New Dragon Age discussion thread

[Slowtrain]

I'm a grown up gamer who enjoys RPG's and strategy games, and I just don't have the time for 100 hour games.

Could you please explain to me what this means?

 

Does it mean you only have time for one more game in your life and your life is not expected to last 100 more hours?

Does it mean you only have time for one more game before hanging up your gamer skates for good and 100 hours is too long because you're in a hurry to retire?

Does it mean that you have a limited amount of hours left to play in your life and you'd rather spend them on ten ten hour long games instead of one 100 hour long game?

Does it mean your wallet explodes unless you get to fork out 10x$50 (for 100 hours of playtime) instead of 1x$50 (for that 100 hour game)?

Does it mean you have to play it from beginning to end in one sitting and 100 hours would most probably kill you?

 

Seriously? You don't have time for a 100 hour game? Do you have time for ten shorter games (8-10 hours each)? Don't you expect to play 100 more hours of games in the remainder of your life? Do you expect to be buying any more games in the future? Don't you think they'll all add up to more than 100 hours sooner or later?

 

Please enlighten me.

 

Yes. You asked the question better than me, so thank you.

 

I simply fail to understand what "I don't have time for a 100 hour game" means.

 

Unless in some way quantity of games played must be achieved in fixed length of time, such as if you are a reviewer or something and have to finish a certain number of games in a certain amount of time

[Slowtrain]

Where was I going with this again?

 

 

Robert Jordan, perhaps?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Speaking of David Gaider...

 

You know, I always liked him. He's a good writer, even if he sticks like glue to the straight-ball fantasy formula unashamedly (and he admits it). But, uh, this was very odd.

 

Warning: terrible KOTOR fan fiction

 

I guess this is why he doesn't go gung ho.

Thanks, that was pretty good actually. He wrote a book you know. You can tell he's a video game writer because he can't resist the urge to tell you what happened to everyone.

[Rhomal]

In the end however the video did pique the leo curiosity in me and while I won't say I now will buy it I will however put it on the 'possibility' list and wait a few weeks after release and see what kind of feedback posts it gets, Plus will give bio the time for the traditional 0 day patch.. and then the patch for that patch... heh

Except that Bioware never needed to release a day 0 patch. You must confuse those with the gentleman at Obsidian (day 0 patch for NWN2).

 

How quickly the bio fanboys forget the mess that was nwn1... took bio months of patching to get the game client stable and half a year+ of patching before the server app was was worth anything due to all the memory leaks (and another 6 months of patching after that to get it fully stable). So while my memory does not recall if a 0 day patch was released for nwn1 certainly the first of many were released not too much later if you want to split hairs.

 

And at least when I first ran nwn2 I could play from start to finish without the client crashing out on me every 30 to 40 mins unlike nwn1. *shrugs* (Not saying it was bug free but at least playable)

[Rhomal]

I simply fail to understand what "I don't have time for a 100 hour game" means.

 

Its really a moot point, the 100+ hr CRPG, for the the most part, is dead. At least according to many devs I have spoken to. Will always be a 'rebel' outfit who makes such from time to time (like oblivion) but as a whole most publishers don't feel they will have the mass market appeal they did 10 yrs ago. Especially when publishers see the sales numbers of many recent CRPGs that failed on a sales level (bloodlines for example). Thus won't fund such a project, at least how the situation was described to me.

 

I hope the situation changes but not holding my breath.

[Volourn]

"How quickly the bio fanboys forget the mess that was nwn1... took bio months of patching to get the game client stable and half a year+ of patching before the server app was was worth anything due to all the memory leaks (and another 6 months of patching after that to get it fully stable). So while my memory does not recall if a 0 day patch was released for nwn1 certainly the first of many were released not too much later if you want to split hairs."

 

I think the BIO haters seem to forget that NWN1 was stable for the vast majority of people, and was definitely playable from start to finish from the get considering the user reviews that came out quite quickly after its release. I think your memory is suspect because of your biasness.

 

NWN2 was also pretty stable for me so complaints there.

[Slowtrain]

I simply fail to understand what "I don't have time for a 100 hour game" means.

 

Its really a moot point, the 100+ hr CRPG, for the the most part, is dead. At least according to many devs I have spoken to. Will always be a 'rebel' outfit who makes such from time to time (like oblivion) but as a whole most publishers don't feel they will have the mass market appeal they did 10 yrs ago. Especially when publishers see the sales numbers of many recent CRPGs that failed on a sales level (bloodlines for example). Thus won't fund such a project, at least how the situation was described to me.

 

I hope the situation changes but not holding my breath.

 

 

Given the massive success of Oblivion and Fallout 3 though, perhaps there might be a new appeciation for the potential revenue of a large open world crpg? Especially when considering how DLC can simply be added right into the gameworld, generating an ongoing revenue-stream. Based on the sucess of Bethesda's last 2 games, apparently large open world games are enjoyed just as much by console gamers as by old school pc gamers.

[Tigranes]

Its really a moot point, the 100+ hr CRPG, for the the most part, is dead.

 

Let's get one thing straight here, though. Do we really mean 100 by 100 in this thread? i.e. a game only qualifies as an 'old school super long RPG for the win' if it actually goes into three digits in one playthrough? Because even gigantic games like BG2 and Morrowind didn't really do that. You could do everything in those games, or their console equivalents in mammoth (FFVIII, etc) in 50-80 hours, depending on the person. And Oblivion was surely longer than, say, the Icewind Dales.

 

Personally I would categorise any game with as much content as Oblivion or more "long". It also depends on the type. The KOTORs were actually pretty long and big in numbers, but felt so small because there was no point going back to most areas, the 'side' areas were absolutely tiny, each area had very few people and very few attractions (compare any level in Durlag's Tower to the wastelands that comprise KOTORs' optional planets). Fallout 3 is actually a very big game, but the main quest feels pretty short. I would happily claim DA to have reached the level of length and 'meatiness' some older CRPGs had if it had as much content and as much content spread as Oblivion or NWN2 OC. And games and those scales absolutely are not dead, you'll see twelve year old consolers happily plug through that much in FFXII or something as thick as MGS4.

 

I think the BIO haters seem to forget that NWN1 was stable for the vast majority of people, and was definitely playable from start to finish from the get considering the user reviews that came out quite quickly after its release. I think your memory is suspect because of your biasness.

 

NWN2 was also pretty stable for me so complaints there.

 

I actually agree with volourn here (oh my God). I was there for both launches and the furore was, on both counts, exaggerated. NWN1 I think suffered from some multiplayer problems in the first 2-3 weeks, NWN2 had performance issues, etc, but by and large they were nothing like, say, Morrowind at launch. It was by far Bio's worst launch bug/stability-wise, but that was a given, NWN being what it was. I doubt DA will release like that.

[Rhomal]

I think the BIO haters seem to forget that NWN1 was stable for the vast majority of people, and was definitely playable from start to finish from the get considering the user reviews that came out quite quickly after its release. I think your memory is suspect because of your biasness.

 

NWN2 was also pretty stable for me so complaints there.

 

I certainly don't hate them, I simply have not been attracted to their last few offerings. They are console-fying everything and IMO thus dumbing, gameplay wise, everything down. Plus the writing hit its peak at BG2/ToB, however I am interested to see how DA is, if I was a hater I'd have already made up my mind like the fruit nuts at NMA or DaC did 2 yrs before FO3 came out. *shrug* Like I said its on my possibilty list.

 

Why you insist I hate them becasue I am critical of some of their offerings is beyond me. I suppose by your view unless I fawn over them and give them praise 95% of the time I am a 'hater'... I think when you bring the word 'bias' and 'bioware' up you need to look in the mirror V.. heh. You can't heap enough praise on them and defend them constantly.

 

I think you need to go look at the 2002 archives of the forist 2-4 months and see post after post of folks having issues for nwn1. I remember it quite well as a PW admin. The first 6-8 months was HORRIBLE client, server MP stability wise. Could I play the SP game, more or less without issue after about a month or so and a couple patches. it crashed a few times but not impossible to play, so yes. I should have clarified I was speaking, mainly, about MP as thats the only reason I got into nwn1. As the OC was one of the more unimaginative stories I have ever expereinced with a plethrea of whiny NPCs, predictable plot and massive foreshadowing. It should be, IMO, used in writing class on how NOT to create a engaging story.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Rhomal

[Hell Kitty]

I remember back when it was Morgoth calling people "console kiddies". They grow up so fast.

 

If you have 100 hours of fun gameplay, is that bad thing? Whether it's in one game or five?

 

Actually I think I'd go with five, because at least then I'd have five different experiences rather than just one. I agree with the delightful Ms Caliban: "The bigger something is, the more prone it is to bloating, to the creator getting bored or going insane, to the pace hitting dead spots. In truth, two 400 page books will likely be better than one 800 page book." I'd much rather ten different 10 hour RPGs (or perhaps an episodic RPG series where I get to take a single character through a series of unrelated stories) that feature smaller, more intimate stories, than one huge 100 "epic". Maybe I'm just sick of "you are the sole hero who can save the land from the world destroying thingamyjig", which is the type of stuff I've come to expect from RPGs that advertise themselves as being x hours long.

 

Liking a game simply because it is 100 hours plus is just as silly as disliking it because its 100 hours plus.

 

Except no one is saying they like or dislike a game because it is 100 hours long, they are simply stating that the length of the game may increase or decrease their interest in a game, and there is nothing silly about that. If I was to say I don't have time for a 100 hour game, it would mean that I am unwilling to put that much time into one thing when I don't feel it's worth it. Like when I tell folks selling religion door to door that I don't have time for them, I guess I could make the time, but it's not worth it too me. Unless the story and characters in an RPG are of a sufficiently high quality, I'm simply not going to want to spend 100 hours with them, and you know what they say about games and the quality of writing. There's also that thing about not being able to get back into a game that Hurlshot mentioned. If I'm playing a game for a hour or two night after night, sure, but if enough time goes by without playing, it can be hard to get back into the game. That was certainly the case for me with Persona 3, a game I know I'll never ever finish, because it's so damn long, and while I enjoy it, it's not compelling enough to keep slogging through.

 

MC mentioned still playing modded Medieval TW2, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. I've probably put far more than 100 hours into games like Thief, or Deus Ex, but these are not 100 hour games. When RPG developers advertise their game as being x hours long, I've always assumed they mean that's how long it would take players to see everything the game has to offer. Not that it takes 100 hours if you replay it 10 times or increase its lifespan with mods.

[Hurlshort]

Actually I never stated I would dislike a game because it is a hundred hours long. I wrote earlier that I enjoyed BG2 tremendously, but I didn't finish it.

 

When I say I don't have time for a 100 hour game, it is definitely a personal preference. I like playing most of the new games. I want to play a game for 20 hours or so and then move on to the next title. So of course I'm going to prefer a game that can be wrapped up in 20 hours. But honestly I finish very few games, so it's not much of a factor when it comes to making my purchase.

 

Some games pull me in and I find them easy to play over a long period of time. JA2 and some MMO's come to mind.

 

I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo is about. That's just the way I play games. My comment was in diect response to this:

 

"And saying "nobody wants to play 100 hour games any more" might be true of some console-addicted twitch gamers, but it certainly isn't true of the sizeable numbers of grown-up gamers who like strategy and RPG titles."

[Rhomal]

I simply fail to understand what "I don't have time for a 100 hour game" means.

 

Its really a moot point, the 100+ hr CRPG, for the the most part, is dead. At least according to many devs I have spoken to. Will always be a 'rebel' outfit who makes such from time to time (like oblivion) but as a whole most publishers don't feel they will have the mass market appeal they did 10 yrs ago. Especially when publishers see the sales numbers of many recent CRPGs that failed on a sales level (bloodlines for example). Thus won't fund such a project, at least how the situation was described to me.

 

I hope the situation changes but not holding my breath.

 

 

Given the massive success of Oblivion and Fallout 3 though, perhaps there might be a new appeciation for the potential revenue of a large open world crpg? Especially when considering how DLC can simply be added right into the gameworld, generating an ongoing revenue-stream. Based on the sucess of Bethesda's last 2 games, apparently large open world games are enjoyed just as much by console gamers as by old school pc gamers.

 

I REALLY hope games like FO3 and GTA4 (which is RPG-ish) and their successes does change some minds of publishers over time. But again, the way the PC market moves and changes its ways (at a snails pace) I am not expecting anything soon. But I do hope for another BG2 type game at some point and hopefully it will herald another CRPG golden age as that series did as other game pubs take note.

[Maria Caliban]

I figured I

Edited January 7, 2009 by Maria Caliban

[kirottu]

[*]Aribeth's jiggle mesh makes a return here

 

That

[Slowtrain]

I figured I

[Diogo Ribeiro]

There is only one type of magic in Thedas (no divine spells) and the ability to wield magic is a natural ability that manifests in late childhood. Fighters and thieves cannot wield magic.

 

I may be wrong, but doesn't this seem confusing? Wielding magic is a *natural ability* that comes in late childhood... So why can't Fighters and Thieves use it? Do they lose the ability once they choose a profession or something? Or are people already born with classes?

[Slowtrain]

... So why can't Fighters and Thieves use it? Do they lose the ability once they choose a profession or something? Or are people already born with classes?

 

 

Its because according to the High Fantasy Bible fighters and thieves can't use magic. Unless they are some sort of mage hybrid.

 

What happens if a mage steals something? Or bashes somebody from behind in a dark alley and lifts their wallet? Isn't he then a thief that uses magic?

 

bleah.

[Gfted1]

There is only one type of magic in Thedas (no divine spells) and the ability to wield magic is a natural ability that manifests in late childhood. Fighters and thieves cannot wield magic.

 

I may be wrong, but doesn't this seem confusing? Wielding magic is a *natural ability* that comes in late childhood... So why can't Fighters and Thieves use it? Do they lose the ability once they choose a profession or something? Or are people already born with classes?

 

Not everyone achieves the ability to use majic in late childhood, its hit or miss. Then, once detected, that person has no choices other than entering the Harrowing (save or die) or becoming stilled and an emotionless husk. Or they could break camp but then they would be hunted. Out of all that probably you cant fail the Harrowing and the other two are just lore devices.

[Pidesco]

[*]Aribeth's jiggle mesh makes a return here

 

That

[Morgoth]

In the end however the video did pique the leo curiosity in me and while I won't say I now will buy it I will however put it on the 'possibility' list and wait a few weeks after release and see what kind of feedback posts it gets, Plus will give bio the time for the traditional 0 day patch.. and then the patch for that patch... heh

Except that Bioware never needed to release a day 0 patch. You must confuse those with the gentleman at Obsidian (day 0 patch for NWN2).

 

How quickly the bio fanboys forget the mess that was nwn1... took bio months of patching to get the game client stable and half a year+ of patching before the server app was was worth anything due to all the memory leaks (and another 6 months of patching after that to get it fully stable). So while my memory does not recall if a 0 day patch was released for nwn1 certainly the first of many were released not too much later if you want to split hairs.

 

And at least when I first ran nwn2 I could play from start to finish without the client crashing out on me every 30 to 40 mins unlike nwn1. *shrugs* (Not saying it was bug free but at least playable)

You seem to forget that the single player portion (i.e. the majority people were interested in buying NWN) was stable without patch. I could finish it with no noticeable hitches. Now the Multiplayer, Toolset and DM client stuff may be a different story. But at least it was included in the shipped version, as opposed to NWN2, which didn't even have the DM client included at the start.

 

I also reinforce my statement that DA will be playable by release by the fact that it is a single player only game, thus it's codebase should be slimmer (therefor easier to debug) than the one of NWN.

 

But hey...once a Bio hater, always a Bio hater.

[H]

You seem to forget that the single player portion (i.e. the majority people were interested in buying NWN) was stable without patch. I could finish it with no noticeable hitches.

I can say the same about NWN2. Never had a single problem with it.

[Pidesco]

I can't say the same thing about Mass Effect, however. Ain't the variety of life grand?

[Morgoth]

I can't say the same thing about Mass Effect, however. Ain't the variety of life grand?

Mass Effect was a very polished game. Perhaps you had problems with SecuROM? In that case, it's not the game to blame, but the copy protection sheme.

 

I didn't care either for the lack of a DM client in NWN2 either, but I remember the whiney outcry when this was announced. Boo-Hoo.

 

Will people whine when SecuROm doesnt allow them to play DA properly?

Edited January 7, 2009 by Morgoth

[H]

Mass Effect was a very polished game.

I suppose that's why it freezed every single time I tried to Alt-Tab out of it?

[Pidesco]

I generally have to restart the PC every time I want to boot up Mass Effect. For some reason, it seems to need a clean boot. I don't think this is Securom's problem. Bioshock, for example, was an UE3 game, with activation based Securom and, not only was it stabler, it also ran better than Mass Effect.