250 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I disagree. I just edited it in to a previous post, but I'll post it again.

Geralt's words:

"Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling...makes no difference. The
degree is arbitrary, the definitions blurred. If I'm to choose between
one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all."

That's
pretty black and white. As black and white as a Paragon Shepard,
actually (sounds a lot like "I won't sacrifice the soul of our
species").

The fact that Geralt expresses a moral absolutist point of view doesn't mean the situation isn't grey for the reason I specified previously.

[Bionuts]

David7204 wrote...

See, here's what I'm thinking.

I'm thinking the reason behind this is probably not what the Witcher explicitly does wrong, but what it fails to do right. I'm thinking the story and characters are somewhat like Omega for ME 3. In that it's a story where things happen and characters exist, but nothing is really brought to the table. Nothing is explicitly wrong, there's simply a lack. Of meaningful themes. 1. Of compelling characters. 2.Of emotional moments.

Which is of course every bit as much bad writing as as making mistakes. Obviously, we can't judge fiction merely on what it does wrong.

That would explain it, would it not? Explain why the Witcher gets continually shilled for all these supposed qualities and yet has failed to garner the kind of attachment BioWare games have?

1.

- You would love Saskia. Not saying that to insult you. She's a gorgeous woman who is charismatic, is a great leader, but with a hot temper, and bit naive in politics. But she's a sort of paragon. A very interesting character.

- Phillipa Eilhart the manipulator, liar, powerful sorceress with her own little illuminati plan (that ultimately failed, but she'll be back).

- Loredo. One of the rarely well done villains in a game. But you only see this part if you go with Roche instead of Iorveth.

Many, many, many more. Radovid, Henselt, Dethmold, Iorveth, Roche, etc.

2.

I've an unhealthy deep-seated hatred against rapists. Yet I spared Henselt's life. The man who raped my character's girlfriend.

The most puzzling moment for me ever in a game. A product of great writing.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

 

AresKeith wrote...
Best Character in the game was Serana

Who, despite all the flak Bethesda gets, I thought her character and non-romance was better written than the vast majority of what BioWare has done as of late. :S

[AresKeith]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I have confidence in DA:I because it's clear that the developers understand that there were very serious faults with the previous games, and they're clearly taking the time to do their best to fix those faults. At the same time, the Dragon Age series obviously has content that is very meaningful and emotional compelling to fans.

Meanwhile, the Witcher series faces no such pressure. There's been no backlash, so whatever the series lacks is very unlikely to be fixed.

And it's a good thing Bioware is trying to improve on pass issues. But just because the Witcher games don't get backlash doesn't mean their fanbase don't give feedback on what the game needs improvement on

And like the topic, there's nothing wrong with Bioware or game.devs in general looking at other games to see what they can improve on. It's a good thing for them to do that

Reposting this

[Volus Warlord]

I'd like to note that I've never played the Witcher. But after watching several reviews and doing some research, it seemed like a huge selling point of the game to no small number of people was the fact that it was rather porny here and there.

And I really don't find that to be that great of a selling point. So I never was motivated to purchase the game.

[Seboist]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

 

AresKeith wrote...
Best Character in the game was Serana

Who, despite all the flak Bethesda gets, I thought her character and non-romance was better written than the vast majority of what BioWare has done as of late. :S

True, Beth is capable of decent to good writing when they actually try. I found the civil war sub-plot to be pretty well done(unlike skyrim's main story) as well.

[Seboist]

Volus Warlord wrote...

I'd like to note that I've never played the Witcher. But after watching several reviews and doing some research, it seemed like a huge selling point of the game to no small number of people was the fact that it was rather porny here and there.

And I really don't find that to be that great of a selling point. So I never was motivated to purchase the game.

Eh? The so called "porny content is a very small part of the game and largely optional.

I can't say I encountered much players who bought it largely for that either(I don't doubt some did).

[Dave of Canada]

Volus Warlord wrote...

And I really don't find that to be that great of a selling point. So I never was motivated to purchase the game.

This is what sold me the game.

[Seboist]

Milan92 wrote...

I also have the urge to play The Witcher games now.

Good (wo)man.

[Chashan]

Seboist wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

I'd like to note that I've never played the Witcher. But after watching several reviews and doing some research, it seemed like a huge selling point of the game to no small number of people was the fact that it was rather porny here and there.

And I really don't find that to be that great of a selling point. So I never was motivated to purchase the game.

Eh? The so called "porny content is a very small part of the game and largely optional.

I can't say I encountered much players who bought it largely for that either(I don't doubt some did).

Gerry ending up with Triss in bed at the beginning of TW2 isn't and has me grumbling somewhat, though. Could have been ways around that.

In that sense, I find TW1 largely less suggestive than its sequel, to be had. Since the 'act' isn't shown explicitly, you know.

[Dutchess]

Volus Warlord wrote...

I'd like to note that I've never played the Witcher. But after watching several reviews and doing some research, it seemed like a huge selling point of the game to no small number of people was the fact that it was rather porny here and there.

And I really don't find that to be that great of a selling point. So I never was motivated to purchase the game.

Unless you spend all your coin on the prostitutes, you won't get to see much "porny" stuff. You wake up with your naked lover lying next to you at the start of the game. Every other sexual encounter is optional. And quite rare, actually (not counting the prostitutes). If this is your reason not to play the games, you're missing out. Witcher 1 is another matter, but if the idea of sex cards is not appealing to you, you are completely able to avoid them and never see them in the game.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I never presented this as an informed opinion. Merely an educated guess. But I don't think I'm wrong.

"I don't think I'm wrong"

"But I have absolutely no clue about what happens in either game so I'm going to assume that they just suck since they aren't as popular as Mass Effect"

Modifié par Steelcan, 05 octobre 2013 - 06:23 .

[Seboist]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Gerry ending up with Triss in bed at the beginning of TW2 isn't and has me grumbling somewhat, though.

Why is that even an issue?

From my understanding, you could play the first game without being with Triss at the end, so TW2 establishing Geralt with her is essentially a retcon for players who played otherwise.

Not being a PC player though, I haven't actually gotten to play TW1, so I don't know for sure.

That would be true.

[slimgrin]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Gerry ending up with Triss in bed at the beginning of TW2 isn't and has me grumbling somewhat, though.

Why is that even an issue?

From my understanding, you could play the first game without being with Triss at the end, so TW2 establishing Geralt with her is essentially a retcon for players who played otherwise.

Not being a PC player though, I haven't actually gotten to play TW1, so I don't know for sure.

It's a fair crticism. You can friendzone Triss in TW1, but at the start of TW2 you're in bed with her. But then you can really friendzone her later on in the game. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 05 octobre 2013 - 06:32 .

[Dave of Canada]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Gerry ending up with Triss in bed at the beginning of TW2 isn't and has me grumbling somewhat, though.

Why is that even an issue?

From my understanding, you could play the first game without being with Triss at the end, so TW2 establishing Geralt with her is essentially a retcon for players who played otherwise.

Not being a PC player though, I haven't actually gotten to play TW1, so I don't know for sure.

You have the choice between Shani and Triss but wake up next to Triss in TW2. They added a codex entry with the Enhanced Edition that basically describes how Shani and Geralt's lifestyles were incompatible (something which was hinted in TW1) and they decided to break it off.

Would've pissed me off more but Triss was well-integrated into the plot and you weren't necessarily forced to care for her.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 05 octobre 2013 - 06:29 .

[Dutchess]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Gerry ending up with Triss in bed at the beginning of TW2 isn't and has me grumbling somewhat, though.

Why is that even an issue?

From my understanding, you could play the first game without being with Triss at the end, so TW2 establishing Geralt with her is essentially a retcon for players who played otherwise.

Not being a PC player though, I haven't actually gotten to play TW1, so I don't know for sure.

In TW1 you basically get to choose between two main love interests: Triss, or Shani. Shani doesn't appear in TW2, and even if Geralt was in a relationship with her, he ends up in bed with Triss in the beginning of the second game. 


Edit: ninja'ed by the Canadian.

Modifié par renjility, 05 octobre 2013 - 06:29 .

[Chashan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Chashan wrote...

Gerry ending up with Triss in bed at the beginning of TW2 isn't and has me grumbling somewhat, though.

Why is that even an issue?

From my understanding, you could play the first game without being with Triss at the end, so TW2 establishing Geralt with her is essentially a retcon for players who played otherwise.

Not being a PC player though, I haven't actually gotten to play TW1, so I don't know for sure.

Exactly.

Establishing that he and Shani go their separate ways is one thing. Setting him up with Triss without any say in the matter quite another.

Course no huge issue as afterwards one can just remain 'friends' with her, and even prioritise other things than her rescue in act 3.

[Silfren]

David7204 wrote...

I never presented this as an informed opinion. Merely an educated guess. But I don't think I'm wrong.

Considering the way your phrase your statements, you haven't been presenting it as anything but what you believe to be a foregone conclusion.  You don't have any business offering an opinion on whatever the Witcher's strengths or weaknesses may be without having played it yourself.