Question about gamelength for Mass Effect 1+2, Dragon Age and Fallout 3

[Thrasher]

I agree. I enjoyed DA, and I do think it's a good game, but I have absolutely no desire to play it anymore now. It's the type of game that I *might* play again in a few years.

Ditto. I'd like to pick up one of the the origin exploration characters I had played through to Ostagar, but frankly, since most of the game is repetitive combat encounters (with little variation), and I've played all the other classes via the companions in my first playthrough, there isn't much new to try. Sure there are some spell chains I haven't done, but is it interesting enough? I explored EVERYTHING except doing the thief quests, so there is that. But being a completist usually means that you don't want to replay a game.

EDIT: Now if I didn't have 20 unplayed games sitting on my shelf, I may replay it. But they would never forgive me....

 

[DArtagnan]

D&D classes even NWN series are a confused crap for me. The amazing build you mention is few special skills of difference. But yes Fighter and Rogues classes in DAO are limited and don't offer much options, still for fighters, 2H, 2W, S&S, Archer. You had also the specialization making a significant shift to those choices, Blood and Berkerker particularly.

Please know a little bit about that which you speak. D&D a few skills of difference?

Don't drink and post

Only for fighters, that's 8 options, more than enough for a replay value with parties of 4. More over, mages offer a ton of roads and options and alternate set of tactics and different ways to manage the fights. And a specialization like the Arcane Warrior or Spirit Healer offer strong alternate roads. But the choice of spells you do among the wide list is rather interesting from a tactical point of view, this is offering a lot of choices and replay value.

Did you read the part where I stated I don't care for mages?

Also interesting is to try parties with only rogues and parties with no rogues or parties with only mages. I played a large part with two rogues and sometimes 3 with one an Archer. And at replay I almost never used one and often used two 2H offering a very different gameplay and tactics.

Great for you, but I was talking about classes - not party setups.

That said I agree that overall, only the mage class offer a lot of options and D&D mages+clerics are pale in comparison from a tactical point of view. But for fighters and rogues DAO is pale in comparison with the NWN D&D obscure system, a dead end where felt D&D rules.

No, everything about classes is pathetic compared to NWN.

Also a problem in DAo is the difficulty setting, you had to increase significantly at replay to keep a value to the fights. But the abuse of DLC items is also largely one cause of this problem.

Replay value is when it's fun to replay - DA:O isn't for me.

Overall the problem is you didn't even scratch the depth of the fights and of the classes, and just played it automatically, never be curious and trying different tactics, for sure you could not enjoy any replay. A non curious player is a bad CRPG player.

I think the problem is that you don't understand anything I said. Beyond that, I have a hard time understanding anything you say - so maybe we should just call it a day?

 

[purpleblob]

Good for you Dasale

 

[JDR13]

Good for you Dasale

Hey… you stole my line.

 

[Dasale]

Hey… you stole my line.

Ridiculous, nothing more empty to post?

@DArtagnan:

Choices depth in classes build: Ok go on explain, 3 fighters classes build, the differences…

Mages: Who care you don't care of mages? That's your problem. I didn't quote your post for reason, I didn't want answer you specifically.

Party setup: It's a major point in re playability if you forgot the point that's your problem.

Classes: It's about having enough choice for one or two replay not twenty.

But yes despite the D&D system get awfully confused and weird I agree that overall D&D 3.5 classes offer more possibilities, DAO system still has a lot to do for developing the system. But just about fighters and rogues, for me only the Monks could compare to DAO fight classes. All fighter are awfully boring in D&D but Monks. Sneak system in DAo is much better than in the whole NWN series. Mages have less spells in number but much more interesting spells options in DAO. It's about quality not length of features list. DAO designers made the courageous and for me smart choice and make deep design of few classes instead of multiplying number of classes almost similar, D&D.

ME+ME2 : Prone that instead of DAO, pathetic. ME fights are a total crap, weird you prefer them to those of DAO but ok that's your choice. We don't share at all the same preferences I'll let you ME fights, not for me.

EDIT: JDR13 you are ridiculous to focus on me.

 

[JDR13]

But yes despite the D&D system get awfully confused and weird.

Kind of like your posts?

 

[Thrasher]

Hey, this reminds me of the drinking mini-game in The Witcher. Now that's real gameplay

 

[purpleblob]

Just because *you* felt DAO has plenty of replay value, not everyone else have to agree with you, Dasale. Because we are all *different* and if you can't accept that, that's your problem. It's pathetic that you have pick on every single person who has different opinions to you regarding DAO.

Did I enjoy DAO? Yes and no. Which is why I finished the whole game and even bought the expansion. It was a good enough game to play once, but not more than that.

You say that the fact DAO gives you potential to create different builds for warrior gives you replay value. Fine. Go play then. No one is stopping you. Have fun.

 

[Dasale]

Just because *you* felt DAO has plenty of replay value, not everyone else have to agree with you, Dasale. Because we are all *different* and if you can't accept that, that's your problem. It's pathetic that you have pick on every single person who has different opinions to you regarding DAO.

Did I enjoy DAO? Yes and no. Which is why I finished the whole game and even bought the expansion. It was a good enough game to play once, but not more than that.

You say that the fact DAO gives you potential to create different builds for warrior gives you replay value. Fine. Go play then. No one is stopping you. Have fun.

Where's your arguments? None, like your other posts in this thread. Why whining like this? I put arguments, you can discuss them, I can answer and so on. Let DArtagnan answer if you have nothing to argue.

 

[bjon045]

Party makeup means nothing when you have enough npcs to give you basically every possible combination....unless maybe you want to run 4 mages or 4 fighters etc. Fights require very little tactics, once you learn a few basic tricks the entire game is a cakewalk even on the highest difficulty levels.

Dragon Age gets its replayability from the origin stories and dialog options.

 

[Dasale]

Party makeup means nothing when you have enough npcs to give you basically every possible combination….unless maybe you want to run 4 mages or 4 fighters etc. Fights require very little tactics, once you learn a few basic tricks the entire game is a cakewalk even on the highest difficulty levels.

Dragon Age gets its replayability from the origin stories and dialog options.

That's the non curious approach I already mentioned. With that arguing The Witcher is an awful crap with one of the most boring fight system of those last ten years.

I admit I don't know those few basic tricks to manage all fights but the point is you have a lot of tactical options you don't have in NWN series. DAO difficulty isn't setup well, it is missing more higher difficulty level. But restrain a game to what's require to win it and you end with ton of CRPG rather boring. As I already quoted CRGP require some curiosity to enjoy.

For the Dialogs, not all will agree but I will, partially. A my play after some time I get bored by NPC dialogs and stop care question them. At my replay, I took more care to them and enjoyed many points and was surprised to get many variation, with no clear reason.

For the story beginning it's a nice idea but the effect on the whole game is very minor and can't sustain the value of a replay.

DAO replay for dialogs, probably somehow, but for fights, certainly if you get interested by them by digging them.

Now if you get bored by DAO or DAO fights, for sure the replay value is then zero, that's strange to want argue about a replay value of a game not enjoyed. Replay value of ME for me is zero because ME play value is zero, well that sort of thing means nothing.

 

[JDR13]

Where's your arguments? None, like your other posts in this thread. Why whining like this? I put arguments, you can discuss them, I can answer and so on. Let DArtagnan answer if you have nothing to argue.

There is no "argument", that's the point. It's just people expressing their opinions. As usual, you're the only one here who is arguing.

 

[Maylander]

I certainly feel that DA has a high of replayvalue - especially due to the differences in how the character (based on Origin) is treated during the various parts of the game.

Still, it can't compare to NWN2 as far as character builds go. Not even close. However, I do feel the replayvalue is the same, primarily due to the extremely slow start of NWN2.

 

[purpleblob]

Where's your arguments? None, like your other posts in this thread. Why whining like this? I put arguments, you can discuss them, I can answer and so on. Let DArtagnan answer if you have nothing to argue.

I'm not going to go on a lengthy post to argue. That's like asking what's your favourite fruit and why you like that. For example, I like banana because it taste good to me. That's my only reason. Others may not like banana because it doesn't taste good to them. That's good reason as any. So why bother with someone as obssessed as you are?

 

[DeepO]

Hi all. Just a quick question:

How long would you say a first time playthrough would take, with and without sidequests, for Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3 and Dragong Age: Origins?

In regards to Bioware titles, if you want to "deplete" these games on your first playthrough, aka do all sidequests, experience all available dialogue, read codex entries and play on higher difficulties, I´d say it´s roughly:
ME1 - 35 hours
ME2 - 50 hours
DAO - 85 hours
This may of course vary, depending on the amount of idle time etc, but I´m fairly certain that at least relatively these times are just about right.

That doesn´t mean all of it is always a "quality" time.

ME1´s planetary sidequests are mostly quite solid story-wise, but incredibly repetitive gameplay-wise since you´ll spend a lot of time driving a vehicle with nothing else happening and then going through three variations of cut&pasted levels.

Similarly, most of DAO´s sidequests quite effectively contribute to the world´s overall ambience, but are repetitive design-wise, plus some areas are combat filler overkill.

ME2 contains least of filler of the three. Only potential timesink is mining mini"game", but you can cut its overall portion of the game considerably by mining only when you need to and only on the most resourceful planets.

If you choose Mass Effect, start with the first one and play with female Shepard.

As for the replayability discussion, you´re all wrong.

 

[DArtagnan]

Dasale

If you don't know how the D&D system works, I don't have the patience to go through the rules for you.

What I said, and what I stand by - is that the class system is MUCH MUCH more diverse than in DA:O. Again, I've personally created dozens (literally) of completely diverse characters, based on the multiclass system and the myriad of feats available - not to mention prestige classes.

You can go to any D&D site and get a zillion builds listen in detail. If you don't see the difference between 3 classes with 2 of them having almost no variety towards the end (Rogue = Archer/Dual wield - Fighter = Tank/Bad Rogue/2Hand) - and countless classes including multiclassing and prestige classes that MEAN something - then that's your issue, and I don't see why I need to convince you.

Oh, and your fighter question:

Fighter - Focusing on high crit chance using a suitable weapon like the Falchion - with feats like Improved Critical and power attack for added damage.

Fighter- Focusing on single large weapons like Great Sword and brute strength, aided by relevant feats like Cleave and Great Cleave.

Fighter - Focusing on dual wielding with high strength and dex for the dualwielding feats.

That's just the "gist" of the builds, and you can have tons of diversity WITHIN them, based on feat selection and skill setups.

This is WITHOUT multiclassing and WITHOUT prestige classes which is what diversity is all about.

Completely different fighters with completely different approaches to every tactical situation.

Lots of pure fighters available. Some can focus on defensive fighting, others on evasive but offensive approaches, and some can go pure melee damage with large weapons - and on and on. Then there are tons of prestige classes that heavily influences playstyle - like the Weaponmaster for high crit chance and extra damage, or the Dervish for speed. NWN2 implemented a lot of prestige classes, as did NWN1 with expansions.

There's no "tank" in D&D (pre 4.0 which I don't like) - but you can build one. Aggro is a simple and stupid concept adopted by MMOs for team play. It's not a rich tactical feature, because it makes the majority of fights extremely similar and predictable. That's why you won't have the same fight very often in D&D 3-3.5.

DA:O - once you get your party setup, has almost ZERO variety during fights. It's the same endless tank/spank fights with a few major bosses needing special attention.

Obviously, you have no idea whatsoever of what kind of diversity is part of the highly flexible D&D character system. I'm not exactly seeing the benefit, to me, of going in circles until you flat out refuse to see the obvious.

 

[wolfing]

Dasale

If you don't know how the D&D system works, I don't have the patience to go through the rules for you.

What I said, and what I stand by - is that the class system is MUCH MUCH more diverse than in DA:O. Again, I've personally created dozens (literally) of completely diverse characters, based on the multiclass system and the myriad of feats available - not to mention prestige classes.

I think this is the whole problem. To you, replayability means trying new builds, and D&D (NWN) provides plenty of options for this. To others, it means having a different story experience, even if it's with the same characters. Both concepts are valid, but they are different. In my case for example, I need a bit of both. If I'm going to replay a game (something I have done, maybe twice in my life), it needs to provide somewhat of a different story experience, and options for me to try new abilities, a different gameplay. My example of that, the old Quest for Glory series, when you replayed, you had 3 or 4 (very) different classes to play, and the story would have options only available to each particular class.

 

[Maylander]

That's why I replay games so often - both reasons are valid to me. In fact, I even have a 3rd reason: If a world has exceptional atmosphere (i.e Gothic), I often replay it just to experience the atmosphere again.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think this is the whole problem. To you, replayability means trying new builds, and D&D (NWN) provides plenty of options for this. To others, it means having a different story experience, even if it's with the same characters. Both concepts are valid, but they are different. In my case for example, I need a bit of both. If I'm going to replay a game (something I have done, maybe twice in my life), it needs to provide somewhat of a different story experience, and options for me to try new abilities, a different gameplay. My example of that, the old Quest for Glory series, when you replayed, you had 3 or 4 (very) different classes to play, and the story would have options only available to each particular class.

Obviously

I believe I explained why I didn't find much replay value in my first post about this, here.

Also, I don't see a problem.

The reason we're having a discussion, is because Dasale claims DA:O has just as much class diversity as D&D 3-3.5 - which is completely ridiculous if you know anything about the system. In DA:O you do have a number of skills - but by the end game you have EVERY single skill in a certain "build" type - which completely nullifies diversity. You just pick a tree to focus on, and that's the diversity you get.

Mages have decent diversity in DA:O - but still NOTHING compared with D&D - and again, there's no multiclassing.

The prestige classes of DA:O are very basic and most of them don't alter playstyle or tactical options much. The Arcane Warrior class is an exception, but overall diversity is a total joke compared with NWN1/2.

There's no way you can have any understanding of D&D and still claim DA:O compares favorably in terms of class diversity.

If you enjoy story variation and going through the same hundreds of encounters again, then sure it's very replayable.

I find stories very important, but variations based on origin and choices just don't change enough - to me - to warrant a full playthrough. I simply don't enjoy the work involved, because that's what endless filler combat feels like, once I've exhausted interesting class options.

 

[wolfing]

Obviously

I believe I explained why I didn't find much replay value in my first post about this, here.

Also, I don't see a problem.

The reason we're having a discussion, is because Dasale claims DA:O has just as much class diversity as D&D 3-3.5 - which is completely ridiculous if you know anything about the system. In DA:O you do have a number of skills - but by the end game you have EVERY single skill in a certain "build" type - which completely nullifies diversity. You just pick a tree to focus on, and that's the diversity you get.

No argument there. DA:O definitely doesn't have a deep skill system, I think most agree there. But DA:O does have some replayability in experiencing some different scenes depending on your origin.
I only wish DA:O had more complexity in terms of character development. There are only like 8 'classes' in DA:O:
- Warrior sword+shield
- Warrior 2-handed (I bet almost nobody played this though)
- Archer rogue
- Dual wielder rogue
- Healer caster
- Damage dealer caster
- Metacaster (another rarely selected route)

And with so many skill points and books, you probably have characters with 2 of those styles, so really, replaying to experience a different style is not rewarding, but again, replayability is in the way of experiencing different storylines. I only wish it went deeper after the origin, like, a mage becoming head of the wizards, etc.