244 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthSliver]

Raraptor wrote...

Like others also have said; I value quality over quantity. Just because a game is long, doesn't mean that it's better than a different game that is (significantly) shorter. A lot of games have proved this point already.

I suppose you can say Final Fantasy Series dictates this point well.

[JustS]

More does not make it better but it makes you feel more a part of the world of DA. Who knows if there is a quest around the corner type thing. DA pulled you into the world with things like that. It was not just your issues.

If we put all the quests in a row where you basically did not explore at all you start to think you are in one room not a world.

But again.. we will see for ourselves come the 8th. Basically in one week. So do not jump off the edge here people. 40 hours is a lot of game-play. And like someone said before, when we had different casts/races to choose from it expanded the "words" and NPCs by quite a bit.

Only thing that worries me is the "We think people want more DLC!" idea... Meaning "we will just hold back content to release it for mroe $ later." This too is something we have to wait and see about.

I still cannot wait until the 8th myself

[Aldandil]

I would say that more IS better if the games have high quality, so if someone came up to me and asked if he should buy DA:O or DA2, I'd recommend the former. Personally, I've already got DA:O, so I get to choose between 40 hours of gameplay or nothing. I'm leaning towards the 40 hours.

[KateKane]

Raraptor wrote...

Like others also have said; I value quality over quantity. Just because a game is long, doesn't mean that it's better than a different game that is (significantly) shorter. A lot of games have proved this point already.

True, but I feel like an RPG should focus on the story and lore of the games world rather than on the action. Something I doubt DA2 does as well as its predecessor given the revelation that it has less than half of DA:O's word count.

This information comes as no surprise considering this game was only in development for what, 18 months? Less? For such a big release, that's pretty questionable. And they were still working on DA:O addons for most of that time as well. With another year of deveopment, this game could have been amazing, but as it stands it seems that it'll just be an OK game.

[Raraptor]

DarthSliver wrote...

Raraptor wrote...

Like others also have said; I value quality over quantity. Just because a game is long, doesn't mean that it's better than a different game that is (significantly) shorter. A lot of games have proved this point already.

I suppose you can say Final Fantasy Series dictates this point well.

About average? I'm not sure. Not really a fan of turn-based type of games. It's hard for me to finish one.

But some other examples are COD (dodges chair), Dead Space, Mafia 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Devil May Cry, and many, many more are all brilliant games that are easily beat in less than 10 hours, which is ridiculously short and yet nobody complains. So what is it again, about 40 hours average without side quests? I think that's perfectly fine, but this is only my opinion. Feel free to have your own.

I think the increased amount of cutscenes is a nice addition. Personally, this allows me to get even more into the story. It will give me that "f*ck yeah!" feeling.

But don't get upset already people, you can do that after you played the game and find a reason to be upset, otherwise it wouldn't be fair to both yourself and the devs.

Modifié par Raraptor, 01 mars 2011 - 07:53 .

[robotnist]

Junri wrote...

Well, you got to consider that Dragon Age: Origins had unique lines for each race and gender combination as well, while DA:2 is a focused storyline with only one character. The sheer scale of DA:O is still much larger despite this fact, just pointing out so it seems less bleak :X

junri, i thought about this too as soon as i looked at the numbers. think about it, were going to ultimately have nearly the same length of content and detail, (actually much more detail per square inch), of a single playthrough of DAO, minus all the extra DLC. scrub return to ostagar, wardens keep, stuff like that that was in campaign DLC, adn were almost looking at a 60hour game in DAO and a, lets just say 45 hour game in DA2.

its pretty close, but because there isnt 6 different origins, that takes away from some of those numbers referenced at the top. think of hawkes story as another origin, it kinda is. and it will play almost as long as a human noble rogue, or elf warrior dalish etc. only because theres more focus on one city, we will see that city brought to life like no other bioware game ever.

mark my words, by the time were done with DA2, we will know the politics of Kirkwall, we'll know what races the city is comprised of, we'll know the majority of religion found within the city. we'll know about secret factions, the citie's policies and laws, and many other things that, compared to some of bioware's other games, you wouldnt have the time/dev power to experience a city so detailed, because you would have to make 5 or 6 cities within a game.

now we get to see a city up close and personal, we get to see its underbelly, and its day and night iterations. we get to truly see a day in the life of a person living in the world of Thedas, across the sea, north of Ferelden, in the landscape known as the Free Marches.

it will feel like a wholly new experience, one in which we have never seen from bioware, it should be interesting!!!

[silver-crescent]

So we have 10 speaking party members (if you count both male and female Hawke), while in Origins there were 7/8. And yet there's only less than half the dialogue? That's... troubling, especially considering that both male and female Hawke must have tons of lines each.

[johannes1212]

DarthSliver wrote...

Raraptor wrote...

Like others also have said; I value quality over quantity. Just because a game is long, doesn't mean that it's better than a different game that is (significantly) shorter. A lot of games have proved this point already.

I suppose you can say Final Fantasy Series dictates this point well.

That series has transcended over the point of being a really bad joke, I don't really have words to describe it.

[Nashiktal]

I'm actually not worried over these numbers. How many of the "lesser" npc's do you actually remember? I bet a large amount of these "spoken lines" are directly attached to the amount of "minor" npc's that had a a single appearance.

Edit: Come to think of it, a large amount of these lines may have been "reaction" lines dependant upon your origin.

Modifié par Nashiktal, 01 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[Vicious]

DAO took what... seven years to make?


Perspective perspective.

[graylshaped]

DA:O play-throughs (mage, rogue, warrior) of 90, 60, and 40 hours each, plus the other origin play-throughs (four, I'm thinking), and DLC...

Other than the origins, the significant difference in each of the three play-throughs was combat style, plus some origin-related situations that added flavor but little substance. I say that as a fan of flavor, btw...

My initial reaction is that IF character classes play as or more distinctly than in DA:O and if the world reacts to you in each class (hmm, or gender!) with variation, and IF we have quality in-quest companion banter to rival the better scenes in DA:O, then hoorah!

If we have DLC-level banter (e.g. none), and/or if the demo's willingness to pull us out of action into a cut-scene with little regard for continuity for "meaningful" plot points plays out in the released game, then I'll likely not get to play-throughs two or three or the DLC, given the stack of unplayed games already on my shelf and others beckoning for my wallet.

[brownybrown]

Im not surprised but it does confirm Bioware's and EA's desire to move the electronic games towards the 'interactive movie' smash hit/quick turnover business plan rather than the long life, 80+ hr, heavily modded(for pc) 2- 3 year dev cycle game format of yore. Cant say I blame Ea, I mean would you rather be the new Universal/Paramount OR Wizards of the Coast ?

[astrallite]

This isn't bad news, it just means DA3 is coming out sooner, like in a year and a half.

[CroGamer002]

^What makes you think that?

[Graunt]

jerzeycj wrote...

Wait, wait, wait, how is DAO only 60 hours? My play through took a little over 100 hours wITHOUT any DLC, around 111 with DLC and my Awkenings playthrough is at around 38 hours, and I'm not even finished yet.

I love reading posts like this...they make me scratch my head in amusement.  The first game takes approximately 35 hours to complete, and that's if you did every side quest and one romance, and also read all of the codices.  Now if you try to romance everyone, or stop to look at every single building in each area your playtime will obviously increase, but the average player did not take 100 hours, or even 60 hours.

Not everyone considers the combat to be tedious. I happen to enjoy tactical combat thank you very much.

Me too, except there was very little at all about the combat that was truly "tactical".  I keep wondering if those that claim how great the "tactical combat" was have ever truly played any real tactical games, or even any basic turn based strategy games for that matter.  Pausing the game does not equal tactics.

Modifié par Graunt, 01 mars 2011 - 09:00 .

[WidowMaker9394]

I've always completed the first game withing 30-35 hours. Add another 10 hours to those with DLC and there's me.

100 hours? Do stand and marvel at the sky or something every third step?And my first play through of ME2 took me 30 hours. That makes Dragon Age Origins horrible, yes?

[wowpwnslol]

Graunt wrote...

jerzeycj wrote...

Wait, wait, wait, how is DAO only 60 hours? My play through took a little over 100 hours wITHOUT any DLC, around 111 with DLC and my Awkenings playthrough is at around 38 hours, and I'm not even finished yet.

I love reading posts like this...they make me scratch my head in amusement.  The first game takes approximately 35 hours to complete, and that's if you did every side quest and one romance, and also read all of the codices.  Now if you try to romance everyone, or stop to look at every single building in each area your playtime will obviously increase, but the average player did not take 100 hours, or even 60 hours.

Wrong. I finished the game in below 35 hours by skipping almost all of dialogues and by knowing what quests to do and where to go. If you do everything and it's your first time and you play on nightmare, the game is ~60 hours (mine was 58)

So, stop playing on easy and don't let your ADD take over when you see a dialogue and resist the urge to press 'esc'.

[Graunt]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Graunt wrote...

jerzeycj wrote...

Wait, wait, wait, how is DAO only 60 hours? My play through took a little over 100 hours wITHOUT any DLC, around 111 with DLC and my Awkenings playthrough is at around 38 hours, and I'm not even finished yet.

I love reading posts like this...they make me scratch my head in amusement.  The first game takes approximately 35 hours to complete, and that's if you did every side quest and one romance, and also read all of the codices.  Now if you try to romance everyone, or stop to look at every single building in each area your playtime will obviously increase, but the average player did not take 100 hours, or even 60 hours.

Wrong. I finished the game in below 35 hours by skipping almost all of dialogues and by knowing what quests to do and where to go. If you do everything and it's your first time and you play on nightmare, the game is ~60 hours (mine was 58)

So, stop playing on easy and don't let your ADD take over when you see a dialogue and resist the urge to press 'esc'.

Oh please, cut the condescending assumptions.  I only played on Nightmare after the first playthrough, and I can't help it if it takes you that long to read text.  It took me right around 38 hours for my first playthrough, and I didn't start "hitting esc" until my consecutive playthroughs during scenes I had no reason to watch again, because I didn't magically just forget them all.  

And maybe you took too long to kill perhaps?  What ruined my first game was playing an Arcane Warrior as my main character, and it was all too easy blowing up groups of enemies that had not even activated yet, especially inside buildings or sidequests where there was a chance that someone you were about to speak with would become hostile..

Nice try though.

[The Elder King]

wowpwnslol wrote...


Wrong. I finished the game in below 35 hours by skipping almost all of dialogues and by knowing what quests to do and where to go. If you do everything and it's your first time and you play on nightmare, the game is ~60 hours (mine was 58)

So, stop playing on easy and don't let your ADD take over when you see a dialogue and resist the urge to press 'esc'.

Nightmare will add a lot of time to a game,. I think that with 60 hours game lenght about DAO they intended the game lenght at normal.
Plus, Peter Thomas completed DA2 on Nightmare in +100 hours. So if you decide to play DA2 on Noghtmare I think that the game lenght will be higher than 40 hours

[wowpwnslol]

Graunt wrote...


Oh please, cut the condescending assumptions.  I only played on Nightmare after the first playthrough, and I can't help it if it takes you that long to read text.  It took me right around 38 hours for my first playthrough, and I didn't start "hitting esc" until my consecutive playthroughs during scenes I had no reason to watch again, because I didn't magically just forget them all.  

And maybe you took too long to kill perhaps?  What ruined my first game was playing an Arcane Warrior as my main character, and it was all too easy blowing up groups of enemies that had not even activated yet, especially inside buildings or sidequests where there was a chance that someone you were about to speak with would become hostile..

Nice try though.

How exactly were you "blowing things up" as Arcane warrior? It's the slowest class in the game at killing things. It's only overpowered because of the survivability and the fact that it's so retard friendly. I usually play pure magic stacking mages with spell might. That blows up things fast, not arcane warrior.

Once again, 38 hours for your first play through, on nightmare, doing absolutely everything (including all side quests), reading every dialogue line - does not sound believable at all.

[Graunt]

hhh89 wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...


Wrong. I finished the game in below 35 hours by skipping almost all of dialogues and by knowing what quests to do and where to go. If you do everything and it's your first time and you play on nightmare, the game is ~60 hours (mine was 58)

So, stop playing on easy and don't let your ADD take over when you see a dialogue and resist the urge to press 'esc'.

Nightmare will add a lot of time to a game,. I think that with 60 hours game lenght about DAO they intended the game lenght at normal.
Plus, Peter Thomas completed DA2 on Nightmare in +100 hours. So if you decide to play DA2 on Noghtmare I think that the game lenght will be higher than 40 hours

Developers a) are known to exaggerate and are known to not actually be as good at playing games as they are creating them.

The only way Nightmare is going to be 100+ hours is through deaths setting you back, especially now with the glorious addition of melee abilities hurting allies...(see:dumbest change they could have possibly ever made).  That isn't challenging, it's tedious.

Modifié par Graunt, 01 mars 2011 - 09:17 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

wowpwnslol wrote...


Once again, 38 hours for your first play through, on nightmare, doing absolutely everything (including all side quests), reading every dialogue line - does not sound believable at all.

It's downright impossible. On my 4th playthrough, Nightmare, I finished all subquests you could finish and skipped all dialog and cutscenes yet it still took me 25 hours to beat the game...

[The Elder King]

Graunt wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...


Wrong. I finished the game in below 35 hours by skipping almost all of dialogues and by knowing what quests to do and where to go. If you do everything and it's your first time and you play on nightmare, the game is ~60 hours (mine was 58)

So, stop playing on easy and don't let your ADD take over when you see a dialogue and resist the urge to press 'esc'.

Nightmare will add a lot of time to a game,. I think that with 60 hours game lenght about DAO they intended the game lenght at normal.
Plus, Peter Thomas completed DA2 on Nightmare in +100 hours. So if you decide to play DA2 on Noghtmare I think that the game lenght will be higher than 40 hours

Developers a) are known to exaggerate and are known to not actually be as good at playing games as they are creating them.

Ok. But the game will be more difficult on nightmare than on normal. So if the game lengh is 40 hours on normal, I think that the on Nightmare it will be increased. Unless someone finds Normal and Nightmare at the same level of difficulty.

[Khayness]

Who cares, there are awesome gibs and boobs, right?

[The Elder King]

Graunt wrote...



The only way Nightmare is going to be 100+ hours is through deaths setting you back, especially now with the glorious addition of melee abilities hurting allies...(see:dumbest change they could have possibly ever made).  That isn't challenging, it's tedious.

People finished DAO on Nightmare in over 100 hours, and death doesn't set you back (if I understand what you meant with this, I'm not English native) Game lengh is subjective. So some people could finish DA2 in 100 hours, and others can finish it in 50 hours, others in 30 hours.
Only because you are faster, that doesn't mean that everyone have to play like you.

Modifié par hhh89, 01 mars 2011 - 09:25 .