82 réponses à ce sujet

[Splinter Cell 108]

FireAndBlood wrote...
I remember character biographies but I don't remember entries that described countries, important battles or other historical events.

The UI interface was a complete mess.

Don't know why you need to be told about the countries. In TW1 I can agree that most Northern countries did not get the spotlight, that is except for Temeria. However, you can't go around anywhere in the Witcher without hearing about Brenna or the war with Nilfgaard, so I disagree, if you want to get informed about it you can and you don't need a codex to tell you about it either. 

In TW2 you couldn't go around anywhere without hearing about everyone's poltical schemes and almost anyone who was important in the North was mentioned. The Pontar Valley, Kaedwen, Aedirn, Temeria, Redania, King Radovid, King Henselt, Phillipa Eilhart, Emhyr var Emreis, you name it, it was all there. This sounds like nitpicking to me, just for the sake of proving BW games have something that TW doesn't. Games don't need a codex to read into the lore. Skyrim doesn't have one either, is it somehow inferior, lorewise to Dragon Age or something? Besides, in both Witcher games there are plenty of books you can find or buy to find out about the lore. 

Modifié par Splinter Cell 108, 12 février 2014 - 12:59 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Because its one of the few CRPGs that changes things according to player choice?

Really I mean that fact right there is pretty awesome.

[Addai]

Also recall that in The Witcher you're expected to read the books available in the world, both for background and quest info. Though I agree that the UI in TW2 was a mess. Consolization strikes.

[felipejiraya]

I like TW1 much more than TW2.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I liked TW1, though not as much as some. A few specific points:

(1) Isn't the "run around and talk to people" aspect of the non-combat quests fairly common in RPGs? Fallout 3 and New Vegas certainly have their share of that - sometimes you have to go explore a new location or look for an object, but otherwise it's fairly similar. Mass Effect does it in a lot of the Citadel sidequests in ME1 and ME3, though the cinematics in the ME games are better.

(2) The *pacing* in TW1 can certainly be uneven at times. Some of the "chapters" are more fast-paced and urgent, while others are slower and feel like they're more of a diversion from the main quest. The whole situation with the wedding in the small town, for example, felt out of place. On the other hand, I liked getting to see more of everyday society in the Witcher universe instead of dealing solely with the Salamandra people and those most directly involved with them.

(3) I agree about the tedium of some of the fetch quests. The worst was near the beginning where I went to see Abigail about making a potion and she told me to go get five plants and come back, all of which were sitting somewhere nearby in otherwise unremarkable locations. So what's the point of making me do that?

(4) I do think TW1 and TW2 both do an excellent job of creating a complex and believable society with realistic, intelligently scripted conflicts. Sometimes the "sword and sorcery" genre doesn't do much for me, and I imagine that part of the reason is that it can feel a little too removed from real people and real issues when it revolves around the High Lord of Something-or-Other searching for the Lost Relic of Something-or-Other to defeat the Ancient Evil from Somewhere-or-Other. The Witcher games avoid that and instead revolve around conflicts borne out of greed, ambition, prejudice, and other foibles we recognize from real life.

(5) The "Geralt the womanizer" schtick from TW1 was thoroughly annoying and offensive. I never knew when simply being nice or helpful to an unattached female would lead to contrived flirtation, and while I was able to avoid the card-collecting crap, it still made me roll my eyes when it popped up. The worst was when Geralt suddenly eyes Toruviel suggestively when they're planning an upcoming battle and she understandably replies, "You're thinking about *sex* right now?" Unfortunately the game didn't give me an option for "uh, no, I'm not, actually." Fortunately there's a lot less of this in TW2.

[Splinter Cell 108]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

I liked TW1, though not as much as some. A few specific points:

(2) The *pacing* in TW1 can certainly be uneven at times. Some of the "chapters" are more fast-paced and urgent, while others are slower and feel like they're more of a diversion from the main quest. The whole situation with the wedding in the small town, for example, felt out of place. On the other hand, I liked getting to see more of everyday society in the Witcher universe instead of dealing solely with the Salamandra people and those most directly involved with them.

I have to disagree with this point. I thought it was one of the best things in TW1. Not many developers try to do this, at first I was apprehensive about because I felt was dragged away from the main event but eventually I didn't care. Murky Waters is one of the best places in the game, mainly because it is so different, its not like that terrible village in the first chapter, its actually a more peaceful place and it is about the only place where Geralt isn't shnned because of being a Witcher as well as the probably the only place where humans are helping elves. It was so different from everything else in the game and I think it is central for Geralt and the plot. 

I liked how the inevitability of events played out in here, Geralt went far away to a place removed from Salamandra, the problems with the Order and the Scoia'Tael but no matter where he goes those conflicts always seem to find him. No matter what Geralt does, or where he goes the conflict simply doesn't go away. I really liked the conclusion of Murky Waters. 

[Kurremurre]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

I liked TW1, though not as much as some. A few specific points:

(1) Isn't the "run around and talk to people" aspect of the non-combat quests fairly common in RPGs? Fallout 3 and New Vegas certainly have their share of that - sometimes you have to go explore a new location or look for an object, but otherwise it's fairly similar. Mass Effect does it in a lot of the Citadel sidequests in ME1 and ME3, though the cinematics in the ME games are better.

I thought about that, too, after writing my rant. I'm not a fan of it. Although I did feel like, where other games might have it in spades, The Witcher had it in spades of spades.

(3) I agree about the tedium of some of the fetch quests. The worst was near the beginning where I went to see Abigail about making a potion and she told me to go get five plants and come back, all of which were sitting somewhere nearby in otherwise unremarkable locations. So what's the point of making me do that?

I felt this way about quite a lot of quests - you're given the role of errand boy! Although I must disagree - the absolutely WORST was the quest where the Lady of the Lake wanted one of three items from the two conflicting parties in Chapter 4.

[Addai]

In what game are you not errand boy/girl??

About pacing: They took some risks here, and I admit that there were points in my first playthrough where I got bogged down. One of these was the village in chapter 1, a bit in Murky Waters, and another was the ice fields. I was ready for the game to end and, what is this? The thing is, the ice fields is brilliant. It's the kind of thing that feels gimmicky when you're playing it but all put together, it elevates the game. That to me sets apart a good game from a great game- that in replaying it, and thinking about it, you gain more appreciation for it rather than less. There is more under the hood than is obvious. Other games, the opposite happens- when the fridge logic sets in, the game gets worse. Bioshock Infinite is a recent example. DA2 certainly. I probably could think of others. Both Witcher games, however, stand up to deeper scrutiny.

[slimgrin]

TW1 has hybrid point and click/twitch combat. However, much of the combat is calculated by the game in the same manner a turn based system would do it. Which means it's a lot more stat heavy than TW2, and in some ways quite a bit deeper, especially if you want to explore alchemy or try out the FCR mod. In the end, I prefer action RPG's because I like the clicketyclickety.

As to the OP: sa'll opinions man. You managed to touch on almost none of the game's actual flaws, and listed many of the reasons it became popular. TW1 was doing something right if it scored only a couple points below TW2 on metacritic.

Modifié par slimgrin, 13 février 2014 - 04:31 .

[addiction21]

There is a lot of good to them. They might not be my cup of tea but I understand why others can like them.

I am more sick of the delusional fans. Sorry but both Witcher games are far more button mashing twitch gameplay then DA2. That both games have realeased in far buggier and broken states then any BIoWare game I can remember that they rival Bethesda or obsidian but of course after some patches and mass player testing they bundle the patches together throw in some free shiny baubles and everyone fawns over it.

CDPR does good work. They are not the underdog little competitor people want to believe them to be but I am looking forward to Cyberpunk maybe that will convert me.

[Splinter Cell 108]

addiction21 wrote...

There is a lot of good to them. They might not be my cup of tea but I understand why others can like them.

I am more sick of the delusional fans. Sorry but both Witcher games are far more button mashing twitch gameplay then DA2. That both games have realeased in far buggier and broken states then any BIoWare game I can remember that they rival Bethesda or obsidian but of course after some patches and mass player testing they bundle the patches together throw in some free shiny baubles and everyone fawns over it.

CDPR does good work. They are not the underdog little competitor people want to believe them to be but I am looking forward to Cyberpunk maybe that will convert me.

Then people start wondering why TW fans start bashing BioWare games,. you really shouldn't have gone there. I'm not going to bother with what was said about DA2, I don't care and quite frankly I don't think I've even played the game enough to find out what issues it has, they've probably been stated over a million times anyway. 

[Addai]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I was very clear to point out that not all do it, because I saw your comments and I don't consider you one who does that. However, we BOTH know there are people here whose only input on Bioware is to bash them, and whose only (at least outside of the TW3 thread) input on TW is to praise it.

Fandom wars are just boring so I'm just not even going to respond further. The better course is to ignore that and not be part of the problem.

RPG mechanics? Twitch gaming is RPG mechanics?

Yes, RPGs aren't just about combat.

As far as C & C goes, the only one that i think qualifies is TW2 ( or ME3, extending from the whole series), and those aren't on that list. The rest of those games didn't have much of significance. There were big consequences occasionally, but they didn't actually affect the game.

Sure they did. Lots. Of course there is some railroading, just as in TW2, but there was plenty of reactivity in those games.

I disagree wholeheartedly with it being like turn combat, given that it is in fact twitch. It isn't even real time with pause, it's just twitch.

Well I'm sorry, you're just wrong. Also there is a pause function in TW1, moreso than in TW2. They are moving further into action combat, sad to say.

slimgrin wrote...

You managed to touch on almost none of the game's actual flaws, and listed many of the reasons it became popular.

I know. It's hilarious.

Modifié par Addai67, 13 février 2014 - 04:36 .

[Blooddrunk1004]

addiction21 wrote...

Sorry but both Witcher games are far more button mashing twitch gameplay then DA2. That both games have realeased in far buggier and broken states then any BIoWare game I can remember that they rival Bethesda or obsidian but of course after some patches and mass player testing they bundle the patches together throw in some free shiny baubles and everyone fawns over it.

Funny... very funny. Play both games outside of easy-normal difficulty and we will see how much will "button mashing" help you. Witcher 2 was not bugged on the release date, the main problem W2 had on release date was that it was DRM locked (which was removed few days after it) and a lot of people complained about lack of tutorial, which was also later added.

Also i enjoyed free DLC content in W2 more than with DLC for DA2 or ME3, that requires you to pay for it.

Modifié par Blooddrunk1004, 13 février 2014 - 08:14 .

[Dutchess]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I can't agree Of course this thread isn't about those games, so i'll just say that most of the significant consequences in those games were shafted towards sequels. Things like the Council dying, the king of Ferelden, who you sided with in TW. You got the choice, but the consequence was delayed until the next game.

 I'm sorry, but: what? How has the one you chose as Ferelden's ruler had a significant consequence in the sequel? "Swooping is bad." Really? TW1's import into TW2 wasn't really more significant than that either, but within TW1 itself some choices made quite a big difference on the way later quests played out. The most significant example may be what you do with Abigail in Chapter I, which comes back to you in Chapter IV (although I kind of disagree with the moral judgment they placed on that choice that way. Abigail wasn't exactly "innocent blood"). Also the big neutrality/Scoia'tael/Order choice had a lot of effect on how you were treated by those two parties, what your friends thought of your actions, and with what aim you battle throug Old Vizima (defending fleeing refugees, nurses who need to get to the hospital, or... slaughter more Scoia'tael than Rayla <_<). 

[Il Divo]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Sorry but both Witcher games are far more button mashing twitch gameplay then DA2. That both games have realeased in far buggier and broken states then any BIoWare game I can remember that they rival Bethesda or obsidian but of course after some patches and mass player testing they bundle the patches together throw in some free shiny baubles and everyone fawns over it.

Funny... very funny. Play both games outside of easy-normal difficulty and we will see how much will "button mashing" help you. Witcher 2 was not bugged on the release date, the main problem W2 had on release date was that it was DRM locked (which was removed few days after it) and a lot of people complained about lack of tutorial, which was also later added.

Also i enjoyed free DLC content in W2 more than with DLC for DA2 or ME3, that requires you to pay for it.

Could be wrong here, but wasn't The Witcher 2's dlc released in response to criticisms of short length/lower quality in the game's third act?

[Kurremurre]

slimgrin wrote...

As to the OP: sa'll opinions man. You managed to touch on almost none of the game's actual flaws, and listed many of the reasons it became popular. TW1 was doing something right if it scored only a couple points below TW2 on metacritic.

I am quite aware that opinion abounds in my post; I don't see how it could possibly be otherwise. However, you must not have read it properly if you consider ALL of it opinion. Now, if there are other, "actual" flaws that I missed, that doesn't exactly make me think more highly of the game.

If the game became popular because of deadpan voice acting, a highly limited number of mostly inhuman character models, unnatural writing, quests without substance and various other elements designed specifically for frustration (i.e. Shani's host and pointless obstacles), then I don't know what to tell ya. I'm more convinced it became popular because of breasts.

As a sidenote, I don't consider the story to be much credit to the game, even if it is as good as people seem to think. Considering the story was taken from an already existing book, the game adds absolutely nothing to our culture with its story; if I wanted to take part of just the story, I might as well read the book. It's like if I were to make a horrible animation based on Heart of Darkness, and claimed that it's good because, well, it's Heart of Darkness!

[Heimdall]

In all honesty, I picked up the game, got to that first town in Chapter 1, and never got any further. The entire plot at that point was so utterly tangential to the Salamandra issue and just dragged on and on... I lost interest.  Liked 2 though.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 13 février 2014 - 12:13 .

[Heimdall]

Kurremurre wrote...

As a sidenote, I don't consider the story to be much credit to the game, even if it is as good as people seem to think. Considering the story was taken from an already existing book, the game adds absolutely nothing to our culture with its story; if I wanted to take part of just the story, I might as well read the book. It's like if I were to make a horrible animation based on Heart of Darkness, and claimed that it's good because, well, it's Heart of Darkness!

I largely agree with your criticisms, but actually the Witcher game story is a sequel to the book story.

[Kurremurre]

Lord Aesir wrote...

I largely agree with your criticisms, but actually the Witcher game story is a sequel to the book story.

Ah, I see. That makes it a different matter, then.

[TheChris92]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Kurremurre wrote...

As a sidenote, I don't consider the story to be much credit to the game, even if it is as good as people seem to think. Considering the story was taken from an already existing book, the game adds absolutely nothing to our culture with its story; if I wanted to take part of just the story, I might as well read the book. It's like if I were to make a horrible animation based on Heart of Darkness, and claimed that it's good because, well, it's Heart of Darkness!

I largely agree with your criticisms, but actually the Witcher game story is a sequel to the book story.

Got a source for that? I've never, ever, heard anybody who's played the games mention it was a sequel. Just that the games are based on them, but the story is its own thing.