205 réponses à ce sujet

[Wonderllama4]

Pelle6666 wrote...

The more the better but I prefer it if the content doesn't get repetitive.

Despite being shorter, "repetitive" would be a good word to describe Dragon Age 2. You never left that damn town!

So for all the people can keep repeating 'quality over quantity' over and over, be careful what you wish for. All of Bioware's 100 hour RPGs are considered pretty awesome, while the shorter games have been hit or miss, depending who you ask

[tholloway93]

a longer game but not repetitive. As an example, i find skyrim gets awfully repetitive (after the main story anyway) and gets very boring. Same with a large amount of fetch quests in mass effect, they repeat themselves and are essentially the same mission on a different platform. so yeah be great to have a long game, long as it flows and doesnt seem to be stalling at any point

[CitizenThom]

I wouldn't mind 20+ hours of content, so long as it provided for four replays that provided unique experience each time.

Which I guess is another way of saying I'd like 80+ hours of content, if you take replayability into account.

p.s. I didn't find DA2 repetitive until about halfway into the second playthrough.

Modifié par CitizenThom, 17 septembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[CitizenThom]

Beerfish wrote...

If BioWare does as good of a job as they have in the past with their classes and companions they can get away with a shorter game that has lots of replay value. They put a lot of time into their companions and how they relate to each other so it's worth while doing a lot of different play throughs.

Agreed.

[The Flat Sole]

For the love of god DAO was and still is my favorite game of all time. I remember a month or so where i was up till 2 or 3 every morning playing the damn thing. Please please please make it a marathon.

[andraip]

I prefer 60 hours of awesomness over 100 hours of boredom.

That beeing said, the more of the good stuff the better.

[mumba]

The longer the better...









... That's what she said.

[Ravenmyste]

longer game, but less repetitive quest and no reuse of maps{thought i saw something that some dev said they wouldn't be doing that in da3

[Abraham_uk]

How about infinite hours of content?

Impossible?

Think again. Thanks to modding, a game can trully have an expanding amount of content.

[Chrysantemum]

I'd prefer a 60 hour game with proper pacing over a 100 hour game that is a boring slog to get through. It's all a matter of perspective. I'd say DA:O did it quite well in most areas, though there was a bit to much of the Deep Roads for my tastes.

[Iron Star]

Make it as long as possible, as long it doesn't affect the game negatively in other aspects.

[Shortened]

I'd prefer 60 hours of more refined, quality content rather than 100 hours of content that was made just to extend the playthrough (fetch quests, reused areas and repetitiveness in general)

[Killer3000ad]

100 hours.

[Hexoduen]

60 hours or 100 doesn't matter much to me, as long as the game is "long enough" and engaging all the way. Think Baldur's Gate II.

[deatharmonic]

Depends, I want a game with branching choices, but there's a good chance that comes at the price of length. I'd rather have a game 60hours long that I can play 10 times and still take different paths each time rather than a 100hour game I can only play twice.

[Rawgrim]

As much as possible, if it doesn`t involve enemies raining down on me in waves.

[Thulfiqaar]

Longer of course, I have no problem in paying for DLC's or the game but Bioware needs to step up and make games as good as they were when they were making neverwinter Nights etc.

[Shevy]

As long as possible without too much filler "content". I don't need 150h with a huge amount of filler.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

Longer is better, just so long as there is not meaningless crap added to it just to fill the time. If a game is good and I am engrossed and feel as if I am part of the game, then I want to just keep playing it. I have played DA:O and DA:2 almost every which way just to be able to get the most out of the game.

[Ramus Quaritch]

60 hours at least, 100 hours would make it an epic game but EA would never allow that kind of development cycle for a game.

[jstme]

Longer game is great, but lets face it - game has date that it needs to be released at.
Knowing that i would rather have immersing 60h game with lots of options ,customisations and large area to explore then a 100h generic boring one.
And i wish Bioware the best of luck. Hope they will restart making great games again.

[Blastback]

I'd love a longer game, but I don't want them to stretch it out if it hurts the quality.

[shnig_1]

All this hours talk is obviously relative to the player, most people say Mass Effect is an easy 30-40 hour game, but some finish it in the 20's while others take 60-70 somehow. I think a better way to talk about how long the game is would be to compare the length to other games.
Another thing, online it said Dark Souls would give me 80 hours or so to beat it the first time, but im at about 60 with 3 playthroughs, so yea i think a better way to describe the length would be twice as long, half as long, or whatever for a different game. For me, DA3 better be at least as long as ME2 was, hopefully more of Skyrim levels of length

[Looper128]

I want it to be atleast 40+ with the quality of DA:O ofc =)