349 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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!

As a matter of fact, the factor of enjoyment per time gets diminishing returns. There is such a thing as too much game, and the smart gamemakers will either keep the game to the length where they can make the gameplay not stale, or insert enough pacebreakers and alternate gameplay modes so that the player feels refreshed for another go at the core experience.
An alternative is to offer different paths to lenghten gameplay through different experiences.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Portal sounded so good. I heard nothing but good things about Portal. When I finally ended up with Steam I decided to grab it.

I didn't like Portal.

But your point is sound. A replayable game, regardless of length, is going to bring me vastly more enjoyment over time than a game I play only once.

[Icinix]

AlanC9 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

I'd also trade length for re-playability and more choice / consequence mechanics outside of a bubble.

This is one of Bio's design principles that maybe needs to be rethought. My understanding is that they don't like to do a lot of alternative paths because that would reduce length of a single playthrough (all other factors held constant), which isn't a great way to serve their audience since so many of us don't replay the games. But since it looks like a lot of people don't finish the games, maybe they should make that tradeoff and do serious alternative paths.

Of course, making this change would result in Bio's games becoming shorter than they are now.

Indeed.

Although I would be fine with that. Especially since you would end up with a few pieces of DLC a couple of hours each offering padding if you so wanted.

[AtreiyaN7]

I think it should be as long as the story requires - not just stuffed with crap for the sake of having more to do. If there's any extra content, it had better be related to the story and had better be interesting. I honestly could have lived without repeatedly assassinating people in those bloody Radiant quests in Skyrim. Oh, well, I'm so glad that I got to assassinate Annoying Bard #57...that was completely meaningful to the story. *rolleyes*

[Sylvanpyxie]

Personally i'm not sure the length of a game bothers me all that much....

Baldur's Gate games are probably the most time consuming Bioware games created, but honestly it's not my favourite franchise from them, Jade Empire was one of the shorter games they created and I enjoyed an infinite amount more than most of the BG games (Shadows of Amn being the only exclusion).

Honestly, the length of a game depends entirely on filler. Kingdoms of Amalur? Filler. The Old Republic? MMO Filler. Dragon Age Origins? Filler. Neverwinter Nights? Original Campaign was filler, expansions had less but they were shorter. Neverwinter Nights 2? Filler, Mask of the Betrayer was better. Bethesda games? All filler all the time.

Some games make the filler work for them - Bethesda games(personally hate them), the Fable franchise(has it's charms), Kingdoms of Amalur - but with a game that is largely about a grand epic adventure and great overbearing story-arc there's got to be a certain amount of balance, otherwise you're just starving the player of main plot and forcing boring and unrelated filler down their throats.

On very few occasions has a main plot arced so beautifully that it can span 50 solid hours of game-play without a single hiccup. Sure, there have been games that are capable of running a story-line long enough, and interesting enough, to make all the filler barely noticeable, but more often than not the plot just ends up having you jump through bizarre plot-hoops until you reach the point of "epic conclusion".

Filler is bad without structure to surround it. I, personally, would rather Bioware stick to a time-line of their choosing, so that I don't have to endure hours of needless filler content and a sub-standard plot line that keeps periodically screaming at me to collect an array of magical items for the 4th, 5th, 6th time.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:23 .

[Wulfram]

If Bioware were to make a game that was actually light on filler, then I'd give them a break on length. But I haven't seen it happen yet. DA2 had plenty of filler, and was still short.

[naughty99]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

Each DA:O playthrough lasted close to 100 hours, and I played the entire game several times, with very different characters each time. Same goes for Oblivion, one of my all time favorite games, played quite a few different characters and each one lasted more than 100 hours. I've played six completely different Skyrim characters so far, each one has lasted 100-200 hours and I still haven't even started most of the quests in the game, not to mention all the free quest mods available from mod authors. Quite happy spending $60 for any of those games and feel I got a tremendous value.

If a game is very short but has a great replay value, it might still be worth picking up, likewise if it has low replay value, but a lot of content. However, the type of RPG I enjoy most is a game with tons of content that I can replay over and over with a totally different character each time.

Modifié par naughty99, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:38 .

[Foolsfolly]

Wulfram wrote...

If Bioware were to make a game that was actually light on filler, then I'd give them a break on length. But I haven't seen it happen yet. DA2 had plenty of filler, and was still short.

ME3 had way too much filler. Going around looking for things you overheard people talking about is a terrible way to fill up the game. I'd much rather have had a few exclusive missions depending on previous choices over busy work scanning the galaxy map and picking up garbage EMS points.

[Auintus]

As long as that 50 hours is quality material. I could make a 50 hour game that consists of walking from one end of the map to the other, navigating various terrain. And it would suck. Quality over quantity, I say.

[EricHVela]

I think the title should have been:
RPGs should be able to be 50 hours long.
Don't force players to take that long, but let players take that long and be interested.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:45 .

[Master 1111]

50 hours is good but 75 would be better and make side quest good and fun but have the main story epic

[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.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Portal sounded so good. I heard nothing but good things about Portal. When I finally ended up with Steam I decided to grab it.

I didn't like Portal.

But your point is sound. A replayable game, regardless of length, is going to bring me vastly more enjoyment over time than a game I play only once.

Honestly I'm not sure we should talk about games that actually have endings in terms of "hours played."

You reach the end when you reach it, and it isn't necessarily a measure of enjoyment.

But take a game like Crusader Kings 2.  There's an "ending" but all you get is a score and the game just... stops.  It's not a game about the ending, but the experience of playing it.  So you don't actually stop playing at the end, usually.  You stop playing before the end.  Sometimes that's it and you're done forever.  Other times you keep picking it back up because the gameplay is that much fun for you.

Football Manager is the same way.  There's no ending.  Your manager alter-ego can literally live centuries and the game won't stop.  Steam says I've played 594 hours of FM12 alone and 2018 is the furthest I've even gotten in a single game.  That's hours of enjoyment worth measuring.  (FM09: 107, FM10: 932, FM11: 766)

Whereas in these threads, no matter what game we're talking about, the numbers always vary wildly. No one really goes into detail about how much they read from the Codex, how much thought they put into each dialogue option, if they're completionist explorers, how many quests they did per playthrough, what difficulty level they played on, if they paused a lot of played out combat in real time, what party makeup they used, even how often they went AFK to make coffee... all of those things can significantly alter hours played and yet people compare plain numbers pretending they have some point behind them.  They don't. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2012 - 11:39 .

[Meltemph]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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.

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. 

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.

With RPG's and any story focused game, time is a factor, imo, when it comes to giving the story more of an ability to flesh out its quality.  I think this is proven by the fact that most of the best fantasy books I have read have multiple parts to them, and the best RPG's I've played have significantly more length then your average game. 

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.

[Fast Jimmy]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I think the title should have been:
RPGs should be able to be 50 hours long.
Don't force players to take that long, but let players take that long and be interested.

This, this, this and THIS. 

What TES games, DA:O, the Fallout games and many others... what they all do is give the option to explore and enjoy a world. Whether that is through a sandbox mechanic, a deep quest system, tons of main or ancillary plot quests, huge piles of dialogue/lore or even just pure exploration. All of these aspects add to a game's length and are not, inherently, filler. 

Just like shallow fetch quests and detailed quests that enrich the lore of the game are both versions of side quests, how each of these (and other) features  are detailed and presented is the difference. 

With the Fallout 1 example Allan gave, you can (if you know exactly where to go on the World Map) cut straight through the main plot. But if you wander around the world the game provides, do every side quest and have (extremely) poor time management, you can lose the game by taking too long. Point being: it doesn't matter if the content is on critical plot path or not - a good game has tons of content. 

[naughty99]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Portal sounded so good. I heard nothing but good things about Portal. When I finally ended up with Steam I decided to grab it.

I didn't like Portal.

But your point is sound. A replayable game, regardless of length, is going to bring me vastly more enjoyment over time than a game I play only once.

Whereas in these threads, no matter what game we're talking about, the numbers always vary wildly. No one really goes into detail about how much they read from the Codex, how much thought they put into each dialogue option, if they're completionist explorers, how many quests they did per playthrough, what difficulty level they played on, if they paused a lot of played out combat in real time, what party makeup they used, even how often they went AFK to make coffee... all of those things can significantly alter hours played and yet people compare plain numbers pretending they have some point behind them.  They don't. 

Total playing time may vary wildly from person to person according to player preferences, but according to our own preferences, we know what kind of entertainment value we are getting from these games.

For example, I've enjoyed playing Skyrim for 700+ hours since release and I know with certainty this is a great value for me, for my personal approach to playing a single player RPG. Someone else may hate the game and only play a couple of hours before quitting.

If I buy some other game and it lasts 10 hours and I don't have any desire to play it again, this is a much lower value at a $60 price point.

Modifié par naughty99, 09 octobre 2012 - 11:52 .

[upsettingshorts]

naughty99 wrote...

Total playing time may vary wildly according to player preferences, but according to our own preferences, we know which games provide more value.

Sure, but what value does that have to anyone else trying to draw some kind of conclusion.

"Some guy only got 10 hours out of our game, but some other person got 50."

[XCelfa]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

I think the title should have been:
RPGs should be able to be 50 hours long.
Don't force players to take that long, but let players take that long and be interested.

This, this, this and THIS. 

What TES games, DA:O, the Fallout games and many others... what they all do is give the option to explore and enjoy a world. Whether that is through a sandbox mechanic, a deep quest system, tons of main or ancillary plot quests, huge piles of dialogue/lore or even just pure exploration. All of these aspects add to a game's length and are not, inherently, filler. 

Just like shallow fetch quests and detailed quests that enrich the lore of the game are both versions of side quests, how each of these (and other) features  are detailed and presented is the difference. 

With the Fallout 1 example Allan gave, you can (if you know exactly where to go on the World Map) cut straight through the main plot. But if you wander around the world the game provides, do every side quest and have (extremely) poor time management, you can lose the game by taking too long. Point being: it doesn't matter if the content is on critical plot path or not - a good game has tons of content. 

That's.. still a lot of content.

I'll confess though, after my first playthrough of a game, I couldn't care less about most [not all] additional, non-plot-essential content. For example, ME3. On my second playthrough I did only priority quests and ignored every questgiver on the citadel minus companion hangout quests... oh, and of course I saved Jack and helped out Grunt. But I didn't find Aria's quest or the go fetch quests interesting enough to do over. So I gibbed in the rep gains and war assets so that the side dishes didn't subtract from my ending

I think I had a point in there, somewhere. Oh yeah. pointless fetch quests... please no equivalent of time-consuming planet scanning in DA3.

[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.

[Meltemph]

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.

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).

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.

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?

These genre's(even though they are more foggy then ever, in termso f what genre they are) tones, that typically come with them, to me, sets my expectation with in that form of entertainment. So, when I plauy portal, I am expecting a different experience then I am with a RPG like Witcher or DA.

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.

That isnt to say length automatically = better, however, if story is the focus or a setting, I would think the "potential length", not necessarily the main story, should encourage a longer time frame.

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.

So while I agree with you on the whole, that in the end quality matters, I think the small details matter as well, with the expectation of different games. Instead of using a broad brush stroke to define my expectations from game to game, I like to use the small fine brushes to detail out the differences from genre to genre and game to game.

And to me, games like the Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, and the Forgotten realms type games, gain more from a longer game(typically) from my experience. However, a lot of this is perspective. For me when I play a game like this, it is as much about the setting, story, and characters as it is the "game". So a more fleshed out setting/story is more important then the game, to me, because it makes the game as a whole better to me.

That isnt to say though, that I cant enjoy a short Fantasy RPG, just I would prefer a longer one, even if it meant I wasnt constantly getting my socks knocked off, compared to if it was shorter.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2012 - 12:12 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan...




...now you've gone and made me want barbecue.




I had suggested a feature like the one you mention for Alpha Protocol and how it could play into a DA game. Such as in DA:O, if you went to the Brecillan Forest first, you could achieve a 'happy' ending there, while it would make it harder (or even impossible) to achieve a perfect ending in another area, such as the Tower, or Redcliffe. But since you always walk into the top of the Tower when Ulrich is torturing the Archmage, and never before or after, DA:O keeps everything static, while this mechanic could give very different results and not have a way for someone to have a 'perfect' choice playthrough. 

A mechanic where how we progressed through the story affects other areas (essentially, offering us the choice the Mass Effect 1 trailer teased us with but didn't offer) would GREATLY increase replayability and would not (really) result in that much more created content, but a much better feeling for immersive gameplay.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 10 octobre 2012 - 12:15 .

[Giant ambush beetle]

I'm just re-playing Baldur's Gate 2 and it just verified my opinion that play time matters a LOT.
At the last chapter my character has been through a lot, it felt like I was playing a seasoned warrior god-child who earned his place with many bloody epic fights and struggles and that the time has come to fight your powerful siblings for a dead gods throne.
The story didn't feel rushed, it slowly unfolded like in a good rich fantasy novel, not like in one of those cheap short attention span fantasy comic pocket books. Most modern RPG's feel like the latter.(and thats not a phenomena that is only limited to the gaming industry, the same thing has happened in the film industry too.)

Saying play time doesn't matter at all is like saying it doesn't matter how long a relationship lasts, a quick one night stand or a serious long engagement. Its all the same. Not.

I disagree.