422 réponses à ce sujet

[GimmeDaGun]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Bocks wrote...

Sometimes I lay awake at night wishing I was in a world where the Mass Effect team was as competent as CDPR

Than go to their damn website and worship them over there.  I am sick of these elitist stuckup holier than thou witcher fans acting like their series is so damn superior and that they are so damn more intelligent and superior to us lowly ME fans.

Being a diehard fan of the ME trilogy (more like the first 2...especially the first) I still have to admit that The Witcher 2 beats ME3 to death in every aspect (graphics, morality, handling of decisions, detail, and plot-story). This is not elitism. It is simply a much better game with a story superior to ME3. Actually I hoped that ME3 would beat the living **** out of The Witcher 2 (which is also a huge favourit of mine), but we already know, that it did not... not by a long shot. ME 3 became a linear 3rd person shooter with a few rpg elements with a very simple story and very badly executed ending. ME 3's rpg features actually are only an illusion for there's no real difference between paragon and renegade speech and there are no real decisions - except those very few - in the game and no real consequences of deeds while The Witcher is full of them. Yep, unfortunately ME3 has become a pulp fiction space opera for younger audiences who are more into the shooter genres and like the pseudo-phyloshopical emotiona roller coaster, unlike the two previous installments which were created for more mature audiences. It's a very mediocre and rushed game, even if it has big guns, huge spectacular cutscenes and some nice characters (who were actually created 1-2 games before... and many of them are treated poorly in it - ME2 squadmates, Ashley, Kaiden?).

So, you can love ME3 all you want. Wish I could love it as much as I do love the first two, but I got to say it: The Witcher 2 owns ME3. And this is not trolling or trying to be the smartass. It is unfortunately very evident if you put the two games next to each other. 

I still hope that they will fix this game via dlcs, patches... or make an enhancement pack for it which adds to the game. But knowing Bioware, "devision of EA" now, I highly doubt it would happen. ME3 goes down in gaming history as one of the greatest let downs, no matter the 75 perfect "professional" scores and reviews.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 16 mai 2012 - 01:19 .

[Seival]

Chaoswind wrote...

So using a new type of combat system is the same as a terrible one?

Having to learn and use a new combat system doesn't make said system broken, look at the Final Fantasy series, you have to learn a new learning system with every game and some people hate it at first because they are forced to learn and make mistakes.

The only thing you can learn from Witcher games' combat systems is that the more you randomize - the best result you get. You don't have to think. You dont need any player's skills. You just need to smash your keybord and kill your mouse in order to win. With such "innovative combat" CD Projekt is better to make crappy console fighting games instead of RPGs.

[Sodapop VII]

wiggles89 wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Than go to their damn website and worship them over there.  I am sick of these elitist stuckup holier than thou witcher fans acting like their series is so damn superior and that they are so damn more intelligent and superior to us lowly ME fans.

Don't worry - he starts to cry all the time. The forums are a bit too much to handle for this troll.


Also I really think after all this drama I am going to definitely have to try this series out. I don't have a good PC though so I would have to go with the console version sadly.

[What a Succulent Ass]

unlike the two previous installments which were created for more mature audiences.

Not really.

And the Witcher is overrated, though it does beat ME3 by a long shot.

[GimmeDaGun]

Seival wrote...

Chaoswind wrote...

So using a new type of combat system is the same as a terrible one?

Having to learn and use a new combat system doesn't make said system broken, look at the Final Fantasy series, you have to learn a new learning system with every game and some people hate it at first because they are forced to learn and make mistakes.

The only thing you can learn from Witcher games' combat systems is that the more you randomize - the best result you get. You don't have to think. You dont need any player's skills. You just need to smash your keybord and kill your mouse in order to win. With such "innovative combat" CD Projekt is better to make crappy console fighting games instead of RPGs.

Since when are rpg-s about combat? And in this respect ME is a pretty boring shooter... rpgs are not about the combat and if you play The Witcher games (especially the second) you will realise that it's more about talking and investigating, making decisions than fighting. Combat is only a part of the game which gives it's more dynamics, and lets face it, when you play a mutated monster slayer warrior monk you tend to come across fighting situatuions, but the emphasys is not on that, by far. I never cared about combat. It's the story, the characters and the plot-twists, hard decisions which make a story great or an rpg unforgettable. In this respect The Witcher games are very good rpgs. It's not "player skills" or "fighting tactics"... it"s all just keyboard smashing and mouse killing in the end (the same goes for ME), it's the brain work and the soul behind it all that matters. 

[Aeowyn]

Seival wrote...

How can sci-fi game lead you to a fantasy game?

...Besides, both Witchers are crappy games. First one is complete trash. And the second one is just a DA2 clone made in boring universe... Witcher 2 is better then DA2 only in terms of map design. And I don't really care it has 1000000 different endings. Game quality measures not by endings' quantity.

Bahahaha funny guy here. You're not honestly claiming that the TW2 story is pretty much the same as the DA2 story. I think you should play the game (and no you're probably lying if you're going to respond to this post with "I did play the game" since there's no way in hell DA2 and TW2 are the same in terms of story).

[GimmeDaGun]

Random Jerkface wrote...

unlike the two previous installments which were created for more mature audiences.

Not really.

And the Witcher is overrated, though it does beat ME3 by a long shot.

ME 1 couldn't be more old school sci-fi space opera. It's more of an adult game than ME3. 

The Witcher may be overrated in your eyes, but it deserves all the praise. I'm not a gamer. I usually don't care about games. I would never touch a game like Diablo ("hack and slash" says it all), or a shooter like Rage or Half Life but The Witcher and ME did touch me, a non gamer in such a level that they made me a "gamer" so to speak. It says a lot about those games. I can't say the same thing about ME3, unfortunately. 

[GimmeDaGun]

Seival wrote...

How can sci-fi game lead you to a fantasy game?

...Besides, both Witchers are crappy games. First one is complete trash. And the second one is just a DA2 clone made in boring universe... Witcher 2 is better then DA2 only in terms of map design. And I don't really care it has 1000000 different endings. Game quality measures not by endings' quantity.

It's obvious that you are not the books and intricate stories kind of person... eeer... ok.

[Seival]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Seival wrote...

Chaoswind wrote...

So using a new type of combat system is the same as a terrible one?

Having to learn and use a new combat system doesn't make said system broken, look at the Final Fantasy series, you have to learn a new learning system with every game and some people hate it at first because they are forced to learn and make mistakes.

The only thing you can learn from Witcher games' combat systems is that the more you randomize - the best result you get. You don't have to think. You dont need any player's skills. You just need to smash your keybord and kill your mouse in order to win. With such "innovative combat" CD Projekt is better to make crappy console fighting games instead of RPGs.

Since when are rpg-s about combat? And in this respect ME is a pretty boring shooter... rpgs are not about the combat and if you play The Witcher games (especially the second) you will realise that it's more about talking and investigating, making decisions than fighting. Combat is only a part of the game which gives it's more dynamics, and lets face it, when you play a mutated monster slayer warrior monk you tend to come across fighting situatuions, but the emphasys is not on that, by far. I never cared about combat. It's the story, the characters and the plot-twists, hard decisions which make a story great or an rpg unforgettable. In this respect The Witcher games are very good rpgs. It's not "player skills" or "fighting tactics"... it"s all just keyboard smashing and mouse killing in the end (the same goes for ME), it's the brain work and the soul behind it all that matters. 

For me combat system in RGP is as important as the story. Without nice combat RPG turns into an interactive move.

Yes, ME1 combat system was terrible... ME2 combat system was not bad... But ME3 combat system is almost perfect.

[Seboist]

Seival wrote...

How can sci-fi game lead you to a fantasy game?

...Besides, both Witchers are crappy games. First one is complete trash. And the second one is just a DA2 clone made in boring universe... Witcher 2 is better then DA2 only in terms of map design. And I don't really care it has 1000000 different endings. Game quality measures not by endings' quantity.

Certainly, ME3 was a mediocre shooter before the endings with a deus ex machina plot worse than any Zelda game.

[GimmeDaGun]

Seival wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Seival wrote...

Chaoswind wrote...

So using a new type of combat system is the same as a terrible one?

Having to learn and use a new combat system doesn't make said system broken, look at the Final Fantasy series, you have to learn a new learning system with every game and some people hate it at first because they are forced to learn and make mistakes.

The only thing you can learn from Witcher games' combat systems is that the more you randomize - the best result you get. You don't have to think. You dont need any player's skills. You just need to smash your keybord and kill your mouse in order to win. With such "innovative combat" CD Projekt is better to make crappy console fighting games instead of RPGs.

Since when are rpg-s about combat? And in this respect ME is a pretty boring shooter... rpgs are not about the combat and if you play The Witcher games (especially the second) you will realise that it's more about talking and investigating, making decisions than fighting. Combat is only a part of the game which gives it's more dynamics, and lets face it, when you play a mutated monster slayer warrior monk you tend to come across fighting situatuions, but the emphasys is not on that, by far. I never cared about combat. It's the story, the characters and the plot-twists, hard decisions which make a story great or an rpg unforgettable. In this respect The Witcher games are very good rpgs. It's not "player skills" or "fighting tactics"... it"s all just keyboard smashing and mouse killing in the end (the same goes for ME), it's the brain work and the soul behind it all that matters. 

For me combat system in RGP is as important as the story. Without nice combat RPG turns into an interactive move.

Yes, ME1 combat system was terrible... ME2 combat system was not bad... But ME3 combat system is almost perfect.

This is a huge difference between us then. Yeah ME1 combat was pretty lacking, ME 2 was a lot more dynamic... and both of these games had integrity a great lore and good, well thought out stories (yes ME2 too), while ME 3 has a boosted up combat system (evidently for the MP), but a lacking story and character control. So it fails in the eyes of the first two, big time.

The Wticher 1 has very simple and boring combat (didn't care about it at all), but I think The Witcher 2 combat system is just fine and more based on tactics and preparation when running directly into it and slash everything. Never really had a problem with it even on harder settings. I don't know.

[FodoSatoru]

Seival wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Seival wrote...

Chaoswind wrote...

So using a new type of combat system is the same as a terrible one?

Having to learn and use a new combat system doesn't make said system broken, look at the Final Fantasy series, you have to learn a new learning system with every game and some people hate it at first because they are forced to learn and make mistakes.

The only thing you can learn from Witcher games' combat systems is that the more you randomize - the best result you get. You don't have to think. You dont need any player's skills. You just need to smash your keybord and kill your mouse in order to win. With such "innovative combat" CD Projekt is better to make crappy console fighting games instead of RPGs.

Since when are rpg-s about combat? And in this respect ME is a pretty boring shooter... rpgs are not about the combat and if you play The Witcher games (especially the second) you will realise that it's more about talking and investigating, making decisions than fighting. Combat is only a part of the game which gives it's more dynamics, and lets face it, when you play a mutated monster slayer warrior monk you tend to come across fighting situatuions, but the emphasys is not on that, by far. I never cared about combat. It's the story, the characters and the plot-twists, hard decisions which make a story great or an rpg unforgettable. In this respect The Witcher games are very good rpgs. It's not "player skills" or "fighting tactics"... it"s all just keyboard smashing and mouse killing in the end (the same goes for ME), it's the brain work and the soul behind it all that matters. 

For me combat system in RGP is as important as the story. Without nice combat RPG turns into an interactive move.

Yes, ME1 combat system was terrible... ME2 combat system was not bad... But ME3 combat system is almost perfect.

I adore Planescape: Torment. This game proves that gameplay can be secondary to story and characters. Many people consider this game an evidence that video games can be art.

And would you explain why "space bar for everything, stick to cover/shoot at enemy swarms switch" kind of gameplay is perfect according to you? Because I think it is awful. I much prefer ME1 combat to flashy and "heart-pumping" (sarcasm) action of ME2 and ME3.

[nitefyre410]

wiggles89 wrote...

Seival wrote...

Yes, ME1 combat system was terrible... ME2 combat system was not bad... But ME3 combat system is almost perfect.

TPS with horrible controls, boring  STUPID AI and incredibly low fov.

Almost perfect.

lol

 

Fixed that for you... because I swear to god if Garrus does not stop trying to be a tank... 

[What a Succulent Ass]

[quote]GimmeDaGun wrote...

ME 1 couldn't be more old school sci-fi space opera. It's more of an adult game than ME3. [/quote]ME1 was, but not ME2. You can't really accuse ME3 of valuing sensationalism over substance without indicting ME2 for the same. The only difference was that ME3 used horribly forced drama instead of pulpy action hero sequences, though the former is admittedly significantly more painful.

[quote]The Witcher may be overrated in your eyes, but it deserves all the praise.[/quote]
[/quote]I didn't say it didn't. Unlike ME, it doesn't rely on the audience's attachment to the characters, so the merits of its story lie solely in clear plot progression, something it does well (despite the branching). The level design is fantastic, it does well in maintaining its atmosphere, and the NPCs all contribute in helping you understand the setting and lore. These are all good things, and all handled better than ME does (including ME1, to some extent). But all this worshipping TW as the second coming of the "mature" video game? Nah, not really. It has more than its share of juvenility.

[What a Succulent Ass]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Fixed that for you... because I swear to god if Garrus does not stop trying to be a tank... 

Garrus' AI has always been stupid.

Edit: Honestly, I think Future Soldier's gameplay would best suit the series, not Gears'. It would add a sorely lacking tactical element.

And versatility.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 16 mai 2012 - 01:51 .

[Seboist]

ME1 had some pretty strong derp too like the citadel aliens inhabiting that station for thousands of years without fully exploring it let alone fully understanding it(along with the relays) and of course it was the one that introduced the all female alien race of magical space lesbians who mate through telepathy and with any species(lol).

[GimmeDaGun]

[quote]Random Jerkface wrote...

[quote]GimmeDaGun wrote...

ME 1 couldn't be more old school sci-fi space opera. It's more of an adult game than ME3. [/quote]ME1 was, but not ME2. You can't really accuse ME3 of valuing sensationalism over substance without indicting ME2 for the same. The only difference was that ME3 used horribly forced drama instead of pulpy action hero sequences, though the former is admittedly significantly more painful.

[quote]The Witcher may be overrated in your eyes, but it deserves all the praise.[/quote]
[/quote]I didn't say it didn't. Unlike ME, it doesn't rely on the audience's attachment to the characters, so the merits of its story lie solely in clear plot progression, something it does well (despite the branching). The level design is fantastic, it does well in maintaining its atmosphere, and the NPCs all contribute in helping you understand the setting and lore. These are all good things, and all handled better than ME does (including ME1, to some extent). But all this worshipping TW as the second coming of the "mature" video game? Nah, not really. It has more than its share of juvenility. [/quote]





Second coming of "mature" video games? Was there a first one? These are games: of course they all have their share of juvenility. If you want something mature go read books or watch some serious films. Games are entertainment and not art, but they have some artistic value as well. The Witcher's maturity does not come from the cussing words or sexual content, but form the handling of the story, plot and characters and the world and lore is a bit more realistic than in other fantasy sagas (but it all comes from the books actually). The game and the developers treat you as an adult, that's why it can be called mature (relativly speaking). I mean in the end it's just another boys will be boys action hero game, no matter how well crafted of an illusion it is... people like playing.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 16 mai 2012 - 02:21 .

[Fyurian2]

Seeing the The Witcher on shelves when it released and doing some searching about it on the internet got me to buy it, then following The Witcher 2 development as well before preordering it.

Love both games as much as I love the Baldur's Gate series.

[GimmeDaGun]

Seboist wrote...

ME1 had some pretty strong derp too like the citadel aliens inhabiting that station for thousands of years without fully exploring it let alone fully understanding it(along with the relays) and of course it was the one that introduced the all female alien race of magical space lesbians who mate through telepathy and with any species(lol).

Every pop culture fiction has its derps and cliches, but they can be executed with style and I think ME1 did a pretty decent job in that regard. Even the blue pole dancing "space lesbians" have more to them: culture, depth, texture. So it is not sticking out badly. But you could go on. Krogan are typical space orks with a pinch of holochaust story. Turians the typical arrogant militant alien stereotype who have an ongoing rivalry with humans, salarians are the egg headed aliens we saw so many times. The whole ME lore is familiar and clished (even the reapers are a Lovecraftian and an almost Biblical ancient apocalyptic force we saw a thousand time before), but if it is handled with care, made in a convinent fashion it can be something that gives you something "new". Humanity alway love to rewrite it's own songs, myths and epics. That's fantasy and sci-fi. So as we here in Hungary would say "There's nothing new under the Sun."

[What a Succulent Ass]

Second coming of "mature" videou games? Was there a first one?

I'm going to guess it was Planescape.

These are games: of course they all have their share jenility. If you want something mature go read books or watch some serious films. Games are entertainment and not art,

I disagree on both counts. Games can be art, and they can be every bit as poignant as a novel or film. The only thing that holds them back is the relative newness of the medium and the fact they've fallen into an age ghetto, so 99% of developers and publishers are wont to treat their customers as horny seventeen-year-old boys (though some customers aren't helping either); randomly selecting any one mature title from a store shelf veritably ensures that you've just picked up some idiotic time-wasting simulator filled with gratuitous sex and blood.

The game and the developers treat you as an adult

Which is the quality that I'm saying is overrated. The game presents itself better than many, but it isn't too different from most games.

it's just another boys will be boys action hero game

Exactly. And they really don't have to be.

[GimmeDaGun]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Second coming of "mature" videou games? Was there a first one?

I'm going to guess it was Planescape.

These are games: of course they all have their share jenility. If you want something mature go read books or watch some serious films. Games are entertainment and not art,

I disagree on both counts. Games can be art, and they can be every bit as poignant as a novel or film. The only thing that holds them back is the relative newness of the medium and the fact they've fallen into an age ghetto, so 99% of developers and publishers are wont to treat their customers as horny seventeen-year-old boys (though some customers aren't helping either); randomly selecting any one mature title from a store shelf veritably ensures that you've just picked up some idiotic time-wasting simulator filled with gratuitous sex and blood.

The game and the developers treat you as an adult

Which is the quality that I'm saying is overrated. The game presents itself better than many, but it isn't too different from most games.

it's just another boys will be boys action hero game

Exactly. And they really don't have to be.

Now you made me curious: I'm goning to check this Planescape out.

[FodoSatoru]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Second coming of "mature" videou games? Was there a first one?

I'm going to guess it was Planescape.

These are games: of course they all have their share jenility. If you want something mature go read books or watch some serious films. Games are entertainment and not art,

I disagree on both counts. Games can be art, and they can be every bit as poignant as a novel or film. The only thing that holds them back is the relative newness of the medium and the fact they've fallen into an age ghetto, so 99% of developers and publishers are wont to treat their customers as horny seventeen-year-old boys (though some customers aren't helping either); randomly selecting any one mature title from a store shelf veritably ensures that you've just picked up some idiotic time-wasting simulator filled with gratuitous sex and blood.

The game and the developers treat you as an adult

Which is the quality that I'm saying is overrated. The game presents itself better than many, but it isn't too different from most games.

it's just another boys will be boys action hero game

Exactly. And they really don't have to be.

Now you made me curious: I'm goning to check this Planescape out.

I highly recommend it, although the game's graphics is badly outdated (Infinity engine) and there is A LOT of text.