205 réponses à ce sujet

[Samudo]

35 to 40 hours of content at the most, otherwise I won't replay it.

Modifié par Samudo, 18 septembre 2012 - 12:41 .

[Heimdall]

Thing is, I like long games but if a game is too long I tend to never replay it. I'm only ever creating one character for Skyrim...

So find a balance.

[wsandista]

I want replayability first and foremost. The amount of content is going to be secondary to that.

[Fredward]

Is this a srs question? MORE CONTENT!

[billy the squid]

Quality over quantity, if you can deliver both great. But, endless fetch quests with no links or background storyline? I'll have to lobotomise myself with a pencil to get through it.

[svenus97]

Better 60 hours of awesomeness than 100 hours of sheit.

[rpgfan321]

Of course I want the longer game. ... Since it's Dragon Age, I don't care if 20% of the game is filler and fetch quests; you can just ignore them. However, if they prove to be interesting, or better yet hilarious, then I would have the choice to actively take part in that quest.

[PsychoBlonde]

 Er, I think a realistic number will be more along the lines of 35-40 hours of content.  Which is longer than DA2, but maybe not quite as long as Origins.

My longest playthrough on Origins was 42 hours, tho.

[Vandicus]

A lot of Origins quest were filler. Bounty board for example. Preferrably the game has fewer generic fetch/kill quests than Origins. Anywhere from 40-60 hours of excellent content is good for me.

I've run Origins in a completionist fashion and in a non completionist one. Way too much of the stuff was filler.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

I would rather have longer than shorter. However, I don't really understand where everyone is getting these massive numbers for the play time from? I've only ever put in over 100 hours in a two games, and they were Final Fantasy Tactics War of the Lions and Dissidia Final Fantasy. Most other games only take me a maximum of 60 hours to complete. So, I don't really care if it's 100 hours or 60 hours as I tend to cap out at about 60 hours anyways.

What I want is a quality story. Not something full of meaningless quests that do nothing, but take away from the plot's time to develop (and its pacing). 

Modifié par ChaosAgentLoki, 19 septembre 2012 - 05:35 .

[CuriousArtemis]

Um, I dun understand this question ... do I want one scoop of ice cream or two? Two please 8D

[Silverfox4]

I would rather take 30-40 hours of a deep/quality storyline, than take 50-100 hours of poor story and fetch quest fillers. But the more "quality" hours the better.

[Dragoncloud]

DAO, first playthrough, which being who i am is having done everything, was only arround 40hours (granted it probably was closer to 50 with a few relaods here and there and being stuck on stuff) which is about the norm nowadays for 'long games' for some reason. I do wish to go back to the bg2 time where even with the insta gib cheat (hey i wanted to do the story not spend hours rolling the dice) it took over 80 hours to complete.


However i do not mind the 40 hour games if the story is good (although theres plenty of times where i dislike ending a game because that would mean the fun is over.)

[BounceDK]

200 hours.

[snackrat]

Longer is good only for actual content. I'd prefer more actual content. I don't necessarily perfer more hours, because due to production constraints those extra 'hours' usually come at a cost. A cost which not only detracts from other potential, but is boring.

I don't believe that 'hours' should just be slapped on as-is, like that is all that matters. It is that kind of thinking that leads to padding... making it take ages to run from one place to another (and/or making you BACKTRACK through large, now-empty areas), fetch quests, unskippable cutscenes... just to get that 'hour count' up.

Maybe it would help if we referred to the wealth of content as... well, the wealth of content, instead of just saying "it takes X hours to play".

EDIT: Now I'm just thinking. Remember the Portal games? The first, in particular. Short, yes, but not lacking for content. Everything in it had purpose. People lamented that it was over, certainly, but enjoyed it for what it was. I didn't see forums complaining about how the game was AWFUL and a WASTE OF MONEY because there WASN'T ENOUGH HOURS GRRRAAAAAHHH (etc etc).

Try not to mistake quality for quantity.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 20 septembre 2012 - 12:58 .

[Last Vizard]

As a consumer i'm going to say MOAR rather than less.

[Mr_Steph]

Depends on the quality of the content TBH.

[berelinde]

Mr_Steph wrote...

Depends on the quality of the content TBH.

QFT

A hundred hours of mindless grinding isn't fun, but then BioWare isn't known for mindless grinding.

[Cyberfrog81]

I'll take a shorter game than DA2, IF the content is actually very high-quality. I can do without 60-100 hours of crap.

[terdferguson123]

It's hard to say, a longer game is great if they can pull it off but I felt like a lot of the sidequests in both DA:O (Mage's collective, chantry, blackstone etc.) were just big fetch quests. If they can make the sidequests as in depth as say BG2 then we have a different story. As it is now I feel like a majority of the sidequests in DA:O and DA2 artificially lengthen the game. With that said, I would like to see more meaningful sidequests (some with their own unique areas for example (think Fiirkrag's dungeon from bg2)) even if that means making fewer of them and sacrificing the length of the game a bit.

With that said, frankly, DA2 dlc is almost identitical to what I mean by unique and good side quests, however I would like to see some of that in the actual base game. I have no problem with DLC, but I dislike that in the DA games to get any meaningful sidequests you have to buy dlc.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 20 septembre 2012 - 03:35 .

[Plaintiff]

That depends entirely on the kind of content. Do I want 100 hours of filler, or 60 hours of stuff that's actually good?

Origins was a long game, yes, but that's not always a good thing. Certain quests could've been trimmed significantly, and nothing of value would've been lost.

[FenrirBlackDragon]

Whatever I can get is fine with me, but only if it has substance and is well-written.

[Ravenfeeder]

I'll take 100 or 60 as long as it's re-playable, although I'd prefer DA:O length or longer.

[Kingthlayer]

If the 100 hours is just boring side quests and running around mindlessly like in Skyrim, I'd rather have a 60 hour solid main story experience.