13812 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

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.  

No generalisations you either have an example or you don't, if you don't your basing your opinion on nothing more than pixie dust. The game comes with a bonus DVD as standard edition with all trailers and movies introducing exactly those things your crying over, even the digital download comes with download of same features I beleive. Therefore it is with the game you bought.

[Dragoonlordz]

TheMufflon wrote...

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?

What are you babbling about? TW2 covered all the lore needed for the game. You have the ability to either read the books, visit the internet, watch the free DVD which comes with the game or download it if bought online for example GoG, even play the original game which is setting up the world itself. YohkoOhno is arguing she wants all those things in the game while I'm saying they are an optional choice if wish to delve deeper into it. But all the lore and such needed to play the game was in the game already.

She is arguing that her personal taste is a design flaw within the game, it is not. It is an optional preference how deep you want to go outside the game into its past. I asked for examples where she thinks did not go deep enough for TW2, not TW1 and not what is written in the books but what was not explained well enough for her lore based in the game that is relative to the actual game TW2. She came up with nothing except generalisations.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 09:47 .

[orbit991]

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.

Cant go there with you on DAO even though I love the game, there is a trade off to me at least between constructed worlds and those based on books. Constructed worlds are rather shallow and there is not much more to know other then what propels the story, it's a boxed in world(if you prefer that thats fine)with something like Witcher however or any other book based game, there is lot's of depth not relevant to the story. Personally I find that more interesting and there is more mystery about it, insted of contriving the next sequel story these sort of games can utilize the untold parts of the world that fit seamlessly into the next chapter. Not everything can be answered in one game and I think thats pretty cool. By the time you get to the next game the world becomes even more immense, this did not happen with DA2 for me or ME2, the world was stuck in all the same generalizations. With the second Witcher I got a real insight on the bigger scheme of things and it became more grand as I played multiple paths. I'm expecting things to really tie up in the third, I enjoy this kind of ride. It seems we are just not into the same thing, so this is all subjective, so one cant claim any of our oppinions are a universal truth.

[YohkoOhno]

No generalisations you either have an example or you don't, if you don't your basing your opinion on nothing more than pixie dust.

I think I've given several examples that are at least are more grounded in reality. At the end of the day, it's just two people who have different opinions, the difference is, I'm not offended by you having a different opinion, while you seem to take any sort of criticism as a personal offense, at least by the way you are writing your retorts.

The game comes with a bonus DVD as standard edition with all trailers and movies introducing exactly those things your crying over, even the digital download comes with download of same features I beleive.

That's also flawed--how many people watch the DVD commentaries before they watch the movie. If you need to understand the movie by watching the commentary track, the movie has flaws.

[Dragoonlordz]

orbit991 wrote...

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.

Cant go there with you on DAO even though I love the game, there is a trade off to me at least between constructed worlds and those based on books. Constructed worlds are rather shallow and there is not much more to know other then what propels the story, it's a boxed in world(if you prefer that thats fine)with something like Witcher however or any other book based game, there is lot's of depth not relevant to the story. Personally I find that more interesting and there is more mystery about it, insted of contriving the next sequel story these sort of games can utilize the untold parts of the world that fit seamlessly into the next chapter. Not everything can be answered in one game and I think thats pretty cool. By the time you get to the next game the world becomes even more immense, this did not happen with DA2 for me or ME2, the world was stuck in all the same generalizations. With the second Witcher I got a real insight on the bigger scheme of things and it became more grand as I played multiple paths. I'm expecting things to really tie up in the third, I enjoy this kind of ride. It seems we are just not into the same thing, so this is all subjective, so one cant claim any of our oppinions are a universal truth.

I agree, that mystery and how deep wish to go into the lore and such is optional and as such or propels me into buying the books or the other titles in the series to find out more. No sequel should cover everything in the books and the first game else removes the point of playing the first game or reading the books.

[Anathemic]

Bejos_ wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
[...] Geralt's main quest throughout the game is the muder mystery. If you take the murder mystery out of the game, there would be no "Assassins of Kings" nor would there be important flashback sequences into discovering what happened to Yennefer. So I must counter that the muder mystery is indeed an important factor of the story.

[...] if you're just going to bash the Epilogue IE conclusion of the story, you are completely ignoring the other parts of the game's storytelling. It's like me bashing the Fellowship of the Ring because the damn beginning took brain power to figure through.

So in your opinion the epilogue is bad, that's fine. However that's not the universal opinion, this is why "people have yet to comment on it" because they know some people really enjoy the epilogue (I enjoyed it personally to understand both Letho and what happened to Yennefer, not to mention cliffhanger for TW3) and some people dislike it.

What does "universal opinion" have to do with it? It's a subjective topic, so whether there's a universal opinion or not is irrelevant. Also, an opinion can never be universal.

I don't know where "bash the epilogue" came from, either. I'm entitled to my opinions and my critiques. The word "bashing" has a different connotation to the word "critique"; synonyms of "bashing" would include "slagging" and "trashing".
I also specifically stated the epilogue is not the only part of the story that is badly told. But these would all be my opinions, and since everyone has an opinion ... But I'll play along: the quest that follows from [Spoiler!]'s poisoning is badly handled; the escape in the prologue is badly handled; the [Spoiler!] Battle in Act 2 is a bit of a mess ...
Like I said, I enjoy the story overall, but some of it's not very well told. It's also cliched, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.
Similarly, my opinion of the story shouldn't prevent you from enjoying it all and praising it all, if that's what you wish to do.

Finally, Geralt's main quest throughout the game is not the murder mystery. He finds out very early on who the King's assassin is. The rest of the story hinges on the kidnap of [Spoiler] and/or the clearing of Geralt's name, or both, depending on how you choose to play the character. The fact that [Spoiler Alert! Don't read past this point if you haven't finished Act 2!] Letho isn't ultimately behind the murder(s) doesn't factor into Geralt's actions until the very end of Act 3. And that's more a case of, "Well, while I'm here I may as well clear this little problem up" than "I have to end this evil! They'll **** everything up for the rest of us Northerners!"

Again, it's all just opinion. I have a different idea of what good storytelling is than you do, obviously. Also, I don't like to be in awe of stuff; it's all just human-made, so there's no reason to be amazed by it. This kind of approach to things might be why I consistently score things lower than other people would That same philosophy is also why I regularly get in so much trouble with people in general

Well you might want to reword your stance a bit better, judging from this quote of your orignal post "What nobody's brought up yet-- and I'm anticipating flames -- is that the story isn't very well told" It seemed you were speaking for the palyerbase of TW2 of a whole. So that's why my stance/wording came off as harsh.

Yes Geralt finds early in the game who the murder is, but he murder mystery evolves into another plot entirely IE finding out what happened to Yennefer and Letho's purpose in why he's killing monarchs. It is still a murder mystery, just finding out whose the pupeteer of the muderer (which we find out in the Epilogue, or atleast confirm it in the Epilogue).

How is the prison escape in the prologue badly handled? Sure the stealth system is a bit whacky but it's fairly interesting on what different paths you can take depending on what you did in the flashback sequences.

Act 2 battle? I've only have experienced Ioverth's side, and I say it was good. Not masterpiece, but good. Sometimes I wish I could just kick the damn ladders off the wall, but the dialogue in the battle was pretty good.

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

-snip-

What part of the lore of the world and other aspects within that world are optional and personal taste do you not understand? As long as what lore is covered actually covers what matters in the game the rest is optional.

The reason I'm having to ask you over and over and try to get through that bubble of yours is because it's like talking to a brick wall with you. You don't answer what is asked you avoid it by using generalisations and idiology.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 09:56 .

[YohkoOhno]

Constructed worlds are rather shallow and there is not much more to know other then what propels the story, it's a boxed in world(if you prefer that thats fine)with something like Witcher however or any other book based game, there is lot's of depth not relevant to the story.

Actually I agree with you. I think Forgotten Realms, for instance, is a lot better than what Bioware came up with for DA:O simply because it's a world mostly based on Ed Greenwoods long term D&D campaign. But the point I was making was that I think that, in a video game, I want to experience the world through gameplay and not reading manuals. At the very least, DA:O's codex is the perfect way to do this. TW1 did a better job explaining the world through books than TW2. I am also saying playing a fixed protagonist that is also an amnesiac and has a backstory yet gives you options to "customize" him, is, IMO, a convoluted way to introduce the world.

Personally, I think they should have done what they might have considered doing--give the player their own witcher and find out about this world seperately--it would have given them a way to play in the world without having to deal with a certain figure. Maybe this plays better in Poland, or maybe this would play better if this was FR and we were playing Drizzt. Who knows. But I felt more emotionally satisfied with DA:O. I was given an origin, found out a lot about the world through gameplay, and my storyline ended. I just have a little trouble connecting to Geralt because of all the little flaws this approach has. But then again, I might feel better if I lived in Poland and had read the entire series.

[TheMufflon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

What are you babbling about? TW2 covered all the lore needed for the game. You have the ability to either read the books, visit the internet, watch the free DVD which comes with the game or download it if bought online for example GoG, even play the original game which is setting up the world itself.

So that is the tone you which this discussion to be conducted in? Fair enough.

You clearly have a very limited understanding of what constiutes quality in terms of works of fiction. That's the key word here: fiction. The way in which information is presented to the consumer is every bit as important as the actual information, if not more so. This information can be conveyed in a number of ways, such as dialogue, visual cues, or the infamous info-dumps. The way an author handles this is the difference between good and bad writing.

Since you don't seem to do too well with abstract concepts, let's employ a didactic hypothetical: Take a video game, let's say (for the sake of continuity) The Witcher 2. Now imagine if you removed everything but the combat and action scenes, and every decision was reduced to picking a number without being given any other information. Instead, the developers gave you a link to a web page where the entire story is explained, in a terse, matter-of-fact style. You'd still be able to get all the information you "needed" to understand the game, but it wouldn't be very fun, would it?

Let's repeat it one more time: The way in which information is presented in a work of fiction is every bit as important as the information itself, because the only goal is to provide entertainment.

[YohkoOhno]

What part of the lore of the world and other aspects within that world are optional and personal taste do you not understand? As long as what lore is covered actually covers what matters in the game the rest is optional.

Once again, you assume I am arguing about what I felt, I am arguing because I know what somebody coming in cold might experience.

The reason I'm having to ask you over and over and try to get through that bubble of yours is because it's like talking to a brick wall with you. You don't answer what is asked you avoid it by using generalisations and idiology.

If my opinion bothers you so much, you can just ignore it. I think I've explained myself enough and a few others here understand where I am coming from, even if they don't agree with all my opinions.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 09 juin 2011 - 10:02 .

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Constructed worlds are rather shallow and there is not much more to know other then what propels the story, it's a boxed in world(if you prefer that thats fine)with something like Witcher however or any other book based game, there is lot's of depth not relevant to the story.

Actually I agree with you. I think Forgotten Realms, for instance, is a lot better than what Bioware came up with for DA:O simply because it's a world mostly based on Ed Greenwoods long term D&D campaign. But the point I was making was that I think that, in a video game, I want to experience the world through gameplay and not reading manuals. At the very least, DA:O's codex is the perfect way to do this. TW1 did a better job explaining the world through books than TW2. I am also saying playing a fixed protagonist that is also an amnesiac and has a backstory yet gives you options to "customize" him, is, IMO, a convoluted way to introduce the world.

Personally, I think they should have done what they might have considered doing--give the player their own witcher and find out about this world seperately--it would have given them a way to play in the world without having to deal with a certain figure. Maybe this plays better in Poland, or maybe this would play better if this was FR and we were playing Drizzt. Who knows. But I felt more emotionally satisfied with DA:O. I was given an origin, found out a lot about the world through gameplay, and my storyline ended. I just have a little trouble connecting to Geralt because of all the little flaws this approach has. But then again, I might feel better if I lived in Poland and had read the entire series.

Sounds to me you prefer custom protagonist which is fine -for games that are based on that. TW2 was never meant to be or was going to be so you can't possible moan about that. I keep asking you to stop comparing world creating first titles to a sequel yet again it's like blood from a stone or brick wall you just don't listen. By all means compare TW1 with DAO, the same with TW1 with ME1 or AC. But do not compare world introducing first titles with TW2 because TW2 was never meant to introduce you to the entire world and every single peice of lore it was only meant to introduce you to the regions your in, the people you meet and the story that plays out as well as enough about your character to understand him. They did all this in TW2.

Name three sequels that introduces the world any better than TW2.

[Dragoonlordz]

TheMufflon wrote...
-snip-

The question is did TW2 introduce the world well enough, was enough lore in the game to please 'most people' given the nature of how much information is freely available online and the free DVD with title if so choose to look into more and the paid for content given with first game in series and books also containing such lore?

And where do you draw the line between how much and how little is given within each title. Unless you have an answer then stop making up hypotheticals. Your answer is nothing more than distraction and answers no question raised merely one you created yourself that has no baring on what was being talked about. Hence what are you babbling on about, it has nothing to do with what was talking about prior and your reply has the same irrelevance. If you want to branch off into something else fine but I was accurate in what I said with your opinion being off topic to what was talking about previously.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Doing a livestream for a few hours of playthrough on Iorveth's path, starting in a few minutes ( on Insane )

Watch it here.

www.livestream.com/costinmoroianu

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 09 juin 2011 - 10:10 .

[YohkoOhno]

A few sequels that did introduce the character and the world without having to explain things are sequels like System Shock 2 and Thief: The Dark Project. Both games do a very good job explaining the world without you having to experience the original.

If people always played all the games in the series, Final Fantasy would be dead by now.

[Dragoonlordz]

YohkoOhno wrote...

A few sequels that did introduce the character and the world without having to explain things are sequels like System Shock 2 and Thief: The Dark Project. Both games do a very good job explaining the world without you having to experience the original.

If people always played all the games in the series, Final Fantasy would be dead by now.

I loved system shock 2 but it did (not) do a great job in introducing the world with all its backstory and it certainly did not cover all the lore from the first title.


Final Fantasy is based off seporate stories for all but 2 or 3 sequels out of around 13 maybe 14 titles. It was always based on seporate worlds for most titles and each one therefore is a first title in that regard for those specific games. I asked you for sequels so unless your quoting FFX2 or FFXIII-2 etc then most aren't sequels even if they have numbers on them they are seporate titles with seporate stories and worlds. 

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 juin 2011 - 10:18 .

[TheMufflon]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

And where do you draw the line between how much and how little is given within each title. Unless you have an answer then stop making up hypotheticals.

Why the answer is perfectly obvious: as much as is entertaining. How much that is depends, of course, on both of the quality of the information and the quality of the writing, a.k.a. how good the author is. As long as a work of fiction provides interesting information in an interesting way it is entertaining.

[YohkoOhno]

I loved system shock 2 but it did (not) do a great job in introducing the world with all its backstory and it certainly did not cover all the lore from the first title.

I'm not really talking about backstory here.

Let me give you a specific example. In TW1, there were several good books on the politics of various elements of the world. Those are more or less lacking in TW2. One thing that I felt could have been done better is letting people know more about Nilfgaard. They turned out to be the major antagonists, but it would have been nice to have seen a little more information on why that nation was so feared by the northern kingdoms.

This is why I found DA:O's storytelling a lot better than TW2s. You are introduced to all the kingdoms you need to deal with. You don't have to know about the other nations far away, about the only few hints you get are about Orlais, and that's because they are near each other. I felt the game should have done things better explaining some of the things that might not be obvious to the new player. It can be as simple as providing an additional dialog tree to find out about the politics, or an in game book, but they should give the players the option to get more backstory without leaving the game. Knowing about the history of Nilfgaard might have given the new player a better emotional impact.

Little things like that are why I'm going to rank DA:O better than TW2.

[Dragoonlordz]

TheMufflon wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

And where do you draw the line between how much and how little is given within each title. Unless you have an answer then stop making up hypotheticals.

Why the answer is perfectly obvious: as much as is entertaining. How much that is depends, of course, on both of the quality of the information and the quality of the writing, a.k.a. how good the author is. As long as a work of fiction provides interesting information in an interesting way it is entertaining.

Quanity is not measured by quality. You can have a extremely high quality peice and you can also have two extremely high quality peices. Both within the same context and yet be seporate entities. So again, how much is enough?

[Costin_Razvan]

Let me give you a specific example. In TW1, there were several good books on the politics of various elements of the world. Those are more or less lacking in TW2. One thing that I felt could have been done better is letting people know more about Nilfgaard. They turned out to be the major antagonists, but it would have been nice to have seen a little more information on why that nation was so feared by the northern kingdoms.

Huh? There are books and journal entries about them.

[Maverick827]

erynnar wrote...

I know which one Maverick will think me.

That's not entirely fair: I wouldn't consider anyone who makes such an amateurish strawman argument to be a genius. 

For what it's worth, I take full blame for not explaining myself further. I understood the plot of the game just fine ("plot" often mistaken for "story," which itself is a much thrown-around term). The king is assassinated by some unknown figure and everyone assumes that it was Geralt's doing - great, I get it. What I felt was poorly implemented, however, were the call backs to the previous game and the in-world references.

Who is Triss? Why am I waking up next to her? When exactly is this prolog taking place? At what point did the last game end and this one begin? Who is Vernon Roche, and why should I care? Why are these noble families warring with each other? Why have I chosen the side that I am on, and not the side that I am fighting? What exactly is the history of the Scoia'tael? Why are the so hateful of humans? Why are human so hateful of them?

I suppose the issue is that when this sort of thing happens in, say, Dragon Age 2 ("What are Darkspawn? Who is Flemmeth?" "Why should I care?") I get the feeling that I'm not supposed to know these things yet, because I am just for the first time stepping into the shoes of Hawke. Hawke himself is about to Cross the Threshold, so to speak (I use the term loosely, because DA2 is anything but The Hero's Journey), so I expect the world to be largely unknown to him and, thus, unknown to me.

BioWare games, where you make your own protagonist, are hugely "fish out of water" narratives, and thus these questions, when they arise, are easier to accept because they are a function of the narrative itself.

Geralt, on the other hand, is anything but a fish out of water. Aside from his amnesia, he seems to have a firm grasp on the world as a whole, having seemingly traveled far. When these questions rise in TW2, I feel like I'm already supposed to know the answers, and be damned if I don't. I feel like the game doesn't really care whether or not I know these things and I am not assured in the slightest that it will ever give me the answers. In other words, it feels like the lack of information (in a real storytelling format - not simply in journal entries) is not a function of the narrative, but rather simply a storytelling oversight at best, and simple apathy towards new customers at worst.

Modifié par Maverick827, 09 juin 2011 - 10:30 .

[DragonRageGT]

I think people to be honest are trying to pick on the only things they can, namely the smallest things and blow them up huge to belittle the quality of the game because they lack any massive thing they can tear it down with.

YohkoOhno wrote...
It's not a question of picking on it, it's actually having the emotional maturity to like a game and yet recognize its possible flaws in the marketplace. I like the Witcher 2 but can still see it's flaws.

I'm finding there are two sets of people--people who understand, accept this, and can debate this civilly without resorting to attacking the critic, and then those who think that any criticism is a personal assault on TW2 and all the people who like it. I don't think arguing about the tutorial or the flaws in the story presentation is "bashing" the game.

Yeah, you're right. BUT, as mentioned in many a review, they are totally irrelevant compared to the grandeur of this game! It's not because it's in many reviews that I agree, though. It's because I can hadly notice them once I'm immersed into it. Actually, after a few playthroughs, I cannot notice them at all while all the superb parts still stand out and shine.

So I'll say it too: "I think people to be honest are trying to pick on the only things they can, namely the smallest things and blow them up huge to belittle the quality of the game because they lack any massive thing they can tear it down with" is basically correct. Incuding some website's schmuck who wants to attract some attention.

Modifié par RageGT, 09 juin 2011 - 10:26 .

[YohkoOhno]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Let me give you a specific example. In TW1, there were several good books on the politics of various elements of the world. Those are more or less lacking in TW2. One thing that I felt could have been done better is letting people know more about Nilfgaard. They turned out to be the major antagonists, but it would have been nice to have seen a little more information on why that nation was so feared by the northern kingdoms.

Huh? There are books and journal entries about them.

I only found one entry about them, and--here's another object I have an something DA:O does better--I object to having to spend gold just to find out lore about the world.  It's punishing people who want to learn more about the world.

[YohkoOhno]

RageGT wrote...
So I'll say it too: "I think people to be honest are trying to pick on the only things they can, namely the smallest things and blow them up huge to belittle the quality of the game because they lack any massive thing they can tear it down with" is basically correct. Incuding some website's schmuck who wants to attract some attention.

And I think people should be more tolerant of other's opinions and not demonize others for having an opinion.

Interestingly, a better discussion about this can be found (yes, it's the Escapist again) here.

http://www.escapistm...efensive?page=1

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 09 juin 2011 - 10:29 .

[DragonRageGT]

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.

Someone really missed reading the Journal. Dandelion is now known as Master of the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom, something I would never really expect from him.