173 réponses à ce sujet

[ZoliCs]

This is the biggest improvement you could make to the game.

It's not, more senseless grinding won't make the MAIN story any longer.

[berrieh]

Here's an actual quote (IGN article): 

 

"A completist playthrough takes more than 200 hours," producer Cameron Lee told IGN. Players taking the critical path -- focusing solely on story missions and getting through Inquisition as quickly as possible -- will need 20-30 hours, Lee estimated.

 

 

I can't find any specifically by Laidlaw, except the one in my Prima book (where it says his goal was to craft a story that could be told somewhere between 10-100 hours in variable lengths, depending on player). But Lee is a BioWare employee, and I saw this quote a few times. 

 

20-30 hours sounds about as quickly as possible (assuming Normal difficulty or higher and a first playthrough - so you don't know optimal routes etc) if you are zooming through the story. I'm not sure on 200 hours, but I haven't completed nearly everything. So who knows? (I would also assume completionist means reading everything etc.) 

 

 

Are people even reading what this thread is about?

"But Mike Laidlaw was completely full of it when he said the game would take 50 hours if we ignored every sidequest."

 

Can anyone find this quote so we can address proper context? I cannot find it. 

 

Edit: I find it hard to believe he said "ignored" mainly because....you can't ignore every sidequest....so knowing how the Power mechanic works, that'd just be a stupid thing to say (assuming no mitigating context, like "ignored unnecessary sidequests"). 

[rashie]

This is the biggest improvement you could make to the game.

 

I LOVE the content, and have completed most of it in my 98 hour playthrough- but with a constant niggling sense of just kicking around the place for no reason. Approached the endgame with 100+ power for no purpose and dispiritedly kicked off the last mission. 

 

Tying power requirements to a difficulty level at the start of the game could solve this. Would be easy to implement (I imagine but can't be sure of course). Golly, I hope that's a possibility. 

No its not. Artificially blocking people from accessing the missions doesn't make the main story any longer, nor is it good game design.

[Teagle]

No its not. Artificially blocking people from accessing the missions doesn't make the main story any longer, nor is it good game design.

 

Yeah, I should clarify: that's not the point I was trying to make. I'd love for it to be an OPTION, to make side-content more relevant. For me, that's part of the main story, and would make the whole thing more cohesive. 

 

But no, I didn't mean the main plot line, and should have said that. It would just be padding in that case. 

[KaiserShep]

Here's an actual quote (IGN article): 
 

 
I can't find any specifically by Laidlaw, except the one in my Prima book (where it says his goal was to craft a story that could be told somewhere between 10-100 hours in variable lengths, depending on player). But Lee is a BioWare employee, and I saw this quote a few times. 
 
20-30 hours sounds about as quickly as possible (assuming Normal difficulty or higher and a first playthrough - so you don't know optimal routes etc) if you are zooming through the story. I'm not sure on 200 hours, but I haven't completed nearly everything. So who knows? (I would also assume completionist means reading everything etc.) 
 
 


 
Can anyone find this quote so we can address proper context? I cannot find it.

I'm allergic to reasonable quotes. This hurts me.

[nici2412]

 

Here's an actual quote (IGN article): 

 

 

I can't find any specifically by Laidlaw, except the one in my Prima book (where it says his goal was to craft a story that could be told somewhere between 10-100 hours in variable lengths, depending on player). But Lee is a BioWare employee, and I saw this quote a few times. 

 

20-30 hours sounds about as quickly as possible (assuming Normal difficulty or higher and a first playthrough - so you don't know optimal routes etc) if you are zooming through the story. I'm not sure on 200 hours, but I haven't completed nearly everything. So who knows? (I would also assume completionist means reading everything etc.) 

 

 

 

 

The mentioned 20-30 hours are much more accurate and I'm glad this number comes from a Bioware official so people here can stop defending the claimed 50 hours, which were bulls***** from the beginning. The 200 hours seems like an exaggeration to me, but I think It's more difficult to argue about it than about the lenght of the mainstory.

[Chiramu]

 I expected Cory to at least put a fight as good as he did in DA2.

 

 

The last boss fight was a bore. Click, click, click, click, click, click etc. The only special thing he did was almost one shot my main, I used a potion and he went back on Cassandra. I don't know if I had a lot of DPS power in my group or not but he died so fast >.>(Cole and Dorian were on him the whole time).

 

He had some audio cues that did nothing to the fight either. I'm so used to boss fights in FFXIV that when I now hear audio cues that I look around and see what it is that the game wants me to do. But nope, Corypheus says pretty much, "I'm going to end you!" and it is still, click, click, click, click. 

[LinksOcarina]

It is if you are not biased.

 

Here are a some reasons why short stories are worse:

 

1. Not enough time to explore characters.

• Of course you could have a bunch of conversations with companions and the advisors but that's it. What about the villains? Barely no screen time. The main villain only appears 3 short times in the whole game. And the game is filled with a bunch of secondary villains with no background, no motive...or very pathetic, forced and stupid motives.

2. Not enough character progression.

• For example in DA:O you were...whatever you were in your origin, then a warden conscript, then a warden recruit, then the warden who lead a group of people to save the world, then a leader of armies and then a hero. In this game you start as a prisoner, then a member of the inquisition and then the leader of inquisition.

4. Not enough closure of the plot arcs. Like the Venetori, we never even bothered to beat them directly...

 

3. Lastly the more the better isn't it? If the enjoyment lasts longer then it's better (Why do you think is good to last long in bed? Same reason)

 

 

Except everything you just said is completely subjective to personal taste, bias on your own point of view and supposition to a specific ideal. yet You present it as if it's a fact.

 

This is why you are basically wrong.

[Vormaerin]

The mentioned 20-30 hours are much more accurate and I'm glad this number comes from a Bioware official so people here can stop defending the claimed 50 hours, which were bulls***** from the beginning. The 200 hours seems like an exaggeration to me, but I think It's more difficult to argue about it than about the lenght of the mainstory.

 

We weren't defending the 50 hours.  We were arguing that the attribution (it wasn't a quote) was insufficiently clear to hold Laidlaw accountable for anything.  The OP just had some one saying he said something.   Which is not the basis on which to accuse him of lying.

[Mathias]

The ign article is a lot more reasonable than what Laidlaw claimed.

[Il Divo]

What example? It's obvious, a short good story is nowhere as good as a long good story.

 

What would you say if your favourite movie would be 20 minutes instead of 90-120?

 

Bad argument. 

 

What would you say if your favorite movie was 5 days long instead of 90-120 minutes? 

 

Longer = better does not necessarily follow. A long experience gives the creator more opportunities to eff up the experience, which can be seen with anyone who's ever criticized a sequel/spin-off/ongoing story. 

[Julia Luna]

Bad argument. 

 

What would you say if your favorite movie was 5 days long instead of 90-120 minutes? 

 

Longer = better does not necessarily follow. A long experience gives the creator more opportunities to eff up the experience, which can be seen with anyone who's ever criticized a sequel/spin-off/ongoing story. 

I wish my favorite game would last at least my lifetime. If I was more into movies then hell yeah I'd like my favorite movie to last days, years, decades.

But yeah you are right about most people.

[ZoliCs]

Bad argument. 

 

What would you say if your favorite movie was 5 days long instead of 90-120 minutes? 

 

Longer = better does not necessarily follow. A long experience gives the creator more opportunities to eff up the experience, which can be seen with anyone who's ever criticized a sequel/spin-off/ongoing story. 

You mean like the length of a series? I would be ******* overjoyed.

[ZoliCs]

Except everything you just said is completely subjective to personal taste, bias on your own point of view and supposition to a specific ideal. yet You present it as if it's a fact.

 

This is why you are basically wrong.

First 3 point wasn't subjective at all. You are the one who is biased beyond reason so I won't waste my breath.

[mikeymoonshine]

Ugh, people are so quick to accuse devs of "lying" these days, maybe that says something about the industry. As others have said that is not a direct quote and so we don't know the context of the comment. We do have direct quotes from lee and they seem to reflect the quickest play times being reported by people here. So lets all just put our pitchforks down now, ok? 

 

I would have liked the main story to be a bit longer because I like long main plots. Still though, I don't think this game has particularly less main story content than most other Bioware games. Origins had about the same it just had a bunch of long dungeons you had to get through. 

[Travie]

Bioware has a history of this, another post release factoid that isn't surprising in the least. They said DA2 was 40-60 hours but the vanilla game can have a completionist playthrough only last 25-30 hours. 

[LinksOcarina]

First 3 point wasn't subjective at all. You are the one who is biased beyond reason so I won't waste my breath.

 

Actually they are, that's the problem.  I also have not shown any bias, mainly because I never said it was good or bad, i'm pointing out the fact that your presumptions are not objectively factual. 

 

****** people sometimes, they never learn do they. 

[ZoliCs]

Actually they are, that's the problem.  I also have not shown any bias, mainly because I never said it was good or bad, i'm pointing out the fact that your presumptions are not objectively factual. 

 

****** people sometimes, they never learn do they. 

Really? Then ask anyone if the villains in this game are well written or not...I'll be waiting.

 

You are the one who just throws around petty insults, I made my point, now try to counter big mouth.

[Johnsen1972]

DAO can be completed in 35 minutes by speedrunners and I have never seen anyone complain that the dev lied about how long it takes to finish it...

 

He was cheating using a glitch. Right after Ostagar, he did the landsmeet. So thats NOT a viable argument.

 

[LinksOcarina]

Really? Then ask anyone if the villains in this game are well written or not...I'll be waiting.

 

You are the one who just throws around petty insults, I made my point, now try to counter big mouth.

 

What people honestly think does not matter, because that is what they think.

 

The issue stems from taking what you personally think and spinning it into something you "know" to be a truth. That is simply not the case in the end, because what you think is subjective. There is enough burden of proof for either stance, which is the point I am making. 

 

Your point, in which short stories are inferior to long stories, and entire argument you have presented as proof, was invalid from the start because of how you framed it. It is not just a bad argument, it's one that is founded on confirmation bias of what you personally enjoy, and not anyone else. You also didn't really give good examples of long or short games that have good stories.

 

Here is some. Costume Quest, an RPG with a fun little story to it that lasts at most 6 hours. Or how about The Last of Us? I don't like the story in it personally, but people herald it as one of the best ever told, and it can be beaten in less than 20 hours, complete with drop-in villians per section, for example, and a big bad with a hidden agenda of course. Hell if were even going to use that as an example, Origins has the same problem since you don't see the Archdemon until the end, and Loghain until just before the end, outside of a few cut-scenes.

 

Then you go into ad homenins against me because you really do have nothing to say in the end, do you. You presented you're argument, sure, and I reject it as being a flimsy argument because it simply is flimsy, biased, and frankly a waste of my time proving it. 

 

But since you asked nicely...

[pengwin21]

Really? Then ask anyone if the villains in this game are well written or not...I'll be waiting.

 

You are the one who just throws around petty insults, I made my point, now try to counter big mouth.

 

I would say that I enjoyed Alexius as a villain- he has a bit of a different motivation than your standard Tevinter blood mage bwahaha and him being depressed in the timeline where Corypheus actually wins made me feel a bit sorry for him.

[AresKeith]

Here we go again, this isn't about speedrun (which nobody done with this game yet) but a normal playthrough...

 

And a normal playthrough varies among people

[Abraham_uk]

How long is any video game?

As long as the player makes it.

 

If you're Angry Joe that's "FOUR HOURS!!!!!!"

 

 

 

That was a joke.

[dantares83]

that is an rather absurb accusation/unfair comment.

 

I think when Mike Laidlaw says 50 hours, he meant the average gamer. Some gamers would defintely finish in half the time without skipping much of the story/dialogue, sure, but average players will take 50 hours.

 

Believe it or not, I took 99 hours to finish DAO (and all its DLCs) in my first playthrough. Much of the time was waiting for the voiceover to be over and reading the huge lore in my codex. And also travelling to all areas one more time after i completed a main quest just to see if there are any differences in the dialogue.

 

In my subsequent playthrough, a 100% playthrough took less than 50 hours but I am a slow gamer like that. Still, i did not miss any dialogue (though I press esc ocassionally once i speedread through the subtitles) and reread some of my codex.

 

So an average player who take time and read the lore and complete the absolute min sidequests (to get the power needed) will probably take 50 hours. It is an average. If you need much less time than that, it is more for bragging rights than anything and it is not the fault of the devs.

 

Besides, nowadays, do we really judge a game by its length anymore? "The Last of Us" which is agrubly the best game I have ever played took a slow player like me 17 hours only. So i fully expect any professional gamer can finish in like less than 10. But anyone who said "The Last of Us" is a bad game due to its length just don't know how to appreciate anything this good in my opinion.

[XMissWooX]

Presumably those numbers took into account the 5-10 or so of those hours you'll spend rebooting you PC after it crashes for the umpteenth time...



EDI: "That was a joke"