514 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

Mister_Shepard wrote...

The Witcher 2 is a man's game.

The thought of this statement along with your current portrait, or the Old Spice guy playing TW2 gives me a chuckle....

[Medhia Nox]

I'm not playing the Witcher because I have no interest in pre-designed main leads in an RPG.

If I felt like picking up a shooter (it is considered and RPG - I'm aware) then I'd be more prone to pick it up as that's the mindset I need to be in to play games with forced characters (or RTS, or TBS, or anything other than a RPG)

I'm grateful that I know this ahead of time about the Witcher - I would have saved money on DA:2 had I not believed it to be a successor to Origins. But - I will educate myself better about future Bioware products - so, no big.

Note: I have no opinion on the quality of The Witcher.

[Morty Smith]

And after all is said and done no one is wiser, opinions didn´t change and the witcher 2 is still awesome without a button.

[marshalleck]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I'm not playing the Witcher because I have no interest in pre-designed main leads in an RPG.

Which is why you played Mass Effect and DA2?

[erynnar]

Kroitz wrote...

And after all is said and done no one is wiser, opinions didn´t change and the witcher 2 is still awesome without a button.

Yes, it is. ROFL!  For me..surprised as hell that I love Witcher 2 despite not being able to play a female made character by me. Geralt is Geralt. That being said. I feel like Geralt isn't my character but that doesn't bother me. The reason...Geralt is a bad ass mo'fo because of how I am fighting. I saved a group of villagers from being burned to death by soldiers on my side. That made me feel epic! I feel epic when I use my force rune to toss a guy like a rag doll and eviscerate him in mid air, or tossing one off a tower to fall to his ignoble death. Because Geralt is so bad ass, I feel bad ass, and thus he and I connect.  He becomes more mine then Hawke did.

Hawke for me was too shallow, and not really affecting anything...only added to it. The closest I would have ccome to feeling bad ass as Hawke was the Arishok, but that got ruined by the imbalance of the battle which had me running around the room to the tune of Yakkity Saks from Benny Hill. That kinda stopped the "epic badass" feeling right there. It was funny as hell, but not epic.

Also, I am surprised, I thought the voiced PC was also a get to be my Hawke killer (I still prefer non-voiced). But Geralt is voiced and I don't feel that disconnect with him. I think, that it has to do with the well written, clearly defined character. Geralt is strong, and well, awesome. Hawke was...well mine was a snarky twit, but she wasn't awesome or epic. Also, Witcher 2, like DAO, hits the sweet spot for cinematics. It isn't a clicky interactive movie with Fedex commercial quest breaks. I think BioWare went a little over kill on the cinematics (especially when I couldn't finish looting, unless I wanted to be a loot **** instead of fight).

[TheTranzor]

erynnar wrote...

The closest I would have ccome to feeling bad ass as Hawke was the Arishok, but that got ruined by the imbalance of the battle which had me running around the room to the tune of Yakkity Saks from Benny Hill.

OMG, yes!  The battle with the Arishok was like Benny Hill... Arishok being chased by Hawke, then you'd have to have Isabela running behind Hawke, swinging underclothes or something above her head.  Then reverse... Hawke chasing Isabela, Arishok running behind Hawke while swinging underclothes over his head. 

Ok... now that I can't get that mental image out of my head... the battle with Arishok didn't feel as epic as it should have been.  Should have been handled more like the battle with Loghain, which with the speech and all right before by Arishok, is the feel Bioware was going for I'm sure.  But the battle mechanics just threw the epic-ness right out the window... Arishok should not have been skating around the room like he was riding a Segway.

[_Aine_]

erynnar wrote...

Kroitz wrote...

And after all is said and done no one is wiser, opinions didn´t change and the witcher 2 is still awesome without a button.

Yes, it is. ROFL!  For me..surprised as hell that I love Witcher 2 despite not being able to play a female made character by me. Geralt is Geralt. That being said. I feel like Geralt isn't my character but that doesn't bother me. The reason...Geralt is a bad ass mo'fo because of how I am fighting. I saved a group of villagers from being burned to death by soldiers on my side. That made me feel epic! I feel epic when I use my force rune to toss a guy like a rag doll and eviscerate him in mid air, or tossing one off a tower to fall to his ignoble death. Because Geralt is so bad ass, I feel bad ass, and thus he and I connect.  He becomes more mine then Hawke did.

Hawke for me was too shallow, and not really affecting anything...only added to it. The closest I would have ccome to feeling bad ass as Hawke was the Arishok, but that got ruined by the imbalance of the battle which had me running around the room to the tune of Yakkity Saks from Benny Hill. That kinda stopped the "epic badass" feeling right there. It was funny as hell, but not epic.

Also, I am surprised, I thought the voiced PC was also a get to be my Hawke killer (I still prefer non-voiced). But Geralt is voiced and I don't feel that disconnect with him. I think, that it has to do with the well written, clearly defined character. Geralt is strong, and well, awesome. Hawke was...well mine was a snarky twit, but she wasn't awesome or epic. Also, Witcher 2, like DAO, hits the sweet spot for cinematics. It isn't a clicky interactive movie with Fedex commercial quest breaks. I think BioWare went a little over kill on the cinematics (especially when I couldn't finish looting, unless I wanted to be a loot **** instead of fight).

He takes bad-assery to insane heights lol  That is true.  
I like him. That said, when I play I have no problem being geralt.  My husband even jokes with me now: "So, what is Geralt doing?" and I say, " You mean me? Because look, that is clearly me.  I am Geralt.  Rar! " lol  But he knows what I mean.  So, maybe I am more a take-me-to-the-hockey-game or casual pub kind of girl in general than a festooned in ruffles and lace with fake lashes sort, 90% of the time but it is what it is. SOMETHING about the story makes it believable, and no I am not a witcher PT in real-life    My point: you can either like what you are staring at, shut up and play, or you can identify with some aspect of the character.  Actually, it is really fun if you do.  Heck, I have been a girl my whole life, nice to see the world from the other side once in a while.

Honestly, I had no trouble being male Hawke either. Actually, I ENJOYED being male Hawke as a mage immensely. He brought some life back to the game after a few playthroughs, and I felt that was the strongest most solid playthrough I have done ( and I have done a few) - actually had I played him FIRST I would have perhaps had a slightly different first impression despite the fact that he was SO different from RL me. I usually have little difficulty adopting different main characters when gaming but rarely do they feel like I *am* that character as they are usually big meaty buffoons....which strangely as a female I have problems identifying with  lol)  I intend to finish his game too, but I am undecided about one of my companions....so he sits on the backburner for a bit.  I am considering it part of his 3 years between acts kind of wait  

I think the two Hawke VA AND Geralts totally suit the character, so I have no hesitation saying that part was great.  Male Hawke was perfect as a snarky, superior sort of semi-jerk at times, and female was just great.  Even Geralt was great this time, seemed much better directed.  He is a stoic, the deadpan suits him perfectly, especially after the Blue Stripes quest... " I did WHAT?" /straightface lol  

Ah well, the one area that WAS really cool about DA2 was how you could customise the character a bit better in terms of personality to response and see how THAT changed in the game.  IF the world would have changed a bit more in response to it though.....

Modifié par shantisands, 25 mai 2011 - 08:13 .

[Realmzmaster]

Khayness wrote...

Huntress wrote...

If bioware go with a fixed character then it I'll not buy it, I do not have TW1 or TW2 because of that. It looks good? who cares still not what I want.
Other RPG games coming out soon, and still have the options of making you're own character and sex.

With posts like this I wonder if people think that roleplaying = *I* want to be the hero rather than I play as the hero.

Big goddamn difference.

The point is that some people do want to be the hero and role play that character. It is like when I play D & D the character is me in that fantasy setting.
Now others may want to role play Geralt, but his personality and mannerisms are set by how the books protray him. Nothing wrong with that. And yes it is a big difference. You are the character instead of becoming the character already laid out.

[Abispa]

I feel my Hawkes are MY characters (though the mage storyline makes NO SENSE), and as I am playing TW2, I find Geralt to be... nerve racking. I try to imagine that the original Polish dialog is well acted 'cause the English sucked. That being said, I think the action in TW2 is well done and the mini games were entertaining, so I'll give it a better than fair rating.

[erynnar]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Huntress wrote...

If bioware go with a fixed character then it I'll not buy it, I do not have TW1 or TW2 because of that. It looks good? who cares still not what I want.
Other RPG games coming out soon, and still have the options of making you're own character and sex.

With posts like this I wonder if people think that roleplaying = *I* want to be the hero rather than I play as the hero.

Big goddamn difference.

The point is that some people do want to be the hero and role play that character. It is like when I play D & D the character is me in that fantasy setting.
Now others may want to role play Geralt, but his personality and mannerisms are set by how the books protray him. Nothing wrong with that. And yes it is a big difference. You are the character instead of becoming the character already laid out.

Except that Hawke wasn't your character. She/he was a fixed character just like Geralt, she/he was just a rather mehly written one. The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character. The voice was set, the story was set, everything that Hawke did made no difference. The colors and face were superficial. Like being given a smart car and being allowed to pimp the outside with paint and put a Happy, Sneezy, or Douchy scented air freshner from the rearview. The radio was set to a station and you couldn't change it, plus the car was on rails.

Is that as bad as I thought it would be? Well in DA2 it dismayed me, and I found it rather boring. But Hawke was lackluster and paper thin. It doesn't bother me that I can't "pimp" my ride as much with Geralt as that car isn't on rails it is a bumper car set in a beautiful set area, where bumping into other cars makes things happen. Add to that, the radio may be set on one station, and the interior of the car maybe be set (he's a man, baby!), he is a well written, visceral, complete character, even with amnesia.

I guess, a dynamic character whose choices make the world we get to live in for a little while, is far more preferrable to me, than a paper doll  who gets blown around by any strong wind in a dead city.

[Realmzmaster]

erynnar wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Huntress wrote...

If bioware go with a fixed character then it I'll not buy it, I do not have TW1 or TW2 because of that. It looks good? who cares still not what I want.
Other RPG games coming out soon, and still have the options of making you're own character and sex.

With posts like this I wonder if people think that roleplaying = *I* want to be the hero rather than I play as the hero.

Big goddamn difference.

The point is that some people do want to be the hero and role play that character. It is like when I play D & D the character is me in that fantasy setting.
Now others may want to role play Geralt, but his personality and mannerisms are set by how the books protray him. Nothing wrong with that. And yes it is a big difference. You are the character instead of becoming the character already laid out.

Except that Hawke wasn't your character. She/he was a fixed character just like Geralt, she/he was just a rather mehly written one. The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character. The voice was set, the story was set, everything that Hawke did made no difference. The colors and face were superficial. Like being given a smart car and being allowed to pimp the outside with paint and put a Happy, Sneezy, or Douchy scented air freshner from the rearview. The radio was set to a station and you couldn't change it, plus the car was on rails.

Is that as bad as I thought it would be? Well in DA2 it dismayed me, and I found it rather boring. But Hawke was lackluster and paper thin. It doesn't bother me that I can't "pimp" my ride as much with Geralt as that car isn't on rails it is a bumper car set in a beautiful set area, where bumping into other cars makes things happen. Add to that, the radio may be set on one station, and the interior of the car maybe be set (he's a man, baby!), he is a well written, visceral, complete character, even with amnesia.

I guess, a dynamic character whose choices make the world we get to live in for a little while, is far more preferrable to me, than a paper doll  who gets blown around by any strong wind in a dead city.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. Hawke is my character. I get to pick what class , gender and look  of the character. There is customization that the Witcher does not have. I have companions that travel with me with party banner. The Witcher is limited in apperance and mannerisms by the books the game is based on. Nothing wrong with that. DA2 is not as customizable as DAO, but it is far more than the Witcher.

Some of the changes in TW2 are actually a downgrade from Witcher 1. Lack of Inventory grid, lack of storage, lack of formula memorization, lack of mouse use, and keyboard used for movement and combat. DA2 and Witcher 1 makes better use of the mouse , inventory and menus than TW2. The interface is also more clunky than Witcher 1. I am unable to map the controls to a gamepad which could make it more accessible.

[Maverick827]

erynnar wrote...

The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character.

If you're going to lie, at least have some fun with it and go all out.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Huntress wrote...

If bioware go with a fixed character then it I'll not buy it, I do not have TW1 or TW2 because of that. It looks good? who cares still not what I want.
Other RPG games coming out soon, and still have the options of making you're own character and sex.

With posts like this I wonder if people think that roleplaying = *I* want to be the hero rather than I play as the hero.

Big goddamn difference.

The point is that some people do want to be the hero and role play that character. It is like when I play D & D the character is me in that fantasy setting.

Now others may want to role play Geralt, but his personality and mannerisms are set by how the books protray him. Nothing wrong with that. And yes it is a big difference. You are the character instead of becoming the character already laid out.

This is how it works for me...

If I want to be the PC then it works best if there is no voice acted PC and the PC is in first person view. That way the voice doesn't distract me and it is as if I am using the eyes of the PC. In that case the story gets more personal to me and I can fully identify me with the PC.

DA2 and TW2 don't have that. Instead I have a voice which is clearly not mine and a body that doesn't look close to mine. Even if the face is similar, it's just not me. I am looking at and hearing someone else. I merely control that character. That's great for role playing as well, because it distracts me from my own point of view. That detachment gives me the freedom to play someone totally unrelated to me.

So, in my opinion DA:O is a bit off, because it tries to mix these two and it fails because of that. The illusion is not complete.

[Persephone]

erynnar wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Huntress wrote...

If bioware go with a fixed character then it I'll not buy it, I do not have TW1 or TW2 because of that. It looks good? who cares still not what I want.
Other RPG games coming out soon, and still have the options of making you're own character and sex.

With posts like this I wonder if people think that roleplaying = *I* want to be the hero rather than I play as the hero.

Big goddamn difference.

The point is that some people do want to be the hero and role play that character. It is like when I play D & D the character is me in that fantasy setting.
Now others may want to role play Geralt, but his personality and mannerisms are set by how the books protray him. Nothing wrong with that. And yes it is a big difference. You are the character instead of becoming the character already laid out.

Except that Hawke wasn't your character. She/he was a fixed character just like Geralt, she/he was just a rather mehly written one. The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character.

*Snips*

I guess, a dynamic character whose choices make the world we get to live in for a little while, is far more preferrable to me, than a paper doll  who gets blown around by any strong wind in a dead city.

Hyperbole much? 

[Morroian]

erynnar wrote...

Except that Hawke wasn't your character. She/he was a fixed character just like Geralt, she/he was just a rather mehly written one. The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character. The voice was set, the story was set, everything that Hawke did made no difference. 

Hawke's characterisation wasn't set and thus can be role played within the limits of the writing, despite not being able to greatly affect the overall plot. Hawke's role is fixed but Hawke's character isn't.

Modifié par Morroian, 25 mai 2011 - 10:18 .

[Tommy6860]

Realmzmaster wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Huntress wrote...

If bioware go with a fixed character then it I'll not buy it, I do not have TW1 or TW2 because of that. It looks good? who cares still not what I want.
Other RPG games coming out soon, and still have the options of making you're own character and sex.

With posts like this I wonder if people think that roleplaying = *I* want to be the hero rather than I play as the hero.

Big goddamn difference.

The point is that some people do want to be the hero and role play that character. It is like when I play D & D the character is me in that fantasy setting.
Now others may want to role play Geralt, but his personality and mannerisms are set by how the books protray him. Nothing wrong with that. And yes it is a big difference. You are the character instead of becoming the character already laid out.

Except that Hawke wasn't your character. She/he was a fixed character just like Geralt, she/he was just a rather mehly written one. The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character. The voice was set, the story was set, everything that Hawke did made no difference. The colors and face were superficial. Like being given a smart car and being allowed to pimp the outside with paint and put a Happy, Sneezy, or Douchy scented air freshner from the rearview. The radio was set to a station and you couldn't change it, plus the car was on rails.

Is that as bad as I thought it would be? Well in DA2 it dismayed me, and I found it rather boring. But Hawke was lackluster and paper thin. It doesn't bother me that I can't "pimp" my ride as much with Geralt as that car isn't on rails it is a bumper car set in a beautiful set area, where bumping into other cars makes things happen. Add to that, the radio may be set on one station, and the interior of the car maybe be set (he's a man, baby!), he is a well written, visceral, complete character, even with amnesia.

I guess, a dynamic character whose choices make the world we get to live in for a little while, is far more preferrable to me, than a paper doll  who gets blown around by any strong wind in a dead city.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. Hawke is my character. I get to pick what class , gender and look  of the character. There is customization that the Witcher does not have. I have companions that travel with me with party banner. The Witcher is limited in apperance and mannerisms by the books the game is based on. Nothing wrong with that. DA2 is not as customizable as DAO, but it is far more than the Witcher.

Some of the changes in TW2 are actually a downgrade from Witcher 1. Lack of Inventory grid, lack of storage, lack of formula memorization, lack of mouse use, and keyboard used for movement and combat. DA2 and Witcher 1 makes better use of the mouse , inventory and menus than TW2. The interface is also more clunky than Witcher 1. I am unable to map the controls to a gamepad which could make it more accessible.

Erynnar isn't talking about customizing your character, which she already said one can do that. She is talking the role playing elements that are near totally missing from DA2. You cannot change any of the plot states in DA2, the whole journey is predertimned and no choices you make have any outcome or are reflected in the plots. It plays like an adventure game more than an RPG. TW, choices you make actually affect the plots states and outcomes of certain quests and then the end game state, such as was in Origins as well. You cannot do that in DA2. IF simply being able to change the facial features, clothing/armors and class choice means you are role playing, I am not going to say you are wrong, because that is meaningful to you. But IMO, role playing is about shaping the game story as you play, not having it shaped for you and you are just walked throuhg it.

[Tommy6860]

Morroian wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Except that Hawke wasn't your character. She/he was a fixed character just like Geralt, she/he was just a rather mehly written one. The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character. The voice was set, the story was set, everything that Hawke did made no difference. 

Hawke's characterisation wasn't set and thus can be role played within the limits of the writing, despite not being able to greatly affect the overall plot. Hawke's role is fixed but Hawke's character isn't.

That's not role playing unless you want it toi mean that to you by simply being able to change faces and armors/clothing, but cannot affect the plot states. I can play Ghost Recon , change my face, weapons and my class, would that be role playing?

[Tommy6860]

Persephone wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Huntress wrote...

If bioware go with a fixed character then it I'll not buy it, I do not have TW1 or TW2 because of that. It looks good? who cares still not what I want.
Other RPG games coming out soon, and still have the options of making you're own character and sex.

With posts like this I wonder if people think that roleplaying = *I* want to be the hero rather than I play as the hero.

Big goddamn difference.

The point is that some people do want to be the hero and role play that character. It is like when I play D & D the character is me in that fantasy setting.
Now others may want to role play Geralt, but his personality and mannerisms are set by how the books protray him. Nothing wrong with that. And yes it is a big difference. You are the character instead of becoming the character already laid out.

Except that Hawke wasn't your character. She/he was a fixed character just like Geralt, she/he was just a rather mehly written one. The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character.

*Snips*

I guess, a dynamic character whose choices make the world we get to live in for a little while, is far more preferrable to me, than a paper doll  who gets blown around by any strong wind in a dead city.

Hyperbole much? 

The hyperbole would be from those who say they are role playing DA2 when it is pointed out to them that they have no effect on the game's story., though they claim otherwise.

[Morroian]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Erynnar isn't talking about customizing your character, which she already said one can do that. She is talking the role playing elements that are near totally missing from DA2. You cannot change any of the plot states in DA2, the whole journey is predertimned and no choices you make have any outcome or are reflected in the plots. It plays like an adventure game more than an RPG. TW, choices you make actually affect the plots states and outcomes of certain quests and then the end game state, such as was in Origins as well. You cannot do that in DA2. IF simply being able to change the facial features, clothing/armors and class choice means you are role playing, I am not going to say you are wrong, because that is meaningful to you. But IMO, role playing is about shaping the game story as you play, not having it shaped for you and you are just walked throuhg it.

IMHO role playing is about shaping your character which you do in DA2 and which distinguishes it from adventure games.

[Tommy6860]

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Erynnar isn't talking about customizing your character, which she already said one can do that. She is talking the role playing elements that are near totally missing from DA2. You cannot change any of the plot states in DA2, the whole journey is predertimned and no choices you make have any outcome or are reflected in the plots. It plays like an adventure game more than an RPG. TW, choices you make actually affect the plots states and outcomes of certain quests and then the end game state, such as was in Origins as well. You cannot do that in DA2. IF simply being able to change the facial features, clothing/armors and class choice means you are role playing, I am not going to say you are wrong, because that is meaningful to you. But IMO, role playing is about shaping the game story as you play, not having it shaped for you and you are just walked throuhg it.

IMHO role playing is about shaping your character which you do in DA2 and which distinguishes it from adventure games.

How are you shaping your character? Are you simply talking by choosing your classs, looks and outfits? That's about all there is to the RPG elements in DA2. I asked, before, I can do those things in Ghost Recon, so, am I role playing?

[Morroian]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Hawke's characterisation wasn't set and thus can be role played within the limits of the writing, despite not being able to greatly affect the overall plot. Hawke's role is fixed but Hawke's character isn't.

That's not role playing unless you want it toi mean that to you by simply being able to change faces and armors/clothing, but cannot affect the plot states. I can play Ghost Recon , change my face, weapons and my class, would that be role playing?

As I said in a previous post I'm talking about shaping the character of Hawke. I've said it before but making decisions about the direction of the plot has little to do with actual role playing except insofar as you make the decisions in accordance with how you've shaped the character. Hawke is shaped by the dialogue you choose, by the character interactions, as well as by the more aesthetic things and class choice. 

[Tommy6860]

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Hawke's characterisation wasn't set and thus can be role played within the limits of the writing, despite not being able to greatly affect the overall plot. Hawke's role is fixed but Hawke's character isn't.

That's not role playing unless you want it toi mean that to you by simply being able to change faces and armors/clothing, but cannot affect the plot states. I can play Ghost Recon , change my face, weapons and my class, would that be role playing?

As I said in a previous post I'm talking about shaping the character of Hawke. I've said it before but making decisions about the direction of the plot has little to do with actual role playing except insofar as you make the decisions in accordance with how you've shaped the character. Hawke is shaped by the dialogue you choose, by the character interactions, as well as by the more aesthetic things and class choice.

You're just generalizing without even any little specifics. Shaping your character how, other than choosing looks, armors, class, etc. Hawke is absolutely not shaped by the dialogue s/he chooses. That means when Hawke chooses certain dialogues, then it has an effect on the game states, and it doesn't. The character interactions near have little effect on how your companions will be with you, it changes the dialogue slighty, but not their their plots as theya re fixed. I guess you have a very different view on how an RPG works. If it works for you that way, who am I to say otherwise, I am glad you like it that way. But IMO, that is not role playing.

[oldmansavage]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Hawke's characterisation wasn't set and thus can be role played within the limits of the writing, despite not being able to greatly affect the overall plot. Hawke's role is fixed but Hawke's character isn't.

That's not role playing unless you want it toi mean that to you by simply being able to change faces and armors/clothing, but cannot affect the plot states. I can play Ghost Recon , change my face, weapons and my class, would that be role playing?

As I said in a previous post I'm talking about shaping the character of Hawke. I've said it before but making decisions about the direction of the plot has little to do with actual role playing except insofar as you make the decisions in accordance with how you've shaped the character. Hawke is shaped by the dialogue you choose, by the character interactions, as well as by the more aesthetic things and class choice.

You're just generalizing without even any little specifics. Shaping your character how, other than choosing looks, armors, class, etc. Hawke is absolutely not shaped by the dialogue s/he chooses. That means when Hawke chooses certain dialogues, then it has an effect on the game states, and it doesn't. The character interactions near have little effect on how your companions will be with you, it changes the dialogue slighty, but not their their plots as theya re fixed. I guess you have a very different view on how an RPG works. If it works for you that way, who am I to say otherwise, I am glad you like it that way. But IMO, that is not role playing.

Perhaps he creates his own illusion of how his character is through the dialogue he chooses?  I know some people that do this but I figure its the games job to do the work for 60 bucks.  Some folks can turn a stinker into a masterpiece through power of pure imagination.

[erynnar]

Maverick827 wrote...

erynnar wrote...

The only thing that you did was put a face and hair on a character.

If you're going to lie, at least have some fun with it and go all out.

And how did I lie? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to add you get to pick your class. My apologies. Yes hair, face, a tatttoo, gender, eye color, some makeup, class and later outfits and weapons.

Yes that makes me a liar.  Oh, I forgot, I got to pick Happy, Sneezy, or Douchy for personalities, so when I had cut away scenes I might actually have a snarky response that I didn't choose to say...oh wait, kind a like the wheel. Oh, and yep, I forgot, choosing my personality made such a difference in the story, and how it all played out ..oh wait.yeah. Maybe that was enough meat on the bone for you. For me? It was weak broth.


I can't pick Geralt's class, but I can mould it towards different specialities. I didn't pick his hair, or his scars, or his gender or his personality. I can on occasion dress him up, and I can change his weapons. And I can make the world a different place instead of just being along for the ride on a rail car.

So, yep, I am one big
fat liar. That's me, so perceptive Maverick, really, you just
administered the beat down of all beat downs. Showed me. That eloquent
argument, the wicked whit, that clever debating tongue. Man, astounding. I guess I will go tuck my tail between my legs over that smack down.

[Riloux]

One thing I want to say. When you play Witcher 2, you can really feel the passion and love that was put into the game. Everything, from the characters to the environments, is a living and breathing entity with its own personality. I don't get that with Dragon Age 2, at all. When you play DA2, all you really see is the cut corners and the wasted potential. It could be a good RPG, but the short development cycle is very apparent.