349 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

DAO  could have done this had it forced us to do the Circle Tower first.

If you side with the Templars there, you would then have been locked out of the "ideal third option" to settle the Connor situation in Redcliffe.

ME1 did do this in a minor way.  If you pick up Liara first, she responds as if she had only recently been trapped in the force field.  If you recruit her last, even as far as after Virmire, she has gone crazy and thinks she's seeing things when you show up.  Then you drop the news on her that not only did you kill her mom, you figured out the secrets behind her entire life's work and only need her to tell you that Ilos is a place that exists.  It's all a tad overwhelming.

[Meltemph]

I should add though, while in theory I wouldl ove a DA game like Alpha, because it is a setting, I would be worried about it being played like that. It would, to me, make the world of Thedas take a back seat to the PC of each game. And for me, DA is supposed to feel different then ME, where what I did in that game drove the setting. With DA, I feel the settings drives who I am and what I am doing and the most important why of it.

If you could make all those choices with DA, I would think that would hamstring the setting quite heavily, unless the choices setting story, with-in that game, could be wrapped up before the next game. However, I have a feeling I am in the minority, in that I think the setting should maintain its integrity over all else.

[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 .

[Meltemph]

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!

Actaully, I know it is hard to tell, from teh way I post, but I enjoy jsut about every genre out there, outside of racing sims. But, yaI get where you are coming from and we are essetnially argueing the same thing. 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.

That said, if I am being honest, the main reason I want longer games with games like DA and Elder Scroll is because I think the setting benefits from it, becaue that normally means more lore and what not. The most enjoyable part about DA stories to me is how they open up more of the setting and reveal more of the mystery. Games like DA, Elder Scroll, and Forgotten realms games are more then jut RPG's they are mysteries that keep me coming back to figure out more of what is really going on in the world.

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.

Eh, I enjoyed Alpha a lot, but honestly I liked it simply because it was a well done spy RPG that I could enjoy with a very good branching path story.

That said, in terms of uniqueness or being "original", in the words of RA Salvator:

"Charactor is more important then plot, becaue if you have a really great plot but your characters stink no one will care, you have a mediocre book. But if you have a hero that the people really fall in-love with, you give them a hangnail and they are at the edge of their seat... whether you are writing a dwarf or a dark elf or even a dragon, there has to be a human aspect to the character or you fail... maybe it(fantasy genre) is becoming more homoginized becaue everything that can be done is being done, so every thing seems cliche. So, if you were to take the arch types, the borad strokes and kind of twist them around, you have to be careful how you do it... it has become so familiar to people now, that there is a comfort level of having a basic understand of the race types are. My book signings look like Fleetwood Mac concerts, you've got a grandfather, with his son and his daughter, the books(fantasy genre as a whole) is multi-generational now."

And to me that whole spiel he did, is why I am perfectly able to respect something I have seen before, over something "unique". And is probably why I like the DA series more then Alpha, despite me liking Alpha a lot. I like the comfort food in my fantasy(LOTRO fantasy and what not) that is now present because of the familiarity.

However, I liked alpha alot for one really big reason. I never got the impression Alpha was being different for the sake of being different. It was different becaue that was the game they wanted to do, and I have a lot of respect for that.

[Rylor Tormtor]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Me: Finally I beat Dragon Age Origins. It took me 50 hours.
My Brother: I beat it in just less than 25 hours.

Checked the data, turned out to be correct.

How did he do this? I'm so jealous!

I am not sure if you are serious. Who the hell cares that your brother skipped through every dialogue and didn't read any codeces? My first playthrough was 113 hours with DAO. Most of my playthroughs range from 60-85 after that. 

I know all playstyles are acceptable and we are a big happy self congratulatory family of enablers and yada yada yada, but really, what kind of attitudes are we fostering if getting through as fast as you can is somehow an enviable thing? Should EA/Bioware make DA3 in pill form, so we can pass it and have the entire game experience in 8 hours? Or, if you are lactose intolerant, just take it with a glass of milk. That will get it done in around an hour and all your friends will be jealous. 

[Conniving_Eagle]

DA:O without any DLC took me 45 hours. DAII without any DLC took me almost 30 hours. DA:O has much more replayability for me.

[Meltemph]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

DA:O without any DLC took me 45 hours. DAII without any DLC took me almost 30 hours. DA:O has much more replayability for me.

I loved DA:O, however, the replayability was quite low for me in terms of the story and learning more by playing differently.  Outside of learning everything I could from each character, and having the end different, the middle of DA:O was very hard for me to get through from one play-through to the next.  However DA2, to me, was easier to play through from front to back.  Even though DA2 had more that I really did not like, the things I did like about it, I liked more then DA:O. 

That said, even though DA2, I can replay easier, DA:O was more enjoyable, because it was more fleshed-out, where as DA2 had a lot of parts that felt incomplete, to me.  An extra 5 hours of that main story, imo, could have made a significantly big impact on how I would have recieved the story of DA2 as a whole.

[Realmzmaster]

Rpgfantasyplayer wrote...

krul2k wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

krul2k wrote...

Terrorize69 wrote...

Well... EAs last RPG was 200+ hours without DLC and using non stop sprint and fast travel, so maybe DA3 will get atleast half of that.

wat game was that sounds like something i would like

Kingdom Of Amalur: Reckoning

Was over shadowed by ME3's release, both came out the same time. I recently picked it up for a bargin price, a price given to it due to EAs rep being hurt over ME and not cause the game is bad.

Main story, 40+ hours. It's all the side missions and factions and exploring that makes up the over 150+ hours.

It has so much that ME3 should of had. If they had combined both aspects of these games, ME3 would easily of rocked our galaxy.

oh that, lol ive got it installed aswell just not played it yet, will need to check it out

Kingdoms of Amalur was not EA it was Big Huge Games and 38 studios. And yes, 38 studios has since gone out of business.

Actually EA was the publisher for the game.

[Meltemph]

RA Salvatore made an AMAZING world. I really hope that the setting can be saved and turned int oa normal RPG instead of a MMO. I think it would do incredibly well as a stand-alone under a different company.  However, I think he needs more say in the game, by the sounds of his interviews.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2012 - 01:28 .

[AmstradHero]

I have to agree with Allan on this one. (Also, I think it's awesome that you like Alpha Protocol. I don't think it got anywhere near as much love or respect as it deserved)

Replayability is an interesting concept for me, because I love it, but I rarely find/make time to go back and play things repeatedly.  For example, I've only ever completed one full playthrough of DA:O. I've got numerous other partial playthroughs, and have plumbed the depths of many different conversations and plot paths within the toolset, but I just can't go back and do the whole thing again. The big long repeated sections that play out the same each time (I'm looking at you Circle Tower and Deep Roads) are a roadblock I can't get past.

Alpha Protocol is one game I really want to go back and play repeatedly, but still haven't done so yet - I think it's mainly the thought of those boss fights that worries me. I've tried to steer clear of too many spoilers, but even discussing the game with other people makes me realise how differently things can play out with different choices. To me, I'd much rather have that than a really, really long game. I mean, that's what I'm doing with my DA:O mod The Shattered War. It will probably be around a 10-15 hour experience per playthrough, but the choices player makes are going to result in things turning out very differently along the way and at the end.

To me, the shorter game with more depth and variation within the experience is more fun and something that I can appreciate the craftsmanship and skill that went into its creation more than a huge grindfest that lasts for 100+ hours.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 octobre 2012 - 01:34 .

[Meltemph]

AmstradHero wrote...

I have to agree with Allan on this one. (Also, I think it's awesome that you like Alpha Protocol. I don't think it got anywhere near as much love or respect as it deserved)

Replayability is an interesting concept for me, because I love it, but I rarely find/make time to go back and play things repeatedly.  For example, I've only ever completed one full playthrough of DA:O. I've got numerous other partial playthroughs, and have plumbed the depths of many different conversations and plot paths within the toolset, but I just can't go back and do the whole thing again. The big long repeated sections that play out the same each time (I'm looking at you Circle Tower and Deep Roads) are a roadblock I can't get past.

Alpha Protocol is one game I really want to go back and play repeatedly, but still haven't done so yet - I think it's mainly the thought of those boss fights that worries me. I've tried to steer clear of too many spoilers, but even discussing the game with other people makes me realise how differently things can play out with different choices. To me, I'd much rather have that than a really, really long game. I mean, that's what I'm doing with my DA:O mod The Shattered War. It will probably be around a 10-15 hour experience per playthrough, but the choices player makes are going to result in things turning out very differently along the way and at the end.

To me, the shorter game with more depth and variation within the experience is more fun and something that I can appreciate the craftsmanship and skill that went into its creation more than a huge grindfest that lasts for 100+ hours.

Typically all those different choices, add-up to about the same amount of time invested if you wanted really experience all the different choices.  Which, I love and is one of type of story telling, that should be used more.  However, I dont think that is really changing the "replayablility" if the time invested ends up the same, due to the replayability.  Although, I will admit there is a certain level of enjoyment from a lot of branching paths. 

However, those pranching paths dont have to deal with a complete setting/world, and I personally think that matters with a game, where the setting really adds life to the story, characters, and the game as a whole should be treated carefully.  So, I would love multiple branching paths that would allow you to play on the mage/templar/qunari side, and would love if the choices directly change the path of my player(agency), because that would effectively do the same thing as what I am asking for, really.  I just want it to be done in a way that doesnt hold back the setting either.

[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.

[Meltemph]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

I'm not sure that is the case, maybe it is, it is a good question to think about sure, however...  Look at it from a sports, perspective,  lets assume that health isnt a factor and say that Basketball, Football, and Baseball all were able to get to 162 game season.  Do you think that football, game to game, would be as popular or as engaging, since instead of 16 games, there were 162?  Same with basketball, infact there are a lot of people in the industry that are calling for a shorter basketball season so the games mean more.

Dont get me wrong, the game has to be good 1st and foremost.  But just like a book, I personally, dont only want to read fantasy or scifi.  Now, I know there are a lot of people where this is the case, but still, my main point is, for me personally, that change of pace in tone or perspective is nice, to me.

Now, I will say, as of late(this generation) I have never gotten sick of RPG's like DA and such, because there are just so few of them(They are the football of the sports to me).  That doesnt mean though, that just because I find them all entertaining that I have the same expectations of a RPG that I do.

Best way to describe it is... I love Dragon Age 1 and 2, but I also love Civilization sereies jsut as much, however I'm not always in the mood for both.  I play to be entertained, but "entertainment" is a pretty massive broad stroke, to me.  Not all forms of entertainment are the same, and to me, that includes genre's. 

[frostajulie]

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 have to agree with this. I stuck it out for 15 hours straight, nothing happened except I had a migraine and major buyers remorse at the end.:?I always thought I was the only person in the world who loves a good RPG that did not like Oblivion.

I would love DA3 to be 50 hours+ however only if they can fill that time with a rich story, characters to love and a gaming experience that rivals DAO ME1 and ME2.

Kingdoms of Amalur has hours and hours of game play combat is fun and all the pretty colors are vividly pleasing.  But the hours are full of pointless quests that mean nothing to the character or the main game and the payout is really lackluster. In the end I walked away from the game bored. I never rerolled a different character because there was really no point.  I def don't want THAT from DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I think all games are like that.  It's the playing that is fun, not the finishing.  Finishing is irrelevant.

But how long it takes to finish the game tells us something about the size and scope of the game.  I think DAO's length adds to its replayability, because there are more different things to do differently.  I think KotOR's lack of length, though, doesn't harm its replayability, because the gameplay itself is just fun.

Length can be a strength, but isn't always.  Lack of length can be a weakness, but isn't always.  But I don't accept that length can ever be a weakness, nor that lack of length can ever be a strength.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:16 .

[Mello]

SHHHHH Don't say that!
They're going to give us boring side quests that has nothing to do with the story what-so-ever...

[AppealToReason]

40 is a pretty good spot. If its a 40hr RPG without artificial time tacked on like lame ass traveling and stupid wandering just because land is land. Its why I can never get into Bethesda games and I stopped playing KOA. Too much stuff felt it was there to be there.

[KotorEffect3]

30 to 40 hours works for me

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I think all games are like that.  It's the playing that is fun, not the finishing.  Finishing is irrelevant.

I take it you haven't wandered over to the ME3 side of the forum, you might see quite a few people in...disagreement

[KotorEffect3]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I think all games are like that.  It's the playing that is fun, not the finishing.  Finishing is irrelevant.

I take it you haven't wandered over to the ME3 side of the forum, you might see quite a few people in...disagreement

They won't shutup about the last 5 minutes in the ME 3 forums.  But it really isn't about how games end.  It is how they are play throughout.

[PsychoBlonde]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

So would I--in fact, due to my desperate need to Do. Every. Single. Quest. a sufficiently long game can actually prevent me from wanting to replay it.  I'd replay Origins more but those Chanter's Board et al quests were tedious the FIRST time.  I've yet to play Awakening more than once, even though I'd like to, because my playthroughs have been plagued by game-killing bugs where I lose all my gear (argh) or can't do companion stories (ARGH!) and have to start over, and I just don't want to any more.

Granted, I do enjoy open-world games like Oblivion and Skyrim and Fallout 3, but here's the thing . . . my enjoyment of them is kind of in the manner of a sugar binge.  I'll play them REALLY intensively for a few weeks until, basically, illness sets in.  Then I abandon them.  And they're never *satisfying* in the long term.  They are very definitely filler for times when I'm bored/dissatisfied, not something I enjoy for their own sake--they are something I can fiddle with when I feel like fiddling, not something I WANT to fiddle with.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

I always thought that around 40 hours for an RPG was a fair amount of time. ME1 on my first playthrough I think took me around 40 hours. However now since I have every achievement and have played the game several times I can do a completely thorough playthrough on causal in less than 20 hours. DAO forst time took me about 47 hours. Second time took me 36. Third time was 25. Although I did less and less side quests on every every subsequent playthroughs for that game. I am replaying the game again since I just purchased the ultimate edition. I plan on doing every single thing I can. Already got almost 15 hours and just got about half way through the my first story mission. I spent 10hours trying to do quests and exploring a lot. When the the ME trilogy box set comes out I plant on getting that and replaying every single game with a new refined version of my character. I plan on taking my time with Mass Effect 1 since its my favorite of the three.

Anyway I am getting off topic. What I am trying to say is that around 40-50 hours is a good amount of time for an RPG but at the end of the day its quality over quantity for me.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think all games are like that.  It's the playing that is fun, not the finishing.  Finishing is irrelevant.

I wish.  In fact, I could probably write a treatise about the phenomenae that encourage me to make 20+ characters but only "finish" 3 of them.  Assuming the game has an "ending" of some kind.

I grant you this behavior is an aspect of my personality, but in the end it comes down to the fact that on 17 of my 20 attempted runs on the game, the game bored or annoyed me into stopping--and these are my best-loved games.  The ones I wind up disliking, I make about the same number of characters but never finish.

So, for me, the way I know a game is quality is not by how much I play it (which largely depends on my free time/interest in other things going on anyway), but how many times I FINISH the thing.

Oh, and for a change of perspective on this, I have 4 characters on Dungeons and Dragons Online, but between them I've "finished" the game (gotten them to level 20) 21 times.

For some people, finishing is a VERY important measurement, if not an end in itself.

[Hey]

I think I've got 3 morrowind playthroughs all over 200 hours - then i've got around 15 full DA:O playthroughs at around 45 hours a piece so in the end it's about the same chunk of my life.. Both gave me multiple braingasms and thats really what it comes down to... Just give me a braingasm and ill be good however the time shakes out.