65 réponses à ce sujet

[Elanareon]

On other note, Final Fantasy sucks. Never enjoyed those games....

[Archfiend]

after DA:O it does seem like a ripoff. however many games clock in with the same time frame (and under) and can cost more. it really depends on how long it takes to beat and if you replay it. the question of is the game is worth the money is totally subjective. personally i think it would have been worth $30 but not $40 in hindsight. that is comparing it to DA:O, as a "stand alone" product 15 (average) hours+ the ability to replay isnt to bad. thats under $3 an hour if you never touch it again after beating it (about the price of a movie).

[Bryy_Miller]

JKJEDIKNIGHT wrote...

Name a GOOD RPG which is good and is as short as Awakening. This argument comes ALL the time. RPG's are supposed to be about epic story telling, great character development, tears being shed

This is where I should of stopped reading.

Have you finished ANY Final Fantasy game in the last 10 years as fast as you can Awakening?

 

But this is where I actually did. 
Final Fantasy should not be considered the standard for RPG Quality. Not by a long shot.

[Dj LynZee]

JKJEDIKNIGHT wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Suikoden was pretty short, and actually they both have some similar gameplay ideas

There are 4 of them, are there not?  Which one do you speak of?  And I can't say I thought they were really any good.  And I'm not trying to put a "standard" on RPG's, but if you WANTED to, I would say you put your standard at something such as Final Fantasy.  Given that as a standard, DA:OA fails epically by comparison.  So by all means you nut huggers run on here and rail off the excuses about how it's "an expansion" and blah blah blah.  Okay, the day they stop selling it as a regularly priced game, then I will believe it's "an expansion".  Until then, it's an over priced RPG no where near worth the heft price tag.  Anyone on the fence about purchasing DA:OA, I would recommend to you, pony up a few more dollars and buy FFXIII, because I guarantee you, you'll get your money's worth and it will be a hell of a lot more hours than 10.

Someone is RRAAAAGGGEEEEDDD!

FFXIII was terrible. One of my least favorite FF games to date. I don't much care for 'the amount of hours' required to play a game. If the game is really good, but short I can still enjoy it. Quality, not quantity. That being said, Awakening did fall short of my expectations, but I still found it enjoyable.
I have a life outside of gaming, so MOAR HOURS to me can just be annoying. If the game is too, too long I lose interest and just set the game aside. Some Final Fantasy games had that effect.
This whole argument reminds me of the Halo: ODST one. but ODST was ACTUALLY a waste of money and only a fanboy could find such overpriced **** entertaining. And they charged it as a full game when it clearly isn't.

But after re-reading several of your posts I see you're just another one of those Final Fantasy fanboys/weeaboos so... keep up the raging!

Modifié par Dj LynZee, 22 mars 2010 - 09:53 .

[Ingrimm22]

JKJEDIKNIGHT wrote...

 I hate to say it, but if this is BIOWARE's new approach towards games, they need to take a long hard look at their old work, and at Squaresoft and get back on the bike and ride this out the right way or Origins will be the last game from them that I purchase.  If this means taking 4 years to make like Origins did, or like the Final Fantasy games do, then so be it, but don't just push out garbage titles with your name attached and treat the customers like fools.

You really got to be kidding me. Square didn't release a good game since FF X and even that was mediocre compared to former games in the series. FF XIII (which i just played) is a huge heap of good looking crap. The 40 + hours i put into this game where far worse than even an hour of Awakening. I just played both game back to back and i gotta say Awakening is so much better, there is really no comparison. And i'm a huge Fan of JRPGs.

FF XIII may be 60 hours long, but it's a tedious, horribly designed mess. Even if Awakening where just 8 hours long (which it isn't) i'd prefer quality over quantitiy any time.

Ah, and you don't know RPGs which are short and good? Deus Ex, most Breath of Fire Games, Suikoden I and II and this little game called Mass Effect 2 just to name a few.

[Onyx Jaguar]

See and Suikoden (the first) is pretty short, but its also pretty outstanding.

[Ubertax]

wrdnshprd wrote...

what do you say to games that cost $50-$60 and are supposed to be full games and not expansions.. and are around 15-20 hours of gameplay (some games less than that).. if you do everything Awakening has,  that is about what it takes to complete; and to me this expansion was way worth the money..

yes, i completed it in a weekend (about 15-20 hours total), but ive completed other full games that cost $60 in the same amount of time and still felt like all those games were worth it..

also, please tell me an EXPANSION that was a good 30-50 hours of gameplay with this level of story telling, character voice over, and has compelling dialogue choice?  still thinking?  thought so.

But for each game I purchase I have a different reason, maybe for a new experiance or a new thrill or adventure, I can put different prices on each element and then determine if that purchase is a good one or not. And I think what you said is a good reason why comparing games based soley on length gets really messy fast. Each game has different characteristics that might mean more to the individual purchaser.

One way that I have been looking at it is to compare DA:O-A to DA:O. I can compare the content within the same franchise and when I do I see that for the price I paid for the length of DA:O the price I am being asked to pay for DA:O-A is too high. DA:O set the bar high and for the price I do not believe I'll be receiving the same sort of value as I did for the original.

[BadJustice]

I think that most people who complains how Awakening's short span and not other games is because well...other games have multiplayer.

It took about 10 hours for me too complete (didn't even scratched the side quests) and it was enjoyable, not as good as the original because it lacks story and continuity.

[fluoxetine]

My first run through of Origins was 92 hours. My second run through was 56 hours, an average of 74 hours. 

My first and only run through of Awakening was 19 hours; about 26% as long as the average of Origins and I did about 90% of the side quests in both.

With this in mind, I have to agree that, although I enjoyed Awakening, I did find it too short. I have to agree with the argument that, if it's a much smaller game, it should cost an equivalently smaller price. 

I also have to agree that Awakening did feel like it ended, just as it was getting going, but playing right off the back of Origins may have lead me to expect more.

I only paid about £10 (about $15 US or so) for Awakening, so for me, cost wasn't such a big deal. Having said that, I only paid about 50% more for Origins, which was truly excellent value for money and extremely enjoyable.

Length wasn't too much of an issue for me, but I found the bugs that forced me to replay areas (adding to my 19 hour run-through no doubt) were annoying. Especially the player character loosing equipment in the mines, which needed a workaround that required replaying the mines among others.

Modifié par fluoxetine, 26 juin 2010 - 07:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

I share the sentiment that it was shorter, but I think part of it was structural and environmental.



One of the biggest elements is that the story-plot is far more condensed than in Origins. There are really only six main plot missions to go through, and four of them are pseudo-recruitment missions: the introduction (mage and our favorite dwarf), the three areas of concern (three more character recruitments), and then the choice battle (city or keep) and the final battle. Compare that to Origins, which had more and longer story arcs in general (each arc usually having at least two or more stand-alone adventure maps), and structurally the Origins is awakening.



Another structural inclination to be shorter is the smaller maps that often border on linear. This is good and bad: on one hand, there's a lot less time-in-transition spent walking and exploring labyrinthine maps in Awakening than in Origins: take the dungeon escape, which is almost entirely a linear affair. Nothing really compares to the number of times where you could sometimes find entirely parallel paths across a full length map, with far more branches and lengthy dead ends to explore. For the most part, I approve: time in transition is often tedius. On the other hand, that tediousness does consume time and give an emphasis on scale.



Scale is another subtle aspect. In Origins, we had an entire country, and it felt like it: we had multiple villages/settlements, more places to go on a larger world map. In Awakening everything is so small-scale: how can we be awed by one province when we know it is such a small piece of something bigger, and has only two main settlements to visit (one of which is remarkably small)? How can we be taken with the Smuggler's Cove when we hiked so long through the Carta hideout? Even when it's not necessarily true in terms of time that can be invested in an area, the smaller mapss do tend towards being completed faster.



Personally, I thought the factor that made it feel the most 'rushed' was the loss of free interaction with allies. Don't get me wrong: what they do say is great, and I find myself enjoying all of them greatly, more than even some of the Origins characters. But one of my favorite aspects of Origins was the Camp: an area always accessible, always available, and at which I could ask my companions ever more things as their approval increased over the story. Oh, I spent so many hours trying all the different talking paths, even on repeat playthroughs. But that's lost in Awakening: going to the Keep or talking in the field will only get you a select few short response. Far less interaction. Far less investigation.



That's one time sink I certainly wish they hadn't dropped from the Origins. It certainly made the game seem to pass so much faster for me, when I couldn't slow down for chit chat.

[Kasumimi]

23 hours on nightmare, did 95% of the sidequests and had a blast.



Great expansion I don't understand why people complain

[Wedger]

Play it again. Role play from a different angle.



The problems with Awakening is depth not length, IMOO. i wanted more interaction with the Companions. The "Click a tree" method to interact was odd.



And please watch the " too to two " (Like I'm the one to mention spelling or grammar!)

[worksa8]

I'm just going to out and say it. If most people say sometihng is too hsort, it probably is. Not that an opinion can be right or wrong, but usually the general concensus is what people will work towards.

[alickar]

Ninomir wrote...

Perheps u took too long... I finished it the same day i installed it, i had like maybe 10 play h. and got every achivment (not including 1 that are depending on choice u make). Finished every side Q i found. So yea I'd say it's a bit short, but still it was nice...not like Origins but it's defently not a waist, there is a tiwst to it, interesting story, so maybe a bit short but still worht it...

u skipped all the interactions with the people

[Lord Gremlin]

Kasumimi wrote...

23 hours on nightmare, did 95% of the sidequests and had a blast.

Great expansion I don't understand why people complain

Because there are always nerds and such who complain. Always.
I've also enjoyed Awakening, played through it 2 times so far, takes about 15-16 hours to finish the game.