260 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan312]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Eh? DA:O took me less than 15 hours to complete, but admittedly I wasn't very thorough.  However I've invested 22 Hours into Mass Effect 2 and that's two times. Once on Hard/Renegade, then Insane/Paragon. Making sure to get the most content possible, a completionist playthrough.
I wouldn't say 18 hours is too short, when playing the fabled ME2 twice is only four hours longer.

That's not to say I don't realize it's money grabbing. But going by hours alone, if the content in ME2 is worth $60, then the content in both Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void are also worth $60. More so when you consider Blizzard is planning to add more to the online and Bnet, and the obvious additions to the World Editor.

Also if anyone has a link I'd like to see where it says Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will be priced as full games. Last I checked, which was a long time ago, they'd be priced as expansions. (Or appropriately proportionate to the content included. So half a game [SP] = half price).

Lastly, "blatantly" about more cash? Well no duh. That should be painfully obvious. These people don't make games for charity. They expect to get paid.

People are trying to make it out however that Blizzard IS doing it for the fans which is ridiculous, they wanted an easy to create game that could finally fill the void of player support left by StarCraft. And yes, by 60 bucks I meant 30 an expansion so 120-130 bucks total which is a bit pricey for 60 hours of singleplayer and some new units later...

Also, 15 hours to complete DA:O? Were you playing it on casual with cheats and did absolutely only the parts needed? It seems like a stretch that I could ever beat that game in under 20 hours with cheats on casual, let alone 15, my first playthrough took 80+ hours on hard...

Modifié par Revan312, 30 juillet 2010 - 09:31 .

[GnusmasTHX]

Revan312 wrote...

Also, 15 hours to complete DA:O? Were you playing it on casual with cheats and did absolutely only the parts needed? It seems like a stretch that I could ever beat that game in under 20 hours with cheats on casual, let alone 15, my first playthrough took 80+ hours on hard...

Well that was referring to my first playthrough only,  I missed a lot of content and was on casual. I wasn't particularly interested in DA:O to begin with so I got through the story as fast as possible to see what it was about and quite a few sidequests. A friend gifted it to me out of the blue and I was like "... Alright." After that I accumulated a bit more hours on it, did another playthrough with different choices and more quests and ended at around ~45 hours on hard. No cheats for me. ~20 Hours for the main quest is about right.

I'm a pretty time-efficient gamer. Often saying, "It took you THAT long?" But ~80 hours seems about right if you're invested in the game.

I'm at 16 hours and on the last mission of SC2 on Brutal, so... Wasting too much time online.

Modifié par GnusmasTHX, 30 juillet 2010 - 10:09 .

[ScreamingPalm]

I'm impressed with how good this game looks and runs on my aging PC. I have no idea about such things, but am guessing it is from optimizing code and polish.

I really like what they did with the new Bnet, of course there are things that need to be added like chat and cross-region capability. However, I like many of the changes and I think it bodes well for getting rid of many of the annoyances from D2... cheating, bots, ruined economy from (forget the name of the site) forum gold, etc. For SC2 I like the matching system and I might actually start playing mp on SC... was too embarassed of my skillz to play the first one lol. And no more worrying about smurfing .

I'm happy Blizzard has had success, they are the type of company I want to keep making games. As far as greed, I've seen much worse like so many games getting released prematurely and some not even getting any support afterwards.

Modifié par ScreamingPalm, 30 juillet 2010 - 10:23 .

[Leinadi]

I think much of the dev time spent on Starcraft 2 (and will likely be the same on Diablo 3) is in the polishing. And I'm not just talking about squashing bugs, I'm talking about really making it a pleasant experience *overall*.

Sure there are RPGs which are really long but if you ask me, nearly all of them would do really well to be significantly cut down, trimmed and polished. Since DA is being discussed, I would say there is a very large amount of combat filler (dialogue is harder to judge, but there is a fair amount of repetition there as well) that could've simply been removed from the game. Same goes for nearly every RPG I can think of (Fallout 1 might be the exception, which is fairly short and contains little filler).

While I've not completed (though I'm pretty far in) SC2 yet, I am extremely pleased with how varied the missions are and how good the pace is. I think much of Blizzard's dev time goes into this part of development (including general balancing, for multiplayer as well), they seem to take their time until it is just right. I really like that myself. I don't typically mind bugs that much but something that bothers me again and again about games is how they waste my time with filler. I'll much rather have a shorter game if it doesn't outstay its welcome and is good through-out.

Releasing the campaigns like they are is obviously a way to maximize the profit but I think it's pretty understandable as well if you believe the budget that went into the game as well as the risk of releasing such a large-scale, non-MMO project for the PC alone. I regard most developers who have made it really big to be really disappointing in the games they release, but I must say that I am impressed with the design decisions Blizzard are aiming for with their games (can't speak for WoW, never played that). There appears to be a lot of focus on the gameplay and playability and not so much on jaw-dropping graphics. That's not to say SC2 doesn't look awesome, but it's not graphics designed to blow your mind, it's simply very well done stylistically (only thing I don't like are the Gears of Wars-ish characters).

Modifié par Leinadi, 30 juillet 2010 - 10:28 .

[Wicked 702]

By the way, $40 expansions are pretty much the norm with $60 games these days so I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up costing $140 as a total package. Personally, It'd rather wait for the BattleChest. That's why I'm bothered with the "releasing in three parts" issue.

[Elanareon]

Well alot of guys in the DoW2 hated it... No new things, same old same old. Spamcraft. TBH, i also think that its a bit lacklluster, compared to DoW2 which has a very good game mechanics of covering from fire which can be flanked. Unlike SC2 where you either rush, turtle, or spam. DoW2 gamestyle is better for me The only thing i would play SC2 is for the story, and that isn't worth 50$ for me

on a side note, I think i would like warcraft 3 better than SC2. Then again i really did like warcraft 3...

Modifié par Elanareon, 31 juillet 2010 - 03:04 .

[Costin_Razvan]

When Dawn of War 2 gets to the top of the list on metacritic.com for PC games, then we can talk what game is better.

The singleplayer in DoW 2 is BULL****, not the story mind you but the gameplay itself is. Just a sodding bunch of repetitive missions, though they did fix this in Chaos Rising.

Here is a review for Starcraft II, the guy goes over the top but I feel he gets his points right.

angryjoeshow.com/2010/07/starcraft-ii-review/

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 31 juillet 2010 - 10:00 .

[Rubbish Hero]

Dawn Of War II is the exact same thing over and over, Starcraft II has variation.

[Tirigon]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Dawn Of War II is the exact same thing over and over, Starcraft II has variation.

Dawn of War sucks. Very boring game.

Though I like the necros. Wish there were necros in a good game.

[Wishpig]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

When Dawn of War 2 gets to the top of the list on metacritic.com for PC games, then we can talk what game is better.

The singleplayer in DoW 2 is BULL****, not the story mind you but the gameplay itself is. Just a sodding bunch of repetitive missions, though they did fix this in Chaos Rising.

Here is a review for Starcraft II, the guy goes over the top but I feel he gets his points right.

angryjoeshow.com/2010/07/starcraft-ii-review/

Ya, god, DoW2's story mode was a freakin pain to get through. It was SO BOREING.

But Chaos Rising had a freakin awesome story mode with a great great GREAT twist at the end. A twist that can change drastically depending on how you play. So awesome.

Good review btw.

[GnusmasTHX]

DoW1>>>DoW2,



Just sayin'.

[Revan312]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

DoW1>>>DoW2,

Just sayin'.

Absolutely, hands down better..  I spent endless hours on Dark Crusade's and Soulstorm's campaigns. Just a ton of replay there for a singleplayer RTS.

DoW2 was far too small scale for my tastes especially considering no building or traditional economy mechanics and micro management on such a precise level.

Starcraft (The first and Brood War) was better than either but I just can't see myself playing SC2 for more than a couple of months online as it's just sooo similar to the original, both in gameplay, graphics and tactics... It's excellently designed, as it's base is just that good, but it really didn't do anything new.. at all.. and since I played SC for literally hundreds of hours with my friends, I'm just burnt out on these exact same mechanics *shrugs*

Have fun though to the hardcore fans and newly introduced, it's well worth the money if you want to play online

[DukeOfNukes]

I actually really liked Dawn of War 2. Yeah, the missions could be repetitive...but at least it was something NEW. Starcraft 2, while enjoyable, isn't really new. There's nothing about it that says "this is a new game"...even its map editor is a slightly altered version of the WC3 one.



@ Costin_Razvan: Why would we care about the meta critic score? Everyone knows that not all games are held to the same standards...hence why GTA IV got a perfect score on so many sites despite numerous game crashing bugs, while other games go from a 9 to a 7 simply because they have texture pop in.

[Elanareon]

Well of course Blizzard will be better at campaigns and story modes. They make a good story and have some excellent cgi cutscenes to back em up. I was talkng about the game mechanics of the multiplayer. I just prefer DoW2's new style of cover, flanking, ranged units being locked up in melee, supressive fire.... SC2, while being good, doesn't hold up to those for me.

[Costin_Razvan]

Starcraft (The first and Brood War) was better then either.

With it's repetitive missions? Build a base, kill enemy base? Cause that is what the majority of SC1 missions involved, sure you had a few special ones, but those were far in between. In SC2 every mission has something unique in one way or another.

The great thing about SC2 is how it presents it's story on board the Hyperion, while in SC1 you only had a cutscene before each mission, and occasionally a CGI cinematic.

As for multiplayer, you can't say that SC1 beats SC2 there, yes SC 2 is just the same as SC 1 with some new mechanics and new units, but that's it. That doesn't however make SC2 weaker then SC1.

DukeOfNukes: To say there isn't something new in SC2 with the way it handles it's campaign is complete and utter bull****, have you even played it?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 août 2010 - 08:03 .

[Elanareon]

How can starcraft 2 be better than this?



http://www.youtube.c...SachaNarine#p/u

[Costin_Razvan]

Have you even bothered playing it online or are you just saying this based on what you hear and saw on youtube videos?

Speaking of innovation, great innovation Dawn of War 2 has....cover system copied from Company of Heroes, resourced gathering from Dawn of War 1. Yes I admit the combat

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 août 2010 - 02:44 .

[Rubbish Hero]

The largest difference between Dawn of War II and Starcraft II is that Dawn of War II is an entirely different game from Dawn Of War. Starcraft II is an evolution of Starcraft while at the same time remaining  completely faithful to the original formula. Something Dragon Age 2 probably isn't.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 01 août 2010 - 02:59 .

[Elanareon]

Well they have the same developers... Can't play online because i can't be bothered paying for a game that has equal cost of 2 just to try it hehe but i did play the BETA... It was more of like sc1 and wc 3 really... fastest one has advantage, mass produce units to counter enemies mass produced units. TBH im tempted to buy just because there may not be a warcraft 4 anymore, but the game costs around 3.5k here that's just too much for a game



Have you played dow2? its really fun, i just don't know why people don't give it a chance. Then again most games that are hard to learn isnt given any chances by most people. hehe

[Elanareon]

Why don't you just stream some vid from youtube? There are lots already... Most are Beta though but big difference can it make?

[Costin_Razvan]

Have you played dow2? its really fun, i just don't know why people don't give it a chance

Yes I have, I still consider Starcraft 2 above it in story, gameplay, and texturing. Animations in DoW 2 ARE better, but the bloody animations of a game aren't something to keep me playing.



DoW 2 has a far crappier system for matchmaking then SC 2.

[Rubbish Hero]

Games For Windows Live sucks on pretty much every game.

If Dawn Of War II used steam the multiplayer would have been alot smoother.

[DukeOfNukes]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

DukeOfNukes: To say there isn't something new in SC2 with the way it handles it's campaign is complete and utter bull****, have you even played it?

There isn't. Starcraft 2 is 12 years of Blizzard finding stuff in other games and incorporating it into their own...actually, it's not really 12 years. It's more like the first 6, and then stopping once they started to put it all together. I'm not saying that it doesn't work well together...it's just nothing we haven't seen before.

Although, they do deserve a beating for giving Raynor more of a back story than being a small town sherrif...and for their music selection in the jukebox.