193 réponses à ce sujet

[anyoldname]

Rompa87 wrote...

I have now read all posts in this thread, but I still cannot see the point of it?

It appears to show that DA2 is significantly reduced in content compared to DA:O. This meets with disapproval, I'd guess.

[DPB]

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed takes up 25gb and apparently lasts up to 8 hours. Risen is a little over 2gb and took me about 45 hours. In other words, there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between disk space and game length.

[AkiKishi]

ME1 was small because it reused things over and over to the point of being stupid. We hear that DA2 used things over and over, although not to what extent. Even if you change things around a city wont take up as much space as 10 separate locations of similiar detail.

dbankier wrote...

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed takes up 25gb and apparently lasts up to 8 hours. Risen is a little over 2gb and took me about 45 hours. In other words, there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between disk space and game length.

Open games like Risen, Fallout, Oblivion etc re-use stuff over and over, you tend not to notice that much because they are big games and in most cases it makes sense how it's done. On smaller scale, you do notice that much more.

SW has unique levels , which is why it takes up more space. Probably has more cinematics too which are big space hogs.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 mars 2011 - 01:32 .

[AFCommando]

dbankier wrote...

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed takes up 25gb and apparently lasts up to 8 hours. Risen is a little over 2gb and took me about 45 hours. In other words, there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between disk space and game length.

the actual game length all missions is 40 hours while dao was 70. thats not short but still half of the 1st game.

[Rompa87]

anyoldname wrote...

Rompa87 wrote...

I have now read all posts in this thread, but I still cannot see the point of it?

It appears to show that DA2 is significantly reduced in content compared to DA:O. This meets with disapproval, I'd guess.

Oh? I took it to mean that the install size is significantly reduced, not content. As for game length, I've known for months that it's gonna be shorter than DA:O. I honestly didn't know that this was shocking news to anyone

[Biotic_Warlock]

When you say... 40 hours... are we talking expert gamer speed, average speed or for slow players?

[anyoldname]

Rompa87 wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Rompa87 wrote...

I have now read all posts in this thread, but I still cannot see the point of it?

It appears to show that DA2 is significantly reduced in content compared to DA:O. This meets with disapproval, I'd guess.

Oh? I took it to mean that the install size is significantly reduced, not content. As for game length, I've known for months that it's gonna be shorter than DA:O. I honestly didn't know that this was shocking news to anyone

For similar styles of games released with contemporary technology (e.g. DA:O and DA2), we can suppose there is a correlation between the size of the files and the amount of content. As for you knowing about the reduced length in advance (so wait, you're saying content is significantly reduced now? So what was your first sentence disputing?), that doesn't impact on whether people are going to voice disapproval or not. You might know in advance that you're going to kick their cat. But when it happens, saying "I knew last month the cat was going to get kicked" doesn't stop people complaining. Why should foreknowledge of a bad thing, make a bad thing not bad? I don't get the logic of that argument.

[tausra]

Expert gamer speed, no one clocks their time if they're being casual about it.

[AFCommando]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

When you say... 40 hours... are we talking expert gamer speed, average speed or for slow players?

the guy from game informer did every single mission in 40 hours, so id say expert but if he did it in 40 hours you shouldnt be that far from 40, maybe 50 at most.

[anyoldname]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

When you say... 40 hours... are we talking expert gamer speed, average speed or for slow players?

You can only really judge it based on how long they took to complete another game. I believe the forty hours thing comes from someone who said that DA:O (without Awakenings, Golems or Witch Hunt, not sure about other DLC), took them 70 hours.

[Drake Sigar]

I like how everyone immediately attacked the OP before getting his actual opinion.

Modifié par Drake Sigar, 06 mars 2011 - 01:39 .

[Jaldaen]

The devs already explained this in the system requirements thread... it all comes down to better file compression and better coding... you are also missing all the high texture images.

[Biotic_Warlock]

AFCommando wrote...

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

When you say... 40 hours... are we talking expert gamer speed, average speed or for slow players?

the guy from game informer did every single mission in 40 hours, so id say expert but if he did it in 40 hours you shouldnt be that far from 40, maybe 50 at most.

I hope not 40 hours straight...
I guess it would take me 200 hours lol for a first time playing DA2 it would take a while...

[Rompa87]

anyoldname wrote...

Rompa87 wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Rompa87 wrote...

I have now read all posts in this thread, but I still cannot see the point of it?

It appears to show that DA2 is significantly reduced in content compared to DA:O. This meets with disapproval, I'd guess.

Oh? I took it to mean that the install size is significantly reduced, not content. As for game length, I've known for months that it's gonna be shorter than DA:O. I honestly didn't know that this was shocking news to anyone

For similar styles of games released with contemporary technology (e.g. DA:O and DA2), we can suppose there is a correlation between the size of the files and the amount of content. As for you knowing about the reduced length in advance (so wait, you're saying content is significantly reduced now? So what was your first sentence disputing?), that doesn't impact on whether people are going to voice disapproval or not. You might know in advance that you're going to kick their cat. But when it happens, saying "I knew last month the cat was going to get kicked" doesn't stop people complaining. Why should foreknowledge of a bad thing, make a bad thing not bad? I don't get the logic of that argument.

All I'm saying is that showing that DA2 only takes up a third of the space that DA:O is, doesn't mean that it's only 1/3 of the game length. We cannot assume anything otherwise, seeing how it in fact has been explained that compression techniques are different. Eg. showing that number means nothing. If he had instead started a thread discussing the well-known fact that DA2 is shorter, that would have been a completely different and more acceptable topic since there are pro's and con's about that.

Please try to leave your condescending and patronizing tone at the door. It does no one any good

[borelocin]

dbankier wrote...

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed takes up 25gb and apparently lasts up to 8 hours. Risen is a little over 2gb and took me about 45 hours. In other words, there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between disk space and game length.

Also, SW:TFU had the least fun/GB of any game ever released !

[Drake Sigar]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

When you say... 40 hours... are we talking expert gamer speed, average speed or for slow players?

Good point. I ran Origins over 100 hours in my first playthrough (and wasn’t even extremely thorough by my standards), yet there were players claiming they did it in 40 and that the game was “too short.” Does anybody enjoy their games anymore, or are they just treating it like another form of work?

[OriginalTibs]

DA:O is installed

DA2 is ready to be installed.

Compare after full installation.

[Biotic_Warlock]

I usually like to enjoy the Role playing aspect... rather then power my way through the game.
That's the fun part of RPGs.

[OriginalTibs]

Drake Sigar wrote...

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

When you say... 40 hours... are we talking expert gamer speed, average speed or for slow players?

Good point. I ran Origins over 100 hours in my first playthrough (and wasn’t even extremely thorough by my standards), yet there were players claiming they did it in 40 and that the game was “too short.” Does anybody enjoy their games anymore, or are they just treating it like another form of work?

Are you suggesting that it isn't simply a race to the end? Are you suggesting the game is in the playing of it rather then watching the credits scroll by afterward?

Blasphemy! The Chantry dictates!

[kjdhgfiliuhwe]

Drake Sigar wrote...
Good point. I ran Origins over 100 hours in my first playthrough (and wasn’t even extremely thorough by my standards), yet there were players claiming they did it in 40 and that the game was “too short.” Does anybody enjoy their games anymore, or are they just treating it like another form of work?

I enjoyed Origins immensely, and it was my favorite RPG in years. But, my first runthrough was 26 hours, and my "complete" run was 40 odd hours. I hardly treated it like work. In fact, I despise games that are essentially work (Sims and having to cook, eat, use the bathroom anyone?)

Some people are just better or worse at video games than others.

The Gameinformer article took 40 hours for a complete DA 2 runthrough and 70 for Origins, so that gives you something to relate to when trying to estimate your own time you'll likely spend on DA 2. If you took 100 hours than you'll probably take 60 odd hours in DA 2. If you took 40 hours, you'll probably take 20 some hours in DA 2.

I have less ethical friends that are dead to me for the next few days (so they can't completely spoil the plot) who have told me they beat it in 15 hours, but they did not do all the side quests. 

We all know it's shorter than DA:O. It's impossible to put an absolute time on a value that is completely relative to each individual gamer.

[anyoldname]

Rompa87 wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Rompa87 wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

Rompa87 wrote...

I have now read all posts in this thread, but I still cannot see the point of it?

It appears to show that DA2 is significantly reduced in content compared to DA:O. This meets with disapproval, I'd guess.

Oh? I took it to mean that the install size is significantly reduced, not content. As for game length, I've known for months that it's gonna be shorter than DA:O. I honestly didn't know that this was shocking news to anyone

For similar styles of games released with contemporary technology (e.g. DA:O and DA2), we can suppose there is a correlation between the size of the files and the amount of content. As for you knowing about the reduced length in advance (so wait, you're saying content is significantly reduced now? So what was your first sentence disputing?), that doesn't impact on whether people are going to voice disapproval or not. You might know in advance that you're going to kick their cat. But when it happens, saying "I knew last month the cat was going to get kicked" doesn't stop people complaining. Why should foreknowledge of a bad thing, make a bad thing not bad? I don't get the logic of that argument.

All I'm saying is that showing that DA2 only takes up a third of the space that DA:O is, doesn't mean that it's only 1/3 of the game length. We cannot assume anything otherwise, seeing how it in fact has been explained that compression techniques are different. Eg. showing that number means nothing.

There is a discrepancy between the two parts I have bolded. You have moved from saying we can't be certain about how significant the heavily reduced file size is (which is correct, we don't know how exactly they correlate) to then saying that it means nothing (incorrect, unless there is something truly technically staggering going on under the hood). You are using a vagueness in the margin of error by one party, to support a statement of absolute certainty by yourself. That's not really appropriate.

Rompa87 wrote...
If he had instead started a thread discussing the well-known fact that DA2 is shorter, that would have been a completely different and more acceptable topic since there are pro's and con's about that.

He chose to post facts, rather than his opinion. That is not a fault on his part. Indeed, he posted only facts and left others to make of it what they will. Besides, what makes a thread stating that DA2 has less content fine by you, and a post showing it terms, not fine by you? You appear to be condemning the poster for making the post without actually showing there was anything incorrect in what he or she posted.

Rompa87 wrote...
Please try to leave your condescending and patronizing tone at the door. It does no one any good

I don't believe I have made any offensive remarks to any actual posters. I have been addressing the actual arguments. Nor have I used any language that any ought to find offensive. I find it more patronizing to tell people how they may and may not talk, than anything else, to be honest. Now can we return to discussing actual facts and argument, and leave the direct insults behind, please?

[Morbo]

"Judge me by my size, do you?"

As a little green goblin once said.

[wiredrat]

Proofs? How do I know those pics are real?

[Biotic_Warlock]

wiredrat wrote...

Proofs? How do I know those pics are real?

Possible because the pictures match th hard drive needed in the official system requirements and also from other people who have the game.

[magicwins]

Vahe wrote...

Atmosfear3 wrote...

Hey genius, did you forget you have awakening and all the DLC installed?

Fail.

No, I didn't forget.  

Fail.

Good. Your argument is now declared irrational.

But let's all freak out anyway.