197 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonRageGT]

ME2 has enormous replayability as it is. Just get rid of the mining mini game chore and that's it. Specially if you use the editor to fix that. After 5 runs, the mining filler becomes annoying. After 20 it is a game killer.

Modifié par DragonRageGT, 11 février 2012 - 02:50 .

[Il Divo]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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?

For myself, I'd certainly be willing to give up most of ME's side quests, planet exploration (either ME1 or ME2 version), as well as cutting down the size of some hubs, like the Citadel.

Edit: That's not to imply that I think even that would bring the game close to a 100 hours in length. But in terms of what I'd be willing to sacrifice to create the choices and consequences which you outlined in your previous post. The main quest segments are the strength of both ME games. That's really my primary interest to hold onto and expand on.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 février 2012 - 02:53 .

[bboynexus]

To think that a game must provide in excess of 50 or 100 hours worth of narrative and gameplay to justify worth and value is a fallacious one long held by a majority of people. I'm as big a fan of Mass Effect as there is, and I couldn't care less if it were shorter. Especially if it allowed for tighter scripts, greater variation in gameplay, and a broader range of consequences.

Some of you people really need to look beyond such superficial distinctions as length. It's precisely why Skyrim lacks the necessary substance to hold such a huge world together on a moment-by-moment basis. It's precisely why the HL2 episodes mostly benefited from tighter development cycles.

Modifié par bboynexus, 11 février 2012 - 02:55 .

[bboynexus]

No, it didn't 'need' more.

[DaJe]

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.

What you have to consider is that it takes time to really get into a universe. Mass Effect was never a quick shot em up game. It is supposed to draw you into it's universe and story. You need to get used to the art design, the soundscapes, the characters, experience it long enough to accept it as an illusion of reality.

You don't care for the end of a game nearly as much when you have not spend enough time in the universe and with the characters. And you also don't care about the consequences you speak of.

The Lord of the Rings trillogy is big and epic and LOOONG. At the end we feel like we have been through a lot with those characters. You can not achieve that same connection to that fantasy world and it's inhabitants when you rush the audience through it.

So many movies and games now leave you without any emotional connection today that I fear the younger generations will never know what audio visual media can actually do.

What does it matter if more people reach the end when less people actually stay there and sit through the credits because the end actually ment more than "it's time to pick up another game".
Finishing a 4 hour game like the latest CoDs is unsatisfactory and meaningless. It's a real "whateva" situation and I don't give a **** who worked on that because it could as well be fabricated by machines following the orders of shareholders. 1 short obsolete piece every year.

Everything today becomes short meaningless popcorn action. Do not
suggest Bioware to go even more that route, please, don't encourage
them.

Modifié par DaJe, 11 février 2012 - 03:03 .

[bboynexus]

Why does 'getting into a universe' necessitate tens of hours of gameplay length? The Half-Life games are considered some of the best with regards to delivery of narrative, characterizations, and thematicisim. Those don't exceed ten hours.

Think about what you're saying.

[DaJe]

bboynexus wrote...

Why does 'getting into a universe' necessitate tens of hours of gameplay length? The Half-Life games are considered some of the best with regards to delivery of narrative, characterizations, and thematicisim. Those don't exceed ten hours.

Think about what you're saying.

You can also rush through Mass Effect in 10 hours. And Half Life doesn't have nearly as many characters and locations. It is a linear narrative in a small place in comparison.

[wolfennights]

bboynexus wrote...

To think that a game must provide in excess of 50 or 100 hours worth of narrative and gameplay to justify worth and value is a fallacious one long held by a majority of people. I'm as big a fan of Mass Effect as there is, and I couldn't care less if it were shorter. Especially if it allowed for tighter scripts, greater variation in gameplay, and a broader range of consequences.

Some of you people really need to look beyond such superficial distinctions as length. It's precisely why Skyrim lacks the necessary substance to hold such a huge world together on a moment-by-moment basis. It's precisely why the HL2 episodes mostly benefited from tighter development cycles.

This.

Shadow of the Colossus and Ico were too very short games that recieved a lot of praise. Portal took only an hour to an hour and a half to beat first time through (for me, anyways) and look how well it took off.

Also, if 40 hours is too long, then I suggest playing a game that takes over 100 hours to beat, like Fallout 1/2 or Baldur's Gate 1/2.

[slimgrin]

No way.

[DragonRageGT]

bboynexus wrote...

Why does 'getting into a universe' necessitate tens of hours of gameplay length? The Half-Life games are considered some of the best with regards to delivery of narrative, characterizations, and thematicisim. Those don't exceed ten hours.

Think about what you're saying.

My HL Play time = Zero
My Skyrim Play time = 800 hrs
My Oblivion Play time = 1,000 hrs
My Mass Effect Play time = Over 1,000 hours (1&2)
My Dragon Age Origins Play Time = Over 2,000 hours

HL is a piece of ... software for me. Different people, different tastes.

[someone else]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

then what could be causing the problem if not game length?

...average attention span of typical american "yout' approaching twitter threshhold...

[Dean_the_Young]

DaJe wrote...


Everything today becomes short meaningless popcorn action. Do not
suggest Bioware to go even more that route, please, don't encourage
them.

Where did you get 'meaningless popcorn action' from that?

If you consider that alternate scenarios require, you know, separate playthroughs, you could easily expand the length of content and lore exploration by making less total content approachable from both sides.


Take the Lazarus scenario again.

If you have the 'blank slate' scenario, you go to one side of the station where you come across files showing that Cerberus is dispersing its civilian technologies to Human groups, and say that the test subjects for the Lazarus project were all volunteers who were beyond conventional medical treatments. All in a scenario in which Cerberus is eager to work with you and be friendly.

If you have the 'bad history' scenario, you go to the other side of the station where you come across the remains of those test subjects, as well as the foreknowledge that many of them wouldn't survive. Cerberus's results-oriented, casualty-accepting nature is established, all in a scenario in which Shepard fights Cerberus at the start.


Even if, IF, either one of these routes was 'only 75% of the 'canon' scenario... together they have 150% across two different playthroughs.

[AlexXIV]

someone else wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

then what could be causing the problem if not game length?

...average attention span of typical american "yout' approaching twitter threshhold...

No it's because the games have lenghts at times. Meaning time in which you don't really make alot of progress and are supposed to be sort of time fillers. Many companies still think actual game lenght is a quality/selling point. So at times games stretch without any other reason than generating 'play time' without alot of effort. The attention span thing may also play in but frankly, of any RPG you could reduce alot of time without really taking away anything aside from playtime.

[DragonRageGT]

bboynexus wrote...

Some of you people really need to look beyond such superficial distinctions as length. It's precisely why Skyrim lacks the necessary substance to hold such a huge world together on a moment-by-moment basis. It's precisely why the HL2 episodes mostly benefited from tighter development cycles.

Dude, you have no idea of what you're talking about. Skyrim lacks abso-frakin-lutely nothing. And any game that let you do this is a winner by any measure:

The Great Battle of Skyrim - (thanks Mi-Chan for finding it! - Talk about substance!)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2DshotexMU

[Dean_the_Young]

Skyrim lacks balance, but that's sort of inherent in the game design.

[Miths]

In my ~25 years of gaming I think I've probably only finished (as in been through to the end, not "100% completion" for games with a ton of things to find or side quests to do) perhaps 10-15 games, ME1 and 2 among them.

I've played many games I actually loved - including a number of RPGs (eg. Baldur's Gate 1+2) - but just never, for one reason or another, though rarely time problems, got around to finish.

The length of the games usually have no bearing on whether I'm likely to finish them. I regularly enjoy first person shooters these days for instance, but I'm nevertheless struggling to recall actually finishing the usually rather or very short campaigns of any. Right now I'm half way through Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 - I have plenty of time to finish them, but despite finding both thoroughly entertaining I just don't quite have the drive to complete them (although I'm playing the hell out of BF3 multiplayer).

[Neow]

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.

Agreed， a lot of loyalty quests felt pointless. Miranda, Samara, Jack, Jacob, Thane, Garrus, Kasumi came in mind. Imagine all those writing goes the way of writing alternate path.

[VolusvsReaper]

[tetrisblock4x1]

DragonRageGT wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

Some of you people really need to look beyond such superficial distinctions as length. It's precisely why Skyrim lacks the necessary substance to hold such a huge world together on a moment-by-moment basis. It's precisely why the HL2 episodes mostly benefited from tighter development cycles.

Dude, you have no idea of what you're talking about. Skyrim lacks abso-frakin-lutely nothing. And any game that let you do this is a winner by any measure:

The Great Battle of Skyrim - (thanks Mi-Chan for finding it! - Talk about substance!)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2DshotexMU

People have been doing that in mount and blade for years. Not only does it have large scale battles, but it also lets you form control groups, give orders, and play it like you're an army general from horseback. You can also ride into battle with a shield, a sword, lance or bow. And that's before mods which inclyde additions like catapults, battering rams and more open castles and battlefields.

If you like skyrim for large scale battles then I recommend that you look into Mount and Blade: Warband.

[lobi]

DragonRageGT wrote...

ME2 has enormous replayability as it is. Just get rid of the mining mini game chore and that's it. Specially if you use the editor to fix that. After 5 runs, the mining filler becomes annoying. After 20 it is a game killer.

The mini game is good for roleplay if you are renegade because you are essentially stealing resources from other races. This makes no sense for Paragon unless you can find unclaimed planets. Shadow broker dlc helps out there but I still don't know if there is enough for the upgrades.
I am replaying it now for a full renagade run. I went straight to Omega after getting the Normandy back to get Zaeed first and while there going for the Salarian.
I had forgotten just how bad / Buggy the combat is in ME2 and how I thought ME1 was actually better. Ability slots are wasted on ammo types I prefere ME1 ammo swap system by far. The bad combat system drags it out.
I am looking forward to some decent combat in ME3 but, just like ME2 if it's bad I will suffer thru it for the story.

Modifié par lobi, 11 février 2012 - 03:37 .

[Bleachrude]

I disagree with your idea Dean because I dont think most players actually "roleplay" different characters that much.

Take the Branka vs Caridin question. Even though there are lots of people that have multiple run throughs, the number of people who choose Branka is VERY low.

For me for example personally, I simply cant roleplay ****s AT ALL. i find myself just not being able to do it (and I'm someone who grew up with 1st edition AD&D - yes I'm that old) and IME, most people can't do it...

I do agree though that ME2 could have used some pruning though just to get less calibrations (combining Zaeed and Jacob is one, but I do think the Jack vs Miranda rivlarly is important similar to the Fenris vs Anders)

[vonSlash]

Why should we care if some people don't finish the games? The people who really care about the series will end up finishing it, while the people who don't particularly find themselves enjoying ME won't finish it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Why do you presume that the scenarios would be based upon 'nice' and 'ass' Big Decisions, Bleachrude?

ME1's Big Decisions were flawed in that they always amounted to 'kill' or 'mercy', but ME2's weren't and there were a good number of ME1 smaller decisions that were hardly ****-only. Plus, the end-game decisions had plenty of differing opinions. A parallel-level doesn't have to be a result of a particular Big Decision at all: it could be a result of doing/not doing something, it could be a result of the order of missions, it could be from smaller choices.

Variance IS a goal of any RPG, or else it can't claim to be a RPG at all. The point of an RPG is the potential to play different roles: whether a particular consumer does or not, they're still investing in a genre in which the principal of Choice is a key aspect. Choices only matter, however, when they have consequences that wouldn't occur if the other choice was made... and consequences don't exist without distinction.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 11 février 2012 - 03:48 .

[Slayer299]

bboynexus wrote...

To think that a game must provide in excess of 50 or 100 hours worth of narrative and gameplay to justify worth and value is a fallacious one long held by a majority of people. I'm as big a fan of Mass Effect as there is, and I couldn't care less if it were shorter. Especially if it allowed for tighter scripts, greater variation in gameplay, and a broader range of consequences.

Some of you people really need to look beyond such superficial distinctions as length. It's precisely why Skyrim lacks the necessary substance to hold such a huge world together on a moment-by-moment basis. It's precisely why the HL2 episodes mostly benefited from tighter development cycles.

Shorter? ME isn't exactly a 40hr game as it is presently (at least I find I can beat it and the DLC's in about 32hrs) and while some changes might be good I rather like how it is in its present incarnation, but any shorter and I might start confusing ME with CoD6 (length wise).

I have to completely disagree with you about the HL2 episdoes, while HL2:Ep2 came out about a year after Ep1 (which was great), after 5 years for Ep3 I don't think it has benefited from the time any. In fact you could have made a completely new game in that time.