164 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

xNYROx wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

xNYROx wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

These threads always seem like flamebait to me, but sure, I'll play ball.

Graphics: TW2
Sound (music, voice acting, etc.): ME3
Choices and consequences: TW2
Gameplay: ME3
Plot: TW2 by a large margin
Overall: TW2

Doesn't TW2 use redengine with havoc physics?

Yep. RED Engine 3 will have DX11, Physyx and other new features.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that Morrowind laid the groundwork that TW built on. If anything, Bioware's early games were more of an influence on CDPR. 

Which Bioware early works? Baldur's gate? lol. Not much in the RPG world that came earlier then morrowind from Bioware.

Yes. they've listed it as influence for both Witcher and Cyberpunk 2077. It was the first game their company localised so they probably know it inside out. PnP games are also a big thing with them. TW has very little in common with TES, not sure where you're getting this.

[xNYROx]

slimgrin wrote...

xNYROx wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

xNYROx wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

These threads always seem like flamebait to me, but sure, I'll play ball.

Graphics: TW2
Sound (music, voice acting, etc.): ME3
Choices and consequences: TW2
Gameplay: ME3
Plot: TW2 by a large margin
Overall: TW2

Doesn't TW2 use redengine with havoc physics?

Yep. RED Engine 3 will have DX11, Physyx and other new features.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that Morrowind laid the groundwork that TW built on. If anything, Bioware's early games were more of an influence on CDPR. 

Which Bioware early works? Baldur's gate? lol. Not much in the RPG world that came earlier then morrowind from Bioware.

Yes. they've listed it as influence for both Witcher and Cyberpunk 2077. It was the first game their company localised so they probably know it inside out. PnP games are also a big thing with them. TW has very little in common with TES, not sure where you're getting this.

What? Now you are just being blind. TeS has way more in common with TW2 then Baldur's gate. The only things TW2 and Baldur's gate have in common is hack n slash and RPG that is ALL.
TeS has alot of similarities politically to TW2 and even several of the TW fans here have said so only stating that TW2's politics are much more in depth then TeS. You are the first one I have seen say they have little in common.

Should we list all the similarities again? Or are you willing to go back and read them all.

EDIT: Google or bing whichever you prefer "Games similar to the witcher 2" you will be surprised how many times a TeS game shows up. To me the biggest difference is the combat style. The witcher series has way better combat then TeS.

Modifié par xNYROx, 20 juillet 2013 - 07:47 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If they were to have given a convoluted choice in ME3 you would have had a choice to remain with Cerberus (if and only if you gave TIM the base) OR return to the Alliance (if you did Arrival) OR return as an independent Council Spectre (if and only if you did not do Arrival, and if you saved the original Council). This would have resembled TW2 more politically. I think people would have eaten it up. We had a large group on the boards who were pro-Cerberus, and I think there were people who would have tried the pro-Cerberus faction run. I would have at some point. Or even a neutral Council path.

The Illusive Man gets written not as the guy who goes nuts in the final chapter but who is working toward a goal, and is not keeping you in the dark about it. You'll attack Grissom to get the students for the Phantom program. You might take Kai Lame's place on certain missions, like the Coup, except you're successful. And Thessia. You learn more about the Citadel because TIM wants to know its inner workings, unlike the pansies who live there and doesn't care what he has to do to find out what it does. It's end justifies the means. This path would be very bleak indeed. It would lead to Control.

The last two are more similar, except in the Council version you could be reporting to a Turian Admiral, and would have a less Earth-focused agenda. The Cerberus crew is replaced, new paint job, you'll keep Sgt. Gardiner -- he just took the job for a paycheck and they gave him a dextro cook book, and Ken and Gabby, Joker, and Dr. Chakwas. The rest of the crew is Turian and Asari. Your XO is Turian.

The pro-Alliance would be like what we got.

Could it have been done? Yes, if they did not include the multi-player mechanic and had more dev time.

I've played TW2. I always liked the faction backdrop in TES, but TW series actually does something with it. It's like looking at a bowl of spaghetti. You're going through the story and the next thing you know you're doing something for someone else. I was doing these things for Roche, and I ended up with this stuff for Loredo, and saw the elf ruins around Flotsam, and ran into Iorveth. Then found out what he wanted to do. Then found out what Loredo was up to, and made my choice. Roche and hunting his kingslayer could go to hell. There were non-humans lives at stake, and I found the humans pretty disgusting.

But even here there were branches. Do I rescue Triss, or go after Philippa? Then later to I rescue Triss or Saskia?

Have I replayed it? No. Why? It was like reading a good book. The details are embedded. I can recall scenes at will. I will probably never replay it. Why? Because my story went with Iorveth's path, and I rescued Saskia and let Letho go free. Replaying it to explore the other path would change the story. If I did replay it, I would probably choose a similar path. I missed all of the sex except in the elf ruins. 9/10.

TW2's combat system? It was a pain in the ass. The inventory system? It was a pain in the ass, but what RPG's inventory system isn't.

[The Heretic of Time]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The Witcher universe is both bigger and deeper than the Mass Effect universe. The Witcher has 2 games, 7 novels, a comic and a TV series. All of them are pretty deep and well-written (aside from the TV series, most Witcher fans try to forget about the existence of that abomination).

I don't consider tie-ins, or even source material. If we were going to do that, both have plenty of non-game paraphernalia that have no bearing on the games. We're talking about the games, here. The ME games do a better job of having a universe that feels like an actual universe.

That's not very fair, because the Mass Effect universe was build specifically for the video-games, and Mass Effect relies mostly on the video-games to expand and fleshen-out the univere, where as in The Witcher, that started as a novel series, they obviously rely more on the novels to expand and fleshen-out the universe.

The novels of The Witcher are not tie-ins or source-material. They are an important part of the series.

I'ts like trying to compare the Mass Effect universe to the Lord of The Rings universe only based on the video-games. It's just ridiculously unfair.

It is also unfair because Mass Effect has 3 games right now, while The Witcher only has 2 games. So Mass Effect has more quantity in that regard.


Still, even if we would indeed only compare the video-games (which I find highly unfair), I don't think Mass Effect does a better job at making it feel like an actual universe. While Mass Effect might have more quantity, it does not have higher quality. 


Let's take a look at the politics for example:

The Witcher does a good job at showing us a world where politics actually matter in a realistic way. The world of The Witcher is deep and complex, with a lot of factions that play a ambigious role both from a political standpoint as well as a moral standpoint.

The politics in Mass Effect are a f***ing joke. The politicians in Mass Effect are fake two-dimensional cardboard-cutouts with the depth of a paper bag. The factions in Mass Effect are nearly non-existent and cliché with all the members of said faction acting in a predictable way. Not to mention that there pretty much is no morally grey in Mass Effect, it's all as black-and-white as can be. The only (political) faction in Mass Effect that had some potential (Cerberus) got turned into a complete joke in ME3, with The Illusive Man going from a morally ambigious and interesting figure to ANOTHER two-dimensional cardboard-cutout moustache-twirling baddy.



TL;DR:

LOL @ the suggestion that Masss Effect has more depth than The Witcher. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 juillet 2013 - 10:07 .

[Il Divo]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


Let's take a look at the politics for example:

The Witcher does a good job at showing us a world where politics actually matter in a realistic way. The world of The Witcher is deep and complex, with a lot of factions that play a ambigious role both from a political standpoint as well as a moral standpoint.

TL;DR:

LOL @ the suggestion that Masss Effect has more depth than The Witcher. 

You do realize that you did not, in fact, provide any examples?

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 juillet 2013 - 10:12 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Il Divo wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


Let's take a look at the politics for example:

The Witcher does a good job at showing us a world where politics actually matter in a realistic way. The world of The Witcher is deep and complex, with a lot of factions that play a ambigious role both from a political standpoint as well as a moral standpoint.

TL;DR:

LOL @ the suggestion that Masss Effect has more depth than The Witcher. 

You do realize that you did not, in fact, provide any examples?

Except I DID post examples from Mass Effect's incompetence at providing us with a realistic and deep universe.

As for The Witcher, there is no need for me to provide examples, other people have already done this several times in this thread. If you want to know more about the depth of the Witcher politics, simply read the other replies in this thread.

And look at this awesome flow-chart that someone else already posted here ealier. It's amazing and really gives a good oversight of the complexity of The Witcher politics.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 juillet 2013 - 10:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Il Divo wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


Let's take a look at the politics for example:

The Witcher does a good job at showing us a world where politics actually matter in a realistic way. The world of The Witcher is deep and complex, with a lot of factions that play a ambigious role both from a political standpoint as well as a moral standpoint.

TL;DR:

LOL @ the suggestion that Masss Effect has more depth than The Witcher. 

You do realize that you did not, in fact, provide any examples?

I'd gladly oblige. 

[IntoTheDarkness]

It's actually mind-boggling for anyone who have played both ME3 and TW2 series to say that ME3 has a deeper story or better plots, which I can only assume as the case of their disappointment of TW2 acting as prejudice against otherwise excellent story.

From the utilization of DEM, inconsistent lore, out-of-character behavior, numerous plot holes to childish DLC stories, ME3 is a game that is a few levels below the storytelling quality of TW2.

Harbinger and the reapers wouldn't have sat idle and attacked buildings with lasers if they were cast in TW2. Instead, as all TW2 characters do, they would have acted intelligently and utilized resources and means available to them to full potential, and the Leviathans would also have actively engaged themselves in the war to undermine the reapers instead of waiting like a doll until the main character calls on them.

This would have meant the reapers attacking the citadel on day 1, actively tracking down the Leviathans, sabotaging human research facilities, assassinating or sniping Shepard, using seeker swarms to quickly overwhelm defenses, using orbital bombardment to nullify the organic gorund force, and causing internal conflict within the organic societies. It's what most TW2 characters do(within their cunning and imagination); do the best course of action to serve their interest and not just wait for the protagonist to initiate their involvement button.

TW2 is really amazing because they give this hidden agenda to every faction and those factions actively work for it even outside of your character's involvement. ME3, on the other hand, can't even do this on the main antagonist faction. They are just there for the protagonist to shoot and punch.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 20 juillet 2013 - 11:29 .

[xNYROx]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The Witcher universe is both bigger and deeper than the Mass Effect universe. The Witcher has 2 games, 7 novels, a comic and a TV series. All of them are pretty deep and well-written (aside from the TV series, most Witcher fans try to forget about the existence of that abomination).

I don't consider tie-ins, or even source material. If we were going to do that, both have plenty of non-game paraphernalia that have no bearing on the games. We're talking about the games, here. The ME games do a better job of having a universe that feels like an actual universe.

That's not very fair, because the Mass Effect universe was build specifically for the video-games, and Mass Effect relies mostly on the video-games to expand and fleshen-out the univere, where as in The Witcher, that started as a novel series, they obviously rely more on the novels to expand and fleshen-out the universe.

The novels of The Witcher are not tie-ins or source-material. They are an important part of the series.

I'ts like trying to compare the Mass Effect universe to the Lord of The Rings universe only based on the video-games. It's just ridiculously unfair.

It is also unfair because Mass Effect has 3 games right now, while The Witcher only has 2 games. So Mass Effect has more quantity in that regard.


Still, even if we would indeed only compare the video-games (which I find highly unfair), I don't think Mass Effect does a better job at making it feel like an actual universe. While Mass Effect might have more quantity, it does not have higher quality. 


Let's take a look at the politics for example:

The Witcher does a good job at showing us a world where politics actually matter in a realistic way. The world of The Witcher is deep and complex, with a lot of factions that play a ambigious role both from a political standpoint as well as a moral standpoint.

The politics in Mass Effect are a f***ing joke. The politicians in Mass Effect are fake two-dimensional cardboard-cutouts with the depth of a paper bag. The factions in Mass Effect are nearly non-existent and cliché with all the members of said faction acting in a predictable way. Not to mention that there pretty much is no morally grey in Mass Effect, it's all as black-and-white as can be. The only (political) faction in Mass Effect that had some potential (Cerberus) got turned into a complete joke in ME3, with The Illusive Man going from a morally ambigious and interesting figure to ANOTHER two-dimensional cardboard-cutout moustache-twirling baddy.



TL;DR:

LOL @ the suggestion that Masss Effect has more depth than The Witcher. 

If we are talking about fair though...it is also unfair the other way since The Witcher was a book series and had tons of merchandise wel before the game came out. Especially in europe

[Il Divo]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


Let's take a look at the politics for example:

The Witcher does a good job at showing us a world where politics actually matter in a realistic way. The world of The Witcher is deep and complex, with a lot of factions that play a ambigious role both from a political standpoint as well as a moral standpoint.

TL;DR:

LOL @ the suggestion that Masss Effect has more depth than The Witcher. 

You do realize that you did not, in fact, provide any examples?

I'd gladly oblige. 

Now that's what I'm talking about. Thank ya' kindly.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EntropicAngel wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Untrue. There are about 14 factions in the game, both major (8) and minor (6), that have a hug role in the plot, whether it's in the Act itself  and / or the general geo-politics of the game. 

And it goes beyond that, because there is thematic pertinence behind this web of struggles. It's not simply just people fighting for their interests. 

Well, let's see here. I played the game two weeks ago, I should remember some of these names...

Sorceresses
Foltest's country
The elves (Iorveth) and Saskia
The king in act 2, the rapist--his country
The Witchers

I'll just save time and relink these. 

And yes, all 14 have an important part of the plot and political developments and / or an important part to one of the 3 acts (and not just relegated to a codex). Mentionning all the polities in the Witcher universe would lead us to a couple of dozens but I did not count them due to them not being in the game.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 juillet 2013 - 12:25 .

[slimgrin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It's quite fair. Video games are a different medium than books or movies or comics. They can supplement, but if they're necessary to understand the video game universe, you're doing it wrong.

You list the politics as better. I already admitted that. But I feel the ME universe is more alive than The Witcher ever was. The Witcher, either of them, feel very small. ME has far better scale, has a better sense of a world.

That's rather ambiguous but I wont deny ME has benefited from excellent world building, primarily due to the first game. After playing both Witcher games though, I feel the world is firmly established, despite a distinct jump from TW1 to TW2. They are very different games. I'm hoping TW3 brings things back again to the personal story, the rich atmosphere of TW1. If only ME3 had done the same...

Modifié par slimgrin, 21 juillet 2013 - 12:34 .

[Mr.House]

EntropicAngel wrote...

How exactly do you separate the kingslayers from the Nilfgaardians (which, admittedly, I failed to mention)? They're acting under the same direction, they are only kingslayers BECAUSE they are acting for Nilfgaard. They are the same faction.

And I will say I'm dubious of the splitting of the Scoia'Tael and Saskia--but I have yet to play that side so I can't say for certain if Saskia is really the only character in that so-called faction "The Free Pontar."

But, alright. Seven. That's a decent amount. I neglected Redania and Nilfgaard (and added the Witchers).

So you have not played both sides yet are trying to argue the factions?

Seems legit.

Modifié par Mr.House, 21 juillet 2013 - 12:39 .

[Mr.House]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Do you have any arguments to make, rather than throwing stones?

You are trying to argue something when you don't have the full picture. Kingslayers and Nilfgaard are their own factions as both still have their own motives and other plots in the work that the other faction is not doing or know of(some of which is only showen on Iorveths side) same with Saskia.

Modifié par Mr.House, 21 juillet 2013 - 12:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

EntropicAngel wrote...

How exactly do you separate the kingslayers from the Nilfgaardians (which, admittedly, I failed to mention)? They're acting under the same direction, they are only kingslayers BECAUSE they are acting for Nilfgaard. They are the same faction.

A. you only find that out at the very end
B. Letho had a huge amount of leeway in his mission. 
C. They are doing it for their own interests and not out of loyalty to Nilfgaard. 

And I will say I'm dubious of the splitting of the Scoia'Tael and Saskia--but I have yet to play that side so I can't say for certain if Saskia is really the only character in that so-called faction "The Free Pontar."

Saskia and Iorveth are allied, but they are not the same. In fact Saskia calls Iorveth a terrorist, and everyone else in Vergen are very skeptical of the Scoia'Tael including the dwarves. Furthermore, the Scoia'Tael were acting independently in the prologue and Act 1, and only truly ally with Saskia in Act 2.
Saskia is not the only character in the Free Pontar faction, Skellig is as well and Zoltan even in act 2 (he hates the Scoia'Tael on the other hand).

 And you've neglected Loredo who is the main guy of Act 1. He is a minor faction but plays a crucial geo-strategic role. Aedirn with Prince Stennis, but since you didn't play Iorveth's path of course you'd neglect it. You've also forgotten the Conclave mages represented by Carduin Lan Exeter, which Iorveth's path expands on as well as the epilogue (I consider it a minor yet crucial faction)...etc 


 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 juillet 2013 - 12:50 .

[slimgrin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

How exactly do you separate the kingslayers from the Nilfgaardians (which, admittedly, I failed to mention)? They're acting under the same direction, they are only kingslayers BECAUSE they are acting for Nilfgaard. They are the same faction.

And I will say I'm dubious of the splitting of the Scoia'Tael and Saskia--but I have yet to play that side so I can't say for certain if Saskia is really the only character in that so-called faction "The Free Pontar."

But, alright. Seven. That's a decent amount. I neglected Redania and Nilfgaard (and added the Witchers).

Letho may be nothing more than a tool for Nilfgaard. He has his own personal goals regarding the viper school, Nilfgaard wants to invade the north and annex entire kingdoms. Not the same thing. It was a mutually exclusive arrangment. But temporary.The same can be said for Letho working with Iorveth, and look how that turned out.

Modifié par slimgrin, 21 juillet 2013 - 12:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

EntropicAngel wrote...
Loredo may play a "crucial strategic role," but the game doesn't give him an overwhelming amount of attention. My initial comment, which you replied to, wasn't talking about factions that are merely in the game, but that the game focuses on and draws into importance.

He's the main guy of Act 1, of course the game put attenton on him and also bothered to explore his mother. Indeed, the epilogue slide even talk about Flotsam and show what happens if Loredo lives or dies.

He is a minor facton, in the sense that he is confined to one act and his role in the larger scheme of things is small, but he is still a faction the game focuses on.  

And it's not just about numbers. One can have 50 factions, but if the dynamic between them is done poorly or simplistically, then it's not an adequate portrayal of politics. Sure DA:O has Bhelen, Harrowmont, Templars, mages...etc, but the dynamic between them is bipolar. It's only two factions at a time, and they never interact with any other. Choosing mages or Templars is utterly irrelevent to the Orzammar situation. No one seems to care I have werewolves in my army...etc etc. Same with Mass effect, most factions do not interact with each other. 

Whereas factions in TW2, all factions are in one way or the other interconnected, with double and triple alliances, manipulatons, convergence of interests...etc etc. That is far more realistic than isolating every faction in fights of 2.   

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 juillet 2013 - 01:02 .