129 réponses à ce sujet

[Atakuma]

MIke_18 wrote...

More content is bad now?

I guess every game should be like COD then? Then devs can **** out sequels every year.

Content is not a universal good.

[MIke_18]

Vampire : Redemption was the only game I've said that. Longer levels are not a problem, when they are as varied and good as in DA: O

[Faust1979]

Atakuma wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

More content is bad now?

I guess every game should be like COD then? Then devs can **** out sequels every year.

Content is not a universal good.

some content is bad and just unnecessary like the card game in Star Wars Kotor I've only played it once or twice and it was annoying and rather pointless. There was also that annoying mini game in Jade Empire where you shot down ships which I avoided at every opportunity. 

[slimgrin]

Atakuma wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Short games are the domain of action and adventure games, not rpg's. Rpg's are typically long, and for good reason. I'm not asking for mindless filler, but seriously, if DA2 was only like 20hrs long that would be disappointing.

I believe the majority of DA:O's Length comes from mindless filler. without all the distractions it could easily be a fifteen hour game.

Many side quests could have been done better.

I spent 50 hrs on it though I died a lot. I also skipped a lot.

I still hope DA is at least a 35-40 hr game. The trend is for shorter games nowadays to be sure...and then to tack on cheap mutliplayer. 

[upsettingshorts]

I can't decide what boggles my mind more: Mass Effect 2 in twelve hours or Dragon Age Origins in 60+ hours per playthrough. I read both and can't comprehend either.

The wildly different, inconsistent reports of hours spent playing a game leads me to believe the metric is at best a poor metric of, well, whatever it's being used to describe.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:43 .

[slimgrin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I can't decide what boggles my mind more: Mass Effect 2 in twelve hours or Dragon Age Origins in 60+ hours per playthrough. I read both and can't comprehend either.

The wildly different, inconsistent reports of hours spent playing a game leads me to believe the metric is at best a poor metric of content.

How long was your first DA run?

Modifié par slimgrin, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...

How long was your first DA run?

It's been a while, but in the mid-40s for a completionist run on Normal? 
ME1 it's been so long that I can't remember, but ME2 was in the mid-30s for a completionist on Normal.

Just saw you said first.  First was high 30s, but I missed some sidequests.


Remembered I could just go look.  42 hours.  Subsequent playthroughs were about the same, though I didn't write it down.  
Mass Effect 1-2 both varied at slightly, but not significantly, less.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:48 .

[Faust1979]

20-30 hours is good for me if a game takes me 60 hours or more to playthrough I can see myself getting bored. It seems like they would have to add a lot of filler to get a game to that length. I get bored with Fallout 3 and Elder Scrolls once I've done all the sidequests and main quests and one a good bit of exploring. I even erased the fallout 3 quest that leaves the game open just so I can have some kind of ending

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The wildly different, inconsistent reports of hours spent playing a game leads me to believe the metric is at best a poor metric of, well, whatever it's being used to describe.

It's a terrible benchmark. Are they to account for the time I went down the shops and left the game running?

[slimgrin]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The wildly different, inconsistent reports of hours spent playing a game leads me to believe the metric is at best a poor metric of, well, whatever it's being used to describe.

It's a terrible benchmark. Are they to account for the time I went down the shops and left the game running?

Developers themselves do speed runs to test this sort of thing. It's about the only benchmark we have. 

I'm going to go out on limb and say ME1, ME2, and DA:O are all long games, especially when compared to other genres. Also, you can skip content if you want to, thats the great thing about rpg's. Everyone can be happy.

I don't understand why people on this forum continually push for more streamlining, more removal of variety, nonlinearity, and side content. It's like they want the game to go straight from point A to B as fast and efficiently as possible. Thats what an action game is supposed to do, not an rpg.

Modifié par slimgrin, 06 décembre 2010 - 12:05 .

[In Exile]

A long game isn't always good. It's something that goes against replayability, because when 85% of the content is identical, it's hard to motivate yourself to see that one different scene for 60 hours of work. That was my major problem with DA:O. Maybe I want to see what Orzammar is like with a returning Dwarf noble, but I don't want to put up with 30 hours of DA:O with a character I'm not attached to just to see another scene.

[Faust1979]

I like having variety only if it adds something to a game and doesn't feel like I'm wasting time. Alpha Protocol is a pretty short RPG game but it's great and has a lot of variety to it despite it's length. Sometimes I wonder if a lot of people haven't played table top RPGs because it's pretty much going from point A to point B in the stories. But it's the way that the people interact with each other is great and if there are games like cards or whatever it's because it can serve the storyline, like the James Bond RPG I have.

[Apollo Starflare]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I can't decide what boggles my mind more: Mass Effect 2 in twelve hours or Dragon Age Origins in 60+ hours per playthrough. I read both and can't comprehend either.

The wildly different, inconsistent reports of hours spent playing a game leads me to believe the metric is at best a poor metric of, well, whatever it's being used to describe.

My first DAO playthrough was like 69 hours.  Yeah I have no idea how I made it last that long either, but little things like leaving the game one while I went to do something else, reading every codex entry etc. just added up I guess? Plus I find I'm a slow player when it comes to first playthroughs in general.

[upsettingshorts]

Whenever playthrough hours come up I just start thinking about the same kinds of questions that Baseball Prospectus asks when it evaluates stats in baseball. Some popular ones just don't do a good job of predicting future stats, or even describe what they're supposed to. In sabermetrics (the term for statistics in baseball) if a stat is unreliable and a poor predictor, it's usually tossed aside in favor of something else.

Granted, I'm not really sure what I'd replace "hours played" with. But that's the feeling I get when people talk about it - that it simply doesn't work the way people just assume it does.  Don't feel like I'm being insulting or singling people out though, some very smart people took batting average and RBIs to be important and indicative of individual performance and a reliable indicator of future production in baseball for a century.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Ziggeh]

slimgrin wrote...

I don't understand why people on this forum continually push for more streamlining, more removal of variety, nonlinearity, and side content.

Do they? I rarely do, and wasn't then.

Having said that though, I think that a lot of the streamlining Bioware has done over various interations has been largely positive. I might be in a minority here, but having sold my fair share of grey items to various vendors it has ceased to be an interesting resource system and I would happily trade it for something less traditional, like the ME2 inventory if it replaced repetitive minutiae. I don't equate complexity with strength, it's far too often needless.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:07 .

[halO bendeR]

Here is my point of contention with the game length: I'm fine with the game being 'Mass Effect length' so long as the gameplay is more active that it was in DA:O. At the moment I'm worried the combat will be TOO MUCH like the combat in DA:O to be worth my investment of $60.

I know those are fight words here on these forums but hear me out:

I play a lot of RPGs, and I also play a lot of other games, but RPGs have always been my bread and butter.
The other games I play tend to be shorter in length but as far as combat and game mechanics go it's more participatory. In RPGs it feels like you're taking a step back and directing the action.
I don't have a problem being in the director's chair, it can be fun, but the trade-off is that it has to make up for it in the amount of content and game length. In a game like Gears of War when I slay a room full of enemies I feel a sense of accomplishment, in an RPG that sense of accomplishment is felt when I complete a quest.

I don't want to pay full price for a game that's just slightly over the length of Awakenings if the combat remains too similar. The ultimate determiner of my enjoyment will of course be the story and NPC interaction, but the combat needs to be satisfying too.

Modifié par halO bendeR, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:34 .

[Realranger55]

ErichHartmann wrote...

If time is a measure of quality then said individual should be playing MMOs. Sorry but some of the best games I have ever played didn't take me 50+ hours to complete (or even 10 hours).

maybe not, but most of the better rpg's do.

Also, whats with all this negative filler talk? Rpg's have and always should have some level of filler, its this kind of talk that leads to the dreaded streamlining process.

Modifié par Realranger55, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:47 .

[Atakuma]

Realranger55 wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

If time is a measure of quality then said individual should be playing MMOs. Sorry but some of the best games I have ever played didn't take me 50+ hours to complete (or even 10 hours).

maybe not, but most of the better rpg's do.

So what?

[Realranger55]

Atakuma wrote...

Realranger55 wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

If time is a measure of quality then said individual should be playing MMOs. Sorry but some of the best games I have ever played didn't take me 50+ hours to complete (or even 10 hours).

maybe not, but most of the better rpg's do.

So what?

What nothing, its just a common trait in good rpg's. 

[Atakuma]

Realranger55 wrote...


What nothing, its just a common trait in good rpg's. 

So, some good RPGs are long, therefore longer RPGs are better?

[Tiax Rules All]

I think some people are confused on the good game hierarchy so I will explain from best to worst:



Best

Good game, Long game

Good game, Short game

Bad game, Long game

Bad game, Short game

Worst



Quality and quantity are seperate things but both have an effect on the overall game.

Longer is better, except when it hurts the quality of the game.

[themageguy]

Well if its about as long as me 2, thats fine by me. much better than awakening