431 réponses à ce sujet

[Pechvogel]

Those of you claiming that graphics are of little importance seem to be missing the point. Low res textures I can forgive ( although, I feel that a certain level of technical competency should be expacted from a AAA title) Its the art and character design that I find unispiring, and these are crucial for creating immersion – a concept I think we can all agree to be especially important in RPGs.



Thats where TW excels. The devs did a beatiful job of creating a low fantasy world filled whith locations which feel real, coherent and consistant. The forest for instance is filled with colorfull, tropical , creatures which makes me think of some deep ocean world, beautiful yet dangerous and univiting. It all makes sense. Locations feel complete, a village feels like a village, tavern feels like a tavern, a city feels like a city.

I do not get that from DA2, where all seems to consists of huge empty spaces filled with walls occasionally decorated with some meaningles ornaments and random NPCs.



I do not intend to draw any direct comparions, that would feel wrong, like picking on the fat kid, and I belive we all had enough of that. The following example issimply to illustrate my point.

Just recently I made a little discovery, Iorweth (the elf fom the walkthroug) carries a number of badges, coats of arms of a sort. The same type Roche and other high ranking official have. And than it occured to me, he murders tham, steales their badges and carries tham like trophies. This was such a simple yet briliant way of showing his disregard for human life - without using a single wolrd. That is a top notch characterisation right there.



This is also something I do not see in DA2. It all feels random like the devs didn’t think it throuh. Its frustraiting.

Someone please prove me wrong.

[upsettingshorts]

One of the mislabeled pros of TW: The Witcher's story wasn't complex.

What it was, was told in an interesting way in which crucial facts were withheld from the player until they had done quests to reveal them.

[MortalEngines]

Anathemic wrote...
But you wanted your opinion heard did you not? If not then why post in the first place? By participating in letting your opinion be heard you then must be prepared to be faced with a proper argument against it.

In my eyes the opinion is just a sub par opinion because it wasn't backed up by proper source (IE playing through the whoel game), therefore I will bash it however I damn please due to the fact it wasn't backed up properly and/or to a decent level.

You can see my opnion as 'sub par' however you damn well please. I don't care, by posting my own opinion, I am giving my on views to the public, I am not however saying "And you can now have an arguement about this!", you can refute my opinion all you want, but other than saying "3 hours isn't enough" you haven't proven much evidence anyway, how do you know 3 hours isn't enough anyway? By your own stupid 'arguement  etiquette" you need 'evidence". So stop trying to make a mountain from a mole hill.

Also why should I force myself through an unenjoyable game (for ME), in order for you to accept my point? 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 19 février 2011 - 08:16 .

[Anathemic]

JigPig wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

JigPig wrote...

For the appetizer we have a crap sandwich. For your Entrée we have Roast Duck with Mango Salsa. In order to eat the Entrée you must finish the appetizer completely.

Blacklash93 wrote...

Seeing the new reviews, somehow I doubt that.

[citation needed]

Hardly correct.

"My opinion? I am against this form of action. Why? Well because of this quote, but I don't have the source for it, is that still okay?"

So let me get this straight. You believe the opening of the game is extremely stale and hard to play through but you don't believe it's extremely stale and hard to play through.

Are you a republican, by chance?

I believe the opening is bland but not extremely hard to playthrough, and I believe the overall experience of the full game makes up for it.

And no I'm not, going ad hominem now are we?

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Anathemic wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
And basic writing is that you need to have an engaging world and cast of characters for the reader( or player in this case) in order to continue with your story...obviously the witcher failed at this acount in the opening acts as you yourself have attested too earlier in this thread.....oh and

Cool, your point is?

The witcher failed in basic writing? Sure it did, did it fail in a complex well-loved story. Absolutley not.

so you admit it failed in the opening acts which are there to make the player invested....but then you want the player (regardless of the poor writing that you just acknowledged) to continue playing regardless if the beginning sucked....that is an epic fail....

oh...and damn

[upsettingshorts]

MortalEngines' opinion that TW's writing failed to hook him is a valid opinion and not subpar. If he went on to describe how the rest of the game failed in various ways, then you'd have to wonder what experience he's basing his conclusions on.

But saying that the beginning was boring/awful is valid if you've... played the beginning.

And I've played through TW1, I do not think the rest of the game makes up for the beginning.  To the extent that I want to skip ahead to Chapter 2 every single time.  Granted, I want to skip Lothering in DAO and Eden Prime in Mass Effect 1.  It's not a rare thing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 février 2011 - 08:17 .

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

One of the mislabeled pros of TW: The Witcher's story wasn't complex.
What it was, was told in an interesting way in which crucial facts were withheld from the player until they had done quests to reveal them.

I'm pretty sure by this you missed the civil war going on

[JigPig]

Anathemic wrote...

JigPig wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

JigPig wrote...

For the appetizer we have a crap sandwich. For your Entrée we have Roast Duck with Mango Salsa. In order to eat the Entrée you must finish the appetizer completely.

Blacklash93 wrote...

Seeing the new reviews, somehow I doubt that.

[citation needed]

Hardly correct.

"My opinion? I am against this form of action. Why? Well because of this quote, but I don't have the source for it, is that still okay?"

So let me get this straight. You believe the opening of the game is extremely stale and hard to play through but you don't believe it's extremely stale and hard to play through.

Are you a republican, by chance?

I believe the opening is bland but not extremely hard to playthrough, and I believe the overall experience of the full game makes up for it.

And no I'm not, going ad hominem now are we?

So the opening isn't part of the overall experiance?

and I wasn't attacking you, merely asking a question.

[Anathemic]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
And basic writing is that you need to have an engaging world and cast of characters for the reader( or player in this case) in order to continue with your story...obviously the witcher failed at this acount in the opening acts as you yourself have attested too earlier in this thread.....oh and

Cool, your point is?

The witcher failed in basic writing? Sure it did, did it fail in a complex well-loved story. Absolutley not.

so you admit it failed in the opening acts which are there to make the player invested....but then you want the player (regardless of the poor writing that you just acknowledged) to continue playing regardless if the beginning sucked....that is an epic fail....

oh...and damn

I acknowledged it didn't succeed in basic writing, the writing in general (imo) is superb.

By going off your post here it can be said the same for the Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Beginning of Fellowship sucked for me, but after reading the whole trilogy? It's pretty damn good.

Edit: Spelling

Modifié par Anathemic, 19 février 2011 - 08:20 .

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

One of the mislabeled pros of TW: The Witcher's story wasn't complex.
What it was, was told in an interesting way in which crucial facts were withheld from the player until they had done quests to reveal them.

I'm pretty sure by this you missed the civil war going on

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  Are you saying that I missed this "complex" element?  Or that I believe the information of the "civil war" was withheld from the player?

That being said I'd describe it as an insurrection, personally.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 février 2011 - 08:19 .

[MortalEngines]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
so you admit it failed in the opening acts which are there to make the player invested....but then you want the player (regardless of the poor writing that you just acknowledged) to continue playing regardless if the beginning sucked....that is an epic fail....

oh...and damn

This. If the game does not get me interested with in 3 hours of gameplay (which to be honest, I think is rather fair) then it's failed to entice me as the gamer. Doesn't mean it isn't a good game, it just isn't one for me. I'm completely respecting your opinion, and it's one that many people share. Why you can't seem to accept mine, I don't know.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 19 février 2011 - 08:20 .

[Anathemic]

JigPig wrote...

So the opening isn't part of the overall experiance?

and I wasn't attacking you, merely asking a question.

Of course it is, but the overall expierence makes up for it, I didn't say make it null and void, do you need a definition fo overall?

"covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall."
-dictionay.com

Note 'covering or including everything' meaning beginning, middle, end

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

One of the mislabeled pros of TW: The Witcher's story wasn't complex.
What it was, was told in an interesting way in which crucial facts were withheld from the player until they had done quests to reveal them.

I'm pretty sure by this you missed the civil war going on

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  Are you saying that I missed this "complex" element?  Or that I believe the information of the "civil war" was withheld from the player?

That being said I'd describe it as an insurrection, personally.

Insurrection = American Civil War

Anyway the Civil War wasn't witheld, you were already exposed to it in Chapter 1

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Anathemic wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
And basic writing is that you need to have an engaging world and cast of characters for the reader( or player in this case) in order to continue with your story...obviously the witcher failed at this acount in the opening acts as you yourself have attested too earlier in this thread.....oh and

Cool, your point is?

The witcher failed in basic writing? Sure it did, did it fail in a complex well-loved story. Absolutley not.

so you admit it failed in the opening acts which are there to make the player invested....but then you want the player (regardless of the poor writing that you just acknowledged) to continue playing regardless if the beginning sucked....that is an epic fail....

oh...and damn

I acknowledged it didn't succeed in basic writing, the writing in general (imo) is superb.

By going off your post here it can be said the same for the Tolkein's Lorf of the Rings trilogy. Beginning of Fellowship sucked for me, but after reading the whole trilogy? It's pretty damn good.

never claimed tolkien's trilogy was good. however it is his job to make it engaging to the reader...if he failed he is at fault...if you chose to continue regardless then that is good for you. however when you yourself admit it was subpar the player cannot be faulted for not continuing....it just means that you were willing to continue despite his failings...

[Iconic_N7]

Then graphics in DAO were indeed outdated to me, but far from horrible. The new direction in art design for DA II is an obivious improvement on that and looks better than many rpgs in the market today in my opinion, and I havent even played it on my HDTV in person to get a real impression yet. It seems to be on par with the mass effect engine and everyone knows how well thoughs games show character facial emotions. Im sure if bioware intended on making their game's art ultra realistic such as that other game mentioned above, they would have done so. Graphics alone do not make a great game. Story always wins in my opinion. Outstanding graphics are just a plus.

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Insurrection = American Civil War

Not quite.  Still not sure how this story element qualifies as complex.  It's a war between elves/dwarves and humans over the rights of the former.  The elves/dwarves resorting to amoral acts of asymmetrical warfare due to their severe disadvantage in numbers.

Anathemic wrote...

Anyway the Civil War wasn't witheld, you were already exposed to it in Chapter 1

Example of crucial facts being withheld from the player:  Vizima Confidential.  I did not say this withholding was bad, quite the opposite, it is a good way to tell a rather simple story.  A complex story can be confusing - in a satisfying or unsatisfying way, depending on the execution - even when you know everything.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 février 2011 - 08:25 .

[Anathemic]

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

never claimed tolkien's trilogy was good. however it is his job to make it engaging to the reader...if he failed he is at fault...if you chose to continue regardless then that is good for you. however when you yourself admit it was subpar the player cannot be faulted for not continuing....it just means that you were willing to continue despite his failings...

True it is his job, and he failed (imo) in an engaging intro. Does it make it bad? Look a today, LotR has been extremely successfuly, he forever changed the fantasy genre of literature. The pros outweigh the cons.

Which can be said for the same of TW's experience

[JigPig]

Anathemic wrote...

JigPig wrote...

So the opening isn't part of the overall experiance?

and I wasn't attacking you, merely asking a question.

Of course it is, but the overall expierence makes up for it, I didn't say make it null and void, do you need a definition fo overall?

"covering or including everything: an overall impression; to view something overall."
-dictionay.com

Note 'covering or including everything' meaning beginning, middle, end

Then it has failed. A good story would require a good beginning, middle, and end. If the beginning is bad, it's not a good story. If the middle is bad, it's not a good story, so on and so on.

You cannot disregard a flawed introduction simply because the rest of the story is good, the entire notion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I grow weary of discussing DA:O and TW1. If any discussion should be had, it should be between DA2 and TW2, lest the thread will be locked, (it probably will be anyway)

[upsettingshorts]

Anathemic wrote...

Which can be said for the same of TW's experience

Subjectively.

The boring and uninspired beginning makes me not want to replay it.

[Anathemic]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Insurrection = American Civil War

Not quite.  Still not sure how this story element qualifies as complex.  It's a war between elves/dwarves and humans over the rights of the former.  Pretty simple.

Anathemic wrote...

Anyway the Civil War wasn't witheld, you were already exposed to it in Chapter 1

Example of crucial facts being withheld from the player:  Vizima Confidential.  I did not say this withholding was bad, quite the opposite, it is a good way to tell a rather simple story.  A complex story can be confusing - in a satisfying or unsatisfying way, depending on the execution - even when you know everything.

True simple stories were good, but TW did possess simple and complex elements. I bring up 'Frozen Reflections' the quest was meant to be complex and at the end of said quest it is still being debated between the relationship of two completely different characters.

[TGFKAMAdmaX]

Anathemic wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

never claimed tolkien's trilogy was good. however it is his job to make it engaging to the reader...if he failed he is at fault...if you chose to continue regardless then that is good for you. however when you yourself admit it was subpar the player cannot be faulted for not continuing....it just means that you were willing to continue despite his failings...

True it is his job, and he failed (imo) in an engaging intro. Does it make it bad? Look a today, LotR has been extremely successfuly, he forever changed the fantasy genre of literature. The pros outweigh the cons.

Which can be said for the same of TW's experience

Not saying that the story wasnt good overalll. but i am saying that you need to understand other players when they say they couldnt continue with the game when the intro was so poor. it is good that you were able to regardless of the opening acts. but you need to understand their dropping the game as it was the failings of the writers and not some lapse of patience on the player...alas...this is starting to go off topic i think so this will be my last response

[upsettingshorts]

People still debate lots of things about DAO's pretty simple story, or more accurately - as is typical for a Bioware game - the characters involved. Especially say, Loghain and Eamon.

My point is that "complicated story" isn't in of itself a "pro" unless it's a consistently well executed concept. And most games, TW1 and DAO included, don't actually do it.

That's what I mean when I say I think the pros of TW1 are mislabeled. I haven't read the whole thread but the best thing TW1 does especially in comparison to DAO hasn't been mentioned in the last page or so.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 février 2011 - 08:30 .

[XX55XX]

The Witcher is hands down, one of the best RPGs I have ever played. I do not know where you are coming from, Upsettingshorts, but for an initial effort from a small studio, I think it was quite excellent. In many ways, even better than what Dragon Age: Origins had to offer. Music was great, graphics were on the okay side, and the writing generally good, though DAO excelled in that department.

Certainly, the story wasn't very complex. But the decision-making mechanic by far, trounces DAO's.

And The Witcher 2 looks like it will trounce DA2 easily. The recent screenshots are quite surreal - and far superior to what DA2 has to muster, from what I can see so far.

[MortalEngines]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
 I haven't read the whole thread but the best thing TW1 does especially in comparison to DAO hasn't been mentioned in the last page or so.

I assume your referring to the choices you make and the repercussions of them later, which was a weak point in DAO but a strong point in TW1.

Now, I'll be frank. I don't believe that I, as the customer and player, have to force myself through something I paid for and don't enjoy. I bought it and after that it's my choice what to do with it. If I feel that the intro is too weak to continue then that's good for me. If you felt that there was more to explore then good for you, I'm sure there was. I just felt that there was nothing else for me in this game, maybe there was, I'm not willing to put in the time to find out.

XX55XX wrote...
And The Witcher 2 looks like it will trounce DA2 easily. The recent screenshots are quite surreal - and far superior to what DA2 has to muster, from what I can see so far. 

To be fair to both games, I don't think this conclusion can be drawn yet, initial impressions can be decieving. Look at games like Darksiders, it gave the impressions of a God of War copy-cat and it ended up being much more (for me anyway). Like I said, I won't disregard TW2 because I didn't enjoy its predecessor.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 19 février 2011 - 08:39 .

[upsettingshorts]

XX55XX wrote...

The Witcher is hands down, one of the best RPGs I have ever played. I do not know where you are coming from, Upsettingshorts, but for an initial effort from a small studio,

If it's one of the best RPGs you've ever played hands down, why qualify that position by saying it was good for a first effort from CD Projekt?  I sense hedging.

XX55XX wrote...

I think it was quite excellent. In many ways, even better than what Dragon Age: Origins had to offer. Music was great, graphics were on the okay side, and the writing generally good, though DAO excelled in that department.

I think both games definitely had their advantages over the other.  My position is that those advantages commonly listed for TW either don't exist (my subjective opinion as to which is superior and some points raised as objective that I'd dispute) or aren't described properly in a sense that conveys what the game actually did better.

XX55XX wrote...

Certainly, the story wasn't very complex. But the decision-making mechanic by far, trounces DAO's.

Here's an example of what I mean by not being described properly.  What TW1 did better was reactivity.  If you made a decision in a chapter, the next chapter changed.  DAO simply couldn't do this because the order of events was up to the player.  So you could call this a tradeoff, but I personally preferred TW1's more linear narrative because it allowed reactivity.  The choices themselves were either not special, given to Geralt and the player before they had enough information to make a reasonable choice (a "Gotcha!" choice isn't inherently bad but can be overdone), and only occasionally truly difficult.  Kinda like DAO.  The advantage TW1 has is you saw the result more or less immediately and not in some text epilogue card.

XX55XX wrote...

And The Witcher 2 looks like it will trounce DA2 easily.

I think they'll both be good.  I am not going to call a winner before the race starts.

MortalEngines wrote...

Now, I'll be frank. I don't believe that I, as the customer and player, have to force myself through something I paid for and don't enjoy.

Check my other posts in the thread, I defend your position.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 février 2011 - 08:38 .