
With Assassin's Creed Shadows' 20th March release date just around the corner, more and more details are being passed around via interviews and event coverage, with the game's length being a key talking point.
Thanks to an official showcase in Kyoto, the ever-informative Genki got to interview creative director Charles Benoit, who was happy to confirm all kinds of stuff.
For starters, Shadows' main story should take most players around 30 to 40 hours to complete — but that playtime can be doubled to roughly 80 hours if you decide to see out every side quest and explore the open world in its entirety.
This means that Shadows should be a bit smaller than Assassin's Creed Valhalla, which is often criticised for its overall length.
Next, Benoit reveals that the developer is considering various updates including a New Game+ mode, dependent on player demand. New Game+ is particularly noteworthy because the aforementioned Valhalla never got it — which turned out to be a fairly controversial decision amongst fans who wanted to replay the viking adventure with all of their endgame gear intact.
Other takeaways from the interview include Benoit stressing just how dynamic Shadows' open world design is. Seasons change over time, for example, altering landscapes and allowing for new opportunities in terms of activities. Similarly, a full day and night cycle forces you to consider your approach — especially if you want to be stealthy.
Interestingly, Benoit also highlights the title's "dynamic cutting system". Basically, environmental destructibility is always a factor during gameplay — something new for Assassin's Creed — letting you cut through objects, or smash them to pieces. The director doesn't go into too much detail here, but it sounds like a potentially interesting addition.
Are you looking forward to Assassin's Creed Shadows? Slice through a sliding door and stroll into the comments section below.
[source x.com, via youtube.com]
Comments 23
New Game+ is a must for such a short game
Sounds like the right amount of length for me. Nothing too long where it starts to feel like it's dragging. But enough to feel like you're getting your money's worth. Happy medium.
30-40 hours sounds much more reasonable, but we'll have to see if they are true to their word and if the open world busywork is actually engaging and not just cut-and-paste filler this time.
@JonnyAces Christ 80hrs is not "too long" wish i had as much free time on my hands 🤣
Sounds like it’ll be about right on the length for me. I’m sort of hoping that I really jive with this one. Weirdly enough, I’m starting to miss open world games. I had a surgery when Mirage came out and the Ubisoft formula was pretty welcome for me in that time. Had a lot of fun with Mirage and Valhalla, I’m just hoping Shadows has a better storyline.
@Jrs1 40hours for the main story. 80hours is solely if you want to find and complete everything is totally different. Plus if you checked any of my previous comments on different articles you would know how little "free time" I actually get. I was solely talking generally.
Maybe I'll try this some time after Atelier Yumia. Loved Valhalla (100+hrs) but Mirage was just not fun for me.
@JonnyAces Cool bud, not a personal dig ive got "backlog issues" so i best keep this game on the wishlist a while longer (will be cheaper and in a better state patch wise knowing ubisoft ) 😉
I know generally longer games sell better, and a lot (most?) people like their value, but I'm firmly in the wrap everything up in 30 hours camp.
An 80 hour game will literally take me more than a month to complete.
Games are too long anyways. 30h should be considered long. I'm more willing to replay a shorter game. I frequently replay something like Uncharted, MGS 1-3, shenmue... perfect length, but I usually won't replay a 40-60+ hour game unless it's Witcher 3.
Let's be honest, it won't be 40 hours, it'll be 25-30. Maybe 35. It won't be 40.
Mirage was billed at 25-30, and 16 is the average. Developers tend to state wildly inaccurate times compared to the length that "most" people will play a game at.
@Lowdefal I think 25-30hrs was for 100% completion, no? In that case, it looks fairly accurate, by looking at HowLongToBeat times and platinum trophy guides.
On the subject: glad the trend of never-ending games is reversing a bit. I am also confident that it will get at least 30+hrs of DLC content, so those wanting a longer game have nothing to worry about.
This works well for me. Definitely robust enough but not as hard to digest as the Origins-Odyssey-Valhalla trio. Odyssey is hands down one of the best open world games I've ever played but I put like 150+ hours into it and I still had like 30% of the map left to explore. It was amazing, but bulky as hell. I loved that though, how vast the world seemed and how unique each corner of it was.
BUT. I don't want every AC game to be like that. By the time I got to Valhalla, it got to be a bit much. So something a bit smaller scale but still robust, as I said earlier, is welcome. More important to me is innovating the gameplay and trying some new things, which so far, Shadows seems to be doing.
"Smaller doesn't mean shorter"
This.
We need Odyssey story length on Origins sized map. Shadows sounds like it is.
Valhalla was way too big.
The question really is how enjoyable are those 40 hours, or the additional content to plow through for double that. I guess we shall all have to wait and see.
Valhalla -2.0 again
As a fan of the A.C. series games i dont care about new g+ but the non boring missions like save a cat for a tree or go plz bring me water im dying , or even a mission where you just follow a guy on the first game just to see his die from an another assassin. I want good missions, a good script, background, variety of missions where you dont get bored. But as a fan i will apreciate this game.iqual like the others on (except odissey) hahahaha
New game plus sounds sensible in this instance given there are 2 main characters players can choose from - assuming there is much of a difference in story that you might otherwise miss. Ultimately it is up to ubisoft to make the game world compelling enough to want to stick around in though. I'm tentatively positive about this game. It does look very good
A reasonable length for those who like the more recent AC games and like to get stuck into open worlds. It often depends on the game and how you click with it. For Persona 5 Royal or Starfield I could still play after 200 hours. For Dragons Dogma 2 and Dragon Age the Veilgaurd around 75 hours was about right. For something like Avowed 50 hours was enough and for Final Fantasy 16 I was glad to be done after 32 hours.
Wasn't a fan of Valhalla even though I finished it, but Shadows is right up my type of game, plus the length to do everything is sweet and is beefy which I am excited for
Love these games, booked the day off
Leaving my reservations aside, I wonder if there's anyone genuinely upset that this game isn't 2000 hours long (main quests).
We probably should normalize smaller open world games though.
Depends very much on how good and entertaining AC Shadows is.
The Witcher 3 was ~75 hours long, with >150 hours for completionists, and didn't have that much drama around it, because of it's exquisite quality... Some sidequests were even better than the mainline, of course you'd delve into them all.
AC Valhalla was about the same length as Witcher 3, but it was capital Boring, an issue that contributed a lot to it's perceived length...
I loved AC Odyssey (made by the same team that does AC Shadows), and despite it's 45h/140h length, I've completed it 3 times + all of it's DLC's - it was that entertaining.
So if AC Shadows ends up in the same ballpark, it'd be grand!
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...