
Astro Bot charmed the world last year, giving PS5 players a truly fantastic platformer that would go on to win numerous Game of the Year nods.
In a talk at this year's Game Developers Conference, director Nicolas Doucet talks about the making of this cutesy platformer, focusing mostly on how limiting the scope helped create a better experience.
"From the start, we were in the mindset that it's okay to make a compact game, and I think it's really important — especially going into this year — it's okay to make a small game," Doucet says.
He argues that keeping the project smaller scale allowed himself and the rest of Team Asobi more control over their work, faster design iteration, and the ability to pack the game with all its best ideas.
"The prospect of a game you can actually complete is a really, really positive argument [for small games]," he says. "That meant being okay with the game being 12 hours, but if it had been eight hours — and the eight hours were fantastic — we would have settled for that to reach consistent quality."
In an overcrowded landscape where the top dogs are all vying for player retention with enormous worlds and adventures that last forever, Doucet says it can be beneficial to simply not compete on that level.
"In order to exist in this very busy world, I think it's sometimes better to settle for a good spot in second league, rather than a bad spot in the top league," he says.
His argument for a smaller scope delves into some interesting facts and figures about Astro Bot; the game has just 12 minutes and 30 seconds of cutscenes total, keeping players in control nearly the entire time; words in the game amount to fewer than 5,000; and development ran for three years and six months, a comparably short cycle nowadays.
"A lot of the choices we made with Astro Bot could be labelled double-A or maybe lacking in ambition — like the size of the team, the size of the game, the fact there's no text, no voice, and its not an open world," Doucet says. "But that doesn't really matter. We still made a game that made people really happy, and in fact it was probably the simplicity that a lot of players made time for."
It was certainly refreshing to play a game so rich with imaginative ideas from start to finish, never outstaying its welcome and, if we're honest, we wanted more of when the credits rolled.
Fortunately, Astro Bot has been supported post-launch with a number of free updates adding more levels; long may that continue.
What are your thoughts on Astro Bot's smaller scale contributing to its success? Tell us in the comments section below.
[source gamedeveloper.com, via eurogamer.net]
Comments 27
Some comments have been aired that even if it was a 12 hour nigh on flawless experience it doesn't justify the cost. I find that illogical as it thus leads you to assume that an 80 hour boring, generic slog fest that you hate IS value for money.
I can't help but wonder why Team Asobi didn't want to make a Live Service game instead 😏
@Brundleflies21 open world checklist games come to mind god there awful 😖
Totally agree with this
These days I much prefer smaller more focused games, part of that is that I struggle to find the time to play a massive open world games as well as said games rarely justifying their length with worthwhile content
It’s also looks like it had world class project management and project planning and execution in development and very good quality control.
Which I have always felt prior to the GAAS Sony days, All Sony studios have had.
Hence some the most memorable first party studios AAA games created and up there with some of Nintendos best if not better than some.
It's perfect as it is, but I think it would have benefited if it were cheaper, like Helldivers 2
Shorter games are absolutely fine if they're also fantastic games. If this was a mediocre 12 hour game, there would have been issues and the length would have gone against it. Great games will invariably do well regardless of length.
@JackiePriest please don't say that lol
It's sad to see he felt like he had to comment on it. Not every game needs to be a modern live service borefest. They made an awesome game, and budget and scope defined are just proof that bubbled up budgets and cut-throat practices AAAA teams practice are wrong and bound to fail.
I would agree that scope creep is a serious issue, especially for a bunch of the devs working at PlayStation. We've had multiple games within a single generation before!
I actually would call it ambitious to make a game that is consistently enjoyable and remove as much fat as possible. Too many games fall prey to hitting an arbitrary number of hours to justify its price and existence. Length stopped being a mark of ambition to me a long time ago.
it was longer than astrobot rescue mission
More of this, Sony! 10-15 hour games are fine! Who has time to play all these 30+ hours games 😅
Great games can be made with a budget of 50-100 million in stead of 3x that amount
Smaller games? Like the kind Nintendo have been selling millions and millions of for years?
What a great idea! 😂
@LogicStrikesAgain yes everyone wants more of this gaming delight
I just want it to come to PC finally so I can play it
Completely agreed with him 🤝
I quite enjoyed RPG or open world games that took 30+ hours to complete. But for me these days playing them feels more like a job that requires full commitment to finish than just a hobby. And the older you gets, you will have less time for playing video games.
So i personally have a lot of appreciation towards smaller games. Not just they are shorter to finish and didn't hurt my wallet, but with high replay value you can replay them any time you want and they still feels fun. It's the reason why all these years i'm still replaying games like Contra, Streets of Rage, Final Fight, DMC, Metal Slug, Rayman, Shinobi, Mega Man, Street Fighter, Onimusha, Gungrave etc. Meanwhile, when i finished RPG's or open world like Horizon, FF, Bloodborne, AssCreed, Dark Souls etc, i rarely replay them again.
And also these smaller games has less risk for the developers. They don't requires massive AAA budget and years to developed so the developers are less stress / pressure and have better focus on complete their games.
It’s nice when a game respects your time. It took me longer than 12 hours to 100% the game and I enjoyed every minute of it!
I totally agree with this sentiment. I’ve just finished Cocoon, which is what, three or four hours, if that? And I got the physical version so paid £20 odd for it. And do you know what? I don’t feel like I was ripped off at all. Those few hours with one of the best games ever made will always be worth it. I cannot stand open world games or slog-fest RPGs for the simple fact they’re just full of boring, time-consuming checklists for the sake of boasting how many hours they take to complete.
I haven’t played Astro Bot because I don’t have a PS5, but if/when I do get one, this is the first game I’ll be buying.
@SMJ I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it.
I wouldnt say small and simple moreso than we just in desperate need of something more than the lack of variety we’ve been getting from $ony these past several years; aside from ratchet(and maybe spiderman?) , astrobot is a breath of fresh air - but a small step. we need more platformers and new ips that aren’t movie like narrative third person RPGs or whatever. $ony and Nintendo need to switch identities for a while, in my opinion, that would be something.
@SMJ nintendo games i wouldn’t necessarily call “smaller” - they produce AAA quality of their type for the most part. Their games have lore to them(established characters, character arcs, story, etc) and even spinoffs. Astrobot doesn’t really have that kind of depth, which is why i giggle when people say astrobot is better than mario as a whole 😂
@JackiePriest heh nice try single player purist , but astro kart and astro MMO is inevitable with how successful astrobot is now 😂
@Link41x right! I am in the process of saving up for a CPU and GPU and building my first high end PC. Once i do that i am selling my PS5 and PC will be my PS. I would buy Astro bot again on Steam.
While I don't care for Astro Bot's content (but respect how it goes about pacing/mechanics as focus, just wish it did more to be better then the level it is, even Indies are pitiful and 5th gen ones are more wildly varied AA or B grade game's characters/movesets then modern era creativity being still too weak in comparison) as I prefer other platformers efforts instead of the past then what it offers. I do for what it represents for sure.
It's not nostalgia, it's quality, not for the era, never played the games or that era, but what games offered to stand out.
I enjoyed Ratchet games at 10 hours, NG+ or not (besides 2016 or Rift Apart being underwhelming with their priorities so they disappointed me).
I have any PS3/360/Wii or older games because of their length, ideas and more being just enough, I can jump in and out and still have fun not hours of filler I don't care for.
So to me a game with 20+ hours and filler is boring. But 3-20 hours yes please. Indies, AA, AAA, whatever the case.
Quality over quantity.
Any hour long game if it's a racing game with event variety I approve of, if not no play.
If it's a visual novel and many routes with enough to justify it I will approve.
Tactics, hack n slashes and more with enough levels, themes, dialogue, movesets, level design, sure. If they justify it.
But most other genres I don't and are mostly filler so I don't care for them.
I don't need my money's worth of hour count. I have questioned it sure for length in some cases of old games that are a few minutes (difficulty, hardware limits, etc.) or remakes of arcadey classics. But if replay-ability fun enough I think it's fair.
But if a collection of old games or documentary style stuff or whatever then yeah I think it's fine.
They offer enough to them to be worth while.
But a 100 hour RPG that's filler, mostly boring quests that fit tropes/not much going on, boring dialogue, boring movesets and boring worlds, yeah the filler isn't appealing to me in the slightest. But I prefer more moveset level design focused open worlds, more platformer ones if you will. The rest I ignore like they don't exist. Talk about them with people that do play them sure, play myself, nope.
Platformers haven't appealed to me in years by Indies more repeating history type lacking qualities for characters, level design and other dull potential that isn't achieved for artstyle, dialogue, characters and more are the priorities, the gameplay is always disappointing for a genre based around it. It's annoying.
Not making me very happy with the stagnation of the genre to try harder as their potential creativity ceilings are very dull and disappointing to spin up anything.
Part 2:
Even watching a video on Rollerdrome I was like yeah I get why the design is good without even having to look at it. Inspirations or not, arcadey or not, simple or not, I got what it was about, and immediately could tell, not by people telling me, but by seeing it, thinking about it and it's details.
As bad as racing games AAA or Indies really too. Too much nostalgia, fewer event types, too much reference material/wishing for licensing, tech focus (more so AAA)/copy paste and very little good coming out of them. The originality is just pathetically low for customers to care let alone developers knowing audiences won't expect anything but. So who is to blame. Audiences or devs wanting the same or devs too scared to actually offer anything because they have to play comfort for sales, versus them having good ideas but not offering them, don't think about it and yet use their skills for what they do anyway.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...