370 réponses à ce sujet

[BubbleDncr]

Only really read the dev posts for this thread, but I just have to say - I played the beginning of the first Witcher game, and was completely turned off to the entire series by the simple fact that I said "the nice line" to the girl in the tower and suddenly ended up in a sex scene.

So if Bioware games ever start pulling stuff like that, I will stop playing them. And honestly, that's the only thing I can think of that would make me absolutely stop playing them - they can add all the multiplayer, micro transactions, and false choices they want, and I'm fine. Just not that. 

Modifié par BubbleDncr, 05 février 2013 - 07:49 .

[Raging_Pulse]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Domecoming wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

DaosX wrote...

Another important thing that Dragon Age could learn from the Witcher is how to treat customers. The whole mentality of respecting your consumer base is one of the biggest reason why CD Projekt Red is gaining so many loyal customers whereas Bioware is losing them.

I have to agree. Not only do CD Projekt Red make great games, but they're also great towards their fan base. Another thing I like about them is that they're not trying to cater to everyone. They know their audience & know how to deliver it.  

I also have to agree with this.

They just seem more relaxed, casual, informal and straightforward - yet remain respectful and professional- when communicating with fans. At least, that is the impression I always get. The Witcher 3 probably won't hit the shelves anytime before late 2014/early 2015, and yet they already provided a thorough list of VERY specific features they wish to implement in the game, several concept art pics and even two actual screenshots.

Same goes for Cyberpunk 2077. The game is very early in development, yet we already got an amzing teaser CGI trailer and the official site/blog is constantly being updated with new bits of info every now and then.

So if they fal to deliver those features in The Witcher 3 is it ok to burn them at a stake?

 

Um... No, if they fail at it, it will not be OK to "burn them at stake", but the fans would have every right to voice their displesure and disappointment in respectful manner, just as fans of any other game/franchise found in such a situation should... Whats your point?

Since I didn't noticed CDProjekt has a history of false advertizing of their products, and if they remain open to fans and show features as they go during development, in my opinion, it's reasonably safe to expect they will deliver on most features they promise, but that's just me. YMMV...

LinksOcarina wrote...


And this is a bit off-topic, but the cyberpunk trailer was not that good, and ironically, some friends of mine called it baiting because of how cliched it was. Me I am ambivalent because I know a trailer means nothing now a days, but I have to admit it does little for me too at this stage and was far from being amazing. 

No, it was pretty good.

[Rawgrim]

stormhit13 wrote...

Megakoresh wrote...

I do not mean romance. I mean personality, interactions and involvement. Witcher 2 doesn't have it nealy on the level of Origins. You can go to my post here. I discuss why in detail.

Witcher 2 is my favourite game, by the way.

Mostly since this thread predictably seems to be getting hung up on one particular issue....

Totally agree with this. Not being familiar with either the first game or the source material, I found the character writing in W2 to be lackluster at best. Most of them don't have any inner life and only exist to provide pages and pages of dry exposition.

I think you would feel the same way if you watched\\read The Two Towers without having seen\\read The Fellowship of the Ring, as well.

[Darth Death]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So if they fal to deliver those features in The Witcher 3 is it ok to burn them at a stake?

Only if they shamefully practice "artistic integrity" for a terrible product, then yes. 

[CronoDragoon]

Addai67 wrote...
Like a lot of people around here, if they have a chip on their shoulder about CDPR.

It seems likely that you have a chip on your shoulder about people having a chip on their shoulder about CDPR. I actually like them and I think the Witcher 2 is a great game. I think the Witcher 1 is merely good, but that's mostly because of other issues and not just the sexism.

I also don't believe I'm being a PC **** here seeing sexism in shadows. It's hard to interpret the cards as anything else than objectification. They are as "artistic" as Hustler magazines. It's definitely possible that I missed some stuff, and you would be well qualified to inform me since you say it's one of your favorite games and have presumably played it much more than me.

So there's a lot of story value in The Pearl's lineup?  Do tell.

No, there isn't, unless you think humor is enough to justify those scenes, in which case perhaps. BioWare games are not free of this problem, either, because most games still cater to straight males. As a result, you have these situations like ME3 where you can cheat on someone and all that results is them asking you to make a choice.

In any case, I'm going to backtrack on the idea that the Witcher 1 failed to present any scenarios that discouraged sexist notions. While I don't believe that Abigail is the best example to use, being a witch that bribes you with sex, I simply don't remember enough about the game to make a definitive claim. However, some parts of the game are sexist, and those parts are what naturally jumped into my head when that discussion started.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 février 2013 - 08:07 .

[DaosX]

Domecoming wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Domecoming wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

DaosX wrote...

Another important thing that Dragon Age could learn from the Witcher is how to treat customers. The whole mentality of respecting your consumer base is one of the biggest reason why CD Projekt Red is gaining so many loyal customers whereas Bioware is losing them.

I have to agree. Not only do CD Projekt Red make great games, but they're also great towards their fan base. Another thing I like about them is that they're not trying to cater to everyone. They know their audience & know how to deliver it.  

I also have to agree with this.

They just seem more relaxed, casual, informal and straightforward - yet remain respectful and professional- when communicating with fans. At least, that is the impression I always get. The Witcher 3 probably won't hit the shelves anytime before late 2014/early 2015, and yet they already provided a thorough list of VERY specific features they wish to implement in the game, several concept art pics and even two actual screenshots.

Same goes for Cyberpunk 2077. The game is very early in development, yet we already got an amzing teaser CGI trailer and the official site/blog is constantly being updated with new bits of info every now and then.

So if they fal to deliver those features in The Witcher 3 is it ok to burn them at a stake?

 

Um... No, if they fail at it, it will not be OK to "burn them at stake", but the fans would have every right to voice their displesure and disappointment in respectful manner, just as fans of any other game/franchise found in such a situation should... Whats your point?

Since I didn't noticed CDProjekt has a history of false advertizing of their products, and if they remain open to fans and show features as they go during development, in my opinion, it's reasonably safe to expect they will deliver on most features they promise, but that's just me. YMMV...

I completely agree with you. A promise is that...a promise. When someone promises something, they are expected to follow through on it. When they fail to do what they promised to do, then they have betrayed the trust that is given to them. Case in point, Mass Effect 3 and possibly Dragon Age 2. I personally didn't follow the development cycle of DA2 and was among the "silent majority" who actually enjoyed it so I can't comment on whether or not BW followed through on their promises however I did for ME3 and, like others, felt extremely betrayed by the studio we put so much faith into. The resistant and obstinate attitude of the devs only further fueled the fire. This turned into anger which turned into resentment...granted, it's nowhere nearly as bad as Capcom where I literally boycott all their titles simply because it has "Capcom" marked on it but it creates reservations about purchasing Bioware titles new or buying something just for the sake of supporting the studio.

Modifié par DaosX, 05 février 2013 - 08:04 .

[Lennard Testarossa]

CronoDragoon wrote...
Whether or not you agree with the execution, this is pretty much exactly what DA2 set out to do, isn't it?

Yes, DA 2 was an improvement over DA in that regard. The Arishok is an example of the kind of character I'm talking about. Meredith and Orsino, however, are exactly what I meant by "(borderline) insane".

I fear that the backlash Bioware got for DA 2 will result in them reverting to a good vs evil story for DA 3.

CronoDragoon wrote...
With the factual thing I am more referring to, say, Leonardo DiCaprio's
argument in Django that dimples at the back of slave skulls correlate to
a tendency for submission.

Well, in that case, I agree.

CronoDragoon wrote...
Such as?

The Quickening by Fiona McIntosh, The Traitor Spy by Trudi Caravan and The Emerged World by Licia Troisi (I'll never know what drove me to read any of this crap) are some particularly gruesome examples. It's the rule rather than the expection, though. The protagonists of most fantasy stories have and behave according to morals and worldviews pretty close to what a modern liberal might find desirable.

[Lennard Testarossa]

BubbleDncr wrote...
Only really read the dev posts for this thread, but I just have to say - I played the beginning of the first Witcher game, and was completely turned off to the entire series by the simple fact that I said "the nice line" to the girl in the tower and suddenly ended up in a sex scene.

So if Bioware games ever start pulling stuff like that, I will stop playing them. And honestly, that's the only thing I can think of that would make me absolutely stop playing them - they can add all the multiplayer, micro transactions, and false choices they want, and I'm fine. Just not that.

Are you referring to Triss by "the girl in the tower"? Care to point out what's wrong with that scene?

[CronoDragoon]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...
The Quickening by Fiona McIntosh, The Traitor Spy by Trudi Caravan and The Emerged World by Licia Troisi (I'll never know what drove me to read any of this crap) are some particularly gruesome examples. It's the rule rather than the expection, though. The protagonists of most fantasy stories have and behave according to morals and worldviews pretty close to what a modern liberal might find desirable.

So long as the protagonist's view is not the norm within the medieval story, I find nothing wrong with that, so long as we're limiting our definition of "liberal" to obvious things like women's rights.

Edit: Of course those stories could have just been written really badly and exposited those liberal views in a ham-fisted, unnatural way.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 février 2013 - 08:39 .

[Dutchess]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...
Only really read the dev posts for this thread, but I just have to say - I played the beginning of the first Witcher game, and was completely turned off to the entire series by the simple fact that I said "the nice line" to the girl in the tower and suddenly ended up in a sex scene.

So if Bioware games ever start pulling stuff like that, I will stop playing them. And honestly, that's the only thing I can think of that would make me absolutely stop playing them - they can add all the multiplayer, micro transactions, and false choices they want, and I'm fine. Just not that.

Are you referring to Triss by "the girl in the tower"? Care to point out what's wrong with that scene?

I'll admit having a bit of an issue with that event as well, because indeed the dialogue option did not suggest you were about to have sex. So far Geralt had said the exact same as the line I chose, but with the nicer of the two options given with Triss, Geralt suddenly says something else. I believe the line I chose was "you did what you could" and Geralt said "I was worried about you. I care about you" or something along those lines. And then there was sex.  I don't know why they decided to use paraphrasing there. It happens in a later love scene with Triss as well. It's a bit of a shame, because it can give a somewhat wrong impression of the game, like BubbleDncr had. In the rest of the game it is very obvious when you're about to have a sexual encounter.

[billy the squid]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Like a lot of people around here, if they have a chip on their shoulder about CDPR.

It seems likely that you have a chip on your shoulder about people having a chip on their shoulder about CDPR. I actually like them and I think the Witcher 2 is a great game. I think the Witcher 1 is merely good, but that's mostly because of other issues and not just the sexism.

I also don't believe I'm being a PC **** here seeing sexism in shadows. It's hard to interpret the cards as anything else than objectification. They are as "artistic" as Hustler magazines. It's definitely possible that I missed some stuff, and you would be well qualified to inform me since you say it's one of your favorite games and have presumably played it much more than me.

So there's a lot of story value in The Pearl's lineup?  Do tell.

No, there isn't, unless you think humor is enough to justify those scenes, in which case perhaps. BioWare games are not free of this problem, either, because most games still cater to straight males. As a result, you have these situations like ME3 where you can cheat on someone and all that results is them asking you to make a choice. 

Please. Sexism in the world and lore of the Witcher is fine, I refer you to my previous post as to the reasons. The character card mechanic was a silly one, more likely a cheap way to cover up the lack of a scene etc. either way I'm glad to see the back of the card system. It was daft. 

Although I've noticed how people seem to get their panties in a bunch, it always becomes an issue for some reason, with people blowing it out of proportion. Reverting to the easiest route to deride it. It's objectification! OMG! Rather than call it out for what is was, a dumb system, one I'm happy disappeared from TW2.

And if you're noticing sexism in the shadows, well that's kind of a given, considering the world in which the game exists, pesants are pesants and act like them. If one expects 21st century morality and equality in the TW2 etc. they're out of luck. Which is far more interesting than some contrived utopian high fantasy were men and women are equal, everyone is educated, good or bad. but the only difference is magic dragons etc. 

History provides a far, far more interesting portrayal of human nature and has the potential to show a humanity's most base atttributes far better than any fantasy story could. That is what I think is captured well in TW2 especially. You can't be more faithful to a medieval society for a setting and the cut out the nasty bits, that's where the good stuff and the contrast between the factions are. Men are as capable of being monsters as the ones that Geralt has to hunt. Case in point Loredo.

Modifié par billy the squid, 05 février 2013 - 08:24 .

[CronoDragoon]

billy the squid wrote...
Please. Sexism in the world and lore of the Witcher is fine, I refer you to my previous post as to the reasons. The character card mechanic was a silly one, more likely a cheap way to cover up the lack of a scene etc. either way I'm glad to see the back of the card system. It was daft. 

Although I've noticed how people seem to get their panties in a bunch, it always becomes an issue for some reason, with people blowing it out of proportion. Reverting to the easiest route to deride it. It's objectification! OMG! Rather than call it out for what is was, a dumb system, one I'm happy disappeared from TW2.

Those two classifications aren't mutually exclusive. It was a dumb system of objectification, rewarding players for their gameplay with pictures of naked chicks.

And if you're noticing sexism in the shadows, well that's kind of a given, considering the world in which the game exists, pesants are pesants and act like them. If one expects 21st century morality and equality in the TW2 etc. they're out of luck. Which is far more interesting than some contrived utopian high fantasy were men and women are equal, everyone is educated, good or bad. but the only difference is magic dragons etc.

There is a difference between designing your fantasy setting to reflect modernity, and portraying events within a fantasy setting through the lens of modern morality. The former can be silly, but the latter is what humanizes characters and allows writers to communicate themes regardless of character morality. Game of Thrones is actually an excellent example of the latter.

To a certain extent, so is the Witcher, especially the Witcher 2 with Saskia and the sorceresses running rampart with their own agendas that are independent from their relationship to men. But there is also crap in the Witcher games that serves little purpose other than to show boobs or sexualize an encounter that had little need to be sexualized. This excludes the Triss scenes which I think have a purpose given the romantic relationship that exists.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 février 2013 - 08:43 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Although I've noticed how people seem to get their panties in a bunch, it always becomes an issue for some reason, with people blowing it out of proportion. Reverting to the easiest route to deride it. It's objectification! OMG! Rather than call it out for what is was, a dumb system, one I'm happy disappeared from TW2.

Those two classifications aren't mutually exclusive. It was a dumb system of objectification, rewarding players for their gameplay with pictures of naked chicks.

Is rewarding players for their gameplay with pictures of naked chicks a bad thing?

As Renmiri1 noted...

Renmiri1 wrote...
Because of the "collector" aspect the cards imply. As a woman I have met a lot of male jerks that view me and other women just as a card or a "pokemon" to add to their collection of one night stands.

... this is behavior that is apparently rewarding in RL, at least to some men. I don't see any conceptual problem with rewarding this behavior in-game too, especially with a reward that has no relevance to anything else in game.

The obvious problem is that the reward isn't particularly rewarding for most female players.

[Giantdeathrobot]

In terms of plot, I'm not sure Bioware had that much to borrow from either Witcher games. Wayyyy too much use of convenient magic to stall the story (the wraith mist in 2, the constant teleportation and damn time travel in 1) for my tastes. TW1 in perticular had a pretty ho-um story, only a few characters and the option to go neutral in face of all the psychopath-composed factions made it bearable. And the ending was a let-down in both games. In 2 I hated how they turned Triss into a damsel in distress in order to force Geralt to cope up with the various ruler and sorceresses's mad schemes.

As for plot structure, well that's another thing entirely. While I don't think a W2-like major divergence is required, Bioware as of late has kinda forgotten to put the ''consequence'' in ''choice and consequence''. No, 10 Rivalry or Paragon points aren't big consequences. I'd like more paths to be open or closed because of a choice, and not just by taking the ''wrong'' one, like killing squadmates in ME2.

Concerning the maps, Origins had some pretty open maps (such as the Korkari Wilds, Brecilian Forest, and some Deep roads maps). DA2 did away with that entirely, but it was obvious this game was shipped half done so there's no contest really. It seems DA3 will take much more dev time, so I guess more open maps are a strong possibility.

EDIT: as for the sex cards, yeah they really have no place in a game that defines itself as ''mature'', sorry. It's base objectification very obviously geared straight at the male nerd population. ''Look, naked hot chicks! And dryads! And vampires! And elves! And witches! And sea goddesses!'' ect. There is sex, which is good, and then there is porn, which doesn't belong in games but in porn websites. If at least there was eye candy for the ladies you could have said it was just putting sex front and center without much afterthought, but there isin't any. Not a coincidence that every single male except Geralt, and even then, is ugly, while half the female models are dead sexy even by our modern standards, let alone a ''low fantasy'' universe's.

Modifié par Giantdeathrobot, 05 février 2013 - 09:01 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

... this is behavior that is apparently rewarding in RL, at least to some men. I don't see any conceptual problem with rewarding this behavior in-game too, especially with a reward that has no relevance to anything else in game.

The obvious problem is that the reward isn't particularly rewarding for most female players.

Well, maybe if the cards came along with STDs...

[Roflbox]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

In terms of plot, I'm not sure Bioware had that much to borrow from either Witcher games. Wayyyy too much use of convenient magic to stall the story 

Lol, that was anything but convenient. I'm sure if you didn't actually listen to the dialogue it may have been percieved that way but the blood curse has it's own history.

CronoDragoon wrote...

Well, maybe if the cards came along with STDs...

1. Geralt is immune to disease it's a byproduct of his Witcher training.
2. I've had multiple one night stands both men and women, younger days, and I don't have an std.
3. People do brag about having sex so I don't see the point in being a white knight.

Modifié par Roflbox, 05 février 2013 - 09:04 .

[billy the squid]

CronoDragoon wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Please. Sexism in the world and lore of the Witcher is fine, I refer you to my previous post as to the reasons. The character card mechanic was a silly one, more likely a cheap way to cover up the lack of a scene etc. either way I'm glad to see the back of the card system. It was daft. 

Although I've noticed how people seem to get their panties in a bunch, it always becomes an issue for some reason, with people blowing it out of proportion. Reverting to the easiest route to deride it. It's objectification! OMG! Rather than call it out for what is was, a dumb system, one I'm happy disappeared from TW2.

Those two classifications aren't mutually exclusive. It was a dumb system of objectification, rewarding players for their gameplay with pictures of naked chicks.

And if you're noticing sexism in the shadows, well that's kind of a given, considering the world in which the game exists, pesants are pesants and act like them. If one expects 21st century morality and equality in the TW2 etc. they're out of luck. Which is far more interesting than some contrived utopian high fantasy were men and women are equal, everyone is educated, good or bad. but the only difference is magic dragons etc.

There is a difference between designing your fantasy setting to reflect modernity, and portraying events within a fantasy setting through the lens of modern morality. The former is silly, but the latter is what humanizes characters and allows writers to communicate themes regardless of character morality. Game of Thrones is actually an excellent example of the latter.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but the amount of attention that it recieves is daft. It's very much akin to making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

What does that really mean, the lense of modern morality? To my mind it means very little, other than being given the option to choose the "morally correct path" although the actual choice may be grey in the extreme and unclear at the point when it is taken. For instance, Killing Henselt after the murder of the Blue stripes and rape of Ves. A king won't stand for his crimes, but you can kill him, yet his death causes a repercussion throughout the North. I think that would be a normal reaction and characterisation of someone in Roache's position, rather than the event being portrayed through the lens of modern morality. The conflict of interest is the wider political impact, your association with the characters and you're own stance of right or wrong, based on context.

It's the player's imposition of modern morality in the context of the story and event which creates the opinion towards certain characters and humanizes them rather than the actual game itself setting it up, so long as they are not portrayed as comical villains or insane.

It's that underpinning of necessity in their actions rather than what is moral, which sets them apart. You are right that A Game of Thrones most charcter's are amoral and ruthless. For instance the portrayal of Tyrion Lannister, from his point of view, we can see the prejudice that is thrown towards him. Tywin Lannister's actions don't hide his disdain for his son and his wh0ring. It allows us to place ourselves in the context of different characters, where by we impose a personal moral context in our feeling towards them.

I think the strength of GoT is that the characters are humanized, they are relatable, despite their actions. For instance I don't think that Tywin Lannister, Jamie, Cersi, Theon, Stannis are written through a modern moral lense. I think they represent the human attributes that everyone posesses, thus the internal conflict in some charcters and changes in stance according to their positions within the War of 5 kings and westeros, which is undoubtedly a patriarchal society, only the women in power have any influence, but they wield it with authority and are utterly ruthless.

[Mr Fixit]

billy the squid wrote...

If one expects 21st century morality and equality in the TW2 etc. they're out of luck. Which is far more interesting than some contrived utopian high fantasy were men and women are equal, everyone is educated, good or bad. but the only difference is magic dragons etc.

You deserve a crossbow bolt to your bowels for your wicked ways, ser!

[billy the squid]

Mr Fixit wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

If one expects 21st century morality and equality in the TW2 etc. they're out of luck. Which is far more interesting than some contrived utopian high fantasy were men and women are equal, everyone is educated, good or bad. but the only difference is magic dragons etc.

You deserve a crossbow bolt to your bowels for your wicked ways, ser!

You're not a dwarf per chance are you? 

[Giantdeathrobot]

Roflbox wrote...


Lol, that was anything but convenient. I'm sure if you didn't actually listen to the dialogue it may have been percieved that way but the blood curse has it's own history.

And the king just happens to personally smash that priest's face on some random stone that happens to trigger the blood curse, regardless of how things were going beforehand? Sorry, that's the very definition of contrivance.

[CronoDragoon]

[quote]billy the squid wrote...
The two aren't mutually exclusive, but the amount of attention that it recieves is daft. It's very much akin to making a mountain out of a mole hill. [/quote]

I'd have no idea since I haven't really posted on any message boards about the Witcher. It's not a game-breaker but I imagine it receives so much attention because of how obvious it is.[/quote]


[quote]I think the strength of GoT is that the characters are humanized, they are relatable, despite their actions. For instance I don't think that Tywin Lannister, Jamie, Cersi, Theon, Stannis are written through a modern moral lense. I think they represent the human attributes that everyone posesses, thus the internal conflict in some charcters and changes in stance according to their positions within the War of 5 kings and westeros, which is undoubtedly a patriarchal society, only the women in power have any influence, but they wield it with authority and are utterly ruthless.
[/quote]

Those characters may be humanized, but you'll also notice that Martin has set them all up as the villains. Now, Martin may be very good at humanizing his villains, but it sounds to me like you want to claim that villains and heroes are indistiguishable in Game of Thrones. I don't agree. Examining what all the protagonists in GoT have in common (Jon, Tyrion, Danaerys) yields modern liberal views. They are still "the good guys." The best case you could make against Tyrion was that he was born into a family name that he honored despite how he was treated, but even that has been overcome as early as the end of SoS.

[Eelectrica]

Biggest thing for me Witcher 2 had over DA2 was the immersion in the world. It felt so much more alive. The world reacted to player choices so much better.

The branching story in Witcher 2 was a nice touch, but not essential. For me it added replayability.
Some of the enhancements they later added like Dark mode where we build special arms and armour was cool. One thing they messes up, a lot of the ingredients were a grind to get.

In short Witcher 2 felt alive, like a lot was going on. DA2 felt like a cartoon.

[BouncyFrag]

Andhaira wrote...

They're are several things that BiowarEA could learn from The Witcher Series™ and use to make DAIII even better.

The "sex" cards are one of them. It adds to the depth of relationships, to carry a small piece of your beloved ones with you as you travel around, or if said love interests dies you could have scenes where your remembering foundly of you're LI, maybe even have you're main character cry. Still, I'm farly certain BiowarEA would make said cards much better than SeeDProject(spelling??), avoiding the unnecessary and inherent sexism displayed on the TW series (maybe even add some male cards? I don't see why not! )

Other things... uhmm... well, TW series also featured several small details that added to the immersion, such as small acts like this one:



It's mundane yet adds so much to the game, because it makes your LI more human. Give females armpit hair or other details instead of making everyone look like a top model, geez! Add chubby npcs or even add the option of turning your own character into a chubbyjocks (hey, we need love as well!). You know, TW had different phenotypes, it made characters more believable.

Theirs much more that BiowarEA could learn from TWitcher, and Im fairly certain it could be made better by the Bioteam (<3).

The rpgcodex is strong with this one.
*removes monocle*

[Mr Fixit]

billy the squid wrote...

Mr Fixit wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

If one expects 21st century morality and equality in the TW2 etc. they're out of luck. Which is far more interesting than some contrived utopian high fantasy were men and women are equal, everyone is educated, good or bad. but the only difference is magic dragons etc.

You deserve a crossbow bolt to your bowels for your wicked ways, ser!

You're not a dwarf per chance are you? 

Dad! Is that really you? Have you seen my nose anywhere?

Yeah, I'm not a fan of imposing modern morality myself. My own moral compass points to the magnetic pole of my very own, thank you very much. I'm not going to lose it when faced with some good ole debauchery and decadence to wallow in.

By the way, this is me wallowing.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 05 février 2013 - 09:24 .

[LinksOcarina]

Domecoming wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Domecoming wrote...

Darth Death wrote...

DaosX wrote...

Another important thing that Dragon Age could learn from the Witcher is how to treat customers. The whole mentality of respecting your consumer base is one of the biggest reason why CD Projekt Red is gaining so many loyal customers whereas Bioware is losing them.

I have to agree. Not only do CD Projekt Red make great games, but they're also great towards their fan base. Another thing I like about them is that they're not trying to cater to everyone. They know their audience & know how to deliver it.  

I also have to agree with this.

They just seem more relaxed, casual, informal and straightforward - yet remain respectful and professional- when communicating with fans. At least, that is the impression I always get. The Witcher 3 probably won't hit the shelves anytime before late 2014/early 2015, and yet they already provided a thorough list of VERY specific features they wish to implement in the game, several concept art pics and even two actual screenshots.

Same goes for Cyberpunk 2077. The game is very early in development, yet we already got an amzing teaser CGI trailer and the official site/blog is constantly being updated with new bits of info every now and then.

So if they fal to deliver those features in The Witcher 3 is it ok to burn them at a stake?

 

Um... No, if they fail at it, it will not be OK to "burn them at stake", but the fans would have every right to voice their displesure and disappointment in respectful manner, just as fans of any other game/franchise found in such a situation should... Whats your point?

Since I didn't noticed CDProjekt has a history of false advertizing of their products, and if they remain open to fans and show features as they go during development, in my opinion, it's reasonably safe to expect they will deliver on most features they promise, but that's just me. YMMV...

My point is mostly hyperbolic, because a lot of people tend to set double standards for games out there.

Take for example your notions of false advertising. The ironic thing is the Witcher failed to deliver its own promises to me, and i'm sure other consumers, that being a mature, dark fantasy RPG where choices matter. 

all of which is subjective language and PR advertising that is supposed to be vague in what it is selling. And yeah, this is also an opinion, but that is the point of advertising, which for games is almost wholly subjective because its purposely trying to be vague. 

Saying one group has no history of false advertising for products and being open to their fans as a reason to trust them more is also being naive. And once again a double standard, since you can argue that the BioWare team did just that numerous times regarding the development of both Dragon Age II and Mass Effect 3. The video streams, updates, features of development, and so forth. Is that not a double standard when it comes to openess to fans regarding the production of a game?  

Your degree of openess is in the eye of the beholder, but glorifying one over the other is being disengenuous when they do the same thing. If you don't like how they do it, thats a different story, but don't make it sound like one is completely under wraps while the other shares every little detail. 

And as a sidebar I am going on record right now saying Witcher 3 will not be that successful if they go down this route, which lets face it, is essentially emulating Skyrim as much as possible while adhering to a fixed narrative, something that doesn't mesh mechanically at times. New Vegas and Borderlands 2 had clashes of this, I would argue that neither of them are "open world" games in the sense that say Skyrim is, but thats another discussion all together. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 février 2013 - 09:24 .