A game set in the TW universe with a custom PC is definitely possible. I don't think howewer it'd have worked as well as Geralt for the third game, from What I know about it.
And I agree, shouldn't drop it in at the end of the series. But it would have been fine from the beginning. And for next time. Hopefully they'll have a CC in cyberpunk.
Coulda woulda shoulda whatever.
All of any of that amounts to is the player doing chores.
Gaining influence, completing quests, leveling up...I'm playing a game. I'm sitting in my chair and pressing buttons on a plastic controller. You can't pass that off as a meaningful and legitimate reason the Inquisitor is awesome. This is about the Inquisitor being awesome, not me, and I need to see that in the story. And I don't. 'Me' gaining levels and influence points doesn't do anything for the story.
You sit next to a device and push plastic buttons.... that's pretty much a description of every video game created, EVER. You level, you gain influence and experience and complete quest to advance gameplay and plot - how does that differ from any other game????
You might as well complain about how you can't enjoy the taste of food, because it requires you to put it in your mouth and move your jaw a few times.
... Honestly, this is probably the laziest argument I've seen in any thread, ever.
Another thing "Bioware" needs to learn from CDPR's TW3:
Subtlety
In facial expressions, body language, expression of "emotion", humor, feminism, romance, etc.
Those complaining of a lack of these in TW3 are:
1. Haven't even played the game.
2. Not paying attention.
3. Too used to "Bioware's" in your face methods with these.
These are all accomplished with subtlety in TW3, making it more life-like/realistic imo.
Pay attention to the eye movements, head tilts, shoulder shifts, shuffles, smiles and frowns.
Pay attention to Triss, Yennefer, and Kiera's dealings with Geralt and others.
Notice that the Sorceresses are considered a powerful political group.
... and the humor, well,
Yes, I'd like to see a lot less "in your face" from "Bioware" and a little more realistic subtlety.
Another thing "Bioware" needs to learn from CDPR's TW3:
Subtlety
In facial expressions, body language, expression of "emotion", humor, feminism, romance, etc.
Those complaining of a lack of these in TW3 are:
1. Haven't even played the game.
2. Not paying attention.
3. Too used to "Bioware's" in your face methods with these.
These are all accomplished with subtlety in TW3, making it more life-like/realistic imo.
Pay attention to the eye movements, head tilts, shoulder shifts, shuffles, smiles and frowns.
Pay attention to Triss, Yennefer, and Kiera's dealings with Geralt and others.
Well um... no. When it comes to facial expressions DAI blows TW3 out of water - that's not to say that those are perfect (the smile is... uh), but there's a lot more going on on character faces than in Witcher and I've noticed it right away: I especially like the super-subtle movements of eyelids and brows in DAI. Adds a LOT to how expressive faces can be. Witcher facial animation are simpler and it almost looks as if they use only middle of their mouth when they're talking (not much action happening around mouth corners). This is also why there are not that many super-closeups of character faces in Witcher 3, as opposed to DA.
The one thing Witcher does better when it comes to DAI is body language - though it's more a matter of animation refinement. Character movements look more natural and interaction with objects is spot on - no books floating above the hand holding it or anything like it.
Also - I wouldn't describe Bioware's methods as "in your face"... I'd say that in general, both companies use a lot of subtlety throughout writing or animation, but not always. There are moments in narrative in both games that I find are either overwritten or unnecessary.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the chosen one trope in fantasy or Sci Fi. Whether the hero is a messiah from prophesy or just a regular (though extraordinary) person forced to become the hero through extraordinary circumstances, it all boils down to the quality of the writing. Neither approach is superior to the other, and whether the story succeeds or fails is entirely dependent upon the skill of the writer in crafting it.
it's a pretty basic story telling truism that a hero is only as good as her antagonist. A weak enemy means the hero doesn't have to overcome much and thus doesn't have to change or grow much which means a boring story.
That's not true at all. The villain doesn't necessarily have to be super-complex - heck, there doesn't even HAVE TO be a villain (take disaster movies or people dealing with, say, impending end or catastrophe or maybe a complicated situation in which conflict stems from circumstances people find themselves in), but the story and protagonist can still be engaging, if interaction with other characters or dealing with the situation is done well.
... and the humor, well...
I laughed my head off so many times playing TW3. I'll admit I'm partial to sarcasm, but I went into TW3 definitely not expecting to laugh so much. Thank you in particular to whomever wrote Dijkstra (and to his voice actor). And did anyone else think of the Leading the Druffalo DAI quest when doing the Leading the Goat quest in TW3? Couldn't stop laughing at that silly tinkling bell and at Geralt's comments in that quest, especially at his tone when a bear approaches. Like the unicorn scene, the game is not afraid to make fun of its hero and I found that to be very refreshing.
TW3 achieved a great balance between moments of darkness, tragedy and horror opposed to light, warm and just plain hilarious moments.
Well um... no. When it comes to facial expressions DAI blows TW3 out of water - that's not to say that those are perfect (the smile is... uh), but there's a lot more going on on character faces than in Witcher and I've noticed it right away: I especially like the super-subtle movements of eyelids and brows in DAI. Adds a LOT to how expressive faces can be. Witcher facial animation are simpler and it almost looks as if they only use only middle of their mouth when they're talking (not much action happening around mouth corners). This is also why there are not that many super-closeups of character faces in Witcher 3, as opposed to DA.
The one thing Witcher does better when it comes to DAI is body language - though it's more a matter of animation refinement. Character movements look more natural and interaction with objects is spot on - no books floating above the hand holding it or anything like it.
Also - I wouldn't describe Bioware's methods as "in your face"... I'd say that in general, both companies use a lot of subtlety throughout writing or animation, but not always. There are moments in narrative in both games that I find are either overwritten or unnecessary.
They must have accidentally sent you one of the review copies that garnered them those GOTY awards.
In the version that came on my dvd's the characters animations are as expressive as woodcuts 90% of the time and the other 10% they act like mimes with words.
Every expression, gesture, and nuance is overblown and exaggerated so you'll be sure to notice it.
I did like the voice acting for Cullen, Casandra, Dorian and Varric.
(Edit: inserted "animations")
They must have accidentally sent you one of the review copies that garnered them those GOTY awards.
In the version that came on my dvd's the characters are as expressive as woodcuts 90% of the time and the other 10% they act like mimes with words.
Every expression, gesture, and nuance is overblown and exaggerated so you'll be sure to notice it.
I did like the voice acting for Cullen, Casandra, Dorian and Varric.
The only thing I've done is I've played both games extensively and actually paid a lot of attention to quality of animations/body language - as I happen to do, considering that I'm a visual artist and I deal with facial expressions and body language pretty much on daily basis.
And from my perspective there's not really as much difference as you claim there is between both games. The major difference is the one I've pointed out earlier - DAI is better at facial expressions and TW3 has more refined body movements and objects/body interactions.
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
There is nothing inherently wrong with the chosen one trope in fantasy or Sci Fi. Whether the hero is a messiah from prophesy or just a regular (though extraordinary) person forced to become the hero through extraordinary circumstances, it all boils down to the quality of the writing. Neither approach is superior to the other, and whether the story succeeds or fails is entirely dependent upon the skill of the writer in crafting it.
I agree, DA:O and the ME Trilogy are some of my favourite games and they are basically classic saving the world/galaxy stories
DA:I did the same BUT I think the writing was much worse here. They went too far and the Inquisitor was basically Jesus 2.0, I never felt that he/she earned anything
Cory got owned at every mission and was no threat, in general the story was way too short and full of sequel baiting (Elven revelations) instead of focusing on the threat at hand (not to mention how half assed the breach plotline was solved same with the Mages vs Templar war)
This is what a proper side quest looks like:
Unfortunately DA:I didn't have many of them.
I'll have to admit that I didn't "get" that one until I was reading the grimoire, and then I couldn't stop laughing for a while.
If you haven't spent time just hangin' out at "Ft. White Eagle" yet ...
Taken the time to talk to Wham-a-Bam ...
Stood and listened to the ice trolls "debate" ...
Same with Morkvarg's "conversation" ...
Edit:
DA:I did a real good job with the "quest" to get Cassandra the last installment of Varric's serial, but else-wise memorable moments like these are pretty much absent.
You sit next to a device and push plastic buttons.... that's pretty much a description of every video game created, EVER. You level, you gain influence and experience and complete quest to advance gameplay and plot - how does that differ from any other game????
You might as well complain about how you can't enjoy the taste of food, because it requires you to put it in your mouth and move your jaw a few times.
... Honestly, this is probably the laziest argument I've seen in any thread, ever.
Words fail me. You missed ... so badly you should receive some kind of reward.
While I loath DA:I in possibly every concievable way, let me put his point in a way even should understand
Influence felt (kinda): Inquisitor shows up at the Winter Palace and gets offers from every major political player .
Influence told: 2000 Influence points grinded by closing rifts.
In the first case the player is aware he has achieved some importance due to important people taking notice of his character. In the second case, the player did not advance the plot in any way. Now DA:I had few moments were they actually attempted the former (in every instance doing a ******-poor job of it) and consisted to an overwhelming degree of the latter. Which is fine, most game do, even good ones. However, good games will offer the player some incentive other than an increase of a number to do so, such as a particular rewarding fight, a good reward or a character defining sidequest. Routinely filling in a requisition, closing a rift or hunting a shard does none of this, it's just time wasting.
BabyPuncher may correct me, but I gather he was saying that a game telling the player he is gaining influence/power/prestige has more in common with accounting than storytelling. And he did so in a way which was completely understandable to anyone not knee-deep in denial.
Was that goat quest even a side quest? I recall that being part of the main story and a longer quest than simply retrieving a goat, not really being a quest on its own.
Princess vs. Druffy kind of summarizes it, doesn't it? Exactly the same quest, two completely different experiences, one being a chore, another a silly laugh fest.
It's true, I love the way Druffy dismantles the demons.
As for ringing the silly bell... (yawn)...
an argument could be made that the story of Geralt of Rivia requires Geralt to be male*. But what about the story requires him to be white?
Nice strawman there, talking about playing as a dwarf, which no one here is talking about. No one talks about playing Shepard as a Quarian, so that's really not in play here. Your putting the cart before the horse, saying Geralt is a white male and that's the story being told, except what about the story requires those things, and even more so why is that the required story to tell, if it limits Geralt to being a white male? Could the story not be told were Geralt black? or Asian?
If your reply is "no" you're lying. If it's "yes, but why bother?" then you have just articulated the problem.
*the entire story could be gender flipped but I do recognize that for cost reasons, that isn't really a valid options.
But what is so wrong with him being a white male? That is simply what Geralt of Rivia is. He is a white male, with white hair, he's attractive to some, he has scars all over his body and across his eye.
Asking why Geralt have to be white is like asking why Othello has to be black. Or why does Lara Croft have to be a woman. Why is it so wrong to have a set description of a character? Why does he have to be Asian? or Black? Why can't be be what he already is?
The gist of my earlier post is that CDPR won't be able to please everyone so they should focus on pleasing themselves and following their own vision. In the end, they should create what they like and make it the best it can be because no matter what, the complaints and demands will be there.
Since the Witcher series is an adaption of a book series in which Geralt of Rivia has a set appearance then I would feel it would be best not to change it since it would seem an unwarranted change. If he did not and it was with the author's blessing then I would see more ground for allowing the change but when it comes to adaptions or works adapting set characters then I would feel it most respectful to stick to the author's decisions when able.
Retour en haut
