15897 réponses à ce sujet

[SofaJockey]

... it was still cool to see Geralt's hair actually react dynamically to what armour he was wearing.

 

You're lucky with that armour,

Geralt's long loose hairstyle clips horribly through other armour.

[Laughing_Man]

Regarding DLC BioWare can certainly learn from CDPR.

Avaar armour and mount = Pay for it
Similar stuff in Witcher = Free

People can point at free multiplayer DLC until the cows come home but there's a lot of players who'll gain no benefit from that at all. To my knowledge the black emporium barely added anything (in terms of new armour) which means my qunari still looks awful in the very limited amount of armour in game.

 

It's more than that: Multi-player is first and foremost a money-milking machine, or at least it is supposed to be if it's actually any good at making people frustrated enough to pay exorbitant amounts of cash for virtual lottery tickets and other hooks.

 

So "giving away" some free content in multi-player is as self-serving as it gets for a game development / publishing company.

[Nikolaus]

Got to love all these "be more like Witcher 3" - they are different games and meant to be different. If you can't deal with it then feel free to play Witcher 3. I like both but I'm not seeing things black and white and asking for the other to be more like the other.

[Nikolaus]

All you people with your anti-DLC crusade need to get your heads off the clouds: Bioware is a division of EA; NOT an independent developer- whereas CD Projekt IS independent and as such can fully decide what they want to do with their games: as long as people keep buying DLC for games the trend will continue and talking about how "CD Projekt does it better!" doesn't achieve anything when the fact is that more people are still buying DLC than not. 

[Torgette]

So what's everybody's thoughts on the meat of the open world in TW3? Namely monster nests, bandits & deserters, abandoned sites and hidden treasures. Comparing those to Rifts, Astariums, shards, keeps, landmarks and camps - one thing i've noticed is enemy placement namely almost all enemies in TW3 are spawned in or around points of interest/loot whereas in DAI enemies are almost always in the empty space between loot. I think despite both games causing some open world fatigue and grind, the fact that enemies are only around the loot is actually more rewarding than enemies being an impedance to getting to your destination. This is a pretty simple observation and something the DA team should look at doing.

 

As for the activities themselves, I contend that closing rifts is a lot more exciting than destroying monster pits, and retaking keeps similarly is a lot more exciting and engaging the liberating villages. I also think the puzzles of the astarium are more interesting than TW3's random caves - that said I do think it'd be cool if once you found the cave you still had to navigate a puzzle much like in TW3 you still often have to fight wraiths or beasts once inside to get the loot. As for camps vs. abandoned sites & town markers, i'm indifferent. One thing i'd like Bioware implement as well is actual water and exploration and roads too. Ironically the one map in DAI that most emulates maps in TW3 is the Hissing Wastes - big wide open and empty and an actual need for the horse for exploration, enemies located around points of interest, etc. but I think there's still more they could've done clearly.

 

If exploration & combat were a curve, then TW3 would start flat in the empty space, then build and peak at the destination + combat + loot. DAI on the flip side is all over the place, open world games tend to need that location-based rewarding to get players addicted.

 

All you people with your anti-DLC crusade need to get your heads off the clouds: Bioware is a Division of EA; NOT an independent developer- whereas CD Projekt IS independent and as such can fully decide what they want to do with their games: as long as people keep buying DLC for games the trend will continue and talking about how "CD Projekt does it better!" doesn't achieve anything when the fact is that more people are still buying DLC than not. 

 

CD Projekt also has revenue streams outside of the witcher games - they're a lot like Valve in that circumstance, they also receive subsidies as I understand it (which isn't unusual, so does Sony). It would be cool for Bioware to go back to being independent someday just so we don't have to worry about the rest of EA dragging them down, but it is what it is.

[Elhanan]

Yeah I agree and they always come of as preachy too
I mean Dorian is probably my favorite companion in DA I but I really feel like his whole quest wasn't needed
It was a bit heavy handed and more of an Analogy to RL (since its obviously still a Problem in many countries)

Not to mention Krem who exists to ruin the existing lore (Qunari) just so we have a transexual character

And I had no game knowledge of either during my first campaign; acquired Dorian's personal quest in the second, but Krem still remains IB's agent, and nothing more. Could not call this heavy handed or preachy.

While Bioware still discusses these topics in mature, intelligent ways, and continues to keep them optional, I support the writing even if I may personally disagree with the possible topic.

[rashie]

CDPR is a publicly traded company on the warsaw stock exchange, that there aren't any shareholders isn't entirely true. The difference is really that they are still in control of themselves at the top level and actually want to deliver a quality product to gamers.

[Nikolaus]

CDPR.....actually want to deliver a quality product to gamers.

 

So does Bioware, but Bioware cannot dictate the will of EA's higher ups who own their studio and whose views might not be aligned with views of the developers; and that is not the developers fault.

[KilrB]

Despite what they said I still think they were looking more closely at NWO, but were just too incompetent to pull it off.

[Han Shot First]

So what's everybody's thoughts on the meat of the open world in TW3? Namely monster nests, bandits & deserters, abandoned sites and hidden treasures. Comparing those to Rifts, Astariums, shards, keeps, landmarks and camps - one thing i've noticed is enemy placement namely almost all enemies in TW3 are spawned in or around points of interest/loot whereas in DAI enemies are almost always in the empty space between loot. I think despite both games causing some open world fatigue and grind, the fact that enemies are only around the loot is actually more rewarding than enemies being an impedance to getting to your destination. This is a pretty simple observation and something the DA team should look at doing.

 

The great thing about bandit camps and monster pits in TW3 is that they are entirely optional. They usually aren't on the roads, and if you choose you can just gallop by on your horse to meatier content or quest objectives. DA:I on the other hand often forced its equivalent content, by placing rifts in your path or putting your quest objective on the opposite side of the map, requiring rift clearing or the establishment of camps before you could get there. The way healing works in DA:I also played into that, since you needed to restock potions at camps.

 

DA4 could benefit by having the side content without much story attached to it not in the path of quest objectives, and only accessed if you choose or are exploring off the beaten path.

 

It has also been said countless times by now, so dead horses and all that...but Bioware also needs to take a serious look at how The Witcher 3 handled its side content in terms of story. While it had bandit camps and monster nests which were the equivalent of shard hunting, rifts, requisitions, or establishing camps in DA:I, it also had a lot of side quests that were as rich with story and interesting characters as the main quests. That was one area of DA:I that was seriously lacking. Outside the main quests there wasn't a lot of memorable content.

[Elhanan]

Yeah but you are just avoiding the content, its still there
 
The problem is Bioware doesn't handle it in a subtle way but goes the preachy route (talking about the actual content and not if its optional or not)

No. I avoid speaking to certain Companions for other reasons, but as with many Players, I choose the Romantic arcs that best apply for my characters and myself. So while I befriend Dorian and have had him along for most of both campaigns, there is no expectation of seeing this story.

And I only found out about Krem on the forums; has not occurred at all in game. But this may be linked to actually avoiding Iron Bull, as I speak to Krem far more often about the Mercs.

Avoiding content is also what was suggested for me as an option to avoid cut-scenes and visuals in TW3. Seems like both games might wish to avoid placing Players in that situation to begin with....

[Hazegurl]

I think the fact that he was gay added to his background and his personal quest. It made it more believable, I guess. He ended up being my favorite character in this game, for sure. And this is coming for a straight white male gamer.

I agree, his background and sexuality worked for his personal quest, but I think his personal quest or his story overall should have been something more.  I loved romancing him and his personal quest was moving. But I can also understand someone walking away from that quest thinking "What was the point of that?" or "So, this is yet another 'pray the gay away' storyline?"

 

I think if the focus was taken off his sexuality a bit and placed into other aspects he possesses, such as him being a talented mage, his conflicting love for his country, the Venatori, Being let down by his government and people, his guilt over elven plight, et al.  Then I think Dorian could have actually been an important character to the main plot rather than some guy who hangs out in our library.  When I think about it, the more I think that Calpurnia's presence was a bit redundant considering that we already had a similar Vint right under our noses who could have fit her story.  Minus the slave background of course.

 

Note: I'm not saying take his sexuality away from him.  He can still be gay and romancable by the male IQ only  if people want set sexualities so badly, but I think his story overall could have been better than what we got.

[Aren]

Yeah i don't buy Bioware games to romance people, it is just something extra that it is in the game. I would actually be fine if they stopped with the romance sub-plots. Is that wise to say in here?

Well I'm actually starting to believe that romances are slowly becoming the main purpose of the DA series,while the main plot and the side quests the extra.

 

[rashie]

So does Bioware, but Bioware cannot dictate the will of EA's higher ups who own their studio and whose views might not be aligned with views of the developers; and that is not the developers fault.

In cases like with DA:I it doesn't seem like its so much EA's fault to me as production quality in general is quite high and they were given ample time to develop this time around, its like they looked at games like skyrim without actually understanding why people find them fun and tried to turn it into their own 4 man squad based game.

[The Elder King]

So does Bioware, but Bioware cannot dictate the will of EA's higher ups who own their studio and whose views might not be aligned with views of the developers; and that is not the developers fault.

I doubt EA dictated much in the content of DAI (or any Bioware games).
I'm Not a fan of EA's policies, but let's Not use them As an excuse to justify the possible flaws in Bioware's games.

[The Elder King]

Well I'm actually starting to believe that romances are slowly becoming the main purpose of the DA series,while the main plot and the side quests the extra.
But seriously you cannot play DAI if not for the romances that are literally the only thing that add to the game
(even if mediocre i must admit) replayability value.
(DAI purpose was to kiss The LIs at the balcony in the end or at least this is what i guess......but....there was no need to defeat  the poor Cauliflower in order to do that...)

I didn't play DAI for the romances.

[AresKeith]

Well I'm actually starting to believe that romances are slowly becoming the main purpose of the DA series,while the main plot and the side quests the extra.

BSN being obsessed over romance doesn't mean Bioware is making it the main focus

[duckley]

Nope - DA does not need to be more like Witcher 3 - they are both great games - and different.

[In Exile]

The great thing about bandit camps and monster pits in TW3 is that they are entirely optional. They usually aren't on the roads, and if you choose you can just gallop by on your horse to meatier content or quest objectives. DA:I on the other hand often forced its equivalent content, by placing rifts in your path or putting your quest objective on the opposite side of the map, requiring rift clearing or the establishment of camps before you could get there. The way healing works in DA:I also played into that, since you needed to restock potions at camps.

DA4 could benefit by having the side content without much story attached to it not in the path of quest objectives, and only accessed if you choose or are exploring off the beaten path.

It has also been said countless times by now, so dead horses and all that...but Bioware also needs to take a serious look at how The Witcher 3 handled its side content in terms of story. While it had bandit camps and monster nests which were the equivalent of shard hunting, rifts, requisitions, or establishing camps in DA:I, it also had a lot of side quests that were as rich with story and interesting characters as the main quests. That was one area of DA:I that was seriously lacking. Outside the main quests there wasn't a lot of memorable content.

Those trash quests - the true trash quests, like monster nets and treasure hunts - were every bit as crap and repetitive as the fetch quests in DAI from a design POV. There are two differences, however:

1) The design was more varied. Clearing out a bandit camp was a bit different from clearing out a monster nest which was a bit different from clearing out an abandoned whatever.

2) The rewards were often excellent to good, not completely useless.

The sidequest point I think people are right on but t here's an important caveat: TW3 doesn't have any companions. That's a lot of VO resources it can translate over to side quests.

Plus the monster hunter quests get a bit repetitive after a while - just never as bad as DAI get during the Hinterlands alone.

[Torgette]

The great thing about bandit camps and monster pits in TW3 is that they are entirely optional. They usually aren't on the roads, and if you choose you can just gallop by on your horse to meatier content or quest objectives. DA:I on the other hand often forced its equivalent content, by placing rifts in your path or putting your quest objective on the opposite side of the map, requiring rift clearing or the establishment of camps before you could get there. The way healing works in DA:I also played into that, since you needed to restock potions at camps.

 

DA4 could benefit by having the side content without much story attached to it not in the path of quest objectives, and only accessed if you choose or are exploring off the beaten path.

 

It has also been said countless times by now, so dead horses and all that...but Bioware also needs to take a serious look at how The Witcher 3 handled its side content in terms of story. While it had bandit camps and monster nests which were the equivalent of shard hunting, rifts, requisitions, or establishing camps in DA:I, it also had a lot of side quests that were as rich with story and interesting characters as the main quests. That was one area of DA:I that was seriously lacking. Outside the main quests there wasn't a lot of memorable content.

 

Agreed on the open world structure, DAI is often laid out in a way to force players into doing side content rather than laying things out in a rewarding way for both completionists and players just focused on the main quests. Power itself is pointless too, as there's nothing to prevent the main missions from being gated by story-based quests, they just didn't have enough content and padded it out with systems instead. I also think Bioware overused content here as well, i'd rather have one amazing rift to close than a dozen cookie cutter ones.

 

I do think DAI had some good side content and premises, it's just that none of it was cutscene'd (even the great Old Crestwood side quest). There's actually quite a bit of that in TW3 as well (notes on the ground) but there's also plenty of cutscene'd story-driven side quests so you're not feeling let down either way - the notes are left for less important stuff like treasures.

[In Exile]

CD Projekt also has revenue streams outside of the witcher games - they're a lot like Valve in that circumstance, they also receive subsidies as I understand it (which isn't unusual, so does Sony). It would be cool for Bioware to go back to being independent someday just so we don't have to worry about the rest of EA dragging them down, but it is what it is.

 

This comes up a fair bit, but Bioware wasn't independent before EA bought them. They were owned by a hedge fund, which sold them off to EA. And they were owned by that hedge fund because they were in dire enough financial trouble that they needed private investment to stay afloat after KoTOR and JE. 

[Grieving Natashina]

This comes up a fair bit, but Bioware wasn't independent before EA bought them. They were owned by a hedge fund, which sold them off to EA. And they were owned by that hedge fund because they were in dire enough financial trouble that they needed private investment to stay afloat after KoTOR and JE. 

I did some digging yesterday.  Prior to EA, BioWare was owned by Microsoft.  In fact, ME1 was supposed to be an Xbox 360 exclusive.  During development, EA bought Microsoft's portion of the company out.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I did some digging yesterday.  Prior to EA, BioWare was owned by Microsoft.  In fact, ME1 was supposed to be an Xbox 360 exclusive.  During development, EA bought Microsoft's portion of the company out.

It was an Xbox 360 exclusive for around half a year.