15790 réponses à ce sujet

[TheOgre]

Well it's whichever options nets you the most exp.Skyrim is honestly almost Super Mario, I mean what are the differences between joining the Thief's guild, attacking the thief's guild, killing all the guards in Riften,. doing half the quests, then killing all the thieves, as a Dark Elf? Or doing the same thing as a nord?

 

Well nothing.

 

I was thinking about this in the context of The Witcher, but also something like Shadow of the Colossus (um spoilers) has pretty good ambiguity, your girlfriend is dead, so you basically violate every sacred law and slowly destroy your body in the vain hope it'll save her, but you end up resurrecting an ancient demon god anyway who is killed by the people trying to protect the land and the guardians you are basically ripping apart the whole land.

 

There's no choice in anything, the protagonist, the order in which you kill bosses, but it seems to me the story inherently possesses more kind of gray area, no matter how many 'choices' Skyrim offers. I think a similar logic applies to something like DA:I, you can either A) Join the Inquisition, gather companions, kill the big bad boss Join the Inquisition, gather companions, kill the big bad boss, or C) Join the inquisition, gather companions, kill the big bad boss. 

 

I would say creating your own kind of character is interesting and fun but to be honest I do that a lot in something like Second Life or a free to play MMO where it's like the whole point. If I want to experience something exciting and be invited into a dramatic new world I want the people making the game to be have strong opinions and feelings about where things should end up going in the end.

 

I think that I'm kind of just repeating the same thing, but I kind of get the idea of making your own character, I just kind of feel like that's a separate thing.

 

 

I don't know I think the Roche/Iorveth decisions was a pretty big difference. Geralt is either loyal to his original association, or considerably more willing to be rebellious and break the rules and boundaries. Plus, I mean, I don't think "no personality" is the solution to not liking someone, DA:O and DA:I PCs are a blank slate basically.

 

 

You know another thing is how infrequently people play those other options, most people play Nord or human or something like that anyway. A lot of the time they also play like mage or warrior or something...

 

I mean more than 50% of the people in WoW play Blood Elves, Humans, or Night Elves.

 

I would agree that games like Morrowind, and Baldur's Gate 2, and MotB, etc, have your own character created as well as pretty interesting worlds to play with them, but I think the problem is one being sacrificed for the other.

 

 

I don't know I think the Roche/Iorveth decisions was a pretty big difference. Geralt is either loyal to his original association, or considerably more willing to be rebellious and break the rules and boundaries.

 

My problem with DAI is that I felt so restricted in my role as the Inquisitor that I didn't feel any difference when I was a Qunari or a Human. Just slight dialogue choices and court approval :/

[Seraphim24]

Yeah, there are companions in DA2 who can (and will) leave if they don't like you or a decision you've made, and there are companions whose fates are largely or completely out of your control. I found it very believable and interesting - but sadly it was one of the good things about DA2 that sort of got lost in all the negative criticism. Shame really, I would like to have seen that developed further. Think we're getting there with Solas though - I certainly don't see an easy way of talking him down from whatever he's planning.

 

Well DA2 I mean... like it just had it's moments if Ander's was all yes I blow it up and I mean it and **** the man! I would of been like whoa! It's easily the most interesting moment in DA2 as is, but it came off like the diffident weirdo rebel like the guy in Seven (Kevin Spacey's character), sort of like yeah I did it but he says things like I wanted to tell you "but what if you wanted to stop me?" and he's more shaken and immediately repentant in ways that are jarring and at odds with the act itself. There's so much spirit but to be that diffident about it at the same turns everything all off and icky. Moreover plenty of DA2 characters were just blips to me, such as Aveline who I thought could not possibly have been more boring.

 

Yeah was watching Solas scenes the other day again, easily the most interesting DA:I companion. Sera has that spark of rebellion but it's so ripsaw your kinda annoyed by it all the same.

 

I feel like pretty much everyone in TW does what they want though, Iorveth is going to support Saskia, Roche is going against him, they will always hate each other. Saskia and Henselt will always hate each other. All the sorceresses hate every other sorceress. The Redanian king wants something from Phillipa, who wants something from you and manipulates you and Iorveth, and so on and so forth. It's like, I really like being lost in their plights and interests. In terms of not giving a ****, TW wins somewhat handily.

 

In complete fairness, while there's this kind of empty feeling sensation with the DA characters, almost needy even, they're almost more aggressive and intense (almost like dictatorial/charisma thing going on) than Witcher characters perhaps (at times). It feels like they take so much energy to point in the right direction though and they seem so unstable a lot of the time your kind of like look you want to blow up the chantry fine just one way or another get over it.

 

I think perhaps Letho (and W2 generally) is probably the wild card though that tips the scales definitively in favor of the Witcher (although the other witchers are no slouches), he is like this world shattering assassin character who also has these sort of bizzarely humble and acutely personal interests. The Witcher 2 on the whole seems to blend together that broad political intrigue and high stakes with a sense of warmth. It's not like you are absent the grave implications of warfare or something while playing the Witcher. DA has increasingly lost that sense of warmth, and honestly Origins wasn't super high to begin with (compared to BG). Not to mention there are things like the war/conflict at the end of act 2 which is probably just as epic as anything in DA. The Witcher 1 also, for that matter has a number of those characters, specifically in as you mention the later parts Chapter 5 but I also think to some degree in the prologue and chapter 1.

 

My biggest issue with DA isn't that they don't occasionally summon some kind of brazen audacity like you mentioned the Landsmeet, Ander's and the chantry, Solas and the runes, but simply that it is too infrequent or feels sort of like this flashing light that quickly evaporates. If they rode this themes consistently and hard, throughout the game, it could be quite a momentous thing, but as it is way more frequently than not they seem to drag the spotlight onto certain acts or characters before quickly backing off the possibility and you are left going wait was that? Were you for real there?

 

Hm you seem to have drawn a rather large amount of opinion out of me.

[The Elder King]

My problem with DAI is that I felt so restricted in my role as the Inquisitor that I didn't feel any difference when I was a Qunari or a Human. Just slight dialogue choices and court approval :/

The race problem is likely based on the human 'origin' of the Inquisitor. He/she was supposed to be only human. The year delay allowed them to make other playable races.
Hopefully, if they decide to continue with multiple races, they'll do a better job since the PC won't be human-only since the start of development.

[Grieving Natashina]

This is just my opinion and I hope you guys know that I'm not claiming anyone else is wrong for disagreeing with me.  I also know that I got fortunate in some areas.  Take this as YMMV and not a direct attack on anyone's opinion or experiences.  

 

I felt a big difference between playing my human warrior versus my dwarven rogue.  My warrior was very pro-Chantry and threw herself into the whole, "Andraste's Herald" business.  My dwarf didn't even believe in the Stone or the Maker, and was reluctant "Herald."  The way that NPCs would greet me was different too.  I got a lot more, "Wait, that's Andraste's Herald?!?" as a dwarf.  As a human (female) warrior, it was done with a lot more respect and a lot less shock.  It also helped that I felt I had plenty of choices in personality.   My smartassed, agnostic but good hearted dwarf rogue is nowhere near the same person as my very goodie-two-shoed Maker-following human warrior, not in my eyes.  

 

I didn't notice a lack of "Origin," because I was able to use my connections as an ex-Carta in quests, as well as War Table missions.  I didn't need an origin story like DA:O or DA2 to get into my character in the slightest.  I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to play my character exactly the way I hoped back last September.   

 

I'll be honest, I have no idea what folks are talking about when they say, "I'm too restricted in my RP."  Okay, sure, you can't be a blood thirsty psychopath like the Warden could.  It's not like you could really be that evil with Hawke either.  From my experiences (I have a bunch of completed Hawkes, some on of the so-called "aggressive" path) you could be only slightly more of a jerk in DA2 as opposed to DA:I.  If anyone mentions blood magic, then I'll point out that blood magic had zero to do with the story.  No one treated you any different, and it's not like you could use it in a cutscene.

 

I feel like I've had more choices this time around, and I love it.

[The Elder King]

This is just my opinion and I hope you guys know that I'm not claiming anyone else is wrong for disagreeing with me.  I also know that I got fortunate in some areas.  Take this as YMMV and not a direct attack on anyone's opinion or experiences.  
 
I felt a big difference between playing my human warrior versus my dwarven rogue.  My warrior was very pro-Chantry and threw herself into the whole, "Andraste's Herald" business.  My dwarf didn't even believe in the Stone or the Maker, and was reluctant "Herald."  The way that NPCs would greet me was different too.  I got a lot more, "Wait, that's Andraste's Herald?!?" as a dwarf.  As a human (female) warrior, it was done with a lot more respect and a lot less shock.  It also helped that I felt I had plenty of choices in personality.   My smartassed, agnostic but good hearted dwarf rogue is nowhere near the same person as my very goodie-two-shoed  Chantry following human warrior, not in my eyes.  
 
I didn't notice a lack of "Origin," because I was able to use my connections as an ex-Carta, as well as War Table missions.  I didn't need an origin story like DA:O or DA2 to get into my character in the slightest.  I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to play my character exactly the way I hoped back last September.   
 
I'll be honest, I have no idea what folks are talking about when they say, "I'm too restricted in my RP."  Okay, sure, you can't be a blood thirsty psychopath like the Warden could.  It's not like you could really be that evil with Hawke either.  From my experiences (I have a bunch of completed Hawkes, some on of the so-called "aggressive" path) you could be only slightly more of a jerk in DA2 as opposed to DA:I.  If anyone mentions blood magic, then I'll point out that blood magic had zero to do with the story.  No one treated you any different, and it's not like you could use it in a cutscene.
 
I feel like I've had more choices this time around, and I love it.

To be clear, with 'origin' I meant the fact that They developers the story around a human PC, and added the races later, not origins like in DAO.
Also, I didn't mean that the RP options Are necessarily limited, just that the reason why some Are disappointed by the races in DAI might be related to how the game was developed.

[TheOgre]

It's my opinion that no matter what, it just felt like I was always a human, even as a Qunari. I didn't feel like I had an actual relevant origin. Perhaps this game was meant for those more that used headcannoning. The Inquisitor, in my opinion, will always be a human to me.

[Grieving Natashina]

To be clear, with 'origin' I meant the fact that They developers the story around a human PC, and added the races later, not origins like in DAO.
Also, I didn't mean that the RP options Are necessarily limited, just that the reason why some Are disappointed by the races in DAI might be related to how the game was developed.

I was addressing folks that have mentioned before that a lack of an origin story (like in Origins or in DA2) has made them feel disconnected.  I was also mainly addressing Ogre's point.  I should have used the quote system, so that was my bad.

 

It's my opinion that no matter what, it just felt like I was always a human, even as a Qunari. I didn't feel like I had an actual relevant origin. Perhaps this game was meant for those more that used headcannoning. The Inquisitor, in my opinion, will always be a human to me.

I'm not using headcanon much at all.  That was the beauty part to me. I didn't feel like I was acting nor being treated the same as the human non-mage PC.   I didn't have to head canon, it's right there in the game.  The race description, the various choices related to being a dwarf in conversation, and the reaction from both NPCs and party members.  No further invention needed for me.  I could state what I was like as a member of a Carta much the same as my human mage could state whether or not she was still close to her family.  I had freedom of religion, for the first time, something I badly wanted in Origins.  I mean by the ability to state how I felt on my non-human character about the Chantry rather than defaulting to "By the Maker" yet again.  

 

If anything, I felt the sense of being a non-human race so much better than I did as a Warden.  It's because of the way I was treated.  Outside of Orzimmar in Origins, no one made any remarks about me being a dwarf in much of any shape or form.   This isn't the case in Inquisition.  I noticed it in some conversations, as well as in other areas.  The War Table missions for the races are very different from each other.  I don't like how much of this is text only, and I'll be the first to state it.  

 

However, I don't need to headcanon what's already there in the game.  To me, my Inquisitor is whoever I feel like playing.  In my heart, if I had to pick a "canon" Inquisitor, it's my dwarf.  To each their own.  

[The Elder King]

@Natashina: Understood .
Though in regards of non-human PC and religion, I recall that in DAO you could say you didn't believe in the Maker at Ostagar (and possibly with Burkel at Orzammar).

[TheOgre]

I was addressing folks that have mentioned before that a lack of an origin story (like in Origins or in DA2) has made them feel disconnected.  I was also mainly addressing Ogre's point.  I should have used the quote system, so that was my bad.

 

I'm not using headcanon much at all.  That was the beauty part to me. I didn't feel like I was acting nor being treated the same as the human non-mage PC.   I didn't have to head canon, it's right there in the game.  The race description, the various choices related to being a dwarf in conversation, and the reaction from both NPCs and party members.  No further invention needed for me.  I could state what I was like as a member of a Carta much the same as my human mage could state whether or not she was still close to her family.  I had freedom of religion, for the first time, something I badly wanted in Origins.  I mean by the ability to state how I felt on my non-human character about the Chantry rather than defaulting to "By the Maker" yet again.  

 

If anything, I felt the sense of being a non-human race so much better than I did as a Warden.  It's because of the way I was treated.  Outside of Orzimmar in Origins, no one made any remarks about me being a dwarf in much of any shape or form.   This isn't the case in Inquisition.  I noticed it in some conversations, as well as in other areas.  The War Table missions for the races are very different from each other.  I don't like how much of this is text only, and I'll be the first to state it.  

 

However, I don't need to headcanon what's already there in the game.  To me, my Inquisitor is whoever I feel like playing.  In my heart, if I had to pick a "canon" Inquisitor, it's my dwarf.  To each their own.  

 

I disagree, and I stated why, but I will again. Wartable missions are just not for me. I don't see the result of my actions. I read about them, and that's just it. I never meet the mercs that used to work with me, or had a nice chat over a few ales. "So the humans think your some kind of god or something?" At the end of the day, we played a human's role with almost no variation in dialogue choices. "Oh your a dwarf, oh your a qunari" are all in passing. I'd rather experience something rather than hear or read about it.

[Grieving Natashina]

@Natashina: Understood .
Though in regards of non-human PC and religion, I recall that in DAO you could say you didn't believe in the Maker at Ostagar (and possibly with Burkel at Orzammar).

I got into conversations with at least Cassandra, Leliana, and Iron Bull that I could think of related to my character's race and faith.  Iron Bull even talks about the no-dreaming thing.  

 

This wasn't a passing mention at the beginning of the game.  That was part of my point.  In DA:O, outside of Orzammar (prologue and return trip) and Ostagar, I had very little say on that at all.  Whereas in Inquisition, this comes up all the time.  That's what I wanted out of a non-human character that I didn't get in Origins.  I say this with complete love for my Casteless as well.  _RIP

 

@Ogre: We'll just agree to disagree here.  I saw worlds of difference between Origins and Inquisition when it came to playing a non-human race.  I felt like I was a dwarf doing a hero's job.  I didn't feel like a human doing it.  I don't know, maybe it's because I grew up playing a lot of games with a lot of text.  

 

That being said, I did mention that there was too much of the character's story that was text only.  Still, it was easy to make sure Garnet didn't have a 100% human story anymore than Valena had a dwarven one.

[The Elder King]

I got into conversations with at least Cassandra, Leliana, and Iron Bull that I could think of related to my character's race and faith.  Iron Bull even talks about the no-dreaming thing.  
 
This wasn't a passing mention at the beginning of the game.  That was part of my point.  In DA:O, outside of Orzammar (prologue and return trip) and Ostagar, I had very little say on that at all.  Whereas in Inquisition, this comes up all the time.  That's what I wanted out of a non-human character that I didn't get in Origins.  I say this with complete love for my Casteless as well.  _RIP

Understood I misread what you meant before.

[TheOgre]

I got into conversations with at least Cassandra, Leliana, and Iron Bull that I could think of related to my character's race and faith.  Iron Bull even talks about the no-dreaming thing.  

 

This wasn't a passing mention at the beginning of the game.  That was part of my point.  In DA:O, outside of Orzammar (prologue and return trip) and Ostagar, I had very little say on that at all.  Whereas in Inquisition, this comes up all the time.  That's what I wanted out of a non-human character that I didn't get in Origins.  I say this with complete love for my Casteless as well.  _RIP

 

@Ogre: We'll just agree to disagree here.  I saw worlds of difference between Origins and Inquisition when it came to playing a non-human race.  I felt like I was a dwarf doing a hero's job.  I didn't feel like a human doing it.  I don't know, maybe it's because I grew up playing a lot of games with a lot of text.  

 

That being said, I did mention that there was too much of the character's story that was text only.  Still, it was easy to make sure Garnet didn't have a 100% human story anymore than Valena had a dwarven one.

 

And I'll maintain that this game was meant for someone else that had a different kind of imagination. I like to play my characters DAO style, and you like to play them DAI style.

[Grieving Natashina]

Understood I misread what you meant before.

No worries.  Nice to see you outside of the ME forums, by the way.  

 

 

And I'll maintain that this game was meant for someone else that had a different kind of imagination. I like to play my characters DAO style, and you like to play them DAI style.

 I said that I liked what Inquisition with the races this time around.  I've also said, again, that so much of the character's story being text only was a bad design choice.  For the record, I also liked the origins, and I did miss them.   Having more direct interaction with people from your character's racial background would have helped things out a ton imho.

 

To be honest, I would prefer both for the next game.  An origin story (DA:O) incorporated well with race reaction (DA:I.)  That's the style I would prefer.

[AllThatJazz]

I was addressing folks that have mentioned before that a lack of an origin story (like in Origins or in DA2) has made them feel disconnected.  I was also mainly addressing Ogre's point.  I should have used the quote system, so that was my bad.

 

I'm not using headcanon much at all.  That was the beauty part to me. I didn't feel like I was acting nor being treated the same as the human non-mage PC.   I didn't have to head canon, it's right there in the game.  The race description, the various choices related to being a dwarf in conversation, and the reaction from both NPCs and party members.  No further invention needed for me.  I could state what I was like as a member of a Carta much the same as my human mage could state whether or not she was still close to her family.  I had freedom of religion, for the first time, something I badly wanted in Origins.  I mean by the ability to state how I felt on my non-human character about the Chantry rather than defaulting to "By the Maker" yet again.  

 

If anything, I felt the sense of being a non-human race so much better than I did as a Warden.  It's because of the way I was treated.  Outside of Orzimmar in Origins, no one made any remarks about me being a dwarf in much of any shape or form.   This isn't the case.  I noticed it in some conversations, as well as in other areas.  The War Table missions for the races are very different from each other.  I don't like how much of this is text only, and I'll be the first to state it.  

 

However, I don't need to headcanon what's already there in the game.  To me, my Inquisitor is whoever I feel like playing.  In my heart, if I had to pick a "canon" Inquisitor, it's my dwarf.  To each their own.  

Completely agree. Except that my canon is an Elf. There are plenty of times that her race is referred to in conversation, Elf-only armours, an Elf-only romance, a main story with plenty of Elfy bits, and ancient Elvhen areas to explore. I could also talk to Josie in Haven to establish various aspects of her character. Honestly, this is the most fun I've had, and the most connected I've felt to the gameworld, while playing a non-human character  

 

@kefka - yeah I see what you mean, TW characters are very independent - I like this and I don't. I like their agency, but don't always love that all the various characters seem at each others' throats, that it seems to always be a negative agency. I adore the 'building a team' aspect of Bioware games, and the fact that they can develop relationships/friendships with each other (Solas/Cole, Dorian/Iron Bull, Aveline/Isabela). Though I admit I'd enjoy seeing a betrayal along the lines of Yoshimo in BG2. Agreed re: Solas. He's far and away my favourite character in Inquisition Keep going with all the opinion-having, I love reading it!

[The Elder King]

No worries.  Nice to see you outside of the ME forums, by the way.

Thanks .

[TheOgre]

 

 I said that I liked what Inquisition with the races this time around.  I've also said, again, that so much of the character's story being text only was a bad design choice.  For the record, I also liked the origins, and I did miss them.   Having more direct interaction with people from your character's racial background would have helped things out a ton imho.

 

To be honest, I would prefer both for the next game.  An origin story (DA:O) incorporated well with race reaction (DA:I.)  That's the style I would prefer.

 

 

It's just my opinion that if I have to read about it on a wartable mission, it's a waste of time for me to try to get into it. I've done so many mission style things in SWTOR and now sadly in Warcraft. I felt more connected to my DAO character because there were multiple places in the game where you'd be haunted by your past in some sort. The Cousland would speak to, what they thought could or could not be their dead father, or the human mage could talk to Jowen. I like conversations more than reading.

[jds1bio]

I disagree with this. I thought the whole sequence from the battle of Haven to the discovery of Skyhold was one long 'wow' moment, and I loved the post credits scene (possibly because I was playing a Solas-romancing Lavellan, so I was very invested in the character).

DIsagree also here.  Some of the companion resolutions and lore revelations were "wow" moments during the game, as were seeing some of the areas in the zones for the first time.

[Grieving Natashina]

It's just my opinion that if I have to read about it on a wartable mission, it's a waste of time for me to try to get into it. I've done so many mission style things in SWTOR and now sadly in Warcraft. I felt more connected to my DAO character because there were multiple places in the game where you'd be haunted by your past in some sort. The Cousland would speak to, what they thought could or could not be their dead father, or the human mage could talk to Jowen. I like conversations more than reading.

I see a place for both, but again, certain design choices in regards to the race had some real issues this time around.  The one that I can think of that has the biggest impact is the War Table missions for the elven PC.  Much like with the Wardens, you can accidentally kill your PC's clan off if you pick the wrong advisers to send out.  It's never mentioned except for the ending slides.  That was a very bad idea.

 

However, I'm also trying to come up with suggestions for the next game.  I think more interaction for the player with members of their clan/family/NPC old friend would help make the race selection shine.  That was something I missed this time over Origins: I missed having an old friend as a NPC and someone my character could chat with later in the game.  Without a doubt, establishing a connection with the family (at least to some degree) or friends went a long way to creating a deeper connection to the character.  I think a mix of that as well as the text and reactive conversations from Inquisition could benefit DA sequels down the road.  

[jds1bio]

I have played through 30 minutes of the witcher 3 and it just seems like that game has 100 times bigger budget than what DAI ever had.

Why?  Because of the pre-rendered cutscenes?  During the first 30 minutes you're only actually in control in the game world for a few minutes.

[CronoDragoon]

I disagree, and I stated why, but I will again. Wartable missions are just not for me. I don't see the result of my actions. I read about them, and that's just it. I never meet the mercs that used to work with me, or had a nice chat over a few ales. "So the humans think your some kind of god or something?" At the end of the day, we played a human's role with almost no variation in dialogue choices. "Oh your a dwarf, oh your a qunari" are all in passing. I'd rather experience something rather than hear or read about it.

 

I have to disagree there. I was thoroughly satisfied with my Dalish playthrough. When I told people that I didn't believe in the Maker but the Elven Gods, and accordingly refused to believe Andraste had chosen me, the game remembered that. Later after Here Lies, Giselle is pretty bitter about it, asking me if I was happy in being right all along. I was then given an opportunity to respond. This is the perfect kind of reactivity that this game excels at. Another example: After I told Cassandra I wasn't Andrastian, much later in the game you have the convo with her about being Divine. I told her I thought the Chantry had failed and didn't deserve saving, to which she responded that she wasn't surprised to hear a nonbeliever say that. Additionally, during that convo you can bring up the Chantry's treatment of elves as a negative. At Haven, the human bartender told me that she believed Andraste had chosen an elf as punishment and as a lesson to humans mistreating them for so long. Blackwall's first convo ends with him shamefully admitting he expected the Inquisitor to be human.

 

It's the little things like that that make this game for me in terms of role-playing. But the game also has big things. The Temple of Mythal feels reeeally different as an elf. First, there's me begging Abelas to help the Dalish with his knowledge, then there's me telling Morrigan that the Well was my heritage and therefore my right to drink, humans be damned. All in all, it felt like a turning point in my elf's beliefs, even if sadly I only had a few opportunities to express this given the lateness of the plot development.

[Steelcan]

                                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

What, exactly, are you afraid of?

boobs probably

[Zazzerka]

who would pick someone besides Triss though?

 

Truest thing you've said.

[FKA_Servo]

boobs probably

 

More likely a distaste for action games and fixed protagonists, and a desire for romance sidequests that are a little varied and inclusive.

 

If the sole game franchise that CDPR has made does not offer what someone's looking for in a RPG, and is in fact very different from what Bioware typically serves up, I can't really fault them for not wanting Bioware to emulate them.

Modifié par TommyServo, 19 mai 2015 - 03:23 .

[Steelcan]

More likely a distaste for action games and fixed protagonists, and a desire for romance sidequests that are a little varied and inclusive. No one's scared of boobs, jesus christ.

 

If the sole game franchise that CDPR has made does not offer what someone's looking for in a RPG, and is in fact very different from what Bioware typically serves up, I can't really fault them for not wanting Bioware to emulate them.

well seeing as the person I was actually responding to has come out against nudity, sex scenes, and such in games, I think I'm more on the right track

[SnakeCode]

More likely a distaste for action games and fixed protagonists, and a desire for romance sidequests that are a little varied and inclusive. No one's scared of boobs, jesus christ.

 

If the sole game franchise that CDPR has made does not offer what someone's looking for in a RPG, and is in fact very different from what Bioware typically serves up, I can't really fault them for not wanting Bioware to emulate them.

 

I thought speaking on everyone's behalf generally isn't approved of around here?