645 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

erynnar wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Maybe because they couldn't even spell Fereld-EN (not Fereld-AN) in the subtitles right? At least TW2 didn't have a problem with the details and the spelling of it's own lore.

Ferleden is the country. Fereldan is the demonym. L2P, noob.

Ah, I was being sarcastic , but not clear enough for you I guess. And does it make you feel better about yourself to insult people?

I don't think sarcastic means what you seem to think it means....

Neither do I. A lot of the sarcasm in the forums are just insults towards the devs masked as jokes or sarcastic comments.

[Maria Caliban]

The Witcher 2 needs a storage chest. Seriously, the first game let you store things with innkeepers.

[Lenimph]

RageGT wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

I chalk it all up to dev time. DA2 was made in 18 months. A year and a half. How long was Witcher 2 in development? So, despite having many of the same design decisions, Witcher 2 was afforded a lot more time for polish.

And lol at that comic, I still don't understand why women find Geralt attractive.

Shane Falco: Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever.

Women don't find Geralt attractive...
The guy looks like he's growing a 3rd mutant nipple...
Which probably why guy's like him so much... they like weird things like that right? 

[Zjarcal]

Autolycus wrote...

No comments for me?

How ironic.....I guess we are all in agreement with my statement then?

Good....Night everyone

Actually I am in agreement. It does seem that most of the disappointment stems from what you said, the expectations people had.

I went in with no expectations really. I liked what I got (even if I do admit that it has faults).

Modifié par Zjarcal, 22 mai 2011 - 11:58 .

[_Aine_]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Witcher 2 needs a storage chest. Seriously, the first game let you store things with innkeepers.

This is the truth!  Must have!

[Zanallen]

shantisands wrote...

I don't think he is all that thin... sure, low body fat, but he has some decent muscle on a medium body frame.  Letho dude is just terrifying.  He has to be log-tossing entire forests on a daily basis + some magical steroids to get that huge.  That is just HUGE.  (And he kind of reminds me of Arnold....)  

Personally I LOVE that he isn't this huge hulking meat machine.  Yeah, he is kind of wiry, true ( I thought it was partly due to his age and raging metabolism) but so many "heroes" are these ginormous over-compensating freaks of nature.  Seriously, an older, scarred, normal statured yet capable hero?  Who doesn't just win based on being the biggest of them all?   Yes please.  Just my opinion though. I know lots of men like playing big strong characters and probably lots of women out there like to look at them.  They are cool too, in their own way.  Just not my cup of tea.   I like some flaws, and quirks I guess. To each their own.  

That's understandable. Though, isn't he also the thinnest Witcher? I dunno, I guess I just find it odd that a man who spends all his time running around with two swords and hunting a wide variety beasties isn't a bit more built. Maybe its because a lot of the other fighter types are bulkier so Geralt is like the odd man out...

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

Lenimph wrote...

RageGT wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

I chalk it all up to dev time. DA2 was made in 18 months. A year and a half. How long was Witcher 2 in development? So, despite having many of the same design decisions, Witcher 2 was afforded a lot more time for polish.

And lol at that comic, I still don't understand why women find Geralt attractive.

Shane Falco: Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever.

Women don't find Geralt attractive...
The guy looks like he's growing a 3rd mutant nipple...
Which probably why guy's like him so much... they like weird things like that right? 

Hell, I don't find him attractive and I was upset Justice wasn't romanceable in DA:A.

[Malanek]

nedpepper wrote...
You see, I think this argument is a lot simpler.  It all goes back to that elitist PC mindset.  The Witcher is better because it's not available on consoles and it was not released my a mainstream publisher.  I go back to my original point.  WAY before DA2 was announced, there were people already denouncing the game and pimping The Witcher 2.  It's even worse on Facebook.  Every time Bioware would release bits of information about DA2 before it's release, the comments were filled with "Dragon Age Sucks...WITCHER 2!" .  Why even go to effort to "like" Dragon Age if the whole point is to **** yourself out for another video game.

And for a lot of us who can't afford to buy a computer that  CAN PLAY either the first or second Witcher, we're left scratching our heads.  We'll never know, because The Witcher will never be released on the X-Box or Playstation and they seem to take pride in that.  And that's the crux of this argument, I believe.

I don't consider it so much pride in the fact it could not run on current generation consoles, but more they are bothered about not sacrificing their vision to cater for a bigger market. Bioware does make some sacrifices to make their games run on multiple platforms although we don't know exactly how limiting it is. From a PC gamers point of view it is perfectly fair to compare TW2 to DA2 with the final products without making any excuses about consoles.

[Khayness]

Dasher1010 wrote...

1. A three-act structure.

It doesn't matter how many Acts you have if they are properly linked together and doesn't feel like episodes of a miniseries. You have a clear goal which motivates you through the whole game > Each Act presents you a new one and they get resolved in the end of the same act it was presented.

Dasher1010 wrote...

2. The took a turned based system and made it hack and slash

The Witcher 2 is an action-RPG, Dragon Age 2 still retains its round based feeling. To me, Action-RPGs rely more on my skills as player, rather then the PC's skills and abilitites. You can auto attack your way to victory if you are a beefed up demigod, but in Action-RPGs you still get killed if you don't know how to fight properly.

Edit: For better clarity, see the Gothic saga (there is not Gothic 4 btw).

Dasher1010 wrote...

3. Too few abilities and too many upgrades

I was perfectly content with that in both games, TW2 made a huge improvement, since the skilltrees make drastic changes to your playstyle, be that counter ripost, the adrenaline effects, more potions to drink, better signs, etc.

DA2 managed to make every character build more unique than in DA:O/DA:A thanks to the more variety of skills.

Dasher1010 wrote...

4. A cliffhanging ending that sets up an expansion pack to nickle and dime players

Only time will tell.

I didn't find TW2's ending bitter because of the sequel hook, you have managed to resolve a lot of things, you answered a lot of questions what remained since TW1 and you had a great impact on the world, in DA2, not so much. Cool, the mages and templars are fighting, no thanks to you.

Dasher1010 wrote...

5. Bugs at launch

DA2's (and Awakening's) bugs are robbing me of game content (import bugs, glitched quests), TW2's bugs do not.

Dasher1010 wrote...

6. A Mass Effect-style dialog system

The paraphrasing is better in DA2 than in ME, but it's still suprising (especially with the sarcastic options), TW2 had a few examples of this aswell, but it wasn't that bad.

Modifié par Khayness, 23 mai 2011 - 12:15 .

[Zanallen]

Zjarcal wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Ah, I was being sarcastic , but not clear enough for you I guess. And does it make you feel better about yourself to insult people?

I don't think sarcastic means what you seem to think it means....

Neither do I. A lot of the sarcasm in the forums are just insults towards the devs masked as jokes or sarcastic comments.

See? Laidlaw was right. Sarcasm isn't easily conveyed through writing.

Modifié par Zanallen, 23 mai 2011 - 12:03 .

[John Epler]

Alright, let's cut out the bickering, please.

Thank you kindly.

[erynnar]

Zjarcal wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

erynnar wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Maybe because they couldn't even spell Fereld-EN (not Fereld-AN) in the subtitles right? At least TW2 didn't have a problem with the details and the spelling of it's own lore.

Ferleden is the country. Fereldan is the demonym. L2P, noob.

Ah, I was being sarcastic , but not clear enough for you I guess. And does it make you feel better about yourself to insult people?

I don't think sarcastic means what you seem to think it means....

Neither do I. A lot of the sarcasm in the forums are just insults towards the devs masked as jokes or sarcastic comments.

Then I humbly apologize! I don't like petty insults. I just picked something I thought was so silly, no one would take me seriously. Sorry guys, really. I know people get insulted here (from both sides, all the time), so I shall go don on my hair shirt and use the whip on myself...oh kinky.

[Morroian]

Dasher1010 wrote...

1. A three-act structure.
DA2 got a lot of criticism for taking a world that was once open and then making it both confined and linear. TW2 did the same thing but the difference was that each act took place in a different location. DA2 could have been improved if either Kirkwall changed with each act or if the game took place in a different city in each act. Moreover, TW2 whet players' appetites for more while DA2 just made people happy that the game was over due to the reused dungeons and A button mashing. Also, TW2 built up to act 3, DA2 simply dumped the final act onto you abruptly and then randomly hit you with the fianl quest just as quickly. 

Act 3 took just as long for me as Act 2 did.

Dasher1010 wrote...

2. The took a turned based system and made it hack and slash

DAO was turn based? IMHO DA2 was similar to DAO but sped up. I've played some action rpgs since finishing DA2 (Titan Quest and Torchlight) and I find myself wishing for things like auto attack while playing them.

Dasher1010 wrote...

4. A cliffhanging ending that sets up an expansion pack to nickle and dime players

So TW2 ends on a cliffhanger? Funny how there's no critciism of that aspect.

Dasher1010 wrote...

5. Bugs at launch
TW2 currently has a number of bugs, including a memory leak. DA2 was also incredibly buggy at release. The difference is that CDProject have said that we'll be getting a patch in a few days, DA2 took a month to patch. The same comparison could be made with Fallout: New Vegas, the game was patched only about two weeks after launch which cleared up a number of issues. Bioware not fixing their product in a timely manner showed that they didn't care about their fans. 

Meh IMHO it doesn't say anything of the sort, a month is still reasonable IMHO. And DAO was just as buggy as DA2, my personal experience is that I had less problems with DA2 than I had with DAO.

Dasher1010 wrote...

6. A Mass Effect-style dialog system
The real problem was the fact that Hawke's personalities were forced on players, instead of letting players choose what they wanted to say in each conversation rather than selecting their version of Hawke at the beginning of the game. 

So you want your character to be set in stone at the beginning of the game and not be dynamic in response to events that occur? How is that role playing?

The dialogue system in now way impinged on role playing, yes it appeals to a certian type of role playing, 3rd person as opposed to first person but it is still role playing. And nothing was forced on me, my  Hawkes personality was what I chose it to be throughout the game.

[erynnar]

nedpepper wrote...

erynnar wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

In Exile wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
I'm not sure how this Witcher vs. Dragon Age crap started, and I don't see why it even matters. Isn't possible to like both games? Or dislike both games? What concerns me about this board is the hive mindset. I used to think geeks were an open-minded, amaiable lot....until discovering these boards.

No. Just like how it's not allowed to like both DA:O and DA2, or to like ME and ME2, or think that Alpha Protocol wasn't a bug infested mess, etc.

There's a hypocrisy as stated in the OP's post.  Expectations?  Because Bioware has decided to make changes to their franchises, to experiment, that's a bad thing?

You see, I think this argument is a lot simpler.  It all goes back to that elitist PC mindset.  The Witcher is better because it's not available on consoles and it was not released my a mainstream publisher.  I go back to my original point.  WAY before DA2 was announced, there were people already denouncing the game and pimping The Witcher 2.  It's even worse on Facebook.  Every time Bioware would release bits of information about DA2 before it's release, the comments were filled with "Dragon Age Sucks...WITCHER 2!" .  Why even go to effort to "like" Dragon Age if the whole point is to **** yourself out for another video game.

And for a lot of us who can't afford to buy a computer that  CAN PLAY either the first or second Witcher, we're left scratching our heads.  We'll never know, because The Witcher will never be released on the X-Box or Playstation and they seem to take pride in that.  And that's the crux of this argument, I believe.

Um don't call me a PC elitist, it is rude, and un called for, and makes your arguments look like ignorant whining. I don't call people console kiddies, and I don't call them fanboys, fanboise (that one really pisses me off). And this old craptastic argument...again.  Yeah, not all changes are good. No, it isn't bad to experiement. 

But, BioWare didnt' just experiement, the group that worked on DA2 ripped out almost everything from DAO, including retconning or just completely ignoring lore from the first game. They did a complete 180 (Mike Laidlaw admits this). From eye colors of well known and loved or liked characters even. And that is the smallest, you can work you way up to the biggest of these real glaring problems of ignoring DAO almost all together. All of it, from the smallest to the largest retcon, ignoring, tossing ou, etc of lore, history, etc. was just a sign to me of pissing on the first very successful and popular game of the franchise.

And tossing a few of the characters from the previous game was just a small thin bone with no meat. I would have preferred they just left everyone from DAO out of DA2 completely. It was a complete waste, and in some ways an insult. And why did they even bother? Who knows, it wasn't like DAO was really the basis for the DA2 world really, not when they can't keep the history and lore straight at the very least. Why didn't they just make it a completely new game?  Oh, that's right...money. The name would make money, silly me.

So it isn't just change ( I expected a new story without my warden, in a new place from Ferelden, that was change that sounded neat to me, along with fixing what didn't work in DAO), I looked forward to a new character and new story in the DA universe.

What I got was, I don't what the hell I got, truth be told. I am detail person (as a writer you have to be to keep up with **** you wrote before), and DA2 couldn't even keep up with simple things that you could look up on dragon age wiki (which despite being able to be edited at will, is a hell of a lot more accurate than DA2).

At least Witcher 2 can keep up with, not only it's originally established lore from the first, but your decisions from it, and every thing you do in game changes things even as you play, and not just the ending; so, it's better about keeping up with is going on at the time it's happening. It didn't appear to retcon anything that I can see.

As to consoles, I hope they release for the console. I think there are plenty of console players who like RPG (as evidenced by DAO sales, past and present) and who would enjoy it. See, no PC elitism here. DA 2 Was just swung and missed. Let's hope BioWare doesn't go for strike two with DA3.

As a fellow writer, I also know how DIFFICULT it can be, particularly when you are working in a team environment, to keep up with every detail of the lore.

And I hate to say this, but you come across as more of the whining type.  I CAN'T play Witcher, so I can't argue the details.  And I didn't name you personally.  Just an overall general feeling of the conversaton of the gaming community in multiple places.  And you know what?  I think I'm right.  It is a PC elitism/rebellious thing.   That doesn't mean YOU SPECIFICALLY, unless it hits a nerve and you take it that way.

Well, can we do it without the name calling? You may not have meant me, and I didn't think you did, but it doesn't do any cheerful debating to use titles that are used as insults and bats on each other. 

I respect ya ned. We may hardly every agree, but I have always enjoyed your posts. But that name is not necessary.

[Guitar-Hero]

I think it is all about to what extent they are done, DA2 was a complete overhaul where the spirit of DA:O was lost, DA2 was clearly rushed and needed a great deal of TLC, TW2 on the otherhand is a game wher you can see and feel the devs. commitement to the game, sure it was based on the same concept but TW2 did it without loosing the games soul, moderation is key, and ofcourse deddication.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

nedpepper wrote...

erynnar wrote...

nedpepper wrote...

In Exile wrote...

nedpepper wrote...
I'm not sure how this Witcher vs. Dragon Age crap started, and I don't see why it even matters. Isn't possible to like both games? Or dislike both games? What concerns me about this board is the hive mindset. I used to think geeks were an open-minded, amaiable lot....until discovering these boards.

No. Just like how it's not allowed to like both DA:O and DA2, or to like ME and ME2, or think that Alpha Protocol wasn't a bug infested mess, etc.

There's a hypocrisy as stated in the OP's post.  Expectations?  Because Bioware has decided to make changes to their franchises, to experiment, that's a bad thing?

You see, I think this argument is a lot simpler.  It all goes back to that elitist PC mindset.  The Witcher is better because it's not available on consoles and it was not released my a mainstream publisher.  I go back to my original point.  WAY before DA2 was announced, there were people already denouncing the game and pimping The Witcher 2.  It's even worse on Facebook.  Every time Bioware would release bits of information about DA2 before it's release, the comments were filled with "Dragon Age Sucks...WITCHER 2!" .  Why even go to effort to "like" Dragon Age if the whole point is to **** yourself out for another video game.

And for a lot of us who can't afford to buy a computer that  CAN PLAY either the first or second Witcher, we're left scratching our heads.  We'll never know, because The Witcher will never be released on the X-Box or Playstation and they seem to take pride in that.  And that's the crux of this argument, I believe.

Um don't call me a PC elitist, it is rude, and un called for, and makes your arguments look like ignorant whining. I don't call people console kiddies, and I don't call them fanboys, fanboise (that one really pisses me off). And this old craptastic argument...again.  Yeah, not all changes are good. No, it isn't bad to experiement. 

But, BioWare didnt' just experiement, the group that worked on DA2 ripped out almost everything from DAO, including retconning or just completely ignoring lore from the first game. They did a complete 180 (Mike Laidlaw admits this). From eye colors of well known and loved or liked characters even. And that is the smallest, you can work you way up to the biggest of these real glaring problems of ignoring DAO almost all together. All of it, from the smallest to the largest retcon, ignoring, tossing ou, etc of lore, history, etc. was just a sign to me of pissing on the first very successful and popular game of the franchise.

And tossing a few of the characters from the previous game was just a small thin bone with no meat. I would have preferred they just left everyone from DAO out of DA2 completely. It was a complete waste, and in some ways an insult. And why did they even bother? Who knows, it wasn't like DAO was really the basis for the DA2 world really, not when they can't keep the history and lore straight at the very least. Why didn't they just make it a completely new game?  Oh, that's right...money. The name would make money, silly me.

So it isn't just change ( I expected a new story without my warden, in a new place from Ferelden, that was change that sounded neat to me, along with fixing what didn't work in DAO), I looked forward to a new character and new story in the DA universe.

What I got was, I don't what the hell I got, truth be told. I am detail person (as a writer you have to be to keep up with **** you wrote before), and DA2 couldn't even keep up with simple things that you could look up on dragon age wiki (which despite being able to be edited at will, is a hell of a lot more accurate than DA2).

At least Witcher 2 can keep up with, not only it's originally established lore from the first, but your decisions from it, and every thing you do in game changes things even as you play, and not just the ending; so, it's better about keeping up with is going on at the time it's happening. It didn't appear to retcon anything that I can see.

As to consoles, I hope they release for the console. I think there are plenty of console players who like RPG (as evidenced by DAO sales, past and present) and who would enjoy it. See, no PC elitism here. DA 2 Was just swung and missed. Let's hope BioWare doesn't go for strike two with DA3.

As a fellow writer, I also know how DIFFICULT it can be, particularly when you are working in a team environment, to keep up with every detail of the lore.

And I hate to say this, but you come across as more of the whining type.  I CAN'T play Witcher, so I can't argue the details.  And I didn't name you personally.  Just an overall general feeling of the conversaton of the gaming community in multiple places.  And you know what?  I think I'm right.  It is a PC elitism/rebellious thing.   That doesn't mean YOU SPECIFICALLY, unless it hits a nerve and you take it that way.

Ouoted for truth.  

[erynnar]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

erynnar wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Maybe because they couldn't even spell Fereld-EN (not Fereld-AN) in the subtitles right? At least TW2 didn't have a problem with the details and the spelling of it's own lore.

Ferleden is the country. Fereldan is the demonym. L2P, noob.

Ah, I was being sarcastic , but not clear enough for you I guess. And does it make you feel better about yourself to insult people?

I don't think sarcastic means what you seem to think it means. Either way, it's no excuse for being wrong.

As for my supposed "insult," I was being ironic, but that wasn't clear enough for you I guess.

I was being wrong on purpose. And I don't think sarcasm means what you think it means either. And maybe I missed it because it sounded like an insult (like mine, which I had the balls/ovaries to apologize for).  Perhaps we should both stop trying to be sarcastic.

[John Epler]

Hey! Hey.

We're doing that bickering thing again. Whatever your feelings are about DA2 (or other RPGs), let's avoid the 'PC elitists are the only reason this game is looked at favourably/poorly/hungrily' argument.

Thanks.

[Zanallen]

JohnEpler wrote...

Hey! Hey.

We're doing that bickering thing again. Whatever your feelings are about DA2 (or other RPGs), let's avoid the 'PC elitists are the only reason this game is looked at favourably/poorly/hungrily' argument.

Thanks.

But PC Elitists are constantly breaking into my home to devour my 3.5 floppys. Must I merely endure this behavior?

[Khayness]

JohnEpler wrote...

Hey! Hey.

We're doing that bickering thing again. Whatever your feelings are about DA2 (or other RPGs), let's avoid the 'PC elitists are the only reason this game is looked at favourably/poorly/hungrily' argument.

Thanks.

Apart from 1 post there wasn't any of that on this page, good job hijacking the thread!

[Skilled Seeker]

They call us PC ELITISTS for a reason. We are ELITE and wear our title like a badge of honour.

[Melca36]

I didn't hate DA:2. I've always said its about a 7/8 quality-wise. But that said, some of the changes did make me wonder if some gamers are lazy and want everything handed to them.

I also think there is a bit of division among the console gamers. I know a great many who rate the game the same way I did.
Many of them felt insulted by some of the so called streamlining.

I think game developers need to realize that gamers are NOT stupid. We can see when something is rushed. And they need to realize alot of console gamers are over 21 and they do appreciate depth in their games.

Here's hoping they take the elements that worked in DA:2 and add some elements from Origins they took away and make a DA:3 that appeals to ALL fanbases.

[Melca36]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

They call us PC ELITISTS for a reason. We are ELITE and wear our title like a badge of honour.

Please lets not close this thread.   There are some good posts here.