205 réponses à ce sujet

[Wonderllama4]

Dragon Age: Origins was a massive game with tons of quests and areas to explore. It took me at least 100 hours in my first playthrough. It was an awesome value for your money, especially since so many modern games are only 10-20 hours. I remember Knights of the Old Republic taking 100 hours of my life too.

Dragon Age II has considerably less content, but still took me a lot of time to complete. It was more in line with the Mass Effect games, which took me 60 hours each.

Do people want shorter games or longer games? Personally I want as much content as possible.

[hexaligned]

DAO took me about 70ish, but I'm the type to poke my nose in every corner. If it takes me less than 50 for any RPG, I consider it to be light on content. As a general rule anyways.

[JerZey CJ]

Why is this even a question? Of course I want a longer game! Who wants less content for their money?

[Bryzon]

Dragon Age: Origins is my favorite game of all time. I spent over 700 hours in DA:O and around 100 in DA2. I would prefer a longer game, but I would be ok with something shorter with the promise of an ambitious DLC cycle.

[KENNY4753]

Longer, no question. DA:O was a long game, DA2 seemed short to me.

[bosstherapy]

We always want as much content as possible so I'd love the 100 hour mark as close DAO took me the very first play thru somewhere in the high 70's 80's then ones after I've mastered the game 50 60..so hours played is some what different for each person

[Cosmochyck]

mayrabgood wrote...

Longer game of course. I want as much as possible but as long as it's good content and not just endless fetch quests that really don't add anything to the game.

^^ This.  No point if it's just random quests - and I hope they stay away from having to return to the same "hub" all the time - annoyed me to no end in ME3 - I've seen the Citadel, thanks!

[Savber100]

If longer game means more hubs and good questlines then yes.

[Darth Death]

MORE.

[Forst1999]

Depends on how this content is filled. If you get 100 hours by adding overly long dungeons with little story and much repetitive fighting, less content can be more enjoyment.

[Naughty Bear]

Sorry guys and women, the way Bioware are going, the game will be 'more accessible and streamlined to allow the new players to enjoy the game. DA 3 is the best game to jump into the series'.

[Bfler]

As much as possible with many areas to explore.

[Beerfish]

I want a base game with a very tight story that lasts 40 hours.
I want an additional 20-30 hours in totally voluntary exploring where the player is not lead around by the nose to explore. Create a bunch of areas on the game map and give the player no good reason to go there, no hints, no quests, nothing. I want to go to these areas and be surprised by what I find.

Now I have low hopes they would do this as a good chunk of the game players would never go there but I love the areas in BG that had nothing to do with the main quest but allowed the developers to make their own mini quests of interesting nature.

[Fiery Phoenix]

As far as I'm concerned, it's the content in the hours, not the hours in the content.

That's not to say I'd be happy with a super awesome 12-hour DA3, but I believe my point has been made.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 17 septembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

If it's replayable, I'd be happy with 40 hours, though obviously there's more room to do interesting things in a bigger (longer) game.

KotOR was about a 30 hour game, and while the game's scope was perhaps too great to fit into 30 hours, there was enough roleplaying freedom there to warrant replaying the game several times.

DA2's problem isn't that it was too short, relative to DAO, but that it offered less roleplaying freedom relative to DAO. I've only finished (in the traditional sense) DAO once, but I've played nearly 20 characters in it.

[Emzamination]

100 hours of Base content, 40 hours of content each Dlc, 60 hours each expansion and 100,000,000 lines of Dialogue in the base game :happy:

[Chala]

What do you mean with 100 hours?
100 hours to win the game completely with all side quest, secrets and chest opened?
Or 100 hours to win the game with some side quests done?

Because if it's the latter, no thanks, 60 hours to win a game is more than enough. Hell, I don't even need that much time to win the original DA.

The longer the game, the more chances that it's going to be filled with dull main missions/content.

Modifié par El_Chala_Legalizado, 17 septembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[Catsith]

I expect and want around 40 hours, which is the standard completion time I've had for the last few Bioware games I've played. I feel that is the perfect playthrough time. I would be willing to accept less than 40 hours, as long as the game had great replay value.

Of course I'd be happy with more than 40 hours of content in one playthrough, but I want quality content, not ****ty sidequests and filler.

[Fallstar]

I'd expect 30-50 hours or so for a first playthrough. Less actual hours of content, but first playthroughs always take longer.

As for which I prefer? No preference between 60 and 100. Either provides a substantial enough quantity of game.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 17 septembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I want a 100 hours of great content more than I want 60 hours of great content. If that helps..

[Giltspur]

60 hours, 100 hours...those are both pretty hefty games--so I wouldn't complain about either. In general though, I'm more worried about replayability than the length of the main campaign. I'm not a fan of making a game longer by watering it down like the fetch quests in ME3 did.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd like 160 hours of content.

Also, I think you are dramatically under-selling the replay value of DA:O by marking it at 100 hours, while over-selling Dragon Age 2's replay value by making it at 60 hours.