233 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica83]

yes its enought for sure.....for a shooter....

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure I want a game that takes more than 30-40 hours even if economics let Bio make them. I don't like taking more than a month of RW time for a playthrough, and since I only average between 1 and 1-1/2 hours a day of solid gaming time..... well, the math is obvious.



Zeldias, I agree concerning ME1 and ME2 times. I actually timed myself on my last playthroughs, and found that ME1 only plays longer because I'm dealing with tedious stuff like shopping, Mako driving, and collection quests. If that's the kind of shorter that DA2 will be, I'm all for it.

[Ryupyroa]

No, 80 hours.

[Madman17]

Monica83 wrote...

yes its enought for sure.....for a shooter....

errr please direct me to this 30-40 shooter

[Epic Legion]

Well my latest full Origins playthrough took only 33hours on Normal. I can understand 40 hours but 80? How?

[Blastback]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Baldur's Gate 2 is probably our longest game, but we have someone here who can finish it(with boots of haste, but no other cheats) in under 6 hours. Would that make BG2 a 6 hour game?

Whaaaaaaa??? I just, wha how, duh, ....

How can you do that?!  It just doesn't seem physically possible!

[Giltspur]

Epic Legion wrote...

Well my latest full Origins playthrough took only 33hours on Normal. I can understand 40 hours but 80? How?

Sit around reading codexes.  Spend too much time in front of vendors deciding what to sell and what to keep.

[XX55XX]

30-40 hours doesn't sound bad at all, so long as the narrative is good.

I spent 60 on Origins. It was a drag after a while.

[Madman17]

Giltspur wrote...

Epic Legion wrote...

Well my latest full Origins playthrough took only 33hours on Normal. I can understand 40 hours but 80? How?

Sit around reading codexes.  Spend too much time in front of vendors deciding what to sell and what to keep.

i agree the only 80 our playthrough iv ever done is one where i have been dawdling, so youl probably be able to take that long in da2

[TheRevanchist]

You know guys...there IS such a thing as too damn long. Daggerfall for example...200 hours if you get everything right the first time....THATS too long. There is also such a thing as too short. DAO:A is just above the limit of too short. ME2 imo strikes the perfect harmonic balance of game length. If a games too long I feel discouraged to play it again. If a games too short I feel disapointed. But ME2? perfect imo.

[Frocharocha]

Yes.Will take to me an entire week to finish.

[Eveangaline]

40 hours is plenty. ANd I'm the kind that meanders a lot and plays all the dlc, so I'll be fine.

[mariosgh]

30-40 is long enough, but if DA2 will be about saving the world again 30 hours would be too long for me.

[TheRevanchist]

mariosgh wrote...

30-40 is long enough, but if DA2 will be about saving the world again 30 hours would be too long for me.

It's not...Bioware has said so many times.

[Felfenix]

How did you spend 80 hours in Origins? I did everything and came nowhere close to that...

[Yrkoon]

Blastback wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Baldur's Gate 2 is probably our longest game, but we have someone here who can finish it(with boots of haste, but no other cheats) in under 6 hours. Would that make BG2 a 6 hour game?

Whaaaaaaa??? I just, wha how, duh, ....

How can you do that?!  It just doesn't seem physically possible!

Not only is it possible, but for professional speedrunners, 6 hours is way way too long.

There's a guy who did it in a half hour.  And   you can watch his whole game Here:

http://il.youtube.co...feature=related

[Eclipse_9990]

No it is not. But what are you gonna do?

[Giant ambush beetle]

Matt 2108 wrote...

How can you possibly get 80 hours out of Origins?

30 hours is plenty.

Reading codex entries, armor and weapon shopping, visiting old locations because they were so beautiful (mountain top, haven), companion dialogues.......I mean, I got 125 hours out of Dragon Age Origins and I was never really bored. I just slowed down, explored and enjoyed the game. 

Good RPG's are like wine, you don't drink wine like beer.  

Less than 40 hours would be horrible, I think I squished  32 hours out of Awakening, it was so short...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Chris Priestly wrote...

In the end, for me anyways, it comes down to "did I get good value for the money I paid". The DA2 team has tried to fill the game with heaps of excellent content. I think that by the time people play DA2 they'll have gotten great value for their money. And, if they choose to replay the game as a different class, as nasty instead of nice, with different NPCs, taking different paths, etc then they will get even greater value.

Sure, but the same is true of DAO.

DAO offered me a rewarding experience with at least 7 different PCs (completely different personalities, all of them), and each playthrough took me between 60-100 hours.

Using your assessment of value, this is the standard by which I should judge DA2.  Since the game itself is shorter, it either needs to offer more rewarding gameplay or a greater number of distinct PC personalities.

[Tasuru]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Time is, as they say, relative. What it takes YOU to play DA2 may be longer than what it takes HIM to play DA2 and shorter than what it takes HER to do. Different people play at different speeds.

No matter the length of the game, SOMEONE will speed rush through it and say that "it only took me X to finish". Baldur's Gate 2 is probably our longest game, but we have someone here who can finish it(with boots of haste, but no other cheats) in under 6 hours. Would that make BG2 a 6 hour game?

In the end, for me anyways, it comes down to "did I get good value for the money I paid". The DA2 team has tried to fill the game with heaps of excellent content. I think that by the time people play DA2 they'll have gotten great value for their money. And, if they choose to replay the game as a different class, as nasty instead of nice, with different NPCs, taking different paths, etc then they will get even greater value.

This right here is why I buy every BioWare game that hits the market. Because it has value, every time, and I can go back to the games several times over and almost always find something new to add to the fun.

[Gambient]

Yep.

[Dr_Los]

I suppose it would be enough, if the content is really good. That said, I prefer a 100+ hour game.



I'm one of those people that doesn't get bored playing a single game for a really long time. Au contraire, The games I usually REALLY enjoy are the long, involved ones. I think Mass Effect 2, for instance, is a superb game, and one of my definate favorites. It had a great story, a memorable cast, and some truly epic moments. That said, something was missing when I finished it in 25-ish hours. I had followed Shepard and his crew through a hell of a journey, but looking back, it didn't really feel like it. I started the game five days prior and didn't exactly pour all of my time into it. I didn't have the awesome "looking back" factor because there wasn't a lot of time to look back upon.



Does that make any sense? I feel like it's hard to put into words. Something was missing.



Dragon Age: Origins was better in some ways and worse in others, but the extra length is something that I definately put in the "plus" category (I believe I clocked around 80 hours after pursuing all of the side quests I could). Again, it just made reaching the end and reflecting on the journey all the more satisfying.



Baldur's Gate II perhaps wins the gold medal in the competition for "Most Epic Scope of All Time." I wasn't as good at games back then, and it was already a really long game to begin with. My first playthrough clocked at around 300 hours. THREE HUNDRED HOURS! It took me MONTHS to beat that game. And at the end, when the credits were rolling, I was absolutely struck at my core. I looked back across those months - all of the things that I had seen and done - and I thought, "Wow. What an absolute experience." I was in awe. I thought about it for months afterward. I STILL think about it every time I start or finish a new RPG. It is the unconscious standard that I hold all other games to.



I know that Dragon Age II won't give me that. That is no fault of BioWare's; in this day and age, with full 3D rendering, cinematic cutscenes, and full voiceover, no studio is going to pump out a 300 hour game. But it would be nice. I'd like the chance to lose myself in another world again and be breathless when I emerge out the other side, however many months down the line.



But that's just me.

[Siven80]

For me Origins did drag toward the end and i think i averaged about 60+hours per playthrough, but i make sure i do EVERYTHING i can in the game.



30-40 hours will be fine if it keeps me entertained and engaged without it dragging.



But we dont have the game yet so no one can really say if it long enough or not.

[GreenSoda]

All this "It took me that many hours...ohh, how did you do that ? I played for XX hours...blah, blah" babble is quite...useless.

DA2 is going to be *relatively* shorter than DA:O...no matter how long it took you or how fast you were done with it. DA2 is going to have less content. That in itself should be marked down as negative point no matter where you are coming from.

...of course that does not mean DA2 won't be a great game. But all this DA2/DA:O takes XX hours talk is really pointless.

Modifié par GreenSoda, 10 février 2011 - 11:31 .

[Selene Moonsong]

Meh, I agree with Chris Priestly, game play time is relative. I easily put in over 150 hours in a single play-through of Baldur's Gate, as an example. and roughly 90 hours in NWN as another example.



I can't be bothered to complete a game as fast as I can, I suppose I usually log twice the usual suggested or estimated number of hours to complete a single play through of a given game. I simply like to poke around and experience every little detail of a game.