I tried Witcher 2 and really wanted to like it but the controls, ugh. Anyway, I never felt the romance was there for any reason but to add nude scenes. The whole thing reminds me of Age of Conan where the devs constantly tauted it as being mature when they really meant "we got boobs and gore and bad language. Edgy!"
I hope Witcher 3 is good but the way so many are hyping it up theres no way it's going to meet their expectations.
Guys, this is apples and oranges teritory just drop it geez. If you don't like the Witcher thats great you don't. If you don't like the DA protags, then fine you don't.
Its ok, not like neither or to like both or to like one and not the other. Stop making it a federal offense someone likes something you don't.
Stoic doesn't equal bland.
Oh but I disagree stoic becomes bland when youre forced to play as a stoic person and youre not an actual stoic person.
Oh but I disagree stoic becomes bland when youre forced to play as a stoic person and youre not an actual stoic person.
But you're not Geralt?
I disagree. Witcher 2's sex scenes are hilarious but tasteless. They characterize the world and I find them to be a necessary evil, but I get nothing out of them other than a boner. (except ew, they have dead eyes post-sex in all scenes!)
Witcher 2 does sex better depending on what your viewpoint is (better animations) but the actual romance is something I don't feel. There's nothing romantic about telling Ves she's pretty and "let's hook up!" and then, BAM, SEX SCENE. Triss' one is very romantically erotic but again, it's all about raw sex and not their mutual love.
Bioware is also steadily getting ahead of CD Projekt when it comes to explicity and animations. The fact that we almost get to see them have sex (Cass Roamance or Cullen) plus they're finally naked is a great step up. I don't personally need to see video-game PG-rated scenes like in the Witcher. Like I said, I find it more hilarious than tasteful or beautiful even.
You could put it simply: Bioware are good at mature romance writing. CD Projekt likes naughty and sometimes immature romance that's all about sex.
The romance between Geralt and Triss Merigold is developed in the books as well. To say it was a bad romance is like watching the ending of a romance movie and saying it sucked just because you were too lazy to see 90% of it.
In the Witcher 2 you see the act of the characters having sex. In Dragon Age all you see is post sex nudity for the most part. I mean it seems like you didn't even play the Witcher 2 if you're claiming that DAI has more explicit sex scenes.
But you're not Geralt?
And the point of rpgs are.....?
I tried Witcher 2 and really wanted to like it but the controls, ugh. Anyway, I never felt the romance was there for any reason but to add nude scenes. The whole thing reminds me of Age of Conan where the devs constantly tauted it as being mature when they really meant "we got boobs and gore and bad language. Edgy!"
I hope Witcher 3 is good but the way so many are hyping it up theres no way it's going to meet their expectations.
Yea sadly, the Witcher 3 fans are blowing the game outa proportion, saying that the "Has X, Y and Z" but the game isn't out yet... Did no one learn from the Watch_Dogs letdown or did everyone seriously just forget the game existed at all?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 'sex cards'. They are just a bit of harmless fun.
I find them offensive...
Are u refering that bioware should made a harem ending . Good thing though
What?
No the inquisitor has feelings and a good voice actor. Male american voice makes emotions with his voice very well actually.
1) Geralt does have feelings.
2) Sure, the Inquisitor is emotional. It is in fact impossible to play even a semi-stoic Inquisitor. And one doesn't really get to control what these emotions are either. In Inquisition, one is always playing a character with very specific emotional reactions. In the Witcher, one is always playing a very specific stoic character. Neither is more variable than the other. They are both fixed characters.
I find them offensive...
Why? They're just cards?
And the point of rpgs are.....?
To take on the role of a character.
I find them offensive...
Ok, so your offended, sorry you feel that way.
But I can tell you that it doesn't happen in Witcher 2.
I find them offensive...
Sometimes I feel like they should have kept them in just because this really shouldn't be an argument that people actually listen to. That said I didn't like the idea much either so meh. 
I find them offensive...
So?
And the point of rpgs are.....?
Certainly not self-insertion.
To take on the role of a character.
By that logic Super Mario is an RPG.
Truth is everybody defines it a bit differently. I'm on the "need char creation" camp in this one, but still enjoyed the Witcher.
1) Geralt does have feelings.
2) Sure, the Inquisitor is emotional. It is in fact impossible to play even a semi-stoic Inquisitor. And one doesn't really get to control what these emotions are either. In Inquisition, one is always playing a character with very specific emotional reactions. In the Witcher, one is always playing a very specific stoic character. Neither is more variable than the other. They are both fixed characters.
1)Does he now? Because he seems to be very monotone in both face and way.
2) Did we play the same game because my game had an EMOTION WHEEL where I got to pick emotions.
Guys, this is apples and oranges teritory just drop it geez. If you don't like the Witcher thats great you don't. If you don't like the DA protags, then fine you don't.
Its ok, not like neither or to like both or to like one and not the other. Stop making it a federal offense someone likes something you don't.
Eh how many heavily D&D inspired CRPGs with distinct character development, sort of medieval Game of Thrones like settings, open world, fetch quest games coming out in a particular 1 year span are there exactly?
Yeah... if these aren't similar enough to compare I don't know what would be similar.
To take on the role of a character.
Exactly and I find Geralt to be very boring when I try to roleplay as him.
Edit: I would say that it is to roleplay as a character. But I prefer to be able to make actual choices when roleplaying and make my own backstory in my head(or on paper) etc etc
Why? They're just cards?
Of women that he banged ...
1)Does he now? Because he seems to be very monotone in both face and way.
2) Did we play the same game because my game had an EMOTION WHEEL where I got to pick emotions.
Oooooho an emotion wheel! I guess if you don't have an emotion wheel your characters can't have any emotion. I bet there's a bunch of writers, actors, directors, ect, slapping themselves in the face for not adding emotion wheels to their works.
By that logic Super Mario is an RPG.
Truth is everybody defines it a bit differently. I'm on the "need char creation" camp in this one, but still enjoyed the Witcher.
Yeah well you're right.
There is more to it than just that.
Oooooho an emotion wheel! I guess if you don't have an emotion wheel your characters can't have any emotion. I bet there's a bunch of writers, actors, directors, ect, slapping themselves in the face for not adding emotion wheels to their works.
Did I write that? Or are you putting words in my post that I didn't type?
Of women that he banged ...
I don't see the problem.
Hell Geralt could have been a woman who banged every guy and I would have been fine with it.
Retour en haut