634 réponses à ce sujet

[Sajji]

Lord of the Rings had worse than those pics.

Is Lord of the Rings dark fantasy?

Somebody could with absolute ease post mutilation and utter death from Skyrim.

Does that make Skyrim dark fantasy?

I brought up the topic of 'dark fantasy' because I had feedback for BioWare. Feedback that could help...albeit my ideas (very good ones) would never be implemented.

BioWare claimed that Dragon Age was 'dark fantasy' a while back while promoting Origins. Origins was an excellent game, but with the seemingly lack of identity Dragon Age has: make it true dark fantasy.

Take a fantasy RPG that has a truly dark atmosphere. Take the concept of that dark atmosphere, and apply it to Dragon Age.

Give Dragon Age a Dark Souls-esque atmosphere. Apply atmosphere-appropriate in-depth characters, plot, romances, themes, sub-themes, and keep the humor to a sadistic macabre minimal. Make romances not about love or passion, but about the ecstacy of an orgasm.

Rich deep characters and story can still be a main focus. Also include good loot and a clean but sophisticated UI.

I would buy that Dragon Age game. I'd praise it all the time. I would also call that dark fantasy.

Take some feeling of atmosphere from Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem as well. Maybe just a hint of that Lovecraft tingle to go with the rest.

But alas...what will be the result: "Arch-mage, the Templars are being meanies. Waaaaaaaaaaahhh!" (Frown-face)

Modifié par Sajji, 12 mai 2012 - 06:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...  

insanity ranpant everywhere pathetically "explained" by a codex due to of course a teir in the veil (aka more dmeons)

Not seeing how this represents "immaturity" in any way.  It's background.  Kirkwall is a hellmouth.  There should have never even been a Circle there.  Situations like that lead to wars, which is... what happened.

Stripping human motivations by imposing insanity generated by supernatural elements, in order to create more mindless idiots, see Big Bad Evil, to kill because having real human development is too complicated.

.  
The premise of the Witcher 2 relies on rank incompetence, the cutscene with the assassination of the King in the beginning made me laugh.

How?

Considering youre criticizing the plot, not mentioning the issues you have with the melodrama seems like an oversight.  Melodrama isn't necessarily immature.  

Furthermore, geopolitics also does not equal maturity.  That Kirkwall was a crucible for the mage issue in Thedas stands to reason for the very thing you dismiss above.

Melodrama as opposed to subtle character development, becaue I absolutely need Carver to remind me that he is jealous everytime he opens his mouth and writes a letter, is immature. It's hollywood-esque style of electrifying emotions and forcing one dimension of a character down our throats instead of having multi-faceted characters who act like normal human beings, with some subtelty.

If the plot of the game is to explore the mage / templar problem, not having any geo-politics involved is a huge oversight, hence leading to the conflict's portrayal being severily lacking and immature when teir in the veil / demon idols are introduced.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 06:51 .

[Chromie]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

Lol Game of Thrones would probably terrify you.

What?  I watch it.  I know many people who've read the series as well and can't stand The Witcher.

I don't like the sexposition in GoT either because it's (wait for it) immature.

However the sex scenes with actual characterization that isn't there to give the audience a boner are good.  If anyone links me to any sex scene or related act from TW1-2 and attempts to argue that they're the former and not the latter I'm only going to laugh at them.

Stop putting words in my mouth I never said that. I think your overexaggerating I don't see the sex scenes from Witcher 2 to be any worse than the dry humping from DA.

[Addai]

Yrkoon wrote...

I don't mean this disparragingly. Political intrigue, when done right (and TW2 does it better than any RPG I've ever played) IS terrific. Mature. Thought provoking. All those things. But High fantasy isn't any less mature simply because it concerns itself with supernatural things, like magic, dragons, dwarves and  hero squads instead of the politics of men.

Point taken, but the reason I prefer low fantasy is that there is less room for cheating.  You have to construct a story based on human motivations because you can't do "a wizard did it" fudging to move the story.  The Witcher is not low fantasy and does use magical means, but they still base the story largely on human motivations.  That makes it more interesting to me than most fantasy.  Dragon Age Origins also did this- even though the Blight was an escalating agent, the main part of the story for me is the human element.

In DA2 the events are moved either by inexplicable incompetence and inaction on the part of the main characters or on various supernatural manias.  There either is nothing there to relate to, or I don't want to relate to the characters because they're feckless idiots.  The plot puppet strings on all the characters are also clearly visible.  Nothing made me want to work to suspend my disbelief and fill in the holes except nostalgia for the original, and that wore thin in a hurry.

To the OP question, I don't think there will be as much backlash because expectations are already so low.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 mai 2012 - 06:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yrkoon wrote...
Nature  as a non- man made force.   (as opposed to the personal schemes of a schemer.)   The fact that a Darkspawn horde can walk  the land and blight it is an illustration of that.

You clearly didn't understand what the darkspawn are. They are unnatural, that's their whole point. That they destroy and corrupt everything they touch and live only to destory everything. There is nothing natural aobut them.

Why?     Does one represent a more "mature" threat than the other?  We got your humanized villian in DA2.  It was immature garbage.  So no thanks.  I'll take the well written  faceless threat, over the poor attempt at "I'm like you but eeevvviiilll" schtick.

Yes. And yes those in DA2 were ridiculous and horrific.
 

There's a HUGE difference between "only YOU, the chosen one, can Kill X"  -vs.-   X can only be killed by YOU because your body is part Darkspawn due to a deadly ritual  designed to decieve the archdemon's spirit into escaping into your soul-filled body and exploding the both of you.

And spider man got his powers from a spider biting him. What's your point?
Th end result is the same, super hero saves the world by killing big bad evil dragon. The hero being part dakrspanw is never explored.

Semantics.  You're stuck saving the world anyway in TW2 (well, as much as it can be saved, in any event.  it's a cliff hanger, after all).  You're literally dragged, kicking and screaming from one chapter to the next, with the game not concluding until the big bad evil(s) is dealt with. 

You dont' save the world in TW2. That was never Geralt's motivation or goal. There is no big bad evil in the game at all.

In subquests and board notice quests, maybe.  But then, so  does the Warden.

No, that's their entire existence. Witchers kill for money.

Again,  you act as if motivation even matters.  An Asteroid zooming towards earth does not need a "motivation", or a 'relatable personality", to  make for a mature story involving a cataclysmic threat that has to be dealt with before the entire earth is destroyed..

Yes motivaiton is hugely important, when you have an antagonist.

An asteriod is completely different. It''s not big bad evil, it's a natural phenomenon and in such a story, the focus will naturally be about how humans react to it. The asteriod is not an antagonist and it's a completely different plot.

The blight is not an asteroid, it's an army of evil orcs led by an evil dragon that want to destroy everything and only a warden can kill the archdemon and thus ave the world.

Now thankfully the blights remained  in the bg for the most part in DA:O, but the plot of organizing for a war was very poorly done.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 06:50 .

[slimgrin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That's how parts of The Witcher come off to me.  I feel gross playing it, and at the very least need to be fully dressed in a well-lit room to not feel like I've just loaded some perverted old man's escapist fantasty and be obligated to apologize personally to every woman I've ever met.  

Oh come on...

I understand the in-your-face style isn't for everyone, but you seem to be exaggerating here.

[Seboist]

Despite my not caring about DA:O's plot all that much I have to give it credit for being the only BW game I played with decent C&C. Being able to choose sides between the Dalish Elves and the Werewolves in their conflict and proceeding to fight the other was miles better than ME3's drek of having a Geth vs Quarian war but not being able to pick sides because Geth are "lol indoctrinated".

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...  

insanity ranpant everywhere pathetically "explained" by a codex due to of course a teir in the veil (aka more dmeons)

Not seeing how this represents "immaturity" in any way.  It's background.  Kirkwall is a hellmouth.  There should have never even been a Circle there.  Situations like that lead to wars, which is... what happened.

Stripping human motivations by imposing insanity generated by supernatural elements, in order to create more mindless idiots, see Big Bad Evil, to kill because having real human development is too complicated.

That's not what it does.  It simply creates more chances.  Demons are always preying on mages, and mages are always at risk for becoming abominations.  That's what the Harrowing is designed to prepare them for.  In Kirkwall, there are simply more demons so the risk is higher.

Meredith taking the extraordinary step to Tranquil mages who had passed their Harrowing is therefore incredibly important.

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 

How?

Kids introduced.  Melodrama.  I thought you were supposed to hate this?

Geralt conveniently goes to look out a window because the plot needs him to be not paying attention.  Foltest's lampshading is wholly ineffective.

BUILDING MUSIC OF IMPENDING DOOM.  Melodrama.

Foltest trusts the Anonymous Blind Stranger way too much for a guy who was in the employ of those who had taken his children hostage.

MELODRAMATIC SLOW MOTION WAVE TO CHILDREN.  Melodrama.  Telegraphing.

There's no tension in the scene.  No surprise.  Just waiting for the inevitable because the pacing is awful, the foreshadowing is completely unneccessary, and the melodrama is oppressive.

The scene mercifully ends after a bloated six minute insult to editing, scripting, and the audience.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...  
If the plot of the game is to epxlore the mage / templar problem, not having any geo-politics involved is a huge oversight, hence leading to the conflict's portrayal being severily lacking and immature when teir in the veil / demon idols are introduced.

I disagree.  It's to explore the beginnings of the mage/templar problem.  It examines and allows us to experience the flashpoint of a broader conflict.  To use a clumsy analogy, it's a game about Massachusetts from 1768-1775, not the American Revolution as a whole.

Bioware also struggled - and failed - to give us enough environments around Kirkwall, that should give you a hint as to why they chose to narrow the focus, they simply didn't have time for anything grander.  The premise of DA3 has been foreshadowed enough by DA2 and Asunder, and I think you will be getting your geopolitical scope wish now that the conflict has erupted. 

You've still yet to demonstrate how the veil tear represents immaturity to my satisfaction.

slimgrin wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That's how parts of The Witcher come off to me.  I feel gross playing it, and at the very least need to be fully dressed in a well-lit room to not feel like I've just loaded some perverted old man's escapist fantasty and be obligated to apologize personally to every woman I've ever met.  

Oh come on...

I understand the in-your-face style isn't for everyone, but you seem to be exaggerating here.

I'm exaggerating far less than you probably think I am. 

Also it's not an "in your face" style.  It's exploitation.  

Skelter192 wrote...

Stop putting words in my mouth I never said that. I think your overexaggerating I don't see the sex scenes from Witcher 2 to be any worse than the dry humping from DA.

DAO's dry humping is pretty awful to be sure.  The difference is no-one ever claims those are good.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
That's not what it does.  It simply creates more chances.  Demons are always preying on mages, and mages are always at risk for becoming abominations.  That's what the Harrowing is designed to prepare them for.  In Kirkwall, there are simply more demons so the risk is higher.

Yes, that is what it does.
Nevermind the fact that the entire concept of mages was immature from the get go, you don't need demons to make mages dangerous, all it ended up doing was making most mages we interact with insane, in an admitted attempt to make the Templars more appealing (which failed miserably).

It's removing the humanity of the story in favor of demons with no apparent will or motivation other than sowing chaos. How is that mature? Humanity can be a lot more scary than this pile of crap. 

Kids introduced.  Melodrama.  I thought you were supposed to hate this?

Geralt conveniently goes to look out a window because the plot needs him to be not paying attention.  Foltest's lampshading is wholly ineffective.

BUILDING MUSIC OF IMPENDING DOOM.  Melodrama.

Foltest trusts the anonymous blind man way too much for a guy who was in the employ of those who had taken them hostage.

MELODRAMATIC SLOW MOTION WAVE TO CHILDREN.  Melodrama.  Telegraphing.

A father seeing his children after 6 months. That's not melodrama.
Geralt is asked to go away because he might frighten the children. Not incompetence.
Music to build ambience. Not melodrama.
Fotlest trusts a blind monk and is distracted by the relief he got from resscuing his children. Not incompetence.
Showing Foltest losing his children just after he found them. That's not melodrama.

There is a difference between dramatic and melodramatic. .

I disagree.  It's to explore the beginnings of the mage/templar problem.  It examines and allows us to experience the flashpoint of a broader conflict.  To use a clumsy analogy, it's a game about Massachusetts from 1768-1775, not the American Revolution as a whole.

An extremily clumsy analogy.

All it does is say idol + teir in the veil started the conflict, because humans wouldn't be able to do that on their own. The only thing redeeming aobut it was Anders, and even he wasn't executed as well as he hsould have been.

Not exploring inner-chantry divide is an oversight. Barely mentionning Orlais and how it fits in all this is an oversight. Reducing the conflict to a simplistic hammered dichotomy is a flaw. Not exploring the mage resistance at all is a flaw.

If you want to see the beginning of a conflict done right, play TW2 which you evidently haven't done.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[SOLID_EVEREST]

I doubt it; unlike Dragon Age: 2, I have absolutely no faith that Dragon Age: 3 will be an Origin-esque sequel. I didn't know what to expect from 2 until I read a lot of the boards and in-depth reviews. After that, I knew it was not going to be my type of RPG game. Since everyone kind of knows what to expect given the recent trends of BioWare games, I doubt it will get the backlash that ME: 3 or DA: 2 got.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes, that is what it does.
Nevermind the fact that the entire concept of mages was immature from the get go, you don't need demons to make mages dangerous, all it ended up doing was making most mages we interact with insane, in an admitted attempt to make the Templars more appealing (which failed miserably).

I disagree that it failed miserably.  I think it does exactly what it's supposed to.

If you hate the established premise of the series so much, why are you even here?  I don't post on CDPR's boards.

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 

It's removing the humanity of the story in favor of demons with no apparent will or motivation other than sowing chaos. How is that mature? Humanity can be a lot more scary than this pile of crap.  

I agree generally, in fact.  In the sense that I do prefer less supernatural stories, at least.

However I dispute the idea that one story is "immature" and the other kind is "mature."  That's just flimsy, shallow pretension putting a hat on what you really mean:  You don't like it.

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 

There is a difference between dramatic and melodramatic.

And if you're going to say those are the differences, I'm just going to laugh, shake my head, and move on.

There's no way I'm ever going to interpret that scene as anything other than a joke in poor taste at the expense of the audience's intelligence.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...  

An extremily clumsy analogy.

Not really.  I'm sure it seems clumsier to a layperson though.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...   

If you want to see the beginning of a conflict done right, play TW2 which you evidently haven't done.

I couldn't get through it because the gameplay sucks (it's a much worse version of Jade Empire), the premise is boring (being a Witcher, that is), the characters are irritating (well, not all of them, just the ones who are canonically Geralt's friends), and the voice acting throughout makes Bethesda's sound like BioWare's (this means it's terrible).

In any case, I'm through entertaining your pretensions.  You may have succeeded in getting people to buy into it, but all I'm reading is "I didn't like it.  I like this other thing better."  The rest of your argument is self-serving window dressing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[KJandrew]

 I think what makes a dark fantasy isn't entirely up to content. Including torture and rape doesn't instantly make it dark. I'd say it comes down to the nature of the characters and conflict. *Just to clarify I enjoyed both Origins and the Witcher, just in different ways

-  In Origins your companions through the game are when it comes down to it nice people - Alistair, the kind hearted warrior. Leliana, who when it comes down to it is a sweet and kind hearted person. Zevran, who despite being an assassin often supports the "good" choices. Even Morrigan, the "evil one" only goes as far as comments and suggestions. The closest thing you have to a morally shady person is Sten, even then he's very repentant for it (In his own fashion.)
- Against this we have Roche and Iorveth. The latter has killed hundreds if not hundreds of civilians, supposedly burning down many towns and villages and is more than willing to kill you for being rude to him. Roche is even more brutal than his predecessors, while we have to take Iorveth's word with a pinch of salt he is said to have committed many atrocities, is fine with his men desecrating local holy idols (even assaulting a local for complaining) and on top of this he tortures a priest to death for information. And to finish this all off unlike even the 'darkest' Bioware ally he follows up on "I'll cut off your balls and shove them down your throat."  


- In Origins you are fighting against the great ancient evil, three of the groups you need to visit are plauged by a supernatural evil. (The Dwarves aren't at that particular point, which is why Orzammer is one of the best parts of the game IMO)..
- In The Witcher 2 however the main conflict is you chasing a murderer, the side conflicts are a Baron's Revolt, a corrupt near-dictator hunting terrorists, one Kingdom invading another, a game of politcal chess between kings and nobles and finally an Empire (lead by a morally dodgy but likeable Hedgehog) invading a kingdom. These are much more grounded than the above and while its nice to have a bit of high fantasy every once and a while I much prefer a slightly more realistic way of doing it.

Modifié par KJandrew, 12 mai 2012 - 07:22 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
However I dispute the idea that one story is "immature" and the other kind is "mature."  That's just flimsy, shallow pretension putting a hat on what you really mean:  You don't like it.

Anything that creates a big bad faceless mindless evil for you to kill in lieu of human development is immature and childish. That's not a pretension. I didn't like it for a reason = simplistic childish immaturity.

There's no way I'm ever going to interpret that scene as anything other than a joke in poor taste at the expense of the audience's intelligence.

You're free to believe whatever you want. I am not trying to change your opinion, as I couldn't care less about it and I am sure vice versa is also true.

Not really.  I'm sure it seems clumsier to a layperson though.

It's as clumsy as making a game about the assassination of Ferdinand, without at all exploring all the geo-political, historical and social factors involved, and then saying "that's how WW1 started."

Oh and make Princip possessed by a demon while you are at it.

EDIT: On and the classic "why are you here?" question.
When you are a moderator, let me know so I can give a damn about your curiosity.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

KJandrew wrote...
- In The Witcher 2 however the main conflict is you chasing a murderer, the side conflicts are a Baron's Revolt, a corrupt near-dictator hunting terrorists, one Kingdom invading another, a game of politcal chess between kings and nobles and finally an Empire (lead by a morally dodgy but likeable Hedgehog) invading a kingdom. These are much more grounded than the above and while its nice to have a bit of high fantasy every once and a while I much prefer a slightly more realistic way of doing it.

Bioware couldn't come close to making something like this.

And that's just ONE conflict out of the many conflicts and issues TW2 explored.

[Chromie]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If you hate the established premise of the series so much, why are you even here?  I don't post on CDPR's

Prior to playing Witcher 2, KoP has said his favorite game was DA:O I believe and why does it matter? Is there a requirement to posting on the forums?

[Yrkoon]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
You clearly didn't understand what the darkspawn are. They are unnatural, that's their whole point. That they destroy and corrupt everything they touch and live only to destory everything. There is nothing natural aobut them. [/quote]
They're an unconstrained  force in Thedas history.  Like  a wild fire is in California.  And we don't know what  makes a blight ultimately happen.   Reiordan laments about the unlikely nature of   blights occuring, hinting that it's random chance.  Sounds like nature to me.  Like an earth quake

[quote][quote]
Why?     Does one represent a more "mature" threat than the other?  We got your humanized villian in DA2.  It was immature garbage.  So no thanks.  I'll take the well written  faceless threat, over the poor attempt at "I'm like you but eeevvviiilll" schtick.[/quote]
Yes. And yes those in DA2 were ridiculous and horrific[/quote].
Er....  but  didn't DA2's plot premise feature a very Human villian with very Human emotions, motivations, and oh yeah, a face?  And isn't that  what you're arguing makes for a mature story?  I can pull up your exact words here if you wish....

Perhaps there's an element here you're missing....




[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
There's a HUGE difference between "only YOU, the chosen one, can Kill X"  -vs.-   X can only be killed by YOU because your body is part Darkspawn due to a deadly ritual  designed to decieve the archdemon's spirit into escaping into your soul-filled body and exploding the both of you.[/quote]
And spider man got his powers from a spider biting him. What's your point?[/quote]
The point is that you'll be extremely hard-pressed to find an immature plot line that deals with soul-transference  that leads to a  suicide, or the alternative, a sex-based ritual designed to capture the villian's soul upon his death....
 

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
Semantics.  You're stuck saving the world anyway in TW2 (well, as much as it can be saved, in any event.  it's a cliff hanger, after all).  You're literally dragged, kicking and screaming from one chapter to the next, with the game not concluding until the big bad evil(s) is dealt with.  [/quote]
You dont' save the world in TW2. That was never Geralt's motivation or goal. There is no big bad evil in the game at all. [/quote]
You're stating a bunch of opinions as fact, here.   

1) Geralt's motivation.  In my first playthrough his motivation most certainly WAS to save the world  (or whatever land mass the conflict threatens), and wonderfully, the game allowed me to play that motivation out.     But in my second playthough, my Motivation was to give both Iorveth and Roche the finger and walk away the moment the option was offered to me in chapter 1.  I chose it.    then a few minutes later the game  basically said:  Nu-uh!  no-can-do.  Pick either Roch or Iorveth and go deal with the Hensalt vs. Saskia conflict!  kthxbye.

2)  There's no big evil in the game?    <sigh>  and here we go with the semantics crap again.  I'd call Letho the game's antagonist.  The fact that   "he's a cool guy once you get to know him", does not change the fact that He's the one that set  the entire game's plot in motion... with a MURDER,   He's the one that Geralt is tasked to deal with, and he's the one that must be faced down before the game ends.


[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
In subquests and board notice quests, maybe.  But then, so  does the Warden. [/quote]

No, that's their entire existence. Witchers kill for money. [/quote]
    You mean, They kill mindless, faceless, motivationless,  monsters for money.   ( snap!)   But I digress.   The vast majority of Geralt's kills in TW2 aren't money based at all.      if you disagree, then tell me, How much gold did you get for  killing all those waves of Hensalt's men when you sided with Iorveth?  How much money did you get for killing anyone in the prologue?  How much money did you get for killing Elves in Chapter 1?    Who Paid you to kill the Draugir?  or Dethmold, or any of the Sorcercesses that deserved it?


[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
[quote]
Again,  you act as if motivation even matters.  An Asteroid zooming towards earth does not need a "motivation", or a 'relatable personality", to  make for a mature story involving a cataclysmic threat that has to be dealt with before the entire earth is destroyed..
[/quote]

Yes motivaiton is hugely important, when you have an antagonist.

An asteriod is completely different. It''s not big bad evil, it's a natural phenomenon and in such a story, the focus will naturally be about how humans react to it. The asteriod is not an antagonist and it's a completely different plot.[/quote]
NOPE

An antagonist can be any threat or obstacle in a protagonist's path.  

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 mai 2012 - 07:39 .

[slimgrin]

Maybe we should all do an epic Witcher VS. DA larp battle. That will settle this, lol.

[upsettingshorts]

Skelter192 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If you hate the established premise of the series so much, why are you even here?  I don't post on CDPR's

Prior to playing Witcher 2, KoP has said his favorite game was DA:O I believe and why does it matter? Is there a requirement to posting on the forums?

Stop putting words into my mouth.

I was asking a question, not ordering him to remove himself.

[upsettingshorts]

 Here's an example of a typical KoP post, condensed:

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Bioware couldn't come close to making something like this.

It's not that BioWare couldn't come close to telling a story like that, we have no way of knowing because they've never attempted anything of the sort.  They tell different stories.  However his statement here is impossible to prove.  If you agree with him in principle, you're unlikely to challenge it.  If you disagree in principle, you might be fooled into buying his premise and arguing on his (fabricated) terms.

The simple fact of the matter is BioWare tells stories KoP doesn't like as much.  Perhaps TW2's story is everything KoP wants from a fantasy RPG.   Instead of simply saying so, he goes further and explicitly labels another developer as incompetent for not doing the same thing.  This is not equivalent to asking BioWare for something similar, it's an admonishment for not doing it in the first place.  The only argument for which this position retains any kind of consistency is one in which KoP feels his preferences are uniquely refined and therefore more important.

It's not difficult to take a more honest approach, as I've done in describing elements of TW2 as "tedious" or "boring" thus keeping my criticism subjective.  Of course, I took one exception to this approach, the Foltest assassination scene, which is something I'd pick apart in say... a film class.  But it in of itself didn't "ruin" the game for me, I played for quite a while beyond it, clumsy scene aside.  No, my issues with TW2 are almost entirely subjective.  In fact, I'd love to see CDPR make a game that isn't based on The Witcher.  I think they are capable of good things, they just aren't using that ability in ways I appreciate.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 12 mai 2012 - 07:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yrkoon wrote...
They're an unconstrained  force in Thedas history.  Like  a wild fire is in California.  And we don't know what  makes a blight ultimately happen.   Reiordan laments about the unlikely nature of   blights occuring, hinting that it's random chance.  Sounds like nature to me.  Like an earth quake

The darkspawn are born unnaturally from corruption and thrown into the world, where they destroy everything.
A blight happens when a darkspawn finds a sleeping old god and corrupts it, because that's what they do.

Er....  but  didn't DA2's plot premise feature a very Human villian with very Human emotions, motivations, and oh yeah, a face?  And isn't that  what you're arguing makes for a mature story?  I can pull up your exact words here if you wish....

You can go back and read what I said

"DA2 didn't have an immature premise, but its execution was immature on almosty all fronts."

That seem to imply that good proper execution is necessary.

You're stating a bunch of opinions as fact, here.   
1) Geralt's motivation.  In my first playthrough his motivation most certainly WAS to save the world  (or whatever land mass the conflict threatens), and wonderfully, the game allowed me to play that motivation out.     But in my second playthough, my Motivation was to give both Iorveth and Roche the finger and walk away the moment the option was offered to me in chapter 1.  I chose it.  

The North is not threatened with a force that will destroy it utterly. It's facing political problems. A political threat. Not "lol monsters want to kill us all."

And Geralt never ends up saving it and you cannot play a Geralt who is ideologically or emotionally determined to save the North. In fact at the very end, he says that's not his concern anymore.

2)  There's no big evil in the game  -  and here we go with the semantics crap again.  I'd call Letho the game's antagonist.  The fact that   "he's a cool guy once you get to know him", does not change the fact that He's the one that set  the entire game's plot in motion,   He's the one that Geralt is tasked to deal with, and he's the one that must be faced down before the game ends.

I use big bad evil to refer to, usually supernatural, villains that want to kill everything or have similar ridiculous motivations, while being completely unrelatable, completely other, with no sense of reason.
Reapers are big bad evil. Darkspawn are big bad evil.

Letho is an antagonist, but he is not big bad evil.

    You mean, They kill mindless, faceless, motivationless  monsters for money.   ( snap!) 

Yes, but that's not the main focus of the plot at all nor its premise. It's a side activity.
If you think that killing monsters if the main focus of TW2, then go play it again.

But I digress.   The vast majority of Geralt's kills in TW2 aren't money based at all.      if you disagree, then tell me, How much gold did you get for  killing all those waves of Hensalt's men when you sided with Iorveth?  How much money did you get for killing anyone in the prologue?  How much money did you get for killing Elves in Chapter 1?    Who Paid you to kill the Draugir?  or Dethmold, or any of the Sorcercesses that deserved it?

I am obviously referring to killing monsters, assumign that you know a bit of the lore. Witchers don't kill humans for money, they generally seek to avoid doing it.

As for the Draug, Geralt is doing it to recover his memory.

NOPE

An antagonist can be any threat or obstacle in a protagonist's path. 

You read it did you? People are antagonists. Obstacles are just obstacles.
If you want to really play semantics, then check the etymology.

Otherwise, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 07:50 .

[Yrkoon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

KJandrew wrote...
- In The Witcher 2 however the main conflict is you chasing a murderer, the side conflicts are a Baron's Revolt, a corrupt near-dictator hunting terrorists, one Kingdom invading another, a game of politcal chess between kings and nobles and finally an Empire (lead by a morally dodgy but likeable Hedgehog) invading a kingdom. These are much more grounded than the above and while its nice to have a bit of high fantasy every once and a while I much prefer a slightly more realistic way of doing it.

Bioware couldn't come close to making something like this.

So you get off on Convolution.  That's fine.

I like Epic, myself.  I'll take  Hordes of the Underdark's plot.   It encompassed more.    One of its chapters takes place in Hell.  Its main villian is  Mephistopheles.

I also give an approving nod to the epically personal.  Like Planescape Torment.  The Nameless one means more than Geralt.    He's a much better mutant.  And the game he's in doesn't even *pretend* that the politics of the worlds matter.  The entire plot is about...just you.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 mai 2012 - 07:55 .

[Sajji]

If it didn't go off topic, I'd discuss in grave detail how the oppressive occupation and goals of the highly powerful and intelligent Thalmor elves in The Elder Scrolls generates more intrigue and better narrative themes than Mages vs. Templars.

It's just text, journals and effect on the gameworld instead of bright shiny cutscenes. Of course, its because if I'm a character living in this world, why in hell would I suddenly see a cutscene away from my living perspective?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
The fact of the matter is BioWare tells stories KoP doesn't like as much.  Perhaps TW2's story is everything KoP wants from a fantasy RPG.   Instead of simply saying so, he goes further and explicitly labels another developer as incompetent for not doing the same thing.  This is not the same as asking for something similar, it's an admonishment for not doing that in the first place. 

Attempts to play junior psychologist aside, I will address this point.

I have said and you can go back and read carefully what I wrote, that a high fantasy story can be great and very interesting. That is subjective. Whether it's mature or not, is not. Bioware games have a lot of immaturity for one reason or the other, but that does not mean that they can't be enjoyed. I don't enjoy them that much becaues I have low tolerance for childishness pretending to be serious, but that's just me.

But when Bioware is telling me "rise to power", and failing miserably at having it, then it's not a question of subjectivity. They failed to provide what they said they will.

When Bioware is saying "we are going to investigate the origins of a conflict", and then being ridiculous, childish and simplsitic about it while other games surpass it in almost every way, then they failed to provide what they said they will.

When you claim that the whole game was about deconstructing Hawke's percieved greatness, and then making him become champion purely thanks to his mass murdering capabilities and worse of all, have Cassandra come to the conclusion that the idiot who couldn't do anything to prevent the disaster in Kirkwall could now for some reason *save all of Thedas* and then embarks on a hero worship quest, then it failed miserably.

Bioware is not incompetent for not doing what I like (though creating mature and complex stories requires a lot more work and thought). Bioware is incompetent these days for failing to do what they claim they want to do. 
I love DA:O, ME1, KOTOR and Jade Empire, because they are well executed.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 08:02 .

[slimgrin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

  In fact, I'd love to see CDPR make a game that isn't based on The Witcher.  

They are doing so as we speak.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yrkoon wrote...
I also give an approving nod to the epically personal.  Like Planescape Torment.  The Nameless one means more than Geralt.    He's a much better mutant.  And the game he's in doesn't even *pretend* that the politics of the worlds matter.  The entire plot is about...just you.

And I never claimed that you need politics to be mature. I have no doubt that Planescape Torment approaches the personal side of things in a very good way. I haven't tried it, but the praise it got must be for a very good reason.

The comparison I made was Bioware and CDPR's handling of a conflict. One could feel that Bioware's handling is more epic, or more interesting. But one cannot argue that CDPR's way is not more mature, complex and multi-faceted.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2012 - 08:03 .