15814 réponses à ce sujet

[Spectre Impersonator]

Who's reading  the audio book in your tagline? Dan Green? or Little Koriboh? 

Myself.

[SnakeCode]

I got down with the sickness. I regret nothing!

 

Oh-Ah-Ah-Ah-AH!

[Shechinah]

Geralt is a bad protagonist but the Inquisitor isn't?
lol

He/She is probably the most boring and bland protag ever, always so neutral hell even the voice actors sound bored

There are no origin stories, no emotions, you can't be ruthless etc. 

 

While I would consider most of that is subjective and some of it discussable; there is emotional dialogue with not just the companions but also the Inquisitor. One instance of this would be the final scene with Solas during his romance in which both him and the Inquisitor display some clear emotions not just conveyed through facial expressions but also through voice.  
 

[ManOfSteel]

I utterly adore the Witcher, it's dark and violent world and it's great cast of characters. But no. When I want to play The Witcher, I'll play The Witcher. There are of course elements that Dragon Age could learn from it, but that's not to say that they should start to resemble one another.

[MariNia]

witcher should stay withcher DA should stay DA<3

[RINNZ]

Two questions.
One: How is Geralt a boring protagonist? I really wanna know.

Two: For who don't like the Witcher series, is it because you can't create your own character? You know that not every game has to have a CC? (And yes, not every game needs to have a set protagonist. My point still stands, though.)

[SnakeCode]

I still stand by my argument that Geralt would be beloved on these boards were he a companion in a Bioware game. He has a lot of traits that are regularly championed on the BSN. He stands against bigotry and injustice. He fights for those without privilege, defends the poor and powerless. He hates racism, despises political scheming and is known for having a sharp wit and a very dry sense of humour. The voice acting isn't the best (a large reason why people mistake the character for being boring, I think) but it was inspired by Clint Eastwood and helps with the deadpan delivery. 

 

I think people dislike Geralt for reasons entirely disconnected from his character, and more due to what he represents. I'm not going to go into detail though because there's been enough arguing in this thread already.

[FiveThreeTen]

I think people dislike Geralt for reasons entirely disconnected from his character, and more due to what he represents. I'm not going to go into detail though because there's been enough arguing in this thread already.

Or you know, people can find a character boring without any hidden or complicated reason behind it?

[AllThatJazz]

Two questions.
One: How is Geralt a boring protagonist? I really wanna know.

Two: For who don't like the Witcher series, is it because you can't create your own character? You know that not every game has to have a CC? (And yes, not every game needs to have a set protagonist. My point still stands, though.)

To answer the 'why is he boring?' question. For me? Partly because he is so pre-defined. Pre-set relationships, history, class, race. While there is scope to make decisions in terms of the adventure at hand, there is very little scope to create his entire character as I want it. I understand why this is, but I vastly, vastly prefer creating my own individuals rather just playing someone who comes preloaded with so much baggage. The only CRPG where I've absolutely loved playing a PC with some pre-definition was Planescape, because aside from his gender, he was a completely blank slate. Saint or psycho, genius or moron, mage, thief or fighter - Nameless had already been all of these things throughout various incarnations and I was therefore completely free to develop him. I never felt that he was weighed down by his past, even when we learn more about it. I do feel that way with Geralt, therefore I feel that my ability to imagine Geralt as I would wish is severely constrained by his backstory, which I find boring.

 

I generally prefer playing females. It certainly isn't a deal breaker to play a guy (wouldn't have played many games otherwise), but I generally derive more enjoyment and interest from female protags.  Possibly because I'm female and I can play more female protags these days because more games are catering to that preference. I have many more options than I used to have, which is a lovely thing. Warrior is also my least favourite class - if I could get through the entire Witcher games without swinging a sword I'd probably like Geralt more. But even though alchemy, traps and signs are available, they are supplementary to Geralt's sword-swinging, not replacements. 

 

As to your second question, I can't answer that, because despite finding Geralt a bit dull, I like TW games.

[PhroXenGold]

I pretty much agree with AllThatJazz. I'm happy playing RPGs where aspects of my character and their personality are predefined (e.g. DA2, ME), but Geralt is too much "not my character" for me to enjoy roleplaying as him. I tend to agree that he would make for a good companion in a BW-esque game, but as the lead in an RPG, he's not quite to my tastes.

 

As for why I don't like The Witcher games, well, plain and simple, it's the combat. It was OK in the first game (though certainly nothing special), but TW2's was among the worst combat I've ever had the misfortune to experience in an RPG. I simply could not enjoy the game with combat the way it was, and thus I never got that far into it despite it's strengths in other areas.

[FiveThreeTen]

As for why I don't like The Witcher games, well, plain and simple, it's the combat. It was OK in the first game (though certainly nothing special), but TW2's was among the worst combat I've ever had the misfortune to experience in an RPG. I simply could not enjoy the game with combat the way it was, and thus I never got that far into it despite it's strengths in other areas.

I'm pretty much the same. It's very hard for me to enjoy a game if I don't enjoy the gameplay.

Playing TW1 didn't entice me to fire up its sequel in that regard. It's still sitting there in my library untouched so I can't really judge for TW2 (bought the two games in a steam sale for like 3 euros).

[In Exile]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on ASoIaF being a deconstruction of Tolkien.

There are too many parallels and similarities for me to think that its a deconstruction

People too often think a deconstruction is criticism. It doesn't have to be critical to be a deconstruction. There is a great GRRM interview out there about his views on post-Tolkien fantasy. Essentially, he thinks a lot of people writing after Tolkien missed the point, because they tried to write history instead if myth without the proper follow through in terms of consequences. That's where the perceived "gritty" or "dark" element comes into his work.

He also cheats a bit by playing with perspectives. Ned Stark - in a different series - would be a footnote. Like the difference between Rob Stark in the show vs. the books.

[In Exile]

I still stand by my argument that Geralt would be beloved on these boards were he a companion in a Bioware game. He has a lot of traits that are regularly championed on the BSN. He stands against bigotry and injustice. He fights for those without privilege, defends the poor and powerless. He hates racism, despises political scheming and is known for having a sharp wit and a very dry sense of humour. The voice acting isn't the best (a large reason why people mistake the character for being boring, I think) but it was inspired by Clint Eastwood and helps with the deadpan delivery.

I think people dislike Geralt for reasons entirely disconnected from his character, and more due to what he represents. I'm not going to go into detail though because there's been enough arguing in this thread already.

The fact that people would like a character as an NPC doesn't mean they'd like that same character as a protagonist. I really liked Varric in DA2, but I would never want to play a game where Varric is the protagonist.

[Namea]

I'm with AllThatJazz on why I found it difficult to like Geralt in the witcher games. He's not MY character, he's someone else's. The only thing that saves those games from being the type of RPG that I dislike (The kind where you're basically watching an interactive movie. The story is already made, you have no choices.) is that you DO have choices in the plot. I still feel that the witcher games are interesting but they're more male power fantasy than anything else. 

 

When I play Dragon Age or even to some extent games like Dragon's Dogma or Skyrim (Games with very little in the way of foreground plot but plenty of choices) I can create the character I want to create. I have 23 different wardens, 16 different Hawkes, 6 Inquisitors, 12 Dragonborns and 4 different Arisens. Each character has their own personality, likes, dislikes, and way of approaching a decision. Even the ones who make a lot of the same choices are not the same character. That's how I like to play. I want to create different characters and of course have the one initial playthrough where my character is essentially me in personality and choices. 

 

I can't do that in the Witcher games. Playing as a male I can do, it's not as fun for me but I can do it. Playing as a male with a personality I had no hand in? Harder, much harder. 

[Guitar-Hero]

No please  dont copy the Witcher. The Witcher has an amazing univers that far surpasses Dragon age in my opinion especially the books, Geralt is a hugely complex character which can unfortunately only be seen if you read the books because there is just too much backstory to fit into 2, 3 hell even 5 games. Dragon age inquisition was not my cup of tea as i found it boring, but that doesn't mean that other people might not like it or should be able to enjoy it. My advice is play the Witcher and dont play games you dont find interesting, you wouldnt watch a tv show like the Sopranos and say be more like Game of Thrones. That being said Bioware has made some amazing games (such as Mass Effect 1,2 and 3)

[Andraste_Reborn]

Two: For who don't like the Witcher series, is it because you can't create your own character?

 

Mainly, yes. I also hated the combat during the whole hour that I spent playing the first game before I uninstalled it forever, but Geralt was what really put me off. In a cRPG, I want to make my own protagonist.

 

I'm not put off by playing male characters in other genres - including JPRGs - where fixed protagonist characters are the norm. I mean, I wish that more video game protagonists were women (and not so frequently straight and white) but the mere fact of them being fixed characters doesn't bother me. But being able to roleplay is a lot of the fun of cRPGs for me. If I wanted a game with a fixed protagonist, I could pick one from pretty much any other genre.

[SofaJockey]

The thing is, people have different tastes for RPG.

So 'your mileage may vary' absolutely applies.

 

My own tastes favour 3rd person games, so both a defined character or a blank slate are both fine.

 

I suspect the OP's suggestion that DA be more like The Witcher is not the right one.

That said, if it was 'can DA learn something from The Witcher', that's a different question, and one that can be answered soon.

[Seraphim24]

To answer the 'why is he boring?' question. For me? Partly because he is so pre-defined. Pre-set relationships, history, class, race. While there is scope to make decisions in terms of the adventure at hand, there is very little scope to create his entire character as I want it. I understand why this is, but I vastly, vastly prefer creating my own individuals rather just playing someone who comes preloaded with so much baggage. The only CRPG where I've absolutely loved playing a PC with some pre-definition was Planescape, because aside from his gender, he was a completely blank slate. Saint or psycho, genius or moron, mage, thief or fighter - Nameless had already been all of these things throughout various incarnations and I was therefore completely free to develop him. I never felt that he was weighed down by his past, even when we learn more about it. I do feel that way with Geralt, therefore I feel that my ability to imagine Geralt as I would wish is severely constrained by his backstory, which I find boring.

 

I generally prefer playing females. It certainly isn't a deal breaker to play a guy (wouldn't have played many games otherwise), but I generally derive more enjoyment and interest from female protags.  Possibly because I'm female and I can play more female protags these days because more games are catering to that preference. I have many more options than I used to have, which is a lovely thing. Warrior is also my least favourite class - if I could get through the entire Witcher games without swinging a sword I'd probably like Geralt more. But even though alchemy, traps and signs are available, they are supplementary to Geralt's sword-swinging, not replacements. 

 

As to your second question, I can't answer that, because despite finding Geralt a bit dull, I like TW games.

 

I don't want to sound harsh, but generally speaking my issue with player-created things is they aren't likely to match an author or someone whose job it is to make compelling narratives or characters.

 

I know people really like for example transmogrification in WoW but I'll be ****ed if 98% of the outfits you see were just like ugh.

 

I'm with AllThatJazz on why I found it difficult to like Geralt in the witcher games. He's not MY character, he's someone else's. The only thing that saves those games from being the type of RPG that I dislike (The kind where you're basically watching an interactive movie. The story is already made, you have no choices.) is that you DO have choices in the plot. I still feel that the witcher games are interesting but they're more male power fantasy than anything else. 

 

When I play Dragon Age or even to some extent games like Dragon's Dogma or Skyrim (Games with very little in the way of foreground plot but plenty of choices) I can create the character I want to create. I have 23 different wardens, 16 different Hawkes, 6 Inquisitors, 12 Dragonborns and 4 different Arisens. Each character has their own personality, likes, dislikes, and way of approaching a decision. Even the ones who make a lot of the same choices are not the same character. That's how I like to play. I want to create different characters and of course have the one initial playthrough where my character is essentially me in personality and choices. 

 

I feel like the choices are mostly illusory though, you have set character options, set path, set all kinds of things.

 

I mean is being a lizard thief, a norse warrior, or a dark elf mage mean anything in Skyrim? You are still going to complete the same quest to murder the thousands of bandits roaming the countryside, loot all their possessions, and then sell it all for gold. The only thing that changes is what you look like while doing it.

[berelinde]

I mean is being a lizard thief, a norse warrior, or a dark elf mage mean anything in Skyrim? You are still going to complete the same quest to murder the thousands of bandits roaming the countryside, loot all their possessions, and then sell it all for gold. The only thing that changes is what you look like while doing it.

If it means something to the player, it means something. Ultimately every game - even the Witcher - plays through almost exactly the same way apart from a few player-defined choices. No matter which faction Geralt supports (or whatever), his personality is never going to change. If you like that personality, great, but if you don't, the game will never be satisfying.

[FiveThreeTen]

I mean is being a lizard thief, a norse warrior, or a dark elf mage mean anything in Skyrim? You are still going to complete the same quest to murder the thousands of bandits roaming the countryside, loot all their possessions, and then sell it all for gold. The only thing that changes is what you look like while doing it.

To a lot of players it's important. My Dark Elf necromancer and my Norse Scout didn't gave me the same game experience.

[Ajna]

TW3 release cannot come fast enough for me, I can't wait!

Perhaps then the forums will be free of all this crap, for a time at least. The break will be savoured.

[AllThatJazz]

@kefka if I really want a strong author driven narrative at the expense of customisation (purely or mainly flavour though that customisation may be), I can choose to play in almost any other genre of game, where I simply steer an avatar around a world. CRPGs are unique (excepting the sims) in allowing the player a way to express whatever they want - yes, within the confines of the game world, but they are typically looser in a CRPG than in other genres. This includes such things as gender, race, sexual identity and of course appearance. It may not be a meaningful distinction within the narrative, for the most part, but is a meaningful distinction to many players, including myself. I don't only role play stats, or role play my character responding to in-game events. I also role play that character's mind, their history, their preferences, their personality. In that respect then yeah, there is a massive difference between my Nord Dragonborn and my Khajit, or between my paragon vanguard Shepard and my renegade engineer.

There are also occasional games which show that a compelling narrative and being able to create your own character aren't mutually exclusive. Vampire the Masquerade: bloodlines, Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout new Vegas, morrowind, pillars of eternity, KotOR 1 & 2, Mass Effect 1, Origins, Mask of the Betrayer. All examples of great or well-told stories that also allow character creation.

I find that in games where the narrative doesn't shine through so much, it's less as a result of customisation, and more to do with open world (and even here there are exceptions).

[wicked cool]

Im a fan of dragon age/skyrim and maybe w3

Heres my 2 cents on how dai missed and how they could have done the same things as w3
1) graphics and effects-its clear they didnt push the envelope enough. Probably has to do with an understanding of the engine or its limits but w3 is light years ahead on the same consoles within a year of each other
2) monster variety/lairs-dai is a mess when it comes to monsters/encounters. From annoying bears popping in to the same 3 mages/templars over and over. Most have no personality.ai is far superior
3) horsecombat-engine or other its a failure ss it doesnt exist
4) swimming. Its pathetic that a modern rpg doesnt allow you to enter water. Barely got jumping in
5) sonar vs witcher sense. Sorry but witcher sense seems a lit less annoying than constantly pinging gor warden focuments etc
6 armor variety-hands down just better in w3.
7)environments-swamps are more detailed with poisonous gas and clothes get wet.
8) gerault comments on his environment and there is much more immersion than dai. Dai mostly has companions do the talking even though you have a voice
9) Theres no wow moments in combat. In dao when i defeated the end boss i was floored. I truly felt like i saved the world and was truly happy with my choices. There were exciting battles such as the spider queen and high dragon and i loved fighting darkspawn. Dai took most of that away slthough dragon fights were a blast if you went in at the right level. W3 combat has consequences and there are many battles where you may question your decisions(based on youtube lets play )
10) cities and villages-once again no comparison. If anything dsi falls short of skyrim

Dai excels in memorable companions which is attributed to acting and script writing. The problem is its the same as dao/da2 and really isnt a reflection of next gen

[Torgette]

I still stand by my argument that Geralt would be beloved on these boards were he a companion in a Bioware game. He has a lot of traits that are regularly championed on the BSN. He stands against bigotry and injustice. He fights for those without privilege, defends the poor and powerless. He hates racism, despises political scheming and is known for having a sharp wit and a very dry sense of humour. The voice acting isn't the best (a large reason why people mistake the character for being boring, I think) but it was inspired by Clint Eastwood and helps with the deadpan delivery. 

 

I think people dislike Geralt for reasons entirely disconnected from his character, and more due to what he represents. I'm not going to go into detail though because there's been enough arguing in this thread already.

 

I grew up on rpg's that had no customization so obviously I had no problem with it. Bioware games were like a revelation for me in this regard, but I can still enjoy games where you play as an established character - there's still roleplaying opportunities and content to explore. I do think it's legitimate if you don't like an established character that it's perfectly alright to not play the game though, there have been jrpg's I didn't play for this very reason.