514 réponses à ce sujet

[YohkoOhno]

I suspect there's a selection bias in the OP's analysis.

Or, you're just in the minority on this message board, because a lot of people on the message board are talking about it.

[Terastar]

I enjoyed playing both games. I will say that because I played both games it made me think more about what I thought a role playing game should include. Does having a voice make me play or not play either of these games? NO. Does the handling of sex make me play or not play either of these games? NO. Playing a fixed character? NO.
I would love playing a female Witcher with male romances but that is not who the character is in the books. So for me BioWare has a plus but the Witcher does not have a minus.
I loved the environments of the Witcher and how it felt big and alive so a plus for them and BioWare DAO was better than DA2 so no minus.
I loved having companions with me and the banter is the best. So a plus for BioWare. The Witcher is more for one person than group of persons. I am okay with that but I prefer having the group as long as I can control them and use them as my group.
I love creating my character. I think that this is the heart of the difference of RPG's. In BioWare games the way you build your character and companions can make or break the game. In the Witcher I sometimes had the feeling that it was more of how fast I was punching buttons and not really what I did in making him be a great character (JMHO). I want success based on my creation of my character/group and not on how great I am in making my character/group do things. My success of finishing the game is my character/group creation and not I killed all of the baddies on insanity ain't I great.Anyway happy gaming to all.

[gotthammer]

For me, it wasn't just about whether the character was 'mine' (esp. not for TW2, but it was an expectation for DA2 because of DA:O).
As others here have said, it really was more about how poorly, IMHO, executed DA2 was...and that's just when comparing it to its predecessor.

Quality-wise, DA2 and TW2 are worlds apart.

That said, TW2 isn't perfect (well, no game is 'perfect'...).
There are some aspects of TW1 that I prefer, and there's that feeling that TW2 is, like DA2, 'consolized', but, as a whole, TW2 is a great sequel to a great game (YMMV).

Oh, and, BioWare: please release an 'enhanced edition' for DA2 (fix re-used environments, fix disjointed plot, fix 'waves' and MMO-ish combat, updated toolset, etc.)

Modifié par gotthammer, 29 mai 2011 - 02:40 .

[TheChosenKing]

phaonica wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I'm confused. Browsing these forums, there's a whole lot of posts where people who don't like voiced protagonists go on about how they never felt Hawke was "their" character, rather a character they just borrowed for a while. Yet even so, the Witcher is praised all over the place. I don't mean to belittle the Witcher - I haven't even played the game so what do I know in reality - but from what I've gathered you have far less control in the Witcher than in DA2.

As one of the people who never felt Hawke was "my" character, I wanted to comment. I haven't played TW2 yet, but from what I've heard about it, I have a feeling that I would like it better than I liked DA2. Hawke not being "my" character was one of several reasons that I didn't like DA2 as much as DAO. Yet Geralt not being "my" character does not bother me at all in TW2. The two points of view offer two differing and distinct gameplay experiences.

I wouldn't mind leading Geralt through "his" adventure in the 3rd person, but I also like games in the 1st person where "I" am the character going through the adventure. For me, the quickest way to turn a 1st person controlled protagonist narrative into a 3rd person controlled protagonist narrative is not to move the camera into the 3rd person but to give the character a pre-recorded, vocal "voice" that is not "mine". Not having a vocal voice (battle vocals/grunts don't count) is a significant characteristic that causes the 1st person to be immersive for me. As expressed on these forums, for some people the lack of a vocal voice breaks immersion. For me, the opposite is true.

So, does the fact that I didn't like DA2 as much as DAO mean that I must prefer a 1st person narrative over a 3rd person one? Perhaps it does. Does that mean that I couldn't decide that a game with a 3rd person narrative isn't a better game? I don't think so. Even if I prefer the 1st person, it's the *overall* execution of the game that makes it a better or worse game, in my opinion. For example, even if someone removed all the protagonist vocals from DA2 and changed the dialog wheel to better reflect the removed vocals, and therefore returned DA2 to the 1st person, it would still, in my opinion, not be as good a game as DAO, because it was not *only* the vocals that made the second game not as fun as the first.

I certainly made a mistake in the the hope that DAO was setting certain gameplay precedents for the series, such as the 1st person narrative. I think I'd be severely disappointed if I learned that in Skyrim you could only play as a Nord, or if that game was suddenly using a 3rd person narrative, not because I don't like Nords or because the 3rd person perspective is bad, but because that's not what I've come to expect from an Elder Scrolls title. It seemed a lot of the features that made DAO fun for me were removed from or in my opinion lacking in DA2.

laertid wrote...
I think people wanted DA2 to be more like DA:O... They didn't want DA2 to be like The Witcher.

Lol. I will admit that this is true for me. DAO was already unique. In my opinion, it didn't need to make itself more like any other successful title mechanically, and it didn't need to go to such extreme lengths to distinguish itself stylistically, either. This is not to say that I thought DA2 was terrible, only that I liked DAO more.

I really have to applaud you for this. As soon as I saw this post, I really didn't have any reason to go further or make my own post, because this is pretty much exactly how I feel about the whole thing. When I say "I don't feel Hawke is my character" I'm not comparing him to the Witcher, I'm comparing him to the Warden.

[Thothistox]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I'm confused. Browsing these forums, there's a whole lot of posts where people who don't like voiced protagonists go on about how they never felt Hawke was "their" character, rather a character they just borrowed for a while. Yet even so, the Witcher is praised all over the place. I don't mean to belittle the Witcher - I haven't even played the game so what do I know in reality - but from what I've gathered you have far less control in the Witcher than in DA2.

Checklist time! And feel free to correct my checklist if I'm wrong about something, cause I totally don't mean to throw mud around here. I'm merely curious about people's reactions.

Fixed voice: Both games
Fixed gender: Only the Witcher, not in DA2
Fixed character look: Only the Witcher, not in DA2
Fixed character personality: Neither, both allow for interpretations of the same character
Fixed sexuality: Only the Witcher, not in DA2

Now I'm not hating on fixed main characters. I play and enjoy way too many jrpgs to do that! But it just strikes me as odd. Perhaps the ones hating on DA2 in this regard dislike the Witcher even more than DA2? I would assume as much if it wasn't for the fact I see people pulling the "Hawke doesn't feel like my character" card so darn often and also see the "the Witcher is a lot better rpg" card as well. Figure two things that pop up in every second thread ought to have at least some people who nod at both statements.

So please, enlighten me =) Depending on how in depth some of these answers can get, it might really help BioWare to craft games with voiced protagonists in the future, and we all want more and better games, no? =)

EDIT: Originally I had a line that implied you had a fixed class in TW2. This is not true, the two games just handles character progression in different ways. Sorry for the misunderstanding and not treating me like some troll when I was just uninformed ^^

For me, the problem was that sometimes my Hawke didn't say the things I was expecting him to say. For example, in act III on several occasions I was given dialogue options between two sweeping generalizations that I didn't want and was surprised by. Furthermore, the companions didn't react to what Hawke said in those cases even though one of them was a direct subject of  the allegations he'd made. This is a general problem with Hawke, much of what he says is just ignored by the other characters. The final effect is that if he says something that the user didn't intend he's not following orders, or if he does but the response doesn't seem appropriate then his actions are inconsequential. As a result the player feels alienated in either case.

TW2 doesn't have this problem because the main character does what he's told and the NPCs respond -- man do they ever respond! Even though Geralt is not me, I still see the world through his eyes, and it's because I don't feel that alienation that DA2 imposes on me.

It's really too bad that Bioware had to mess up so much with DA2. I remember that DAO had a few odd moments of self-reflection on every new playthrough when the camera woud suddenly pan onto the new Warden who would look almost surprised when the whole crazy series of events were about to happen again -- but this time to a different guy. There was something existential about it that was part of the magic of Dragon Age. Now, I feel like that is mostly gone.

[Sylvius the Mad]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I suspect there's a selection bias in the OP's analysis.

Or, you're just in the minority on this message board,

Have you checked?  Is it the same people?

I'm certainly someone who thinks DA2's design makes it difficult to RP Hawke, and I would likely have the same complaints about TW2.

[Aaleel]

I didn't customize Geralt, give him a personalized name, and Hawke's story did not come from a story established in books. Why would I ever think Geralt is my personal character.

But strangely even with Geralt coming from a story established in books, I still felt like I had more control over him and his story than I had over Hakwe.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't customize Geralt, give him a personalized name, and Hawke's story did not come from a story established in books. Why would I ever think Geralt is my personal character.

But strangely even with Geralt coming from a story established in books, I still felt like I had more control over him and his story than I had over Hakwe.

I'd argue, at least in The Witcher 1, that the player had a degree of control over Geralt's perception (as opposed to personality). In TW2, we could also customize his perception and motivations (in addition to the many choices we have).

So yea, Geralt is not meant to feel like your personal character, but rather the character through whose eyes we see the witcher world.  But, I believe we can still RP him quite a bit.

[DialupToaster]

ZombiePowered wrote...

The truth it people are really, really stupid. They're still upset over DA2 not being a large expansion for DA:O, and are looking for games to tout around as an example of what Bioware could make if they weren't EA/the consumer industry/COD player's sex slaves or whatever it is they're calling them these days. See TV Trope's Law of Internet Jackassery--they explain it best.

The confusing thing is that there are just as many personality restrictions for non-voiced characters. The Warden was almost always bland. Every once in a while I got to say something snarky or characterful. People just take that blandness and make up their own personality to paste over it in their minds. There is no support for their particular character in the actual game--it's all imagined. The easiest solution to this over-dramatized dilemma would be to provide an option to turn off character voice overs. You wouldn't see nearly as many people complaining if they could imagine their own voice saying the dialogue.

^this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ZombiePowered wrote...

People just take that blandness and make up their own personality to paste over it in their minds. There is no support for their particular character in the actual game--it's all imagined. The easiest solution to this over-dramatized dilemma would be to provide an option to turn off character voice overs

I have been saying this very thing for quite some time.

Now, having no voice would still be better, as then the designers would design the whole game for an unvoiced PC, and not write the dialogue assuming it was voiced, but just letting us turn off the PC voice would be a huge step toward allowing roleplaying again.

[Chromie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I'd argue, at least in The Witcher 1, that the player had a degree of control over Geralt's perception (as opposed to personality). In TW2, we could also customize his perception and motivations (in addition to the many choices we have).

So yea, Geralt is not meant to feel like your personal character, but rather the character through whose eyes we see the witcher world.  But, I believe we can still RP him quite a bit.

Being able to come up with your motivations for doing what you do really helped change Geralt. Also your actions had an impact to. That's something Witcher does right. I at least don't find it hard to immerse my in Geralt's world because you can always find his reason for it and you can change that reason. Sould I help the elves rob the bank, should I let the racists shave that dwarf beard, should I I kill the werewolf who crimefights at night? These decisions change Geralt into your Geralt.

[JoHnDoE14]

Many times in TW2 I felt that I couldn't really control Geralt. Here are my points
 1) Forced romance (Triss)
 2) Sometimes, when talking about things like payment the options were like
   a) This will have to do.
   [intimidate-Axxi-Persuassion] I want MOAR!
   c) I don't care ; I will kill you and loot you.
   d) I should go.
Which means that I can't help someone for the shake of helping.
 3) Lack of character creation.

However, I was impressed with the tremendous impact of my decisions. It felt fluid and realistic. On the other hand, DA2 seems to be the polar opposite of TW2. You have very limited decisions that don't even matter but you can craft Hawke the way you like. Your gender, your looks, your class, your romance and your personality among other things. So yeah, there is no logic to complain about Hawke not being your character and support Geralt. It is a bit weird, to say the least.

 On another note, wouldn't it be awesome if in DA3 you could create your character AND have decisions that change the game?

Modifié par JoHnDoE14, 30 mai 2011 - 09:07 .

[Kidd]

JoHnDoE14 wrote...

However, I was impressed with the tremendous impact of my decisions. It felt fluid and realistic. On the other hand, DA2 seems to be the polar opposite of TW2. You have very limited decisions that don't even matter but you can craft Hawke the way you like. Your gender, your looks, your class, your romance and your personality among other things.

Yeah, I'm starting to get some idea of this as well. In a way, I feel it is some kind of clash between an intellectual and an emotional experience. One game doesn't allow you to customise the character as much, but you can make him change the world around him a lot. The other game allows customisation of not only superficial things such as looks but personality and goals, but ultimately has every character somehow walk down the same lane any way.

It also makes me ask myself questions about what I find very important in an rpg, and it's a very interesting inner dialogue to say the least =)

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Have you checked?  Is it the same people?

I'm certainly someone who thinks DA2's design makes it difficult to RP Hawke, and I would likely have the same complaints about TW2.

I must say it's interesting to see you in the thread, since you were one of the posters I was thinking about when I wrote this. Didn't know what your stance on TW was, and I was mighty curious. And now I know.

Carry on, thread =)

[Chromie]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

It also makes me ask myself questions about what I find very important in an rpg, and it's a very interesting inner dialogue to say the least =)

Well if DA3 ends up being another DA2 honestly I'd prefer it to be big decisions then a custom character. After all your still Hawke your a set protaginist only difference is we changed the face and class. Not really big enough considering the world of DA2 doesn't seem to know I'm a mage or a warrior or rogue.

[Kidd]

Ringo12 wrote...

Well if DA3 ends up being another DA2 honestly I'd prefer it to be big decisions then a custom character. After all your still Hawke your a set protaginist only difference is we changed the face and class. Not really big enough considering the world of DA2 doesn't seem to know I'm a mage or a warrior or rogue.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. When I look over my character gallery on this site here, I feel all my different Hawkes are indeed different Hawkes. They're not the same character reskinned. They are different characters who went through the same adventures more or less, but they're very different kinds of people.

I probably need to pick up The Witcher to compare, myself =)

[Chromie]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Well if DA3 ends up being another DA2 honestly I'd prefer it to be big decisions then a custom character. After all your still Hawke your a set protaginist only difference is we changed the face and class. Not really big enough considering the world of DA2 doesn't seem to know I'm a mage or a warrior or rogue.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. When I look over my character gallery on this site here, I feel all my different Hawkes are indeed different Hawkes. They're not the same character reskinned. They are different characters who went through the same adventures more or less, but they're very different kinds of people.

I probably need to pick up The Witcher to compare, myself =)

With my Hawkes I feel that way not my Origins characters

Witcher 1 is $5 on gog I believe still and well Witcher 2 is amazing.

[Aaleel]

Geralt wasn't your character in W1 he was a character from a story established by books. In the Witcher 2 it's the same thing.

DA:Origins though felt like your character, whereas DA2 felt more like playing an already established story.

People need to stop comparing the sequels to each other, and compare them to their predecessors instead.

[Babi]

Aaleel wrote...

Geralt wasn't your character in W1 he was a character from a story established by books. In the Witcher 2 it's the same thing.

DA:Origins though felt like your character, whereas DA2 felt more like playing an already established story.

People need to stop comparing the sequels to each other, and compare them to their predecessors instead.

Indeed. The Witcher and the Dragon Age series are completely different. If anything should ever be compared, it should be things like graphics and whatnot. Not the story/character customization. 

Even so, I don't understand why people were so butthurt over "not having enough customization" with Hawke... It's like one huge, epically dramatic identity crisis for some people.

[Chromie]

Babi wrote...

Indeed. The Witcher and the Dragon Age series are completely different. If anything should ever be compared, it should be things like graphics and whatnot. Not the story/character customization. 

Even so, I don't understand why people were so butthurt over "not having enough customization" with Hawke... It's like one huge, epically dramatic identity crisis for some people

Hmm I think they can easily be compared considering the biggest differences in the games are you don't create a character (even though it's a set protaginist), one game has party based combat the other does not and I can think of any other mage differences.

Both games are focused on a story and the world.

[Aesieru]

The Witcher isn't your character, it never pretends to be.

Hawke pretends to be.

Shephard kind of is... but anything outside of diplomatic and extremely undiplomatic is kind of kept away from me.

Revan wasn't all that much of my character either.

My character would be intelligent, caster-ish / manipulative and very determined to let others do the killing by cleverness.

[Chromie]

Aesieru wrote...
Hawke pretends to be.

Hawk isn't your character the way Shepard isn't your character. You can give them a face and a class but it's not like it's BG where you picked a race and a class or mixed two classes. DA:O felt more like my own character with the Origins at least I least knew my backstory and it changed how I see my character.

Hawke didn't react to anything not even his/her mom's death. It's pretty much the same as Geralt except you can define Geralt through his actions and get a great questline to help further understand himself depending on your decisions.

[Aesieru]

The difference is in quality of immersion, Shephard does it better... Hawke just doesn't.

As for Geralt, he's already dealt with a lot in his life... even with the Amnesia... he mostly makes an out through his sexual proliferations it seems.

[FiachSidhe]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I'm confused. Browsing these forums, there's a whole lot of posts where people who don't like voiced protagonists go on about how they never felt Hawke was "their" character, rather a character they just borrowed for a while. Yet even so, the Witcher is praised all over the place. I don't mean to belittle the Witcher - I haven't even played the game so what do I know in reality - but from what I've gathered you have far less control in the Witcher than in DA2.

You're talking about fanboys. Nothing they ever do makes sense.

The Warden was really not very different from Hawke. You were still "The Warden", you still had to put together an army and you always went on to fight the Arch demon.

The differences are negligable. Each Warden origin was the same, you had the same family each time you chose the Dalish Elf, the same circle, etc. It's no different than Hawk it just gave a "few versions of Hawke" to choose from.

Geralt isn't even accurate to the books. He's always a horny, grim Polish Wolverine, minus the adamantium. Not that he isn't a cool character. I'm just saying that setting out to create a role playing game with little choice doersn't really excuse it. As DA was done on purpose, just as well and is hated for it.

Modifié par FiachSidhe, 31 mai 2011 - 11:51 .

[EugeneBi]

Aesieru wrote...

...

My character would be intelligent, caster-ish / manipulative and very determined to let others do the killing by cleverness.

Sister Petrice!

[88mphSlayer]

Ringo12 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...
Hawke pretends to be.

Hawk isn't your character the way Shepard isn't your character. You can give them a face and a class but it's not like it's BG where you picked a race and a class or mixed two classes. DA:O felt more like my own character with the Origins at least I least knew my backstory and it changed how I see my character.

Hawke didn't react to anything not even his/her mom's death. It's pretty much the same as Geralt except you can define Geralt through his actions and get a great questline to help further understand himself depending on your decisions.

Hawke is just as much pre-defined as Geralt at the end of the day aside from having no interesting backstory, the big difference that matters tho is that The Witcher 1/2 just plain outshine Dragon Age 2 in storytelling

which isn't really all that hard to see, DAO is much the same concept as DA2 but because of better storytelling people still feel more connected to the Warden

yes, execution goes a long way into getting people to like your game and thus like your characters