391 réponses à ce sujet

[Erstus]

Oh, I agree about ME3. I was speaking in regards to DA: Origins and Mass Effect 1-2.

[Mathias]

 

 

I don't really agree about the balance of filler and story in ME1, but that's because the story itself was terribly undermined by all that open-ended exploration. ME2 is really the one that I feel had the best setup for all that exploring. It's just too bad it was marred by all that Cerberus nonsense and the N7 missions themselves were pretty meh. Granted, you don't have to do any of the side stuff in ME1 (though the bare minimum to acquire power in Inquisition is not that high to begin with), but if you don't do any of it, you're actually looking at a very short game, which is what people criticized Inquisition of. 

ME1's story is pretty short, but what's there is great in terms of pacing and story. But there was plenty of side content in ME1 that had they're own little stories to them, which is what encouraged people like me to do them. If you cut ME1 and DA:I completely down to nothing but their main story, they're both short games. But ME1's plot was way more satisfying, wheras DA:I left me with a "that's it?" kind of feeling.

 

But okay, maybe ME:A could end up similar in that what's there for the story is great. I don't exactly have high hopes for that though, given how much of a letdown their past few games have been. Because Bioware games haven't reached the same heights they used to for about 5 years now.

[wolfhowwl]

ME3 kind of had this kind of dialogue as well, only it was primarily autodialogue; the only time you got to make a decision was during those support X or Y, and the rest of the time it was just the companion cycling through lines that were related to the previous mission. After playing ME3 countless times and Inquisition a few times by now, I don't think that ME3 really has more cut scene dialogue than Inquisition does. Inquisition simply has more dialogue in general. 

 

Didn't ME3 have around the same number of cutscene conversations with a party member as the other games? It seems BioWare tried to make the companions seem more involved with the story by recording some low cost audio clips about events in the game instead of just throwing you back into another canned sequence where you're told that some calibrations have to be done.

 

Interestingly this seemed to have backfired with some players who reacted very poorly to the contrast in production values.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cinematics and a voiced protagonist have been hallmarks of this series since its inception in 2007.

 

You want Mass Effect to be something it isn't and was never intended to be.

I'm talking about RPGs generally, not just Mass Effect.

 

Mass Effect has always failed on these points, and I don't expect that to change.  I'm not asking it to change.  By BioWare's previously established standards of player angecy, the ME games are not good - and no one is disputing that.

 

But I want it widely known that it could have been different.  Just because most games do something doesn't make that thing mandatory.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The advance of technology is a deflationary force.  So why are games getting more expensive to make?

[9TailsFox]

The advance of technology is a deflationary force.  So why are games getting more expensive to make?

Need create new code for new hardware, create better graphics need more programming, bigger world, I honestly don't know just guessing.

[Pasquale1234]

The advance of technology is a deflationary force.  So why are games getting more expensive to make?

The compulsion to use technology because it is available?

It seems that every advance brings higher expectations.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't think of a recent game that is as good as Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and that game was made by a company that employed only 17 people, including administrative staff.

[electrifried]

Long games are awesome if the gameplay adds value to the story.  I think DAI had way too much filler content and boring quests. And too much mining in ME2. I love the cutscenes and dialogue that goes with these games though so I think the more character building and story the better, if that means a longer game then hell yes. 

[rashie]

The advance of technology is a deflationary force.  So why are games getting more expensive to make?

They are getting more expensive to make because they require more complex game programming, higher quality assets and so on. As the limits of what hardware can do goes up, so does the amount of time needed to create the content. Its quite frankly a miracle how games still haven't moved past 60 dollars as a standard pricing in over 2 decades with inflation and thus increased costs, for the gamer that is.

[Il Divo]

That's true. And it's still kinda funny in the sense that gamers bemoan dlc and the loss of expansions claiming it's corporate greed.

[Black Jimmy]

ME:A will probably take after all those games, if it's taking a few cues from DA:I. Any game that has a non-linear approach to story telling is going to be a least of a bit of a time sink.

 

I can't help but notice though that every game you listed has a selling point of being huge open(ish) world type games. Being long and exhaustive is kinda the idea, right?

 

I'll usually invest everything into a game like that until I finish (like DA:I) or burn out (like Witcher 3) then fill the in between time with short games. My advice is to step away from massive games like that until you get an itch for it again.

[Erstus]

ME1's story is pretty short, but what's there is great in terms of pacing and story. But there was plenty of side content in ME1 that had they're own little stories to them, which is what encouraged people like me to do them. If you cut ME1 and DA:I completely down to nothing but their main story, they're both short games. But ME1's plot was way more satisfying, wheras DA:I left me with a "that's it?" kind of feeling.
 
But okay, maybe ME:A could end up similar in that what's there for the story is great. I don't exactly have high hopes for that though, given how much of a letdown their past few games have been. Because Bioware games haven't reached the same heights they used to for about 5 years now.

Agreed. Not to mention Mass Effect 1 has a very high replay value as where DAI I have yet to even complete fully.

Of course, some have played through DAI multiple times. But I just have to force myself through it

[Rhidor]

Why do some many people need so much time for games to finish? I'm not rushing anything, and the longest I ever took for a game was TW3 with roughly 50 hours.

What are you doing so long in a game? Doing all the sidequest even if they don't interest you?

[Mathias]

Why do some many people need so much time for games to finish? I'm not rushing anything, and the longest I ever took for a game was TW3 with roughly 50 hours.

What are you doing so long in a game? Doing all the sidequest even if they don't interest you?

 

I've heard many people say it took them 100+ hours to do everything in DA:I. It took me 70 hours, and that was on Nightmare. I'm not trying to sound elitist, although that may be too late. But I really don't understand how it takes some people as long as they do. And bare in mind, I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to playing on Nightmare. I had my fair share of struggles and really dumb mistakes. So what are these people doing exactly that's taking them 100-120 hours to do everything?

 

I had one guy say it took him 50 hours to complete DA2. What? Just what?

[FKA_Servo]

I've heard many people say it took them 100+ hours to do everything in DA:I. It took me 70 hours, and that was on Nightmare. I'm not trying to sound elitist, although that may be too late. But I really don't understand how it takes some people as long as they do. And bare in mind, I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to playing on Nightmare. I had my fair share of struggles and really dumb mistakes. So what are these people doing exactly that's taking them 100-120 hours to do everything?

 

I had one guy say it took him 50 hours to complete DA2. What? Just what?

 

That might as well have been me. My Mass Effect playthroughs (all of them) top 50 hours without DLC too, at least the first time around.

 

I don't know what I'm doing though, apart from just playing the game.

 

I would add that I have about 120 hours played in The Witcher 3, and my progress tracker says I'm less than 40% complete. I made it to the island where you find Ciri before I put my playthrough on hold to wait for the patch and expansion.

 

There's a lot to savor in some games.

[Pasquale1234]

I've heard many people say it took them 100+ hours to do everything in DA:I. It took me 70 hours, and that was on Nightmare. I'm not trying to sound elitist, although that may be too late. But I really don't understand how it takes some people as long as they do. And bare in mind, I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to playing on Nightmare. I had my fair share of struggles and really dumb mistakes. So what are these people doing exactly that's taking them 100-120 hours to do everything?
 
I had one guy say it took him 50 hours to complete DA2. What? Just what?

Unless you consider it some sort of race to a finish line, the amount of time one takes to complete a playthrough of a game isn't a competition where the most skilled player (with the shortest time) "wins".

Some people pause frequently to consider their character's thoughts, feelings, motives, goals, priorities. Some explore every nook and cranny of every environment, and spend some time looking around and studying the details, while others run through to the next thing. Some headcanon in details the game itself does not provide. Some relish and spend time processing major events, while others just move on.

In the same way, some people chew each bite of food thoroughly and take awhile to polish off a meal while others wolf it all down. People also read books at different rates, and end up with different take aways from them.

For some people, the idea of "beating" a game is a thing, a palpable goal. Others don't care so much about the destination, but are more invested in the journey.

Different strokes and all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I've heard many people say it took them 100+ hours to do everything in DA:I. It took me 70 hours, and that was on Nightmare. I'm not trying to sound elitist, although that may be too late. But I really don't understand how it takes some people as long as they do. And bare in mind, I'm not exactly an expert when it comes to playing on Nightmare. I had my fair share of struggles and really dumb mistakes. So what are these people doing exactly that's taking them 100-120 hours to do everything?

I had one guy say it took him 50 hours to complete DA2. What? Just what?

Exploring. I don’t head directly toward destinations, necessarily. I don't even always know what my destination is. I'm just heading out to investigate things.

I don't know what there is for me to do. I have to go looking.

I also don't fast travel much. I don’t like fast travel. I'd rather walk.

My only complete DAI playthrough so far (with JoH) took 151 hours.

I also use the tactical camera for nearly every fight, so that slows things down a bit.

When I explore, I tend not to use paths, so I'm constantly parkouring up hills to see if I can find another way (the invisible walls in the Hinterlands were very annoying).

I like to go through an area before I get quests for it, and then when I do have quests I know where stuff is. Because I don’t like looking for things, but I do enjoy just looking around.

[Erstus]

Oh, I take my time and fully immerse in the game when I play it. Codex entries, side-quests that pertain to the main story or my personal story, all dialogue, and sometimes just admiring the atmosphere.

[Sartoz]

That's true. And it's still kinda funny in the sense that gamers bemoan dlc and the loss of expansions claiming it's corporate greed.

                                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

Oh?

DLC's then are what? a new mini-game ... a fresh development?

 

Let's take DA:I - Trespasser... the most recent and supposedly last DLC. From what I've seen (haven't played it yet, though I bought it), this "DLC" is clearly part of the main game.  The characters, the voices, the sonar pings, the resource gathering animations ... all are hallmarks of DA:I.  And, from what I understand, you need to finish the original game first.... before you can play the DLC.... semi spoiler =  seems like the party gets attacked by spirits because of what Morrigan did/did not do in the main game.

 

Also, it's another reason why the DA:I ending boss fight was meh.... the real ending is Trespasser (IMO).

 

So, tell me again why this is not corporate greed?

 

 

PS:

GamerMD83 has a you tube channel where she shows her play through of Trespasser.

link: https://www.youtube.com/user/gamermd83

[FKA_Servo]

                                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

Oh?

DLC's then are what? a new mini-game ... a fresh development?

 

Let's take DA:I - Trespasser... the most recent and supposedly last DLC. From what I've seen (haven't played it yet, though I bought it), this "DLC" is clearly part of the main game.  The characters, the voices, the sonar pings, the resource gathering animations ... all are hallmarks of DA:I.  And, from what I understand, you need to finish the original game first.... before you can play the DLC.... semi spoiler =  seems like the party gets attacked by spirits because of what Morrigan did/did not do in the main game.

 

Also, it's another reason why the DA:I ending boss fight was meh.... the real ending is Trespasser (IMO).

 

So, tell me again why this is not corporate greed?

 

 

PS:

GamerMD83 has a you tube channel where she shows her play through of Trespasser.

link: https://www.youtube.com/user/gamermd83

 

Why save the revelation that Darth Vader is Luke's father for the second film? Such an important twist should have been in the first one!

 

Why make a trilogy of games at all? It's disgraceful that they're making us shell out for three games when they could tell the whole story in one!

 

Trespasser wasn't held out of the main game, according to the developers. They began work on it after they buttoned up JoH. You are, of course, free to disbelieve them when they say that. In any case, I like expansions, and these days, DLC is the form that they take. If I like a game, I'd love the opportunity to continue the story, and the prospect of meaty content like the stuff in Trespasser is the very thing that would make it desirable. Yeah, they're not releasing it for free, but they're not releasing it to ****** us off, either - it's pretty clear that they've listened to and addressed a lot of the criticism they've received, and believe it's a worthwhile addition to the story. And it's actually the very definition of value-adding DLC - in addition to some really wonderful story stuff, it adds new upgrades to each active ability, new gameplay modes and new rewards throughout the entire game.

 

You bought it - play it for yourself and judge.

[CronoDragoon]

 So, tell me again why this is not corporate greed?

 

It isn't corporate greed because vanilla DA: I is what they could make with the time and resources they had. Trespasser is what they could make as DLC after release. Trespasser wasn't developed during vanilla DA: I.

 

Your post simply sounds like a consumer wanting free stuff regardless of the realities of development.

[FKA_Servo]

It isn't corporate greed because vanilla DA: I is what they could make with the time and resources they had. Trespasser is what they could make as DLC after release. Trespasser wasn't developed during vanilla DA: I.

 

Your post simply sounds like a consumer wanting free stuff regardless of the realities of development.

 

This is what corporate greed looks like, incidentally.

 

Kinda makes DAI's old gen debacle look altruistic.

[CronoDragoon]

 

This is what corporate greed looks like, incidentally.

 

Kinda makes DAI's old gen debacle look altruistic.

 

Hm, is it? They dropped the price $10 because they took out the campaign. Had they kept the same price I'd agree.

[FKA_Servo]

Hm, is it? They dropped the price $10 because they took out the campaign. Had they kept the same price I'd agree.

 

I'm not a Call of Duty player, though if I were, I'd be playing the campaigns (and I have in the distant past, though not since MW1 - which was really good!). It's still a decent chunk just cut right out - worth more than $10, I would say.

 

And obviously I could be wrong, but I foresee even just the MP being a buggy, unworkable mess on old gen consoles - which will still likely sell in record numbers, considering the huge install base and the fact that many CoD fans might be more casual than others and consequently less likely to have upgraded or to keep informed about this stuff - and they're only lowering it $10?

 

I think it's pretty shameless. But I'm also of the opinion that as awful as EA can seem, they're not as bad as Activision.