519 réponses à ce sujet

[Darkeus]

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Baldur's Gate 2 came out less than two years after Baldur's Gate 1 and I do not see people talking about how that game was a rush job.

The argument that DA2 was done in two years so it must be rushed carries no water....

[IRMcGhee]

I can reach the 100 hour mark if i play through all the DLC and DAA. Just the basic game took me about 70 hours or so (of actual playing) first time through, about 40-50 hours for later ones since I wasn't bothering with a lot of the codex and skipped through the origin and Ostagar sections if I was using the same type of character. 

I'm expecting DA2 to hit the 50 hour mark first time, about the same as ME2 took me originally.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 27 février 2011 - 02:23 .

[JrayM16]

xnoxiousx wrote...

I dont see how any one can finish dragon age 1 in under 30 hours.

I ran through on normal skipping all dialogue and cut scenes and finish in 24 hours.

If you did your first playthrough now way you finish it that quit its bull**** if you actually followed story.

Not necessaril.  I did a playthrough in about 35 hours without skipping dialogue and doing a ton of side-quests.

[S Atomeha]

xnoxiousx wrote...

S Atomeha wrote...

xnoxiousx wrote...

Cyakura wrote...

12- 15 hrs is exactly like origins. Nothing new there. If you play DAO just the main quests, especially after going tru the game the first time, you can easily finish the main line in that time. I am very optimistic and kinda have a gut feeling that there will be tons of side quests and even maybe side quests to the main story line. So I would not be worried abt the 12-15hrs at all.

Ya but he said only double if you do all side quests and so on thats 30 hours vs origins being over 100.

Its shows origins was 3 or 4 years in devloperment it even has better graphics than dragon age 2 at least for me i like old style.

You can tell dragon age 2 is a 2 year rush job to make money.

100?! i did it in 60 and thats taking my sweet time with a broken pc.

I played on nightmare pausing and playing tactialy and all this was on my first playthrough skipping no dilouge and it was 110 hours.

then don't you think its unfair comparing to someone who played on normal? especially when you would have had a much harder time going through all content?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

JohnEpler wrote...

DTKT wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

For what it's worth, my DA2 playthrough was almost exactly as long as my Origins playthrough. Not saying this is a typical experience, but I didn't feel DA2 was significantly shorter than Origins.

That said, playthrough time is an entirely pointless statistic unless you're comparing the same person's playthrough on two games and have access to knowledge such as 'did this person complete side quests' and 'did this person not skip dialogue'.

Thats just teasing!

How long was your DAO playthrough M.Epler?

First playthrough? Fifty three hours and change.

I tend to take my time to a degree, though I'll admit that in DA2, I did a little dialogue skipping on the stuff I worked on. You can only see your own work so many times before you start to criticize every tiny detail that no one will ever notice 'Oh, that animation blended poorly for one frame! My life's work is ruined!'

And in DA:O, I did tend to skip a few dialogues because I'd seen them before while doing QA on the project.

Interesting, Mr. Epler. If I may ask, how do you suppose a professional reviewer )whose goal was to review the game fairly and cohesively) ended up finishing the game within 12-15 hours?

[Darkeus]

How do you explain the PC UK reviewer finishing the game in 50+ hours....

Also, missing the point.  The german review says the main quest is 12 to 15 hours....

Modifié par Darkeus, 27 février 2011 - 02:28 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Darkeus wrote...

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Baldur's Gate 2 came out less than two years after Baldur's Gate 1 and I do not see people talking about how that game was a rush job.

The argument that DA2 was done in two years so it must be rushed carries no water....

Baldur's Gate 2 is a good game, but obviously not difficult to develop given the massive gameplay limitations of said game. I'd say they spent more time brain storming for the first game than they did doing anything else. Games of DAO standards however require a whole lot more work and can't simply be replicated in its fullest glory merely within a year regardless of how familiar testers are with the game engine.

[Iyacathor]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

DTKT wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

For what it's worth, my DA2 playthrough was almost exactly as long as my Origins playthrough. Not saying this is a typical experience, but I didn't feel DA2 was significantly shorter than Origins.

That said, playthrough time is an entirely pointless statistic unless you're comparing the same person's playthrough on two games and have access to knowledge such as 'did this person complete side quests' and 'did this person not skip dialogue'.

Thats just teasing!

How long was your DAO playthrough M.Epler?

First playthrough? Fifty three hours and change.

I tend to take my time to a degree, though I'll admit that in DA2, I did a little dialogue skipping on the stuff I worked on. You can only see your own work so many times before you start to criticize every tiny detail that no one will ever notice 'Oh, that animation blended poorly for one frame! My life's work is ruined!'

And in DA:O, I did tend to skip a few dialogues because I'd seen them before while doing QA on the project.

Interesting, Mr. Epler. If I may ask, how do you suppose a professional reviewer )whose goal was to review the game fairly and cohesively) ended up finishing the game within 12-15 hours?

Not pausing during combat, not doing a lot of sidequests and playing on a lower difficulty. Reviewers have to get through a lot of games quickly, they play a lot and learn to play quickly because they need to write articles to get paid. Besides you can finish Origins in fifteen hours pretty easily on easy difficulty.

[RedVisionaire]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Interesting, Mr. Epler. If I may ask, how do you suppose a professional reviewer )whose goal was to review the game fairly and cohesively) ended up finishing the game within 12-15 hours?

I'm certainly not Mr. Epler, so perhaps you don't want my input, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that, if you sat down and decided, "I need to complete this game's main path so that I can give an honest review of it", you could chop a game with potential playtime of 40+ hours down to 12 -15. I mean, Baldur's Gate 2 has myriad of side-quests and is one of the longer games I've ever played, but if I decided I needed to finish it, I could probably 'beat the game' in 10 - 15 hours. I'd be missing out on a lot of content, but I would have honestly beat the game and gotten a good feel for it.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Darkeus wrote...

How do you explain the PC UK reviewer finishing the game in 50+ hours....

Also, missing the point.  The german review says the main quest is 12 to 15 hours....

Very simple (although probably not an appropriate question to ask me, since I haven't played the game; in your desire to defend the game, I think you missed the point of my question posed to Mr. Epler). At very least, the PC UK reviewer spent more time on the game than the German reviewer did.

[Darkeus]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Baldur's Gate 2 came out less than two years after Baldur's Gate 1 and I do not see people talking about how that game was a rush job.

The argument that DA2 was done in two years so it must be rushed carries no water....

Baldur's Gate 2 is a good game, but obviously not difficult to develop given the massive gameplay limitations of said game. I'd say they spent more time brain storming for the first game than they did doing anything else. Games of DAO standards however require a whole lot more work and can't simply be replicated in its fullest glory merely within a year regardless of how familiar testers are with the game engine.

Wow, you are leaving out a lot and assuming a many thing.

Or are you joking and being snarky?  I can never decide.

Well, I will assume this is a serious post and say this:  Back when Baldur's Gate 2 came out, there were many technology limitations.  That being said, that says nothing of relative development time. 

And last I checked, this was not a new engine under DA2, just a new art direction.  So with an established engine, why is it not feasible that it would only take 2 years to make a quality game?

[Hellosanta]

xnoxiousx wrote...

S Atomeha wrote...

xnoxiousx wrote...

S Atomeha wrote...

xnoxiousx wrote...

Cyakura wrote...

12- 15 hrs is exactly like origins. Nothing new there. If you play DAO just the main quests, especially after going tru the game the first time, you can easily finish the main line in that time. I am very optimistic and kinda have a gut feeling that there will be tons of side quests and even maybe side quests to the main story line. So I would not be worried abt the 12-15hrs at all.

Ya but he said only double if you do all side quests and so on thats 30 hours vs origins being over 100.

Its shows origins was 3 or 4 years in devloperment it even has better graphics than dragon age 2 at least for me i like old style.

You can tell dragon age 2 is a 2 year rush job to make money.

100?! i did it in 60 and thats taking my sweet time with a broken pc.

I played on nightmare pausing and playing tactialy and all this was on my first playthrough skipping no dilouge and it was 110 hours.

then don't you think its unfair comparing to someone who played on normal? especially when you would have had a much harder time going through all content?

Nightmare for da2 will only add a few more hours maybe 5-9.

Did you play the game already.

[Darkeus]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

How do you explain the PC UK reviewer finishing the game in 50+ hours....

Also, missing the point.  The german review says the main quest is 12 to 15 hours....

Very simple (although probably not an appropriate question to ask me, since I haven't played the game; in your desire to defend the game, I think you missed the point of my question posed to Mr. Epler). At very least, the PC UK reviewer spent more time on the game than the German reviewer did.

Actually, you make my point.  Play time is subjective and it is obvious that the German reviewer may have rushed through the game just a little bit....

And it is not defending the game, it isn't out yet.  It should do well in defending itself I assume....

Modifié par Darkeus, 27 février 2011 - 02:37 .

[John Epler]

I would say that 12-15 hours is long enough to get a firm idea of the game's mechanics, as well as the main storyline. You will miss out on a lot of side quests (many of which flavour or inform the main plot), but it's certainly doable.

Not remarking specifically about the review, of course, as I don't know what parts they hit and what parts they didn't. But the point about being able to make it through most games in a very speedy manner is certainly true. We have someone in the office who can make it through BG2 in about 5 hours, sans cheats. How? I have no idea.

[AngelicMachinery]

12-15 hours? Seriously... what the ****. I would have been happy with 30, but that's awakening length! Damnit.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

RedVisionaire wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Interesting, Mr. Epler. If I may ask, how do you suppose a professional reviewer )whose goal was to review the game fairly and cohesively) ended up finishing the game within 12-15 hours?

I'm certainly not Mr. Epler, so perhaps you don't want my input, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that, if you sat down and decided, "I need to complete this game's main path so that I can give an honest review of it", you could chop a game with potential playtime of 40+ hours down to 12 -15. I mean, Baldur's Gate 2 has myriad of side-quests and is one of the longer games I've ever played, but if I decided I needed to finish it, I could probably 'beat the game' in 10 - 15 hours. I'd be missing out on a lot of content, but I would have honestly beat the game and gotten a good feel for it.

Not a problem. I welcome any and all input. That being said, I can't honestly agree with your reasoning. Other reviewers can afford to spend 50 hours playing the game, thus it doesn't look like there's a rush in this process. Not to mention that in order to give a fair and honest review (and based on this review, it doesn't look like the reviewer simply rushed the game as quickly as possible in order to get to the ending), rushing wouldn't be a good idea. One would have to play the game under natural circumstances in order to be reasonable. That said, this isn't to weed out the possibility that the reviewer did in fact rush through the game. It's possible he did, but we don't have any reason to believe this.

[Atakuma]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

12-15 hours? Seriously... what the ****. I would have been happy with 30, but that's awakening length! Damnit.

That's only the main campaign. The review said it was double that with side quests.

[Aesieru]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

12-15 hours? Seriously... what the ****. I would have been happy with 30, but that's awakening length! Damnit.

Missing MANY things.

[Darkeus]

So basically if you skip EVERYTHING else in the game and just try to rush through, you get 12 - 15 hours.

[Ploppy]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Interesting, Mr. Epler. If I may ask, how do you suppose a professional reviewer )whose goal was to review the game fairly and cohesively) ended up finishing the game within 12-15 hours?

What makes you think he did? He only said "The main quest takes 12-15 hours" and the full game takes double that, which does in no way imply that he only played the main quest. Maybe he did the main quest first and then did as many side quests as he could access. Maybe he used a stop watch to distinguish MQ and SQ content. Maybe he considered all the personal quests to be part of the MQ and counted them that way. Maybe his final 100% completion score was 30 hours and he thought "I spent slightly less than half of that on the MQ".

If you want to accuse a guy of being inaccurate, you have to consider all the very, very different ways in which one can be inaccurate.

Modifié par Ploppy, 27 février 2011 - 02:43 .

[RedVisionaire]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Not a problem. I welcome any and all input. That being said, I can't honestly agree with your reasoning. Other reviewers can afford to spend 50 hours playing the game, thus it doesn't look like there's a rush in this process. Not to mention that in order to give a fair and honest review (and based on this review, it doesn't look like the reviewer simply rushed the game as quickly as possible in order to get to the ending), rushing wouldn't be a good idea. One would have to play the game under natural circumstances in order to be reasonable. That said, this isn't to weed out the possibility that the reviewer did in fact rush through the game. It's possible he did, but we don't have any reason to believe this.

I don't think he rushed through it. But if you're reviewing an RPG that isn't focused on an open world, reporting how long the main plotline would take seems like it'd be something worth knowing. My bet is that, if you are an average player (not rushing through, skipping dialogue, etc), you could complete the game in twelve to fifteen hours and feel that it was 'complete', but that if you really get into it and explore the game world/talk to everyone, there's thirty to forty hours of gameplay there.

This of course, assumes that the reporter in question is an honest individual. I'm not familiar with the publication, so I don't know, though I expect he's being honest.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Darkeus wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

As pointed out earlier in the thread, Baldur's Gate 2 came out less than two years after Baldur's Gate 1 and I do not see people talking about how that game was a rush job.

The argument that DA2 was done in two years so it must be rushed carries no water....

Baldur's Gate 2 is a good game, but obviously not difficult to develop given the massive gameplay limitations of said game. I'd say they spent more time brain storming for the first game than they did doing anything else. Games of DAO standards however require a whole lot more work and can't simply be replicated in its fullest glory merely within a year regardless of how familiar testers are with the game engine.

Wow, you are leaving out a lot and assuming a many thing.

Or are you joking and being snarky?  I can never decide.

Well, I will assume this is a serious post and say this:  Back when Baldur's Gate 2 came out, there were many technology limitations.  That being said, that says nothing of relative development time. 

And last I checked, this was not a new engine under DA2, just a new art direction.  So with an established engine, why is it not feasible that it would only take 2 years to make a quality game?

I'm dead serious. And yes, there were technological limitations at the time Baldur's Gate 2 came out, but I can't in good faith say that the game mechanics we saw in BA2 was the epitome of gameplay potential at that time. Both on console and PC, there are all sorts of games that outshined it. Remember, BA2's primary asset is not the combat or environment, but its story telling and role playing. There's a reason this is what everyone remembers the game for.

Perhaps there was some miscommunication here as I said nothing about DA2 possessing a new engine. I understand the differences between the first and second game quite well. However, even you cannot deny that based on what we know, the first game (even limited to its base content) has far more to offer than DA2 does. Many will deny this, but from a developer and business standpoint, it makes perfect sense that all of this in intentional seeing as how we live in the age of DLCs. Any shortcomings which DA2 possesses can be remidied within the coming months while simaltaneously generating far more profit.