812 réponses à ce sujet

[SolNebula]

I love BW but I also love CDPR. My two favorite gaming companies. If they weren't around I would have stopped gaming a long time ago.

 

People have to accept that threads will pop out comparing these two games and I think we should not be hostile to this. I'm fairly certain that from competition and exploration of each other ideas both BW and CDPR can improve their ideas albeit mantaining their distinctive feeling and touch to the products they are offering.

If made correctly such threads really help and enhance the constructive criticism that is fundamental for gaming developers to prosper.  I'm so curious on how CDPR handled the open-world exploration and how it integrates with the main storyline. We shall see.

 

I also would like BW to focus on less DLCs and more expansions. I would love if they do a sort of game and Expansion pass bundle. This will give them an extra bucks to start working for their additional contents and would also save their customers the chore of multiple purchases. I prefer two expansions over multiple DLCs anytime of the day.

[wolfsite]

You thought The Witcher 1 was boring? You must not have given it a chance. The game gets extremely exciting later on in the experience. It's a bit dated by today's standards, but it is truly a gem and one of the great RPGs of the last generation. TW2 did improve upon it in almost every way, although TW1 was a bit better about relationships between Geralt and his friends. Hopefully TW3 is better than its predecessors in every way.

I played Witcher 1 from beginning to end..... and yes it was boring, had to force myself to play it due to the repetitive combat and constant fetch quests.  Also saying it was better with relationships is a bit of a stretch considering many characters were just using you for there own ends and many of the good characters were left out of the sequel entirely (which made no sense since a few of them could have close connections to Geralt and are even part of the ending.)

 

Oh ya then there is the broken import feature in TW2 that ignored major decisions you made in the first game if it went against what the writing team wanted.

[KaiserShep]

Oh ya then there is the broken import feature in TW2 that ignored major decisions you made in the first game if it went against what the writing team wanted.

 

I've yet to play any Witcher game, but I was curious about starting from the beginning, since I really hate beginning a series from a later entry unless the narratives have no real connection to each other, and this seems like something I would find a little frustrating. For all the faults in BioWare's games, I've always had fun with the way choices imported, for the most part.

[SolNebula]

Oh ya then there is the broken import feature in TW2 that ignored major decisions you made in the first game if it went against what the writing team wanted.

 

It's not like I chose Anderson as Councilor and then got Udina at the end or the Rachnis keep appearing despite my best effort to disinfestate them. Regardless the import is quite meaningless in BW games as they generally dumb down your choices to the exact same results.

Not saying that it's bad per se but you make it appears as if was something well done while it wasn't.

[wolfsite]

It's not like I chose Anderson as Councilor and then got Udina at the end or the Rachnis keep appearing despite my best effort to disinfestate them. Regardless the import is quite meaningless in BW games as they generally dumb down your choices to the exact same results.

Not saying that it's bad per se but you make it appears as if was something well done while it wasn't.

 

I never said anything about other games import features so please do not assume that I am.  At the very least Bioware made story elements to explain Udina becoming Councilor which make sense in a narrative structure (Anderson getting fed up with the console not doing anything and rejoining the Alliance where he felt he would be more useful)  but with CDPR they just decided - nah that didn't happen at all.

 

Besides those are relatively minor plot points compared to just ignoring major events.

[SolNebula]

I never said anything about other games import features so please do not assume that I am.  At the very least Bioware made story elements to explain Udina becoming Councilor which make sense in a narrative structure (Anderson getting fed up with the console not doing anything and rejoining the Alliance where he felt he would be more useful)  but with CDPR they just decided - nah that didn't happen at all.

 

Besides those are relatively minor plot points compared to just ignoring major events.

 

People fail to realize TW is a game based on a novel while DA and ME are games that later created books. Consequently CDPR has to adapt the story to make it believable to what was written in the novels in terms of characters and their interactions with the enviromment they are in. This means they don't have the creative control over the TW universe to do as they please and make it canon unlike BW can do with their franchises.

[Il Divo]

This idea that Awakening was universally loved by fans is news to me. It was mostly positive in its reception, but it certainly wasn't what I would define as overwhelming or anything like that. I always thought it was pretty sub par, inferior to either of DA2's DLC, or any of Mass Effect's (save Pinnacle Station), despite being much larger than the lot of them. Nowadays just buying the ultimate edition, which is pretty cheap, guarantees you a copy of this thing.

 

Generally my impression as well. I think Awakening had a positive reception. I don't recall it being "overwhelming" or so utterly amazing that fans couldn't contain themselves. It certainly wasn't on the level of excitement that I've seen for say Blizzard expansions. 

[KaiserShep]

Generally my impression as well. I think Awakening had a positive reception. I don't recall it being "overwhelming" or so utterly amazing that fans couldn't contain themselves. It certainly wasn't on the level of excitement that I've seen for say Blizzard expansions. 

 

And really, I do it as a formality, because it's a set story in the timeline of the series, and since my Warden is alive at the end of Origins, I feel like I have to do a completionist playthrough at least once to get it over with, the same with the other post-campaign DLC's, neither of which I considered to be all that great, though Golems is pretty meaningless altogether.

 

Thankfully, the DA Keep ensures that I never have to do it again.

[Il Divo]

And really, I do it as a formality, because it's a set story in the timeline of the series, and since my Warden is alive at the end of Origins, I feel like I have to do a completionist playthrough at least once to get it over with, the same with the other post-campaign DLC's, neither of which I considered to be all that great, though Golems is pretty meaningless altogether.

 

Thankfully, the DA Keep ensures that I never have to do it again.

 

Generally how I felt as well. Awakening was enjoyable enough that I didn't hate playing it- which isn't really high praise. I was comfortable enough getting through as a completionist, but it just felt mediocre from both a narrative/character stand point, Anders aside. Not to mention, the gameplay was insanely broken. 

[Heimdall]

People fail to realize TW is a game based on a novel while DA and ME are games that later created books. Consequently CDPR has to adapt the story to make it believable to what was written in the novels in terms of characters and their interactions with the enviromment they are in. This means they don't have the creative control over the TW universe to do as they please and make it canon unlike BW can do with their franchises.

Their games are sequels to the stories in the books. I don't see how they are so limited by that that it's impossible for them to carry through on a plot point they provided in the first place.

[wolfsite]

People fail to realize TW is a game based on a novel while DA and ME are games that later created books. Consequently CDPR has to adapt the story to make it believable to what was written in the novels in terms of characters and their interactions with the enviromment they are in. This means they don't have the creative control over the TW universe to do as they please and make it canon unlike BW can do with their franchises.

 

From what I understand from fans Geralt is dead when these games take place so right there they are doing what they want.

[SolNebula]

Their games are sequels to the stories in the books. I don't see how they are so limited by that that it's impossible for them to carry through on a plot point they provided in the first place.

Because Geralt has a specific personality and you cannot make him for example not care about Yennefer or Triss because we know that wouldn't be Geralt. They cannot make Geralt a shiny hero because he wasn't that in the books. They cannot make Geralt super evil because he is a greyish character. They need to mantain a consistent behaviour to avoid what happened to TIM from ME2 to ME3.

[wolfsite]

Because Geralt has a specific personality and you cannot make him for example not care about Yennefer or Triss because we know that wouldn't be Geralt. They cannot make Geralt a shiny hero because he wasn't that in the books. They cannot make Geralt super evil because he is a greyish character. They need to mantain a consistent behaviour to avoid what happened to TIM from ME2 to ME3.

 

What does Geralt's personality have to due with main plot points not caring over between games?

 

also not sure why you have to keep bringing up other games as if to try to distract from something in The Witcher, especially since TIM was indoctrinated by ME3 (and you could see his personality slowly changing in ME2 to reflect this so again this was addressed)

[Heimdall]

Because Geralt has a specific personality and you cannot make him for example not care about Yennefer or Triss because we know that wouldn't be Geralt. They cannot make Geralt a shiny hero because he wasn't that in the books. They cannot make Geralt super evil because he is a greyish character. They need to mantain a consistent behaviour to avoid what happened to TIM from ME2 to ME3.

I don't see how that's relevant. I'm not talking about why they don't provide certain options in individual games I'm talking about how they fail to follow through on major plot points they already implemented.

[SnakeCode]

Agreed, though I also think that CDPR has gained a pretty fanatic fanbase that would be blind to any faults the game might have and would still worship it no matter what. See now with the expansions.

Before, everyone was whining about being able to buy expansion passes and pre-ordering stuff when you didn't know if the game and DLC were worth it, and how that was the developers trying to make gamers give them more money.

People also go crazy mad when devs talk about DLC before the full game is even out.

CDPR announced two DLC, and an expansion pass before the game has been released. There are zero complaints and everyone who points out how this is basically the same is shut down. That comes from someone that really likes the Witcher series. I'm not saying they shouldn't do this, but I just find it extremely interesting how everyone is jumping to CDPR's defense when they are technically doing exactly the same as other devs. If you also want to talk about TW3's free dlc (which will be outfits), then you could argue that, hey, DAI (and ME3) do that as well with the free MP dlc. Because they used the word 'expansion', it's suddenly different, while Jaws of Hakkon also literally provides an expansion of the game (a large map with hours worth of content). But it doesn't count because they called it DLC instead of the magic word ~expansion~?

And the most important thing to remember is that whatever selling practices you disagree with, it's EA you should be mad at, not Bioware. Bioware is the dev team. EA is in charge of how much they'll sell it, and what they want the devs to make and DLC plans. CDPR doesn't have an 'overlord' as far as I know?

 

I love it when people talk about another company's fanbase being blind to their faults/shady practices and then in the same breath tell people to blame EA for anything Bioware has done that they don't like/agree with. It's never Bioware's fault is it?

[KaiserShep]

One thing I learned from BSN is that it's always BioWare's fault.

[X Equestris]

I don't think that's the best exemple to use . Awakening wasn't liked by everyone and for some (like me) it was so buggy you couldn't even finish it . And it lacked romance and yada yada . 
 
Heck , I take Witch Hunt and Leliana Song over Awakening . At least those were more interesting and bug free . 
 
But I'm with ya on the expansion part though...

Indeed, people say Inquisition is buggy, but Awakening is still buggier today, after all of the patches and everything, than my copy of Inquisition ever was.

[SnakeCode]

I love BW but I also love CDPR. My two favorite gaming companies. If they weren't around I would have stopped gaming a long time ago.

 

People have to accept that threads will pop out comparing these two games and I think we should not be hostile to this. I'm fairly certain that from competition and exploration of each other ideas both BW and CDPR can improve their ideas albeit mantaining their distinctive feeling and touch to the products they are offering.

If made correctly such threads really help and enhance the constructive criticism that is fundamental for gaming developers to prosper.  I'm so curious on how CDPR handled the open-world exploration and how it integrates with the main storyline. We shall see.

 

I also would like BW to focus on less DLCs and more expansions. I would love if they do a sort of game and Expansion pass bundle. This will give them an extra bucks to start working for their additional contents and would also save their customers the chore of multiple purchases. I prefer two expansions over multiple DLCs anytime of the day.

 

Agreed, there are plenty of fans of both games who would love for the two to learn from each other, both from their positive and negative aspects, to improve them even further. People are needlessly defensive and hostile whenever TW is brought up as a comparison or something Bioware could learn from (or vise versa.) 

 

This is caused by people placing themselves firmly in one dev's camp. They think "their" game is superior in every way and find it inconceivable that it could learn something from the other. It's no different than people fighting over Pepsi/Cola, PlayStation/Xbox/PC, or Iphone/Android. 

[KaiserShep]

Indeed, people say Inquisition is buggy, but Awakening is still buggier today, after all of the patches and everything, than my copy of Inquisition ever was.

If Inquisition had the issues Awakening does, needless to say my first playthrough would likely be my last.

[Toasted Llama]

Hey, if you are one of the few who didn't like Awakening, more power to you. Based on the fact BioWare created an ultimate edition with the main game and Awakening included that sold very well and the fact I've never heard others criticize the expansion, I believe you'd be in the minority on that one.

 

I'm sorry, but what? The fact that an expansion has to be coupled with the main game is a dead giveaway that the expansion does not sell well without it.

[TMA LIVE]

It was? I'm not certain about either of these things.

 

If I remember correctly, though the Dragon Age DLCs were not flops, they weren't as high sellers as Mass Effect's DLC.

[Knight of Dane]

I don't mind the direction Bioware is going with the DLC business model, I just want different DLC.

 

Expansions can suck too.

 

I'd like for them to take a good look at the Paradox forums, Paradox develops many DLC's that expand the main basis of the game rather than just add on singular isolated gameplay experiences. I'd either like something similar or story/character content for DA:I.

[LinksOcarina]

There is nothing illogical about any of my posts. You are merely getting upset and resulting to insults as a means of showing your frustration for my lack of agreement.

 

Quality is subjective. What you failed to understand through my post is that someone's opinion, plus good sales and high reviews, show a positive correlation that would lead one to believe that many see the product as good. On the contrary, your sole opinion with nothing to correlate with it is much weaker in comparison. Thus, while an opinion of a product is still purely subjective, the more positive outlook by the majority is likely to outshine the more negative outlook by the minority. That should be rather simple for you to understand. It's a basic concept.

 

You are resulting to the ever over-used Straw Man for a lack of rebuttals and a yearning to win a "competition" that never existed. If you can not understand the basic meaning of the English language, then you are beyond help. Your opinion really doesn't matter when Awakening did well and Mass Effect 3 did well, regardless of how you feel about either of them.

 

Funny, you did the exact same thing when I argued the same point to you.

 

Not only that, you gave off your opinions on content and length regarding "DLC's" as a fact when folks challenged you, then you moved the argument into the realm of subjectivity on the whole "Darrah lied to me" rant, as well as resorting to ad-hominems when you had nothing else to say. 

 

You also got a lot of double-speak in there right now to argue that the opinion of a product as being "good" is only done so by the majority.

 

If that is the case than Dragon Age Inquisition is a very good game by the majority standards as well. And a game like The Witcher did mediocre when it was first released. Latter reputations are not factored into this, but it seems like the general consensus pretty much stands in the end, which makes this whole segment of your argument kind of fruitless in of itself

 

I also find it funny how you mention the opinions about games don't matter regarding the fact that they did well. This is true, I agree with you here, but why do you keep bringing it up in the end against other arguments which have little to do with subjectivity, and are attempting to look at something more or less tangible against the holes in your argument?

 

I still think you don't understand it in the end. 

 

1) You are not factually correct on your assertions regarding good or bad DLC/Expansion pack releases, regarding which is which.

 

2) Your arguments regarding Darrah lying have no bearing on the subject at hand, and defame Darrah based upon what is said at pre-release stages vs. Post-release stages of a game. Not to mention You are overlooking the fact that since Heart of Stone and Blood and Wine were announced before Witcher 3 was even released, they even said "NO" to the concept of a season pass back in November. Regardless of content size, it's a season pass, a competitive price designed for two pieces of content that one can argue are being made concurrently with the development of the Witcher 3 (god forbid someone accuses them of cutting content out of their game...that would be a bad thing to do right? Sarcasm aside this has always been a silly argument, it's why I am not making it though.)

 

So this also means Martin Iwinski lied to you on that one. I guess he is no better than Mark Darrah. 

 

3) You constantly change the subjects and contradict your own arguments as you do, going from "what I am saying has to be true" to playing the "it's my opinion on things" card in particular.

 

Sad part is, of course BioWare can look at what CD Projekt Red is doing, and follow suit...even though they already did a version of this a while ago, in 2010, and had a mixed reaction for it back then. Not to mention a rather lukewarm reception to a season pass being added to Inquisition before the game even came out was already permeating the forums. Hell, Derek French even said as much in that thread.

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition will not have a season pass, or the concept or pre-purchasing DLC before it has ever been designed. This idea doesn't really work for us, as we prefer to be able to change our plans based on how DLC and story concepts are received by the players.

 

 

So I tell you once again, there is nothing to debate here. You are simply wrong about your arguments.

 

As for the content...if BioWare goes back to the season pass route, they go back to it. Of course when they do people will be mad at them anyway. 

[aphelion4]

Not a Witcher fan but I can definitely see the value in paying 24$-40$ for two 20-30 hour expansions, rather than 15$ for short and often crappy DLC that now seems to be the norm. Unfortunately money is everything to them and they'll end up making way more with several 15$ DLC and micro transactions than one or two expansions. They have no reason to be more gamer friendly because people will buy their crap regardless.

[Bizantura]

I like both games but have to wait and see the realities of the witcher dlc's.  Both compagnies work for money and that one compagnie works for free is a fallacy.

 

Advertising is just that, advertising.  Seems the reputation of cdpr gives them good cashing revenues "for the moment".  That good reputation can change overnight.

 

Of course fans like to have the seemingly projected profit picked up by the competitor because it seems like a good deal/idea.

 

Grass is always greener on the other side!!