307 réponses à ce sujet

[Fidget6]

Dariuszp wrote...
Like I said before. Some people just have low standards so same title will be good for one and terrible for other person.

Dude, how arrogant are you? It's called different opinions, not "low standards."

[Dariuszp]

It's not matter of opinion. When you like brunettes over blondes - that's opinion. When you prefer simple game that lack everything - that's just low standards.

[philippe willaume]

Fidget6 wrote...

Dariuszp wrote...
Like I said before. Some people just have low standards so same title will be good for one and terrible for other person.

Dude, how arrogant are you? It's called different opinions, not "low standards."

Hello fidjet
Would you be by any chance ever so slightly taking the Mikey?
 
I mean yes I can accept and understand why, people find DAII better that DA:0.
I do not share that opinion, though I though DAII was good enough. And yes DA:0/A is a tough act to follow.
 
But how the game affects you and how you relate to the story is only one facet of the game. And what Dariuszp is pointing out is that there was some factor especially from game and rule design, story construction and immersion where the actual realisation was not quite as good as it could have been.
 
Now that has noting to do with liking it better for some and plenty to do with it for other.
However regardless of love or hate,  it is quite easy to demonstrate objectively.
 
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 21 juin 2011 - 08:48 .

[Realmzmaster]

Dariuszp wrote...

It's not matter of opinion. When you like brunettes over blondes - that's opinion. When you prefer simple game that lack everything - that's just low standards.

No it is opinion. Your opinion differs from other opinions. It is not low standards. You are of the opinion that you have higher standards than others which again is just opinion, your opinion.
I am more than willing to set my standards against anyone else, but it is still just my opinion and my standards. Unless a intentaional group has gotten together and defined in fact the standard for CRPGs that everyone else must adhere to it is just opinion. I have yet to see a universal definition or standard for CRPG or RPGs for that matter, just peoples opinion of what they think it should be.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 21 juin 2011 - 09:24 .

[Seival]

For now my favorite game is ME2. 

DA2 is very good, but not as good as ME2 for me.



...Soon there will be Mass Effect 3 and Guild Wars 2. They will be the best RPGs ever made, I'm sure.

[Dariuszp]

Well ME2 have same problems that DA II have but loot of people treat that game as shooter with story and dialogues - not like RPG. At least people who I talk to treat ME2 like this. That's why i dont like in ME2 same thing but it's not a problem for me.

Realmzmaster wrote...

No it is opinion. Your opinion differs from other opinions. It is not low standards. You are of the opinion that you have higher standards than others which again is just opinion, your opinion.
I am more than willing to set my standards against anyone else, but it is still just my opinion and my standards. Unless a intentaional group has gotten together and defined in fact the standard for CRPGs that everyone else must adhere to it is just opinion. I have yet to see a universal definition or standard for CRPG or RPGs for that matter, just peoples opinion of what they think it should be.

I disagree. Everything you see in DA II you can see in other titles. In other titles things are made better. Other titles are:
- better as actual RPG (loot of elements in DA II are just simplified)
- better as action RPG (sorry but that's true - DA II fail here too)
- have better graphic
- have better dialogues (come on - good above, stupid in the middle and evil at the bottom yuo call dialogues ?)
- better companions (in other games main character gather other people that ******, bi and other perverts - meaby Hawk have just bad luck to companions - still Avelin was well made in my opinion)
- better world (witcher 2 is example - real day/night cycle, not some cheap imitation, NPC that react on weather and stuff, living world when they talk and stuff - when you hear that some NPC talk about collection of shoes - you can visit his houe and see it and loot of other things)
- better story - yes, DA II have 3 almost independent stories in 10 years of Hawk life. Still city dont change, hawk dont change, you dont even know that 10 years passed. Quantity over quality but that's my opinion. I expect atleast that like in Fable, main character will get some white hair or something after 10 years of fighting.
- better rules and they stick to them - DA II have so much problems with it that i expect - team that made this game never really check rules of DA world they put in DAO.
- better enemies - darkspawns look like bunch of dark clowns. Dark and funny. DAO got it right, other games also do it as they should mostly.
- better locations - loot of it and with some details. In DA II you got few small locations that are poorly made. And it show especialy in Kirkwall.
- better almost everything... i can talk all day and show examples even if i got time.
- better combat that is not just button smasher. R, 1, 2, 3, R, 1, 2, 3, R, R, 2, 1, R... and you dont even need to use mouse.

So it's not opinion. It's just low standards. When i see Flotsam in Witcher i see village with bunch of people who walk, talk and stuff. They go home at night. Walk around etc. You can see their houes. At night you can just stand and watch - Flotsam is sweet. That's art.
On the other hand you have Kirkwall. Few npc doing nothing. Just standing like someone use glue to put them in place. Dead city, sterile like some hospital. That's lame.

So Kirkwall - that's just low standards.

Modifié par Dariuszp, 22 juin 2011 - 05:49 .

[Jaldaric]

ME2 wasn't a RPG.

It was a TPS game with stop - cover - shoot gamplay repeated over and over again. With some lite rpg elements, and a gather your army to face the big bad guy theme.

I enjoyed ME2 for what it was. A shooter with a lite story.

Now MMORPG's are another beast, not a single player RPG, more of a grind fest with 12 year olds calling you gay and asking for PvP.

[Realmzmaster]

Dariuszp wrote...

Well ME2 have same problems that DA II have but loot of people treat that game as shooter with story and dialogues - not like RPG. At least people who I talk to treat ME2 like this. That's why i dont like in ME2 same thing but it's not a problem for me.

Realmzmaster wrote...

No it is opinion. Your opinion differs from other opinions. It is not low standards. You are of the opinion that you have higher standards than others which again is just opinion, your opinion.
I am more than willing to set my standards against anyone else, but it is still just my opinion and my standards. Unless a intentaional group has gotten together and defined in fact the standard for CRPGs that everyone else must adhere to it is just opinion. I have yet to see a universal definition or standard for CRPG or RPGs for that matter, just peoples opinion of what they think it should be.

I disagree. Everything you see in DA II you can see in other titles. In other titles things are made better. Other titles are:
- better as actual RPG (loot of elements in DA II are just simplified)
- better as action RPG (sorry but that's true - DA II fail here too)
- have better graphic
- have better dialogues (come on - good above, stupid in the middle and evil at the bottom yuo call dialogues ?)
- better companions (in other games main character gather other people that ******, bi and other perverts - meaby Hawk have just bad luck to companions - still Avelin was well made in my opinion)
- better world (witcher 2 is example - real day/night cycle, not some cheap imitation, NPC that react on weather and stuff, living world when they talk and stuff - when you hear that some NPC talk about collection of shoes - you can visit his houe and see it and loot of other things)
- better story - yes, DA II have 3 almost independent stories in 10 years of Hawk life. Still city dont change, hawk dont change, you dont even know that 10 years passed. Quantity over quality but that's my opinion. I expect atleast that like in Fable, main character will get some white hair or something after 10 years of fighting.
- better rules and they stick to them - DA II have so much problems with it that i expect - team that made this game never really check rules of DA world they put in DAO.
- better enemies - darkspawns look like bunch of dark clowns. Dark and funny. DAO got it right, other games also do it as they should mostly.
- better locations - loot of it and with some details. In DA II you got few small locations that are poorly made. And it show especialy in Kirkwall.
- better almost everything... i can talk all day and show examples even if i got time.
- better combat that is not just button smasher. R, 1, 2, 3, R, 1, 2, 3, R, R, 2, 1, R... and you dont even need to use mouse.

So it's not opinion. It's just low standards. When i see Flotsam in Witcher i see village with bunch of people who walk, talk and stuff. They go home at night. Walk around etc. You can see their houes. At night you can just stand and watch - Flotsam is sweet. That's art.
On the other hand you have Kirkwall. Few npc doing nothing. Just standing like someone use glue to put them in place. Dead city, sterile like some hospital. That's lame.

So Kirkwall - that's just low standards.

Everything you just said is your opinion! Give me the universal standard for CRPGs. Otherwise all you are stating is you opinion. The witcher 2 is not the universal standard. I can rattle off many early CRPGs that I consider better than the Witcher 2, DA:O, and DA2. But it would still be my opinion. Nothing in the Witcher 2 is innovative or new. It has all been done before. I would pick any of the Ultimas, Might and Magic series,  Bards Tale, Elder Scrolls, Wizardry, NWN2 Mask of the Betrayer and Baldur's Gate series  over the Witcher 2. But that is my opinion.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 22 juin 2011 - 06:19 .

[elearon1]

Don't forget "Planescape: Torment", the best crpg ever made in *most* opinions.

[Dariuszp]

Are you narrow minded or what ? I dont talk about better game. I dont said that Witcher 2 is better than DA II. This would be opinion. I said that every aspect of DA II is better made in other titles.

It's not about some stupid document called "cRPG standards v2 - 06/2011". It's about details. If you say that i'm incorrect and what i said is not true then let me ask you this.

What is BETTER made in Kirkwall (DAII) than in Flotsam (W2) ?
~ NPC ? no. They not moving, not talking, they just stand and do nothing
~ day/night cycle ? No. In W2 they go to home, work in daylight, do different things in different hour. It's real time, not some cheap imitation.
~ details ? look at details. Even stupid stall. In DA II you got 2 swords or some shield and idiot NPC next to it. Then again look at details of the shop in W2. Bunch of things that make it look like it should. Even stuff like little of water after rain or people running around when there is storm.
~ locations ? give me a break. In W2 you can visit almost every house in the game. And they have so much details that you cannot even compare it with sterile DA II world.
~ graphic ? you would be kidding me. Details, light and other stuff are far more better.

So what is it ? Tell me what Kirkwall have that you think is on equal terms with W2 or better ? Technicaly. Because all that stuff - DA II is a low standard in cRPG games. Same thing with more open worlds like in Gothic, TES series etc. Even old Planescape Tourment is far better in some aspects. So ? What is it ? Because i see you think i made here subiective opinion. Tell me please.

Modifié par Dariuszp, 22 juin 2011 - 07:18 .

[Firky]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Unless a intentaional group has gotten together and defined in fact the standard for CRPGs that everyone else must adhere to it is just opinion. I have yet to see a universal definition or standard for CRPG or RPGs for that matter, just peoples opinion of what they think it should be.

In a way, I wish someone would do that. Not so much "defined a standard" but created some kind of collective wisdom on RPGs. What kind of gamers prefer which kind of mechanics, etc.

In another way, however, it might be restrictive to designers who want to try ideas outside of the square. Would there be more pressure to "play it safe" if you knew that a large percentage of the audience just really wanted one or two core things.

Personally, I think people throw the word "flaw" around too much on this forum. Literally speaking, a flaw is something that should be observable and measurable, like an imperfection in a gemstone, or something. Trying to objectively analyse a game like this requires context.

In an RPG context, DAII isn't ticking that many boxes. Conversely, if you look at the game as a story-driven, RPG influenced, party-based, action/strategy combat type of creation, aspects of the game which people consider to be "objective flaws" aren't really that inconsistent with the overall product. I'm not saying that recycled areas are good but I assume the idea was that you'd be too busy enjoying the game to care too much. This assumption may have been wrong for many gamers, but it's still hard to fully define it as a "flaw." (Many of us weren't that worried.)

[Siegdrifa]

Firky wrote...


In an RPG context, DAII isn't ticking that many boxes. Conversely, if you look at the game as a story-driven, RPG influenced, party-based, action/strategy combat type of creation, aspects of the game which people consider to be "objective flaws" aren't really that inconsistent with the overall product. I'm not saying that recycled areas are good but I assume the idea was that you'd be too busy enjoying the game to care too much. This assumption may have been wrong for many gamers, but it's still hard to fully define it as a "flaw." (Many of us weren't that worried.)

uh .... reused area was forced on the devloppement, mainly due to dead line. I doubt a so experienced devloppement studio as Bioware would intentionnaly from the very begining for their new game "let's just make a few area and reused them for 80% of the contentent of the game, because the player would be so busy to play the game he won't realy notice".

I find it hard to belive.

If you look closely at games intentionnaly reusing area (especialy donjon rpg) you will see that if the decision is taken from the begining, it is actualy a more advanced concept than copy / paste, such as randomly generated area. Because even in donjon RPG, the dev try to make the player feels it's a new level, or at least you can't predict where to go.
At that DA2 would doubly fail.

Anyway, there is an interview of Mike, saying that when they knew they had to reuse area, they had to be carfule. It sounded more like a bad news for them and even less a choice.

[Firky]

*shrugs* My point was that I don't think that the recycled areas in DAII can definitively be called a "flaw" unless you are holding the game to strict, largely historical standards of world creation (which still aren't conclusively defined.)

Were discreet areas a low priority? Compared to story/cinematics/overhauling combat etc. Certainly seems to the case. But that's a guess. You're also guessing that a deadline might have forced them to re-examine priorities during development.

[Dariuszp]

I disagree. You see, they spend 6 years on DAO right ? And there is plenty of content to create. Now they spend only 2 years doing DA II.

So when you have only few areas to design then what are you doing ? Simple. You put there as much details as you can. It's a CITY right ? It should be full of life, variety of people and stuff.

And what they give us ? Empty, sterile city with few static npc and stuff. If you say that they "DESIGN" this ? They have very poor art director or they are just lazy and they think that they still making good RPG games. While they are so happy about themself, there are games like Skyrim and Witcher 2 out there that beat the crap out of BW new games.

They just want to make DA II as cheap and fast as they can. Dont know if it was EA or BW but they still fail. And it's good. I hope they will learn. Other companies success should be good slap in their faces. Or they can just go to hell. Like ID Software. They give us good shooters back in the days and now ? Quake 4 was failure and not only this. They take the slap and now they creating Rage. We will see what legend of the FPS indurstry will make.

I always think about BW as legend of RPG industry but now only thing we got is bad sequel of good game and shooter with rpg elements.

[Firky]

Dariuszp wrote...
So when you have only few areas to design then what are you doing ? Simple. You put there as much details as you can. It's a CITY right ? It should be full of life, variety of people and stuff.

That's one way to approach it. Clearly they went the other way. There is no one definitive RPG.

To be really clear. I'm not saying recycled areas or Kirkwall NPCs or whatever are good. (They're not.) Just that it seems they got a low priority on the design ladder. (And if you didn't like the rest of the game, I can understand why they would be annoying.)

The Witcher 2 was highly detailed which worked really well at creating an interactive experience. But take the kayran battle as an example. It was absolutely amazing to look at but (for me) quite unsatisfying to play because you couldn't actually utilise your build, you had to play how they intended you to play. TW2 boss battles prioritised visuals.

(Edit: PS. TW2 wasn't as detailed as the first game either. Where the hell is my chicken sandwich?)

Modifié par Firky, 22 juin 2011 - 08:45 .

[curlzncrush]

Dariuszp wrote...

every aspect of DA II is better made in other titles.

I understand what you're saying in terms of the differences between Kirkwall and Flotsam.  To be honest, I wasn't a huge Kirkwall fan either (I really like Hightown but can only tolerate Lowtown and that lot).  Even in Origins, Denerim wasn't exactly ringing my bell.

But there is a reason Flotsam is so painstakingly-detailed with striking AI and brilliant day and night cycles.  This reason is that those things don't belong in Dragon Age because Dragon Age puts its detail in other areas. 

For example, can you honestly say that W2's dialogue is anywhere near the standard Dragon Age 2 has held?

Does W2 offer as many diverse and rich characters as DA2?

So yeah, Flotsam is pretty cool.  Kirkwall is mostly okay.  But Dragon Age 2 and Witcher 2 are different.  They serve different purposes yet they try to please the same crowd.  Must be tough.

[Dariuszp]

Yes. Dialogues were better and not limited to "good, bad, stupid" options. Also they even could kill you (try to attack Roche in prologue or make funny jokes to elfes that aimin at you with bows). They outcome shape entire world. Also they put some jokes and allusions to books, movies and other games. They were far more better. If you look carefully, you could use in DA II 3-button mouse like in Fable and for:
- let have sex
you could answer
- :innocent: (left mouse button)
- (middle mouse button)
- (right mouse button)
This is how dialogues in DA II are all made. This is same stupid thing they put to ME series. They add Paragon/Renegade "I WIN" options. So you select blue or red option to have always best outcome of conversation. It's so stupid that i cant even stand it. They should put on them left/right mouse button. Not even worth to have conversation of you have this options available (and they are in most conversations). Miss the old days, PT and BG conversations. Far more better.


Yes, W2 offer many diverse and rich characters like
Loredo, Dethmold, Henselt, Letho, Odrin ( :-D ), Triss, Roche, Zoltan and others. Even trolls was interesting folks. How many you remember from DA II ?
Letho is probably best example here. First you think he is evil big idiot. At the end you see someone different. And he is not even evil !!!. WTF ? Main enemy is not evil ? He have his goals ? He have his reasons ? He can be right ? What ? He dont want to destroy world just for destroying world ? I let him go at the end because I didnt feel that i need to kill him. It's probably one of best characters i have seen in cRPG games. Too bad that you can have only few conversations with him.

And I just put Flotsam from TW2 as example. Other detailed area ?
~ locations ? no
~ companions ? meaby - bunch of bi/****** perverts with few exceptions, i can put some points here
~ quests ? no, 99% was kill waves of monsters or fetch quests, most of them was unimportand if you look at main plot
~ graphic details ? no
etc... mentioned in prev posts.

I know they are different and I dont talk about that. I did mention PT, Gothic, TES series and others... Read my previous post. I just say that some people have low standards. So some games apply to them when others not. Then someone said that it's just an opinion while it's not when we talk about simple details. Details like NPC behaviour, day/night cycle and other things.

Modifié par Dariuszp, 22 juin 2011 - 09:31 .

[curlzncrush]

Dariuszp wrote...

Yes. Dialogues were better and not limited to "good, bad, stupid" options.

It really makes no difference to me how many conversation options are offered as I will almost always go for stupid/silly/etc.  and DA2 simply makes it easy to locate the general response you want to use.  I would have liked at least one more personality option, however (maybe leave charming as its own and not tie in with sarcastic).  Hell, there could even be a full 6 options and have some of them not show up.

As for comparisons to the Witcher 2, you don't even get many options to choose what Geralt says.  He's basically his own man.  In a way that's kind of cool because you are role-playing the role of that crazy, pasty old dude.  Different things work for different gamers, I suppose.

Dariuszp wrote...

Details like NPC behaviour, day/night cycle and other things.

Would these details have made a huge difference to you?  And I don't mean that in a disrespectful way but if Bioware chose to make their NPCs eat, sleep and run the same lines of dialogue (W2, "you free?"  "Not for you, you're not handsome enough" is something I've heard over 20 times in my time playing around in Flotsam) just to add realism, would it change your decision whether to buy the game or not?

Also, I'm fairly confident in saying that DA2 had a Day/Night cycle and it was used to serve a different purpose than W2 did.  I thought it worked pretty well, overall.

Modifié par curlzncrush, 22 juin 2011 - 10:16 .

[Firky]

Day/night cycle is an interesting one, hey? I have previously been known to say how much I love day/night cycle (and I do) but I didn't miss it at all in DAII. They weren't going to give NPCs a line of dialogue and a routine, they weren't going to give you a meditation/sleep option so you could fastforward, so why not just get rid of it, or make it more of an abstraction with a "toggle" of sorts.

I did like the day/night cycle in TW2, but they did implement some other supporting features and it just generally looked cool, as did weather (because they were prioritising the visual.) But, at its basic level, NPCs generally had one line of dialogue and did one thing. And you could just wake them up if you wanted to talk to them. (The only time I remember night having a quest impact was when you went to speak with Roche in Flotsam, but I'm sure there were more.)

Modifié par Firky, 22 juin 2011 - 10:45 .

[Siegdrifa]

Firky wrote...

*shrugs* My point was that I don't think that the recycled areas in DAII can definitively be called a "flaw" unless you are holding the game to strict, largely historical standards of world creation (which still aren't conclusively defined.)

Were discreet areas a low priority? Compared to story/cinematics/overhauling combat etc. Certainly seems to the case. But that's a guess. You're also guessing that a deadline might have forced them to re-examine priorities during development.

Look... making area a low priority compared to story / cinematic / combat make no sens... because those are not made by the same people ...
The one who writte story don't do 3D environement modling and less enviroment art work ...
Each team have to do their task, and since this is not the same guys who make area and those who make the figth etc the possibility of "hey! animator and programmer gameplay team, make a good work, story writting team, make a good work, area team... lol make a cheesy work because it's not a priority" is inexistant.

You want to argue what could be called an "rpg"... fine, (if you want to waste your time, up to you), but you can't argue that area could be a low priority in a kind of games where area are so important, why? because this is in area where the story take place, it's contre produtive, same if i would say "let's make a puzzle game, but we don't care about the puzzle part".
When you say "rpg" or "adventure game", people think naturaly about travel and places, living different experience through the hero.

I can enter in more artistical matter if you like.
Why area are so important? mainely because it help building ambiance and stun the player through graphic quality (but it's not all). Well designed area give different mood that can fit the story where the plot take place. You wouldn't do a treasur hunting quest in an hospital, as much as puting the estate of a rich noble in the middle of a dump wouldn't make sens.
Area help controling what you want the player feel when he is playng, if he feels the same, no matter he enter a rich estate or a taverne in the poor district, that would be a failure, each area must be done with care.
Area are worked not only with detail, there is other things that help the player make him feel he is in the right area for the right quest with the right ambiance, such as level buidling, architecture, colors selection, ligthning.

A simple exemple, let's say you have a quest at night in the rich district of a city, what do we do for the area?
Firts, it's rich distric, so some building better be "big", and it should also look detailed on the wall, rich people usualy like to show everything is amazing or "better" in them, even their house, so it's night, what do we do about the lightning? only the moon light? naaa, this is a rich district, they must use lot of lightning source in the street, like a festival (not many color though it's not christmass), but even at night you don't need your own torche to travel, it's the rich district after all, they can use (waste?) more ressources, the player must feel amazed by the beauty of buildings and their lightning at nigh, yet he must feel warm, comfortable even if it's the nigh, a rich district is supposed to be more secure, and by only looking at the outside of the building, the player should think "wow, i'm sure it's more beautiful and cosy inside".

If it was a night quest in the poor district, it can't be done the same as the rich district. People are poor, so, not many light on the street at nigh, we can use the moon, her light is just enough to see, yet no reasuring, and the color from the ligh of the moon seems cold, perfect since it's a "poor district". Long part of shadow street can be broken by a few (just a few) illuminated window, casting a warm orange light on the street like an oasis in the desert, we want the player to feel a little "warm" and "heat" here and their in this poor district, because even among the poor, valuable people could be found, creating a strong contrast : so much darkness sadness and cold, for just a few lights.


My conclusion. The whole dev team wants you to play and enjoy their game, each have their ways to reach their goals, each can help a story to be better played, by graphic, detail, lightning, shadow. A so experienced studio like Bioware know that already, they would never think that area is a low priority.

[Firky]

That was a good post. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, by the way, I'm just finding this discussion interesting tonight.)

I think you've highlighted heaps of ways that the strengths of DAII could have been better supported by a more detailed approach to level design. (Let's hope someone is listening.)

[Grkljan]

I want to add that I agree with Dariuszp. And the thing about the standards - Bioware being a company with such a reputation as it has- they should set themselves high standards as Blizzard does (and so never fails), so what Dariuszp was saying would be true - we can indeed talk about low standards because the developers didn't set the standards themselves, or they were counting on DAO's popularity to get them buyers for DAII.

Off topic: I think Bioware and CD Projekt should cooperate when making love scenes; Projekt makes great scenes themselves, and Bioware adds romance to all that (as you can see, in The Witcher you just need to ask someone to "go to the bushes" with you, and Bioware actually makes some relationship development)

[Chromie]

Grkljan wrote...

Off topic: I think Bioware and CD Projekt should cooperate when making love scenes; Projekt makes great scenes themselves, and Bioware adds romance to all that (as you can see, in The Witcher you just need to ask someone to "go to the bushes" with you, and Bioware actually makes some relationship development)

Well that's just it you have to go look for a women it doesn't just happen so I never get the problem with it. Bioware does do a goob with the romancing just not the actual sex scene. I liked Mass Effect 1's scene though I had no problem with it. No idea why it was changed in ME2 or DA didn't try something similar. 

Also too many people see showing nudity as porn which is stupid. I bet if Bioware did it the same people would applaud them.

[Aaleel]

I guess it all boils down to how much the flaws affected your game play.

I've seen people say yes I thought the 3rd act was rushed, I didn't like the enemy waves or the reused areas, but I thought the game was great for what it was.

For me, what the game was after those things was a mediocre product that wasn't fun for me to play.

It's not a matter of low or high standards. Everyone is different. Some things bother some people more than others. I've seen people flat out say I didn't care about the reused areas.

[hoorayforicecream]

Ringo12 wrote...

Grkljan wrote...

Off topic: I think Bioware and CD Projekt should cooperate when making love scenes; Projekt makes great scenes themselves, and Bioware adds romance to all that (as you can see, in The Witcher you just need to ask someone to "go to the bushes" with you, and Bioware actually makes some relationship development)

Well that's just it you have to go look for a women it doesn't just happen so I never get the problem with it. Bioware does do a goob with the romancing just not the actual sex scene. I liked Mass Effect 1's scene though I had no problem with it. No idea why it was changed in ME2 or DA didn't try something similar. 

Also too many people see showing nudity as porn which is stupid. I bet if Bioware did it the same people would applaud them.

Note that the rest of this post talks about sex scenes that aren't the one at the bath. That one had its own problems, though.

I actually didn't like the sex scenes in the Witcher 2. It was cool the first time, but there's actually a 6 or 7 different 2-4 second animations that they randomly string some of together to make a sex scene. The sound effects are all completely the same each time, no matter who it is.

I much preferred the scenes in DA2, mostly because they were tailored to fit the mood and the character personalities. I certainly felt a lot more emotionally connected to the characters in DA2 than I did in TW2.