188 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The length of the game is very subjective and will depend on the gamer. I liked the Fade and Deep Roads in DAO on my first playthrough after that not so much. On subsequent playthroughs it is just dull especially the Fade. The warden is by himself and there is little interaction with the companions.
The Fade sequence in Awakening was enjoyable because the entire party was there to interact with.

The Fade sequence in DA2 is short but more enjoyable because my whole party gets to go and not be separated. I can listen to the banter and have them betray me. I can then take a different party on a subsequent playthrough and hear different banter and different reasons for being betrayed. How Hawke responds to the betrayal can be different. The Fade sequence in DA2 just holds up better for me.

I am not interested in a long game for the sake of being long. I want the game to be good. I would rather have a short 30 hour game that is good with replayability than a tedious 100 hour sloughfest.

I agree, the Fade in DA2 was nice in the fact that who you brought with you could genuinely affect what plays out there. One of the few times in DA2 this was true.

However, while at the time I thought it was a new, unused area, it turns out the Fade is really just a copy of the Gallows. Even in the dream world, recycled maps reared its ugly head.

If given a little more area, and if the barrel puzzles were more logical to what was going on in the actual Fade, I would have enjoyed it more. That aside, the Feynriel quest in general was one of best-done side quests in DA2, in a sea of mediocre ones. A cross between the DA:O and DA2 Deep Roads and Fade would have been preferable to me. 

That said, DA2 needed another Act to make its length what it should have been. Since the side quests rarely add any real depth to the world, and loot is totally randomized and leveling up is actually a punishment after a certain point in DA2, you're best served by doing only the main quest and a small handful of side quests. In my second playthrough, I got done in less than 30 hours which, for me, is unheard of. 

Whatever they were planning for the Exalted March may have made the game flesh out and feel like a truly satisfying experience, but we'll never know. As it stands, DA2 falls on the "too short of an RPG" scale for me.

[Melca36]

RE: The Fade

I would have preferred it if we could have saved our companions. I really didn't like how short it was in DA:2 and introducing Orsino in the FADE sequence was just BAD WRITING.

[FedericoV]

I don't agree with that IGN guy. But I think that if a game is storydriven and not a sandbox/vicarious experience, there is even a lot of virtue in brevity and a lot of bad in lenghtyness.

A lot depends on the quality of the content off course. But it's harder and harder to make quality content if you bloat it. And sometimes games & novels, especially fantasy games & novels, tend to bloat things a lot.

I mean, I love ASoIaF. BG2 is my favourite game of all times. But if I had to find a flaw in both, it would be lack of concision. While my favourite book is probably The Road and it's only 100 pages long more or less. So, maybe most games nowaday are too short. But personally I'm satisfied when a story wraps things up in 30+ hours or so.

Modifié par FedericoV, 04 juillet 2012 - 08:52 .

[FedericoV]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

I don't agree with that IGN guy. But I think that if a game is storydriven and not a sandbox/vicarious experience, there is even a lot of virtue in brevity and a lot of bad in lenghtyness.

A lot depends on the quality of the content off course. But it's harder and harder to make quality content if you bloat it. And sometimes games & novels, especially fantasy games & novels, tend to bloat things a lot.

I mean, I love ASoIaF. BG2 is my favourite game of all times. But if I had to find a flaw in both, it would be excessive lenghtiness. While my favourite book is probably The Road and it's only 100 pages long more or less.

Totally agree with you here FedericoV. Length is no guaranty for quality of course. Although the opposite can be the case too....Enough examples of 100+ games have been given already in this thread. It all depends on what the player is looking for in a game and how well his wishes are implemented to keep him emerged.

I agree. It depends on the game. I don't mind spending 100+ hours in a TES game. I've spend a stupid amount of time on SR2 doing stupid things. But for a storydriven experience, it must be really great to justify more than 50 hours of gameplay.

[Massakkolia]

Just as there's no ideal length for books, there's no ideal length for games. Every story just needs its own unique breathing space.

In addition to storytelling, games need time to make the player familiar with gameplay elements and expand on those so that the gameplay experience becomes richer as we play further. I don't want to play a game with a story that doesn't go anywhere with repetitive gameplay.

Allan brought up Portal, which is a great example of a short and sweet game, which achieves what it set out to do in its time frame. Portal builds up a great atmosphere, deepens the gameplay with every puzzle and executes its simple plot to a perfection. I was one happy customer.

RPGs, especially Bioware games, do require more time to build up the game world, develop characters and unwrap the plot. I'd even argue that Dragon Age 2, especially the third act, could have used more time to tell the story with proper depth.

I'm one of those grown-up 80s kids who is starting to find out that our spare time is limited. I can only play a few games all the way to the end in a year. That doesn't mean I want the games to be shorter. I just want them to be better because I value my free time more than before. If a game is engaging, I'll gladly play it for a hundred hours even if it means spreading that time to several months.

[Wolf]

First off I just want to state that Collin Moriarty makes me feel ashamed of being a gamer whenever he mouths of on any topic. He should just stay quiet and review FPS's.

Secondly, I personally enjoy 100+ hour RPG's as long as the content stays interesting and still manages to surprise and delight me all the way through. I don't see them as a bad thing but do understand why some people would, but there are other games for the "play fast, play often" crowd.

A game like Skyrim is, for me, more about exploring the world and its lore than it is about the characters and what goes on with them. It is the type of experience I play for a few hours, save and return to later. And it lasts me over 300 hours if I still find something to enjoy.

Games like DA or TW2 that are story-driven and deal more deeply with the interaction between the player and the characters/events in the world are the ones I play to talk to characters and follow a story, but then also provides me with satisfying gameplay that complements it and is affected or affects the story. A 40-50 hour long campaign is more than sufficient for these games but if there is more content and it makes sense story-wise or affects the game in any way, all the better.

All in all though, if the game keeps me entertained for a considerable amount of time, I'm good.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 04 juillet 2012 - 09:43 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ria wrote...

Just as there's no ideal length for books, there's no ideal length for games. Every story just needs its own unique breathing space.

In addition to storytelling, games need time to make the player familiar with gameplay elements and expand on those so that the gameplay experience becomes richer as we play further. I don't want to play a game with a story that doesn't go anywhere with repetitive gameplay.

Allan brought up Portal, which is a great example of a short and sweet game, which achieves what it set out to do in its time frame. Portal builds up a great atmosphere, deepens the gameplay with every puzzle and executes its simple plot to a perfection. I was one happy customer.

RPGs, especially Bioware games, do require more time to build up the game world, develop characters and unwrap the plot. I'd even argue that Dragon Age 2, especially the third act, could have used more time to tell the story with proper depth.

I'm one of those grown-up 80s kids who is starting to find out that our spare time is limited. I can only play a few games all the way to the end in a year. That doesn't mean I want the games to be shorter. I just want them to be better because I value my free time more than before. If a game is engaging, I'll gladly play it for a hundred hours even if it means spreading that time to several months.

Actually, there is an "ideal" length for books, to ensure they sell well and are received by the right audiences. A children's book can't be as long as War and Peace. Neither can a YA fiction story.

To sell the most copies to the most broad audience, a book is typically between 250 and 400 pages. However, if the audience you are targetting reads less, you wittle it down. If you are going for the scholarly, academic crowd, you can get away with a longer book, usually you see this in non-fiction or the such.

The point is - does Bioware think that if they shorten their games, it, too, will attract the type of gamer who only wants to play a game for 20 hours? If so, I'd say that's extraordinarily bad news, given that DA2 could easily have been completed in 20 hours if you didn't scour every piece of dialogue and side quest like I often do. 

In regards to Allen's comment about adults having less time.. I do agree. As you become older, there is less spare time to do the things you want. But that's why its even more important that you find the right games and that they have replayability. Wasting time on a game before just meant you weren't enjoying yourself, now it means you are wasting what little time you have instead of playing a good game that you may likely miss the chance to play now. 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.

Just my two pesos.

[Cimeas]

Dragon Age: Origins was a great game, but even with 5+ years of development time, it had tons of recycled levels. The Tower of Ishal/Mage's Tower, the standard houses, the Tevinter Ruin, Denerim backstreets, Noble Castle etc... They were annoying, not annoying enough to hurt perception of the game like DA2, but not great.


The fact is, we all like good graphics. The reason why the old Infinity Engine games had such a long playtime were because it is easier to create 2D art than 3D art, and there was recycling in those games too.



TL;DR

If you want to create a very long (70+ hour) 'cinematic-style' (so not Skyrim) RPG, your only options are to either create tile-sets, in which case all levels look crudely stitched together like NWN2, or to copy and paste entire levels, which is more noticeable, but at least the levels themselves look good/decent and have effort put into lighting and making things fit together.

I prefer games of ME2/DA2 length, but with environments that change every few hours, large explorable areas, and many side quests.   To be honest, give me a fantastic 15 hour main quest, 10 hours of companion missions that build emotional connection with the game, and 10-15 hours of faction missions/side quests and I'm happy.  40 hours of quality, original content, set in non-copy-pasted locations with effort put into them.

Modifié par Cimeas, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:14 .

[Massakkolia]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Actually, there is an "ideal" length for books, to ensure they sell well and are received by the right audiences. A children's book can't be as long as War and Peace. Neither can a YA fiction story.

To sell the most copies to the most broad audience, a book is typically between 250 and 400 pages. However, if the audience you are targetting reads less, you wittle it down. If you are going for the scholarly, academic crowd, you can get away with a longer book, usually you see this in non-fiction or the such.

The point is - does Bioware think that if they shorten their games, it, too, will attract the type of gamer who only wants to play a game for 20 hours? If so, I'd say that's extraordinarily bad news, given that DA2 could easily have been completed in 20 hours if you didn't scour every piece of dialogue and side quest like I often do. 

Oh, absolutely. I was merely approaching the issue from the point of view of the author (or the developer) and the reader (or the player). I assume that most creators want their creation to be the exact length that it takes them to tell the story in the most perfect form. Similarly the customer wants the most perfect experience possible.

But that's the scenario without the money factor. Naturally companies want to maximise their profits and reach the largest possible audience. Creators have to eat too and the customer has to balance the use of her free time. So yeah, I get that there are "ideal" average models for all sorts of consumer products, which are optimized to balance the cost of production, the profit and the enjoyment.

I'd still argue though that there are no one-size-fits-all models. Some of Harry Potters were pretty darn long and children devoured them. The Stranger by Albert Camus is every bit much of a classic as War and Peace even though it barely reaches the size of a booklet. Similarly, Portal games and The Elder Scrolls games can both be commercial hit series even though they are on totally different size categories.

Do there really exist gamers whose ideal game length is 20 hours? Does somebody actually buy games based on their length? It's probably a real factor but I bet it's a fairly small one. I certainly hope Bioware doesn't think they need to make their games a certain length in order to please people. I'm pretty sure financial restrictions played a much larger role in DA2's storytelling issues.

Modifié par Ria, 04 juillet 2012 - 10:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, I read Game Informer fairly religiously, more for the articles than the actual reviews, but their old ratings system used to include average play time, which I found to be a good gauge if it would be worth my money. It has since been replaced by a Replayability rating, which I also find useful, since I like my video games like I like my movies - able to be picked up on a whim and still be enjoyed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

Fade and the Deep Roads both suffer from having insufficient dialogue and character interaction mixed in. There's too much unrelenting combat and/or puzzles.

BUt the way to fix the Deep Roads was to make them longer, not shorter.  By spreading out that combat over more geography, it would no longer be unrelenting, and the environment would better capture the feeling of long lost tunnels by actually being long

Though I always found the Deep Roads OK so long as you ignored the side quests. They were kind of long, but it made sense that they were. The Carta hideout beforehand annoyed me more - there's no reason it needed to be that long, and really killing a bunch of thugs doesn't feel very heroic.

I'll agree that the Carta hideout was longer than it needed to me, though I have no objection to killing thugs.

[Kidd]

There is such a thing as too long. That is, when the game is too long for its own good. Usually this refers to padding that starts to feel repetitive. It's one of my main beefs with DAO actually. The battles are quite long if you're playing on anything above Casual difficulty and there's lots and lots of battles in the corridors.

At least to me, the game would be better if a few of these battles which don't bring anything to the narrative (I'm not saying all, or anywhere near all, only some) were to be removed. This would effectively make the game shorter, yes, but that's a side-effect of what is better pacing to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I remember complaining about the length of KotOR, but not simply because it was a a short game. I complained because KotOR was too short for the story it told, and it was too short for its power curve.

30 hours isn't long enough for a character to rise from peasant to god-killing abomination. If you want that sort of progression, we need much more game.

I maintain that Baldur's Gate got the power curve and pacing right over the length of the game. Levels 1-8 in 80 hours, with extensive exploration, discovery, and obstacles overcome. I think DAO moved a bit too quickly, and would have benefitted from starting the PC at level 5 or so (though I would have missed that low-level gameplay - low-level gameplay is my favourite gameplay).

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I maintain that Baldur's Gate got the power curve and pacing right over the length of the game. Levels 1-8 in 80 hours, with extensive exploration, discovery, and obstacles overcome. I think DAO moved a bit too quickly, and would have benefitted from starting the PC at level 5 or so (though I would have missed that low-level gameplay - low-level gameplay is my favourite gameplay).

At the risk of going off topic, the problem with low-level gameplay (and the weakness that it inherently imposes) is that Bioware loves forced combat. In Baldur's Gate, you had the option of not fighting. Or, at the least, running away. 

In DA and ME, you fight when Bioware tells you to fight and you CAN'T fight when Bioware says you can't. So to make combat really hard, where you character is weaker than the majority of enemies they will come across, is not pleasant. Since you will HAVE to fight a lot.

I know that saying that, especially to you Sylvius, will only result in the response "Well, Bioware needs to open up other gameplay options like diplomacy, stealth and traps/devices." To which I, of course, agree. However, the reality is that they have embraced a combat-only gameplay setup and a enemy level-scaling design to make most fights mindless. 

So what it comes down to is that Roleplaying games, as they exist in this streamlined format, do contain a lot of filler if they exceed 40 hours. Because the gameplay itself is boring and over-inflated. If games returned to a more nuanced way to play them, then 40 hours isn't enough to explore all the options you have.

So more gameplay = equals better game only works when the game itself is well designed. Which many games today are not.

[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?

[Fortlowe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Almost certainly. Looking at my collection of games, just about all of them are franchises. If I liked the last one, I'll almost definitly like the next one. Most of my new IPs are downloadables. The next new IP I'll be getting will be Aliens: colonial Marines. But even within the established franchises there is room for entirely new experiences, I think.

I was a huge Metroid Fan. From the beginning. 2D sidescrolling, backtracking, code writing, Metroid Fan BOi. so when I learned it was becoming a FPS, I was devistated. Then I played Prime, and was blown away. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

At the risk of going off topic, the problem with low-level gameplay (and the weakness that it inherently imposes) is that Bioware loves forced combat. In Baldur's Gate, you had the option of not fighting. Or, at the least, running away.

In DA and ME, you fight when Bioware tells you to fight and you CAN'T fight when Bioware says you can't. So to make combat really hard, where you character is weaker than the majority of enemies they will come across, is not pleasant. Since you will HAVE to fight a lot.

I know that saying that, especially to you Sylvius, will only result in the response "Well, Bioware needs to open up other gameplay options like diplomacy, stealth and traps/devices." To which I, of course, agree. However, the reality is that they have embraced a combat-only gameplay setup and a enemy level-scaling design to make most fights mindless. 

Which is why I encourage them to incorporate design features that would require they change those other features I dislike.

If I just call for things to be removed, I don't think anyone would listen to me.  But if I call for the addition of good features from past games, then I have a more attentive audience - but the design consequences are the same.

So what it comes down to is that Roleplaying games, as they exist in this streamlined format, do contain a lot of filler if they exceed 40 hours. Because the gameplay itself is boring and over-inflated. If games returned to a more nuanced way to play them, then 40 hours isn't enough to explore all the options you have.

So more gameplay = equals better game only works when the game itself is well designed. Which many games today are not.

And that just supports my earlier point.  A short game can gloss over bad gameplay because the gameplay doesn't last long enough to be a nuisance.  If we call for longer games, then those games will need to have better gameplay in order to survive.

Longer games are a forcing mechanism.

[Volus Warlord]

:blush:Huh?

More Content>Less Content

Therefore

Longer>Shorter, all other aspects equal

IMO, there is no such thing as a single player game that is too long. 

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 04 juillet 2012 - 11:51 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes, yes... I remember the pace of life back in 2009... what an idyllic, quaint time it was! So long ago, so long ago...

Cute.... but it feels like a non-sequitur to me.  A lot of people complained about the length of the deep roads and fade segments in DAO... and I believe that a "skip fade" mod is pretty popular.

And what do they do to make DA2 better in the game-add on dlc?  A three hour quest fighting darkspawn and carta members that DA2 fans raved as a masterpiece.  Where's the facepalm face?  Is this it?