673 réponses à ce sujet

[RhythmlessNinja]

I skimmed through alot of posts...and everyone is basically saying they want bioware to stop being lazy & actually put their all into their game again, like you can very clearly see CD Projekt did on TW2. And I agree, though like I said before they've got a lot of work to do impress me after playing TW2, here's hoping they learned from their mistakes. I'm a pretty big bioware fan but after DA2 I'm kinda on the sidelines till ME3 since DA3 wont release before it...and ZombiePowered, completely agree with everything you've said.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...

Of course, this can easily be blamed on the fact that Dragon Age II is multiplatform which means that all the patches have to go through verification processes with both Sony and Microsoft before being approved. Still, no reason to hold back the PC patches.

I think the potential platform wars that follow may be an issue. The same reason why DA:O was released at the same time on all platforms even though DA:O PC was ready to go months earlier.

[orbit991]

Zanallen wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

A rival to the empress in Orlais could use the mage/templar crisis to drive a wedge between the crown and the people if they spun it right. Try and show that the empress doesn't support the church possibly? Or perhaps some higher up will try and use the conflict to force harsher mage restrictions.

Or or! Orlais could use Kirkwall and the mage uprising as a way to invade Fereldan again since at least I assume there could be a civil war going on between the Mages and Templars. Perfect time for Orlais to just squeeze right on in.

Meh, if there was ever a time to take Ferelden, it was right after the Blight. It would have been so awesome if Loghain was right all along and Orlais invaded right after the Warden slayed the archdemon.

That would have been great actually. Since I killed him I would have lost the most experienced general and things could have been harder, but it's moot, we got Kirkwall.

[AudioEpics]

I'm sorry but I didn't read this whole thread, just the OP. I'd just like to say: NPCs going about their daily routines + day/night cycles; great, I'd love to see more of that in Bioware games. Wider areas and less loading screens are definitely welcome too. I'd really love to see Bioware try to combine party-based gameplay with a less static world like The Witcher, Gothic, Divinity II or Oblivion. Mind, I don't mean going for an open world RPG because that would be a different genre altogether but moving it a bit more in that direction would definitely be great.
Better graphics... Hmmm... To me, what matters more is great design and fluent performance. I don't want Dragon Age III to look as detailed as The Witcher 2 but suffer from bad framerate, screen tearing and what have you. Mass Effect 2 graphics would be great as they are known to run very smoothly both on PCs and on consoles.
As for "mature language", I'm sure others have said this before me but as far as I'm concerned: please, no. I don't mind a very occasional four-letter word from an appropriate character but I don't want every town guard to throw around profanities. Please don't turn this into Deadwood. As great as that show's writing was, the constant swearing became extremely annoying. I love it that Dragon Age II doesn't try too hard to be "edgy" and "gritty" (which are just popular words of the moment if you ask me) but instead goes for something more personal and genuinely tragic. I like my fantasy to be more like a grand opera and less like a raw & dirty street drama (personal preferences, of course).

[Corto81]

AudioEpics wrote...
 I love it that Dragon Age II doesn't try too hard to be "edgy" and "gritty" (which are just popular words of the moment if you ask me) but instead goes for something more personal and genuinely tragic. I like my fantasy to be more like a grand opera and less like a raw & dirty street drama (personal preferences, of course).

Fair enough.

I prefer realistic surroundings and realistic characters.
Like it or not, swearing was (and is) definitely very common among soldiers for example, who make a big part of both Witcher and DA series.

Personally, I don't find TW2 swearing to be excessive at all.
It seems genuine, not forced and fits the setting.

[In Exile]

Corto81 wrote..
Personally, I don't find TW2 swearing to be excessive at all.
It seems genuine, not forced and fits the setting.

Oh, god, no. If I hear "ploughing" one more time, some ties. Painfully. I don't mind swearing, but for the love of whatever diety needs loving, please, please don't recycle the same swear word over and over.

[Dariuszp]

Simple - DROP DRM :-) Just like CDPR did. First they did it in GOG.com digital edition. Next, after one week they release patch 1.1 that drop DRM from TW2.

[heathxxx]

I think what I most admire about The Witcher 2, is the depth of consequences your choices has.

For example, choices at certain parts in the game mean you'll go to one location and not the other. You simply won't go to that other location during that particular playthrough, because your choices take you elsewhere. Only by making different choices, in other playthroughs, will you see the other areas in the game.

And to think... I saw someone say TW2 was "very linear". Far from it. You choose the paths you tread and they are many and varied. There is a central plot and story, but the outcome and the fruits of your labours are open to at least 16 different endings.

In some respects, it reminds me of the Peter Jackson/Ian Livingstone "Fighting Fantasy" books I loved as a kid. Many choices, many paths to tread and your choices have varied consequences.

A fixed main character really isn't a worry for me when it comes to customisation. So long as you're able to customise elements of that character, such as armour, weapons and skill specialisations, then that's fine.

[Gotholhorakh]

RangerSG wrote...


Scabbards and bowstrings, absoutely. I can't even play an archer in DA because looking at a bow with no string drives me bats.

As far as "mature language" goes, honestly I find nothing "immersive" about profanity that doesn't fit the period/setting. This is a knock against a LOT of fantasy, IMHO. Until well after the Victorian era, the most powerful curses were blasphemy, not feces/fornication related. It's quite honestly sloppy and off-putting to me to find MODERN curses included in such a setting. I thought the inclusion of "Flames!" in DA2, for instance, a very appropriate curse. I realize some people might think that's mild. But that's because they don't think about the sacrilige in the statement.  Profanity and mature subject matter should fit the setting, not be a tool of cheap laughs.

I'd go as far as saying USING modern curses in fantasy settings is the juvenile choice.

Absolutely agree - I still remember the overuse of the C word from the first jaunt, off-putting, juvenile and a bit embarrassing to play in front of any other adult.

[Kroepoek]

In Exile wrote...

Corto81 wrote..
Personally, I don't find TW2 swearing to be excessive at all.
It seems genuine, not forced and fits the setting.

Oh, god, no. If I hear "ploughing" one more time, some ties. Painfully. I don't mind swearing, but for the love of whatever diety needs loving, please, please don't recycle the same swear word over and over.

Go plough yourself

[Soilborn88]

The Witcher 2 > Dragon Age 2

 

[RangerSG]

Corto81 wrote...

AudioEpics wrote...
 I love it that Dragon Age II doesn't try too hard to be "edgy" and "gritty" (which are just popular words of the moment if you ask me) but instead goes for something more personal and genuinely tragic. I like my fantasy to be more like a grand opera and less like a raw & dirty street drama (personal preferences, of course).

Fair enough.

I prefer realistic surroundings and realistic characters.
Like it or not, swearing was (and is) definitely very common among soldiers for example, who make a big part of both Witcher and DA series.

Personally, I don't find TW2 swearing to be excessive at all.
It seems genuine, not forced and fits the setting.

No, TW2 curses don't fit the setting, for the reason I noted. It's the typical insertion of modern language into Medeival settings, and it's lazy, juvenile writing. The Witcher does a lot of things right. But that's not one of them.

[TheStrand221]

RangerSG wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

AudioEpics wrote...
 I love it that Dragon Age II doesn't try too hard to be "edgy" and "gritty" (which are just popular words of the moment if you ask me) but instead goes for something more personal and genuinely tragic. I like my fantasy to be more like a grand opera and less like a raw & dirty street drama (personal preferences, of course).

Fair enough.

I prefer realistic surroundings and realistic characters.
Like it or not, swearing was (and is) definitely very common among soldiers for example, who make a big part of both Witcher and DA series.

Personally, I don't find TW2 swearing to be excessive at all.
It seems genuine, not forced and fits the setting.

No, TW2 curses don't fit the setting, for the reason I noted. It's the typical insertion of modern language into Medeival settings, and it's lazy, juvenile writing. The Witcher does a lot of things right. But that's not one of them.

It isn't lazy writing, it's a design choice.  Modern cursing has the visceral impact for the modern player, whereas something from Chaucer isn't likely to make any impression at all other than confusion or possibly unintended humor.

Not to mention that this is a fantasy setting that takes place outside of history, that utilizes a certain amount of historical basis to aid suspension of disbelief.  I think TW2 does an exceptionally good job of that for the most part.  I mean, seriously, you have an issue with the game's cursing and not with Triss discussing genetics?  Personally I think the latter is surprising but appropriate in that it enhances the mystique and demonstrates the sophistication of sorceresses in relation to the common people of the setting.

[Chromie]

TheStrand221 wrote...
It isn't lazy writing, it's a design choice.  Modern cursing has the visceral impact for the modern player, whereas something from Chaucer isn't likely to make any impression at all other than confusion or possibly unintended humor.

This.

Also the cursing in Dragon Age always felt forced even in Mass Effect 2. It just doesn't sound right. Jack "You sound like a p**** " imo it just doesn't very good considering what is going on around her at the time.

In DA2 the cursing came off as forced.

[RangerSG]

TheStrand221 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

AudioEpics wrote...
 I love it that Dragon Age II doesn't try too hard to be "edgy" and "gritty" (which are just popular words of the moment if you ask me) but instead goes for something more personal and genuinely tragic. I like my fantasy to be more like a grand opera and less like a raw & dirty street drama (personal preferences, of course).

Fair enough.

I prefer realistic surroundings and realistic characters.
Like it or not, swearing was (and is) definitely very common among soldiers for example, who make a big part of both Witcher and DA series.

Personally, I don't find TW2 swearing to be excessive at all.
It seems genuine, not forced and fits the setting.

No, TW2 curses don't fit the setting, for the reason I noted. It's the typical insertion of modern language into Medeival settings, and it's lazy, juvenile writing. The Witcher does a lot of things right. But that's not one of them.

It isn't lazy writing, it's a design choice.  Modern cursing has the visceral impact for the modern player, whereas something from Chaucer isn't likely to make any impression at all other than confusion or possibly unintended humor.

Not to mention that this is a fantasy setting that takes place outside of history, that utilizes a certain amount of historical basis to aid suspension of disbelief.  I think TW2 does an exceptionally good job of that for the most part.  I mean, seriously, you have an issue with the game's cursing and not with Triss discussing genetics?  Personally I think the latter is surprising but appropriate in that it enhances the mystique and demonstrates the sophistication of sorceresses in relation to the common people of the setting.

Sorry, that doesn't sell, genetics in some fashion, were around in the 16th century, so that's not an excuse.

And anachronistic choices don't create impact, they deaden immersion by making the player think about where he is OUTSIDE the game instead of inside. So yes,it's lazy. But again, it's not just Witcher that does that. I was disappointed when Steven Erikson started dropping f-bombs in the Malazan series as well. Especially after having established period profanity for 6 books until then.

As a writer, when a character should curse, you write them as cursing. But you write them using a curse that's BELIEVABLE to the situation, not one you think someone wants to hear. There's nothing believable about modern profanity in anything with a Pre-WW1 timeframe, because that's when the use of blasphemy as the most powerful profanity fell out of usage.

It's no more believable than having them say "Dude" (in fact, at least that would be appropriate in a Wild/Weird West setting).

[TheStrand221]

RangerSG wrote...

Sorry, that doesn't sell, genetics in some fashion, were around in the 16th century, so that's not an excuse.

*FACEPALM*

Yeah, I'd love to hear about genetics circa 1545.  Please enlighten me.

Seriously though, people understood animals could be bred and that's about it.  Nothing remotely approaching a level where topics such as mutation or natural selection would have any meaning.


Designing a western fantasy game is a balance between suspension of disbelief, by grounding it in a setting that is quasi-historical, and by making it accessible to a modern player.  By your logic the dialogue should all be in Middle English, and nearly incomprehensible.  Why just use "old-timey" curse words, why not all words?  If some are anachronistic (odd choice of words since The Witcher doesn't take place in a historical time frame) aren't they all?

Actually, considering the game's provenance, shouldn't it only be in Medieval Polish with no subtitles?

If this is your preference, fine.  There is little accounting for taste.  But I am confident you're in the minority.  If Geralt started shouting "what the deuce!" or "zounds!" (not that those are Medieval curses, so far as I know, but they illustrate my point) most people would just burst out laughing, and the game would become a joke.

[RangerSG]

TheStrand221 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Sorry, that doesn't sell, genetics in some fashion, were around in the 16th century, so that's not an excuse.

*FACEPALM*

Yeah, I'd love to hear about genetics circa 1545.  Please enlighten me.

Seriously though, people understood animals could be bred and that's about it.  Nothing remotely approaching a level where topics such as mutation or natural selection would have any meaning.


Designing a western fantasy game is a balance between suspension of disbelief, by grounding it in a setting that is quasi-historical, and by making it accessible to a modern player.  By your logic the dialogue should all be in Middle English, and nearly incomprehensible.  Why just use "old-timey" curse words, why not all words?  If some are anachronistic (odd choice of words since The Witcher doesn't take place in a historical time frame) aren't they all?

Actually, considering the game's provenance, shouldn't it only be in Medieval Polish with no subtitles?

If this is your preference, fine.  There is little accounting for taste.  But I am confident you're in the minority.  If Geralt started shouting "what the deuce!" or "zounds!" (not that those are Medieval curses, so far as I know, but they illustrate my point) most people would just burst out laughing, and the game would become a joke.

No they don't illustrate your point, because you chose them to be juvenile and not understand the meaning the words had.

Fantasy takes place in a historical analogue even when it's not "this worldly". Proper writing takes into account the analogue, and even if you allow one element to go beyond it (like Steampunk does, for instance), you still have to be honest in the main to the setting, or it's being ludicrous and juvenile.

Cursing to curse is always juvenile. And when anachronistic terms are used, that's what it is.

[Chromie]

TheStrand221 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Sorry, that doesn't sell, genetics in some fashion, were around in the 16th century, so that's not an excuse.

Actually, considering the game's provenance, shouldn't it only be in Medieval Polish with no subtitles?

And yet it's fine for DA2 to speak with modern English with SOME made up words for him.

Don't see him complaining about that.

[Siegdrifa]

On element to take ....
For me it very easy, a TOP PRIORITY ellement :

Main plot devloppement !!!!
Bioware games seem to be more and more subquest package games, the BG story (often amazing) on the background and a simple story as a main quest that will be dealt in the end in 2 or 3 hour. Until that, it's just play time with the subquest, there is no real focus.

If i could make a picture, Bioware games story are like a pack a good cookies, and Bioware open the pack an throw all the cookies on the ground at once, we eat them randomly until the time to end the game with a final cookie are ultimatly given to the player.
In TW2, this is another pack of good cookies, but instead of trowing everything at once, they make lines with them and we have to follow the trails. Futhermore, they intentionnaly choose to make chocolate flavor here, vanilla flavor there to keep you intrested and make you experience different ambiance while playing.

In Bioware games 30% of quest are related to the main plot, other are just story fillers, no matter how well made and written, the main story don't need them.
In TW2, 80% of the quest are devoted to develop the main story and are deeply tied together.

Devlopping the main story in a bigger proportion allow more twist and keep the player eager to follow the trail... but it's more complicated to write than letting open door for story fillers.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 27 mai 2011 - 02:02 .

[TheStrand221]

Ringo12 wrote...

And yet it's fine for DA2 to speak with modern English with SOME made up words for him.

Don't see him complaining about that.

Of course not.

But I mean, come one, let's be honest.  I'm just drinking beers and arguing for the pleasure of it.  I just played TW2 for a few hours and don't have to work tomorrow (today).

I just wish I could find more interesting discussions between people who are more reasonable to participate in.  Sadly I just lurk and read everyone else's threads, I even enjoy the InExile / Sylvius marathons.

[RangerSG]

Ringo12 wrote...

TheStrand221 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Sorry, that doesn't sell, genetics in some fashion, were around in the 16th century, so that's not an excuse.

Actually, considering the game's provenance, shouldn't it only be in Medieval Polish with no subtitles?

And yet it's fine for DA2 to speak with modern English with SOME made up words for him.

Don't see him complaining about that.

1) That wasn't the point of the thread. People were repeatedly saying how 'mature' the Witcher's profanity is. My point is it's not. Not that I approve of the Seeker at the beginning of DA2 using a modern term anymore.

2) Actually I DO disapprove of using words that have no possibility of existing at the proper time frame. When I write, I'm always conscious of choosing 'technical' words that fit the period and avoiding modern concepts of economics/politics/etc. Now modern sentence structure and such is not the issue, because that's a matter of readability. But yes, I'm against anachronistic word choices in general in fantasy.

And I note you completely ignored where I leveled this against Erikson, who is a fantasy BOOK writer, as well. This wasn't a 'Witcher' point. It's a statement about proper writing in general. Dialogue should fit the analogue time period. End of story.

[TheStrand221]

RangerSG wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

TheStrand221 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Sorry, that doesn't sell, genetics in some fashion, were around in the 16th century, so that's not an excuse.

Actually, considering the game's provenance, shouldn't it only be in Medieval Polish with no subtitles?

And yet it's fine for DA2 to speak with modern English with SOME made up words for him.

Don't see him complaining about that.

1) That wasn't the point of the thread. People were repeatedly saying how 'mature' the Witcher's profanity is. My point is it's not. Not that I approve of the Seeker at the beginning of DA2 using a modern term anymore.

2) Actually I DO disapprove of using words that have no possibility of existing at the proper time frame. When I write, I'm always conscious of choosing 'technical' words that fit the period and avoiding modern concepts of economics/politics/etc. Now modern sentence structure and such is not the issue, because that's a matter of readability. But yes, I'm against anachronistic word choices in general in fantasy.

And I note you completely ignored where I leveled this against Erikson, who is a fantasy BOOK writer, as well. This wasn't a 'Witcher' point. It's a statement about proper writing in general. Dialogue should fit the analogue time period. End of story.

Thank you for teaching us about proper writing.  I'm interested in reading what you've written actually, so I can educate myself as to how proper fantasy is written.  Can you please provide links to your published works on Amazon?

[RangerSG]

TheStrand221 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

TheStrand221 wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

Sorry, that doesn't sell, genetics in some fashion, were around in the 16th century, so that's not an excuse.

Actually, considering the game's provenance, shouldn't it only be in Medieval Polish with no subtitles?

And yet it's fine for DA2 to speak with modern English with SOME made up words for him.

Don't see him complaining about that.

1) That wasn't the point of the thread. People were repeatedly saying how 'mature' the Witcher's profanity is. My point is it's not. Not that I approve of the Seeker at the beginning of DA2 using a modern term anymore.

2) Actually I DO disapprove of using words that have no possibility of existing at the proper time frame. When I write, I'm always conscious of choosing 'technical' words that fit the period and avoiding modern concepts of economics/politics/etc. Now modern sentence structure and such is not the issue, because that's a matter of readability. But yes, I'm against anachronistic word choices in general in fantasy.

And I note you completely ignored where I leveled this against Erikson, who is a fantasy BOOK writer, as well. This wasn't a 'Witcher' point. It's a statement about proper writing in general. Dialogue should fit the analogue time period. End of story.

Thank you for teaching us about proper writing.  I'm interested in reading what you've written actually, so I can educate myself as to how proper fantasy is written.  Can you please provide links to your published works on Amazon?

I do have books on submission, actually. So yes, I've gone through the mill, and not just talking boilerplate without knowledge.

[TheStrand221]

Dude, you don't really have to prove yourself to me. I've already admitted I'm drunk and trolling you.

I mean, jeez, I get what you're saying I just disagree and genuinely think you're in the minority on this issue. I think there are other factors that supersede your argument, and that a certain amount of particular anachronisms are necessary for something immersive and relevant to the player, to say nothing of how anachronistic a game outside of any real historical time can be. You don't think you're statements here come off a little strong and unreasonable when it comes to what is "proper"? You don't think it's arrogant to end a post "end of story"?

Cheers.

[Chromie]

Dude, you type well for drunk.