514 réponses à ce sujet

[erynnar]

Wow, I had to leave work, and make dinner and my little personal opinion turns into a regular debating match! I am flattered.

@Tommy thanks sweetie. I am not role playing Geralt, but he is a car well worth riding around in.

@Persephone how is it hyperbole? Hawke was a paper doll-ie I dressed her up and played with her. She was shallow, and no amount of picking Heart, Diamond, Angel wings or fist was going to make her personality any more deep than "I want a sandwich" or "Don't ever leave!" Snark was funny. So was watching my husband's Hawke "Douche of Kirkwall" character.

As someone who loves mysteries and Sherlock Holmes, I find it strange that I am missing out on all these subtle personality changes and all these great dialogue differences with two play throughs and two different personalities. And watching my husband's overly aggressive -red fist options (except for halos with Merrill which made me laugh). I didn't see a lot of changes at all. Hubby got one dialogue option I never got. One. Now I am human, maybe I missed more. I played nicey nice rogue and snarky mage.

And as to being blown like a leaf in the wind in a dead city? Well Kirkwall was. Flotsam is alive, and Kirkwall is a mausoleum. And name one thing where Hawke wasn't blown hither and yon at the whims of the world or where they had control or choice over what happened to them, or the world? And no, I don't mean in shagging or friendships.

@oldmansavage And I used my imagination to build my own distinct personalities for my Wardens, and they are a hell of a lot more subtle, deep, and well built because they aren't mostly Happy, Sneezy, or Douchy.

[erynnar]

TheTranzor wrote...

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.

NICE mental image there Tranz! I couldn't help the Benny Hill theme, it just seemed to fit while I was running my Hawke around the room screaming like a little girl.  OH and yeah, he did like the Segway boots.

[Elhanan]

Riloux wrote...

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.

Correction; when you play TW2 and DA2 these feelings are apparent. Other opinions are still valid.

[Luvinn]

Riloux wrote...

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.

Especially after going back to mess around with DA2 afterwards. I just couldn't play it without being amazed at the shortcuts taken. At the end of DA2 it was like, "great, i beat the game, but who gives a f***".

[EugeneBi]

KeyStroke wrote...

...
I haven't read the books about Geralt, so I have no imersion of how the character was before playing the games. A good chance would be I viewed him in another light. Similar to films based on books usually end up a utter disapointment.

I'd say the games do a very good job in conveying books mood. It's a pity that not all of them are translated to English. (Fortunately I can read Russian.) Games basically pick up where the books end - with Geralt's death.

[EugeneBi]

Mister_Shepard wrote...

The Witcher 2 is a man's game.

Yep. I wish they make Ciri story - an explosive combination of witcheress/sorceress, should be fun.

[Realmzmaster]

Maybe when it come to role playing there is a difference in perception. To me the journey it the end and all. Whether my actions change the outcome is not material, because at the time I make the decision I do not know if it will or will not. It like decisions I make in life I can assume they will make a difference but many times it simply does not.
I still play the character. If my actions affect the outcome that is fine if not that is fine also. The journey is were I get my enjoyment. I enjoyed the journey in DA2. But YMMV.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Maybe when it come to role playing there is a difference in perception. To me the journey it the end and all. Whether my actions change the outcome is not material, because at the time I make the decision I do not know if it will or will not.

It's not so much changing the outcome, for me, as having consequences for your choices. It would make the world and story feel more alive and responsive to your choices. And would make it more believable.

And if there are RPing opportunities in making a choice, there is also RPing opportunity in reacting to and / or dealing with the consequences.

That's why, imo, choices with no consequences are not as interesting to me as they could be and it might weaken if not break my immersion in said world.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 mai 2011 - 02:53 .

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Maybe when it come to role playing there is a difference in perception. To me the journey it the end and all. Whether my actions change the outcome is not material, because at the time I make the decision I do not know if it will or will not.

It's not so much changing the outcome, for me, as having consequences for your choices. It would make the world and story feel more alive and responsive to your choices. And would make it more believable.

And if there are RPing opportunities in making a choice, there is also RPing opportunity in reacting to and / or dealing with the consequences.

That's why, imo, choices with no consequences are not as interesting to me as they could be and it might weaken if not break my immersion in said world.

I understand your point.  In my opinion not all choices have consequences. Not all consequences matter enough to change anything. Sometimes there is only one choice and the consequence is unavoidable. It simply does not break the immersion for me because I play the character.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...
I understand your point.  In my opinion not all choices have consequences. Not all consequences matter enough to change anything. Sometimes there is only one choice and the consequence is unavoidable. It simply does not break the immersion for me because I play the character.

For me, all actions have a reaction. The reaction does not have to be huge, it could be small and subtle depending on the scale of the action, but it should still be there as much as possible (preferrably with as little "gotcha" moments as possible). 

Bu yea, I understand that it's a preference thing. Sometimes I too believe that some things should be unavoidable regardless of choice (if written well). For instance, Leandra's death, I actually liked that all things considered (the execution could have been refined).

[Zjarcal]

Tommy6860 wrote...
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?

Perhaps this is a case of different expectations or preferences. I found little to no difference in terms of how much I could shape about my character between Origins and DA2. You guys keep mentioning that your choices have no consequence, but to me that doesn't really make a difference in terms of establishing your character.

Let's say for example, I choose to save a group of people instead of murdering them myself, only for some random jerk to show up and kill them anyway. Regardless of choice, the outcome was the same, the people died, yet in choosing to murder them or not, I established whether my character was a murderer or not (at least in said situation anyway).

That the choices in DA2 had little consequences didn't prevent me from imprinting the personality I wanted into my character. If I chose to spare the Magister's son because I wanted to play a character that felt keeping connections in important places was a good thing, the fact that the choice has no consequence later on doesn't mean that my character wasn't thinking and acting differently than say a character that chose to kill the Magister's son because she/he was a vigilante justice type of person.

So in my opinion, regardless of whether there were major consequences for my actions or not, I felt that I was able to imprint the personality I wanted into my character in DA2 to the same extent that I did in Origins.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 26 mai 2011 - 03:16 .

[SirGladiator]

I think when it comes to making the main character 'your character' each game has a glaring flaw. Obviously TW2's glaring flaw is a total lack of a Character Creator, you're just stuck with a preset character that you can't change at all, with all the great RPGs out there that have CCs now there's really no excuse for TW2 not to have one. Certainly the main character could be a different skin color, a different gender, etc. and the storyline still be EXACTLY the same, it's not like they'd have to change anything except the occasional pronoun for those playing as a female. In the case of DA2 obviously being able to design your own character is huge, it goes a long way toward making the character your own.

But then once you get into the game itself, its the complete opposite. Now its DA2 who gives you almost no opportunity to influence important things, while in TW2 you have INCREDIBLE influence over who lives and who dies, who takes over which country, etc. just tons and TONS of really powerful and interesting options. along with a super duper deep storyline, one that is if anything 'too' deep, as after having played through the game once I honestly still don't understand exactly what happened. But I know I kept all the sorceresses alive, the 'Dragonslayer' brought freedom to the land with my help and now she rules it, bringing freedom to everyone regardless of race, and tons of other cool stuff also, and it feels really good to know how much good that my character did, that wouldn't have happened had I not made the decisions that I made.

So I'd say that neither game does it exactly right, neither character is fully 'my' character the way it should be, but TW2 perhaps has the edge just because of the extreme freedom you have to shape the story your own personal way. But obviously the lack of character creator is huge, hopefully they'll address that in the next one. If DA2 had given us DAO level freedom to make important decisions, or if TW2 had given us a CC, they'd have been absolutely perfect. Hopefully both will get it 100% right next go round .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
Perhaps this is a case of different expectations or preferences. I found little to no difference in terms of how much I could shape about my character between Origins and DA2. You guys keep mentioning that your choices have no consequence, but to me that doesn't really make a difference in terms of establishing your character.

I personally don't think Origins did it that well either, though I felt much more flexibility for a variety of reasons.

For establishing a character, I agree, consequences are not needed and shouldn't even be in the equation. But for living the character? I think them dealing with the consequences of their actions makes them and the world they are projected in feel more alive, imo.

Let's say for example, I choose to save a group of people instead of murdering them myelf, only for some random jerk to show up and kill them anyway. Regardless of choice, the outcome was the same, the people died, yet in choosing to murder them or not, I established whether my character was a murderer or not (at least in said situation anyway).

That is a good example, but. Yes the outcome is similar. But that choice would have had more impact if say later on, you are apprehended by someone who heard what you did. And either reacts to you as a murderer and wants to take revenge, or reprimands you for failing to protect them out of grief.  And your PC is left to deal with that person. 

This, imo, is a consequence that could add more life to the PC and to the world around him, even if the outcome is technically similar.

Because, atleast for me, establishing a character, and actually living him (for the lack of a better word), are two different things.

[KnightofPhoenix]

SirGladiator wrote...

I think when it comes to making the main character 'your character' each game has a glaring flaw. Obviously TW2's glaring flaw is a total lack of a Character Creator, you're just stuck with a preset character that you can't change at all, with all the great RPGs out there that have CCs now there's really no excuse for TW2 not to have one.

Because they are basing it on a book. They are using the IP of an author, they can't change it at their whim.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
Let's say for example, I choose to save a group of people instead of murdering them myelf, only for some random jerk to show up and kill them anyway. Regardless of choice, the outcome was the same, the people died, yet in choosing to murder them or not, I established whether my character was a murderer or not (at least in said situation anyway).

That is a good example, but. Yes the outcome is similar. But that choice would have had more impact if say later on, you are apprehended by someone who heard what you did. And either reacts to you as a murderer and wants to take revenge, or reprimands you for failing to protect them out of grief.  And your PC is left to deal with that person. 

This, imo, is a consequence that could add more life to the PC and to the world around him, even if the outcome is technically similar.

Because, atleast for me, establishing a character, and actually living him (for the lack of a better word), are two different things.

I certainly don't disagree that having different consquences makes the experience much richer and as you say, can make the experience of "living" the character more enjoyable. I can understand why someone at some point may feel "Bah, if my choices make no difference why should I even bother?". Tis a valid view and I don't critcize it.

I can't say that I find much difference really between establishing the character and "living" them, which is perhaps why I'm not as bothered as other people by the way things are handled in DA2.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 26 mai 2011 - 03:23 .

[jlb524]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Because they are basing it on a book. They are using the IP of an author, they can't change it at their whim.

This seems odd to me given this statement:

SirGladiator wrote...
But then once you get into the game itself, its the complete opposite. Now its DA2 who gives you almost no
opportunity to influence important things, while in TW2 you have INCREDIBLE influence over who lives and who dies, who takes over which country, etc. just tons and TONS of really powerful and interesting options. along with a super duper deep storyline, one that is if anything 'too' deep, as after having played through the game once I honestly still don't understand exactly what happened.

So...it's okay for the player to change and shape major events from the novel but no CC?

[KnightofPhoenix]

jlb524 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Because they are basing it on a book. They are using the IP of an author, they can't change it at their whim.

This seems odd to me given this statement:

SirGladiator wrote...
But then once you get into the game itself, its the complete opposite. Now its DA2 who gives you almost no
opportunity to influence important things, while in TW2 you have INCREDIBLE influence over who lives and who dies, who takes over which country, etc. just tons and TONS of really powerful and interesting options. along with a super duper deep storyline, one that is if anything 'too' deep, as after having played through the game once I honestly still don't understand exactly what happened.

So...it's okay for the player to change and shape major events from the novel but no CC?

You don't shape major events from the novel, they happen before the game. You  shape major events in the world established by the novels (in ways that I would think are approved by the author).

The story is based on Geralt both in the novel and game, who is the IP of the author. Yea, he shouldn't change on the otherhand.

Now could CDProjekt have created a new character for the story? I don't know. But really I feel that the world of the Witcher is so tied to Geralt that it wouldn't have worked that much with a new completely customizable character. But I understand the lack of appeal it can engender. 

[Zanallen]

Girls can't be Witchers.

[neppakyo]

The Witcher is Geralt, and Geralt is The Witcher. Hehe.

Perhaps going back in the timeline when Witchers were first created, you could add a CC and that. Hrm. Actually, that would be a fun premise.

[erynnar]

neppakyo wrote...

The Witcher is Geralt, and Geralt is The Witcher. Hehe.

Perhaps going back in the timeline when Witchers were first created, you could add a CC and that. Hrm. Actually, that would be a fun premise.

That would be fun.:happy:

[erynnar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Because they are basing it on a book. They are using the IP of an author, they can't change it at their whim.

This seems odd to me given this statement:

SirGladiator wrote...
But then once you get into the game itself, its the complete opposite. Now its DA2 who gives you almost no
opportunity to influence important things, while in TW2 you have INCREDIBLE influence over who lives and who dies, who takes over which country, etc. just tons and TONS of really powerful and interesting options. along with a super duper deep storyline, one that is if anything 'too' deep, as after having played through the game once I honestly still don't understand exactly what happened.

So...it's okay for the player to change and shape major events from the novel but no CC?

You don't shape major events from the novel, they happen before the game. You  shape major events in the world established by the novels (in ways that I would think are approved by the author).

The story is based on Geralt both in the novel and game, who is the IP of the author. Yea, he shouldn't change on the otherhand.

Now could CDProjekt have created a new character for the story? I don't know. But really I feel that the world of the Witcher is so tied to Geralt that it wouldn't have worked that much with a new completely customizable character. But I understand the lack of appeal it can engender. 

So, would a female only character be as much of a problem for male players...say Geralt had been Geraldine?

[DragonRageGT]

erynnar wrote...

So, would a female only character be as much of a problem for male players...say Geralt had been Geraldine?

As if! Lara Croft FTW!

[Zubie]

erynnar wrote...

So, would a female only character be as much of a problem for male players...say Geralt had been Geraldine?

Hell no. A female "Geralt" would be simply awesome.

I'm disappointed we've never run into a female witcher yet.

Modifié par easygame88, 26 mai 2011 - 06:00 .

[Realmzmaster]

erynnar wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Because they are basing it on a book. They are using the IP of an author, they can't change it at their whim.

This seems odd to me given this statement:

SirGladiator wrote...
But then once you get into the game itself, its the complete opposite. Now its DA2 who gives you almost no
opportunity to influence important things, while in TW2 you have INCREDIBLE influence over who lives and who dies, who takes over which country, etc. just tons and TONS of really powerful and interesting options. along with a super duper deep storyline, one that is if anything 'too' deep, as after having played through the game once I honestly still don't understand exactly what happened.

So...it's okay for the player to change and shape major events from the novel but no CC?

You don't shape major events from the novel, they happen before the game. You  shape major events in the world established by the novels (in ways that I would think are approved by the author).

The story is based on Geralt both in the novel and game, who is the IP of the author. Yea, he shouldn't change on the otherhand.

Now could CDProjekt have created a new character for the story? I don't know. But really I feel that the world of the Witcher is so tied to Geralt that it wouldn't have worked that much with a new completely customizable character. But I understand the lack of appeal it can engender. 

So, would a female only character be as much of a problem for male players...say Geralt had been Geraldine?

Interesting question! For me no it would not be a problem. I have roleplayed in CRPG everything from a female dwarf to a female half troll and their male equivalents!

[Nimrodell]

Witcher is written solely by male writers and when one plays Geralt (especially in W1) he/she can see that Witcher was made for male players (I mean, Shani, Triss, Abigail, vampire girls, prostitutes, Vesna, inn wenches, half-elven girl, Adda... even Ves in the sequel if one chooses Roche's path - all spread their legs so easily, and Geralt sometimes is forced to oblige them in order to finish quest line - like in W1 you had to sleep with blue-eyed prostitute in order to finish that q).

Good thing in W2 was that level of easy 'legs spreading' was narrowed or at least Geralt had to make some effort to get girl's skirt up. Now, I really think that Sebastian Stepien and his 'nerd' team should update Geralt of Rivia, check gaming communities and see that there are female players playing RPG and that it would be nice to do something for them... Having perhaps two main story lines in W3 - White Wolf going after the Wild Hunt and in Nilfgaard having Witcheress from the school of Viper hunting the same thing. I know that I would be grateful for that even tho Andrzej Sapkowski didn't think about that while writing the novels and scenarios for series. If there can be Conjuction of Spheres and elves from another dimension, so there can be a Witcheress too, hunting the same thing after meeting Yennefer.

That's why I respect BW story telling approach, there is male and female PoV in their games, even in KotOR was one... no matter canon Revan was male, I was allowed to play a female version and get my PoV of the story.

One thing bugs me greatly tho - why do people compare DA2 with the Witcher 2? Yes, they belong to same genre but essentially those are different types of RPG... In BW RPG versions, player is more focused to those around him/her, his friends and foes and along those interactions, story unfolds. The Witcher has different approach - it's mostly about him, his perception of the world and choices that are sometimes crudely forced upon him... As a player that leads Geralt, one doesn't get much chance to actually care about those that are following him (W1 is perfect example of shallow friend/foe, friend/lover... just look at the choice with whom to give Alvin, Shani or Triss, and their reaction after choosing, one has to admit tis ridiculous 'cause they weren't fighting by our side, suffering by our side in the first place, not in real sense of the word - same goes for Roche vs Iorveth - that choice was forced too early and tis unfairly imposed on the player - Geralt got to meet Roche, knows his goals, but Iorveth, that's a huge hole at that moment of choosing).
Bottom line is... when you look at BW games, there are talimancers, garrusmancers, andersmancers etc, when you look at Witchers... well, there are scoiatelers or ordermancers or neutral ones in W1 or just Roche path, Iorveth path ones... there are no trissomancers (well, Triss is special case after that elven bath scene lol, ofc in uncensored version) or dandelioners or zoltaners, meaning that those are different types of RPG and you can compare graphics, combat execution, inventory solutions, but you can't compare them storywise 'cause they opposite in their core. Can't wait for ME3 and DA2 story DLC or DA3 and can't wait for W2 DLC - love all those games and I think that gaming community should regard those games as different types no matter they all belong to great RPG family - simple as that. When one compares them, he/she should compare them in the right manner without mistaking them for what they are not.

Modifié par Nimrodell, 26 mai 2011 - 06:50 .