129 réponses à ce sujet

[LoK-y-Yo]

 What was my surprise to read in an interview in which Fernando Melo, productor, said DA2 was shorter because the first one was too long and there were lots of players which couldn't even finish it (or was it because in consoles, the controller was unnapeal as far as i've been reading and told and people drop it?). Which makes me wonder, did the Pc players had problem finishing it? How long is the game without making any secondary quest? 30-40 hours?

Anyway, I was even more surprised that he said that they realiced that the game had to be shorter so players could finish it, but had to have more dlc to extend the history of Hawke (so more than with the warden). Isn't this contradictory?People want it to be shorter but because it is shorter, people wants to pay more dlc to lenght the duration of the game? so at the end, the game, which is shorter, has the same price (and in Spain, which is a problem of ours, there is no "free competence" so every where the game cost the same, 49-50€, unlike UK), but we will have more dlcs, and I DID buy some of them, which though short, were enjoyable, but a little short in the quality-price relation.

So, I'd like to see really how many people did complain about this. Are they more than the people who did finish it?



EDIT: Please, THIS IS NOT for people to complain and through grudges, or to be the "smartone" .   Be mature enaugh and make positive or constructive arguments, regardless your opinion.

Modifié par LoK-y-Yo, 25 février 2011 - 10:19 .

[0x30A88]

Finished if four times

[AkiKishi]

At least 6 times. One for each origin.



EA wants shorter games and more DLC because that means more money for them. Only an idiot would want to pay full price for a game , then pay even more for stuff that they just held back from including anyway... At least one would think that.

[BeardedNinja]

if you want to see people complain, you will, about a great many things

[michaelius_pl]

I didn't finish it because of total boredom of mage tower/void quest not because it was too long.

[Gibb_Shepard]

People want it shorter? No, they just don't want to have to go through the flawed fade and deep roads. It's funny how he conveniently interpreted it like that so they can sell more DLC.

[Rompa87]

Well.. I only have one or two acceptable save games which I can import. The origins aside, it was too daunting a task to replay it. A bit too long, imo. At least for the format it was in

[Sacred_Fantasy]

I've finished it about 12 times. Without doing secondary quest around 36 hours.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 25 février 2011 - 09:03 .

[MrStorm2K]

This has been an issue that game developers have been wrestling with for a while. As consumers are becoming more and more of the adult population, they have things to do and places to be. Naturally, a 50 hour RPG is asking a lot from them when they can complete most games in 8-12 hours. As a result, many gamers get fatigued of playing the same game for long periods and just quit and move on.



I'd imagine few people on the boards are going to complain about this, considering the audience. But this is an industry-wide issue, and it's why you're seeing so many publishers push for smaller single-player modes and more multiplayer modes. Essentially, the single player epic is quickly becoming a niche product that doesn't return on the money invested in it.



Take that as a sign of the apocalypse or not, but it's the way things are. And unfortunately, I don't believe they'll be changing any time soon.

[LoK-y-Yo]

BeardedNinja wrote...

if you want to see people complain, you will, about a great many things

I don't want people to complain, I do really want an explication about this. I don't want people throwing each other knives because they think different and can't be mature enaugh to have a discussion without being disrespectful. That takes on my nerves.

I really want an explication to such a sentence...Not other than they want more money, which, being a company, is understable, but there are more things than money. If you get 1 million more, it is welcome, but only because you have done your work well, not because you have sell your pride and your soul to the demon

[Rompa87]

I only have two acceptable save games which I can import. I played all the origins, but only finished the game twice. It was too daunting a task to replay them more, imo. Wasn't really more to accomplish then either, tbh. I felt that it was a bit too long, yes

[MrStorm2K]

They want more money because game development costs are growing. They either have to make less "epic" games or try to expand the market by making it more accessible. We can no longer have it both ways.

[Roc331]

I felt the game had about the right length to it, the only parts i didn't like were the fade in the mages tower.

[LoK-y-Yo]

I, myself, did finish it 3 times, but never in a row. If you play them in a row, of course it is going to be a bit to long and bored, omg, I love How I met your mother and The Big Bang Therory, but if I see more than two chapters in a row, i get bored and don't have so much fun i am supose to have.



Perhaps it IS a little to long to play it, say, the 6 origins, but for 1 or 2 runs, has a lovely duration, being that, my opinion

[Maria Caliban]

LoK-y-Yo wrote...

Which makes me wonder, did the Pc players had problem finishing it?

The majority of players on all platforms never finished the game.

How long is the game without making any secondary quest? 30-40 hours?

50 hours.

Anyway, I was even more surprised that he said that they realiced that the game had to be shorter so players could finish it, but had to have more dlc to extend the history of Hawke (so more than with the warden). Isn't this contradictory?

No. Many people don't want to spend 80+ hours to finish a story. However, when people *do finish,* they tend to like DLC because it lets them do more with the character they've come to enjoy.

Think of it this way:

The Harry Potter series is wildly popular. There are seven books that range from 77k-202k words in length.

Imagine that instead of releasing seven books, the publisher had released a single book that was 1,413,000 words long. How many people would buy that book and finish it?

[Icinix]

Maria Caliban wrote...

LoK-y-Yo wrote...

Which makes me wonder, did the Pc players had problem finishing it?

The majority of players on all platforms never finished the game.

How long is the game without making any secondary quest? 30-40 hours?

50 hours.

Anyway, I was even more surprised that he said that they realiced that the game had to be shorter so players could finish it, but had to have more dlc to extend the history of Hawke (so more than with the warden). Isn't this contradictory?

No. Many people don't want to spend 80+ hours to finish a story. However, when people *do finish,* they tend to like DLC because it lets them do more with the character they've come to enjoy.

Think of it this way:

The Harry Potter series is wildly popular. There are seven books that range from 77k-202k words in length.

Imagine that instead of releasing seven books, the publisher had released a single book that was 1,413,000 words long. How many people would buy that book and finish it?

7. And they would now be famous.

[Dubya75]

Rompa87 wrote...

Well.. I only have one or two acceptable save games which I can import. The origins aside, it was too daunting a task to replay it. A bit too long, imo. At least for the format it was in

I agree, I welcome a shorter., more interesting game in DA2. This means I will also be playing it many times over and not drop dead from boredom.
Then if we get lots of extra DLC and new quests (even an expansion? *gasp*) it will keep the experience fresh and enjoyable.
I'm not promoting bioware holding back DLC that could have included in the game initially. I promote them making new stuff over the next two years.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

@Maria, you count the words?

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 25 février 2011 - 09:21 .

[Krytheos]

 Just for clarification purposes, here are two direct quotes from the interview he is talking about, though I don't see why one couldn't have posted in that thread: 

TGL: How long will the main game take to complete by comparison to Origins?

FM: It’s a little bit less, I would say. Focus is the biggest thing. With Origins we had some feedback that suggested that it was probably a bit too long; a lot of people didn’t actually finish it. And that’s not a great place to be in. It’s a good thing to have lots to do but maybe we went a bit too far. So it’s probably comparable to say Mass Effect 2, maybe a little bit bigger than that. But again it’s very hard to pin it down because you can just do the core quests and advance through in X amount of time. If you’re a completion-ist, where you want to complete everything in an area before you advance forward, it’ll probably be double that time. Most players usually end up somewhere in the middle. It’s actually very hard to pin that down but if you think of it as a little bit bigger than Mass Effect 2 then you’re probably in the right direction.

 TGL: What about Hawke: The College Years DLC?

FM: Not quite! I think that’s actually one of the nice things that we learned a lot from Origins, was the feedback in terms of DLC and what people liked and what they didn’t. Two key things are we definitely need more content. Regardless of what they liked or didn’t like, everyone thought there wasn’t enough stuff so that’s something that we’re working on. The other one is that our overwhelmingly most successful DLC’s were the ones that continued the story of the Warden. So all the DLC that we are thinking about right now are pretty much a continuation of the story of Hawke and also the followers. That was a big thing that I think we missed on a couple of the Origin DLCs. We did a lot of experimentation on purpose with Origins because we hadn’t done anything to that scope. Mass Effect 1 was the only other title that we’d done for consoles and the DLC there was quite limited. So we wanted to understand what people wanted so we tried lots of different things. Now I think we have a much better understanding of what kinds of content people really want and the direction we’re heading in. How many it ends up being is again reactive. Let’s start with making a successful game and then we’ll figure that part out.

In case anyone was interested in the full interview, if you didn't read the original thread this is based on...

Voila

But yes, this is already a thread here. I think so anyways. Correct me if I am wrong. 

Edit: Fixed the quotes. Stupid me.

Modifié par Krytheos, 25 février 2011 - 09:25 .

[MrStorm2K]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Think of it this way:

The Harry Potter series is wildly popular. There are seven books that range from 77k-202k words in length.

Imagine that instead of releasing seven books, the publisher had released a single book that was 1,413,000 words long. How many people would buy that book and finish it?

I'm not sure that analogy is correct.

What you propose would seem to be more of an argument for an episodic game, like what Telltale does. Abbreviating the game cuts out potentially powerful story arcs spanning a game for isolated adventures. Harry Potter wasn't the story of Harry v. Voldemort in one book, with other random exploits in the other books. That's what a game supported with DLC tends to be.

[Maria Caliban]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

@Maria, you count the words?

No, wordcount is how writers, editors, and publishers measure the length of a book or article. It's publicly available information.

[LoK-y-Yo]

Maria,

The majority of players on all platforms never finished the game. 

Really?but how many people dropped at consoles due to the control? Are they more than the pople who finished it? where can we see that? For such a sentence, I ask you to excuse me, but I need proof


50 hours.

Lets say it is 50 though people say 30-40. You play 1 hour per day, it is month and a half.



No. Many people don't want to spend 80+ hours to finish a story. However, when people *do finish,* they tend to like DLC because it lets them do more with the character they've come to enjoy.


I agree with 80+ hours, I disagree with the game having such duration. DLC are out of the game and are, most of them secondary quest. Do those really need to be payed aside the game? 30 hours game history game, + much more hours of secondary quest in game extending your game. That is the same and you don't pay for it. Look at Oblivion, though it has another aprox, they have like 15 hours main history, you can multiply it x100 if you add secondary quests as good as the main quest.

Modifié par LoK-y-Yo, 25 février 2011 - 09:34 .

[deathlord413]

MrStorm2K wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Think of it this way:

The Harry Potter series is wildly popular. There are seven books that range from 77k-202k words in length.

Imagine that instead of releasing seven books, the publisher had released a single book that was 1,413,000 words long. How many people would buy that book and finish it?

I'm not sure that analogy is correct.

What you propose would seem to be more of an argument for an episodic game, like what Telltale does. Abbreviating the game cuts out potentially powerful story arcs spanning a game for isolated adventures. Harry Potter wasn't the story of Harry v. Voldemort in one book, with other random exploits in the other books. That's what a game supported with DLC tends to be.

The analogy is actually spot on and if that doesn't make much sense to you how about this. Instead of releasing the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings trilogies as seprate films what if they just released two films for the Star Wars and one for Lord of the Rings. People would have to sit in a theater for 6+ hours just to watch a single movie. I garuntee that their box office numbers would have plumeted even if they studios had take extra time to improve them just for such a release.

[Mr. Gerbz]

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA wants shorter games and more DLC because that means more money for them. Only an idiot would want to pay full price for a game , then pay even more for stuff that they just held back from including anyway... At least one would think that.

This.

It's pretty obvious all of us want games to be as long as possible, who cares about reaching the end, as long as I am having a good time?

EA Just needs to readjust their strategy, because they're pissing of a lot of gamers by not delivering full games, instead making us pay extra for half the game, and covering it up with useless free items which you can often only get by doing stuff they want (like preordering from a certain retailer, or making sure their demo gets downloaded and played by a large enough audience so their money doesn't go wasted, etc).

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, if I were the head of EA I probably wouldn't care about my fans and audience either, when I'm sure they'll buy my crap anyway, ensuring my huge bonus at the end of the year.

Modifié par Mr. Gerbz, 25 février 2011 - 09:37 .

[Mr. Gerbz]

deathlord413 wrote...

MrStorm2K wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Think of it this way:

The Harry Potter series is wildly popular. There are seven books that range from 77k-202k words in length.

Imagine that instead of releasing seven books, the publisher had released a single book that was 1,413,000 words long. How many people would buy that book and finish it?

I'm not sure that analogy is correct.

What you propose would seem to be more of an argument for an episodic game, like what Telltale does. Abbreviating the game cuts out potentially powerful story arcs spanning a game for isolated adventures. Harry Potter wasn't the story of Harry v. Voldemort in one book, with other random exploits in the other books. That's what a game supported with DLC tends to be.

The analogy is actually spot on and if that doesn't make much sense to you how about this. Instead of releasing the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings trilogies as seprate films what if they just released two films for the Star Wars and one for Lord of the Rings. People would have to sit in a theater for 6+ hours just to watch a single movie. I garuntee that their box office numbers would have plumeted even if they studios had take extra time to improve them just for such a release.

Books and movies cannot be compared to games in this situation. The former 2 require you to sit still, and require no involvement. Games do, which is why they can be long.