205 réponses à ce sujet

[The dead fish]

edit : nevermind

Modifié par Sylvianus, 17 septembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[Iakus]

Big, huge epic game please.

[Shazzie]

It depends. I prefer longer games, but if the game has an SDK, then I'm not as bothered by a shorter one. Being able to freely mod the game will inject a TREMENDOUS amount of life into that game for me.

[DreGregoire]

My most recent playthroughs:
DAO: 106 hours not including awakenings
DAII: 80 hours, includes all dlc
ME1: 39 hours, I did not do pinnacle station or it would have been a couple of hours longer
ME2: 52 hours, includes all dlc's
ME3: 51 hours, includes all currently avail dlc.

Like I said though I don't leave a stone unturned. LOL! Plus I like to change gear a-lot. I will admit to standing around in Shepard's cabin listening to music on more than one occassion, an effort to reflect on what came before, downtime.

I played through DAO many more times than I did any of the others. Plus I don't have the hours off hand but I played all the expansions and dlc for DAO.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 17 septembre 2012 - 11:42 .

[Cobra5]

I'd rather 60 hours of really great content then 100 hours of good but slightly repetitive content, if that's what you're asking.

60 hours is enough, though I certainly wouldn't mind 100 if it didn't impact quality or start to grind on.

[SafetyShattered]

Dude...pretty obvious. 100 hours for sure. If I spend 60 bucks for something I want to be able to enjoy it for as long as possible.

[PaulSX]

Quality first. 30~35 hour game is good enough for me.

[Peranor]

If the quality remains the same then of course I would pick the 100 hour game over the 30-40 hour game.

If I find a great game that I love to play and immerse myself in I of course want that experience to last as long as possible. Hell, make it last 200 hours while you're at it

Modifié par anorling, 18 septembre 2012 - 10:41 .

[ManOfSteel]

I'd take 60 hours of quality content over 100 hours of potential filler. A longer game isn't necessarily better than a shorter one.

Modifié par DoomHK, 18 septembre 2012 - 10:42 .

[Zorinho20_CRO]

DoomHK wrote...

I'd take 60 hours of quality content over 100 hours of potential filler.

I would like 100 hours of quality content.

[Gibb_Shepard]

It depends 100 hours of mostly main plot quests is WAY too long. If you can reach 100 hours with mini games and side quests and general exploration, then that's fine. I generally want the main quest to go for 20 hours max. After that it's ridiculously hard to pace it well.

Even some areas of DAO i felt were way too long and did nothing for the main plot.

[satunnainen]

 I am sure some people would be happy with 20 hours of gameplay, but made so difficult and so rare save points that you need to try every segment atleast 5, more likely 20 times. That would make something like 200 hours of gameplay. Yes, I was reading about Dark Souls a moment ago

Personally I would be happier with 50+ hours of content, this is a rpg after all. I am not against more if it has a point instead of  "very long dungeons with new mob group behind every corner". 

[SpunkyMonkey]

100 hours if possible, but I'd sooner have just 60 hours of quality than 60 hours of quality + 40 hours of filler.

DA:O racked up around 150 hours for me including DLC on 1st playthrough - just playing it through for the 3rd full time and still loving it.

If you refine the crap from the quality DA:2 should have been 5 hours long at most.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 18 septembre 2012 - 11:01 .

[thebigbad1013]

As long as the choice is purely more content vs. less content I don't see anyone picking anything other than more content.

Personally I'm hoping that it is closer to Origins in length than to Dragon Age 2, but the main point will always be the quality. I will always take quality over quantity and I would much rather have 60 hours worth of quality gaming than 100+ hours of so-so gaming. But hey, if BioWare wants to make a game that delivers 100+ hours of quality gaming you certainly wouldn't hear me complaining about it.

[suprhomre]

Short and intense yes, long and dull no.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

I don't care how long the game is. I care about how good it is. If it is 30 hours and it's great, that's fine with me.

[Rane7685]

Not about time its about depth. Depth over breadth every time however. Id rather visit 3 amazingly rich, vibrant locales that 20 bland ones separately vast vast expanses of nothing. Witcher 2's FLotsam was amazing and it was a backwater. Havent played Skyrim but I didnt really like Oblivion that much it was actually too massive and trekking for hours on end was just not that fun (but each to their own)

[uzivatel]

The older I am, the more I prefer shorter games. I would not mind the game to be 30 or 40 hours as long as there is almost no filler.

zorinho20 wrote...

DoomHK wrote...

I'd take 60 hours of quality content over 100 hours of potential filler.

I would like 100 hours of quality content.

Would you pay for 100 hours of quality content? and how about all those other players out there, would they pay, say, extra $40 to get those extra 40 hours?

Modifié par uzivatel, 18 septembre 2012 - 11:35 .

[Its_a_Catdemon]

Definitely the 60 hours. The wording of the thread makes the choice sound rather biased, but anyways... The only thing longer necessarily means is more free time wasted, and personally, I like to use my time only on the best things which are worth it. A shorter game with more choices, and higher overall quality is always preferable, I'd be happy with less than 60, a long game often becomes a chore for me. For those people who would want to spend all their time on one game, if the choices matter, there will be replay value.

Modifié par Its_a_Catdemon, 18 septembre 2012 - 11:32 .

[Dominus]

I'd like worthwhile content. I would've enjoyed Skyrim more if the quests had been shaved in quantity, but greatly enhanced with variety and overall quality. I mean, how many of those quests involved heading into a dungeon and grabbing a plot item, and that would be it?

If I absolutely had to choose between the 2, I'd say 60 if the overall quality was better.

[milena87]

Quality, pace and replayability are the most important things.

I'd rather play a shorter game with high replayability and without unnecessary content (Alpha Protocol, The Witcher 2) instead of a longer game filled with fetch quests (ZzZ), filler combat or boring things in general.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

40 hours of quality conversation + 40 hours of combat can be a good length for this game.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Replayable Quality Content.

60, 100, arbitrary numbers. But if you really are enjoying a game, there's no such thing as "too much content".

If the content is good, why complain there's too much? Just means that there is boring filler content diluting the experience. Which unfortunately, is something common in RPGs and something that BioWare's almost made an artform of.

[Lotion Soronarr]

As long as it's quality content, I don't care.

Would love more, but I will take better content over longer one.