72 réponses à ce sujet

[Gibb_Shepard]

 Would you rather DA3 be a long adventure with more plot railroading and less varied consequences, or a shorter game with more divergent gameplay? Just for the sake of discussion, the former would be 40 hours to complete the main story without diddling about, while the latter would take 20 hours to complete under the same circumstances. 

The answer cannot be both.

I would personally prefer a shorter game with more diverging gameplay. TW2 could be finished in about 15 hours if you stuck to the storyline. But i haven't seen a game react to my choices nearly as much as they do in TW2. DA3 with the reactivity of that game would make the length a worthy sacrifice. 

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:55 .

[AkiKishi]

I'd go for something around TW2 length. Longer epics like 160-200 hours tend to suit JRPGs better with a more fixed story.

[thats1evildude]

I like how you've slanted this thread. "Would you like to follow the right path that results in handjobs from supermodels or follow the wrong path that ends with your balls being chewed on by hungry badgers? It can't be both!" Gee, I wonder which I should pick?

I'll take the longer adventure with more railroading for $500, Alex.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 12 juillet 2012 - 10:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

 Would you rather DA3 be a long adventure with more plot railroading and less varied consequences, or a shorter game with more varied and impactful consequences? Just for the sake of discussion, the former would be 40 hours to complete the main story without diddling about, while the latter would take 20 hours to complete under the same circumstances. 

The answer cannot be both.

I offer another solution. 

I'd most like to play a long adventure with lots of divergent gameplay and I'd be willing to pay a $100 sticker price for that game.

The sticker price of $60 games is killing the industry. Every year, this becomes worth less and less with inflation, while games cost more and more to make. I'm not against paying more for a product than I did fifteen years ago - why are video games any different?

Edit: Just realized what I said echoed someevildude completely. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 juillet 2012 - 10:14 .

[Wulfram]

I want a sensible balance, with divergence done where it's most needed and can have the most impact.

DA2 could have done with

1. An expanded and more accessible anti-Qunari option
2. A different Best Served Cold for pro-Mage types
3. A more distinct end game

[Jerrybnsn]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


The sticker price of $60 games is killing the industry. Every year, this becomes worth less and less with inflation, while games cost more and more to make. I'm not against paying more for a product than I did fifteen years ago - why are video games any different?

Edit: Just realized what I said echoed someevildude completely. 

The average sticker price for a game in 2002 was around $30 to $40.  If you do put in the cost of inflation that comes to around 2%.  Household incomes have been static or have declined since then.  Also there has been technology created to make games easier and cheaper to make.  HOWEVER, I will concede that with adding more graphics and celebrity voice actors, along with adding online multiplayer, that does drive up the cost of making a game. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

The average sticker price for a game in 2002 was around $30 to $40. 

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/11Videogames.pdf ]Incorrect[/url]

During that time frame, the average PSOne game cost around $45, with your average N64 game costing $60. PC games were priced similar to Playstation games. New, AAA games have never, on average, retailed for $30.

[Jerrybnsn]

I bought Total War:Rome in 2004 for $40 brand new. The expansion a year later was Barbarians and was for $20.

edit: My mistake.  I just did some searching on google and the PS2, Gamecubes, and N64 game releases in 2000 were selling for $50, but  then there was a short drop to $40 before they started selling at $50 again around 2005..

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:40 .

[MichaelStuart]

Shorter game with more divergent gameplay for me.
Theirs no need for a game to be longer than it needs to be.

[Marvin_Arnold]

Funny thing is that I've spent more time playing the longer DA:O (currently fifth playthrough) than the shorter DA2 (stuck halfways in second playthrough).

With great length comes great responsibility. Corner-cutting will kill the game.

(But I don't know if replayability is a good thing, from the business POV. The more often people play a game, the less likely are they to pick up other games...)

Generally, I want a game that makes me roleplay, not an interactive movie consisting of automatic cutscenes alternating with fight scenes.

On the other hand, I think a bit of railroading is OK, as long as it is used sparingly in order to make the story gripping. I quickly lost interest in Skyrim, because of its "non-intrusive" plot. Most of the time I spent wandering around and taking in the stunning views. This shouldn't happen.

A non-voiced protagonist helps, of course. If he/she is voiced, I feel like a director giving instructions to an actor, not like a character.

Oh well, from what we've since heard from the developers, they seem to focus on taking the worst part of both worlds: "Aggressively checking out Skyrim" and having a voiced protagonist...

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:51 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

thats1evildude wrote...

I like how you've slanted this thread. "Would you like to follow the right path that results in handjobs from supermodels or follow the wrong path that ends with your balls being chewed on by hungry badgers? It can't be both!" Gee, I wonder which I should pick?

I'll take the longer adventure with more railroading for $500, Alex.

Very well, ser ****-a-lot, i'll provide no details on what one could expect from both scenarios. 

[Gibb_Shepard]

Marvin_Arnold wrote...

Funny thing is that I've spent more time playing the longer DA:O (currently fifth playthrough) than the shorter DA2 (stuck halfways in second playthrough).

But DAO has more divergent gameplay, so it's not a good comparison at all. And DA2 is friggin long. 

[Marvin_Arnold]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And DA2 is friggin long. 

It's one third of DA:O's length!

I choose greater length with more divergent gameplay.

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:54 .

[AkiKishi]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I bought Total War:Rome in 2004 for $40 brand new. The expansion a year later was Barbarians and was for $20.

edit: My mistake.  I just did some searching on google and the PS2, Gamecubes, and N64 game releases in 2000 were selling for $50, but  then there was a short drop to $40 before they started selling at $50 again around 2005..

I've got some PS2 games which still have £45 price stickers. Prices have dropped relatively speaking because of competition and overstocking by retail.

[AkiKishi]

Marvin_Arnold wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And DA2 is friggin long. 

It's one third of DA:O's length!

Never felt like it. That game was a chore.

[Marvin_Arnold]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Marvin_Arnold wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And DA2 is friggin long. 

It's one third of DA:O's length!

Never felt like it. That game was a chore.

I think we should attribute DA2's seemingly huge length chiefly to a lack of richness in all departments. (uninspired, cartoony design, poor lighting, repetitive environments, uninvolving script)...

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:59 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Marvin_Arnold wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And DA2 is friggin long. 

It's one third of DA:O's length!

I choose greater length with more divergent gameplay.

It took me the same amount of time to get through DA2 as it did DAO. Yes i did the same amount of diddling about in both. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I bought Total War:Rome in 2004 for $40 brand new. The expansion a year later was Barbarians and was for $20.

edit: My mistake.  I just did some searching on google and the PS2, Gamecubes, and N64 game releases in 2000 were selling for $50, but  then there was a short drop to $40 before they started selling at $50 again around 2005..

I didn't state that you couldn't buy new games for less than what I was quoting, I was stating that the average for a AAA video game has never been that low.

And in regards to the household income remaining static or declining, just not true, at least not in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States 
Perhaps income adjusted with inflation this is true, yes... but that only supports my claim that video game prices should also be rising with inflation.

Even if we use your 2% annual inflation rate (even though it is usally accepted it is more along the lines of 3-3.5%), that still is a 21% inflation rate over a decade. Yet the prices are still almost the exact same - excpet now, we get tons more nickel-and-dime DLC, micro-transaction pushes and repeated statements by developers crying not enough resources or development time.

The developer needs to charge a proportional amount to what it cost to create the game they made (or the game they want to make). Just like with any other industry, if you make your product good enough to justify the price tag you are asking, then people will buy it.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:04 .

[Jerrybnsn]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Marvin_Arnold wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

And DA2 is friggin long. 

It's one third of DA:O's length!

Never felt like it. That game was a chore.

I felt the same way too.  DA2 should have been trimmed down in the disjointed plotline and sold as an expansion for $40.

[Marvin_Arnold]

I think I can sefely say that I'd prefer a game with a development time (that shows, of course!) of three to five years to a rushed game that has to come out one year+ after its predecessor. This should cover most of the problems.

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I felt the same way too.  DA2 should have been trimmed down in the disjointed plotline and sold as an expansion for $40.

Unlike DA:O, which I bought almost on day one, I bought DA2 when its price dropped below $35...

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:06 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Marvin_Arnold wrote...

I think I can sefely say that I'd prfer a game with a development time (that shows, of course!) of three to five years to a rushed game that has to come out one year+ after its predecessor.

I can concur with this. Game length doesn't neccessarily mean quality (although, sometimes, neither does game development time). I'd rather see a really well-designed, polished and fleshed out game of decent length to a really long one that is disjointed, poorly designed, buggy and/or just not that fun.

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I bought Total War:Rome in 2004 for $40 brand new. The expansion a year later was Barbarians and was for $20.

edit: My mistake.  I just did some searching on google and the PS2, Gamecubes, and N64 game releases in 2000 were selling for $50, but  then there was a short drop to $40 before they started selling at $50 again around 2005..

I didn't state that you couldn't buy new games for less than what I was quoting, I was stating that the average for a AAA video game has never been that low.

And in regards to the household income remaining static or declining, just not true, at least not in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States 
Perhaps income adjusted with inflation this is true, yes... but that only supports my claim that video game prices should also be rising with inflation.

Even if we use your 2% annual inflation rate (even though it is usally accepted it is more along the lines of 3-3.5%), that still is a 21% inflation rate over a decade. Yet the prices are still almost the exact same - excpet now, we get tons more nickel-and-dime DLC, micro-transaction pushes and repeated statements by developers crying not enough resources or development time.

The developer needs to charge a proportional amount to what it cost to create the game they made (or the game they want to make). Just like with any other industry, if you make your product good enough to justify the price tag you are asking, then people will buy it.

You would just end pricing yourself out of the market. CoD can get away with charging an extra £5 but ME3 could not even sustain its base price on Amazon UK for 20 days.

[Fast Jimmy]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I bought Total War:Rome in 2004 for $40 brand new. The expansion a year later was Barbarians and was for $20.

edit: My mistake.  I just did some searching on google and the PS2, Gamecubes, and N64 game releases in 2000 were selling for $50, but  then there was a short drop to $40 before they started selling at $50 again around 2005..

I didn't state that you couldn't buy new games for less than what I was quoting, I was stating that the average for a AAA video game has never been that low.

And in regards to the household income remaining static or declining, just not true, at least not in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States 
Perhaps income adjusted with inflation this is true, yes... but that only supports my claim that video game prices should also be rising with inflation.

Even if we use your 2% annual inflation rate (even though it is usally accepted it is more along the lines of 3-3.5%), that still is a 21% inflation rate over a decade. Yet the prices are still almost the exact same - excpet now, we get tons more nickel-and-dime DLC, micro-transaction pushes and repeated statements by developers crying not enough resources or development time.

The developer needs to charge a proportional amount to what it cost to create the game they made (or the game they want to make). Just like with any other industry, if you make your product good enough to justify the price tag you are asking, then people will buy it.

You would just end pricing yourself out of the market. CoD can get away with charging an extra £5 but ME3 could not even sustain its base price on Amazon UK for 20 days.

They couldn't keep their price up because their ending was a rushed, garbled mess. Something that might not have happened if they had enough development time... development time that could have been bought with a higher price tag, perhaps? 

[Jerrybnsn]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


And in regards to the household income remaining static or declining, just not true, at least not in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States 
Perhaps income adjusted with inflation this is true, yes... but that only supports my claim that video game prices should also be rising with inflation.

Alright.  I stand corrected again.  The average household income did not sustain or dropped, but grew to an average 1.3% (adjusted w/inflation) in the last ten year period.  Still sounds like treading water to me.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 12 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .