193 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

panamakira wrote...

Didn't they use super compressive technology?

Yes.

The fact remains, though, the game is shorter.

How much shorter seems to be what everyone wants to know.

[Felene]

We should have something like "Good Point/Bad Point" system on this forum, so next time I can just click BP instead of typing a reply for a thread like this.

Maybe those Elites can even compete BPs.

[SnowHeart1]

stormhit13 wrote...

Vahe wrote...

Indeed.

Anyone who's been here more than two weeks knows your posting history, so stop being disingenuous and taking advantage of people who are defending you because they don't know any better.

Ah, but it's worked, hasn't it? He posted this thread, and everyone has piled in to take sides and a few even to defend the OP. I thought about putting another "panic panic panic" line in here when he first posted, but decided against it. Now, eight pages later, thread is still going. He got what he wanted. Successful Vahe is successful.

[anyoldname]

Felene wrote...

We should have something like "Good Point/Bad Point" system on this forum, so next time I can just click BP instead of typing a reply for a thread like this.

Maybe those Elites can even compete BPs.

What we really should have in this forum are polls. I would be very interested to see a break down of who likes the look of DA2 and who doesn't, divided along the lines of console or PC players.

[termokanden]

anyoldname wrote...

If you don't know much about how data compression works, don't start assuming no-one else does. Are you seriously suggesting that DA2 has applied some wonderful new compression algorithm that allows the unpacked disk install to be reduced by a 1/3rd compared to DA:O. We don't know how much difference compression algorithms will make, but we can make a reasonable assumption that it's nothing near that based on what we know of data compression in use today and how it works.

Do you know the exact format of the data in DAO? Because if you don't, you shouldn't just assume that it could not be streamlined.

They didn't necessarily take the exact same data and apply some fantastic new compression algorithm that compresses so much more than the old one. Perhaps the representation is better also.

But the fact of the matter is that I don't know exactly how it works, and you don't either. We can't conclude that DA2 has less content based on this.

We can however look at the game when it is released and see for ourselves. I'm sure people will start posting how much time they spent if you want to know before you buy.

[Luvinn]

I just think that the "multiple same areas" argument is funny. While playing a new game of DA:O i got into 2 fights in the same fenced in grassy area layered with traps within 5 minutes of each other. Its nothing new.

[anyoldname]

termokanden wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

If you don't know much about how data compression works, don't start assuming no-one else does. Are you seriously suggesting that DA2 has applied some wonderful new compression algorithm that allows the unpacked disk install to be reduced by a 1/3rd compared to DA:O. We don't know how much difference compression algorithms will make, but we can make a reasonable assumption that it's nothing near that based on what we know of data compression in use today and how it works.

Do you know the exact format of the data in DAO? Because if you don't, you shouldn't just assume that it could not be streamlined.

I didn't say that it couldn't be streamlined. I said that I didn't believe compression could improve that much. This is an important difference. We just don't see radical changes in compression these days that have such a large effect. They might knock a few percent off the file sizes, but people are responding saying things like "we've established it's compression" which is far from feasible for that large a change.

[termokanden]

Yeah but you're trying to say you can compare the sizes of the two games and conclude that there's less content in DA2.

Maybe it's true, but you have no proof.

Modifié par termokanden, 06 mars 2011 - 04:43 .

[TJPags]

termokanden wrote...

Yeah but you're trying to say you can compare the sizes of the two games and conclude that there's less content in DA2.

Maybe it's true, but you have no proof.

There IS less content in DA2.  It's a shorter game.  That's not opinion, it's fact.

[CroGamer002]

Yay, DA2 is now compressed!


I'll have more space on my PC!

[termokanden]

TJPags wrote...

There IS less content in DA2.  It's a shorter game.  That's not opinion, it's fact.

But that's not what's going on in this thread. It's just speculation based on the disk space used.

There's so much speculation going on here and it's not productive.

[TJPags]

termokanden wrote...

TJPags wrote...

There IS less content in DA2.  It's a shorter game.  That's not opinion, it's fact.

But that's not what's going on in this thread. It's just speculation based on the disk space used.

There's so much speculation going on here and it's not productive.

Then I'm really confused.

Because it seems to me that the OP indicated that DA2 used less disc space than DAO+ (Awakening, Stone Prisoner, etc etc).  And yes, it does, regardless of why.

Seems to me people were also discussing whether that means it's shorter.  And yes, it is.

So then, what exactly needs to be speculated about?

[Rockpopple]

Why is this still a thread?

[wikkedjoker]

Thats not Dragon age alone hell Dragon Age on my 360 with all the DLC is only 14G.

Modifié par wikkedjoker, 06 mars 2011 - 04:58 .

[termokanden]

TJPags wrote...

Then I'm really confused.

Because it seems to me that the OP indicated that DA2 used less disc space than DAO+ (Awakening, Stone Prisoner, etc etc).  And yes, it does, regardless of why.

Seems to me people were also discussing whether that means it's shorter.  And yes, it is.

That's where the problem lies. You say they are discussing whether "that" (= DA2 used less disk space) means it's shorter. And then you're saying "yes, it is".

Even if you have a fact, you can reason about in completely the wrong way.

I don't know how reliable the information about the game length we have received so far is. It's possible it's a lot shorter. But unless you know the technical details and can actually PROVE it's because of the disk space used, it's a bit counterproductive to use that as an argument.

[demicraftgod]

Size does make a difference, especially when we are talking about less overall play time(like a fast run of DAO will take at least 20 hours[no side quests & DLC whatsoever], no matter how fast you try to do it, because the way the campaign is set up, and DA2 is geared more toward ME2 style, or something like that), and we are paying MORE for this than DAO...eh?!
It is a rip off, period.
High texture pack may be a couple of GBs, but that's not play time/more exciting storytelling, and I doubt however impressive the graphics may be, you won't get to the level of cyrengine's visually stunning/pleasing graphics. I mean, look at crysis2 demo, it's on dx9, but it's pretty awesome.

Modifié par demicraftgod, 06 mars 2011 - 05:09 .

[anyoldname]

termokanden wrote...

Yeah but you're trying to say you can compare the sizes of the two games and conclude that there's less content in DA2.

Maybe it's true, but you have no proof.

The "proof" such as it is, is that there are limited explanations as to why the size should be smaller and new compression reducing the data on disk to 1/3rd the size isn't going to be one of them. Are you seriously suggesting that is the reason? If not, then the explanations are things like less dialogue, greater area re-use, reduced length; all of which fall under the category of less content.

[TJPags]

termokanden wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Then I'm really confused.

Because it seems to me that the OP indicated that DA2 used less disc space than DAO+ (Awakening, Stone Prisoner, etc etc).  And yes, it does, regardless of why.

Seems to me people were also discussing whether that means it's shorter.  And yes, it is.

That's where the problem lies. You say they are discussing whether "that" (= DA2 used less disk space) means it's shorter. And then you're saying "yes, it is".

Even if you have a fact, you can reason about in completely the wrong way.

I don't know how reliable the information about the game length we have received so far is. It's possible it's a lot shorter. But unless you know the technical details and can actually PROVE it's because of the disk space used, it's a bit counterproductive to use that as an argument.

Ahhh, I see.

You accept as fact that it uses less disc space.

You accept as fact it's shorter.

You question whether it's shorter simply because of less disc space.

Got it.  Carry on, then.

[termokanden]

anyoldname wrote...

The "proof" such as it is, is that there are limited explanations as to why the size should be smaller and new compression reducing the data on disk to 1/3rd the size isn't going to be one of them. Are you seriously suggesting that is the reason? If not, then the explanations are things like less dialogue, greater area re-use, reduced length; all of which fall under the category of less content.

That could very well be the case. I'm just saying that you don't know this.

As for the limitations on compression. I know. I'm saying there could be other things going on here. If we don't know the technical details, it's not really possible to tell whether the difference in size actually means less content or not.

Obviously if there IS less content, that will account for some of it, but maybe not all of it.

I'm taking this too far I guess. I just like discussing these things. Sad, I know.

Modifié par termokanden, 06 mars 2011 - 05:17 .

[wikkedjoker]

Dragon Age: Origins Size: 6.44 GB
Dragon Age: Origins - Awakening Size: 1.88 GB
Dragon Age: Origins - The Stone Prisoner Size: 196.79 MB
Dragon Age: Origins - Warden's Keep Size: 126.01 MB
Dragon Age: Origins - Return to Ostagar Size: 134.11 MB
Leliana's Song Size: 470.78 MB
The Darkspawn Chronicles Size: 345.28 MB
The Golems of Amgarrak Size: 421.53 MB
Witch Hunt Size: 447.03 MB
Feastday Combo Pack Size: 1.01 MB

Mind you that's not including things like Blood Dragon Armor and other promotional items.

Dragon Age Origins also had a lot of BS items, and long codex's, long descriptions on items, ECT. Is Dragon Age 2 shorter, sure. but how many will notice the difference between, 30 hours and 27 hours. I'm not my Dragon Age world play-though in preparations for Dragon Age 2 and Just at the the end clocking in about 27 hours. With most everything done, except a side guest here and there.

Another thing you've gotta understand is Dragon Age was all over the place, Dragon Age 2 will be mostly in Kirkwall, giving them the ability to reuse the same areas over and over, this means fundamentally that there is less on the disk because there isn't as many areas to create.

[aries1001]

I have used 110+ hours on DA: Origins, 40+ hours on Awakenings and maybe 20+ hours on the DLC so far. And I haven't even played Witch Hunt ot Golems (of Amgarrak) yet. I really don't understand how some of you have finished DA: Origins in like 40, 18, 36, or 60 hours. I do know that individual playthroughs will be showing different time for different people spent playing the game.

There should still be a website out there called speeddemoarchive where you can find someone who has beat Fallout 1 in like 10 or 15 minutes, BG2 (without Throne of Bhaal) in like 2 or 2½ hours. I think I used something like at least 50 hours, if not up to 80-100 hours to beat BG2 (without TOB).

Every gamer will have his or her own playstyle. I like to do everything in the game, at least the first time around, and I still missed a least 1 or 2, or amybe 3 quests in DA: Origins.

DA2 seems to be at least 50-70 hours for me...

[RubiconI7]

GullyMan wrote...

Wow that is a huge difference, thats hope there is not gonna be 5gb+ of DLC after launch.

More like 10gb of extra DLC...that really sucks..

[Fiery Phoenix]

Let's see:

a) The game is compressed.
The game doesn't have nearly the same amount of DLC as its predecessor.
c) The game is some twenty hours shorter.

Go figure.

[termokanden]

Replayability is also a large part of it for me by the way. If a game is not worth playing more than once, then the time it takes to complete is really all I got out of it. If it's fun to play more than once, I'm obviously getting much more value out of it.

That's why the design of the combat system and talent "trees" is very important to me. Hoping it works out well in practice.

Modifié par termokanden, 06 mars 2011 - 05:20 .

[anyoldname]

termokanden wrote...

anyoldname wrote...

The "proof" such as it is, is that there are limited explanations as to why the size should be smaller and new compression reducing the data on disk to 1/3rd the size isn't going to be one of them. Are you seriously suggesting that is the reason? If not, then the explanations are things like less dialogue, greater area re-use, reduced length; all of which fall under the category of less content.

That could very well be the case. I'm just saying that you don't know this.

As for the limitations on compression. I know. I'm saying there could be other things going on here. If we don't know the technical details, it's not really possible to tell whether the difference in size actually means less content or not.

Obviously if there IS less content, that will account for some of it, but maybe not all of it.

I'm taking this too far I guess. I just like discussing these things. Sad, I know.

In terms of absolute proof and logic, your argument is correct. However, unless something wildly outside of my experience of data compression is going on, then I believe in an actual sense, your position is incorrect. It depends upon compressing the game to 1/3rd of whatever the already compressed DA:O game was, being a realistic possibility.

We can agree to differ if you like - it's not a problem! 

Modifié par anyoldname, 06 mars 2011 - 05:22 .