Oh please, you temptress tell me there's day-one DLC and controls! OH OOOOOHHHH! Ten entire hours for $65+ dollars! Oh so ready!

It's a standalone DLC. There's no way it'll be $65+. (Right???)

Marter:

Silentpony:
10 WHOLE hours?! Oh please, you temptress tell me there's day-one DLC and controls! OH OOOOOHHHH! Ten entire hours for $65+ dollars! Oh so ready!

It's a standalone DLC. There's no way it'll be $65+. (Right???)

Well they charge $60 for ten hours on regular games, so...

Silentpony:
Well they charge $60 for ten hours on regular games, so...

I guess. But it'll likely be around $30, given its standalone DLC status.

They somehow managed to make Chloe unsexy.

I am okay with this.

Very okay with it actually. Could do with a few more shorter, tightly designed games and a few less 80+ hour death marches through swamps of padded low-effort "content".

Remember back when games, and even expansions used to be over 60 hours?
Remember Hordes of the Underdark, the Neverwinter Nights expansion?

Sure, it's not the cinematic level of Uncharted, but delivering graphics over content is always a failed basis to promote something.
And I don't mean content in the Ubisoft way in which it just seems like random collectibles sprinkled around a map.

JenSeven:
Remember back when games, and even expansions used to be over 60 hours?
Remember Hordes of the Underdark, the Neverwinter Nights expansion?

I don't - but then again, I barely played very slow progressing RPGs back in the day.
Platformers and various shooters I did play. And those didn't clock in at 60 hours. More like 10 to 20 as well. And expansions didn't have 60 hours, either.

JenSeven:
Remember back when games, and even expansions used to be over 60 hours?

Over sixty hours for a single playthrough?

No, not really, such games are (and were) few and far between in my experience. Also, it isn't accurate to say that greater length automatically equals greater quality.

JenSeven:
Remember back when games, and even expansions used to be over 60 hours?
Remember Hordes of the Underdark, the Neverwinter Nights expansion?

Two completely different genres.

Hawki:

JenSeven:
Remember back when games, and even expansions used to be over 60 hours?

Over sixty hours for a single playthrough?

No, not really, such games are (and were) few and far between in my experience. Also, it isn't accurate to say that greater length automatically equals greater quality.

I dunno, it certainly depends on the game and the tolerance you have for repetition. I have several hundred hours in multiple files on multiple Bethesda RPGs, and 300 alone in a single playthrough of Dragon's Dogma. It happens.
It's quite a lot to expect from what is a modern day cinematic platformer though.

Ezekiel:
They somehow managed to make Chloe unsexy.

They already did that in Uncharted 3. Atleast they fixed her face this time.

I do feel there's a bit of B-team hanging over this game in the way characters look and animate. But I'll reserve judgement till I see some genuine gameplay, which I highly doubt there was any of in the reveal trailer.

Chaosian:

I dunno, it certainly depends on the game and the tolerance you have for repetition. I have several hundred hours in multiple files on multiple Bethesda RPGs, and 300 alone in a single playthrough of Dragon's Dogma. It happens.
It's quite a lot to expect from what is a modern day cinematic platformer though.

"Depends on the game," as in, being an RPG. Which is the example that everyone has used.

I'm not contesting that playthroughs of 60-plus hours exist, I'd just like to contest the idea that there was some mythical point in the past where that was the norm, and the idea that increased length automatically means increased quality.

10 hours seems about right for this type of game and puts it roughly in "Full length" territory. Of course, the real important part is just how well that 10 hours is paced and how fun it is.

Uncharted 2 and 3 for the most part made good use of their time, excluding the ship levels for 3, which contributed nothing to the game other then allowing Drake to experience a sinking ship set-piece. I haven't played 4 yet but I've heard that one is paced quite well. We shall not speak of Uncharted 1(okay, it's not that bad but it's by far the weakest of the series).

Even the Last of us felt a tad too long, mostly because of Pittsburgh, that hours long roadblock which only seems to exist in the game to give Ellie and Joel more time to bond.

I used to believe the longer games were better games, until I realized that I don't have time for every game to be a long one, and many long games don't do enough to justify their length.

Marter:

Silentpony:
10 WHOLE hours?! Oh please, you temptress tell me there's day-one DLC and controls! OH OOOOOHHHH! Ten entire hours for $65+ dollars! Oh so ready!

It's a standalone DLC. There's no way it'll be $65+. (Right???)

I hope not. While 10 hours puts it firmly in the "full length" game territory, I would really hope it's not full price. Then again, how much effort are they putting in it if it isn't?

Mind you, this is Naughty Dog. And Naughty Dog is basically Rare, if Rare never fell from grace. But I'm not ignorant of the realities of making games in the modern day.

If it's standalone, that's pretty handy. I never experienced the beloved character of Chloe, so it seems a worthy enough chance at redeeming such personal failings.

Hawki:

Chaosian:

I dunno, it certainly depends on the game and the tolerance you have for repetition. I have several hundred hours in multiple files on multiple Bethesda RPGs, and 300 alone in a single playthrough of Dragon's Dogma. It happens.
It's quite a lot to expect from what is a modern day cinematic platformer though.

"Depends on the game," as in, being an RPG. Which is the example that everyone has used.

I'm not contesting that playthroughs of 60-plus hours exist, I'd just like to contest the idea that there was some mythical point in the past where that was the norm, and the idea that increased length automatically means increased quality.

Well, to give a non-RPG examples, I have 160 hours in the original Metro 2033, and 110 hours in Resident Evil 6. I'm sure everyone could give weird examples.
As for quality and time, it's not necessarily correlated, but there is an additional value you can place on the game from it. If you are someone who cares about the money they spend, spending $80 on 100 hours of enjoyment could be a lot more worthwhile then spending that $80 on something that's 8.
I do agree that the mythic era of every game taking 60 hours to beat never existed though.

Sold!

I mean, I was sold already, but count me in even more now. This sounds like a true single player DLC experience.
Although, I am forced to wonder how fast you will actually be able to get through the DLC, seeing as the ten hour mark makes it longer than Uncharted 4. Please, no speed run trophy this time guys.

Hawki:

JenSeven:
Remember back when games, and even expansions used to be over 60 hours?

Over sixty hours for a single playthrough?

No, not really, such games are (and were) few and far between in my experience. Also, it isn't accurate to say that greater length automatically equals greater quality.

Thank you. There are still people who think this philosophy is the best way to design a game, when it can become the worst way. If a game is full of senseless or pointless padding, I will lose interest on the spot or will not bother with a second playthrough.

Dalisclock:

I used to believe the longer games were better games, until I realized that I don't have time for every game to be a long one, and many long games don't do enough to justify their length.

When you're a kid/teenager with lots of free time on your hands, of course a longer game sounds better for a greater experience. But even during my late pre-teen/early teen years, I did not care much for overly long games.I would always take a 6-12 hour game with high replay value over a 30-60+ hour game. That is why I rarely touch RPGS at all. Looking back, there were many games, though not all, in the PS2 era that suffered from this (mainly the RPG and certain sandbox games).

Best of luck to ND. I am not Uncharted fan, but I am glad their fan base is getting something special.

That seems allright for a standalone expansion of this type of game. Before the open world formula took over a lot of single player games took around 7 - 10 hours to finish, i hated it then, but now i'm beginning to miss those days where majority of my time wasn't wasted by running back and forth across the map to reach the next piece of content.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here