196 réponses à ce sujet

[Maiden Crowe]

Gwydden wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

But I agree with you, I mean I do prefer a game where I can create my own character however I still need to acknowledge that the Witcher 2 is objectively far superior to both Origins and DA2 combined.

There is no such thing as objectively superior. Any judgement passed on a work of art is, by its very nature, subjective.

So what you are saying is that Peter Chimaera's (the author of Doom: Repercussions of Evil) works are objectively just as great as the work of Shakespeare? I mean sure there is a certain epicness about Peter Chimaera but surely you cant honestly be telling me that Peter Chimaera was every bit as talented an author as Shakespeare was can you?

[agonis]

Gwydden wrote...

There is no such thing as objectively superior. Any judgement passed on a work of art is, by its very nature, subjective.

^ This.

Now back to topic. I think they did a pretty good job with characters. Not only the companions but many others as well.

[Gwydden]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

But I agree with you, I mean I do prefer a game where I can create my own character however I still need to acknowledge that the Witcher 2 is objectively far superior to both Origins and DA2 combined.

There is no such thing as objectively superior. Any judgement passed on a work of art is, by its very nature, subjective.

So what you are saying is that Peter Chimaera's (the author of Doom: Repercussions of Evil) works are objectively just as great as the work of Shakespeare? I mean sure there is a certain epicness about Peter Chimaera but surely you cant honestly be telling me that Peter Chimaera was every bit as talented an author as Shakespeare was can you?

Again, don't bring objectiveness into this. Any judgement based on quality is going to be based on the critic's own likings and ideas, simply because they can't be fundamented in nothing else. Take any artistic product of any type (a book, a movie, a painting). I assure you, you will always be able to find people who claim is the best thing ever and people who think is utter, worthless crap. So yeah, probably in more than one person's eyes, Peter Chimaera eats Shakespeare for breakfast every morning.

Modifié par Gwydden, 22 septembre 2013 - 08:28 .

[Bleachrude]

I don't think Witcher 2 is "objectively superior" but I'm coming from it as someone who picked up Game of Thrones from the 1st book (I still think of Martin as "the wildcards author") so for me, I simply saw the Witcher as "oh, game of thrones..but with no tyrion or anyone actually likeable"

[agonis]

Oh, come on people, wrong forum.

[Gwydden]

MasterScribe wrote...
Geralt, Dandelion, Triss, Saskia, Iorveth? You hated them? 

I don't know him, but in my case at least, I didn't find them interesting enough to be hated.

MasterScribe wrote...
Also, The Witcher's first media was released in 1992 while ASOIAF's first media was released in 1996.

I had understood the Witcher games didn't follow the books very closely?

[Gwydden]

agonis wrote...

Oh, come on people, wrong forum.

Yeah, you're right. Though the OP did bring the comparison to the table.

I've already answered the question in the title, actually. I like DA because it's got great characters, interesting lore and the main plots could probably be refined a bit (too cliched in Origins, too inconsistent in DA2), but they're good enough. Sideplots, on the other hand, or even the Awakening expansion and both games' DLC, really stand out.

[Maiden Crowe]

MasterScribe wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

I don't think Witcher 2 is "objectively superior" but I'm coming from it as someone who picked up Game of Thrones from the 1st book (I still think of Martin as "the wildcards author") so for me, I simply saw the Witcher as "oh, game of thrones..but with no tyrion or anyone actually likeable"

Geralt, Dandelion, Triss, Saskia, Iorveth? You hated them? 

Also, The Witcher's first media was released in 1992 while ASOIAF's first media was released in 1996.

Personally I thought the most memorable characters in the Witcher 2 were the antagonists, sure they weren't exactly likeable but they weren't meant to be and they played their roles well, they were well written and believable characters in their own right and weren't mere caricatures like the characters you find in the Dragon Age series. Their actions were consistent with their personalities and motivations which really made for a compelling tale.

But one thing I loved about the companions in the Witcher 2 was they were their own characters, they didn't just do what Geralt told them to and had their own motivations and goals, it was more a relationship of mutual benefit rather than a clear hierarchy like where the warden is the leader and everyone just does as they are told, it really made the characters come alive.

I am sure that those who appreciate the lolcats quality humour of the Dragon Age series might find the characters in the Witcher series a tad boring because none of them have a cookie fetish but then I don't find inconsequential details about a character that were thrown in for a cheap laugh interesting, for me it is how their flaws and strengths all come together to form a complete character with their own motivations and goals and how they go about achieving these goals in a manner that is believable and consistent with their character.

[Bleachrude]

MasterScribe wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

I don't think Witcher 2 is "objectively superior" but I'm coming from it as someone who picked up Game of Thrones from the 1st book (I still think of Martin as "the wildcards author") so for me, I simply saw the Witcher as "oh, game of thrones..but with no tyrion or anyone actually likeable"

Geralt, Dandelion, Triss, Saskia, Iorveth? You hated them? 

Also, The Witcher's first media was released in 1992 while ASOIAF's first media was released in 1996.

Didn't say I hated them...but all of them are people I wouldn't want to associate with in real life. Tyrion is actually a likeable person but the others, I think are alll "out or themselves".

The witcher books came out in poland in 1992...I don't think they were translated though to english until after martin's books had started to appear...

[Gwydden]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

I don't think Witcher 2 is "objectively superior" but I'm coming from it as someone who picked up Game of Thrones from the 1st book (I still think of Martin as "the wildcards author") so for me, I simply saw the Witcher as "oh, game of thrones..but with no tyrion or anyone actually likeable"

Geralt, Dandelion, Triss, Saskia, Iorveth? You hated them? 

Also, The Witcher's first media was released in 1992 while ASOIAF's first media was released in 1996.

Personally I thought the most memorable characters in the Witcher 2 were the antagonists, sure they weren't exactly likeable but they weren't meant to be and they played their roles well, they were well written and believable characters in their own right and weren't mere caricatures like the characters you find in the Dragon Age series. Their actions were consistent with their personalities and motivations which really made for a compelling tale.

But one thing I loved about the companions in the Witcher 2 was they were their own characters, they didn't just do what Geralt told them to and had their own motivations and goals, it was more a relationship of mutual benefit rather than a clear hierarchy like where the warden is the leader and everyone just does as they are told, it really made the characters come alive.

I am sure that those who appreciate the lolcats quality humour of the Dragon Age series might find the characters in the Witcher series a tad boring because none of them have a cookie fetish but then I don't find inconsequential details about a character that were thrown in for a cheap laugh interesting, for me it is how their flaws and strengths all come together to form a complete character with their own motivations and goals and how they go about achieving these goals in a manner that is believable and consistent with their character.

And yet again, you're assuming that people who doesn't like the same things youd do like different things because of childish, cheap reasons. I really want to like you. Why are you making it so hard xD?

Modifié par Gwydden, 23 septembre 2013 - 12:24 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

There is no such thing as objectively superior. Any judgement passed on a work of art is, by its very nature, subjective.

So what you are saying is that Peter Chimaera's (the author of Doom: Repercussions of Evil) works are objectively just as great as the work of Shakespeare? I mean sure there is a certain epicness about Peter Chimaera but surely you cant honestly be telling me that Peter Chimaera was every bit as talented an author as Shakespeare was can you?

To say two pieces of work is equal is still a judgement, so you haven't invalidated Gwydden's statement yet.

There really is nothing at all objective about any piece of art. If someone finds that video there to be superior, or equal to, Shakespeare's works, that might say more about that person's tastes than anything else, but it's still no one else's business. You can say that you think that person's tastes are deplorable, and several people might agree with you, but it's still your opinion.

Modifié par Thomas Andresen, 23 septembre 2013 - 12:34 .

[Xilizhra]

I refuse to play any RPG that doesn't allow me to play as whom I want to play as. I highly doubt I'll ever play Witcher, or patronize its company until they drop set characters and sexualities.

[Maiden Crowe]

Gwydden wrote...

And yet again, you're assuming that people who doesn't like the same things youd do like different things because of childish, cheap reasons. I really want to like you. Why are you making it so hard xD?

I was merely stating why I like the Witcher 2 characters better than the Dragon Age characters, as for why people like the Dragon Age characters I cant claim to know this however considering how much everyone brings up Sten and his love of cookies I could only assume that it was because they like childish humour.

If you would like to deny this claim then by all means tells us why you like the Dragon Age characters so much?

[Gwydden]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

I was merely stating why I like the Witcher 2 characters better than the Dragon Age characters, as for why people like the Dragon Age characters I cant claim to know this however considering how much everyone brings up Sten and his love of cookies I could only assume that it was because they like childish humour.

If you would like to deny this claim then by all means tells us why you like the Dragon Age characters so much?

I don't really question why I like things, I just do. But since you asked, I'll give it my best shot: simply put, I prefer stories about exceptional people. Not exceptional as in their skills, or origins, or anything, but as in their lives and personalities. DA characters certainly qualify.

[Star fury]

I'm not that impressed with DA mages, Fade and demonic possession. All this magic stuff looks awfully like Warhammer40k Warp, psykers and eh demonic possession. Psykers are always a threat and thus they're brutally oppressed in Imperium.

[Plaintiff]

Maiden Crowe wrote...

Gwydden wrote...

Maiden Crowe wrote...

But I agree with you, I mean I do prefer a game where I can create my own character however I still need to acknowledge that the Witcher 2 is objectively far superior to both Origins and DA2 combined.

There is no such thing as objectively superior. Any judgement passed on a work of art is, by its very nature, subjective.

So what you are saying is that Peter Chimaera's (the author of Doom: Repercussions of Evil) works are objectively just as great as the work of Shakespeare? I mean sure there is a certain epicness about Peter Chimaera but surely you cant honestly be telling me that Peter Chimaera was every bit as talented an author as Shakespeare was can you?

Shakespeare ain't no great shakes, to be perfectly honest. When he was alive, he was regarded as a producer of popular fiction, not as a great literary genius.

Once you strip away the archaic language, his plots are exposed as being extremely silly, and he re-uses so many of the same tropes in his plays that it's ridiculous. The reason Shakespeare is so famous in literary circles is because of how much of his work survived. That's a testament to his popularity and productivity, but it's not an indicator of quality.

There's nothing 'objective' at all in the judgement of art, it's all based entirely on personal taste.

[AresKeith]

Xilizhra wrote...

I refuse to play any RPG that doesn't allow me to play as whom I want to play as. I highly doubt I'll ever play Witcher, or patronize its company until they drop set characters and sexualities.

>implying every RPG will follow the same formula

[Ziggeh]

[quote]Arcane Warrior Mage
Hawke wrote...

The exception with DA is there's a decent rpg video game associated with it.[/quote]

Skyrim[/quote]

Interesting comparison that,and one that highlights what I think is the strength, possibly even uniqueness of both.

The Elder Scrolls is built around choice and Dragon Age is built around decisions. The lore of both are created around these principles.

TES lore is built around options. Multiple cultures means multiple races, multiple factions, multiple gods means multiple quest lines. Every aspect is all about creating choices, options, race, class, content. It is intentionally an open sandbox around which the main plot hangs.

Each area of DA lore is built around a key or set of conflicts, many of which are intractable. This gives the writers the framework for both plot and the key decisions Bioware are known for. We will not resolve the Templar/Mage dilemma; we’ll simply alter it in one way or another. The conflict is necessary for the fiction.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 23 septembre 2013 - 11:48 .

[sylvanaerie]

What makes Dragon Age (or any Bioware game) stand out for me is the complexity of the NPC's and companions you meet. From the villains to your favorite companion, each stands out in a special way that makes them memorable.

Flemeth, the abomination mother, like Kali, one who nurtures as well as eats her own young; Loghain, who still stirs up arguments 4 years later, and polarizes the fanbase; Howe, sort of a cookie cutter villain but voiced by Tim Curry he reaches new levels of slimeball. Isolde, who I want to kick in the head for being so stupid still evokes some sympathy from me as a mother trying desperately to protect/save her child. Companions who both infuriate me, and yet I love as well---this, with the exception of Varric (whom I just flat out love) is every single companion in both games.

Even small parts, like Teagan *squee* and Sgt Kylon *the most practical soldier in Denerim*, or Ser Bryant in Lothering (so doomed and hopeless but standing steadfast in his determination to protect the innocent) stand out.  These characters rise above the mundane and celebrate the best and brightest in humanity.

Yea, for me, its Bioware's superlative writing staff and the people they populate Thedas with. Aside from Varric and Aveline, DA2 made much less of an impact with me, but it still had a few stand out characters. Cullen being one (IMO).

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 23 septembre 2013 - 12:03 .

[Maiden Crowe]

sylvanaerie wrote...

What makes Dragon Age (or any Bioware game) stand out for me is the complexity of the NPC's and companions you meet. From the villains to your favorite companion, each stands out in a special way that makes them memorable.

Flemeth, the abomination mother, like Kali, one who nurtures as well as eats her own young; Loghain, who still stirs up arguments 4 years later, and polarizes the fanbase.

Polarises the fanbase over what exactly? Whether or not his intentions are noble or whether or not he was well written? Usually I find whenever the subject of Loghain gets brought up you get one side trying to argue that he was a misguided patriot only trying to do what he thinks is best for his country and the other side trying to argue that Loghain was a poorly written mess who constantly contradicts what the writers want us to believe about the character for no real reason other than to paint himself as the biggest douche in the kingdom

I have no doubt that the writers would like us to believe that Loghain was the misguided patriot however to believe that we need to pretty much forget all of the horrible stuff he did that served no real purpose other than to paint himself as the moustache twirling villain, contradiction does not equal complexity nor does it make for good writing.

In fact I am going to say I never really found the characters in the Dragon Age series to be all that complex really, sure they all have really loud personalities that the writers try to show off by having them chime into conversations without doing anything really meaningful but none of them really seem to evolve much past the base caricatures they are painted as.