72 réponses à ce sujet

[Spectre_Moncy]

My first ME2 playthrough = 67 hours (around 10 systems I didn't scan plus a few N7 mission not completed).



Waiting for the next patch and Hammerhead DLC so I can start 2nd playthrough

[-D-C-D-]

javierabegazo wrote...

-D-C-D- wrote...

Javi...what a post! You have inspired some FANTASTIC new "things to do in ME2" ideas man

It looks so awesome when you Pull an enemy, Slam him, and while he's in the air, do a cuncossive shot, then do another slam

I recommend experimenting Or try Area Charging a group of unprotected mercs after they've been shockwaved in a narrow corridor

Perhaps we should make a thread coming up with all the crazy combinations

Ha! Would be worth a contribution! Like "what's the most awesome power combo you've done in ME2" type thing. I'd love to see tech powers brought into the power combo situation. Like, imagine lifting a frozen enemy, then warping him and raining sharp pieces of frozen Krogan over the battlefield. EPIC.

Modifié par -D-C-D-, 01 mars 2010 - 05:29 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Why does everyone else get these insanely short completion times?



It took me about 80 hours (minus a few hours of idling) to complete my Vanguard playthrough on Hardcore... but I had about 300,000 extra in every mineral except for element zero, which could explain where 10 of those hours went, but still...

[addiction21]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Why does everyone else get these insanely short completion times?

It took me about 80 hours (minus a few hours of idling) to complete my Vanguard playthrough on Hardcore... but I had about 300,000 extra in every mineral except for element zero, which could explain where 10 of those hours went, but still...

I dunno for me I am amazed people are pull 80 hours out of it. I am not being insulting or anything but my first play thru was close to 40 hours for ME2 and 20 or so hours for ME1, and I am the sort that goes everywhere, clicks on everything, talks to everybody, tries everything, and all that.
Just different people doing things their own way. Theres no wrong way as long as your having fun.

[ImperialOperative]

- ME1 took me 25-30 hours the first time through. Maybe I did 70% of the sidequests.



- ME2 took me 40-45 hours my first time through (so far my only playthrough, most games I only play through once, ME1 was an exception because I switched to PC).



I spent 2 hours scanning planets MAX. I explored 100% though, only scanned around 15-20 planets at 2-4 minutes per planet (add in travel and restock time, adds to ~2 hours).



Did all side-quests (DLC included).

[Your Synthetic Superior]

pheelgood wrote...

I've run through twice... first time 29 hours, second time 26 hours..  This is much shorter than ME1.. What gives?

My latest ME1 game was about 50 hours at lvl 55 with a new game.
ME2 was 67 hours at lvl 28 1st playthrough

About a 17 hour difference. My times are probably longer than most because I walk when not in a combat situation. ME2 is longer.

I have a friend who says he beat it in 15 hours with all recruited, all their loyals and all weapon/ship upgrades. Made me wonder if the Xbox version has a faulty clock because 15 hours seems too short even if you run around everywhere like a chicken with its head cut off.

[Darkstar87uk]

ME2 is longer, ME1 had hardly any main missions and just tons of crappy assignments. If you played on casual you could probably complete it in 5 hours tbh

[Booshnickins]

The only thing that made ME1 longer was driving around in the Mako. I just made another level 60 character on there to import to ME2 and it took 25 hours to go through the game twice. That's doing all the side missions, except for the mindless resources etc. I'd go to a planet, kill whoever, then leave. You'll beat the game so much faster that way. I still managed to hit level 57 on the first play through without doing all the boring driving.

[DarthCaine]

I did everything in 35 hours

[KatanaMaster95]

Mass Effect
1st Playthorugh - 30-ish hours
2nd Playthrough - In Progress...

Mass Effect 2
1st Playthrough - 26hrs
2nd Playthrough - 28hrs
3rd Playthrough - 17hrs (Insanity Quick Run)

[Rm80]

im playing my first insanity character now and each mission takes me several hours.....so im guessing this probably will take almost 80 hours

[Domyk]

javierabegazo wrote...

I hate all this complaining about "Game Hour Mileage." It's really ridiculous.
Do you want a 80 hour game with mediocre content or a 30-40 hour game with hi fidelity, action, driving story, great digital acting, every character being fully voiced, in addition to different classes that alter playstyles.

Well put.  Bioware storyline and characters are second to none.

[Costin_Razvan]

My first playthrough was 42 hours. And I had around 100.000 minerals on each with full upgrades, all planets explored etc.



My second was 26 hours, with everything done.

[Domyk]

As in my other thread I am a complete newb to the Mass Effect universe. I was scanning these forums to read up on Dragon Age Awakening and decided to read what all the fuss was about with Mass effect, heh.



Anyways to cut a long story short, bought ME2 at Best buy, got past the tutorial then came back to the forums and the playerbase said to play ME1 first. Have since downloaded ME1 via Steam and playing it. Characters and storyline is so immersive in Bioware titles. Pretty much gets you hooked within the first hour, it's just like watching a long epic movie, hah.

[Nyaore]

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

ME1 was a lot longer. The only possible reason I can think of why people are thinking ME2 is longer is because of the planet scanning.

Really? Because if you go purely from a main quest standpoint ME2 definitely comes out on top. I've heard people say that they could beat ME1 in less than ten hours if they didn't bother with all the sidequests, I have yet to hear people claim the same for ME2. Besides a lot of the hours one could log in ME1 involved SOLELY searching around in the Mako. If you take away all those hours and focus solely on the quests involved and not how long it takes you to get there, then ME1 is definitely shorter even if you take out 2's planet scanning.
That said however, who cares really? Both games are much longer than most games are these days, and infinitely more enjoyable.

Modifié par Nyaore, 01 mars 2010 - 07:44 .

[Nyaore]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Why does everyone else get these insanely short completion times?

It took me about 80 hours (minus a few hours of idling) to complete my Vanguard playthrough on Hardcore... but I had about 300,000 extra in every mineral except for element zero, which could explain where 10 of those hours went, but still...

Game difficulty has a lot to do with it I'd imagine. A twenty minute mission on Casual can easily go on for several hours on Hardcore/Insanity. A lot of people, myself included, probably chose to play on either Normal or Casual for their first and/or subsequent playthroughs - which accounts for their low playing times. I'm still working my way up to Hardcore personally... *is working on a Veteran playthrough at the moment*

[DarthCaine]

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

ME1 was a lot longer. The only possible reason I can think of why people are thinking ME2 is longer is because of the planet scanning.

And the only possible reason I can think of why people are thinking ME1 is longer are all those boring collection quests (getting stuff with the Mako)

But even so, they were the same lenght for me (I did every collection quest in ME2 and scanned enough planets in ME2)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 01 mars 2010 - 07:43 .

[UHitMeInTheEar]

I completed my first playthrough of Halo 2, Halo 3, Gears of War and Gears of War two in less time then my first ME1 playthrough. About 40 hours.

I think my total ME1 play time is around 120-150 hours...which was 2 complete play throughs and 3 partials.

I'm only in the 20's on ME2 and looking at how much it appears I still have to do I should hit 40 hours easy.

[Bob5312]

javierabegazo wrote...

I hate all this complaining about "Game Hour Mileage." It's really ridiculous.
Do you want a 80 hour game with mediocre content or a 30-40 hour game with hi fidelity, action, driving story, great digital acting, every character being fully voiced, in addition to different classes that alter playstyles.
...
Games give as much as you give, and if you don't have the sense and intelligence to appreciate how much work goes into something, then well, that's your problem and not all related to the quality of a game.

I do not disagree that Mass Effect one and two were both excellent games, with all of the attributes that you list above, Sir.  However, I don't know that I reject the 'game hour mileage' argument as completely as you do.  While I would rather play an excellent game for 40 hours than a mediocre game for 80 hours, I do not know that I would pay full price (~$60) for the hypothetical Best Game Ever Made if it came in under three hours of playtime, for example. 

I confess, Sir, that I resent your implication that an inability to appreciate the amount of work that goes into something is due to a lack of sense or intelligence on my part.  I have no experience with things like AI programming, for example, so I cannot know how hard it is to design AI that makes effective use of cover.  All I notice is that the AI (friendly or enemy) does not make effective use of cover.  This is perhaps somewhat unfair, but it is the way of things; when the Tacoma bridge fell down, nobody talked about everything that was done right or how much other excellent work went into designing the bridge. 

I also reject your assertion that a game is meant to be played a certain way, and that this is the only way to appreciate it.  While it is unreasonable to judge a game by standards that are not its own (comparing ME2 to a straight action game like Half Life 2), I do not think that a person that likes, say, Gears of War and dislikes ME2 is wrong; they are looking for something else in a game.  To such a player, the dialogue merely breaks up the action.  This is neither a fault with the game, nor a fault with the player; the game is intended for a different audience.  Your argument reminds me of Modern Art afficionados who claim that a small black square on a white background is a triumph of creativity and expression, and that any who do not appreciate this are lacking the refinement and intelligence to see it.  I, for my part, see a small black square.

Please understand, Sir, that I am criticizing your arguments and not your conclusions.  I think ME2 is one of the best games that I have ever played.  I prefer a story-driven game with an interactive dialogue system and a series of branching decision-consequence trees to an action game with occasional non-interactive cut-scenes to explain the (meagre) story. 

I finished both ME1 and ME2 with around 40 hours playtime on my first runs through, on hardcore, with all of the side missions done.

[Flash_in_the_flesh]

javierabegazo wrote...


Games give as much as YOU GIVE.
I can breeze through ME2 on Easy, skipping conversations and cutscenes, even with grabbing all the upgrades, and I can beat it in 14 hours.
OR
I can play the game like it was MEANT to be played. For me, that includes:
-Reading ALL codex entries
-Doing ALL sidequests
-Getting all available upgrades
-Reading planet descriptions
-Playing on a difficulty that is challenging for your gaming skill level (for me, that means Insanity)
-Really paying attention to the environments and landscapes, and appreciating them

After I played ME2 the way it was meant to be played, my playthrough had logged in 53 hours.

My first playthrough took me 53 hours without reading Codex, planet descriptions and no planet scanning at all. I've cheated resources so I don't have to scan planets.

[ViSeiRa]

Well, it took me 41 hours the first time, didn't skip anything or any conversations, then it got less and less, the last time I finished was just 15 hours, skipped conversations but did all side quests.

[Colinissile]

My longest ME1 playthrough was a bit over 30 hours, and my longest ME2 so far was my first, which was about 47 hours (it was insanity difficulty, as was aforementioned ME1 playthrough).

[BatarianBob]

You could probably get ME1 to last longer if you land on every planet, bounce the Mako over every mountain, explore every generic building and minigame every mineral node.



In terms of actual gameplay, 2 is a lot longer.

[Gaddmeister]

Zem_ wrote...

@OP, the difference is the lack of the Mako. The cookie-cutter UNC worlds of ME1 were more numerous, because they're easier to make and it can take longer to cover them looking for everything that might be there (including mineral deposits that aren't marked on the map) than it does scanning the few planets you actually need to scan to get all the minerals for upgrades. BOTH are meant to consume time and pad gameplay hours so that people can post about how one game is longer or shorter based solely on gameplay hours rather than gameplay quality. The Mako was just better at wasting time.

QFT.

While the Mako was kind of fun (except for the controls) I really don't miss the repetitive side quests in ME1. Too bad they had to change the planet scanning from a simle push on a button in ME1 to what we get in ME2. I only like time consuming elements in games if they're fun. Planet scanning isn't.

[Andaius20]

For me I did 2 plays in ME 2 with everything finished both ended at about 30-3 hours. (hardcore) in ME 1 I did 2 plays with 38-40 hours. on each. (one hardcore, one Insanity)

Modifié par Andaius20, 01 mars 2010 - 08:32 .