370 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I open this up to you folks: what do you think Dragon Age could learn (that would benefit it) from The Witcher?

Forcing a feminist guy into roleplaying a womanizer character is a very bad idea. Dragon Age should learn to stay put with character creation and Pre-defined characters is not an option.

Other than that, Multi-divergent non-linear plot.  

[Allan Schumacher]

Endings that are wildly divergent depending on choice like in the above-mentioned Fallout games do offer a lot of divergence in the events that happen... it just so happens that they happen after the game is over.

Fair. In retrospect my original position was stated under the assumption of within the game (prior to the end), and that may not have remained clear.

Epilogue divergence is much easier to do, and has been done a lot. I'm less interested in that (simply because I have seen it done and know what it provides), and it's not something that I think is necessarily applicable to the discussion of what Dragon Age could learn from The Witcher.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 février 2013 - 05:26 .

[duckley]

The Witcher and The Witcher 2 were both great games IMO. I loved the story and the characters of Geralt and Triss. Having said that, I dont think DA has to borrow anything from The Witcher. Both games stand on there own.

[Allan Schumacher]

Deleted some posts just to keep some of the off topic discussion straight. I basically made the cutoff of my previous post as the place to draw the line (in case anyone is curious).  Feel free to continue the discussion via personal messages.

Just want to keep the thread a bit clean and allow people to discuss the pros and cons of the respective content in each game.

Thanks.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 février 2013 - 05:29 .

[upsettingshorts]

[removed]

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 février 2013 - 05:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

duckley wrote...

The Witcher and The Witcher 2 were both great games IMO. I loved the story and the characters of Geralt and Triss. Having said that, I dont think DA has to borrow anything from The Witcher. Both games stand on there own.

This is a good point.  Simply because the games are different doesn't mean that they need to start borrowing parts from one another.

Having said that, there's certainly advantages in assessing our own games, as well as the others in the market space.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Xilizhra wrote...

This is going to be painful, rest assured.

Personally, I'd rather say what CDProjkect could learn from Dragon Age, such as "let us make our own characters" and "there are perspectives that exist aside from the straight male one."

In all honesty while I do prefer a game that allows me to create my own character I do realise that some games not only benefit more from a pre-defined character but sometimes require it depending on the tone of the game and the story the developer is trying to tell, it is not fair to say that one approach is better than the other as depending on the game different approaches are needed.

As for the straight male perspective Geralt is a straight male so I have no idea why the Witcher series should offer a perspective other than that? not to mention the straight male perspective only really comes in to play when deciding who to mate with (which is explored by the game only really giving you romance options with characters that a straight male would realistically mate with) and the Witcher 2 has so much more going for it than mere sex scenes. While I know the romance options are probably the main event for most of you in the Dragon Age series (which i guess is probably why most of you cant see the great game behind the sex scenes in the Witcher 2) the Witcher series is about so much more.

While I guess different perspectives are explored in the brief scenes where you do get to control characters other than Geralt I doubt you will get to see an insight into their sexual preferences as these scenes are about things OTHER than sex (except for the scene with Dandelion and the Succubus).

Windninja47 wrote...

I haven't played the Witcher so I can't really comment. The only thing I really do know about it is that it has no character creator and also has nudity. I personally would prefer if the DA series kept the CC and lack of nudity.

Why does nudity have to be such an issue that it must be avoided at all costs? I get that you dont want nudity just for the sake of giving the player something to ogle but I dont think that nudity should be shied away from even where nudity is neccessary or could even be used for greater effect. In fact given how much focus the Dragon Age series gives to romance options and love interests I find it mind boggling that they felt the need to shy away from nudity to the point that they had sex scenes with both characters still wearing their underpants.

Scarlet Rabbi wrote...

Absolutely nothing.

Dragon Age is far superior to either Witcher game.

In the same sense that Big Rigs is superior to Gran Turismo?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Forcing a feminist guy into roleplaying a womanizer character is a very bad idea.

Unfortunately not all games are going to appeal to all audiences. Trying to attact a wider audience may be better for your profit margin but it doesnt neccessarily make for a better game.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

krul2k wrote...

never played it is it any good? just got skyrim an am enjoying that though it feels HUGE an sort of lonely lol

You will probably find the Witcher 1 dissapointing but the Witcher 2 would have to be the best RPG I have played in years.

[Fredward]

Eh. I didn't reeeaaaalllllllyyyy like the Witcher. The plot was okay(ish) barely. But the characters were paper thin, the combat was repetitive, the dialogue was dull (didn't help that Geralt repeated everything I clicked on verbatim), don't EVEN get me started with the objectification, almost no customization etc, etc, etc. Some of the quests were pretty good though. And the choices were nice, why isn't THAT in the OP?

As for the OP, a different start? Eh, sure why not. NPC's walking randomly? Okay I suppose. And I'm with yah on maps, though Bioware got better at this with DA2's expansions IMO.

[Allan Schumacher]

As for the straight male perspective Geralt is a straight male so I have no idea why the Witcher series should offer a perspective other than that?

I think it's difficult to fully understand if you happen to be a heterosexual male.


I think the only way to really do so is to try imagining The Witcher as a game where Geralt is a homosexual, and there are cards that can be acquired through Geralt's various homosexual encounters, or with the the second one adding in the nudity and a more explicit depiction of Geralt's sexual nature.

I agree with the notion that CDProjekt is free to create any game they wish (excusing the fact that Geralt comes from a set of books and isn't an original character in the game), but just as well I can imagine that some may have found it more enjoyable if they had that level of freedom in their in game relationships.

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If it's put in the middle, you can get mutually exclusive endgame content. The downside to this is that the game itself will probably be shorter than it could have been, since any given playthrough will objectively miss out on the path not taken. But there is much more value in replays than there would have been otherwise. Problematically, however, most gamers only play a game once. So this is a risk. But it has obvious merits.
 

I don't think the risk there is as significant as people have thought. While a lot of players won't play more than once, a lot don't finish at all. The latter group would be better served, or at least not hurt, by shorter games.

I'm also not convinced that length is a great metric anyway. An awful lot of my gameplay hours in TW1, which I'm replaying now, involve running around maps I already know and fighting off waves of monsters I have handled before. That damn swamp comes to mind, mostly because pathing there isn't obvious and I keep running into the edge of the walkmesh.

[upsettingshorts]

It's not really up to me to determine if the risk is worth it, but I don't think it's controversial to say that it exists. I'm not entirely enamored by the metric of game length either.  But lots of people seem to be.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 février 2013 - 06:23 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think the risk there is as significant as people have thought. While a lot of players won't play more than once, a lot don't finish at all. The latter group would be better served, or at least not hurt, by shorter games.

This is where my interest in the topic comes as well. I actually want to discuss it with some of those in design that might have better insights (it's just a hypothesis for me at the moment, mostly fueled by my own interests as a gamer).

I'm also not convinced that length is a great metric anyway. An awful lot of my gameplay hours in TW1, which I'm replaying now, involve running around maps I already know and fighting off waves of monsters I have handled before. That damn swamp comes to mind, mostly because pathing there isn't obvious and I keep running into the edge of the walkmesh.

I agree that length is overstated. 60 hours of amazingly awesome content is usually better than 40 hours of amazingly awesome content, but Portal is better than 60 hours of poor content.

By the same account, I understand some appreciate length because gaming is as much a time sink, and for the purchase they are hoping to remain occupied for some duration of time.

[AlanC9]

As for things I'd like to see from TW, how about failure? TW lets the player screw up missions more often than Bio games typically do. Failure doesn't necessarily have to even have consequences - there's not much of a downside to botching Vizima Confidential, but it still hurts to be fooled.

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not really up to me to determine if the risk is worth it, but I don't think it's controversial to say that it exists. I'm not entirely enamored by the metric of game length either.  But lots of people seem to be.

 I might have spent too much time on the ME3 boards, but I get the impression that when someone says a game is too short it's actually a proxy for saying that the game didn't have enough "X," where X = hub worlds, NPC interactions, sidequests, cutscenes, or some other specific element that the poster wanted more of.

Also, the amount of X desired seems to have little relation to how much X is present. It seems to be determined by whether cues led the poster to expect more X than he actually got. But this is getting a bit OT.

[LinksOcarina]

Jayne126 wrote...

The Choice and Consequence department.

And TW doesn't need to include "other" perspectives. It's about Geralt, who isn't "your" Character.

Oh yeah, and a Barber.

Well, Geralt is just like Shepard, or Hawke or Lee Everett in many ways where he is a hybrid character that you control, but only insomuch as the narrative. The plot is fixed, some aspects of the character are fixed, but we can shape the narrative in a number of ways through that.

Thats the dichtomoy that people I feel never really look into because there is a distinction between the two, between the plot and the narrative and ergo the choices and consequences. 

For example, you think the Witcher 2 is full of choices and consequences? Truth be told its mostly railroaded to specific choices (Roache or Iorveth, anything with Triss) that essentially designed to be major plot points for you to follow. True, choosing them changes aspects of the narrative, but the overall plot in the end is, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same.

Shepard and Hawke had this too. Their objectives were always set in stone, the tone of those objectives are changed though. Siding with mages or templars is unchangable, but thats part of the plot, you need to side with one. Who you side with, however, is part of the narrative. Same with how you deal with Anders, or Fenryiel, or your companions, or the Arishock.  Who, what, and how you resolve those changes, even if its a plot-fixed event.

That is kind of the point in the end of the choices and consequences, its illusionary in its design by design, because its following a fixed plot like Final Fantasy, with more choice in it. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 02 février 2013 - 06:53 .

[Emzamination]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Jayne126 wrote...

The Choice and Consequence department.

And TW doesn't need to include "other" perspectives. It's about Geralt, who isn't "your" Character.

Oh yeah, and a Barber.

Well, Geralt is just like Shepard, or Hawke or Lee Everett in many ways where he is a hybrid character that you control, but only insomuch as the narrative. The plot is fixed, some aspects of the character are fixed, but we can shape the narrative in a number of ways through that.

Thats the dichtomoy that people I feel never really look into because there is a distinction between the two, between the plot and the narrative and ergo the choices and consequences. 

For example, you think the Witcher 2 is full of choices and consequences? Truth be told its mostly railroaded to specific choices (Roache or Iorveth, anything with Triss) that essentially designed to be major plot points for you to follow. True, choosing them changes aspects of the narrative, but the overall plot in the end is, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same.

Shepard and Hawke had this too. Their objectives were always set in stone, the tone of those objectives are changed though. Siding with mages or templars is unchangable, but thats part of the plot, you need to side with one. Who you side with, however, is part of the narrative. Same with how you deal with Anders, or Fenryiel, or your companions, or the Arishock.  Who, what, and how you resolve those changes, even if its a plot-fixed event.

That is kind of the point in the end of the choices and consequences, its illusionary in its design by design, because its following a fixed plot like Final Fantasy, with more choice in it. 

^ Beautiful

[Bfler]

Jayne126 wrote...

The Choice and Consequence department.

And TW doesn't need to include "other" perspectives. It's about Geralt, who isn't "your" Character.

Oh yeah, and a Barber.

And about his true love Yennefer. And maybe future games will have also Ciri as PC. Then the guys here have their prefered bisexual (hardened woman) as char.

The important thing in Witcher is, that I can play a different game based on my decisions, like e.q the different act two in TW 2. In Bioware games I can in most cases only see the outcome, like e.q. different armies as support in DAO or different war assets in ME3.
And the more eastern european medieval style in Witcher 1 is also a welcome change to the generic western fantasy world.

Modifié par Bfler, 02 février 2013 - 07:29 .

[FodoSatoru]

Well, I wouldn't say that the Witcher is "eastern European" (Poland is exactly in the center of Europe). You still have your standard dwarves, elves and humans, monsters to slay, dungeons to crawl in, etc. Maybe you get "Eastern feeling" because more rural areas are present. To the point:

1. I think that Dragon Age franchise can adapt more "mature" approach to their fanbase (I personally don't like to be treated like some barely teenage boy who can't handle nudity or vulgar language without affecting his upbringing critically).
2. Playing the Witcher I had the feeling that it is like real world with some fantasy elements thrown in. In DA franchise it feels more Tolkien-esque (not excessively so, but definitely more). And I suspect it is because of stylistic choices and "euphemistic" approach to the audience. I mean - we know there is rape, murder, piles of bodies burnt by uncontrolled mages and abominations, process of becoming a broodmother, etc. but it really isn't shown, vaguely hinted only most of the time. This is one of reasons why people sympathise with mages so. They haven't seen piles of bodies created by rogue, possessed "robes".
3. Some sane, realistically motivated antagonist would be nice (like Leto from TW2). I'm not really a fan of corrupted dragons as leaders of hordes of orcs as a "big bad". I appreciate that in DA2 there is no villain that wants to take over the world, but rather separate groups of interest in conflict. Less cliche, more realistic. It adds the feeling that no matter what we do, some situations are going to blow in our faces, because people are what they are; also, despite that we are in a fantasy world it has some basic similarities with reality (I mean, fantasy elements are only a setting, not the focus). I would like that trend in DA2 to continue.
4. In the Witcher we don't have so many ancient orders of problem solving. In DAO we had the Grey Wardens and now we hvae something called the Inquisition. Some people claim that "set-in-stone" protaginst like Geralt is limiting, but you can shape that "stone" as you like, by your decisions. As a member of ancient-problem-solving-club" you feel obligated to solve at least that particular problem, probably heroically. Maybe it's just me, but as a part of some elite organization I feel less free than when I have a protaginst with no customization of appearence. Appearence and name are just cosmetic qualities.

Modifié par FodoSatoru, 02 février 2013 - 11:57 .

[slimgrin]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Jayne126 wrote...

The Choice and Consequence department.

And TW doesn't need to include "other" perspectives. It's about Geralt, who isn't "your" Character.

Oh yeah, and a Barber.

Well, Geralt is just like Shepard, or Hawke or Lee Everett in many ways where he is a hybrid character that you control, but only insomuch as the narrative. The plot is fixed, some aspects of the character are fixed, but we can shape the narrative in a number of ways through that.

Thats the dichtomoy that people I feel never really look into because there is a distinction between the two, between the plot and the narrative and ergo the choices and consequences. 

For example, you think the Witcher 2 is full of choices and consequences? Truth be told its mostly railroaded to specific choices (Roache or Iorveth, anything with Triss) that essentially designed to be major plot points for you to follow. True, choosing them changes aspects of the narrative, but the overall plot in the end is, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same.

Shepard and Hawke had this too. Their objectives were always set in stone, the tone of those objectives are changed though. Siding with mages or templars is unchangable, but thats part of the plot, you need to side with one. Who you side with, however, is part of the narrative. Same with how you deal with Anders, or Fenryiel, or your companions, or the Arishock.  Who, what, and how you resolve those changes, even if its a plot-fixed event.

That is kind of the point in the end of the choices and consequences, its illusionary in its design by design, because its following a fixed plot like Final Fantasy, with more choice in it. 

This is complete nonsense. You are getting Bioware's games as wrong as you are CDPR's.

Modifié par slimgrin, 02 février 2013 - 08:54 .

[Rawgrim]

slimgrin wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Jayne126 wrote...

The Choice and Consequence department.

And TW doesn't need to include "other" perspectives. It's about Geralt, who isn't "your" Character.

Oh yeah, and a Barber.

Well, Geralt is just like Shepard, or Hawke or Lee Everett in many ways where he is a hybrid character that you control, but only insomuch as the narrative. The plot is fixed, some aspects of the character are fixed, but we can shape the narrative in a number of ways through that.

Thats the dichtomoy that people I feel never really look into because there is a distinction between the two, between the plot and the narrative and ergo the choices and consequences. 

For example, you think the Witcher 2 is full of choices and consequences? Truth be told its mostly railroaded to specific choices (Roache or Iorveth, anything with Triss) that essentially designed to be major plot points for you to follow. True, choosing them changes aspects of the narrative, but the overall plot in the end is, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same.

Shepard and Hawke had this too. Their objectives were always set in stone, the tone of those objectives are changed though. Siding with mages or templars is unchangable, but thats part of the plot, you need to side with one. Who you side with, however, is part of the narrative. Same with how you deal with Anders, or Fenryiel, or your companions, or the Arishock.  Who, what, and how you resolve those changes, even if its a plot-fixed event.

That is kind of the point in the end of the choices and consequences, its illusionary in its design by design, because its following a fixed plot like Final Fantasy, with more choice in it. 

This is complete nonsense. You are getting Bioware's games as wrong as you are CDPR's.

i have to agree.