197 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonRageGT]

Well, this is a game with 100% campaign completion!

"This game is an ultimate answer towards all the players that always wanted easy, short and fun adventure. There's no violence, no complex storyline and definitely no morality. It's a really short game (no more than 2 hours of gameplay with autoplay feature on the easiest difficulty setting) that will not burden you with anything gameplay-related.

Let desire, wine and music guide you!"

www.saviors-of-queens.com/index2.html

[Icinix]

^^^ LOL - I love CDProjektRed

[tetrisblock4x1]

I think they were mocking Bioware with that.

[samurai crusade]

No. It's not too long OP.
I'll admit my first playthroughs I stopped about 10 hours in. Not because it was too long. But because something happened either with internet connections or whatever... but my DLC's were corrupted. After thinking all my shepards were corrupt. I shelved the game for a month waiting for a patch. Then I realized the errors of my ways and have put in 276 hours between 9 completed games and working on my 10th.

[GnusmasTHX]

Pre-order canceled.

As for that CDProjekt thing... It'd be funnier if they didn't already implement a mode that shunts half the gameplay mechanics.

Modifié par GnusmasTHX, 11 février 2012 - 02:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

JeffZero wrote...

No.

Actually, I disagree. In fact, I'd go as far as to say Bioware RPGs like Mass Effect could become significantly better if they shortened the games.

Why? Because if they shorten the linear story, they could use those resources into creating viable alternate paths or scenarios, a great way to improve Bioware's weakness for Consequences to their Choices. While it'd be great to simply have more of everything, we need to remember restrictions... and then consider the advantages of trade-offs.



Think of it like this. One of the reasons that Bioware RPGs like Mass Effect have only superficial differences between alignments is because creating true divergences is, or can be, quite hard and costly. Entirely different levels or missions cost as much as your 'base' game missions or levels, and a full-length Bioware game is already quite long. Extensive duplication of a long game easily adds up.

For the purpose of a metaphor, imagine that the length of a game experience is a string, metaphorically used to tie the product together. A long game needs a long string to tie a big product. Big products require most of that string. The leftover string isn't enough to tie around again.

But imagine if cut off some of that 'product', and so had more string to tie with? Even if not a full wrap, imagine if you could cut around a corner and reach the original path from a new direction... ie, a divergance? The 'package' may be smaller in sum total, but you now have more string-path to follow. You can go path A, which is shorter than a full game, but adding path B for a new direction?




The metaphor is getting hard to handle, so let me make an example out of ME2. Imagine if Jack was removed from the squad in the development phase.

Maybe she and Miranda are combined into a single character concept. Maybe Jack is a character in Miranda's loyalty mission. Maybe she never exists. But the point is, you can free out all the resources sunk into Jack: two missions, one of the more extensive character designs, and all that voice-actor pay.

That's a pretty hefty sum of resources and time freed up. Now imagine if we used that two-levels worth of characterization to not only polish some other characters, but to create an alternate Lazarus scenario, dependent on whether you did the Cerberus missions in ME1 or not.



Lazarus Scenario A, in which Shepard has no history with Cerberus (did not do the Cerberus missions in ME1), begins with a friendlier first impression of Cerberus. Shepard wakes up on Lazarus as mechs attack, and Miranda and Jacob help Shepard through the chaos to safety. In the course of the mission, Shepard and Jacob go through the more benevolent side of Lazarus: stuff revealing how the human medical advancements within in cybernetics and surgery are being filtered through Cerberus groups to raise the Human standard of living. In the Lazarus mission, Shepard is written as ignorant about Cerberus, and while questions remain there's none of that 'I'll NEVER work for Cerberus!' dialogue.

Cerberus is a quasi-benevolent blank slate group that just helped save you, and you learn to distrust them later.


Lazarus Scenario B, however, plays up animosity from ME1. If you did do the Cerberus missions in ME1, Shepard wakes up in Lazarus... to Wilson urging him to flee, not Miranda. And rather than fight through mechs, Commander Shepard starts fighting Cerberus scientists and security, who are trying to sedate Shepard (shooting pistols with 'sedatives', not bullets). Wilson 'fills in' Shepard about being a Cerberus test subject, urges Shepard to break out and kill people, and while claiming to be helping Shepard escape Cerberus leads Shepard into triggering the mechs... who then also start targetting Shepard as well. The mission gameplay seams back into Scenario A's, bar different context (Wilson guides Shepard through sections where experiments and trials were conducted on other test subjects, who didn't survive: the ugly side of the medical research), while Jacob and Miranda are re-represented as trying to get a handle on the situation and stop Wilson's attempts to have Shepard die/fight against Cerberus. Eventually the situation is resolved, and even though Shepard just destroyed the very Cerberus project that saved him, Cerberus continues to want to work with him.

Cerberus starts off as a negative group, and first impressions weren't exactly good on either side, but Cerberus pragmatism leads to an interesting view as they're willing to overlook the affair to save the colonies. Now Shepard isn't the only member of the partnership with a grievance against the other.



One mission, with many of the same elements (same environments, characters, development/creation tools), now cast in two very distinctive ways depending on Choices. Each choise is illustrative in its own way: the 'bad history' route demonstrates Cerberus pragmatism, the ugly side of failed medical experiments, but also how the results succeded in saving Shepard. The 'blank slate' route shows a better side of Cerberus, one that makes a positive difference in the lives of millions, potentially billions of Humans. And to get the full perspective, you need to play both versions... meaning a basis for added replayability and more involved roleplaying.


Might that not be worth trimming an already over-sized cast? This re-writing of a mission wouldn't even require all of the resources for Jack's character either: those other resources could go elsewhere as well, whether touching up other characters or being invested in more Consequences elsewhere.

Imagine if there were ME1-style origin side quests/cameos, continuing the ME1 ones: Earthborn Shepard meets the 10th Street Reds on Omega, who reflect what you did with the Earther quest in ME1. If you helped them, you get one hub-world mission in one way. If you didn't, you get offered a slightly different hum-world mission as a 'second chance.'

Or Spacers could see Lieutenant Zabaleta again, on Omega. If you helped him overcome his PTSD, he's in the Terminus trying to help victims of the Collector Abductions. If you didn't, he's become a bum.

These are minor things individually, but get crowded out by the big things like major character content. If you removed some of the companions, you'd have more time and resources for the little things that make RPGs a fun experience, ie the differentiation and after-effects.




Obviously, this isn't a perfect example. The Cerberus missions aren't the best variables to use in a carryover consideration. Lazarus might not be the best candidate for a reversal, even if it is easy to explain. It could just as well be, oh, the Javeline Mission N7 mission if you completed Bring Down the Sky: the mission could reflect BDtS, and if you let Balak go you find yourself unable to shut down either of the missiles attacking the colony. Or the hostile mechs factory side-quest chain: tie in the Citadel AI if you didn't do that sidequest.


But the point is, if we reduce what we think of as the 'core game', we can expand the RPG into something more reflective and adaptive. You can easily still have a complete and satisfying game on a single, somewhat shorter route: ME2 is absolutely a complete and effective game whether you recruit every companion or not. (IE, the DLC companions.)

While obviously more companions add more, focusing on that is the problem to be overcome. If we create a situation in which we don't aim for maximum length of a 'base' route, be that a shorter story or less fat, we can use those same resources to create consequences and variations to improve what we do have.


In ME1, a few less empty worlds could have expanded the worlds we did have.
In ME2, trimming down the Dirty Dozen could have allowed more consequences.
In DA2, fewer 'optional' missions could have allowed more variations/consequences for the missions that remained.


There is very much to be said about length, but that's also true about aiming for variation and replayability. The longer you get, the harder it is to invest in Consequences to all those Choices. By aiming closer, you can at the same time become more broad.

[C9316]

I never thought I'd see someone complain that a game was too long...

[GnusmasTHX]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

No.

Actually, I disagree. In fact, I'd go as far as to say Bioware RPGs like Mass Effect could become significantly better if they shortened the games.

Why? Because if they shorten the linear story, they could use those resources into creating viable alternate paths or scenarios, a great way to improve Bioware's weakness for Consequences to their Choices. While it'd be great to simply have more of everything, we need to remember restrictions... and then consider the advantages of trade-offs.



Think of it like this. One of the reasons that Bioware RPGs like Mass Effect have only superficial differences between alignments is because creating true divergences is, or can be, quite hard and costly. Entirely different levels or missions cost as much as your 'base' game missions or levels, and a full-length Bioware game is already quite long. Extensive duplication of a long game easily adds up.

For the purpose of a metaphor, imagine that the length of a game experience is a string, metaphorically used to tie the product together. A long game needs a long string to tie a big product. Big products require most of that string. The leftover string isn't enough to tie around again.

But imagine if cut off some of that 'product', and so had more string to tie with? Even if not a full wrap, imagine if you could cut around a corner and reach the original path from a new direction... ie, a divergance? The 'package' may be smaller in sum total, but you now have more string-path to follow. You can go path A, which is shorter than a full game, but adding path B for a new direction?




The metaphor is getting hard to handle, so let me make an example out of ME2. Imagine if Jack was removed from the squad in the development phase.

Maybe she and Miranda are combined into a single character concept. Maybe Jack is a character in Miranda's loyalty mission. Maybe she never exists. But the point is, you can free out all the resources sunk into Jack: two missions, one of the more extensive character designs, and all that voice-actor pay.

That's a pretty hefty sum of resources and time freed up. Now imagine if we used that two-levels worth of characterization to not only polish some other characters, but to create an alternate Lazarus scenario, dependent on whether you did the Cerberus missions in ME1 or not.



Lazarus Scenario A, in which Shepard has no history with Cerberus (did not do the Cerberus missions in ME1), begins with a friendlier first impression of Cerberus. Shepard wakes up on Lazarus as mechs attack, and Miranda and Jacob help Shepard through the chaos to safety. In the course of the mission, Shepard and Jacob go through the more benevolent side of Lazarus: stuff revealing how the human medical advancements within in cybernetics and surgery are being filtered through Cerberus groups to raise the Human standard of living. In the Lazarus mission, Shepard is written as ignorant about Cerberus, and while questions remain there's none of that 'I'll NEVER work for Cerberus!' dialogue.

Cerberus is a quasi-benevolent blank slate group that just helped save you, and you learn to distrust them later.


Lazarus Scenario B, however, plays up animosity from ME1. If you did do the Cerberus missions in ME1, Shepard wakes up in Lazarus... to Wilson urging him to flee, not Miranda. And rather than fight through mechs, Commander Shepard starts fighting Cerberus scientists and security, who are trying to sedate Shepard (shooting pistols with 'sedatives', not bullets). Wilson 'fills in' Shepard about being a Cerberus test subject, urges Shepard to break out and kill people, and while claiming to be helping Shepard escape Cerberus leads Shepard into triggering the mechs... who then also start targetting Shepard as well. The mission gameplay seams back into Scenario A's, bar different context (Wilson guides Shepard through sections where experiments and trials were conducted on other test subjects, who didn't survive: the ugly side of the medical research), while Jacob and Miranda are re-represented as trying to get a handle on the situation and stop Wilson's attempts to have Shepard die/fight against Cerberus. Eventually the situation is resolved, and even though Shepard just destroyed the very Cerberus project that saved him, Cerberus continues to want to work with him.

Cerberus starts off as a negative group, and first impressions weren't exactly good on either side, but Cerberus pragmatism leads to an interesting view as they're willing to overlook the affair to save the colonies. Now Shepard isn't the only member of the partnership with a grievance against the other.



One mission, with many of the same elements (same environments, characters, development/creation tools), now cast in two very distinctive ways depending on Choices. Each choise is illustrative in its own way: the 'bad history' route demonstrates Cerberus pragmatism, the ugly side of failed medical experiments, but also how the results succeded in saving Shepard. The 'blank slate' route shows a better side of Cerberus, one that makes a positive difference in the lives of millions, potentially billions of Humans. And to get the full perspective, you need to play both versions... meaning a basis for added replayability and more involved roleplaying.


Might that not be worth trimming an already over-sized cast? This re-writing of a mission wouldn't even require all of the resources for Jack's character either: those other resources could go elsewhere as well, whether touching up other characters or being invested in more Consequences elsewhere.

Imagine if there were ME1-style origin side quests/cameos, continuing the ME1 ones: Earthborn Shepard meets the 10th Street Reds on Omega, who reflect what you did with the Earther quest in ME1. If you helped them, you get one hub-world mission in one way. If you didn't, you get offered a slightly different hum-world mission as a 'second chance.'

Or Spacers could see Lieutenant Zabaleta again, on Omega. If you helped him overcome his PTSD, he's in the Terminus trying to help victims of the Collector Abductions. If you didn't, he's become a bum.

These are minor things individually, but get crowded out by the big things like major character content. If you removed some of the companions, you'd have more time and resources for the little things that make RPGs a fun experience, ie the differentiation and after-effects.




Obviously, this isn't a perfect example. The Cerberus missions aren't the best variables to use in a carryover consideration. Lazarus might not be the best candidate for a reversal, even if it is easy to explain. It could just as well be, oh, the Javeline Mission N7 mission if you completed Bring Down the Sky: the mission could reflect BDtS, and if you let Balak go you find yourself unable to shut down either of the missiles attacking the colony. Or the hostile mechs factory side-quest chain: tie in the Citadel AI if you didn't do that sidequest.


But the point is, if we reduce what we think of as the 'core game', we can expand the RPG into something more reflective and adaptive. You can easily still have a complete and satisfying game on a single, somewhat shorter route: ME2 is absolutely a complete and effective game whether you recruit every companion or not. (IE, the DLC companions.)

While obviously more companions add more, focusing on that is the problem to be overcome. If we create a situation in which we don't aim for maximum length of a 'base' route, be that a shorter story or less fat, we can use those same resources to create consequences and variations to improve what we do have.


In ME1, a few less empty worlds could have expanded the worlds we did have.
In ME2, trimming down the Dirty Dozen could have allowed more consequences.
In DA2, fewer 'optional' missions could have allowed more variations/consequences for the missions that remained.


There is very much to be said about length, but that's also true about aiming for variation and replayability. The longer you get, the harder it is to invest in Consequences to all those Choices. By aiming closer, you can at the same time become more broad.

Still no.

[C9316]

DuckSoup wrote...

C9316 wrote...

I never thought I'd see someone complain that a game was too long...

Final Fantasy <_<

That's only because FF likes to have final bosses that have like 8 forms....

[tetrisblock4x1]

I like you Dean. I like you a lot. I'd really like that. It's like Alpha Protocol in space. Pro-corporate vs anti-corporate make for fun RP situations.

[Arcadian Legend]

C9316 wrote...

DuckSoup wrote...

C9316 wrote...

I never thought I'd see someone complain that a game was too long...

Final Fantasy <_<

That's only because FF likes to have final bosses that have like 8 forms....

Oh you gais and your overexaggerations. 

[Dean_the_Young]

C9316 wrote...

I never thought I'd see someone complain that a game was too long...

Oh, that's an old flaw. Plenty of game designers have confused 'padding' for content.

There's also the issue of pacing and maintaining interest. Like in any book or piece of art, knowing when to stop is just as important to quality as knowing what to start.

Portal, for example, was a wonderful story because it recognized that while there were countless additional puzzles and potential levels they could have added, the strength of the Portal story was in its minimalism and brevity. Portal 2 came, and it was good, but it also lost the polish and strength that made the original game so catchy.

[nitefyre410]

Arcadian Legend wrote...

C9316 wrote...

DuckSoup wrote...

C9316 wrote...

I never thought I'd see someone complain that a game was too long...

Final Fantasy <_<

That's only because FF likes to have final bosses that have like 8 forms....

Oh you gais and your overexaggerations. 

 


Oh the  BSN  Amuse's me so much... can't come up with better agruement then lets bash another genre.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 11 février 2012 - 02:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Still no.

Then you feel the Mass Effect games are too short?

You could certainly strip out more of the RPG elements to create a longer game, after all. We could remove everything but the superficial dialogue, so that Choices never had Consequences to consider (or we simply don't consider them), and thus increase the length of the game even more.

Maybe even fit in a Batarian plotline. That'd be better, considering how under-utilized the Batarians are.

[EnvyXx]

Not long enough if you ask me

[tetrisblock4x1]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

C9316 wrote...

I
never thought I'd see someone complain that a game was too
long...

Oh, that's an old flaw. Plenty of game designers have
confused 'padding' for content.

There's also the issue of pacing
and maintaining interest. Like in any book or piece of art, knowing when
to stop is just as important to quality as knowing what to start.

Portal,
for example, was a wonderful story because it recognized that while
there were countless additional puzzles and potential levels they could
have added, the strength of the Portal story was in its minimalism and
brevity. Portal 2 came, and it was good, but it also lost the polish and
strength that made the original game so catchy.

Well padding is just everywhere, isn't it? I have a feeling that gamers in general are so accustomed to padding, or grinding or fluff or whatever that it's absence would jarring and undesired. Take Alpha Protocol for example... it had almost nothing outside of the main quests, no lore, no side content and all of the good writing and diverging narrative in the world couldn't save it. It's not as if the game play quality or style was much different from ME1 which the critics rated so much better. So perhaps there is something to this padding, this fluff that you want games to cut back on? I totally meant what I said when I complimented your post, but padding is like this expected tradition nowadays. A game without padding would be like a year without christmas for many gamers.

I think that certain genres like Portal can get away with been linear, but games like AP and Mass Effect, and anything which attempts to be somewhat open, or anything that attempts to build a world or a setting is expected to have a good deal of padding.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 11 février 2012 - 02:39 .

[nitefyre410]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

C9316 wrote...

I never thought I'd see someone complain that a game was too long...

Oh, that's an old flaw. Plenty of game designers have confused 'padding' for content.

There's also the issue of pacing and maintaining interest. Like in any book or piece of art, knowing when to stop is just as important to quality as knowing what to start.

Portal, for example, was a wonderful story because it recognized that while there were countless additional puzzles and potential levels they could have added, the strength of the Portal story was in its minimalism and brevity. Portal 2 came, and it was good, but it also lost the polish and strength that made the original game so catchy.

 
It is some thing the game industry have been trying to break out of  for while. Back at the birth of the industry it was a design feature  use the get  artifical length out games and thus lvl grinding was born.

But Now sense gamers are going geting older... starting to have familles, jobs, etc.  It was one of my and many other peoples major complaints about World of Warcraft Cataclysm.   The time put  in vs the reward recieved but   Darks Souls is really hard but it always very rewarding as while as acomplish more.  

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Still no.

Then you feel the Mass Effect games are too short?

You could certainly strip out more of the RPG elements to create a longer game, after all. We could remove everything but the superficial dialogue, so that Choices never had Consequences to consider (or we simply don't consider them), and thus increase the length of the game even more.

Maybe even fit in a Batarian plotline. That'd be better, considering how under-utilized the Batarians are.

Well the question whether it's too long and not enough alternative routes are two different questions. However I'd agree that higher replayablitly beats game lenght.

[Palidane]

While I think Dean has a point on content trade-offs, we don't need episodes. DLC is getting pushed hard enough, the last thing we need is for it to become a requirement.

[Dean_the_Young]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Well padding is just everywhere, isn't it? I have a feeling that gamers in general are so accustomed to padding, or grinding or fluff or whatever that it's absence would jarring and undesired. Take Alpha Protocol for example... it had almost nothing outside of the main quests, no lore, no side content and all of the good writing and diverging narrative in the world couldn't save it. It's not as if the game play quality or style was much different from ME1 which the critics rated so much better. So perhaps there is something to this padding, this fluff that you want games to cut back on? I totally meant what I said when I complimented your post, but padding is like this expected tradition nowadays. A game without padding would be like a year without christmas for many gamers.

I think that certain genres like Portal can get away with been linear, but games like AP and Mass Effect, and anything which attempts to be somewhat open, or anything that attempts to build a world or a setting is expected to have a good deal of padding.

Padding is like a chushion: some can be nice, even necessary to an experience, but there is such a thing as too much. Different types of padding have different effects as well: a 'go to quest' is a different sort of padding (transit time) than a collection question (harvesting).


Different RPGs have different design philosophies. Deus Ex had plenty of lore to be found, for example, but it's RPG focus was on character customization (priority of upgrades) and different routes to success, but a linear story. Bethsada, however, tends to go with a far broader, less story-driven experience: Skyrim and Fallout don't succede on the weight of their story missions, but the sheer expanse and dispersion of 'irrelevant' sidequests that build the world via interaction. Because the story is minimal, it's easier to make significant variations to it.

Bioware RPGs are heavily story and character driven, but this comes at a cost of being hard to implement Big Consequences at anything past a superficial or post-game level.

[Elvis_Mazur]

No, just no. Just because other people can't stand to finish more than 10 hours long games doesn't mean my experience should be ruined by launching Mass Effect in episodes. If people don't like the length of the game, don't play it. Simple.

For me, I wish Mass Effect games were 100+ hours long.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

GnusmasTHX wrote...

Still no.

Then you feel the Mass Effect games are too short?

You could certainly strip out more of the RPG elements to create a longer game, after all. We could remove everything but the superficial dialogue, so that Choices never had Consequences to consider (or we simply don't consider them), and thus increase the length of the game even more.

Maybe even fit in a Batarian plotline. That'd be better, considering how under-utilized the Batarians are.

Well the question whether it's too long and not enough alternative routes are two different questions. However I'd agree that higher replayablitly beats game lenght.

They're intrensically related, since the resources to make alternative routes are the exact same as the ones used to make linear length, and we already have limited resources.

It's like a railroad track: if you have 5k of track to lay down, you only have 5k of track to either go out 5k or whether you make switch-backs and parallel tracks.

[ediskrad327]

sure, they should make a 6 hour long FPS now


/sarcasm

[Dean_the_Young]

PetrySilva wrote...

No, just no. Just because other people can't stand to finish more than 10 hours long games doesn't mean my experience should be ruined by launching Mass Effect in episodes. If people don't like the length of the game, don't play it. Simple.

For me, I wish Mass Effect games were 100+ hours long.

What are you willing to give up and endure for the extra lenth?