13812 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

Huh? if they came up with their own world? It wouldnt be the Witcher then would it, the whole  point was to take the world from the books. Thats like saying the makers of Lord of the Rings should have made up their whole world.
I really dont get what your problem is, yes I've read you saying the same thing several times, but I get the world. 

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, and am trying to think like a game designer.  With DA:O, we are not only introduced to the world, but we also have the option to read codex entries.  The codex entries in TW2 are lacking somewhat--you either have to pay money for some books, or they depend on prior knowledge.  I'm pointing out a couple of concerns, mostly based on how accessible the game becomes to newcomers.

Granted, this could mostly be a pop-culture thing.  Batman games depend on you knowing who Batman is, and I doubt it would be the same thing.  The problem is, The Witcher is not well known as much in the west, so I guess I find it a little frustrating.

What I am saying is that the most satisfying of all games come from the game being the primary experience.  I will always feel constructed worlds do better than licensed worlds if they provide the user with all the information they need to know about the world.  I feel TW2 does a less than satisfactory job of introducing it's setting to the player, and I feel DA:O is superior in that stance.

It does fine. It's not the first title while DAO was. DAO introduced you to the world much like TW1 did. Your comparrison is FLAWED like I said. From a business perspective TW2 did the right thing. Peaks interest in the series giving the people the ability to for (free) google anything they want to know EXTRA or buy the first title to learn more of the world. Why should they shoot themselves in the foot covering everything from the first so you can save some money when it is always ideal to sell more copies of both titles so far in series. TW2 did enough to cover what was needed for TW2. If your going to compare series then compare DA2 to TW2 and DAO to TW1.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 08:03 .

[Bejos_]

YohkoOhno wrote...

orbit991 wrote...

Huh? if they came up with their own world? It wouldnt be the Witcher then would it, the whole  point was to take the world from the books. Thats like saying the makers of Lord of the Rings should have made up their whole world.
I really dont get what your problem is, yes I've read you saying the same thing several times, but I get the world. 

[...]

What I am saying is that the most satisfying of all games come from the game being the primary experience.  I will always feel constructed worlds do better than licensed worlds if they provide the user with all the information they need to know about the world.  I feel TW2 does a less than satisfactory job of introducing it's setting to the player, and I feel DA:O is superior in that stance.

Mm, I can see where you're coming from. And I suppose there is a case to be made for it not being as immersive as other games in the genre. This wasn't a negative for me, however, because it's understandable that you're not going to have a chance to dig into the world-- you're on a mission, after all. If the story wasn't as tightly scripted as it was (something I count in its favour), it would be less excusable; as it is, I find the "description" of the world, sufficient.

There's another angle to this, too. Half of the fun of the fantasy genre is discovering this new world-- its cultures, its history, its idiosyncrasies. By keeping world exposition to a minimum, the developers can keep the franchise "fresh" for longer. In which case, I'm all for minimalist exposition

Modifié par Bejos_, 09 juin 2011 - 08:05 .

[YohkoOhno]

True, I agree Bejos, and people may be getting this wrong, I DID enjoy the game. But I can't give it more than, say, a personal Metacritic score of 89 because of a combination of niggling elements. The game's story is good in its own way, but I feel it could have been done better.

One of the reasons I disliked DA:2 were similar problems combined with a lot of other criticims--overall DA2 was a B- for me. That also had an action oriented intro that did nothing emotionally for me.

But you are correct, the stories well handled enough that you can enjoy yourself, I just think it's an inferior experience than I've gotten with other RPGs of late.

[Dragoonlordz]

Here you go YohkoOhno. Would it keep you happy if they had this link on the start screen when double click the game exe.. Problem solved but the fact is your trying to make it sound like a flaw when in reality it's nothing more than your preference, in fact you not just implied it as a flaw you actually claim it is when it is not. A flaw being something wrong with the game when to be honest nothing is wrong with that regard and simply comes down to your desire for more information as personal taste.

http://witcher.wikia...ki/Witcher_Wiki

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 08:14 .

[Bejos_]

I think you and I are on the same page, mostly, Yohko. I'm curious, though: "other RPGs of late"? The only ones I know that have come out recently(-ish) are DA2 and FFXIII. Did I miss some? If so, I'd like to know their names so I can get my hands on them!

Modifié par Bejos_, 09 juin 2011 - 08:15 .

[Corto81]

I'm on my 2nd playthrough, first time with Iorveth and just did the mine quest with the 3 dwarves.

Awesome. Darkness, dungeon creeping, scary fights, sense of danger, getting lost and finding your trail via lit torches, little LOTR references as an hommage to Tolkien...

Best dungeon creeping experience I've had since like BG1.

[Bejos_]

Corto81 wrote...

I'm on my 2nd playthrough, first time with Iorveth and just did the mine quest with the 3 dwarves.

Awesome. Darkness, dungeon creeping, scary fights, sense of danger, getting lost and finding your trail via lit torches, little LOTR references as an hommage to Tolkien...

Best dungeon creeping experience I've had since like BG1.

The dungeon is one of my favourite locations in the entire game. (The favourite obviously is the Elven bath, heh.) I don't think I've ever enjoyed dungeons in games, so that's really high praise.

Modifié par Bejos_, 09 juin 2011 - 08:19 .

[YohkoOhno]

To be honest Bejos, I was thinking more for the future. DA:O was the best--but I also tend to be late to the game and enjoyed Fallout 3 about half a year ago, for instance. I also enjoyed both Mass Effects. (I should say "new to me". :-)) I'm also anticipating the stuff from E3 as well.

Dragoonlordz, you really need to respect other people's opinions. In short, I want these guys to continue to create good games. However, there are flaws out there that IMO--in my opinion--prevent them from getting the A mark. There's going to be a lot of competition this year and I could see them losing out to a few others because of the mistakes they made. I'm sure more criticism will follow when the XBOX is released. I've noticed more nuanced criticism on the GOG site about elements of the game.

And one thing to keep in mind. I read the Witcher Wiki, I read The Last Wish collection before TW2, and played TW1. I am pointing out the fact that others haven't, and I think with just a little more care they could have done a better job introducing the character as well as some of the "known characters" better. I'd hate to see them release this for the XBOX and then have many returns or troubling reviews because of this.

In my day job one of the things I have to do is usability testing. It's very easy to take an arrogant stance and think all the other people are "stupid", but the award winging games find a way to both have good gameplay and good tutorials, mechanics, and narratives.  In short, I want these guys to be around to do TW3, and I also want other game designers to consider both the positives AND THE NEGATIVES of this game.  

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 09 juin 2011 - 08:25 .

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

To be honest Bejos, I was thinking more for the future. DA:O was the best--but I also tend to be late to the game and enjoyed Fallout 3 about half a year ago, for instance. I also enjoyed both Mass Effects. (I should say "new to me". :-)) I'm also anticipating the stuff from E3 as well.

Dragoonlordz, you really need to respect other people's opinions. In short, I want these guys to continue to create good games. However, there are flaws out there that IMO--in my opinion--prevent them from getting the A mark. There's going to be a lot of competition this year and I could see them losing out to a few others because of the mistakes they made. I'm sure more criticism will follow when the XBOX is released. I've noticed more nuanced criticism on the GOG site about elements of the game.

And one thing to keep in mind. I read the Witcher Wiki, I read The Last Wish collection before TW2, and played TW1. I am pointing out the fact that others haven't, and I think with just a little more care they could have done a better job introducing the character as well as some of the "known characters" better. I'd hate to see them release this for the XBOX and then have many returns or troubling reviews because of this.

In my day job one of the things I have to do is usability testing. It's very easy to take an arrogant stance and think all the other people are "stupid", but the award winging games find a way to both have good gameplay and good tutorials, mechanics, and narratives.  In short, I want these guys to be around to do TW3, and I also want other game designers to consider both the positives AND THE NEGATIVES of this game.  

Then explain to me how ME series or Fallout 3 had a better tutorial or introduction than TW1 or TW2?

ME2 was vastly worse than TW2 as far as introduction goes for Shepherd. ME1 was no better. Fallout 3 did better introduction as you created the character yourself from baby to grown up. But I see what your doing now if your comparrison is between ME series, Fallout 3 and DAO. ALL of those you make your own character as opposed to a set protagonist. /sigh. Different types of game and your applying the same rule set for both types. Seems to me your trying to argue based on set protagonist vs non set as far as introduction to characters clearly one you make will have more of an introduction.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 08:36 .

[YohkoOhno]

I never said any of those games I enjoyed had better tutorials, but at least Fallout 3 told you everything you needed to know in terms of basics.

Perhaps the best tutorials I've seen are in the AC series.

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I never said any of those games I enjoyed had better tutorials, but at least Fallout 3 told you everything you needed to know in terms of basics.

Perhaps the best tutorials I've seen are in the AC series.

How so? The controls or the background story of your character? The controls issue in AC it was tedious took too long and was done outside of the game itself via simulations. The character background was horrible as far as learning about who you are at the start and as progressed took too long to find out. The other personalities in the game was not greatly done either as far as background, at best was adequate. Now here's the amusing bit do you consider it to still be the same with regard to AC2 as far as introduction to your character is it really any better done than TW2? Or are you yet again going to compare a world creating first title to a sequel with regard to AC vs TW2 or AC2 to TW2 as should be compared.

[DeNiros]

I completely agree with everything thats been said said in this thread.
The Witcher 2 is everything bioware hoped DA2 would be. Its amazing how one team can get it so right, while another gets it so wrong.
This was the wake up call bioware needed. ME2 was delayed till next year directly because of it, and hopefull we won't see the next DA for another 3-4 years.

[FlintlockJazz]

Regarding the argument between constructed vs licensed worlds: both have their merits. Constructed worlds tend to be more vague, even DA:O (didn't anyone else feel like there was a lot of waffle in the codex?), and unless the developers are the type to want to stick to their own lore is liable to be inconsistent and retconned whenever they feel like it (DA:O -> DA2, Bioware are amongst the worst for this imho, even with the leap from BG1 to BG2 they retconned a lot of the storyline and the world was only saved because it wasn't their's to retcon), while licensed worlds are often forced to abide to the original creator's vision (if we are lucky) causing the devs to have to build around it or butchered into something mainstream that neither newcomers nor diehard fans will like. I think CDPR did a good job at setting up stuff in W2.

Could there have been more stuff? Maybe a beter codex? Of course, but that doesn't mean that what they did have in was any less good, it was better than many others by a long shot.

[YohkoOhno]

I meant that AC is an example of a really good tutorial system. The tutorial and story situations are seperate complaints.

Tutorials should be like this designer explains IMO.

http://www.escapistm...1-Tutorials-101

Look, I've said my piece Dragoonlordz. Agree to disagree, and stop attacking the PERSON for having a (horror) different opinion than yours, otherwise you're behaving just like your avatar. I've been able to debate others here without either party getting emotional or angry.  

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 09 juin 2011 - 09:07 .

[YohkoOhno]

I just think TW1 did a better job explaining the world. But I also think that people should never assume people have played the predecessors in a series. The best game series that are well designed always treat the game like it could be somebody's first. In fact, with the timeframe between sequels for some games, you HAVE to.

Its more of a nitpick than a fatal flaw, IMO.

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I meant that AC is an example of a really good tutorial system. The tutorial and story situations are seperate complaints.

Tutorials should be like this designer explains IMO.

http://www.escapistm...1-Tutorials-101

Look, I've said my piece Dragoonlordz. Agree to disagree, and stop attacking the PERSON for having a (horror) different opinion than yours, otherwise you're behaving just like your avatar. I've been able to debate others here without either party getting emotional or angry.  

Wow is the only thing you ever rely on for information just ZP? Yahtzee and Escapist. Might I suggest broaden your horizons.

There is two reason why we disagree.

1. You put forth personal taste and preferences as faults with the game itself.
2. You promote and push the critic who is known for pure humour and over exaggeration who critisized others in a belittling and negative way and then moaned I was picking on you about it when was pointed out how hypocritical you was being.

Actually make that three things.

3. You KEEP comparing the world introducing titles to TW2 which is a sequel. Every game does not need the same level of introduction to the world as the first title. End of story. It does not, should not and will not. For such an introduction you play the first title like the first ones you keep comparing to the sequel aka TW2. All previous information is available in the first title, the internet and sometimes the manual or books.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 09:24 .

[TheMufflon]

Does anyone else find it humorous that YohkoOhno and Dragoonlordz entire discussion can pretty much be summed up by their avatars?

[YohkoOhno]

You should never have to "go to the Internet" to find out Lore that should be in the game. Period.

[Dragoonlordz]

My avatar rules.

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

You should never have to "go to the Internet" to find out Lore that should be in the game. Period.

Yes you should, its simply personal taste how deep you want to go. Period.

All the lore that was needed to be in TW2 was in TW2, all the lore prior to TW2 that was not needed in TW2 is online and in the first title and books. Do you also want those in game too for example the whole of TW1 included in TW2 or the books in TW2 via PDF or hardback? Would that be enough lore for you or would it be better from a business perspective to included all the lore needed for TW2 and leave just enough mystery for people to want to buy the books or TW1?

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 09:32 .

[YohkoOhno]

Yes you should, its simply personal taste how deep you want to go. Period.

No, it's a quality of bad design. It's like saying you should read a book to deal with a plot flaw in a movie. It doesn't make sense. The BEST games know this. TW2 could be a little better in showing these elements to the player, as well as allowing the ones that don't care to ignore it. This is why I think DA:O is superior to TW2 in these terms.

And like I said, it's more of a minor nit-pick, but enough that I can't give this game an A.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 09 juin 2011 - 09:31 .

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Yes you should, its simply personal taste how deep you want to go. Period.

No, it's a quality of bad design. It's like saying you should read a book to deal with a plot flaw in a movie. It doesn't make sense. The BEST games know this. TW2 could be a little better in showing these elements to the player, as well as allowing the ones that don't care to ignore it. This is why I think DA:O is superior to TW2 in these terms.

And like I said, it's more of a minor nit-pick, but enough that I can't give this game an A.

What plot flaw? Examples?

Stop comparing the lore in a first title which is always about developing the world and setting the stage (as far as all lore goesin a video game) with sequels for the love of god already it's a flawed perspective. AC2 does not do this, DA2 does not do this, Fallout 3 also does not do this. In fact none of the game you list except the first titles in a series does this very well and your applying the same rule set for those first title as to TW2 and only TW2. Hence why you have stayed clear of listing anything that was not a sequel when talking about setting up the lore.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 09:37 .

[YohkoOhno]

I was making an analogy. If you created a movie adapted from a book, and ignored a critical plot point, and when people made complaints about that, you told them to "just read the book", it's not a valid argument because the point of the movie is to be self-contained.

I think there could just be some improvements--it's ironic that they designers released a CG movie on their site that explained the politics better than the game itself does.  That scene should have been in the game.  

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 09 juin 2011 - 09:35 .

[TheMufflon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Yes you should, its simply personal taste how deep you want to go. Period.

The way and style in which information is presented is a hugely important part of any work of fiction. Is a game's quality then based, in part, on how well written the wikia is?

Modifié par TheMufflon, 09 juin 2011 - 09:35 .

[Lord Phoebus]

I'm finally playing the game, decided to wait for a couple of patches and to finish my Witcher replay. I also managed to pick it up for $30. All in all I'm not sure what to make of it, although I've only played through the prologue and I guess about half-way through chapter 1.

Installation was easy, and I'm glad there is no DRM. However configuration was a pain, I had to text edit the user.ini file since the configuration utility was useless.

Gameplay-wise it seems a bit easier than the early chapters of TW 1, I'm playing on hard and I haven't had to use potions, bombs, traps or any sign other than Aard. Blocking seems a little pointless, since rolling around like a man on fire seems to be a better defensive strategy, as long as you're patient the enemies give you an opening to attack. I think I liked the rolling around and combos from the original a bit better. I'm not too sure how I feel about the QTEs either, why am I clicking my mouse to open a gate? The exposition could have been better in game, at the very least it would have been nice to set/check the keyboard bindings while playing instead of having to check the manual, which is a pdf so I have to Alt-Tab out of the game to check (But hey the game doesn't crash when I Alt-Tab which is pretty good). The mechanic for the mutagens could have been better too. The mini-games are better than the original with the exception of Dice-poker, I don't really see the point of making the player roll with his mouse.

The plot seems okay, I haven't gotten deep enough to really comment. From the first game it seems like the medallion should have started vibrating when Geralt encountered the assassin (like it did with Azar/Raymond), but I guess it was necessary for the plot. There was also the conveniently placed ballista that wasn't on the wall, but was placed by the rebel forces inside the keep pointed towards their own stronghold and couple other contrivances like that. But that's nitpicking, for the most part the gameworld is immersive, fast paced and it holds my interest.

Any way those are my first impressions.