Aller au contenu

Photo

RPGs should be 50 hours long.


349 réponses à ce sujet

#176
naughty99

naughty99
  • Members
  • 5 801 messages

Karsciyin wrote...

Don't ever measure the quality of a game by its hour count. Thay's how we got DA2 fetch quests and ME3 eavesdrop quests. If it Is too long that also interferes with replay ability.


To be fair, the DA2 reverse fetch quests did not increase the game's length at all. They consisted of finding some random object in a dungeon and then suddenly a random NPC giving you gold when you walk past them. Would have been greatly improved by adding a proper questgiver, or even simply by making them posts on the Chanter's board, so you would actually go and do a quest instead of just receiving gold without knowing why.

Of course, I'd rather see more interesting and complex quests, but even simple quests are better than no quests at all, which is what the reverse fedex quests felt like.

If you cut out all the smaller quests from any recent RPG, as a result you will simply end up with a lot less quests in the game. I don't see how that improves replay value.

If you have lots and lots of side quests, the replay value is actually higher, because you can choose to do particular quests that you think your character would want to do, then the next time you can play a different sort of character who might be inclined to take on different quests and perhaps earn a different reputation with various NPCs or factions, etc.

Modifié par naughty99, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:35 .


#177
Todd23

Todd23
  • Members
  • 2 042 messages
True RPGs... never end.

#178
Icinix

Icinix
  • Members
  • 8 188 messages

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.


..the just role again...?

#179
Todd23

Todd23
  • Members
  • 2 042 messages

Icinix wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.


..the just role again...?



They remain in your heart.  Posted Image

#180
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.

This one certainly seems to just keep going.

brb - grinding muffins

#181
Todd23

Todd23
  • Members
  • 2 042 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.

This one certainly seems to just keep going.

brb - grinding muffins

lol  I'm dyslexic and thought you said riding griffins.

#182
Dhiro

Dhiro
  • Members
  • 4 491 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.

This one certainly seems to just keep going.

brb - grinding muffins


It kinda sucks though, most of the LIs are straight and you can't draw your weapons inside the cities.

#183
Todd23

Todd23
  • Members
  • 2 042 messages

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.

This one certainly seems to just keep going.

brb - grinding muffins


It kinda sucks though, most of the LIs are straight and you can't draw your weapons inside the cities.

... What game are you talking about?

#184
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages

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.

#185
Scott Sion

Scott Sion
  • Members
  • 913 messages
Quality over quantity, please. Would you rather have an amazing 20 hour story or a half assed 50 hour story? RPG's have a lot of replay value, if you play an RPG a few times to get everything you can out of it then you'll get more then enough play time out of it.

#186
upsettingshorts

upsettingshorts
  • Members
  • 13 950 messages
Re: Alpha Protocol-> I missed a mission entirely in my first playthrough literally because I bought the story that was handed to me, partially because it was somewhat convincing, but also because RPGs have trained me to do this.  There are other similar examples in the plot where you have a choice between taking things at face value and... not.

Turns out I ended up executing a patsy while the real boss skipped town. That's a choice with a consequence, even if it didn't change the exact nature of the ending.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:15 .


#187
Allan Schumacher

Allan Schumacher
  • BioWare Employees
  • 7 640 messages
Even if you require the consequences to have some sort of in game effect, I still found Alpha Protocol to be filled with them.

#188
wolfsite

wolfsite
  • Members
  • 5 780 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.


Always great to see some Alpha Protocol Love.

Hell I just did a reaplay of the game a month or so back and I actually found a way to prevent Marburg from escaping the boss fight (which he normally gets away then shows up later in the game).  I never expected that and shows how you can change some outcomes.

#189
xsamplexample

xsamplexample
  • Members
  • 297 messages
 YES.  LONG. 50+ HOURS.

I like having a comelling game to come back to, over a series of weeks or months... that would be great/

#190
Maria Caliban

Maria Caliban
  • Members
  • 26 094 messages
50 hours is long? And takes months to finish?

Todd23 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.

..the just role again...?

They remain in your heart.  Posted Image

D'awww. That was unexpectedly sweet and insightful.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 11 octobre 2012 - 12:37 .


#191
Ahglock

Ahglock
  • Members
  • 3 660 messages

plnero wrote...

Quality over quantity, please. Would you rather have an amazing 20 hour story or a half assed 50 hour story? RPG's have a lot of replay value, if you play an RPG a few times to get everything you can out of it then you'll get more then enough play time out of it.


Why not both?

Shouldn't we request, hell expect both from a big game company who you are throwing a base $60 at?

#192
JWvonGoethe

JWvonGoethe
  • Members
  • 917 messages
I liked what Allan said about breadth being more important than length. There are the factions you can choose to side with (or not) in The Elder Scrolls series, and I have always thought that a similar idea could work in the DA series.

Each faction could function as a long running side quest, or subplot, that spans the length of the game. The problem The Elder Scrolls has is that most people end up being head of all the guilds: being head of the Fighters' Guild, the Mages' Guild and the Theives Guild generally makes little narrative sense.

This could be solved by forcing you to choose between opposing factions, a la Skyrim's two different civil war quests. For instance, you could choose to side with either: The Templars or a group of rebel mages; The Crows or the aristocracy and royalty (who are often The Crows' main targets); The Chantry or some secular alliance who are opposed to The Chantry, and so on. As with Skyrim's Civil War questline, you could view the same combat and story scenarios from either side. The only questline that should be mandatory to complete the game should be the main storyline. Whichever subplot/faction you choose to side with, and how you choose to act within that faction, should impact on the main storyline. Choosing not to side with either faction should have a unique effect on the storyline as well.

This, and similar ideas, all depend on how committed Bioware actually are to providing different gameplay experiences on multiple playthroughs. Of course, these kinds of ideas all mean having an even more substantial amount of content unavailable during each individual playthrough than is currently the case in Bioware's games.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 11 octobre 2012 - 01:15 .


#193
naughty99

naughty99
  • Members
  • 5 801 messages

plnero wrote...

Quality over quantity, please. Would you rather have an amazing 20 hour story or a half assed 50 hour story?


Unless the replay value is incredibly high, personally, I'd never fork over $60 for an "amazing" 20-hour game.

Modifié par naughty99, 11 octobre 2012 - 01:17 .


#194
upsettingshorts

upsettingshorts
  • Members
  • 13 950 messages

naughty99 wrote...

plnero wrote...

Quality over quantity, please. Would you rather have an amazing 20 hour story or a half assed 50 hour story?


Unless the replay value is incredibly high, personally, I'd never fork over $60 for an "amazing" 20-hour game.


Yet people regularly fork over $10 for pedestrian 2 hour movies.

#195
JWvonGoethe

JWvonGoethe
  • Members
  • 917 messages
Just to add the conclusion to my previous post:

Regarding length, the faction idea essentially means you can choose how long you want your gameplay experience to be. For people who just want a quick playthrough, you can just play the main quest. For people who want a substantial playthrough, you join as many factions as possible. For people who want replay value, you choose the opposite factions the second time round, or see what happens when you side with neither the Templars nor the rebel mages, for instance.

This means each player can cater their playthrough to their unique gameplay style, without compromising quality and content for players who have different preferences.

#196
Dragoonlordz

Dragoonlordz
  • Members
  • 9 920 messages

plnero wrote...

Quality over quantity, please. Would you rather have an amazing 20 hour story or a half assed 50 hour story? RPG's have a lot of replay value, if you play an RPG a few times to get everything you can out of it then you'll get more then enough play time out of it.


Again this stance is no better than the 60 hours better than 20 hours one.

I would rather have an amazing 60 hour game than half assed 20 hour. See how it works?

Where do people get this assumption just because it's longer is must be worse than the shorter versions? Thats just plain silly and pointless argument to make for one over other. A 60 hour amazing game is better than a 20 hour amazing game. Thats 40 more hours worth of amazing you can experience compared to the 20 hour version. Who is to say a 60 hour amazing game does not have great replay value as much (if not more so due to the nature of having more content within that can lead to more differences) than a 20 hour amazing game?

I want a 60-100 hour amazing game with great replay value. I would take an amazing 60-100 hour game over an amazing 20 hour game any day of the week. If your going to argue against one vs another then treat them as equal quality in comparrison. No one asks for bad quality long game, they ask for an amazing quality long game.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 octobre 2012 - 01:29 .


#197
naughty99

naughty99
  • Members
  • 5 801 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

plnero wrote...

Quality over quantity, please. Would you rather have an amazing 20 hour story or a half assed 50 hour story?


Unless the replay value is incredibly high, personally, I'd never fork over $60 for an "amazing" 20-hour game.


Yet people regularly fork over $10 for pedestrian 2 hour movies.


People make their purchase decisions and respond to price points based on a frame of reference of comparable goods or services they've purchased in the past.

I'm comfortable paying around $100-150 for great dinner, concert tickets, drinks at a bar with friends, etc., because that's what I've paid in the past. Accordingly, I'd never pay $100 for a cinema ticket, but I have no problem paying $12-15 simply because that's what I've paid in the past, and it's a fun experience to go and see a movie with the gf, or a group of friends. 

I've paid $60 for games like Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas where each playthrough lasts 100-200 hours and I will probably end up playing a dozen different characters. Still haven't even scratched the surface of that game yet, not to mention all the free mods with quests and gameplay adjustments.

I paid around $80 for DA:O + Awakenings, where I played so many different characters to try all the origin stories and ended up playing probably a few hundred hours.

With the exception of Witcher 2, the past several games I paid full price for have all provided at least a few hundred total hours of entertainment value, including Civ 5, DA2, FNV, Skyrim, and I'm expecting probably ME3 will provide a similar value whenever I get around to playing it a second or third time.

And I've purchased dozens of great games around $5 or less via Steam, including
- Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth
- Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
- Alpha Protocol
- Amnesia the Dark Descent
- Mass Effect 1
- Bastion
- Bulletstorm
- the Deus Ex series
- the Gothic series
- the Hitman series
- Metro 2033
- Just Cause 2
- most of the Total War and Paradox grand strategy series
- Dead Space 1 and 2
- Bioshock 1 & 2
- the Thief series
- the Stalker series

With this frame of reference of I just can't bring myself to pay full price for any short game with very limited replay value when I'm accustomed to receiving a much higher value in terms of enjoyable hours of entertainment per dollar spent on a game.

Modifié par naughty99, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:11 .


#198
Scott Sion

Scott Sion
  • Members
  • 913 messages

Ahglock wrote...
Shouldn't we request, hell expect both from a big game company who you are throwing a base $60 at?
 

 
My point is that quantity shouldn't be a problem if the quality is there. If the game can fulfill your expectations within 20 hours what's the point of dragging it on for 30 more hours? I’m sick of people expecting EVERYTHING from these companies. I can see why people would expect things such as a well written story and ending to that story, but sometimes fans expect too much.

These companies have budgets and time restraints they have to keep in mind while making these games. It’s normal to expect a well written story with good gameplay but you’re expecting this game to meet every expectation you have for it and frankly that isn’t possible.

Forgive me if I sound rude, I just don’t feel it’s realistic to expect complete perfection from these big game companies.

Dragoonlordz wrote...
 
Again this stance is no better than the 60 hours better than 20 hours one.
 
I would rather have an amazing 60 hour game than half assed 20 hour. See how it works?
 
Where do people get this assumption just because it's longer is must be worse than the shorter versions? Thats just plain silly and pointless argument to make for one over other. A 60 hour amazing game is better than a 20 hour amazing game. Thats 40 more hours worth of amazing you can experience compared to the 20 hour version. Who is to say a 60 hour amazing game does not have great replay value as much (if not more so due to the nature of having more content within that can lead to more differences) than a 20 hour amazing game?

I want a 60-100 hour amazing game with great replay value. I would take an amazing 60-100 hour game over an amazing 20 hour game any day of the week. If your going to argue against one vs another then treat them as equal quality in comparrison. No one asks for bad quality long game, they ask for an amazing quality long game.

If they can produce 60 hours of amazing content then I'm all for it. However if they give us a 20 hour game that manages to get the job done then why complain? All I'm saying is that more content is always nice but you don't need it to make a good game.

Modifié par plnero, 11 octobre 2012 - 01:44 .


#199
Icinix

Icinix
  • Members
  • 8 188 messages

Maria Caliban wrote...

50 hours is long? And takes months to finish?

Todd23 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Todd23 wrote...

True RPGs... never end.

..the just role again...?

They remain in your heart.  Posted Image

D'awww. That was unexpectedly sweet and insightful.


Indeed. Made me shed a tear and spare a moments thought for all the RPG's over the years over morning coffee.

#200
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Re: Alpha Protocol-> I missed a mission entirely in my first playthrough literally because I bought the story that was handed to me, partially because it was somewhat convincing, but also because RPGs have trained me to do this.

I think roleplaying games are much more rewarding if we resist that training.