387 réponses à ce sujet

[IC-07]

why cant we have TW3 hairs and female bodies Look at trish and now look at sera

A nekker looks better than Sera.

[Vegeta93]

Both look good but witcher looks better. but i will play both.

[Allan Schumacher]

No. CDPR is showing great art design and graphics belong in any genre. It's even more important in an RPG where immersion is critical. FPS are all about gameplay, they honestly don't need fancy graphics. 

 

I disagree.  First, concepts of immersion still exist for any game, not just RPGs.  If there's a game genre that I consider should place higher importance on graphics, it's not RPGs.  It could be my legacy of playing RPGs that often didn't have the best graphics.

 

Immersion is a nebulous concept though.  Graphics has little overall impact on my immersion I find.  I can still go back and play an Infinity Engine game and find myself immersed in the game even today.

 

That's not to say I don't enjoy nice graphics.  It's just less of a concern for me compared to a lot of other aspects.  Different strokes for different folks I find.

[SwobyJ]

I don't think it matters. As someone else said, great graphics don't mean a great game. And besides, as a female I will never play The Witcher series, because I can't play as a female character. I like being able to make and customize my own characters. And that means being able to choose their gender.

 

Wait. Does this mean you avoid *all* games with a male protagonist?

 

I say this as someone who also gets a bit stunned when I see people say they'll never play a female protagonist ever, mind you.

 

 

Not even if W3 was on sale for $10?

[slimgrin]

I disagree.  First, concepts of immersion still exist for any game, not just RPGs.  If there's a game genre that I consider should place higher importance on graphics, it's not RPGs.  It could be my legacy of playing RPGs that often didn't have the best graphics.

 

Immersion is a nebulous concept though.  Graphics has little overall impact on my immersion I find.  I can still go back and play an Infinity Engine game and find myself immersed in the game even today.

 

That's not to say I don't enjoy nice graphics.  It's just less of a concern for me compared to a lot of other aspects.  Different strokes for different folks I find.

I would argue RPGs rely more on setting, writing and atmosphere than any other genre. A shooter doesn't emphasize my role like an RPG does. They benefit from immersion, they don't thrive on it. Immersion is a vague term, but I don't know a better one. When a game nails the visuals, art design, voice acting, weather effects, sound design etc. That's sensory immersion.

[aTigerslunch]

More variety in story aspects, more personal in DA than Witcher, which is revolving around one man, this means more resources to graphics cause not much is needed in character building. I love how both games look but prefer character building in BW games myself. Nature did however look more pleasant in Witcher titles. There isn't as many choices to deviate around though is why they can make graphics more central. Not like Geralt could been an elf or dwarf choice instead or been Geraldine instead. Less options character wise allows more landscaping and such I believe.

 

I could be wrong but seems less time consuming when dealing with a single character model than multiple. I'm curious to how Witcher would been if could altered appearance/hair/gender/race.

 

Edit: I agree with Allan.

[SwobyJ]

Well, I'm going to offer my opinion...

 

Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is a more clearly 'next-gen' game. It'll better fit the newer consoles, and better show off the capabilities of PC. The character models also look better than Inquisition. The environment effects too.

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition is more clearly a 'cross-gen' game. While it doesn't make huge sacrifices for 360/PS3, it also appears implicit in its game and art design so far. At the same time, I find it more appealing aesthetically. In fact, this bigger mix of 'gritty' and 'fantastical' was exactly what I was looking for in Dragon Age, and it is one of the biggest positives I see in the game.

 

Witcher is a tad too dirty and, well, solitary. I honestly do not care to play Geralt, and do not care to explore his world. I play it for a fun RPG experience, but not a fun *RP* experience.

 

So yeah, at some point I'll get Wild Hunt and enjoy it on max settings, show it off to others...

 

And then play my Inquisition game that I got earlier. Same happened with Witcher 2. Haha.

 

I'm not a fan of 'high fantasy' (with its more hardset 'rules' about what is really 'fantasy'), but when I play fantasy, I still want fantasy. I can barely tolerate watching Game of Thrones for its lack of magic and supernatural lore, focusing sooo much on power plays. (even though I enjoy it for what it is, for sure)

Sure, Witcher has that stuff, but it also lacks that levity that makes fantasy so.. fun sometimes!

 

It is reflected in the visual aesthetics. Sure, Dragon Age could lose a few ridiculous belt buckles (seriously guys, don't go JRPG on us, god), but it still all looks better to me than what I'll likely see in all but the main characters of Witcher.

 

Anyway, that's what I think. Witcher 3 looks better objectively, with a greater emphasis on realism, while Inquisition stands its ground subjectively, with more customization options, a better balance of realism than ever before, yet retains a 'fantastical' feel and scale when appropriate.

[Deflagratio]

I like how Dragon Age: Inquisition looks over The Witcher III, II or I. But I also like how Enemy Starfighter looks more than Star Citizen, so translate that tidbit as you will. Photorealism is overrated.

[SwobyJ]

When it comes to comparing graphics, I agree with those who view whatever 'ME4' or a hypothetical 'DA4' would have to offer, to be more relevant. DA:I is, in some ways, more about the furthest that Bioware can push the 360 and PS3.

 

Which is good for me because it makes me quite sure that my existing PC components can handle it on High

[Dutchess]

Overall DA3 certainly does not look bad, but - as a few others have already stated - the art style and overall aesthetics do not look that pleasing to me. Very bright, saturated and some kind of plastic look to most things. That, and DA still has several ugly and/or poorly done aspects that make me go "ewww" and definitely break immersion for me. The bad hair is the most notable example, but - to a lesser extent - the overly shiny faces (only Cole doesn't seem to be suffering from this) and the stupidly skinny arms of a character like the female Qunari. I've seen some posts here mention the companions and/or character customization in DA would be a reason that Witcher has more resources and time to devote on environments. I think that's silly reasoning and am not buying it, but even if you would accept this it makes the low quality aspects in companions' appearance even more glaring. If they would really be a priority over environments, shouldn't they look more, or at least just as, impressive as Witcher character models? Instead we have Dorian's drawn on twirly mustache, Cole's hair, Vivienne's face rubbed in grease... oh, and Solas' leggings, though hopefully he has lost those by now.

[SwobyJ]

The shiny action figure-looking faces and hair are the big problems. Spell effects look awesome. Terrain is acceptable. Landscapes look great imo. Animations, at least pretty good (might end up great).

 

Amazingly, everyone looks like they have dead eyes. Weird for a RPG trying to go into next-gen. If I have to see Vivienne's blank look again..

[slimgrin]

 If I have to see Vivienne's blank look again..

 

Her lips are next gen.

[dielveio]

Witcher 3 might look better than DAI? Yes and I don't care.

Witcher 2 bored me to death because it had no party members, just you, Geralt and the trees to speak during the journey in the woods.

[spirosz]

The both look admirable.  Should it really matter? 

[KaiserShep]

As one who still plays the brown haze that is DA:O, I couldn't really care less. In the end, all that will really sell me is how well the game is written and how much I enjoy the characters. I probably won't be playing TW3 for some time yet since I intend to squeeze as much life out of my PS3 as possible, but I'll need my RPG fix in the future.

[aTigerslunch]

Editing to erase, no sense as others already mentioned things to be said

[TKavatar]

One thing I like about the Witcher series is that it maintains a coherent art style, unlike the DA series. 

[spirosz]

One thing I like about the Witcher series is that it maintains a coherent art style, unlike the DA series. 

 

To be fair, you can argue the "cutscenes" in TW2 are different and less appealing from TW1, for that whole "maintaining" aspect and I blame the change of art style to the development time Bioware had for Dragon Age 2, but alas, I agree.  

[Dutchess]

To be fair, you can argue the "cutscenes" in TW2 are different and less appealing from TW1, for that whole "maintaining" aspect and I blame the change of art style to the development time Bioware had for Dragon Age 2, but alas, I agree.  

 

They're doing it again with DA3, though. They have shown screenshots of Redcliffe and a demo took place there. If they hadn't mentioned it was Redcliffe nobody would ever have guessed it. Whereas with TW3 people were immediately able to recognize Vizima's throne room in the trailer, a location we visited in the first game. I don't see the point in revisiting old areas if they will be unrecognizable in the new game anyway.

[spirosz]

They're doing it again with DA3, though. They have shown screenshots of Redcliffe and a demo took place there. If they hand't mentioned it was Redcliffe nobody would ever have guessed it. Whereas with TW3 people were immediately able to recognize Vizima's throne room in the trailer, a location we visited in the first game. I don't see the point in revisiting old areas if they will be unrecognizable in the new game anyway.

 

Well, I'm not too familiar with Bioware's development, but did they change their engine for DA:I, not that is an excuse, but it's a viable reason to their view on developing their art style for the game.  

 

And the issue of visiting an old area, it has changed over the years, no?  

[teenparty]

One thing I like about the Witcher series is that it maintains a coherent art style, unlike the DA series. 

Between 2 and 3, but not between 1 and 2.

[TKavatar]

 

Well, I'm not too familiar with Bioware's development, but did they change their engine for DA:I, not that is an excuse, but it's a viable reason to their view on developing their art style for the game.  

 

And the issue of visiting an old area, it has changed over the years, no?  

 

This was Redcliffe castle in DAO

 

 

This is Redcliffe castle in DAI

 

 

I find it hard to believe they would level and rebuild an entire castle from the ground up, even in 10 years.

[thebatmanreborn]

I don't care. I am getting both games and will enjoy both equally. 

[spirosz]

I find it hard to believe they would level and rebuild an entire castle from the ground up, even in 10 years.

 

Who knows, mind not you - I'm not arguing about right/wrong in this case.  As I just don't personally see the big deal in relation to OP's post.  

 

If Redcliffe ends up feeling more atmospheric to the game in DA:I, then it won't be a big deal to me.