519 réponses à ce sujet

[S Atomeha]

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.

I was unaware you had beaten the game.  If you didn't then perhaps you should reserve judgement on how much time is added until you beat the game no? and then compare to how fast an average gametime spent on normal is.  Then add in the fact that since this is a sequel that you would already have a firm grasp of the gamplay, don't you think?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Darkeus wrote...

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....

Play time is subjective (for the most part), but we cannot deny that there is in fact a general consensus which we can observe for the play time of any game in particular. As humans, we aren't as unique as we'd like to believe. What makes you say that German reviewer may have rushed through the game, even a little bit?

[Darkeus]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

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.

I have to say what I have been saying for a while now.

DA2 is not out, doesn't come out for little over a week now.  I have no clue if it has less or not since I have not played the game.  Also, I tend to trust player reviews a little more than regular reviews, even though I am sure DA2 will score high in the mainstream review sites.

But I have not played the game and the demo is not really what I would call a comprehensive view of the whole game, especially since it is code from October.

So I will do the logical thing and wait for the release of the game and my own play through to see what DA2 does right or wrong or differently than DA:O

Before then it is really hard to say.  You haven't played the game, so how do you know what it is short on?  It could be a much better story than DA:O, and in some people's opinion, that might not be too hard.

DA:O can be very generic in some aspects.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

Thank you for answering my question. Hearing you clarify gives me a greater idea of how reviewers scenario could have came about. I'm still inclined to think that base DAO vastly exceeds base DA2 in content, but not as inclined as I was beforehand.

[Melness]

simfamSP wrote...

Seriously lack of epicness? What kind of professional reviewer uses that word? It's fine for us fans who drool at anything with an Epic feel. But isn't it abit overused?

A wow player once said that something lacked epicness.

Look what blizzard did on the PTR: http://wow.joystiq.c...o-turned-to-11/

[Darkeus]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

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....

Play time is subjective (for the most part), but we cannot deny that there is in fact a general consensus which we can observe for the play time of any game in particular. As humans, we aren't as unique as we'd like to believe. What makes you say that German reviewer may have rushed through the game, even a little bit?

Since there is a slight discrepancy between their playtime and the PC Gamer UK play time, that is why I can assume that the German reviewer may have rushed.   As more reviews come out, it will be eaasier to pinpoint.  For now, we have a bit of conflicting information.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Ploppy 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?

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.

15 hours or 30 hours, the fact of the matter is that it would seem that DA2 is much shorter than DAO. As you can see, even this gameplay  length is of great concern to myself and many others. If I take my time in Origins, there's no way I can beat it under 65 hours. Fyi, both the Deep Roads and the Fade are a breeze for me. The side quest and item hunting is where most of extra time comes from.

[Ragh]

BG2 in 5 hours...


WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT..... Thats like completing DA:O in one hour

[Nemis-Roidsavelt]

DrunkenMonkey wrote...

you could complete DA O in 15 hours.

No you cant. Cause if you did that it would involve spaming through any diologue their was. and you wouldnt have actually played the game rather than just smashed ur face agaisnt the keyboard on casual. and even then 15hours is hard to believe. I seriously doubt it.

[Bryy_Miller]

Ragh wrote...

BG2 in 5 hours...


WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT..... Thats like completing DA:O in one hour

I've seen BG2 done in thirty minutes. But that was with bug exploitation.

[Deadmac]

GreenSoda wrote...

- The ending is described as open ended and unresolved .

Once I saw that there was a character referenced as 'exile', I knew the ending would fall short in being epic and completed. Regardless about all the other complaints I have, this one specific comment has given me flashbacks to "SW: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords". I am not buying another game in which does not end, and there is no assurance that a single-player sequel will follow. No way man. I am now absolutely out.

We will never get a single-player "Dragon Age III" to bookend this story.

$60 for a game without an ending? No way. Not again.

Modifié par Deadmac, 27 février 2011 - 03:32 .

[Zulmoka531]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

BG2 in 5 hours is no small feat. Damn.

[addiction21]

Deadmac wrote...

GreenSoda wrote...

- The ending is described as open ended and unresolved .

Once I saw that there was a character referenced as 'exile', I knew the ending would fall short in being epic and completed. Regardless about all the other complaints I have, this one specific comment has given me flashbacks to "SW: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords". I am not buying another game in which does not end, and there is no assurance that a single-player sequel will follow. No way man. I am now absolutely out.

 We will never get a single-player "Dragon Age III" to bookend this story.

I thought you were not buying it because of the locked companion gear... or was it the drm... or was it that you were the super awesome smart consumer and were going to wait for the "ultimate edition" with all the DLC.

Cry wolf much?

[Deadmac]

addiction21 wrote...
I thought you were not buying it because of the locked companion gear... or was it the drm... or was it that you were the super awesome smart consumer and were going to wait for the "ultimate edition" with all the DLC.
Cry wolf much?

Originally, I said I wouldn't pay full price, but I would buy it around $20 (the conversation we had about the dlc and preorders). After playing the demo a few times, I wanned about buying it at all. Upon reading this news, the final nail was put into place. Not a chance in hell.

No ending to "Dragon Age II". Not going to buy the game. Its settled.

Modifié par Deadmac, 27 février 2011 - 03:41 .

[Melness]

Deadmac wrote...

addiction21 wrote...
I thought you were not buying it because of the locked companion gear... or was it the drm... or was it that you were the super awesome smart consumer and were going to wait for the "ultimate edition" with all the DLC.
Cry wolf much?

Originally, I said I wouldn't pay full price, but I would buy it around $20 (the conversation we had about the dlc and preorders). After playing the demo a few times, I wanned about buying it at all. Upon reading this news, the final nail was put into place. Not a chance in hell.

Do you even know how open or where the ending is unresolved?

[Deadmac]

Melness wrote...
Do you even know how open or where the ending is unresolved?

After playing the sequel to BioWare's "SW: Knights of the Old Republic", I don't really care when the game hits the stopping point. Unresovled is unresolved.

[White_Buffalo94]

I hope it is only 12-15 hours if you blow through it without doing sides. Then it doesn't seem as short. If I played Origins without going through every corridor I could do it all in about 20 hours or so.

[panamakira]

Well I shouldn't have read this as there is a possiblity of Alistair cameo. Oh well....
Overall I thought the review was pretty good...

Full score
Graphic:7/10
Sound:9/10
Balance:9/10
Atmosphere:9/10
Controls:8/10
Content:8/10
Story/Quests:9/10
Fighting system:10/10
Character development:9/10
Items:9/10

All the areas I'm interesting in got high points: Atmosphere, Story, fighting and character development.

and high replay value~

Modifié par panamakira, 27 février 2011 - 03:52 .

[Vena_86]

The review sounds realistic and objective. I know why I don't preorder games and fall victim to marketing anymore.

[Davlai3]

I shouldn't be surprised that people on a video game message board are moaning and complaining before a game is even released...but seriously! Every game that is released is NOT meant to be a 100 hour marathon.

Don't get me wrong, some games are designed that way like The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Quest but Bioware's wonderful RPGs offer a great story and exceptional quality with a main quest of 10-15 hours. Nothing has changed. I'd rather have a new DA game every two years with a main storyline of 15 hours than have to wait 6 years for my beloved Skyrim which will deliver 100+. Bioware and Bethesda are my two fav western developers and they have completely different styles. No complaining from this Dragon Age fan!

[Melness]

Deadmac wrote...

Melness wrote...
Do you even know how open or where the ending is unresolved?

After playing the sequel to BioWare's "SW: Knights of the Old Republic", I don't really care when the game hits the stopping point. Unresovled is unresolved.

It could be a DA:O that ends in A Paragon of her Kind.

It could be unresolved like Witch Hunt.

OR, it could be like DA:O leaving a few ropes for Witch Hunt and Awakening, with the former leaving a lot of ropes for God knows what and the latter for Golems of Armgarrak and, possibly the Mage X Chantry conflict from DA2.

Really, basing your everything in two very subjective adjectives is... you know what.

[Savber100]

The ending is really getting a lot of criticism for being terrible and open-ended.

Makes me a little nervous. Nothing ruins a good story more than a rushed/bad ending.

Holding my breath now... >.<

[Maria Caliban]

The ending is the same as Divinity II.