188 réponses à ce sujet

[Grub Killer8016]

Screw IGN. If it ain't Call of Duty they'll give it a rating it doesn't deserve. When I look for game reviews I ignore IGN.

[DarkDragon777]

>Taking IGN seriously

Okay

[DarkDragon777]

Cimeas wrote...


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.

Are you implying that ME2 was even close to being 40 hours long? I easily went through the game in 24 hours and I did every quest available in the game. I did the same in ME3, and I easily completed it in 22 hours. DA2 was only about 20 for me, but I skipped a handfull of sidequests because the game was painful to play through. Even worse than ME3.....

I'm in agreement here with Sylvius the Mad that games need to be made substantially longer.

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:04 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Can't help wondering if IGN thought Skyrim was too long.

My thoughts on the ideal length of an RPG are dependent on how fun I find it. I've played DA2 to the end more times than DA:O, but I've clocked more hours on DA:O by far.

[RedArmyShogun]

Meh if its not 40 hours plus. Not worth playing (rpgs at least, of my shooters I damn well expect at least 10 hours)

But just goes to show how far "out there" mainstream reviewers have became.

[addiction21]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Cimeas wrote...


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.

Are you implying that ME2 was even close to being 40 hours long? I easily went through the game in 24 hours and I did every quest available in the game. I did the same in ME3, and I easily completed it in 22 hours. DA2 was only about 20 for me, but I skipped a handfull of sidequests because the game was painful to play through. Even worse than ME3.....

I'm in agreement here with Sylvius the Mad that games need to be made substantially longer.

You do it in 20ish hours, he does in in 40, and I am n that 30 hour range for those games.  I have seen people claim 20-30 hours for DA:O and I don't get to lothering with less then 10 hours played. The whole game for me is around 60 hours while other alway go over 100 hours.
Maybe I can get a multimillion dollar grant to study this *wanders off to think up a impressive long winded name for this study".

[DiegoRaphael]

For me a good RPG it's around 50~70hours.

Give me a good replay value like DA:O and my money will be always yours (ME3 fails to deliver that, is not long enough and does not have a good replay value, not only because of the endings, but the game is too linear, i will always play through the game on the same order, that takes out a lot of the replay. Same with the many conversations that goes without our interference, at least in these things DA2 is a better game).

But DA devs already said on PAX that DA3 won't be as long as DA:O, but will be bigger tha DA2.

[FenrirBlackDragon]

I am a long RPG fan myself. And I'm not really a "go go go" type of person anyway, I like to take my time, sometimes go back if I can to see what I missed.

I don't think lazy gamers should have the final say, but neither should obsessive ones either. If I am playing a good, well written RPG I expect 50 - 60 hours at the least. 100 is not such a bad number.

Modifié par FenrirBlackDragon, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:00 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Pretty much.  Also, there's the adaption issue.

I'm this way when I get new books--I tend to stick with the same authors a lot because enjoying a book is intellectually arduous to a greater or lesser extent, and it's less work and more pure enjoyment when I'm already familiar with a given author's style.  It takes a substantial amount of work for me to get into a book or game that is not just new but has an unfamiliar style, interface, goal setup, etc.

Very small differences can make me choose one game over another.  For instance, I'm most comfortable with third-person over-the-shoulder viewpoint games, and have been since the first time I played one.  They feel more natural to me, control-wise.  I don't voluntarily play first-person ANYTHING games any more, because I hate the constrained viewpoint and the inability to tell where the hell my feet are.  Even in Bethesda games where targeting ranged in third-person mode is, frankly, arse, I still play 90% of the game in third-person, only switching when I ABSOLUTELY have to.  Isometric top-down, on the other hand, is okay.  I can live with it, and I definitely PREFER it for some TYPES of games.

You could make God's Gift to the RPG Genre, and if it's a first-person only game, I still probably won't want to play it.

Probably a large percentage of the forum ire about the DA2 changes results from various people finding that DA2 didn't "feel" like DA:O.  I went into DA2 hoping, in a lot of areas, that it WOULDN'T feel like DA:O.  Some of those hopes on my part did not materialize, but I think the lack of wholly defined expectations let me like the game as it was instead of instantly rejecting it because it wasn't DA:O.

Anyway, it's something to think about when you make stylistic changes:  How much work is this going to be to pick up?

[Plaintiff]

A game is not "too long" if it holds my interest.

Origins had parts that could've been shortened considerably without losing anything of value. The Fade and the Deep Roads are incredibly painful to slog through. I notice some people are saying "Well you can save and come back later", to which I say "I don't want to come back later!". The Fade and the Deep Roads just plain suck! They are dull, repetitive, excessively long environments. I'm just spending hours staring at the same sepia-coloured walls or the same brown tunnel. I don't want to save and come back unless doing so will magically transport my party to somewhere much more interesting

There is a metric ****-ton of crazy stuff going on underground in the real world. Rock walls come in all sorts of different colours and consistencies, there are crystal caves, underground rivers, fields of moss, interesting rock formations, cave paintings, ruins. The Deep Roads has almost none of that, which is totally inexcusable when you consider that supposedly sentient creatures built an entire civilization underground. Cadash Thaig is pretty much the only decent location down there.

I was relieved that the Fade and Deep Roads sections in DA2 were shorter. And actually, considering that they were mostly sidequests that were largely irrelevent to the overarching plot of the game, it made perfect sense for them to be the length that they were.

Conversations with party members in Origins don't really hold up after multiple playthroughs either, for that matter. Unlocking neglible amounts of new dialogue for my own character based on race/persuasion skill is utterly pointless when I can't hear them spoken and ultimately, there is little to no variation at all in how the party members respond to you. All roads lead to the exact same outcome, unless you ****** them off enough that they leave, in which case you just miss out on the content.

DA2's concept of branching relationship paths, while not perfectly implemented, was a brilliant idea, and something that I hope gets tweaked and expanded on in future.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 05 juillet 2012 - 03:21 .

[hussey 92]

screw ign.  RPG games need to be long and more challenging.

[EricHVela]

"Too long" depends on what content was "too long".

If there's too much repetition or too much downtime, it'll seem like it's "too long" even if it takes only 6 hours to finish the game.

For me, 100+ hours of good content is fine. Yet, it's easier to say that than define what is good content for 100+ hours.

I don't envy the writers and designers trying to accomplish that on a time and financial budget. Given EA's history, the only recourse is to rehash content and resources to fit in EA's strict budgets. Then, the game is too long.

[Brockololly]

So long as the gameplay and content is compelling and not just blatant, uninspired filler content then having a longer game with more content is a good thing. Sure, if you're not enjoying the game then you're not going to enjoy that its maybe 100 hours long. But having a longer game isn't a bad thing at all. No different than having a long movie or a longer book.

I think the other thing to keep in mind with a longer game is the perceived value to the consumer. With something like a Dragon Age game or Skyrim or The WItcher 2 or any other single player RPGs, there isn't going to be some multiplayer attached to it to necessarily keep you playing forever. For certain games you're buying for the single player and if its good, its reasonable to want it to be a nice long experience. The sort of expected added value in something like Skyrim comes from the massive amount of content and exploration the sandbox world brings while something like The Witcher 2 or Alpha Protocol add value to your purchase by having unique narrative content for new playthroughs. Or with Skyrim or Origins, you had mods to lengthen your time with the game if you want.

Something like Amnesia I payed about $15 for and finished it in maybe 8 hours, but it was a fantastic 8 hours. The game was supposed to scare the pants off me and it totally achieved that. I'll more than likely pay full price/pre-order the sequel this fall because of it.  That type of game didn't need to be any longer than it was to be worth its price.

I just think in RPGs, the expectation is for a more complex experience with mutiple systems at play and a more involved story and characters so in that view it makes sense to expect a longer experience. 

More importantly, the experience needs to feel complete, especially with any RPG. Especially if you're going to have a longer game thats requiring  a greater time investment from the player, the end game content needs to be worth it and not feel like a rushed afterthought.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

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.

Of course, like anything, you might get sick of it after a while and want something different too.

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

Absolutely.

And I think with so many games probably improperly priced at $60 at launch, people are generally quite wary of where they're putting their money with games. So your Call of Duty and Maddens of the world are pretty safe bets- you know what you're going to get for better or worse. 

Really, thats the whole idea of a sequel from the buyer's POV, I think- if you enjoy the first game in a series you should have a reasonable expectation to enjoy the sequel. It's when that expectation is broken that you'll start having issues (*cough* DA2*cough*)

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...
@Allen Schumacher

I rarely buy games at release date. I look for games that can keep me  busy for some time and have replayability. So I wait untill word of  mouth is known about a game and then I decide if I will play it. I do  have expectations of a develloper if I liked a previous game and a  sequel is due. And I'm only human here so expect it to be equal or  better then the previous one. If a sequel is pronounced I get exited but I usually wait a few weeks because I hate being let down when I invest  my free time in it.

 Very good point!

Myself, I think Skyrim was the last game I got full price at launch. In that case, I knew what to expect having enjoyed Oblivion and was happy that Skyrim was better than Oblivion in many regards. I can't think of many people that enjoyed Oblivion but didn't like Skyrim, which is how most sequels should ideally operate.

The plus side of not getting games at launch is you'll be able to get them cheaper and then as a result probably be able to afford more games!

Modifié par Brockololly, 05 juillet 2012 - 04:17 .

[nightscrawl]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

They didn't give any reasons for the length being a drawback? For example, if the game is 20 hours long and full of unique things for every chapter, and the devs decided it was too short and tacked on 10 hours with similar material as the previously unique content, it might feel repetitive and tedious, especially if it's required content.

I felt DAO was a good length for the story. I play on Easy and I do everything possible. With in-game DLC of Stone Prisoner, Return to Ostagar, and Warden's Keep I eek out about 60 hours of the main game. DAA, GoA, and WH push me up to about 84 hours.

[deuce985]

Well, most RPGs that have ridiculous gameplay hours are loaded with filler content. If you're putting 100 hours into a game and haven't "beat" it yet, 99% chance it's filler. Skyrim is a prime example of what happens to a RPG when it's loaded with content. Now I love that game but man, can they make anything else feel the same? All the quests, dungeons and dragon encounters. All the same. I have to mod the dang game just to fix these flaws(at least partially).

So, I kinda agree. A RPG can be 20 hours and feel like it's too long if the content isn't done properly. It can be 100 hours and never feel too long too.

Personally, I think the sweet spot is about where the Mass Effect games are. They take me about 40+ hours to beat on insanity and that's plenty of gameplay for me. But they also contain replay value because of different dialogue and choices. So that turns ME into a 120+ hour experience when I go through it 3x. DAO had parts that just killed the overall pacing of the game and was filler content for the main story. DA2 was much better at pacing even though it abruptly ends. DAO was too long because of the "bad" parts. Had they polished parts like the Fade better, I wouldn't feel DAO being too long.

I don't think you can make a "great" story game under 15 hours and get the proper character development/story arc. I think it's somewhere between 15-25 hours main story. I don't think I've ever played a game under 15 hours that I thought had an amazing story/characters. I've played games under 15 hours where I thought they told their story well, in its own way. Like Half-Life 2 or Bioshock. I wouldn't say either game has a "great" story, just good on how they told their story.

I prefer a formula that builds a game shorter with more replay value. I'd take Mass Effect 40 hour design with replayability over DAO's desigin of 100+ hours and replay value. The reason is because DA:O has parts that feel like they drag on forever and despite how much content I'm missing my first time through, I feel less motivated to replay a 100+ hour game. That's why sometimes I just put Elder Scrolls game down randomly for 6 months at a time...

tl;dr shorter more polished experience>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>longer sloppy experience

Modifié par deuce985, 05 juillet 2012 - 05:58 .

[Darth Krytie]

It'd depend on the Game, really. Some games are long and fun because they are long. Other games get dull because the length is because of really boring, repetitive crap. Like needing to do really dull mini games to move along in the plot or spending way too much time running from place to place because of the lack of quick travel.

[BlackFulcrum]

Although it's dependent on the game, I prefer my rpg's longer then shorter.
I mean even in my fast playtrough it took me 94 hours to clear the main campaign and all of the side quests and dlc's that can be played during the main campaign of DA:O, then about 22 hours to complete Awakening, for the remaining standalone dlc's about 8 or 9 hours combined.
So that's roughly about 125 hours of gameplay, and I enjoyed every minute of it.

So ya, I like a long game, but DA2, it's a bad game, and in many parts it dragged on, and then it quickly becomes too long, even tho it's not nearly as long as DA:O

Pacing is important too keep you interested in a long game.

[Sinuphro]

Melca36 wrote...

I never read IGN

I will also never take any IGN review serious since one of their lackeys was cast in ME3.   Can we save favortism/cronyism?   <_<


As for rpgs....  For $60 I am not interested in a 20 hour game. And the people who seek that sort of game should NOT even be playing these games to begin with


I want at least 50 hours in a game. My first playthrough in Origins was 90 hours....but by the time I knew how to get around, it went down to 52 hours.

I do think some gamers have gotten lazier over the years and want everything handed to them. I think its why we got a dumbed down Deeproads (Legacy's was better) and Fade.

lol i'm not paying $60 for an rpg with only 52 hrs of gameplay. 100hrs is the minimum for a game that costs $60 dollars. Skyrim...i put almost 150hrs. This is excluding the dawnguard dlc

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The suitable length for games is a horses for courses scenario. Inflating the length of a game using filler encounters that don't mean anything leads to tedium more than enjoyment (all BioWare games suffer from this: many RPGs, especially JRPGs, do).

Roughly half of the gameplay encounters in DA 2 is filler and Origins isn't too much better either. Personally, I think the Deep Roads were great considering the role it fulfilled in lore but stuff like the Sacred Ashes questline stood out as having lots of filler.

Of course, it also depends on the purpose of the game to begin with, hence the horses for courses comment. In an Elder Scrolls game for example, a lot of what would be considered filler in a BioWare game is simply apart of it's design goals which are often centered around exploration.

Attaching arbitrary numbers of hours to what is desirable in an RPG I think is a fruitless exercise, just focus on making a game that's fun to play in the first place, as opposed to caring how long it takes to finish it.

FWIW, I've only played 2 story centric western RPGs wherein I felt that filler was kept to a minimum, narrative pacing was well managed, yet had plenty of side content to satisfy me. Fallout (1) and Witcher (2). Bloodlines would be up there but for the sewers, oh God the sewers. AP too, but that had more of a strict mission style structure and they tend to be better paced than games that are more freeform.

In any case, I tend to value re-playability over length, so whether it's 20 hours or 200 hours, as long as I can replay it over and over and feel satisfied with the results, then it's fine with me.

As for the IGN reviewer, the obvious undertone of the topic is that since developers in general are shortening games in length, the reviewer supports that stance and opposes those that aren't shortening their games.

To which I say, "duh". Putting aside accusations of "CORRUPSHIONZ OMG" or "MODERN GAMERS ALL HAVE ADHD", reviewers from places like IGN tend to rush the games they play through in order to meet deadlines (review published at launch) and either fail to replay the game or miss flaws/positives as a result of their playthrough. Kinda like how speed reading misses you subtle details when you read books.

Arguing for shorter games, complaining about a lack of in-game tutorial/compass, etc, is expected because the end result makes their jobs easier. If most people were in a position to take their case to the public about making their jobs easier, yet masking it as something else, they probably would.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:45 .

[JediHealerCosmin]

I am very pretentious when it comes to a game's length. For me, when I pay 199ron for a game (in Romania that can be around 45 euros), I expect at least 30+ from my game. If the said game offers even more content like 60, 80, 100+ hours then I am more then happy to take my time and enjoy that time with it.

Modifié par JediHealerCosmin, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:28 .

[milena87]

deuce985 wrote...

I prefer a formula that builds a game shorter with more replay value.

Totally agree.

I find the existence of fetch quests in so many games completely pointless: why create content so boring when time and resources could be spent doing interesting secondary quests or reinforcing the main storyline?

That's another thing that I loved about Alpha Protocol: all content is there for a reason and Thorton neither eavesdrops or uses telepathic abilities to fetch someone something completely useless in the end.

Filler content in open world games is expected and doesn't really bother me, though.

[AkiKishi]

hussey 92 wrote...

screw ign.  RPG games need to be long and more challenging.

You would probably enjoy Rainbow moon. It ticks both of those boxes. It works out at 10p per hour of gameplay.

[bEVEsthda]

I skimmed this thread some. Seems the courteous thing to do before posting in it.
I originally never saw any reason to be interested in this thread. Some IGN reviewer said something.... yeah, and?... It's as interesting as somebody wants to be a prostitute.

Kudos to everyone making suggestions to the general effect that IGN should be flushed down the toilet.
Shame on everyone who took the chance to air their very personal regards on what is "filler" and like.

As for the length of the game, I think I could well feel that a game is too short. Like 'Heart of Winter', as released (without the 'Trials of the Luremaster').
The length itself, is important to me in three different regards:

1: - In the beginning of playing a good RPG, some part of the pleasure, the tingling, actually comes directly from knowing that there is a long and ardous campaign ahead.  In a short game, the experience simply wouldn't be the same.

2: - In the end of playing a good RPG, some part of the pleasure, actually comes directly from the knowledge and memory of the long way it took to get there.  In a short game, the experience simply wouldn't be the same.

3: - (forgot the point I was going to make here, will return when brain returns to capacity)


For a storydriven game, like those Bioware used to do, before this recent movie + console combat drivel, I'm ok with what is said to be 40-60h. I usually get 130-200 hours from those.

I think that to say that a - otherwise popular - game is too long, generally hints that the game fails to attract personal interest from that particular player. I think those persons should go elsewhere.
That is what I do. And for that reason I have nothing to say about "too long games". Never happened. Oh, I do think those games I would find too long exists, I just don't play them.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:57 .

[Gabriel S.]

This is crap.

[Cimeas]

I think there's this ridiculous idea that RPGs need to be 100 hours long. The Mass Effect series and Baldur's Gate series, as well as Deus Ex (including the recent reboot) are held up as some of the greatest RPGs of all time, despite BG(1,2) being like 100+ hours, ME(1,2,3) being like 40(ish) and DE being 20. They are all fantastic games.


I don't want another 100 hour game if it means more level recycling like DA:O, NWN, NWN2 and DA2. (DA2 had no excuse, however.) Mass Effect may only take 40 hours (and it does take that long, I play on easy/normal difficulty, follow the official game guide and run through every quest and side quest without spending 10 hours walking around the Citadel, and ME3 still took 35 hours) but every location (at least in ME2 and ME3) is unique and interesting.


Finally, people pay $60 for a 10 hour singleplayer Uncharted game with a few multiplayer modes tacked on. If you will only buy 100 hour RPGs, *you* will be missing out on some great stories and characters, and won't enjoy some fantastic gameplay in more recent games.


Even a 30 hour RPG at $60 is cheaper per hour of entertainment than movies, bars, restaurants etc..., so why complain?