3855 réponses à ce sujet

[Ozida]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

And I'm looking forward to when these "unique" Origin stories inevitably fail to meet the expectations of the fanbase and the ensuing vile that will spew all over these boards.

You think people won't like the approach Bioware has taken for the multiple backstories for the protagonist? Do you think people will feel the developers defined the protagonist too much - a criticism some players made about Hawke?

I think people are setting thier expectations too high on a feature we know next to nothing about,will have them shattered then proceed to rage on these boards about how Bioware betrayed them and they won't buy another game from them...only to return when the dlc's annouced still whining.

Ha-ha . After ME3 I don't have any high expectations for games any more. It's like I have Marauder shield implanted in me for any sh*t to happen. But as much as I hated ME3, I am very reasonable about giving DA team a chance, because it will be different people working on it. So yes, I am looking forward to what they will come up with.

Modifié par Ozida, 28 octobre 2012 - 10:58 .

[drkwaters]

Allan Schumacher wrote..

Unless you'd prefer that I not assume that it's possible to get those fans back, which would mean even considering to go back to DAO is just a waste of time. Might as well establish consistency and go with more of DA2 style, right?

Speaking for myself and a few of my friends, we're honestly concerned that is the direction BioWare is heading with DA3. As someone who has put (according to Steam) nearly 300 hours into DA:O, and significantly less into DA:2 (Two play throughs, but apparantly Origin doesn't want to track my hours), I can say that I am at best very wary in regards to DA:3. 

[Drasanil]

Ozida wrote...

But as much as I hated ME3, I am very reasonable about giving DA team a chance, because it will be different people working on it. So yes, I am looking forward to what they will come up with.

Don't know why, they bungled DA2 by trying to make it more Mass Effecty, now the first thing out of the gate we hear is that we will once again have a Shepard-Clone... I mean we'll get Hawke 2.0... No, no sorry don't know where that came from, we will have a fixed human protagonist, but that's totally different and awesome because we're marrying the better aspects of DAO and DA2 so you'll be able to choose little background tidbits!

If you were a big fan of DA2, I know some exist out there, that's good for you and all, but if you part of the other group that liked DAO the first impression isn't a good one. 

Allan Schumacher wrote..

Unless you'd prefer that I not assume that it's possible to get those fans back, which would mean even considering to go back to DAO is just a waste of time. Might as well establish consistency and go with more of DA2 style, right?

I don't know, considering a lot of DAO fans weren't happy with the fact you removed race and origin choices, going with another fixed human protagonist isn't exactly an encouraging first step. Especially given that it makes all the previous talk from the devs about how having fixed human protags from now on wasn't necessarily written in stone, just seem like bull hucky designed to placate unhappy fans.

What exactly is the point of going out of your way to make Thedas' elves and dwarves distinct and interesting if you don't ever plan on letting us play them again? It's not like the humans are all that fascinating, they're middle age facimalies with conveniently modern views on sexuality and gender roles. Basically suburbonites with more dung and shabbier clothes.  

Modifié par Drasanil, 28 octobre 2012 - 11:25 .

[Vicious]

If you were a big fan of DA2, I know some exist out there, that's good for you and all, but if you part of the other group that liked DAO the first impression isn't a good one.

god forbid you like both.

[Nerevar-as]

LinksOcarina wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

TW2 features almost zero roleplaying.

Here's a BSNer who's mad at TW2 for trouncing all over Bioware's recent efforts

I wouldn't go that far.

The Witcher 2 was a good RPG, but its about on Par with what BioWare does for different reasons, namely combat issues (so much so the first game for me is virtually unplayable) and the somewhat fetishistic asethetic regarding sexuality. 

Granted The Witcher 2 is a comedy series, right? From what I understand the original books were supposed to be humorous. I never got that feeling in either Witcher game, bar some references here and there. 

Both games have pro's and cons, but both games are ont he forefront of new territory in a sense, so the question is not which one is better, the question should be how can we make them better. 

Er... not at all. It´s Dark Fantasy (capital D). There´s often humor, sometimes dark, sometimes not, but it´s quite depressing. Even the tales, which usually are takes on traditional fairy tales, are often quite sad.

[Ironic Discordia]

Personally, I'm invested in the series for the story. If the story being told necessitates that I play a human character, so be it. Race didn't seem overly important in DA:O; the story and circumstances of the origin stories seemed much more important. I'd like to see if a similar impact can be achieved in 3.

[DreamwareStudio]

Atakuma wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

best RPGs also had no gender option too.

That's a nice point/catch. I look forward to lack of gender choice in DA3 (or 4) and people argumenting in the earnest that hey, PS:T and TW games only let you be a dude and it didn't prevent the game from being great

That's because PST and the Witcher series feature A LOT of role-playing. Whether DA 3 will remains to be seen.

TW2 features almost zero roleplaying.

Uh...what? Either you haven't actually played TW2 or you fail to understand the basis of an RPG. Is it the quintessential RPG? No, of course not, but it's a damn sight better in that regard than DA 2 was.

[withneelandi]

I can't say I'm happy DA3 won't have race selection, it also isn't a "deal breaker" in terms of my interest in the game.

For me, race selection matters in a Dragon Age game. It doesn't matter in every RPG but Dragon Age origins made the choice of a characters race matter, my play throughs as an male elf mage felt entirely different to those as a female human rogue, and so on. That was due to a number of factors, including class and sex (and many others) but by removing race selection in Da2 I feel you removed a layer of complexity from the game which was to its detriment.

That isn't to say I didn't have fun with Da2, or that I didn't find reasons to re-play it but I don't continue to re play it in the same way I can with Origins.

The reason it matters so much for me in a DA game, is DA:O did such a great job of highlighting how different Thedas can be for a dalish, a mage, a duster or a noble, in other games series being an elf might just mean better bow skills or weakness to fire magic but in Origins being an elf came with an identity.

Alas, had bioware not done such a good job of making race matter in DA:O we might not all be lamenting its loss so much now.

[Atakuma]

google_calasade wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

best RPGs also had no gender option too.

That's a nice point/catch. I look forward to lack of gender choice in DA3 (or 4) and people argumenting in the earnest that hey, PS:T and TW games only let you be a dude and it didn't prevent the game from being great

That's because PST and the Witcher series feature A LOT of role-playing. Whether DA 3 will remains to be seen.

TW2 features almost zero roleplaying.

Uh...what? Either you haven't actually played TW2 or you fail to understand the basis of an RPG. Is it the quintessential RPG? No, of course not, but it's a damn sight better in that regard than DA 2 was.

TW2 has you play a character with a set apearance, personality and backstory. The dialogue options consist almost entirely of questions and the conversations are mostly auto dialogue. I fail to see how it does this aspect better in any way.

[Ironic Discordia]

Rojahar wrote...

Ironic Discordia wrote...

If the story being told necessitates that I play a human character, so be it.

Well, it depends if the story being told really necessitates it. The devs have already cited things like cost of creating models and unpopularity of non-humans according to their metrics of DAO.

Does anyone really believe the primary reason we can't have races is because they have such an amazing story idea that requires you to be human and they couldn't possibly think of a way to make something awesome for other playable races?

The point that's been made is that it costs extra time and money for them to develop additional content that would be needed to make race more than a cosmetic choice. Consider DA:O; the differences experienced had less to do with race and more to do with whatever plot got that character to Ostagar. It didn't matter that the Warden was an elf, human, or dwarf in the overall scheme of things and earned only passing remarks from most characters. The significant difference was the human noble knowing that Arl Howe had betrayed and murdered their family and getting to kill him, the city elf getting killing Bann Vaughn and catalysing the unrest in the Alienage (or being bought off and betraying Soris), etc. The story was the important part, not what the character looked like.

If people want different races for purely cosmetic reasons, that's different. For me, there's not a lot of appeal in playing another race just for the sake of looking different. In that case, sure, they could probably cut corners, change small bits of dialogue, and make the character look however they wanted. But where's the reward in that? For race options to really matter, to me at least, it should affect plot and dialogue to some degree. There should be something that validates that choice being there.

At this point, we know next to nothing about the story they're trying to tell. Maybe there was room for race options, maybe not. I don't see the point in getting worked up over something there's so little solid information on.

[DPSSOC]

Atakuma wrote...
TW2 has you play a character with a set apearance, personality and backstory. The dialogue options consist almost entirely of questions and the conversations are mostly auto dialogue. I fail to see how it does this aspect better in any way.

So it's a JRPG then, good to know.  Buddy of mine's been bugging me to play it and it's nice to know where to set my expectations.

[tomorrowstation]

Vicious wrote...

If you were a big fan of DA2, I know some exist out there, that's good for you and all, but if you part of the other group that liked DAO the first impression isn't a good one.

god forbid you like both.

I resemble that remark.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Vicious wrote...

If you were a big fan of DA2, I know some exist out there, that's good for you and all, but if you part of the other group that liked DAO the first impression isn't a good one.

god forbid you like both.

Ha I was about to respond with something similar...

I love how you can apparently only favor one or the other.

[DreamwareStudio]

Atakuma wrote...


TW2 has you play a character with a set apearance, personality and backstory. The dialogue options consist almost entirely of questions and the conversations are mostly auto dialogue. I fail to see how it does this aspect better in any way.

Your choices effect the world around you. An entire act changes based on what you did previously. Those choices also define Geralt, not to mention there are sixteen different endings to the thing, and a myriad of ways you can role-play.

Modifié par google_calasade, 29 octobre 2012 - 02:03 .

[DreamwareStudio]

DPSSOC wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
TW2 has you play a character with a set apearance, personality and backstory. The dialogue options consist almost entirely of questions and the conversations are mostly auto dialogue. I fail to see how it does this aspect better in any way.

So it's a JRPG then, good to know.  Buddy of mine's been bugging me to play it and it's nice to know where to set my expectations.

No, it is NOT a JRPG, not in the least.

[element eater]

i am absolutely gutted, thats all there is to say. This is the one thing i hoped more then anything would be brough back to the series

[Drasanil]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Vicious wrote...

If you were a big fan of DA2, I know some exist out there, that's good for you and all, but if you part of the other group that liked DAO the first impression isn't a good one.

god forbid you like both.

Ha I was about to respond with something similar...

I love how you can apparently only favor one or the other.

Never said you couldn't like both, in fact it's only reasonnable to assume some people do. Rather, the point is DA2 was enough of a departure from DAO that 'generally' speaking people had a clear preferance for one or the other. That you liked both isn't somehow unreasonable, for from it in fact, but rather that the divide between them was stark enough that the only reasonnable conclusion is that some people are open to both styles. In which case the DA logo wouldn't have ultimately impacted your enjoyment of either or.  

For me how ever, DAO built in certain expectations and took an approach I personally enjoyed, that DA2 did not live up to it and that DA3 does not seem intent on trying to get some of it back means I personally do not care for the direction Bioware is taking with this series and am very unlikely to think any further 'DA' games are worthwhile given the precedent that was DAO. 

[LinksOcarina]

google_calasade wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
TW2 has you play a character with a set apearance, personality and backstory. The dialogue options consist almost entirely of questions and the conversations are mostly auto dialogue. I fail to see how it does this aspect better in any way.

So it's a JRPG then, good to know.  Buddy of mine's been bugging me to play it and it's nice to know where to set my expectations.

No, it is NOT a JRPG, not in the least.

Well....technically...

Let me put it this way, the JRPG term is an incorrect term that is thrown around for a lot of things. It's like Saying Witcher 2 is a PRPG because CD Projekt Red is from Poland? What does it really mean, to have a country define a genre? Does that make Dragon's Dogma a JRPG? Or Demon Souls then? Or how about the Wizardry games? After all, they all follow more "Western" approaches to dungeon crawlers, item collection, and open world freedom of creativity.

What I believe DPS is referring to is the mechanics of the game, which is more of a story-driven RPG. Used to be known as light-rpgs back in the day, but that term is out of date now.  It's basically a story-driven over freedom narrative that is supposed to have less complex design mechanics. A simplistic battle system and level up system, equipment level ups, enough challenge to make the story exciting,e tc. All of the mechanics basically are there to service the primary storyline.

So in a way, "JRPG" as a term is almost always a misnomer,because the term is poorly defined and wantonly used by everyone. In the end, the term should go away because it is always inaccurate in the end. And no, saying that a game from Japan thats and RPG is a "JRPG" doesn't cut it, because people still misuse the term in the end to point out the design and mechanics of the game.

And as an aside, since Witcher 2 and Dragon Age are very similar games in most design respects, then both have to be considered narrative-based RPG titles, so both would be under the same label in the end. 

[DaringMoosejaw]

I finished The Witcher and bought TW2, but unfortunately I never finished TW2 because Geralt's such a bland boring bastard and all the characters are much the same, rendering me incapable of caring what happens to any of them even if I like the gameplay. Looking forward to Cyberpunk to see what that studio does with something that's hopefully not as generic as TW, at least in my opinion.

I don't see a point in comparing the two franchises as if you have to like one or the other (Actually, I do: I LIKE RED. BLUE SUCKS.), if I like both games I'll buy both games and I'll be glad I have double the games rather than all the games being exactly alike.

[Drasanil]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

I finished The Witcher and bought TW2, but unfortunately I never finished TW2 because Geralt's such a bland boring bastard and all the characters are much the same, rendering me incapable of caring what happens to any of them even if I like the gameplay.

How was Hawke any different, or this new Hawke 2.0 for that matter? In fact I would venture Hawke was worse given she was tailor made to be the bland inoffensive self insert. At least Geralt was/is his own character, Hawke was just mushy pablum. 

[Rawgrim]

Drasanil wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

I finished The Witcher and bought TW2, but unfortunately I never finished TW2 because Geralt's such a bland boring bastard and all the characters are much the same, rendering me incapable of caring what happens to any of them even if I like the gameplay.

How was Hawke any different, or this new Hawke 2.0 for that matter? In fact I would venture Hawke was worse given she was tailor made to be the bland inoffensive self insert. At least Geralt was/is his own character, Hawke was just mushy pablum. 

I didn`t like Geralt much either, to be honest. but those games were based on books, DA2 wasn`t it was a sequel to a game that had race options. Geralt being a character from several books puts him at a huge advantage compared to Hawke, though. Geralt is alot more fleshed out in any way possible. Still, he never felt like my own character either.

[DreamwareStudio]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Well....technically...

Let me put it this way, the JRPG term is an incorrect term that is thrown around for a lot of things. It's like Saying Witcher 2 is a PRPG because CD Projekt Red is from Poland? What does it really mean, to have a country define a genre? Does that make Dragon's Dogma a JRPG? Or Demon Souls then? Or how about the Wizardry games? After all, they all follow more "Western" approaches to dungeon crawlers, item collection, and open world freedom of creativity.

What I believe DPS is referring to is the mechanics of the game, which is more of a story-driven RPG. Used to be known as light-rpgs back in the day, but that term is out of date now.  It's basically a story-driven over freedom narrative that is supposed to have less complex design mechanics. A simplistic battle system and level up system, equipment level ups, enough challenge to make the story exciting,e tc. All of the mechanics basically are there to service the primary storyline.

So in a way, "JRPG" as a term is almost always a misnomer,because the term is poorly defined and wantonly used by everyone. In the end, the term should go away because it is always inaccurate in the end. And no, saying that a game from Japan thats and RPG is a "JRPG" doesn't cut it, because people still misuse the term in the end to point out the design and mechanics of the game.

And as an aside, since Witcher 2 and Dragon Age are very similar games in most design respects, then both have to be considered narrative-based RPG titles, so both would be under the same label in the end. 

I have no problem with labeling the Witcher series as a narrative-based RPG. That is what it is. The games do have an emphasis on action but they also feature role-playing. Are they quentessential? Of course not. They are neither that nor are they perfect, but in my opinion they are among the top games that have come out since Baldur's Gate (another series that is narrative-based).

Modifié par google_calasade, 29 octobre 2012 - 05:54 .

[Drasanil]

Rawgrim wrote...

I didn`t like Geralt much either, to be honest. but those games were based on books, DA2 wasn`t it was a sequel to a game that had race options. Geralt being a character from several books puts him at a huge advantage compared to Hawke, though. Geralt is alot more fleshed out in any way possible. Still, he never felt like my own character either.

*deleted some quote pyramiding*

I agree entirely, I didn't much care for Geralt, I played the Witcher and got bored half way through and never looked back. What I can say however, is that even though I didn't much care for the Witcher as a Game, I could at least respect Geralt as a character given his previous history. Hawke on the hand whilst I did finish DA2, I couldn't stand, not only was she incredibly passive to the point of being a useless ******, but she didn't even have the decency to be her own character.

It goes back to a point I made in an ealier post, whilst I don't care all that much for fixed protagonists, if you do one at least do it right. I can respect a character that is its own and might even enjoy playing him/her depending on the overall game and context. But don't give me some half-arsed pablum and try to pass it off as anything other than what it is.  

[EpicBoot2daFace]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

I finished The Witcher and bought TW2, but unfortunately I never finished TW2 because Geralt's such a bland boring bastard and all the characters are much the same, rendering me incapable of caring what happens to any of them even if I like the gameplay. Looking forward to Cyberpunk to see what that studio does with something that's hopefully not as generic as TW, at least in my opinion.

I don't see a point in comparing the two franchises as if you have to like one or the other (Actually, I do: I LIKE RED. BLUE SUCKS.), if I like both games I'll buy both games and I'll be glad I have double the games rather than all the games being exactly alike.

How are the characters in Witcher 2 generic?