244 réponses à ce sujet

[ladyofpayne]

I'd prefer one good story for PC than 6 not so deep.
500 intresting NPC better than 1000 boring.

[Graunt]

wowpwnslol wrote...

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.

It would probably help to read before replying.  I never said I played on Nightmare for my first game, I said after my first game.  I played on Hard for the first game, and get this...NEWSFLASH: The majority of people who played the game did not play it on Nightmare for their very first playthrough, and developers are not talking about Nightmare difficulty when tossing around numbers like 80-120 hours.

As far as the "Arcane Warrior" being slow, maybe, but not the Arcane Warrior/Blood Mage combination.  And it's not like I only had a single spellcaster in the group anyway, I had Morrigan for all of the cold spells and hexes.

Modifié par Graunt, 01 mars 2011 - 09:44 .

[magicwins]

I'm going to wait for the game to pass judgment on this one. Statistics don't mean too much.

[Graunt]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

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...

I don't know how much time the cutscenes eat up, but it's not five hours worth, and it definitely does not take five hours to read all of the dialogue options or any of the other text in the game.  If you beat "everything" within 25 hours on Nightmare while skipping everything but gameplay, it's a giant exaggeration to say it's not possible to hit the 35 - 38 hour mark. Playing on a lower difficulty also decreases the time, which I've already said...for the third time, I didn't play the first game on Nightmare, and developers are not talking about Nightmare when projecting playtime.

Modifié par Graunt, 01 mars 2011 - 09:48 .

[Illthar]

Well I for one is very concerned about the whole "cinematic experience" part of things. A great game should structure up and push the story onwards with the HELP of cinematics but overusing them makes the whole gameplay feeling secondary wich in my world is a bad thing.... in a game.

I would like and am hoping that the games strongest part still is the "gaming experince" and not the cinematics. A game where you only feel like you move from point a to b to see some cinematics and then rince and repeat is not mutch of a game. More an interactive movie.

With that said I look forward to what DA2 has to offer and I will surely buy and play the game and THEN I will see for myself if I like it or not!

[Buffy-Summers]

Just replace FPS with RPG

and this chart still holds true

http://24.media.tumb...znbxlo1_500.jpg

[Graunt]

http://www.pcgamer.c...ution-hands-on/

Saying it took him 50 hours, but who knows.  His biggest complaint is that it feels like you don't ever really "go anywhere" and that you're pretty much stuck in the same locale the entire time.

He also says the ending is "fairly horrible", but I guess that's already common knowledge.  They don't actually say anything really informative that anyone would want to see in a real review, mostly just a bunch of goofing around.

They do happen to talk about something else important right after though.

Modifié par Graunt, 01 mars 2011 - 10:23 .

[PinkShoes]

Tbh, is that really that surpsing? Its a frame narative.

I dont really care that its shorter as long as its good. Quality over quantity. And it seems like a pretty good game.

[AkiKishi]

The first play is always the only one where you don't know what is coming. Ever play Samurai Warrior or was it Way of the Samurai ? Had tons of different outcomes to your actions, but only lasted about 2 hours.

There is a point where highly replayable can not justify game length, espeically in a single player game, where the options will always be somewhat limited.

Cut scenes are watching exercises. The thing I find ironic about this whole thing. People on the Bioware boards used to rage on JRPGs being nothing but watching cutscenes. And now Bioware are copying that, it's suddently a good idea.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 mars 2011 - 11:29 .

[Graunt]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The first play is always the only one where you don't know what is coming. Ever play Samurai Warrior or was it Way of the Samurai ? Had tons of different outcomes to your actions, but only lasted about 2 hours.

There is a point where highly replayable can not justify game length, espeically in a single player game, where the options will always be somewhat limited.

Cut scenes are watching exercises. The thing I find ironic about this whole thing. People on the Bioware boards used to rage on JRPGs being nothing but watching cutscenes. And now Bioware are copying that, it's suddently a good idea.

FFXIII was never a good idea.  I also like a bit of gameplay to go along with the "intermissions", but most games never seem to balance this correctly.  I've already said it elsewhere, but I don't feel like any games correctly incorporated the whole "cinematic experience" until Mass Effect arrived.  It was the first game that greatly enhanced the entire experience due to it's superb cinematic sequences.  It (and it's predecessor) were the only games that made me feel like I was participating in an epic movie rather than simply watching one.

I'd hazard to say that Half-Life was the precursor to this, but that may be a bit of a stretch.  That game however was the first FPS that I actually enjoyed and wanted to play until the end.  To this day, I cannot stand to play any FPS/TPS that doesn't have some kind of roleplaying or major cinematic element in it (Half-Life, Stalker, Fallout, Mass Effect etc).

I think the overall experience in DA2 actually does have the potential to be better than Origins.  But that's honestly not saying much.  I enjoyed that game enough to play it multiple times, but the only remarkable thing about it was Morrigan, Alistair and much of the dialogue.  The gameplay was actually quite dull and the story was entirely cliche.  The graphics were also simply "serviceable", but I couldn't shake the feeling that I was just playing NWN2...and that game had graphics straight out of 2002.

Modifié par Graunt, 01 mars 2011 - 11:56 .

[Gabriel S.]

ladyofpayne wrote...

I'd prefer one good story for PC than 6 not so deep.
500 intresting NPC better than 1000 boring.

There's already one review that seems to suggest otherwise. At least in the case of companions.

Modifié par Gabriel Stelinski, 01 mars 2011 - 04:58 .

[AkiKishi]

Graunt wrote...
FFXIII was never a good idea.  I also like a bit of gameplay to go along with the "intermissions", but most games never seem to balance this correctly.  I've already said it elsewhere, but I don't feel like any games correctly incorporated the whole "cinematic experience" until Mass Effect arrived.  It was the first game that greatly enhanced the entire experience due to it's superb cinematic sequences.  It (and it's predecessor) were the only games that made me feel like I was participating in an epic movie rather than simply watching one.

I'd hazard to say that Half-Life was the precursor to this, but that may be a bit of a stretch.  That game however was the first FPS that I actually enjoyed and wanted to play until the end.  To this day, I cannot stand to play any FPS/TPS that doesn't have some kind of roleplaying or major cinematic element in it (Half-Life, Stalker, Fallout, Mass Effect etc).

I think the overall experience in DA2 actually does have the potential to be better than Origins.  But that's honestly not saying much.  I enjoyed that game enough to play it multiple times, but the only remarkable thing about it was Morrigan, Alistair and much of the dialogue.  The gameplay was actually quite dull and the story was entirely cliche.  The graphics were also simply "serviceable", but I couldn't shake the feeling that I was just playing NWN2...and that game had graphics straight out of 2002.

Well as much as I am a follower of FF and of SquareEnix (they do a ton of other stuff besides FF) I can't defend the game mechanics of FFXIII, they were in my opinion awful. And factually the worst ever implementation of the Job system. On the bright side the cinematics were very good, and there is a FFXIII-2 in November, which will hopefully sort out the gameplay. Good/bad thing about FF is every game has a new system.

Mass Effect outside the plot planets was generic and bland. While I'd say the plot was cinematic, the game itself was not and the main plot is only around 8-10 hours of the total game. Yakuza/Shenmue probably the most cinematic games I've played. Xeno series comes close as well.

Better as game ? Maybe, but not better as an RPG. I don't know whether or not people have realised, but a good chunk of those lines are redundant. Split between male and female Hawke.
More NPCs is great for gameplay, more options is never a bad thing, but less lines make them more shallow than focusing on say 5 or 6.
Everything that makes a good RPG seems to have been cut down , or downsized.

[Rawgrim]

The length of the game is abit relative as well. Re-playability is a factor as well. Since there are less skills in DA2, and you have to play human, re-playability might suffer abit. Same goes for limitations in classes (no dual wield for warriors etc).

[Graunt]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

ladyofpayne wrote...

I'd prefer one good story for PC than 6 not so deep.
500 intresting NPC better than 1000 boring.

There's already one review that seems to suggest otherwise. At least in the case companions.

Maybe I'm missing part of the conversation, but are you suggesting that the companions are no good this time around?  In the podcast they were talking about how they never stuck with specific companions because they were geniunely interested to see everyone.  Maybe they just never got enough of an attatchment to any of them that it didn't matter if the roster was going through a revolving door?

Really though, I never found any of the characters memorable aside from Morrigan and Alistair.  Those two and their banter elevated the game from it's cliched plot and tired gameplay.  The only thing good about Awakening was Anders.

[AkiKishi]

Rawgrim wrote...

The length of the game is abit relative as well. Re-playability is a factor as well. Since there are less skills in DA2, and you have to play human, re-playability might suffer abit. Same goes for limitations in classes (no dual wield for warriors etc).

Replayability is a factor, but you can only play the game once for the first time.

[LPPrince]

With DAO, my favorite companions were Alistair and Morrigan, followed by Leliana, Wynne, and Dog.

With DA2, obviously I'm not sure. I liked Anders in Awakening, so that's a good sign.

Still. Since I plan to play an Archer Rogue in DA2, I need a tank on my squad. I just don't think I'll have as much fun with Aveline around.

Alistair was one of my favorites, so I loved that he was always on my team in DAO. Both Alistair and my two Couslands worked well together since both were Sword and Shield Warriors who tanked the hell out of every encounter.

Aveline? Eh. She doesn't seem to be nearly as gripping as Alistair was. I liked Alistair from the moment I met him.

Aveline doesn't give off that same vibe of, "You are awesome" or "You are funny".

In short, I don't want to have to bring Aveline everywhere if she isn't my cup of tea.

I just hope I'm not gimping myself for that.

[Graunt]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The length of the game is abit relative as well. Re-playability is a factor as well. Since there are less skills in DA2, and you have to play human, re-playability might suffer abit. Same goes for limitations in classes (no dual wield for warriors etc).

Replayability is a factor, but you can only play the game once for the first time.

Agree with that sentiment entirely.  The first experience needs to be memorable and it should also have had a comfortable playing time if you did everything you could find to do.  Replayability matters quite a bit too though, and that comes from trying different options from your initial playthrough, but most importantly the gameplay.  If the gameplay sucks, the subsequent plays will just be "going through the motions" to get to all fo the bits you're actually playing it for.

Alistair was one of my favorites, so I loved that he was always on my team in DAO

Same, regardless of how I specced him (or even changed his class) just because he was one of the most charismatic of the bunch.  Many people say they don't like Morrigan at all, because she's such a *****, but she was just as awesome, but for a different reason.

Modifié par Graunt, 01 mars 2011 - 12:27 .

[X2-Elijah]

I'm probably going to be called out at being a troll (then again, everyone with an opinion seemingly is), but even so, there's one thing that came to my mind when seeing the figures..

"I do not want more cutscenes, I want more gameplay".

That's pretty much my current stance.. I've been rooting for DA2, and I still am, no doubt, but I must admit that seeing the decrease in length, word-count and characters hand-waved away by saying it has more cutscenes, well... Yeah. It really wasn't something I wanted to hear about a highly-anticipated rpg, in any case.

[GillianRey]

Well it's all speculation at this point. I personally would like to think the quality of the story and npc will make up for anything else that the game lacks in because really the best thing about dao was the npc in my opinion and the plot twists were ok but the story as a whole wasn't that impressive and fairly typical of an rpg.

[Gibb_Shepard]

It has less words spoken, yet there is a voiced protagonist. What the ****.

[AkiKishi]

X2-Elijah wrote...

I'm probably going to be called out at being a troll (then again, everyone with an opinion seemingly is), but even so, there's one thing that came to my mind when seeing the figures..

"I do not want more cutscenes, I want more gameplay".

That's pretty much my current stance.. I've been rooting for DA2, and I still am, no doubt, but I must admit that seeing the decrease in length, word-count and characters hand-waved away by saying it has more cutscenes, well... Yeah. It really wasn't something I wanted to hear about a highly-anticipated rpg, in any case.

Totally agree, thats' the only reason to play these types of games over JRPGs for me.

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It has less words spoken, yet there is a voiced protagonist. What the ****.

Don't forget in any one playthrough one voiced protagonist is totally redundant (either M/F) I don't know how many lines/words Hawke gets, but you need to subtract that from the total as well.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 mars 2011 - 12:46 .

[Graunt]

Dunno if you've seen this yet, but here's the scan of the PC Gamer review.

http://imgur.com/a/cmLbm

Bottom line: choices mean something, gameplay is very satisfying and the witty banter is much more memorable than Origins.  They also show the Assassination tree (the skills are NO suprise at all though).  

"Dragon Age 2 is not what you expect. Hell, even during preview sessions I hadn't anticipated it being this much of a traditional sequel".

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

[Insom]

Dragon Age 3 needs to be on 2 discs like mass effect 2 if this is what happens with a voiced character. It's obvious they had to have less content with it.

[Yrkoon]

Abstract wrote...

Dragon Age: Origins 
1,000,000 Words
1,000 Cinematics
1,000 Characters
56,000 Spoken Lines 
60 Hours of Gameplay

Dragon Age II
400,000 Words
2,500 Cinematics
500 Characters
38,000 Spoken Lines
40 Hours of Gameplay


http://gamrfeed.vgch...more-cinematic/

In my opinion this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it could result in a very tight, focused experience. Thoughts?

My delayed thoughts....

When reading these numbers I found myself pondering on whether or not I would have enjoyed DA:O just as much if it was ~ 1/3rd shorter than it was, and if it had half its text.

The answer was ...   yes, probably.  DA:O's unusually long  length  (60 hours my ass,  It took me  90 hours to beat the game first time out) was not what made it so good.  It was everything else that did.

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