15865 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOgre]

Well if there aren't any people left to make Witchers, than why is this discussion happening? Male or female, it doesn't matter if you can't make any.

 

Spoiler

Because Geralt supposedly finds the knowledge necessary for creating more witchers by the end of 3 implying there may actually be a chance for new witchers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

lawd, this scene right here, where Geralt is frantically looking for everyone and then notices *spoiler*'s dead body was enough of a gut punch to actually make me need to put the game down for a bit...just the way his face so suddenly changes from frantic to completely crushed...

I would hate that. I want to be in control of the protagonist, not watch him act on his own.

[KBomb]

People seem to be okay with going at each others posts in this thread it's quite shocking.

With girls, there's no real lore to imply they cannot become one. Midnight pointed out that they just don't know how to make 'new' Witchers in general so that's one of the reasons why you won't see male witchers.

This thread needs a bit of Natashina. She has a strange zen-like ability to calm a thread.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I would hate that. I want to be in control of the protagonist, not watch him act on his own.

 

Geralt isn't a blank, emotionless slate who's every whim can be controlled. He's a character who's had an entire novel series written about him long before the games ever came out. He's going to have emotional reactions where he should have them, and this particular story was stronger for it.

[TheOgre]

This thread needs a bit of Natashina. She has a strange zen-like ability to calm a thread.

 

or a mod that doesn't just go to 'lock' mode and actually warns people to stay on topic, avoid derogatory / slanderish tones or else you accumulate points

 

 

Geralt isn't a blank, emotionless slate who's every whim can be controlled. He's a character who's had an entire novel series written about him long before the games ever came out. He's going to have emotional reactions where he should have them, and this particular story was stronger for it.

 

 

This, also, you can argue that DAI had plenty of those moments that you described Sylvius

[Seraphim24]

I would hate that. I want to be in control of the protagonist, not watch him act on his own.

 

Control freak!

 

I think that's a difference I'm noticing, DA fans seem to generally seek more control over their experiences (character creator, companions available, etc) whereas Witcher Fans don't mind others having more of an opinion or generally their own agency.

 

I would not have minded a companion in Dragon Age walking up to me and demanding I speak to them, if I did not they would leave, or initiating conversations, or stopping be partway, or any variety of things.

 

I definitely do not mind characters acting on their own.

[Steelcan]

Control freak!

 

I think that's a difference I'm noticing, DA fans seem to generally seek more control over their experiences (character creator, companions available, etc) whereas Witcher Fans don't mind others having more of an opinion or generally their own agency.

OR people can appreciate both for what they do

 

there is nothing that precludes someone from liking both approaches. 

[Seraphim24]

OR people can appreciate both for what they do

 

there is nothing that precludes someone from liking both approaches. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I like character creators and all just fine but I think it's fair to say that control issues are what is animating the like and dislike of one franchise over the other most of the time.

 

Personally I can't say I like DA:I for being that hand's off, I prefer characters/etc to have their own personality/goals/motivations, and consequently Geralt having his own personality I find enhances the experience.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Geralt isn't a blank, emotionless slate who's every whim can be controlled. He's a character who's had an entire novel series written about him long before the games ever came out. He's going to have emotional reactions where he should have them, and this particular story was stronger for it.

I don't think an RPG should even attempt to tell a "particular story".  I don't roleplay to be told a story.  I don't even think that's compatible with roleplaying.

 

If I'm not in control of the character - if I'm not making decisions on his behalf (something I can't do coherently if I don't control him), why am I even there?  What do I add to the story?  What is the point of my input?

[Seraphim24]

I don't think an RPG should even attempt to tell a "particular story".  I don't roleplay to be told a story.  I don't even think that's compatible with roleplaying.

 

If I'm not in control of the character - if I'm not making decisions on his behalf (something I can't do coherently if I don't control him), why am I even there?  What do I add to the story?  What is the point of my input?

 

For their story perhaps? It turns out there are other people in the world besides ourselves.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Personally I can't say I like DA:I for being that hand's off, I prefer characters/etc to have their own personality/goals/motivations, and consequently Geralt having his own personality I find enhances the experience.

But what is that experience?  What is it that you're contributing to the game?  What is it that the game asks of you?

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I don't think an RPG should even attempt to tell a "particular story".  I don't roleplay to be told a story.  I don't even think that's compatible with roleplaying.

 

If I'm not in control of the character - if I'm not making decisions on his behalf (something I can't do coherently if I don't control him), why am I even there?  What do I add to the story?  What is the point of my input?

 

...honestly, I think you'd be better off with a game that's just an Excel spreadsheet and nothing else. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

For their story perhaps? It turns out there are other people in the world besides ourselves.

When roleplaying, I'm not in the world at all.  The game can't speak to me, because I'm not there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

...honestly, I think you'd be better off with a game that's just an Excel spreadsheet. 

An Access database would be better.

[Seraphim24]

When roleplaying, I'm not in the world at all.  The game can't speak to me, because I'm not there.

 

I think "the Mad" is an appropriate title for you to be quite honest.

 

Anyway it turns out there are these things like humanity, relationships, joy, pleasure, pain, suffering, redemption, revenge and crazy things that other people experience and that are occasionally interesting to witness.

 

Some of us don't mind when people decide to express those things, or their own opinions/thoughts that may be contrary to our own, others can't be bothered I suppose because they are too busy on their extreme power fantasy quest 2.0 and interactions with other (human) sapiens are best kept contained and controlled Mr. Christian Gray lol.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think "the Mad" is an appropriate title for you to be quite honest.

This is an entirely rational position I'm advancing here.

 

If I exist for the game to speak to, then I break the game's setting merely by existing.  The only way for the game world to be coherent is for me not to exist within it.

 

The logic is fairly straightforward.

[Seraphim24]

This is an entirely rational position I'm advancing here.

 

If I exist for the game to speak to, then I break the game's setting merely by existing.  The only way for the game world to be coherent is for me not to exist within it.

 

The logic is fairly straightforward.

 

Well I'm afraid to break this to you but you exist in DA:I, the only difference is you wear a fancy costume called the "Elf Origin" or whatever. Unless you possess magic that lets you travel across time and space to a version of Fereldan that exists in the galaxy far, far away, you are breaking the setting by clicking your mouse.

 

The only way to not exist within it is to not play it.

 

Not to mention DA isn't real anyway? Like, what?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Anyway it turns out there are these things like humanity, relationships, joy, pleasure, pain, suffering, redemption, revenge and crazy things that other people experience and that are occasionally interesting to witness.

 

Some of us don't mind when people decide to express those things, or their own opinions/thoughts that may be contrary to our own, others can't be bothered I suppose because they are too busy on their extreme power fantasy quest 2.0 and interactions with other (human) sapiens are best kept contained and controlled Mr. Christian Gray lol.

What my reactions are don't matter.  It matters that my character have his reactions, but the writers of a game can't know what those are without either asking for my direct input or by taking control of the character away from me.

 

How I would react is completely irrelevant.

 

If I want to be told a story, I'll read a book (a story with which I cannot interact).  If I'm supposed to interact with the story, then it can't just be their story.  It has to be mine, as well, or I'm just messing it up and they should have just written me a book.

[o Ventus]

This is an entirely rational position I'm advancing here.

 

If I exist for the game to speak to, then I break the game's setting merely by existing.  The only way for the game world to be coherent is for me not to exist within it.

 

The logic is fairly straightforward.

 

Are you serious? Because this is coming off as more than a bit stupid, and possibly even a little legitimately insane.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well I'm afraid to break this to you but you exist in DA:I, the only difference is you wear a fancy costume called the "Elf Origin" or whatever. Not to mention by that logic Witcher is more seamless because you are borrowing someone who already exists in that setting.

 

The only way to not exist within it is to not play it.

My character exists in the game.  I don't.  That's why my character behaves in ways I wouldn't, and sometimes in ways I would rather she didn't.  But because I'm roleplaying, I'm seeing the world through her eyes, not mine.

 

That's what roleplaying is.  When you choose to have your character make a decision with which you disagree, but you know it's the decision that character would make, then you're roleplaying.

 

But it needs to be your choice.

[KaiserShep]

Control freak!

 

I think that's a difference I'm noticing, DA fans seem to generally seek more control over their experiences (character creator, companions available, etc) whereas Witcher Fans don't mind others having more of an opinion or generally their own agency.

 

I would not have minded a companion in Dragon Age walking up to me and demanding I speak to them, if I did not they would leave, or initiating conversations, or stopping be partway, or any variety of things.

 

I definitely do not mind characters acting on their own.

I'd like to see that sort of thing myself, though it'd have to be handled well or it'll just be super frustrating. Like, if a companion is walking up to you and demands to be talked to, it can't just be something that s/he decides to do, but rather as a consequence to a decision you made or a bunch of decisions in general. Of course, it could also be something positive like such-and-such a character likes your PC and takes it upon him/herself to express as such. I imagine it would draw a lot of complaints from people though, because you know how much people hate [insert character here] if you're forced to interact with them too often. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Are you serious? Because this is coming off as more than a bit stupid, and possibly even a little legitimately insane.

If I exist within the game world, what am I?  What could I possibly be?

 

No, the player can't be there.

 

It's a simple thought experiment.

[Seraphim24]

What my reactions are don't matter.  It matters that my character have his reactions, but the writers of a game can't know what those are without either asking for my direct input or by taking control of the character away from me.

 

How I would react is completely irrelevant.

 

If I want to be told a story, I'll read a book (a story with which I cannot interact).  If I'm supposed to interact with the story, then it can't just be their story.  It has to be mine, as well, or I'm just messing it up and they should have just written me a book.

 

Sure.

 

I think you are better off with that access spreadsheet, not to mention this is all besides the point which is that your hostility towards TW is more likely grounded in an aversion to humans being too active (i.e. control tendencies) that are placated only by the serenity of the super control fantasy DA:I land and the greater control over relationships that it offers.

 

Granted we aren't quite in Skyrim Land where literally every other thing in the universe is at your beck and call and your followers obey your every command (whether that's to slaughter innocents or bandits makes no difference), but it's still more in that direction.

 

Actually I saw this come up in the cheating thing with TW3 where both Triss and Yennefer get mad at your for trying to go with both, whereas DA characters kind of passively will go "Oh is so and so with you?" I think there are a few moments of aggression but mostly not, let alone take vengeance.

 

Anyway I shall leave you to your parade of non-real divisions you are creating that are pretty much purely semantic with a fractional basis in reality.

[o Ventus]

If I exist within the game world, what am I?  What could I possibly be?

 

The player character.

 

 

No, the player can't be there.

 

The entire idea behind the character creator and being able to choose your dialogue is to be able to role-play as any kind of character you want, yourself included.

 

It's a simple thought experiment.

 

This is one of the most asinine things I've seen on this site.

[Enigmatick]

Sure.

 

I think you are better off with that access spreadsheet, not to mention this is all besides the point which is that your hostility towards TW is more likely grounded in an aversion to humans being too active (i.e. control tendencies) that are placated only by the serenity of the super control fantasy DA:I Land greater control over relationships that it offers.

 

Granted we aren't quite in Skyrim Land where literally every other thing in the universe is at your beck and call and your followers obey your every command (whether that's to slaughter innocents or bandits makes no difference), but it's still more in that direction.

 

Actually I saw this come up in the cheating thing with TW3 where both Triss and Yennefer get mad at your for trying to go with both, whereas DA characters kind of passively will go "Oh is so and so with you?" I think there are a few moments of aggression but mostly not.

 

Anyway I shall leave you to your parade of non-real divisions you are creating that are pretty much purely semantic with a fractional basis in reality.

 

Christ almighty could you be anymore condescending? On this same page you call him a control freak and now you're saying he's hostile to a game?