15838 réponses à ce sujet

[animedreamer]

I think BioWares problem is that they didn't go full in. I remember a early look where Mike Laidlaw described DAI and what they were aiming for in terms of landscapes as huge open areas that weren't all connected, something like that. While its not the only issue, it does seem to suggest that this may have been to much for them to handle in this first time out expansion on the hub map small local type of games they usually make. 

 

I get they wanted to tell a story about multiple nations, but really how much civilization did we really see? Haven? Skyhold? part of Val Royeaux? That's it really. I hope the next DA game is smaller in terms of geography, maybe take a page from Bethesda and focus on one particular nation and exploring that entire nation, and keeping the entire story contain to that area like in DAO. 

[Br3admax]

True, that was a dumb argument. Even dumber, I want to belong to their audience, but I'm not manly enough to be a mutant. I guess I'm just as shallow as the people fainting when faced with Cassandra's glorious jawline.

I'm not going to pretend I'm half alpha enough to be Geralt, but I usually separate myself from the entire experience in RPGs and just watch it as if it were a movie, with input of course. 

[VelvetV]

Why only have Dorian for gay males? Wasn't he a fan service? That's one target audience too.

 

Why such a ludicrous example? I said nothing ridiculous enough to warrant it. I was originally replying to a person who thought that it's better not to have any target audience except his own and praised TW games for being limiting and wanted the DA franchise to follow the same path. Of course, it's better for him to limit DA games to his own audience (more content for him personally), but it's worse for others who would then receive none.

 

 

But more importantly, the thing that keeps me from playing The Witcher games is the combat. Action combat has no place in a roleplaying game. If TW3 had VATS or RTwP or anything to prevent me from having to act in real time, I'd probably love them.

Well, I might find the protagonist too restrictive. It depends how they wrote the game. But my biggest problem is the combat.

 

Is there a demo of the game somewhere to try it out, I wonder? Probably not.

 

I don't like the combat much, either, but in previous games I overlooked both the combat and some other downsides for the good stuff. I can't decide for you, of course, so I'm not suggesting you buy it. Besides, as an open-world game TW3 is bound to have a lot more combat. Maybe watch someone's LP and see if the game draws you in despite what you dislike?

 

As for combat, it's a bit too fast. I generally don't have problem with action-y combat if you control only one character, yet here you just can't see every enemy from all sides if there are many attacking at once, so you have to dodge around randomly like mad. Blind dodging is certainly not very strategic, although potions matter on hardest difficulty and provide some depth to combat. Also I found that parrying isn't all that it's cracked up to be, it's better to jump around the opponent and hit his back for more damage, whenever possible.

 

Well, everything ties in with Geralt being the protagonist. He fights like this in the books, so the game has to have this fighting style. Although I can't remember if he uses magic signs in books or they put them in to spruce things up.

[Dreadstruck]

Although I can't remember if he uses magic signs in books or they put them in to spruce things up.

He does.

[KBomb]

 

 

 

VelvetV, on 21 May 2015 - 5:21 PM, said:

 

Every beautiful woman, plain and unrefined ones don't care for Geralt. Did you play TW1 with its collection of sex cards? The concept was toned down later in TW2, though, but TW3 so far has shown me two beautiful powerful women flirting with Geralt and obviously wanting to sleep with him later and I know there's at least one more. Geralt isn't attractive, but most awesome women swoon over him, it's pure fan service and it always looks ridiculous. Why you argue that it exists in the game is beyond me.

 

People keep using this as if it's some sort of terrible aspect of the game.

 

In Dragon Age Origins: Isabela flirted with you, as did Zevran. Alistair also flirted if you were female. Morrigan and Leliana both are flirty when they like you enough. If you're human noble, Iona and that weird nobleman flirts with you and you can go to a brothel for sex. Also, Cullen falls over himself for a mage female and Bann Teagan flirts, as well.

 

In DA2: Anders flirted with you(you even lose points if you don't return his affections), as did Isabela. There was that drunk miner who checked out the female Hawke's boobs. The male prostitute flirts with you and you can go to a brothel for sex.

 

They toned it down for Inquisition, but you can still flirt with numerous people.

 

Geralt being unattractive is opinion. Lots of people do find him attractive. The fact that powerful or awesome women find him attractive really isn't a surprise. Witchers have a certain stigma about them--mysterious and forbidden. They have a certain power that makes them alluring. You see it in real life, as well. Look at all the beautiful women music and movie stars get and some musicians are just gross looking. As far as fan service goes, so what? All companies have had their fair share of it, including Bioware.

 

 

 

It's bad only when done for a specific audience that ignores the rest. In that case I call it a trick to cater to perceived audience and make more of them buy the game. I take it you're a man, it works for you and you're content, so you do not care for whoever else finds it irrelevant and unappealing and wants a broader scope than that in games.

 

A trick? As far as being content, I fall under that umbrella. I'm not sure what broader scope you wish for in The Witcher. For Geralt to be bi/gay? For women (except the ugly ones) to not find Geralt attractive? To have no woman flirt with him because some people find him unattractive? To have sweet and tender romance scenes like Bioware have? What are the terms of your broader scope? I am genuinely curious. Personally, I don't want to see The Witcher change. (well, some game mechanics, but not story or atmosphere) You don't have to have sex with anyone beside those whom he has a personal connection with (Triss and Yennifer). I slept with no one but Triss in TW2 in my canon and plan to only do so in TW3. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Is there a demo of the game somewhere to try it out, I wonder? Probably not.

 

I don't like the combat much, either, but in previous games I overlooked both the combat and some other downsides for the good stuff. I can't decide for you, of course, so I'm not suggesting you buy it. Besides, as an open-world game TW3 is bound to have a lot more combat. Maybe watch someone's LP and see if the game draws you in despite what you dislike?

 

As for combat, it's a bit too fast. I generally don't have problem with action-y combat if you control only one character, yet here you just can't see every enemy from all sides if there are many attacking at once, so you have to dodge around randomly like mad. Blind dodging is certainly not very strategic, although potions matter on hardest difficulty and provide some depth to combat. Also I found that parrying isn't all that it's cracked up to be, it's better to jump around the opponent and hit his back for more damage, whenever possible.

 

Well, everything ties in with Geralt being the protagonist. He fights like this in the books, so the game has to have this fighting style. Although I can't remember if he uses magic signs in books or they put them in to spruce things up.

Pausable combat doesn't stop Geralt from fighting at speed.  Geralt's in-world actions don't pause; time does.

 

I made it through about 10 minutes of combat in the first Witcher before I uninstalled the game forever.

[blahblahblah]

Geralt being unattractive is opinion. Lots of people do find him attractive. The fact that powerful or awesome women find him attractive really isn't a surprise. Witchers have a certain stigma about them--mysterious and forbidden. They have a certain power that makes them alluring. You see it in real life, as well. Look at all the beautiful women music and movie stars get and some musicians are just gross looking. As far as fan service goes, so what? All companies have had their fair share of it, including Bioware.

Geralt is not that attractive, he looks plain and ugly with scars but he got a sex appeal to compensate. Wolverine is not that attractive and lacks personal hygiene but he got sex appeal.

[TheOgre]

Why such a ludicrous example? I said nothing ridiculous enough to warrant it. I was originally replying to a person who thought that it's better not to have any target audience except his own and praised TW games for being limiting and wanted the DA franchise to follow the same path. Of course, it's better for him to limit DA games to his own audience (more content for him personally), but it's worse for others who would then receive none.

The point was that Dorian was written as such. He was intended for a specific crowd. He was written primarily for a group that enjoyed playing with male characters to romance / have sex with other male characters. It just so happened Dorian was a well received character in personality, and had a great sense of humor for a lot of people to relate with.

Geralt is a fixed protagonist with an already established series where in the books he has sex with other women but he has only three people he truly cares about. Two in a romantic feeling and one in a fatherly way. People have many complaints similar to your own. His voice isn't lively enough, he is "ugly" (to you maybe), and his personality sucks.. But there was a crowd for this kind of character and I am in that crowd. The audience was already in the fix for this series so far.. Bondari pointed out that it may change. I hope it doesn't.

[Spectre Impersonator]

So far, TW3 does it's story pacing and side quests far, far better than Bioware's latest attempt.

[KBomb]

Geralt is not that attractive, he looks plain and ugly with scars but he got a sex appeal to compensate. Wolverine is not that attractive and lacks personal hygiene but he got sex appeal.

I find Geralt to be very attractive. Though, I do tend to favor the scruffy look. That's why anyone's looks is a matter of opinion and preference.

I know what you mean about the sex appeal, though. A person need not be physically attractive in order to be appealing sexually.

[Spectre Impersonator]

DA:I had a fixed character too. A good guy called The Inquisitor.

Correct, and (s)he didn't even have as many good hair styles as Geralt. 

[Spectre Impersonator]

Something else I noticed, something that would be a good lesson: showing the fallout from the war or razed towns/settlements. So far-- and I am not very far in-- there has already been some pretty sad things to see.

Spoiler

Like kids crying over their dead parents. This one little boy crying and begging his dad to wake up. Sad, yet it lets you feel the impact of **** gone bad.

They're just little things, but it's the tiny details that make the world feel alive.

Yep, just came across that.  The hard edge to the world really keeps you on your toes because you never know who will betray you or live or die. DAI's world was empty of soul.

[Grieving Natashina]

This thread was doing so well before the "fanservice" argument.  I know that there is a lot of varied opinions, but I could see this turning ugly.  May we please not start throwing terms like that around for both Geralt and Dorian?  I'm not calling anyone wrong, because I refuse to step into that mess.  This could lead to a derail quick though.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you guys would like to discuss that further, would you please take it to PM?  So far the thread has been overall productive, but that kind of debate is only going to end in personal insults and with the thread locked.  

[Spectre Impersonator]

This thread was doing so well before the "fanservice" argument.  I know that there is a lot of varied opinions, but I could see this turning ugly.  May we please not start throwing terms like that around for both Geralt and Dorian?  I'm not calling anyone wrong, because I refuse to step into that mess.  This could lead to a derail quick though.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you guys would like to discuss that further, would you please take it to PM?  So far the thread has been overall productive, but that kind of debate is only going to end in personal insults and with the thread locked.   

Yes, please. That sort of discussion can have it's own thread, but not here, if you all don't mind.

 

What I do think is that Bioware should be more like CD project:

 

1. Discounts for fans of the series;

2. NO serious crashes during gameplay; I personally did not experienced it but there are reports of some.

3. Excellent graphic performance day 1;

4. Seamless change between mouse+keyboard and controller during gameplay;

5. Fast loading times;

6. Huge world that is easy to navigate, explore, find things and subquests that are interesting;

7. Rewarding combat and an easy option for button pressers.

8. Thinking about upgrades are not only fun but useful.

9. Awesome cut scenes and a lot of cinematic moments in dialogues between them.

10. Everything you do is related to your character - collecting flowers as a witcher makes sense, but, as a leader of a rebellious army, it does not.

11. Menus are cluttered and cumbersome - and it is still better than in DAI and easier to navigate.

12. A horse that works.

13. NPCs that are numerous and interesting.

14. A really good mini card game to pass time in-game.

15. Mature content that is still a little bit juvenile - but just a bit - and people at least look good naked.

16. Everything they said that were in the game is in the game in a working state.

CDPR is way up on all these categories save ONE. Which is load times. Reloading a save in TW3 on Xbox 1 takes too long and it's annoying. I credit Bioware with better load times but then they didn't have a fully-loaded open world anyway so there wasn't as much to load.

[blahblahblah]

This thread was doing so well before the "fanservice" argument.  I know that there is a lot of varied opinions, but I could see this turning ugly.  May we please not start throwing terms like that around for both Geralt and Dorian?  I'm not calling anyone wrong, because I refuse to step into that mess.  This could lead to a derail quick though.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you guys would like to discuss that further, would you please take it to PM?  So far the thread has been overall productive, but that kind of debate is only going to end in personal insults and with the thread locked.  

Or it may went to Off-Topic forum just like the previous ones.

[TheOgre]

This thread was doing so well before the "fanservice" argument.  I know that there is a lot of varied opinions, but I could see this turning ugly.  May we please not start throwing terms like that around for both Geralt and Dorian?  I'm not calling anyone wrong, because I refuse to step into that mess.  This could lead to a derail quick though.

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you guys would like to discuss that further, would you please take it to PM?  So far the thread has been overall productive, but that kind of debate is only going to end in personal insults and with the thread locked.  

I thought I was being civil and pointing out that there was a difference between two groups. I detest it when someone uses the argument that someone should have to be justified for two women to find him worthwhile through beauty or looks of his own. I wasn't rude about Dorian if you read my post either.

[Grieving Natashina]

Or it may went to Off-Topic forum just like the previous ones.

Yeah, and that would be a shame.  There has been some great ideas for DA that have come from TW3, and it should stay here.  It's good feedback and suggestions, for the most part.  

 

Besides, I'm sure we have plenty of other things to disagree about rather than a fanservice argument that will likely get the thread locked.  

 

 

I thought I was being civil and pointing out that there was a difference between two groups. I detest it when someone uses the argument that someone should have to be justified for two women to find him worthwhile through beauty or looks of his own. I wasn't rude about Dorian if you read my post either.

I'm not getting involved, because "fanservice" is one of the more hotly contested subjects on the forums.  I just think the entire conversation around it is a bad idea.  Most of the time, folks can start taking it personally and then start getting nasty to each other about it.  I don't think you're being rude, and I'm not going to say anyone is right/wrong about this.  It doesn't matter if it's Dorian or Geralt to me.  I've just seen conversations like that lead to a swift and brutal end for threads like this.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Spectre Impersonator]

3) I have the sneaking suspicion that some of the Witcher fans are not being 100% honest about a lack of bugs on these forums.  I have seen fans go from one site where they brag about their game being better to their game's official forums to complain.  I saw it myself during WoW vs ToR days.  The WoW vs RIFT days too.  I saw it when Skyrim got huge here and on other forums.

Perhaps some aren't, but I can be honest. Witcher 3 does have a few niggling bugs but so far none of them have prevented me from witnessing in-game content the way the conversation bug in Inquisition does. The most noticeable one for me in average gameplay is a weird bug with jumping, where sometimes instead of grabbing onto a ledge and climbing up, Geralt will just somehow have his feet on the ledge already in one jerky step. It looks weird.

 

The most concerning Day 1 bug was what I thought was a corrupted save file but ended up being some kind of loading glitch. I discovered a fix for it calling Microsoft and have only run into it once since. It's an annoyance but thankfully does not actually erase your data or damage the flow of the story. It only happens when you die or need to reload a save. The game will get stuck on "Loading" or the Start screen and need to be shut down and restarted.

 

Despite these issues, the game is going great so far and feels like an overall polished experience.

[Grieving Natashina]

Perhaps some aren't, but I can be honest. Witcher 3 does have a few niggling bugs but so far none of them have prevented me from witnessing in-game content the way the conversation bug in Inquisition does. The most noticeable one for me in average gameplay is a weird bug with jumping, where sometimes instead of grabbing onto a ledge and climbing up, Geralt will just somehow have his feet on the ledge already in one jerky step. It looks weird.

 

The most concerning Day 1 bug was what I thought was a corrupted save file but ended up being some kind of loading glitch. I discovered a fix for it calling Microsoft and have only run into it once since. It's an annoyance but thankfully does not actually erase your data or damage the flow of the story. It only happens when you die or need to reload a save. The game will get stuck on "Loading" or the Start screen and need to be shut down and restarted.

 

Despite these issues, the game is going great so far and feels like an overall polished experience.

Thanks for your honest feedback here.  I know you've been really frustrated and let down by BioWare a lot, and I won't be condescending and say, "Sorry you feel that way."  I mean, I'm not thrilled that you feel like you wasted your money on a BioWare game, so please don't get me wrong here.  I hope you have a better experience with BW games in the future and I'm very happy you're enjoying TW3 as much as you have been.

 

I know you need to vent sometimes, but I enjoy reading stuff like this from you.  You've also tossed out some good examples of what the DA team can do better rather than only say things like "CDPR is the hotness."  I know you're one of the more frustrated fans on the BSN, so I honestly thank you for feedback.  

[KaiserShep]

I haven't played any Witcher game, so I can't speak on the quality of its story or Geralt's character, but I can go on about some of the niceties of its animation during gameplay. In Inquisition, we can jump around multiple levels of the environments platforms, but it feels very incomplete when we can't even just grab the edge of the ledge in front of us, which would be especially handy if you're like me and you can't resist those Makerdamned shards. The combat animation looks particularly satisfying here, and while I can't speak on the actual ease of the controls, it appears to have more weight and and a more visceral feel to it. I think BioWare would do well to take a good long look at the way it implements combat and how in-your-face they want these encounters to seem. Animation in general is something BioWare really needs to step its game up on so the various characters don't appear so wooden.

 

I'm hoping that getting away from previous-gen systems will mean a lot more for future titles.

[Spectre Impersonator]

This sort if thing presents itself even in DAI. If you choose the Champion specialization, your instructor tells you how everyone wants to bed you.

Really? I never even got this far because my instructor kept talking down to me and saying I needed to find more and more pointless herbs in the wilderness if I ever wanted to be a true warrior. Another example of the mindless padding that were the majority of Inquisition quests.

[TheRaccoon]

What I do think is that Bioware should be more like CD project:

 

1. Discounts for fans of the series;

2. NO serious crashes during gameplay; I personally did not experienced it but there are reports of some.

3. Excellent graphic performance day 1;

4. Seamless change between mouse+keyboard and controller during gameplay;

5. Fast loading times;

6. Huge world that is easy to navigate, explore, find things and subquests that are interesting;

7. Rewarding combat and an easy option for button pressers.

8. Thinking about upgrades are not only fun but useful.

9. Awesome cut scenes and a lot of cinematic moments in dialogues between them.

10. Everything you do is related to your character - collecting flowers as a witcher makes sense, but, as a leader of a rebellious army, it does not.

11. Menus are cluttered and cumbersome - and it is still better than in DAI and easier to navigate.

12. A horse that works.

13. NPCs that are numerous and interesting.

14. A really good mini card game to pass time in-game.

15. Mature content that is still a little bit juvenile - but just a bit - and people at least look good naked.

16. Everything they said that were in the game is in the game in a working state.

 

 

The games are different in style and I like the idea of having different styles - as long as they are competent entries. The half-baked DAI can be enjoyable, but you have to forgive much to do so (or do not care about many things that I care, like stability).

 

The Witcher might not be your style, but it is a competent technical effort, delivered as promised, and it shows in so many details that the devs have actually played the game they built. And that they like playing it.

 

I hate to be acting like a fanboy but there are some on the list I don't really agree on.

(2) & (3), there are some crashes and unlike DAI, TW3's autosaves are really sparse making the effort to replay super annoying. And there are noticeable stutters during cutscenes, like DAI.

(7), the controls and combat are one of the biggest complaints of TW3 (or the series). The controls are clunky and unresponsive. Both TW and DA should work on this but at least I would say the range combat in DAI is acceptable.

(9), awesome cutscenes indeed, but I think TW3 sacrificed a lot for this amount of cutscenes to exist. Say, facial expressions, lip syncing, lightings etc. I think DA does cutscenes better in quality but they should definitely find a balance between quality and quantity.

(11), another major complaint of TW3. The inventory is cluttered and the fonts are waaaaaaaaaay too small.

 

One thing I want DA to improve: make the villagers move around, doing their own things instead of standing around (but don't make them interactable just to repond you with a 'Huh?')

 

I know TW3 achieved a better 'open world' and quests system, that is undeniable, but somehow I feel bored playing the game. I don't know what is not working in the formula for me. Maybe due to the fact I am exploring alone? But then I can play no problem in Sktrim without companions...

[AresKeith]

I haven't played any Witcher game, so I can't speak on the quality of its story or Geralt's character, but I can go on about some of the niceties of its animation during gameplay. In Inquisition, we can jump around multiple levels of the environments platforms, but it feels very incomplete when we can't even just grab the edge of the ledge in front of us, which would be especially handy if you're like me and you can't resist those Makerdamned shards. The combat animation looks particularly satisfying here, and while I can't speak on the actual ease of the controls, it appears to have more weight and and a more visceral feel to it. I think BioWare would do well to take a good long look at the way it implements combat and how in-your-face they want these encounters to seem. Animation in general is something BioWare really needs to step its game up on so the various characters don't appear so wooden.

 

I'm hoping that getting away from previous-gen systems will mean a lot more for future titles.

 

This is something I do feel played a factor in holding back DAI

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd love you to expand on this.

I love DAI, and think it's BioWare's best game this century.

That's fair. And I know you found a number of work arounds that solved some of the more common issues for you personally, as well as don't view certain issues as issues at all. That said, many critiques of the game I feel can be attributed to the over-reaching scope. As an example, NPCs.

From very few characters in populated areas like Orlais or Skyhold, to very little movement of these characters (static positions for most NPCs) to little branching dialogue options for non-critical dialogue or side-quest content... all of these aspects of NPCs speak of a lack of resources. Too many quests (stemming from too large of an area needed to be populated) led to needing more NPCs, resulting in less of the word budget available per character, resulting in less options, variability and paths to completion, but instead static dialogue with linear encounter results. In addition, using both old gen and new gen consoles as well as PCs meant the lowest common denominator of memory and processing resources meant that NPC routines, behaviors and numbers were lower in both complexity and volume than it would have been if Bioware had kept to a scope of newer consoles and PC.

And such scope problems aren't limited to NPCs, but to combat systems (such as environmental reactivity, which was developed and scrapped, or the Tac cam issues, which were tied to trying to make a combat system that tried to be all things to all players), to player character creation (widening the number of races to even more than DA:O - despite committing to a voiced protagonist - as well as including multiple VO options for each gender, further cannibalizing the word and VO budget) to war mechanics (such as the attempted but removed multiple Keep system, to the lack of ability to show full scale war - again, tying back to NPC limitations and old console limitations) and so on.

The number of things attempted by DA:I in terms of both a design and technical scope is truly staggering. So it should not really be a surprise that questionable content quality, UI concerns across the different platforms and overall bug issues were (and continue to be) a large source of complaints. While I know you value a game's ability to not infringe on your character creation process as well as giving the ability to play combat with total control of the pause function as being tantamount, these other issues cause a serious issue of quality for many other people and could have been avoided if the tasks at hand had been better understood and, frankly, more realistic, from the get go.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

 

People keep using this as if it's some sort of terrible aspect of the game.

 

In Dragon Age Origins: Isabela flirted with you, as did Zevran. Alistair also flirted if you were female. Morrigan and Leliana both are flirty when they like you enough. If you're human noble, Iona and that weird nobleman flirts with you and you can go to a brothel for sex. Also, Cullen falls over himself for a mage female and Bann Teagan flirts, as well.

 

In DA2: Anders flirted with you(you even lose points if you don't return his affections), as did Isabela. There was that drunk miner who checked out the female Hawke's boobs. The male prostitute flirts with you and you can go to a brothel for sex.

 

They toned it down for Inquisition, but you can still flirt with numerous people.

 

Geralt being unattractive is opinion. Lots of people do find him attractive. The fact that powerful or awesome women find him attractive really isn't a surprise. Witchers have a certain stigma about them--mysterious and forbidden. They have a certain power that makes them alluring. You see it in real life, as well. Look at all the beautiful women music and movie stars get and some musicians are just gross looking. As far as fan service goes, so what? All companies have had their fair share of it, including Bioware.

 

A trick? As far as being content, I fall under that umbrella. I'm not sure what broader scope you wish for in The Witcher. For Geralt to be bi/gay? For women (except the ugly ones) to not find Geralt attractive? To have no woman flirt with him because some people find him unattractive? To have sweet and tender romance scenes like Bioware have? What are the terms of your broader scope? I am genuinely curious. Personally, I don't want to see The Witcher change. (well, some game mechanics, but not story or atmosphere) You don't have to have sex with anyone beside those whom he has a personal connection with (Triss and Yennifer). I slept with no one but Triss in TW2 in my canon and plan to only do so in TW3. 

 

 

The point was that Dorian was written as such. He was intended for a specific crowd. He was written primarily for a group that enjoyed playing with male characters to romance / have sex with other male characters. It just so happened Dorian was a well received character in personality, and had a great sense of humor for a lot of people to relate with.

Geralt is a fixed protagonist with an already established series where in the books he has sex with other women but he has only three people he truly cares about. Two in a romantic feeling and one in a fatherly way. People have many complaints similar to your own. His voice isn't lively enough, he is "ugly" (to you maybe), and his personality sucks.. But there was a crowd for this kind of character and I am in that crowd. The audience was already in the fix for this series so far.. Bondari pointed out that it may change. I hope it doesn't.

 

Don't bother explaining this to them. It is a pointless endeavor. 

 

As I said before, Bioware's content, due to Bioware being a developer that panders to political bullshite for no reason, means they have to please special interests groups, because feels. The story, the plot and the characters are tossed aside for this. 

 

That's the thing when you make a game for the sake of "making a social impact" as opposed to making a game with good story. 

 

So don't bother explaining it to them. These kinds of people will dislike The Witcher not because of genuine issues such as long loading times or some bugs with jumping and horse riding or how CDPR handled the downgrade issue or the tiny UI fonts.

 

For example, Sylvius has no interest and is not very fond of The Witcher games because he likes RPG games with a specific playstyle. That's perfectly fine, unlike these people. Some here dislike it because of the combat system, which is fine too. 

 

Instead, they will instead dislike it because "well its misogynistic" (even though misogyny is a hatred of the human female, I for one can't fathom how one can hate human females while portraying them as sexually independent powerful being such as sorceresses) or "well its homophobic" (even though elements of homosexuality is in the game, Ciri is a bisexual for example, but it does not dominate the story).

 

Trying to make these people understand that The Witcher is a series of books about one particular character with a very well fleshed out personality, preferences and how he is perceived, including what kind of women he likes or why women are attracted to him or what have you....Is as futile as trying to explain to a geocentrist that the earth revolves around the sun or explaining to creationists about evolution by natural selection...

 

I believe Dr. House said it best and I'm paraphrasing:- "Rational arguments don't work on these types of people, otherwise these types of people would not be around."