Yes I deny the superiority of Bioware's writing
I mean they write great characters no doubt about it but the main stories are just generic and cliche most of the time (although if well done that can still be good see DA:O)
Its always the same old saving the world
And I'm not sure what you are trying to do comparing Shakespeare with 50 shades of grey, are you saying Bioware is somehow Shakespeare in that comparison and CDPR 50 shades? lol
I played The Witcher (the original game) for about as long as I could stand it. My fundamental problems with that game (and nothing has changed since the last time I could be bothered to try it) is that A: the writing was juvenile (I'm a book designer and work on manuscripts every day of my life, so I have seen a lot of good and bad writing - mostly bad, unfortunately) B: the voice acting was wooden (Triss's and Geralt's initial dialogue made me cringe over how bad the delivery was in English) and C: I detested the combat.
As far as the combat goes in TW1, let me tell you that I beat Bloodborne and loved the combat, so I can actually play games that require combos and mashing buttons - it's not that I sucked at the combat in TW1 or couldn't get the hang of it when I tried; I just found it incredibly tedious, boring, and clunky (unlike Bloodborne in which combat was pretty exhilarating after I got the hang of it).
On the issue of the writing in general, I kind of have to laugh when people always say how superior TW1 is in terms of writing when basically all the dialogue I listened to was filled with clunkers that were just as bad as the dialogue I get from authors who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag (ah, the wonders of self-publishing - people who should never be allowed near a keyboard still get to publish their work).
Because I couldn't stand Geralt after playing as him during the intro in TW1, I did end up watching a number of videos - all of which had bad, not terribly subtle dialogue (particularly the supposedly "mature" banter; it generally made me laugh because the double entendres weren't even remotely clever, and I found that to be a real problem when it should have involved a fair amount of subtlety and cleverness).
While I wouldn't go so far as to make comparisons between E.L. James (terrible writing) and William Shakespeare (mostly genius writing), I think the character writing and humor that I've found in the DA games is superior to what I've seen in TW1. If I were to compare DA:O to TW1, which seems fair because each one is the first game in their respective series, I would also say that the overall writing in DA:O was superior to that of TW1, along with being intentionally funny (as opposed to the TW1 scenes that I watched, which were unintentionally funny).
I'm sure that CDPR has improved writing-wise since TW1, but my eminent lack of interest in Geralt as a person means that I am unlikely to ever play the rest of the games and cannot judge anything in the series past TW1. Therefore, I won't be comparing DA:I to TW3 or anything else. Sorry, but bad first impressions and all. Also, unlike many of the women in the Witcher series, I don't find Geralt physically attractive, interesting, or particularly compelling. My tastes run more towards guys like Idriss Elba or Michiel Huisman these days.
P.S. The one time BW did something that didn't involve the typical hero's journey, people complained about it. *points at DA2* Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with saving the world ad infinitum, so long as you execute it well each time. While I certainly applaud attempts at doing something different, you don't always have to reinvent the wheel.
Retour en haut
