9 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Just read this over on the Rainbow moon board.

The thing is though, are we really in a day and age in which video games with extreme lengths of gameplay are actually seen as flawed for that reason? I just find it kind of ridiculous that Colin seemed to point out the 100+ hours of gameplay as a possible negative. Has the speed of life really gotten to the point where people are like, "Man, I really wish this RPG was like 6 hours long

The game scored an 8 which is really good for that type of game I guess. But they marked it down for being too long.
How long should DA3 be ? 100+ or 6 hours+ ? Or somewhere in the middle.

[Allan Schumacher]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I think people are just busier, have more distractions, and probably shorter attention spans.

I think this is starting to resonate more as the kids of the 80s (I'm one) are now finding themselves with careers and families which can take away from some things.


I only played through DAO legitimately once (to be fair, replaying a game when you've tested the crap out of a lot of it is a challenge), but I was able to replay Alpha Protocol 3 times.  I think Alpha Protocol's shorter length serves it well IMO.

I'm about 80 hours in on my current Fallout New Vegas playthrough, but the "Gamer ADD" of my friends telling me about some big patches for Crusader Kings II has started to distract me.  I think I'll have to sit down today and refocus on FONV lest I just not finish off my campaign.


I used to highly correlate value with the amount of time I spend in the game, but Oblivion and Portal were two games that shattered that for me.  I was spending time in Oblivion without enjoying it, simply because I was being mechanical about "Here's a quest, do the quest, gain xp.... so real..."  I beat Portal in a single sitting and would much rather have spent $40 on it than Oblivion.  The amount of enjoyment I got from Portal (excluding replays) was just so much more than I got out of Oblivion, in spite of the length.

For myself, I find length is only a concern if I would otherwise be doing nothing if I wasn't playing the game.


I like for good games to have good length because it usually means "more good."  But I find length in general to be less of an issue for me nowadays.  This may be because I'm 31 and do a fair bit more with my time than just play video games compared to when I was 20.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 04 juillet 2012 - 06:48 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Don't wrap up a story in 10 hours if you want people to feel engrossed in it, like they are really there.

I think that this is an important thing, especially for a game based on story. While I don't think there's an "absolute minimum" in terms of how long an RPG should be for me to enjoy it, a large part of why I play RPGs is for the stories and there needs to be enough time to properly develop it and make it engaging.

Preferably with good replayability in it as well.

[Allan Schumacher]

And learning to play a brand new game chews into the time you have set aside... I would rather replay a game I know is amazing and try some new options, choices or approaches than try and figure out the controls of a new game and become accustomed to its flaws and inconsistencies.

I think I still prefer newer experiences. I just (somehow... I am not even really sure how I determine this haha) try to only pick the new games that I figure I will like haha. Next one on my list is XCOM. It's probably also why I seem to have a large inertia against things like Skyrim.


Do you think that this type of mindset, however, helps fuel some of the sequel cravings? For example, when Tim Schafer had his kickstarter project, many people were clamouring for a sequel for one of his earlier games.

By getting something (hopefully) familiar, there's less inherent risk for the purchaser?

[Allan Schumacher]

Sure. If you have one game series that's successful and people liked it, why wouldn't they want more? Its like sometimes when I go to a favorite restaurant, I might go with the intention of trying some new dish yet I'll maybe end up getting some old favorite.

The principle thing for me is that, if Schafer had made a sequel instead of Psychonauts, we wouldn't have had Psychonauts.

Part of my resistance to PST at first was that it only looked like Baldur's Gate. I actually stopped playing. I then revisited it and actually prefer it.

(Though since you use food as an example, I'm much more conservative for food. Go figure haha)


As for the $60 price point, at least where I lived I grew up saving allowance to buy $70-$80 SNES and N64 games, which likely makes me innately less resistant to the $60 price point. Though I've since been much better at being disciplined and waiting for prices to drop for games that I don't consider sure things.

This probably feeds back with what I mentioned before that I rarely find myself without some sort of video game entertainment, so I don't have much issue waiting for a game. XCOM is Day 1 though

[Allan Schumacher]

If you adjust for inflation, those SNES games were actually costing you something like $120 in today's money.

$60 is cheap.

Oh yes.  Adjusted for inflation I agree that the cost of gaming has gone down significantly.  Other factors (such as me actually making money, which I didn't do when I was 9....) also make funding my addiction hobby a lot easier than when I was a child.

[Allan Schumacher]

Brockololly wrote...

True. That logic makes sense. Sometimes its nice to just see something new and not in any way constrained by something previous.

On the flip side, I think the desire for sequels probably comes more when you have a heavily story driven game that leaves people wanting more in that particular universe. Whereas some new IP instead of a sequel is probably good when you want totally new game mechanics as well as a new setting. At least it would seem easier to adopt new mechanics for a game to go along with a new setting than to try grafting new mechanics on to the expectations of an already established franchise.

I wouldn't be surprised if DA2 may have been better received if it was not called "Dragon Age 2."  Although I think the most legitimate complaints probably still would have been called out and they would have been justified.  By the same token, I wonder if there were any players that probably wouldn't have picked up "A different name than Dragon Age 2" but picked it up because it was "Dragon Age 2" and actually ended up enjoying the game.

Tough to separate those numbers out I think.

If someone doesn't want to put in the time what's stopping them from just playing the game for however long they want?

I think a fan comes away more satisfied with a game they play until completion after 20 hours compared to a game that they play for 20 hours but don't complete.  I have no basis aside from my own musings for feeling this way though.

If my presumption is true though, a satisfied gamer does a better job of picking up future titles and self-promoting titles than an indifferent one.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just a question Allan, do you ever see Bioware's philosophy changing where their games get much shorter and less focus on narrative/character development?

EDIT:  I realize I misread the question... I wouldn't focus less on narrative/characterization

I personally would love for us to try something like that with a game that is shorter in scale but wider in its replayability. Maybe a smaller scale project as an experiment? I say all that naively though as I'm not really privy to how decisions on what type of game is going to get made and how to justify it and so forth. I just know it's something I would be interested in.

He watched me play a bit and asked me why I was seeing so much more content. I tried to explain to him that Bioware probably felt they didn't need to force all the information on a new player. But he brought up a good point, why as a new player he never had the option to force that extra content on himself? My worry with that is Bioware might start cutting down their dialogue so newer players can get more involved in their games. And partly what I found so special in ME3 is how it remembered the smallest things I did dating back to ME1...all the conversations even "remembered" certain things. I found that very awesome and amazing detail on Bioware's part.

It may be worthwhile to explore other alternatives to "setting the game universe" than just save game imports too.

I ask that because it seems Bioware is moving more towards a actionish formula and in ME3, they tried to find way to bring new players in the narrative. It seems like Bioware is having a hard time broadening their games for newer players, so they put in auto-dialogue.

I'll need you to elaborate on this as I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 06 juillet 2012 - 07:00 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't really want to see you guys get away from that strong narrative/character development because it's what I expect in a Bioware game. It's what separates your games from the rest of the industry for me personally. Not many games seem to put the care in character development/story like Bioware does anymore...

I think narrative and character development are still going to be the focus. In some capacity there's been thoughts that maybe we focus too much on story that it's a detriment to other aspects of the games, but my impression is that most of us at BioWare think that story is our biggest strength in our games.


Though I think you're referring to the "Action mode" for ME3, but by the same token there's also "story mode" that makes the non story elements trivial but still allows the player to make the choices that he wants to make. I don't know how expensive it was to offer these gameplay modes, but the underlying conversation system is still there and it's just picking the options for the player.

If it's low enough cost then I see no reason why both can't coexist with minimal sacrifice of content. Though to be perfectly frank at this point I don't know of any plans to do anything like that with Dragon Age at this time.

[Allan Schumacher]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Just a question Allan, do you ever see Bioware's philosophy changing where their games get much shorter and less focus on narrative/character development?

I personally would love for us to try something like that. Maybe a smaller scale project as an experiment? I say all that naively though as I'm not really privy to how decisions on what type of game is going to get made and how to justify it and so forth. I just know it's something I would be interested in.

First time I almost cried on this forum.

Bioware wouldn't be Bioware for me if it wasn't massive character focused stories anymore.

Err, rereading the question, I realize I misread it.  I was more focused on "shorter game."


The idea of having a game with more breadth/width in its content (rather than length) is something I find very interesting.

/EpicFacepalm I shouldn't post quickly while at work.... XD


I should go an edit my original post since I didn't actually mean less characterization.

/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk


Sorry...