139 réponses à ce sujet

[bcooper56]

shnizzler93 wrote...

bcooper56 wrote...

Can say i agree its on my most anticipated from what i have seen.

*fixed

Not for me i dont like the changes. It took almost all away i loved.

[goofyomnivore]

Dang 2011 is going to rock for games, and I planned on spending less on games this coming year. Hah, well that is one new year's resolution that isn't going to happen.

[wwwwowwww]

It's all relative is it not? What may be most anticipated for you is not the same for me or the next guy. Only thing that poll is going to show is the results of those that most frequent the site.



For me it's DA: 2, but that's simply because I have never played any of the other games mentioned and haven't had any desire to either.

[Dallo]

AmstradHero wrote...

You misunderstood.

No, I didn't, I just don't agree with you, and I didn't say anything about The Witcher being superior to DA:O, though I think it was in many ways, just as I feel the reverse was true in other ways.  They are both great games.

Also, imposing a character's motivations upon me as a player for a decision that *I* as the player make is not only unnecessary, it's outright immersion breaking.

Nobody makes a decision in a vacuum, and motivation is almost always secondary to circumstance.  TW requires that you pull on the mantle of Geralt of Rivia and act (or rather, make real decisions) within a relatively small set of possibilities, which for me made it all the more immersive.  The arena was clear cut.  DA:O was much more vague, loosely knit, though it certainly handed you plenty of pre-defined 'motivation' too.   

Dragon Age has real companions and much superior game play, in my opinion, but is DA:O a better RPG than TW?  No, I don't think so...  Nor is its story as compelling.  It's probably a better game though.

Modifié par Dallo, 27 décembre 2010 - 06:21 .

[Quercus]

It's The Witcher 2 for me. Kinda baised that they did not add it in the poll. But w/e, these things should be taken with a big piece of salt anyway.

[Gill Kaiser]

I'm not particularly bothered about The Witcher 2.
Next year, I'm looking forward to DA2, Deus Ex: HR, Shogun 2: Total War, ME3, Portal 2, and TES V: Skyrim.

Modifié par Gill Kaiser, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:20 .

[Quercus]

It's Total War: Shogun 2 btw, they switched it up . And yup, I'm looking forward to it too.

Modifié par Shiroukai, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[Dave of Canada]

Got The Witcher from the Steam sale, played it a little bit. When deciding who'd I side with, I picked to go with the neutral path at chapter IV and I stopped playing at chapter V.

I don't like it very much, to be honest. To voice acting is weak in a lot of areas, the "intense" combat is odd and the whole thing everybody talked about with choices have consequences later down the road isn't as good as people made it out to be.

I'm also disliking how I can do a simple thing and end up sleeping with that person, getting those collectible sex cards like they are supposed to mean something. It's very hard, if impossible, to get "incharacter" with Geralt but that's probably because I never read the books and have no idea of anything. I don't even want to think of doing a self-insert playthrough.

Edit: Though the party quest is awesome.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:32 .

[Cyberfrog81]

1) Dude, you're almost done. Finish the game. The epilogue + ending is worth seeing.



2) You don't see how classy the choice-consequence system is with just one playthrough.

[upsettingshorts]

Vizima Confidential was pretty well done I thought.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...
I'm also disliking how I can do a simple thing and end up sleeping with that person, getting those collectible sex cards like they are supposed to mean something. It's very hard, if impossible, to get "incharacter" with Geralt but that's probably because I never read the books and have no idea of anything. I don't even want to think of doing a self-insert playthrough.

Geralt isn't really supposed to have a character. Rather, he has his fixed personality more or less but has amnesia as well. So a lot of the game is you figuring out who Geralt is. That's why you even have the "figure out who Geralt is" quest.

[Dave of Canada]

In Exile wrote...

Geralt isn't really supposed to have a character. Rather, he has his fixed personality more or less but has amnesia as well. So a lot of the game is you figuring out who Geralt is. That's why you even have the "figure out who Geralt is" quest.

Oh, I know. I just expected a more flexible main character judging by the comments done by people who hate Hawke but love Geralt.

[upsettingshorts]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Oh, I know. I just expected a more flexible main character judging by the comments done by people who hate Hawke but love Geralt.

Those people in general are speaking of expectations.  They dislike Hawke because they expected origins, they like Geralt because he's what they expected him to be.  That's my guess anyway.

[In Exile]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Oh, I know. I just expected a more flexible main character judging by the comments done by people who hate Hawke but love Geralt.

Some people might feel like Shorts says, but that's nonsense to me. It's like liking crepes, but saying crepes are disgusting if you order pancakes and get crepes instead.

[Maconbar]

In Exile wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
Oh, I know. I just expected a more flexible main character judging by the comments done by people who hate Hawke but love Geralt.

Some people might feel like Shorts says, but that's nonsense to me. It's like liking crepes, but saying crepes are disgusting if you order pancakes and get crepes instead.

What do you expect when you go to the Magic Pan?

[upsettingshorts]

Well, I see it being reasonable in the sense that - say you like to go to two restaurants. One exclusively serves crepes and the other pancakes. Then one day, the crepe joint decides to switch to pancakes.

Those users liked being able to have the option of both, because they liked both. Switching from two things a person likes to one thing a person likes is a loss.

That's not my view, that's just how I'm reading some forumites' posts on the issue. The problem I think is that often this position is expressed poorly, either that or it truly is as contradictory as Dave says.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I see it being reasonable in the sense that - say you like to go to two restaurants. One exclusively serves crepes and the other pancakes. Then one day, the crepe joint decides to switch to pancakes.

Those users liked being able to have the option of both, because they liked both. Switching from two things a person likes to one thing a person likes is a loss.

I guess the problem for me is that I get being disappointed with the loss of a feature you really like, but if you like crepes a lot and pancakes a lot... then why does it matter?

If one of them became a steak place and you don't eat red meat I would get it, but I can't wrap my head around how "more of what I like" is a bad thing.

That's not my view, that's just how I'm reading some forumites' posts on the issue. The problem I think is that often this position is expressed poorly, either that or it truly is as contradictory as Dave says.

I understand it, I just don't understand it, if you get what I mean. I think my problem is that I judge such things in isolation. So if there are good pancakes, then this is a win - I have more places to get pancakes.

[upsettingshorts]

In Exile wrote...

I guess the problem for me is that I get being disappointed with the loss of a feature you really like, but if you like crepes a lot and pancakes a lot... then why does it matter?

If one of them became a steak place and you don't eat red meat I would get it, but I can't wrap my head around how "more of what I like" is a bad thing.

Well, using the food example - do you always have a craving for the same favorite foods?  I love lobster and apple pie, but one isn't really interchangeable with the other, especially if there are quite literally - in the case of specific cRPG features - only a small handful of places I can get them.

In Exile wrote...

I understand it, I just don't understand it, if you get what I mean. I think my problem is that I judge such things in isolation. So if there are good pancakes, then this is a win - I have more places to get pancakes.

But now "no-one sells crepes anymore. "

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 décembre 2010 - 06:03 .

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Well, using the food example - do you always have a craving for the same favorite foods?  I love lobster and apple pie, but one isn't really interchangeable with the other, especially if there are quite literally - in the case of specific cRPG features - only a small handful of places I can get them.

I'm basically indifferent between foods I like and foods I don't, with the exception of, like you said, desserts and a main course.

But I don't know if there is a good analogy for that in video-games.

In Exile wrote...
But now "no-one sells crepes anymore. "

This is one of those "indifferent between pancakes and crepes" type deals.

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well, I see it being reasonable in the sense that - say you like to go to two restaurants. One exclusively serves crepes and the other pancakes. Then one day, the crepe joint decides to switch to pancakes.

Those users liked being able to have the option of both, because they liked both. Switching from two things a person likes to one thing a person likes is a loss.

I guess the problem for me is that I get being disappointed with the loss of a feature you really like, but if you like crepes a lot and pancakes a lot... then why does it matter?

If one of them became a steak place and you don't eat red meat I would get it, but I can't wrap my head around how "more of what I like" is a bad thing.

Because its like TruculentTrousers says, where if you enjoy both crepes and pancakes but one day the crepes place switches to only serving pancakes, where are you going to go now when you feel like getting crepes? I may enjoy pancakes, but that doesn't mean thats all I would ever want. Before you had a choice in crepes versus pancakes and now you're stuck with just pancakes.

I enjoyed ME2 just fine. It has its issues but it was a good game. I enjoyed Origins more than ME1 or ME2. I prefer that approach to storytelling to ME's "cinematic" thing. So when DA2 drops Origins' presentation style and goes with the ME style, effectively going from crepes to pancakes, sure, DA2 might still be a fine game, but its that lack of diversity in presentation and homogenization of the way in which you interact with the story that lessens my interest.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

This is one of those "indifferent between pancakes and crepes" type deals.

How are you when it comes to variety of your meals, though? I.e. are you perfectly content to have pancakes every day, or does it get boring after a while, and you'd rather something different though equally tasty?

This is what gets affected by getting your options limited, the ability to break the monotony. Granted, it doesn't affect everyone hence question about your personal take on it.

[MerinTB]

In Exile -

Just think of something you DO like variety in?

Movies?  What if every movie you ever watched was a romantic comedy, even though you like action, sci-fi, and drama... all the studios only made romantic comedies now.  Even if you like romantic comedies, are you happy only getting them?

Books?  Say you like reading true crime books.  But you also like reading history books and biographies and how to books.  Now all publishers only release true crime books.  Sure, you like them, but you honestly are ok with getting no more of the other books?

Clothes?  You really like this sweater you got, and you do wear it alot... but sometimes you like wearing a dress shirt, sometimes a t-shirt, and sometimes you like sweatshirts.  Now clothing manufacturers are only making sweaters.  You are ok with only wearing sweaters, and will never be bothered by wanting to wear a t-shirt sometime?

I fully realize you can ignore the point of the analogies, like you did with the food ones, and pick apart the examples instead of, like I ask at the beginning, you thinking of something you DO like variety in.

You honestly don't understand people wanting variety, and being upset when they lose variety despite how much they may normally love what they are left with as an option?

[Loc'n'lol]

kingthrall wrote...

I highly doubt its most antipated game next year, consider the massive compeitition

1. Witcher 2 (my personal choice)
2. Duke nukem forever
3. Starcrat 2 (expansion)
4. Announced next year Elder scrolls 5 Skyrimm
5. Diablo 3
6. Mass effect 3
7. Dawn Of war 2 Retribution
8. Shogun II total war

Is it just me, or is this list entirely made up of sequels ?

[upsettingshorts]

Some of the arguments are poorly worded though which undermines the collective sense of the issue.

"DA2 sucks because they got rid of the origins TW2 will be much better" is an argument that has been made fairly often - though perhaps not as crudely - at least enough that we're commenting on it, and that's a position that really doesn't make a lot of sense when taken at face value.

If they simply mean to raise a point about variety and expectations, that is reasonable. On the other hand the argument that feature X is what made game A good, but game B which doesn't have feature X is better doesn't really hold up. Both positions are similar enough in language that they tend to get blurred together I think - same way pro-DA2-change folks inadvertently end up lumping in fans who wish DA2 was more like Baldurs Gate with fans who wish DA2 was more like DAO.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 27 décembre 2010 - 07:03 .