10 réponses à ce sujet

[DonSwingKing]

I don't know who came up with this standard, but it worked for years. Since Bioware decided to halve it with Mass Effect, other RPGs followed. While DAO offered this amount of content even whitout DLC, Dragon Age 2 was way too short even whit the DLC. In my opinion a good RPG story needs time. The word epic actually means "long story". I want a story of epic proportions. I can see why some people might disagree with me, but i would rather abandon non linearity for more actual playtime.

What are your thoughts?

Modifié par DonSwingKing, 09 octobre 2012 - 05:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Portal was THE game that taught me "I shouldn't use length of time to determine my level of enjoyment." I'd rather pay $50 for it than what I paid for Oblivion which is 40 hours of my life I'm not getting back!

I like good games to last a long time, but I actually prefer my RPGs to be shorter with good replayability. The first Fallout can be beaten in a single day as it's not that long of a game at all, but it's a ton of fun to play through in different ways. I found the same thing with Alpha Protocol. In total I have long since lost count for Fallout, and according to Steam I put in 48 hours in Alpha Protocol (which was about 2.5 playthroughs)

I beat the first Mass Effect in about 28-30 hours, but the story there is that I did it in a single sitting which I consider a pretty good endorsement for the game. KOTOR was probably under 30 as well. BG2 is much longer, and DAO was probably closer to 60 too.

[Allan Schumacher]

In my case, I'd like to have my cake and eat it too - that is to say, I prefer RPGs to provide as much content as possible along with a very high replay value.

Haven't tried any of the custom maps for Portal or Portal 2, or the co-op, which I would imagine extends the replay value, otherwise, once you know how how to solve a particular puzzle, there is no replay value at all. They are both fun games, but I'd never pay more than $15 or so to buy a very short game (under 30 hours) with no replay value.

For me, the sheer fun level was off the charts that the time didn't matter. I was receiving 18 units of fun per hour instead of 2.

I'm also busier though. Time isn't a good measurement because rarely am I "doing nothing" if I'm not playing the current game that I like. So it's not as though I'm "Playing kickass game OR I'm bored."

I actually find a long game can hurt its replayability because in many cases a lot of stuff is still repeated. Which is what I love about Alpha Protocol. Doing thins in different order results in changes to the narrative.


Of course I want to have my cake and to eat it too (who doesn't), but if I have too choose a piece I'll choose replayability over length anytime.

[Allan Schumacher]

With multiplayer games sure...but by enlarge, when it comes to RPG's and games like Assassins Creed, length allows a better developed plot/story. Look at game of thrones, most people believe that an extra 10 min would add a lot to the show and I think the season finale this year proved that.

None of the games I'm referring to are multiplayer games though. When I talk about replayability, I'm referring to games like Fallout and Alpha Protocol.

Also, with the longer stories, I find that they do lend to more replayability. There is more you can miss in the logner stories that add to the desire to want to replay it, to give yourself a different experience, and this, I believe is inharent in RPG's more so then most.

Eh, I find DAO is a pretty linear experience without a whole lot that is different between playthroughs, whereas a game like Alpha Protocol has NPCs that respond differently (or can be outright missed) based on the order you do missions and complete them. If you take the total content of a game like DAO, and go for breadth instead of length, you can't help but get a more divergent experience.

That said, I dont think most people play through a game more then once, outside of multiplayer games, so if that is to be the case, I think length would be more worth it. Also, comparing a puzzle game, with the personality of that game, I dont think is the same in comparison to a RPG or even a heavily story focused FPS(like Half-Life). Portals are great fun when you play them, but they are short and the replayability in them is low, outside of the multiplayer, because once you figure out a puzzle, you figure it out.

I agree that replayability incorporates a certain level of risk. Enough that someone like Gabe Newell thinks it should be ignored and that all content should be experienced on the first playthrough. Though I have no problems comparing a puzzle game like portal with an RPG, because ultimately what I look for in video gaming is entertainment, and I don't really care HOW I am entertained. RPGs tend to be games that I find more entertaining, but that a game like Portal can come along and make me go "I was more entertained in the 4 hours playing this than the 40 hours playing Oblivion" then that's still value added. Now, if I found myself going "Oh crap, I'm not doing ANYTHING ELSE for the 36 other hours, then the length of Oblivion starts to play a factor, since the 4 hours of OMGBBQ awesome and 36 hours of boredom doing nothing is something that needs to be considered.

Fortunately I have enough of a gaming backlog with a variety of games that this is pretty much never the case for me anymore.

I think you would be hard pressed to, for the most part, show me a short RPG that is better then an equal quality RPG that is a longer game.

Of course there isn't, because 10 hours of OMGBBQ is not as good as 40 hours of OMGBBQ. The problem comes when that 40 hour experience is filled with some hohum. That's what sucks. Ideally I like to be experiencing OMGBBQ all the time. Who doesn't? But whether or not something is "OMGBBQ" for me is dependent on the content contained within, not the total length of time.

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree in large part with this, but, I dont really consider that as replayability, at least in teh same context. Becasue with Alpha, you can literally have a very different experience. You really cant do that with puzzle games(Like Portal).

I think you're stuck on the puzzle games. When discussing replayability I've been focusing on RPGs.

Note that I DO factor in the replayability for total playing time. Alpha Protocol is more replayable and hence I get 50ish hours of the game. Though getting a different experience in the same game ups the "OMGBBQ" index a little bit, compared to a standard, linear narrative.

I guess I can see that, but to me that is a fairly hard pill to swallow. I love reading, I lvoe movies, and I lvoe video games... All that said, when I want to read a new book, the genre of that book IS a deciding factor with what I expect out of it, same with a movie(do I feel like a comedy or a thriller?), and with games do I feel like a sports title or do I feel like a FPS?

Then it's an easy pill to swallow. I don't care WHAT the game is, as long as I'm really enjoying it. That said, it's far more likely that I'll really enjoy an RPG than I will Call of Duty: Black Ops. We're actually arguing the same thing here.

It's just that, in Portal's case, the game is just so well done that I really like it. I mostly play RPGs because I tend to find they give me the most entertainment. I suspect it's the same for you!

So while I agree the end resault is that I want to be entertained, imo, it is selling the game industry short form my POV, because just like I do with movies and books, I want to experience a larger variety of expectations with the different genre's.

Simply doing something isn't really entertained. I can read a book, and probably get some entertainment out of it, but playing an RPG is almost guaranteed to be a more entertaining experience for me. As such I don't read many books, but play a lot of RPGs.

Also, I would say Alpha Protocal and DA are different types as well. A modern spy story, to me, has a different flavor and appeal then a fantasy story, closer to LOTRO.

Fair, but you're sitll going to get some measure of entertainment out of it, based on whatever it is that you like. It's entirely likely (and even probable) that Alpha Protocol scores some points on the entertainment scale for being a more unique setting compared to a fantasy story that is closer to Lord of the Rings.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 octobre 2012 - 12:33 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Just, to me, it isnt just entertainment to me. I like to be entertained by a fairly large variety of theings, specially games and books, and to me, the genre's are the fresh air to me, when I get sick of one type to the next.

So wouldn't you say that you're more entertained by the genres that you find, well, more entertaining and interesting?

Why play games (of whatever genre) if not to be entertained?

Stating that it's "just entertainment" doesn't mean that all forms of entertainment are equal, nor does it mean that when I am seeking entertainment that "any" entertainment will do.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I actually find a long game can hurt its replayability because in many cases a lot of stuff is still repeated. Which is what I love about Alpha Protocol. Doing thins in different order results in changes to the narrative.

I feel compelled to mention this every time I see AP mentioned, but in AP your choices didn't matter until the final mission. Within the final mission you could literally have any outcome regardless of what you'd done before--just depends on [SPOILERS] whether you save Scarlet, Ming (that her name?), kill/arrest/join the two baddies.

AP had extremely little choice/consequence.

If you're looking at a purely utilitarian point of view I suppose.  I don't.  You can straight up not even have met Sie, for example, who is a major NPC in the game.

Choice and Consequence does NOT mean "does this change the ending."  Doing things in a different order changes the narrative, which is unequivocally true.  Try going to Taipei and see how Steven Heck responds to you whether you've done some missions first.  The conversation with Marburg is completely different based on whether or not Mike has been stealthy or not.

Never mind that there are situations such as leveraging Steven Heck in order to help defeat Brayko, an option that straight up cannot exist if you've never met Steven Heck.  It's most definitely a choice, with a consequence (the fight against Brayko is almost trivial with Heck's help).

Other things off the top of my head:

Conversation with Surkov's mansion may never occur depending on what level of alert Surkov has towards Thorton based on a lot of things (I'm also not even counting flavor things such as whether or not Grigori has informed Surkov of Mike's arrival).

And there's tons of little details such as the cost of intel and stuff being dependent on a lot of the decisions that you make in game, including weapon availability and stuff like that.

It's impossible to get G22 and Sie to provide support without meeting them in Russia first.


A lot of stuff like that which really adds to the game for me.

[Allan Schumacher]

Even if you require the consequences to have some sort of in game effect, I still found Alpha Protocol to be filled with them.

[Allan Schumacher]

Did you just-
Did you just say-

Do you even know-
Are you some kind of-


No, forget it.

Yes, I was silly and effectively playing a game and only much after the fact did I realize I didn't really enjoy any of the time I haev spent in game! Don't judge!

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

I see no evidence of this applying in Bioware games.  BG2 is crazy long and crazy good.  DA:O is generally considered to be longer than DA2, and also generally considered superior.  Jade Empire is short and generally considered Bioware's least successful game before DA2.  ME2 is probably the longest of the mass effect games - though not by a huge amount - and also the best received.

A lot of people would consider Mass Effect or Knights of the Old Republic to be BioWare's best game (I prefer KOTOR over BG2 and DAO too) and it's a much shorter game than the original BG2 I find.


I'd say that ME1 was a longer game than ME2 as well (but it's close), especially if you did all of the planet exploration.

[Allan Schumacher]

plnero wrote...

I had a nerdgasm the first time I explored a planet in ME1, but I guess most people didn't like the feature. Most people just wanted to do the mission that the planet offered then leave. I think it had something to do with the mako being a pain in the ass.

Planet exploration wasn't perfect, but if they just touched it up a bit it could have been a really awesome feature.

The problem for me is that it started to get repetitive, and contrasted with the excellent crit path I found it started to slag on.  I did a lot of those planets, but ultimately moved on and I know there are ones I didn't do.