194 réponses à ce sujet

[HiroVoid]

Eh.  Even Ramsay has fans.  Makes sense Cersei would have a fair share.

[bEVEsthda]

There are many things about the Witcher 2 which are really good.

I particularly like that the developers take themselves and their game so seriously. No shitty EA-"awesomeness" there. No disgusting Japanese Zip-zap-Kaboom aesthetics. No contrived "iconic-ness" of NPCs.

A great atmosphere that reeks of believable and has a feel of authenticity about it.

 

I truly wish with all my heart that Bioware hadn't taken the totally opposite direction after DA:O and ME. But what's done is done.

 

But...:

I never finished TW2. Because it was a kind of game I'm not really interested in. It's not a role-play game. It's an interactive-story game.

The difference is probably invisible to a lot of current BSN (I blame it on DA2 and ME2), but it most certainly exists for some.

DA:I, otoh is just fine, and according to me, there are no "fetch quests". I.e. if a quest you choose to do is not a part of your story, then it's your own doing. ...Unless, of course, you're expecting a story game, like The Witcher 2.

[KotorEffect3]

Damn Lannisters.

[wolfsite]

No Interest in the series myself.  First game was nothing but Fetch quests (and I'm not just saying that the amount of needless back and forth in the first game makes the this thread funny)  and the gameplay was restrictive, repetitive and boring.

 

Second game did not carry over any choices from the previous game unless they were the choices the writer wanted and some characters that were involved heavily in the first game are just missing in the second creating massive issues with your playthrough (I find it hilarious that Witcher fans always gloss over this yet people complain when Conrad Verner was glitched).  But again gameplay was boring, repetitive and characters are just dull and unlikable.

[nici2412]

No Interest in the series myself.  First game was nothing but Fetch quests (and I'm not just saying that the amount of needless back and forth in the first game makes the this thread funny)  and the gameplay was restrictive, repetitive and boring.

 

Second game did not carry over any choices from the previous game unless they were the choices the writer wanted and some characters that were involved heavily in the first game are just missing in the second creating massive issues with your playthrough (I find it hilarious that Witcher fans always gloss over this yet people complain when Conrad Verner was glitched).  But again gameplay was boring, repetitive and characters are just dull and unlikable.

Funny how tastes can differ. I could say everything you said + cliche and boring story and bad writing about the dragon age series.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Damn Lannisters.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Better than the illusion biower pls grief threads

 

*snip*

 

I thought most people agreed that Inquisition was much better than DA2 and ME3 and more close to ME2 but not quite good enough to compare completely. The disappointment and outrage at least doesn't match what you heard for DA2 and ME3 and some forums continue to remain buzzing about it.

 

That said, "fetch quest" design is a staple of RPGs and I don't see that changing. What changes is context. The level of detail and/or interactivity within given fetch quests often determines how fun they are. For example, New Vegas is a game filled with nothing but fetch quests. But they were able to provide great context, attention to detail and/or interactivity within the quest structure so that it didn't seem dull.

 

Yeah, they were different types of side quests that had meaning and story though. Inquisition's are just "c-collect 200 bear foreskins 4 no reason 4 me pls inquzitar and also 100 bear penises to go with them pls" and crap like that. New Vegas has subplots and side stories too where you get to make decisions and that's not to mention the factions of the world and how you interact with them. More factions and your alignment with them in Inquisition would have made a lot of sense considering the story and who you are, an opportunity missed I think.

 

I like how New Vegas handled factions, help one and you will become enemies with another.

 

As for The Witcher 3 not having fetch quests: well I'll believe that when I see it. The quality of side quests were good in The Witcher 2 but there were still board quests which were effectively "go here and kill this monster and bring it's pelt back to me you **** geralt you ****** lazy mother fucker go suck one emo" and one of the previews of The Witcher 3 showed a board with such quests.

 

I remember one side quest in The Witcher 2 was to collect 300 harpy feathers or some **** like that.

 

So whilst I do believe The Witcher 3 will have quality side quests, I'm sceptical of what CD Projekt is claiming unless they don't define "go here and kill x amount of monsters and bring their pelts back to me" quests as fetch quests.

[Chewin]

Second game did not carry over any choices from the previous game unless they were the choices the writer wanted and some characters that were involved heavily in the first game are just missing in the second creating massive issues with your playthrough (I find it hilarious that Witcher fans always gloss over this yet people complain when Conrad Verner was glitched).

 

Perhaps due to the fact that the second installment had a different narrative that tackled different themes, characters and other issues, made the rendition quite different from the first one, but I would hardly say this created a "massive issue with your playthrough". Would it have been for the game's favor to have the implementation of choices from previous game matter in more profound ways? Absolutely, but hardly an integral aspect, due to the focus on the game lying more on "external" factors rather than "internal" ones that TW1 handled.

 

If something, TW3 needs to apply this a lot better due to the circumstances TW2 could have ended in. Haven't seen "Witcher fans gloss over this" aspect, since most posters on both the official and other forums tend to agree that choices need to be implemented better.

 

 

 

But again gameplay was boring, repetitive and characters are just dull and unlikable.

 

This is mostly restricted to your personal opinion, no? Except for the game being repetitive, which I don't see how the availability of different weapons (while still mostly relying on swords), equipment, spells, and branching combat made it repetitive for you. But eh, to each his own.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Yeah, they were different types of side quests that had meaning and story though. Inquisition's are just "c-collect 200 bear foreskins 4 no reason 4 me pls inquzitar and also 100 bear penises to go with them pls" and crap like that. New Vegas has subplots and side stories too where you get to make decisions and that's not to mention the factions of the world and how you interact with them. More factions and your alignment with them in Inquisition would have made a lot of sense considering the story and who you are, an opportunity missed I think.

 

 

Those bears are the most annoying part of DA:I after the Rifts Grannies (witches).

[wolfsite]

Perhaps due to the fact that the second installment had a different narrative that tackled different themes, characters and other issues, made the rendition quite different from the first one, but I would hardly say this created a "massive issue with your playthrough". Would it have been for the game's favor to have the implementation of choices from previous game matter in more profound ways? Absolutely, but hardly an integral aspect, due to the focus on the game lying more on "external" factors rather than "internal" ones that TW1 handled.

 

So it's okay for one company to just ignore things that are supposed to play a major factor in the story they are telling.  Story is very important and the transition from the first game to the second essentially broke the story with the playthrough I was using based on the choices they gave me.

 

I sorry but I just don't see why a company should get a free pass on such an important issue claiming the narrative has changed or they decided to tackle different themes as that can still be done while addressing the choices made in the previous game.

[Blooddrunk1004]

So it's okay for one company to just ignore things that are supposed to play a major factor in the story they are telling.  Story is very important and the transition from the first game to the second essentially broke the story with the playthrough I was using based on the choices they gave me.

 

 

Decisions didn't really play big change from TW1 to TW2, but some of them still did. Sigfried doesn't appear in TW2 if you didn't side with the Order in first game.

 

But you do realize Bioware did the exact same thing if not even worse with Mass Effect, they acknowledged some decisions, but they also gave a middle finger to many of them like Council, Rachni Queen, Virmire Survivor and biggest insult of all the Collector's Base.

 

The difference between Witcher and Mass Effect is that Geralt's decisions only impacted a small fraction of Temeria in first game. Considering you are constantly moving to different regions in TW2. While most of Shepard's decisions impact the entire galaxy and he/she is also returning to the same characters and areas in entire trilogy, while Geralt doesn't, at least not until TW3 hits since Kear Morhen and Vizima are both confirmed.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

that wont save it from having a repelling protagonist

[Mr.House]

Uh huh, yeah ok CDP. No fetch quests my ass.

[wolfsite]

Decisions didn't really play big change from TW1 to TW2, but some of them still did. Sigfried doesn't appear in TW2 if you didn't side with the Order in first game.

 

But you do realize Bioware did the exact same thing if not even worse with Mass Effect, they acknowledged some decisions, but they also gave a middle finger to many of them like Council, Rachni Queen, Virmire Survivor and biggest insult of all the Collector's Base.

The Council was addressed, Rachni Queen was addressed, Virmire Survivor was Addressed, I agree the collector base should have factored in better though the level in ME3 really did some interesting things.

[Mr.House]

The Council was addressed, Rachni Queen was addressed, Virmire Survivor was Addressed, I agree the collector base should have factored in better though the level in ME3 really did some interesting things.

Yeah killing the queen and then getting a clone is really addressing it.

[wolfsite]

Yeah killing the queen and then getting a clone is really addressing it.

I see that as a catch 22 situation due to the choice.  If you kill the Queen then have no level for it that would null the choice meaning when people replay the game they would always choose saving the Queen as killing her would grant no benefit in ME3.  With what they did you still get to play the level if you want and saving the clone can have bad results.

 

Didn't say it was a good way to address it, Just said that they addressed it.

[Chewin]

So it's okay for one company to just ignore things that are supposed to play a major factor in the story they are telling.  Story is very important and the transition from the first game to the second essentially broke the story with the playthrough I was using based on the choices they gave me.

 

I sorry but I just don't see why a company should get a free pass on such an important issue claiming the narrative has changed or they decided to tackle different themes as that can still be done while addressing the choices made in the previous game.

 

I never stated such, and you are putting a lot of emphasize on the importance of narrative progression with C&C and its transition with the TW games, which isn't even present. Had TW2 served as a direct sequel to the motives that TW1 tackled--having the choices you made serves as an underlying premise for the role of TW2--then consequences would have been an integral part of the game.

 

Except this isn't the case. TW1 narrative had a beginning, middle and an end, with TW2 focusing a completely new setting. I already stated that certain factors could have been integrated better (e.g. having Iorveth be more defensive towards Geralt who chose the Order path in TW1) instead of just minor inventory items. The fate of the elves versurs Order in Temeria is a minor aspect in the grand scheme that TW2 focuses on, and most choices that were done in TW1 were a lot more personal, rather than playing a larger importance regarding political matters. Just b/c The Witcher is an RPG that has C&C, does not make it a requirement that the next entry has to portray choices done in the previous installment. Of course, it is always awesome that it does, but it depends on what and how.

 

TW2 and the transition to TW3 is a lot more important though, and if consequences aren't present there, then that is a more of an issue.

[Mr.House]

I see that as a catch 22 situation due to the choice.  If you kill the Queen then have no level for it that would null the choice meaning when people replay the game they would always choose saving the Queen as killing her would grant no benefit in ME3.  With what they did you still get to play the level if you want and saving the clone can have bad results.

 

Didn't say it was a good way to address it, Just said that they addressed it.

They had a planned level for people who killed her, it was cut because of time issues, confirmed by Patrick.

 

So no it was not addressed in the finished product. Getting the same level despite making a vastly different choice is fricking stupid as hell.

[wolfsite]

I never stated such, and you are putting a lot of emphasize on the importance of narrative progression with C&C and its transition with the TW games, which isn't even present. Had TW2 served as a direct sequel to the motives that TW1 tackled--having the choices you made serves as an underlying premise for the role of TW2--then consequences would have been an integral part of the game.

 

Except this isn't the case. TW1 narrative had a beginning, middle and an end, with TW2 focusing a completely new setting. I already stated that certain factors could have been integrated better (e.g. having Iorveth be more defensive towards Geralt who chose the Order path in TW1) instead of just minor inventory items. The fate of the elves versurs Order in Temeria is a minor aspect in the grand scheme that TW2 focuses on, and most choices that were done in TW1 were a lot more personal, rather than playing a larger importance regarding political matters. Just b/c The Witcher is an RPG that has C&C, does not make it a requirement that the next entry has to portray choices done in the previous installment.

 

TW2 and the transition to TW3 is a lot more important though, and if consequences aren't present there, then that is a more of an issue.

The Witcher 1 did have a post game sequence which lead into The Witcher 2, just saying.  But again for me that narrative between games is what draws me in, when that got broke in the import I just spent the second game wondering if this choice will carry over or will it be ignored.  That ruined my own experience, if it didn't for you then I'm glad that you got to enjoy a game you like.

[wolfsite]

They had a planned level for people who killed her, it was cut because of time issues, confirmed by Patrick.

 

So no it was not addressed in the finished product. Getting the same level despite making a vastly different choice is fricking stupid as hell.

I was not aware of that, thanks for letting me know.

 

But again they did address it...... they just didn't address it well.

[Chewin]

The Witcher 1 did have a post game sequence which lead into The Witcher 2, just saying.  But again for me that narrative between games is what draws me in, when that got broke in the import I just spent the second game wondering if this choice will carry over or will it be ignored.  That ruined my own experience, if it didn't for you then I'm glad that you got to enjoy a game you like.

 

Sure, it had that epilogue with the assassin which served to set up the premise for TW2, but that is an element that is not tied to the overall narrative of the previous game. The argument here was the choices done in TW1, which don't serve a role as a transition to the next events. 

 

I can understand your POV if you had wanted to explore the consequences of your choices, but that is restricted to Temeria alone, which TW2 doesn't focus on and instead tackles new and more global levels of issues. 

[Milan92]

I don't believe for a second that The Witcher 3 won't have fetch quests.

 

They will have fetch quests. Its just gonna be so dressed up with flair that it won't look like one.

 

But that's fine. Fetch quests itself aren't really bad, so long as they aren't filling the entire world with them.

[Eternal Phoenix]

that wont save it from having a repelling protagonist

 

Geralt was extremely unlikable in the first game for me. In the second game, he was improved and I enjoyed his personality more.