1467 réponses à ce sujet

[1136342t54_]

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

www.destructoid.com/mass-effect-2-player-choice-statistics-are-surprising-188362.phtml

pc.ign.com/articles/111/1118657p1.html

Avg completion time, 33 hours.

All my playthroughs took a good 50, for example. So yes, seems people really just rushed through.

How on earth is 33 hours 'rushing'? None of my playthroughs, including my very first one, has gone above 40 hours. And in each I did literally everything; scanned every planet, had all conversations, did all sidequests, did all DLC, etc...

33 hours is more than twice what most actions games take to complete.

Time for smug **** mode.

You see good chap many uneducated plebians have the insane notion that anything under 40 hours is a horrible game that is only for the COD fans. Of course their brains are so small they forget the average shooter singleplayer is usually in the single digit hours for gameplay. Bah I do not even wish to think about these peasants. I'll continue to sip my brandy and think about how superior I am.

Note: This was smug **** mode.

[Vegos]

I'll pass the brandy for a spot of tea, good chap, and point you at the fact that "average 33" doesn't mean "most people did it in 33".

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...


33 hours is more than twice what most actions games take to complete.

33 hours on AVERAGE. Since I spent 50 on mine, someone had to have been through in 16, basically.

My first playthrough was close to 70 hours, granted, a lot of dying and reloading, and some trial and error involved. My second was just over 50, with Arrival thrown in. The subsequent ones rolled around 45-50.

I don't think it works like that. The statistics were from sample sizes in the millions, yes?

So while there would be exceptions, such as yourself at 50, and people at 16, the vast majority of people would have been around the 30 hour mark.

What you are implying in your post is that people either played 50+ hours or 16- hours. That's a far less likely possibility that most people in the 25-35 range.

[Nashiktal]

111987 wrote...

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...


33 hours is more than twice what most actions games take to complete.

33 hours on AVERAGE. Since I spent 50 on mine, someone had to have been through in 16, basically.

My first playthrough was close to 70 hours, granted, a lot of dying and reloading, and some trial and error involved. My second was just over 50, with Arrival thrown in. The subsequent ones rolled around 45-50.

I don't think it works like that. The statistics were from sample sizes in the millions, yes?

So while there would be exceptions, such as yourself at 50, and people at 16, the vast majority of people would have been around the 30 hour mark.

What you are implying in your post is that people either played 50+ hours or 16- hours. That's a far less likely possibility that most people in the 25-35 range.

I always wondered how people managed to play 50+ hours in ME2. Even with all the sidequests I went through around 35+ hours.

[Someone With Mass]

Nashiktal wrote...

I always wondered how people managed to play 50+ hours in ME2. Even with all the sidequests I went through around 35+ hours.

Pretty much all my Engineer playthroughs clocked in at around 55+ hours.

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...
So while there would be exceptions, such as yourself at 50, and people at 16, the vast majority of people would have been around the 30 hour mark.

Not necessarily. The average value does not preclude the median (the middle value) nor does it preclude the mode (the value that occurs most frequently). Playing with statistics is always fun tho.

And yes, statistics are always bound to be used so that everyone can prove they're right.

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 12:52 .

[Vegos]

Nashiktal wrote...

I always wondered how people managed to play 50+ hours in ME2. Even with all the sidequests I went through around 35+ hours.

It's quite easy.

[111987]

Vegos wrote...

111987 wrote...
So while there would be exceptions, such as yourself at 50, and people at 16, the vast majority of people would have been around the 30 hour mark.

Not necessarily. The average value does not preclude the median (the middle value) nor does it preclude the mode (the value that occurs most frequently). Playing with statistics is always fun tho.

thank you for the definitions of median and mode. It's not like I learned those in the 3rd grade...

Anyways, as other posters have said, they have completed ME2 100% in around 35 hours. Since you can't conclusively prove most people rushed through Mass Effect 2, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument.

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...

thank you for the definitions of median and mode. It's not like I learned those in the 3rd grade...

Not necessarily for you, you'd be suprised at how many people simply can't tell the difference.

Anyways, as other posters have said, they have completed ME2 100% in around 35 hours. Since you can't conclusively prove most people rushed through Mass Effect 2, you probably shouldn't use it as an argument.

What 100% is differs from one to another, completion time depends on the difficulty, completion time depends even on the class used. Still too many variables. Engineer and adept games, for example, tend to take longer than soldier games. A higher difficulty game tends to take longer too.

But I agree on the fact that statistics should NEVER be used for an argument...but it's so FUN!

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 12:58 .

[Shammybaby]

Wait. A Statistic should never be used for an argument?

Did I just read that correctly?

[Vegos]

Shammybaby wrote...

Wait. A Statistic should never be used for an argument?

Did I just read that correctly?

Yes.

But let me rephrase.

Statistics should not ever be used for an agrument; Unless all parties involved have an in-depth knowledge of how statistics work, and the statistics presented are complete, analyzed in-depth and no emphasis is put on any one variable or value.

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 01:06 .

[Shammybaby]

I don't think Statistics should be used to shape a franchise. An argument? Absolutely. Arguments are based off of facts, statistics, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources of repute. Anything else is conjecture.

[111987]

Shammybaby wrote...

I don't think Statistics should be used to shape a franchise. An argument? Absolutely. Arguments are based off of facts, statistics, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources of repute. Anything else is conjecture.

I think what Vegos is getting at is that stats never tell the whole story. As we just saw, there are two different perspectives one can take on the average completion time of Mass Effect 2. Both are, to the best of my knowledge, equally valid conclusions.

[Vegos]

111987 wrote...

Shammybaby wrote...

I don't think Statistics should be used to shape a franchise. An argument? Absolutely. Arguments are based off of facts, statistics, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources of repute. Anything else is conjecture.

I think what Vegos is getting at is that stats never tell the whole story. As we just saw, there are two different perspectives one can take on the average completion time of Mass Effect 2. Both are, to the best of my knowledge, equally valid conclusions.

Quite correct, completely down to how different perspectives and conclusions can be equally valid based off the same statistics values.

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 01:19 .

[Sircaptainking]

javierabegazo wrote...

The hard thing in life is to accept that something that is wonderful and worth the time for you, isn't the same thing for someone else.

cool cool, way to rationalize something that shouldnt have had the resources spent on it, when those resources and development time could have gone to polishing the game.

Adding these three modes in the third entry of the series is a joke and demeaning to those of us who have played the series from the beginning.

[Vegos]

Such a shame you didn't check this thread first.

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 01:25 .

[Sircaptainking]

Vegos wrote...

Sircaptainking wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

The hard thing in life is to accept that something that is wonderful and worth the time for you, isn't the same thing for someone else.

cool cool, way to rationalize something that shouldnt have had the resources spent on it, when those resources and development time could have gone to polishing the game.

Adding these three modes in the third entry of the series is a joke and demeaning to those of us who have played the series from the beginning.

Now we have a problem. I mean, you just found yourself on the same side a the stupidest person you ever had the displeasure to encounter. What does that say about you?

 hurrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrr.  sometimes i get excited and type responses before reading them, i read through your other posts and decided i was in err. my bad

[1136342t54_]

Sircaptainking wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

The hard thing in life is to accept that something that is wonderful and worth the time for you, isn't the same thing for someone else.

cool cool, way to rationalize something that shouldnt have had the resources spent on it, when those resources and development time could have gone to polishing the game.

Adding these three modes in the third entry of the series is a joke and demeaning to those of us who have played the series from the beginning.

Oh yeah your right it takes a lot of hard work. Just locking specific dialog choices in a game takes so much hard work for Action Mode. You know what also takes hard work?  Lowering the difficulty level for gameplay in storymode. Oh yeah I would sweating bullets after that.

[Sircaptainking]

1136342t54 wrote...

Sircaptainking wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

The hard thing in life is to accept that something that is wonderful and worth the time for you, isn't the same thing for someone else.

cool cool, way to rationalize something that shouldnt have had the resources spent on it, when those resources and development time could have gone to polishing the game.

Adding these three modes in the third entry of the series is a joke and demeaning to those of us who have played the series from the beginning.

Oh yeah your right it takes a lot of hard work. Just locking specific dialog choices in a game takes so much hard work for Action Mode. You know what also takes hard work?  Lowering the difficulty level for gameplay in storymode. Oh yeah I would sweating bullets after that.

Im not a programmer or game developer and i can assume neither are you, but these things take time and money. a lot of time and money, its much more than just locking options. it's about giving each mode a distinct feel for different player types. its a lot more work than you seem to think

[1136342t54_]

Sircaptainking wrote...

Im not a programmer or game developer and i can assume neither are you, but these things take time and money. a lot of time and money, its much more than just locking options. it's about giving each mode a distinct feel for different player types. its a lot more work than you seem to think

Okay lets make an assumption that we both equally don't know much about how the game is made then why the hell would make such an assumption that it takes so much resources to make an extra mode? Hell you shouldn't even know what this 'distinct feel' is. To be hoenst the simplest answer is the best one since what we know from the different modes basically tells us what they do.

RPG mode is basically the standard ME experience. Good combat and manual choices for dialog.

Story mode gives you all the manual choices for dialog but the gameplay is much easier.

Action mode is basically Bioware picking all the dialog choices for you in the game and lessening most of the extra dialog so you can have a better more gameplay oriented experience.

[Vegos]

I still don't get this "If neither of us know, then I'm right and you're wrong" reasoning.

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

I still don't get this "If neither of us know, then I'm right and you're wrong" reasoning.

It basically means by going by his reasoning then we are both wrong and there is no point in making assumptions about it even though he is. It would make his claim pointless and automatically wrong according to him. Now I know he wasn't thinking of that when he said that but its good to point it out anyway.

[Vegos]

1136342t54 wrote...


It basically means by going by his reasoning then we are both wrong and there is no point in making assumptions about it even though he is. It would make his claim pointless and automatically wrong according to him. Now I know he wasn't thinking of that when he said that but its good to point it out anyway.

Mmmmm, I suppose I can see the point there, yes.

More than I can say for most such occasions *grin*

[1136342t54_]

Vegos wrote...

I'll pass the brandy for a spot of tea, good chap, and point you at the fact that "average 33" doesn't mean "most people did it in 33".

Hey that smug ass mode. A representation of certain forms of elitism on these forums that sometimes pop up.

[ElitePinecone]

Using the word 'modes' was a pretty bad idea, I think, on Bioware's part.

People have the deluded idea that it's actually three separate campaigns or something.

It's not. Modes only change the difficulty and conversation mode. The resources required would be trivial compared to the cost of the project.