233 réponses à ce sujet

[ALVIG824]

 Quality
Qunatity

[ajbry]

Most of us are probably going to replay the game a few times, right? If it offers a quality and deep experience, around 30-40 hours is fine by me.

[GreenSoda]

ALVIG824 wrote...

 Quality
Qunatity

Quality & Quantity >> Quality >> Quantity

[TheRevanchist]

GreenSoda wrote...

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.

I disagree...I think if "fluffy" content is there just for the sake of it being there is rather pointless and detracking from the experience. I feel DAO was filled with a great deal of fluf combat I feel it could have went without fir example. throwing in 15 hours of fetch quests for example isn't going to make the game anymore better. It's simply gonna make it feel like a mmomorpaga.

[Giltspur]

Dr_Los wrote...

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.

That makes sense.  I think that there's one area where RPG's have more in common with novels than with movies: character identification. You get to live somewhat vicariously through another character--sorf of like you do in a novel that's third-person limited or first person. 

So with a longer game you end up going through more and enduring more with the character.  So it feels like a more significant experience. So in that sense, there's no replacing the BGII experience.  Sure you can improve on aspects.  They could write better characters than in BG.  They could revisit and even improve on old themes from BG. 

But the scope of BGII can't be equaled.  At least in one game.

Of course you could take a 300 hour game and release it in 10 parts.  And it would be $500.  But spread out over time, that would be fine.  You're not just paying for the time and the story.  You're paying for the time, the story and the extra people it takes to put those voices and graphics in.

Now with DA not having a single protagonist that persists through the series, you're not going to get the same kind of character identification.   But I suppose it's still within the realm of possibility that after several Dragon Age games have been released over the years that Bioware could craft a world identification (experiencing several characters in a time or a place) or cumulative experience that rivals or exceeds the old games of the past.  Not saying they will.  But it seems possible.

[AtreiyaN7]

Eh, 40 hours would be fine for me, and I could live with between 30-40 hours so long as they make it count - basically, every minute had better be really exciting (with good writing).

[Urazz]

It depends on the pace really. At a decent pace, then 30 hours is plenty if it's all story driven stuff. Additional hours of optional stuff would be nice but I wouldn't want more than 10 additional hours of extra stuff so 40 to 50 hours total would be ideal for me.

[Falls Edge]

I'm fine with short games as long as they're good, but if it requires more time to finish and do the 'story' right then I would certainly like the story to be longer.

To me it just matters so far as to whether something  'feels' like it's missing, good games to me aren't missing anything, with most things being resolved, and some extra stuff for the sequel or whatever is fine, as long as the objective was met.

Still, it's kind of unlikely that I'll beat this game more than 1 or 2 times, I'm rather obsessive when it comes to collecting stuff, so I don't really miss the important bits.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ALVIG824 wrote...

 Quality
Quantity

No argument there.  But much of what I've seen from DA2 so far is of lesser quality than DAO was.  The dialogue system, for example.

[TheRevanchist]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ALVIG824 wrote...

 Quality
Quantity

No argument there.  But much of what I've seen from DA2 so far is of lesser quality than DAO was.  The dialogue system, for example.

Well thats subjective as I prefer that system over DAO's. In fact I prefer everything in DA2 over DAO.

[esigma444]

I have to agree with Chris.I cant figure out how Origins took people over 50 hours. My longest playthrough where I did everything possible only took 47 hours. Awakening took me 10 hours. So when people say it took them 80 hours it baffles me. I am not calling anyone a liar. I am just trying to figure out how.

[ManiacalEvil]

Not going to lie: If it offered 40 hours, it would already be more than what DA:O gave me by playthrough. I never regretted buying DA:O despite it's shortcomings either.

[Zerakus]

Don't think I ever logged more than that, or even that much in Origins.



But it's relative to who plays and how they use their playtime.

[AtreiyaN7]

esigma444 wrote...

I have to agree with Chris.I cant figure out how Origins took people over 50 hours. My longest playthrough where I did everything possible only took 47 hours. Awakening took me 10 hours. So when people say it took them 80 hours it baffles me. I am not calling anyone a liar. I am just trying to figure out how.

I think most people want to listen to the characters speak every single line and investigate every possible dialogue option during the first run through the game. Wishing to savor the story, voice-acting, etc. like that probably inflates the playing time. Also, I think you have to factor in possible humiliating failure in high dragon-related ombat and/or obsessive-compulsive behavior like trying to save everyone in Redcliffe to get that silly helmet.

Then there's reloading and replaying several hours in an efforst to save Alistair...okay, this last one is probably just me.

[JrayM16]

I have a theory as to the different play-lengths of DA:o which have been reported. It has to do with console/PC differences. On PC there is obviously more ability to micromanage the hell out of your party in many battles. So I think those who got around 80-100 hour playthroughs of DA:O were people who heavily mircomanaged their parties and did most of the side-quests.

[Challseus]

Yes. Quality over quanity for me.

[Purple People Eater]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

esigma444 wrote...

I have to agree with Chris.I cant figure out how Origins took people over 50 hours. My longest playthrough where I did everything possible only took 47 hours. Awakening took me 10 hours. So when people say it took them 80 hours it baffles me. I am not calling anyone a liar. I am just trying to figure out how.

I think most people want to listen to the characters speak every single line and investigate every possible dialogue option during the first run through the game. Wishing to savor the story, voice-acting, etc. like that probably inflates the playing time. Also, I think you have to factor in possible humiliating failure in high dragon-related ombat and/or obsessive-compulsive behavior like trying to save everyone in Redcliffe to get that silly helmet.

Then there's reloading and replaying several hours in an efforst to save Alistair...okay, this last one is probably just me.

This is all true, not to mention reading every single codex you come across. I got sucked into the lore of the game so much on my first playthrough, that I actually went back and read every codex like some kind of book. I diddnt do it on other playthroughs, but it takes alot of time to read all that information. Im hoping for some really detailed codex entries that add to the mystique and history of the free marches in DA2.

[Erinpedz]

I agree with the quality statement to a degree - I played Arkham aslyum last month and had it finished within 12 hours on my first play through - which is ridiculous by any standard.

The length of DAO was just at that point where it started to feel repetitive to me, but ME was perfect, So a game around the 30 hour mark with full content would be just fine.

[Rake21]

40 hours should be enough. I don't know about the rest of you, but about 10 hours of my Origins time was spent in the Fade. That's 10 hours I could have easily done without.

[mauss]

I wish it were longer. But how long was origins supposed to be? My longest playthrough was about 80, but that's cause I spent about 5 minutes leveling up because I was thinking about how to build my mage and see which spells would work best together, I did every single side quest, and I went through the maps multiple times to collect loot I couldn't fit in my inventory before or to open chests I couldn't before. Still I only got to level 23. Did I miss something, or can you get to level 24 and 25 only if you take advantage of the bugs that give you extra points? On my next playthrough I wasn't as OCD and I finished it in about 60, plus I managed to get about 3000 extra XP, still level 23 though.

Anyway, DA2 is supposed to span 10 years I think it should be longer than origins. But people play at different speeds, so I guess a better question is, will DA2 have as much story and as many quests as origins? If so, I'm happy, otherwise I'd be kinda disappointed.

Also I personally liked the Fade, I don't see why people hate it so much. 

Modifié par mauss, 11 février 2011 - 12:31 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

It's a BioWare game. It could be 450 hours and we would still want more.

[surfgirlusa_2006]

My first playthrough of DA:O- 35 hours

Second playthrough: 52 hours



First Awakenings playthrough: 20 hours

Second Awakenings playthrough: 13 hours



Based on my experience with DA:O, 30 hours would be too short for me if that includes every sidequest and such. If the main quest is 30 hours and we have another 10-15 hours of good sidequests (ie not the fetching items variety), then I'll be happy.

[Emssry4]

Fable 3 was only took me about 17 hours playing like a degenerate. I'm good with only 35-45 hours just as long as they're a quality 35-45 hours.

[NinjaRogue]

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.

In other words 200+ hours for me :ph34r:

[SirGladiator]

I think DAO's length was great, I loved it, it wasn't too short or too long, but looking back it would've probably been better if more of that length had been from optional DLC, because once you've played through it a few times, you sometimes don't have as much desire to play through all 50 or so hours, you just want to get to the good parts faster. So I'd like for DA2 to end up at DAO's length, but via DLC, stuff that you 'can' do but don't actually 'have' to do, so if you're in the mood for a really long game you've got that, but if you're more interested in the high points you can play that way too. To me that would be the ideal.