129 réponses à ce sujet

[Chuvvy]

They're doing it because they want more money. They get majority of the profits from DLC.

Modifié par Slidell505, 25 février 2011 - 11:06 .

[PinkShoes]

You dont have to buy the DLC. This is just to make some money from the real fans who want every last DLC (me :3 )But its only like 5 quid every few months, thats no big deal. There will also probably be another expansion pack in 2012 (no point though since we will all be dead D: ) and then DA3 in 2013. It makes you stay with the game. I loved DAO, honnestly, favouite game. But i probably would have played it less without all the DLC we got.

[Mr. Gerbz]

deathlord413 wrote...

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.

A video game requires you to sit in front of a flashing screen, much like a move, and read information, like a book, and then make decions based on that information, like a choose your own adventure novel.

I fail to see a difference. People who say that games can't be compared to movies or books are missing a very very important fact, Games are the evolution of both entertainment mediums. In essence the game industry is the grandson of the book industry.

That's what any non-gamer thinks, indeed. They fail to see that a story in a game doesn't develop on its own simply by watching / reading it, but that you have to perform a lot of different actions, which include but are certainly not limited to surviving, helping people out, getting stronger, etc.

[kingjezza]

Played it 3 times, including all DLC and Awakening. I've never played a game more than once in my life before Origins.

I would suggest people not finishing the game had nothing to do with length, especially considering they have stated a reason they changed the beginning was because a lot of people never made it past a few hours so I doubt making it 30 hours long instead of 80 will have any effect on these people what so ever. I would say every game that gets released has a fair proportion of people who never bother to finish them and this isn't some unique DAO problem. I picked up STALKER in the steam sale and haven't touched it for weeks, there's a good chance i'll never finish it.

It just seems to me like priorities have been skewed some what here, maybe they should be trying to appeal to the people who actually liked, played and enjoyed DAO rather than the people who quit after a certain time because they didn't enjoy it.

Modifié par kingjezza, 25 février 2011 - 11:13 .

[rob_k]

Books are good for having more content than movies can have. (See the Lord of the Rings movies for this, as they're condensed).



But yeah, games are better at times due to the interactive elements.

[youngzman]

Finished it 10ish~ times. Depends if you're counting Awakening, if not, 8.

[shadownian]

Aradace wrote...

I gotta say Im in agreeance with Ieldra. Ive been an avid gamer for 30 years. When the day comes that the industry decides to shift to focusing more on "multiplayer" and less on "single player", I'll be hanging up my controller for good.

Agreed...I cant stand multiplayer for the most part...people acting like immature kids...hacks...bots...etc...ya cause thats what I want...no....i want to sit down...relaxe...and enjoy a fun time in a new world..so to speak.
If they start making games all about the multi with little to no single player....well...ill save alot of money on pc parts...lol

[LoK-y-Yo]

PinkShoes wrote...

You dont have to buy the DLC. This is just to make some money from the real fans who want every last DLC (me :3 )But its only like 5 quid every few months, thats no big deal. There will also probably be another expansion pack in 2012 (no point though since we will all be dead D: ) and then DA3 in 2013. It makes you stay with the game. I loved DAO, honnestly, favouite game. But i probably would have played it less without all the DLC we got.

I did say we don't have to buy the dlc. They say they are going to be about Hawke continuation of his history and there is going to be more of them. But they make the main history shorter than the previous.

In short, we make the main history shorter (but finished) to people "can" finish it and then we add a little more lenght with dlc prolonguing the history, so that people can carry on playing the history. As I said in the first post, isn't it contradictory?

We are not talking about buying the dlc or if they are good or that stuff, I was asking about the morality of shorting the history and later expanding it with more dlc than before when previously was longer and expanded with dlc.

And if it is true that people could not finish it because it was too long or because certain parts of the game were a little bored,  and they are more than the people who finished it. Where can we see that? Is that really so?

Modifié par LoK-y-Yo, 25 février 2011 - 11:23 .

[KLUME777]

I play on console and finished it many times, and did everything i could in those playthroughs too.

[Zigzaggy]

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.

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. 

Please don't make sweeping statements with no validity whatsoever.

Everyone I know and those I converse with via internet media made several playthroughs...yet that doesn't give me licence to say most people.

Bioware made a similar  remark several weeks ago about console completion ,based on  completely erroneous data.

Your last statement was contradictory and equally as bad as the first.

What we do know is the vast  amount of gamers don't use forums,do not take part in surveys and do not all subscribe to xbox live

Modifié par Zigzaggy, 25 février 2011 - 11:30 .

[rheed]

50€ in Spain,

You gotta be ****ing kidding me, right? 50 euro? Better say 65-70, oh yeah, add those with 15+dlc ( origins had 9, they said da2 will have more ) about 800-1200MP each one, in Spain 1000MP = 12 euro, so let's say you buy 10 dlc, that means 120euro+70 from original game, YAI! Congratulations, you bought a game and you have been mostly beta testers ( you know, Da2 will be FULL of bugs )

I friggin' hate all of this

About prices, thanks god I can import games from UK, or I would be poor thanks to the stupid prices on Spain. Want some proof? Here we go

http://www.game.es/b...ge 2 (signature

DA2, 67 euro, WEB price, go buy it on the shop, 71.95. Nice huh?

Let's check some import sites I usually visit, same game of course

http://www.zavvi.es/...2/10225750.html

DA2, 46.45 euro, 21~ extra.

Check also  Dead Space 2, 71euro vs 29euro, nice right? It's fun being Spanish and is even funnier getting ripped off buying games here

[moilami]

I think if they would had made of each chapter a separate game and charged premium of each, fans would be still cheering. You can't disappoint fans.

[LoK-y-Yo]

rheed wrote...

50€ in Spain,

You gotta be kidding me, right? 50 euro? Better say 65-70, oh yeah, add those with 15+dlc

I was talking about PC, sorry.

And please, if you can't complain without being violent and disrespectful, abstain to comment. Don't be offended by this sentence, I say it to mantain a normal tone in the thread. Thanks for your understandment

[Zigzaggy]

moilami wrote...

I think if they would had made of each chapter a separate game and charged premium of each, fans would be still cheering. You can't disappoint fans.

[atheelogos]

I've played Origins a lot. Probably around 15 times if not more. With that said I have to agree that it was way too long. There were a number of places in the game that could have been cut down.

[GreenSoda]

deathlord413 wrote...



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.

DLC doesn't really compare to a continuation of the story, though. It's (usually) much too short for that. DLC behaves more like footnotes or anecdotes. I think the Harry Potter analogy doesn't really fit here.

[shelledfade]

lol this games going to fail so hard...

[LoK-y-Yo]

shelledfade wrote...

lol this games going to fail so hard...

please, constructive complaints, nobody should want bad in others.  I remit to my first post

[Naitaka]

The book analogy works for something like Mass Effect 1, 2, 3 where it's a continuation of a story each a complete work of its own. However, DLC are usually not a complete work in itself and are generally much too short. There're exceptions, such as Leliana's Song, which I consider the best post-game DLC Bioware has released so far for DAO, but too many of DA:O's DLC are generally of sub-par quality with inconsequential content. Movie analogy on the other hand doesn't work at all especially since a movie is on a strict constraint because it has to be viewed in one sitting in theatre.

Anyway, I totally understand the view that some games are too long for people's convience and it's true for myself to an extend as well. However, that's why we have different genre for games. When I'm busy, I don't sit down and say, hey, let's play something that will take 100+ hour to finish even though I got a deadline I got to meet next week. I play something like Dead Space instead to wind down and relax. Western RPG has always been unique for me because it's something I can play bits by bits over long period of time; it's like a book that I just don't want to finish because then I'd have to wait another 10 years for the next installment in the serie.

Modifié par Naitaka, 25 février 2011 - 12:08 .

[Aldandil]

There has to be a limit to how long a game can be while still being involving. Some people played DA:O for 130+ hours, which probably required far more enthousiasm for the game than I could muster. My first playthrough took roughly 75 hours. I consider myself to be interested in computer games, and approach each new game as a project as well as a story, and something that I mean to finish. Considering that I hang out in the game forums, I probably invest more in the game than a lot of people do.  I have no problem with games that are pretty long, as long as there is some story told throughout the game. Sitting through a good story in a game is related to sitting through a good story in a book or in a movie. It has to have a certain pace. There are always people who can sit through slower paced movies or read slower paced books, and the same of course goes for games, but that reduces the audience a lot.

I don't think BioWare has been making any slow paced games since BG I or possibly BG II. Most games have had new stuff to do pretty much all the time. In BG I, you weren't nudged along the path, so the story telling pace of that game was a bit slower. Now, even with a faster pace, you can still wear parts of your audience out with length, because a plot can only hold for so long. A movie can only be so long. A few of my friends can't put up with Avatar on account of it being too long, and that's an international blockbuster. Lots of people lose interest in TV-series with a main plot that doesn't move forward, sort of like Lost that lost a lot of viewers in later seasons. This is clearly true for computer games as well. Some people clearly thought it took too long to deal with the gathering of allies against the Blight, and stopped playing the game.

I've seen people saying that you don't get tired of computer games because you're involved in the story yourself. I don't think that's entirely true. That clearly makes people able to be interested for a longer time than when watching a movie, but I'd say it's clear that there is a limit for mostly anyone as to how long a game's story can be. For some, that limit is well beyond the financial limit of the developers, but as indicated by the completion rate of DA:O, it's not true for everyone. DA:O was in my opinion a well paced game that wasn't prolonged by repetitive tasks unrelated to the main story, and still people didn't finish it.

You might think that DA:O was too repetitive at times, and more people would have finished it if it was more involving, but making it more involving would mean putting more things into the game. Since that can't be done without spending more money, the game has to be made shorter in order to be denser story-wise. If BioWare made DA:O as good as they could make it and people didn't finish it, then it's safe to say that they will make the next game shorter and denser.

Edit: Oh, and I like to add that I think that this probably is a bad thing, at least for me since I like longer games. However, it's still understandable.

Modifié par Aldandil, 25 février 2011 - 12:14 .

[Zigzaggy]

LoK-y-Yo wrote...

shelledfade wrote...

lol this games going to fail so hard...

please, constructive complaints, nobody should want bad in others.  I remit to my first post

I don't think shelledfade cares what you think .Or that your opinion on how he/she should post.
I took  the seven word sentance as implying the poster did not like the changes made...quite adaquate.

[LoK-y-Yo]

Zigzaggy wrote...

I don't think shelledfade cares what you think .Or that your opinion on how he/she should post.
I took  the seven word sentance as implying the poster did not like the changes made...quite adaquate.

It is not if they are going to care, but to try being polite all the time. There has been quite the polite and argumented post and I try to be like that (as the forums should be). I therefore, thank all the people who have argumented in a proper manner.


Regarding the pace of the game, I think they lost it in the Fade and the Deep Roads, but the average was good and I didn't got bored in my first two runs of the game.

Modifié par LoK-y-Yo, 25 février 2011 - 12:22 .

[AkiKishi]

LoK-y-Yo wrote...

Regarding the pace of the game, I think they lost it in the Fade and the Deep Roads, but the average was good and I didn't got bored in my first two runs of the game.

There are all sorts of reasons why people quit.

1. Too long
2. Too hard
3. Better game just came along.
4. Lack of time

loads more too.

What Bioware seems to not have taken into account is people simply turning off the gamelink feature.
That will also give the appearence of quiting.

I finished the game 6 times or there abouts. But I turned off the gamelink feature as soon as I downloaded all the free stuff that came with the game. I did the same in ME2 as well.

[shelledfade]

Length is not a problem if the gameplay doesn't drag on or become boring.



If they make it short because they can't make it lengthy and entertaining at the same time then maybe they should get different jobs.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

It's the same complaint people had about Xenosaga... OMG its too long (was about 90+ hours, didn't have sidequests much to extend that)... then when Xenosaga 2 came out it was too short (not to mention also very sparse on cutscenes, another complaint about the first game was too much cutscenes, which in 2 sometimes it seemed part of the story was missing due to the lack of cutscenes... semi-joke is "Wait why did we just kill that guy?")

Modifié par AbsolutGrndZer0, 25 février 2011 - 01:17 .