510 réponses à ce sujet

[Marionetten]

Merced652 wrote...

And lets be real here, Iroveth is a bad ass.

Not as bad of an ass as Roche.

[Merced652]

Marionetten wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

And lets be real here, Iroveth is a bad ass.

Not as bad of an ass as Roche.

Now we have to fight

Modifié par Merced652, 21 mai 2011 - 09:35 .

[_Aine_]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
You still have customization in DA2, and I don't have to play someone I can't stand. I don't like Geralt that's just me.

While DA2 obviously had more character customization than games like the Witcher (though I argue that customizing Geralt's perceptions are much better integrated in the game and story), the game still forces a lot on me that I very much dislike. 

I can't imagine an ambitious and cunning Hawke, mostly because the plot demands that he's very reactive / passive (and I am being kind here) and essentally stumbling on his rise to fame. Whereas in Origins, the Warden could end up in very different places (mostly an illusion, but it was integrated in the game). You could play an ambitious warden, or an adventurous one. In DA2, you are forced to play what I consider to be one of the most passive and straight out lazy protagonists I've ever played.

While Geralt is certainly not an ambitious character that I'd identify with the most, I feel he was well-done as a character, and in a very  interesting context, that I can enjoy his story. In DA2, I felt that at the end of the day, Hawke was not interesting and didn't do much, and the context was either uninteresting or poorly executed. Of course most of this is subjective, but when I compare DA2 and TW 1 and 2, I do not regret the absence of customization that much, because the restrictions TW had were well integrated the story and were of interest to me.

Agree with this.  
They made Geralt believable, so even as a female gamer I could identify with his..er.... humanity.   You don't have to BE a carbon copy of the protagonist, the story should just let you identify enough, or be immersive enough that the differences are intriguing rather than merely divisive.   If I am going to BE someone else, that is fine by me as long as they make it enjoyable to play in another's skin and through their eyes.  

It is an art to do it creatively and well.  I guess that is part of what endears me to games. I don't have to always be who I am in RL.    Maybe some people can't fathom playing the opposite sex, or a bisexual character, or a chronically good/evil one, or an elf, a killer or a thief...etc.  I enjoy the variety, personally.    As long as the game gives me an experience I find enjoyable for some reason, that is good enough for me.  It doesn't mean I don't see the flaws, trust me, I do in most games because I am chronically looking for what works and what doesn't. I am a "what makes it tick" sort of person.  But what it does mean is that I tend to dwell on what I like rather than what I don't.  Well, most of the time.  I am human after all.  lol  

[Everwarden]

ExaltedReign wrote...
Should I still get it?

That depends. If you don't mind fighting tedious wave after wave of one-shot, exploding enemies that all look the same for literally hours, it might be worth your money. Though if you're only interested in a good hack-n-slash, get God of War, or Devil May Cry if you want to go retro. 

[Merced652]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

And lets be real here, Iorveth is a bad ass.

Fix'd

double fix'd

[Dragoonlordz]

If do compare the two from my perspective it simply comes down to...

Witchers 2 > Stayed true to Witcher 1 in most cases only improved upon > It ends up better.
Dragon Age 2 > Was nothing like DAO in most cases and not improved, just different > It ends up worse.

Now if you don't mind I'm off to play Witcher 1 for bit, some young lady is waiting for my arrival for quickie at the mill outside city and I would hate to dissapoint her by not turning up "wink,wink:nudge,nudge:say no more".

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 21 mai 2011 - 09:42 .

[Mr. Man]

ExaltedReign wrote...


I know that my generation (I'm 15) like games that are more action packed and whatnot, but is that a bad thing? Does that make us any less of a gamer?

Also, being only a few short years older than you, I would prefer if you didn't act like your some sort of spokesperson for my generation. Liking simple, straightforward games with lots of action over story-intensive epics has nothing to do with generation. It has to do with taste and, ultimately, intellect.

[Tommy6860]

Brockololly wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
Exactly. 

Some may not care for choosing a gender, class, or changing their appearance, but most people do. It's not about the customization making a huge difference in the story (that rarely happens) it's simply about creating a character I like.

I guess I'm of the thinking that once you add a set voice, changing appearance isn't that big of a deal  to me- its not like people will respond to how your character looks. Whereas people frequently call out how much of an ugly freak Geralt looks like.

Gender I can see possibly being a sticking point, if it comes up at all in the story. Fair enough.

But really, in TW2, you have just as much character customization, if not more than DA2 in terms of skills/abilities/gear. Since basically you're not set in any one class like DA2, you can have Geralt be more of a swordsman, alchemist, magic user or some mix of all of those. Add in having more meaningful use of skills/magic/persuade/intimidate in dialogue, along with dialogues that can have meaningful divergent outcomes (actually being able to talk people down without having to fight every single person) and I think there is a good deal of character customization in TW2, so long as you can accept Geralt as the PC, which obviously is a sticking point for some people.

I agree with this and not being able to choose my gender is a sticking point for me. As I have noted already in this thrread, I loved TWEE, but could finsh a second run because i knew I was going to be the same exact character, not even the name I cold choose is an option. I wondered how the story would play out if i could play a female. Just like playing f/m Wardens in Origins, they had different effects. Though TWEE had great RPG elements, this one point holds me back from TW2 despite the praise it gets.

What's really sad is that some get essentailly attacked for not wanting (different from saying they don't like it) to play TW2 because they cannot choose their gender, while not commenting on the game's other aspects otherwise.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Marionetten wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

And lets be real here, Iroveth is a bad ass.

Not as bad of an ass as Roche.

Ves and Saskia dominate both.

[Zjarcal]

Brockololly wrote...

The thing is that most of the marketing claims were just gross exagerations to the point of incredulity by the time the game came out. Now a lot of games do that, but I'd say that contributed to the warped expectations some people had with the game, and ultimately added to the generally negative reception the game had once people actually could play it and it didn't match up to the hype.

I don't know, I think most people (at least most of the people who didn't like the game), almost unanimously agreed that the marketing promises were crap from the moment they were announced. Hell, even I thought that.

Or even like in the little developer diary videos they had where Laidlaw said he thought DA2 was perhaps BioWare's most responsive/reactive narrative ever. Obviously thats his opinion, but I think you'd be more likely to see people say how DA2 was likely one of BioWare's most linear and non-responsive narratives ever. Its one thing if its marketing telling somebody like Laidlaw to say something like that, but it would be another if he truly believed that. I think people figured with the talk of likening DA2's framed narrative to having the divergent epilogue slides in the middle of the game, that you'd have meaningful divergence in the middle of the story (like, oh, say the Witcher 2) but instead everything plays out mostly the same every time. So the question is, do the developers like Laidlaw see that or do they truly still believe the marketing speak they let forth pre-release?

Again, I'm just so used to those developer diary things exaggerating everything that I just don't bother even paying attention. I do recall what he said about the epilogues showing up in the middle of the game instead and I always just thought it'd be a codex entry or something small.

I guess I just never allowed the marketing to influence my expecations in a positive or negative way, so I just never really cared for it.

Do I think that the developers truly believe what they said in the marketing stuff? No, I don't. But again, that's what I expect from marketing hyperbole.

Marionetten wrote...
The rest is just pure fluff from my perspective but I'm sure some appearance mods will remedy it sooner or later. The Witcher had quite a few.

If the rest is just pure fluff from your perspective, there's no point in discussing it really. Different points of view.

Alistairlover94 wrote...

@Merced652: Please stop trolling.

Finally we agree on something. 

Brockololly wrote...

I guess I'm of the thinking that once you add a set voice, changing appearance isn't that big of a deal  to me- its not like people will respond to how your character looks. Whereas people frequently call out how much of an ugly freak Geralt looks like.

Gender I can see possibly being a sticking point, if it comes up at all in the story. Fair enough.

Well, looks are important to me. I like creating a character that looks exactly how I want her to look. Ask me why it took me so long to get into Mass Effect? Because I wasn't able to create a Shepard I was comfortable with how she looked.

About gender, even if it didn't come up in the story, I still care about it. You guys are used to playing guys and odds are that you prefer so. I am used to it in the sense that almost all other games have male protagonists, but if I have the option, I will always prefer to play as a female, regardless of whether it affects the story or not. It's easier for me to empathize with my character if she's a girl.

But really, in TW2, you have just as much character customization, if not more than DA2 in terms of skills/abilities/gear. Since basically you're not set in any one class like DA2, you can have Geralt be more of a swordsman, alchemist, magic user or some mix of all of those. Add in having more meaningful use of skills/magic/persuade/intimidate in dialogue, along with dialogues that can have meaningful divergent outcomes (actually being able to talk people down without having to fight every single person) and I think there is a good deal of character customization in TW2, so long as you can accept Geralt as the PC, which obviously is a sticking point for some people.

I'm not really arguing about skills/abilities, etc., I believe you that there is more of that in TW2 (hell, from the little I've seen of TW1, there's clearly more talents/skills than in both DA games combined). But as you said at the end, there is a great deal of customization as long as you accept Geralt and only Geralt as the PC. And yes, it is a sticking point for many, myself included.

[Cipher1989]

Dragon Age 2, as a stand alone game, it's actually pretty decent. But as a sequal to Dragon Age Origins? Not so much.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
I will always prefer to play as a female, regardless of whether it affects the story or not. It's easier for me to empathize with my character if she's a girl.

We all know it's because you want to see her behind and swaying hips Z

...hmmm maybe I've stared at Geralt's behind a little too much (naah).
That's probably the only reason why I'd replay DA2. To play LadyHawke (whose VA is apparently excellent).

[Cipher1989]

Female Geralt? Haha watching a 50 years old woman go around and slaying monsters and bad people. Hey come to think of it, that might be badass! A grandma that kicks ass.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
I will always prefer to play as a female, regardless of whether it affects the story or not. It's easier for me to empathize with my character if she's a girl.

We all know it's because you want to see her behind and swaying hips Z

I don't think I've ever denied that I enjoy that! 

...hmmm maybe I've stared at Geralt's behind a little too much (naah).

Admit it, Geralt's swaying hips and rough scars have you enticed. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Cipher1989 wrote...

Female Geralt? Haha watching a 50 years old woman go around and slaying monsters and bad people. Hey come to think of it, that might be badass! A grandma that kicks ass.

Witchers live longer than humans, so 50 is not a lot for them.


A white haired, yellow cat eyed badass woman at her physical pic?
She can Axii me anytime.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
Admit it, Geralt's swaying hips and rough scars have you enticed. 

No.

...It's the hair.

[Cipher1989]

Yeah and we will collect card of men instead....

Modifié par Cipher1989, 21 mai 2011 - 09:52 .

[John Epler]

At this point we're not even slightly on-topic.

Let's try and bring this back to DA2, or it's going to get locked.

[Merced652]

leave brittney geralt alone!

Modifié par Merced652, 21 mai 2011 - 09:56 .