15883 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolven_Soul]

LOL I don't think he has worked out that I lot of us have blocked him either, only time I see any of his garbage posts is when someone quotes him. All I get is a white bar because I got so sick of his desperate lies and claims which mainly exist only in his headcannon and not the game. Plus of course he is totally and utterly clueless about Witcher 3 anyway as he has never played it and refuses to play it, he just chooses to keep banging on about why he won't play it.

 

Yeah, this thread, and others, became so much more pleasant when I blocked him.  Kbomb is a saint for continuing to have the patience that she does in responding to him.  

[Elhanan]

The Ignore function does serve a purpose; am also glad I found it, and recommend it to others, too.

[Wolven_Soul]

I will concede with Cole, though beyond some dialog, there isn't much weight to the choice in the vanilla game. He doesn't hate you for either choice and the only real noticeable change happens in the DLC--which you have to pay for.

 

As for the Divine, you don't really see those consequences, you read about them at the end of the game. The rest of their story is concluded in the DLC--which you have to pay for. 

 

You have some bearing on Leliana's change, though it hinges on one dialog choice at the beginning of the game without any indications it's even important. Her end result if you killed her in Origins is so ludicrous that I would rather she didn't exist at all. 

 

Nearly every choice feels like an illusion because the end result is so similar that it hardly matters, at least the seemingly important ones. Also, all final conclusions are in the DLC--which you have to pay for.

 

 

I don't see how playing TW3 or not would determine if the epilogue in the DLC is worthy. It either is or it isn't. 

 

That is exactly how I felt with the 'choices' in DA:I, that they were mostly illusions because a lot of them have no more consequence besides a different dialogue choice and different missions on the war board.  

 

As this is the thread were we compare TW3 to DA:I, I can't help but mention that the consequences for our choices were so much more apparent in TW3.

[Elhanan]

This was a thread about suggesting things about TW3 that could aid the DA series; not for comparisons as they are different types of games. And am content with the choices experienced in DAI; still have yet to encounter all of those presented.

[Wolven_Soul]

I would agree with TommyServo that both games are a labor of love, it's just that they focus on different things and take different approaches to storytelling and game mechanics. DAI, I think, suffers mostly from the dev team's lack of experience with the Frostbite engine, which seems to run non-shooter games somewhat reluctantly. Plus, CDPR has the good fortune of not having something like EA breathing down their necks.

DAI's Trespasser recently made me buy all of DAI's story DLC, and I completed them all over the course of a week while taking a rather completionist approach. They are not perfect, but I think BioWare really cares about story and setting, they just happen to have taken it in directions I don't enjoy as much as The Witcher franchise. That is just personal taste though.

Trespasser was a good DLC, and gave the game an ending I found satisfying. Somewhat tragically, I found that said ending also showed off what I think of as the currently dominant weaknesses of the DA franchise, namely...

Spoiler

the seeming lack of attention to detail with the Orlesian ruler glitch and the way too fast ending slides, and a sometimes odd lack of emotion like the final scene where the Inquisitor walks in sans left arm and no one, close friends and romantic partners included, as much as raises an eyebrow.

And for what it's worth, I don't think Elhanan is trolling...he just has this odd superpower to turn some threads he participates in into some terrible BSN version of Groundhog Day.

 

I won't argue that DA:I is a labor of love.  There was effort put into it.  Then EA comes along and taints everything with their greedy, crash grabbing over simplifications to make it more appealing to people who are not more hard core RPG gamers.  

 

Also, the places that get the most effort are not the right places in my mind.  It's pretty clear, to me at least, that the environments got more effort than just about everything else.  They are beautiful to look at, and I am not saying that's not important, but it's not as important as story and side content.  Quality side content is one of the most important things to an RPG, especially an open world RPG.  It doesn't matter how good your main story is, and even there DA:I suffers, again in my opinion, if you have crap side content, then your game is going to be more mediocre than outstanding.

[Wolven_Soul]

TW3's two paid expansions aren't epilogues though. It doesn't need that because the game wrapped up fine on its own. 

 

Unless I missed something I'm pretty sure that's the point here...

 

It is the point, just more of Elhanon's typical and total misrepresentation of a point.

[Elhanan]

More like continued misrepresentation of what I have actually posted. Wonder how many actually read my posts instead of the propaganda my many followers continue to feed others....

Bias and prejudice against EA, Bioware, etc does not equate to factual evidence; only skewed opinions.

[Wolven_Soul]

PS: The stupid limited gold on the vendors are getting on my nerves in TW3. So please don't take that mechanics from the game.

 

Since you mention gold, there is one thing that I would have liked to see TW3 do better.  More things to actually spend my gold on.  I would happily go to each and every question mark on the map, no matter how repetitive they are, and in fairness, they do get repetitive.  But that would not matter to me one single bit if I had a lot of things to spend money on.  

 

This is something not many games at all manage to do however.  In DA:O they did it quite well actually.  There was a lot of really good gear you could buy from vendors that were really expensive.  Skyrim does it well with the houses that you can buy and decorate.  TW3 was a little lacking in this area.

 

Now, unfortunately I do not have any ideas of things that they could add, lol.  For one thing, I always believe that the very best gear in any RPG should be things that we find, or craft.  TW3 nails that part of it because you have to find the Witcher gear diagrams and then craft it.  

[Wolven_Soul]

No offense, but you are all biased I get it that you don't like DA:I and that is fine, but saying its not a labor of love and passion is quite stupid, as this is their job and they enjoy doing it hence passion they put into the game. If you can't appreciate the step up DA:I was from DA:II in an overall production quality then you don't understand the difficulties of game development. Also Elhanan, we get it you don't want to play The Witcher 3, and all that blah blah blah. Well its a freaking good game, let these people enjoy it. Sorry for my rudeness, i woke up sad today. Take care

 

Yeah, we are biased, lol.  Again, I am not personally saying that DA:I is not a labor of love.  It's just tainted by EA's touch.  

 

On the other hand, you can't really say all of our criticisms against DA:I are biased due to TW3.  We are all here talking about this game because we love the DA franchise.  I do, I adore it.  I love the world, I love the characters, I love the lore, history, and culture.  DA:I though barely feels like a DA game to me sometimes.

 

Sorry you woke up sad today.  

[panzerwzh]

A very good comparison and analysis of romances in TW3 .

[Akrabra]

As for the Divine, you don't really see those consequences, you read about them at the end of the game. The rest of their story is concluded in the DLC--which you have to pay for. 

 

You have some bearing on Leliana's change, though it hinges on one dialog choice at the beginning of the game without any indications it's even important. Her end result if you killed her in Origins is so ludicrous that I would rather she didn't exist at all. 

 

Nearly every choice feels like an illusion because the end result is so similar that it hardly matters, at least the seemingly important ones. Also, all final conclusions are in the DLC--which you have to pay for.

I don't understand your point here. You learn in the epilogue of DA:I how Leliana will be as a Divine, just as you learn how Emhyr, Ciri, or Radovid rules. How is this any different? The difference is actually that in Trespasser you get to see it, while The Witcher 3 is over and that will never be fleshed out more either in DLC or future games. The choices you made as to who rules the North in The Witcher also only exists in epilogue, therefore is it now a bad choice/consequense situation? I decided to have Radovid removed from the equation and Novigrad didn't change, the game didn't change, i wasn't chased or investigated, i got a 30 second epilogue slide just like i did with making Leliana Divine.

 

You say this last part like its a bad thing. DA is expanding, and we are learning more and seeing our choice's branching out. The Witcher will also have paid content and it will not touch the main story or the choices we made, and this is a good thing? I accept that people don't like how DA:I handled choices and consequenses, but in my opinion they did it quite well seeing where the series is and how many variables there is per save and how much dialogue has to altered etc. 

 

PS - The second point was solved in Trespasser, quite brilliantly i might add. 

[KBomb]

I don't understand your point here. You learn in the epilogue of DA:I how Leliana will be as a Divine, just as you learn how Emhyr, Ciri, or Radovid rules. How is this any different? The difference is actually that in Trespasser you get to see it, while The Witcher 3 is over and that will never be fleshed out more either in DLC or future games. The choices you made as to who rules the North in The Witcher also only exists in epilogue, therefore is it now a bad choice/consequense situation? I decided to have Radovid removed from the equation and Novigrad didn't change, the game didn't change, i wasn't chased or investigated, i got a 30 second epilogue slide just like i did with making Leliana Divine.

 

You say this last part like its a bad thing. DA is expanding, and we are learning more and seeing our choice's branching out. The Witcher will also have paid content and it will not touch the main story or the choices we made, and this is a good thing? I accept that people don't like how DA:I handled choices and consequenses, but in my opinion they did it quite well seeing where the series is and how many variables there is per save and how much dialogue has to altered etc. 

 

PS - The second point was solved in Trespasser, quite brilliantly i might add. 

 

 I didn't say that Trespasser didn't hold any weight to consequences. I also never compared the final consequences to TW3. So, I don't really know why you're countering me with that. Elhanan posted a video about the consequences shown in Trespasser and I said too bad you have to pay for those.

 

As for the bolded, where did I say I didn't like paid dlc? Also, yes---it's a good thing. I don't think any game's dlc should wrap up anything in the main story and if TW3's two paid expansions wrap up anything in the main game, I won't like that either. You don't have to agree with that, but that is what my original statement was about and I stand by that. 

 

As for your post script, that was my point to begin with. 

[Elhanan]

I didn't say that Trespasser didn't hold any weight to consequences. I also never compared the final consequences to TW3. So, I don't really know why you're countering me with that. Elhanan posted a video about the consequences shown in Trespasser and I said too bad you have to pay for those.
 
As for the bolded, where did I say I didn't like paid dlc? Also, yes---it's a good thing. I don't think any game's dlc should wrap up anything in the main story and if TW3's two paid expansions wrap up anything in the main game, I won't like that either. You don't have to agree with that, but that is what my original statement was about and I stand by that. 
 
As for your post script, that was my point to begin with.

But Trespasser did not wrap up the main story; is explained in more detail, but still carries on to any future games. And while certain consequences are shown for past decisions, those choices are made in the Vanilla game and The Keep.

One does not require the DLC to defeat Cory and complete the story; the DLC offers more details and a way to say goodbye to the Inquisition much like Leviathan and The Citadel DLC's.

[KBomb]

But Trespasser did not wrap up the main story; is explained in more detail, but still carries on to any future games. And while certain consequences are shown for past decisions, those choices are made in the Vanilla game and The Keep.

One does not require the DLC to defeat Cory and complete the story; the DLC offers more details and a way to say goodbye to the Inquisition much like Leviathan and The Citadel DLC's.

It absolutely did wrap up the main story. 

 

Spoiler

The whole entire story arc for Solas was concluded for the Inquisition and led into future games. In order to experience that, you have to pay for it. What happens to the Inquisitor's anchor is wrapped up, you have to pay to experience the conclusion of the Inquisitor. The conclusion to Bull's story arc is concluded in the dlc and you can even kill him. I'd say that is a pretty big deal if you romanced him.

 

To think the end of Corypheus was the only final conclusion that pertains to the Inquisition is myopic. Also, I didn't say anything about it being wrong to use a dlc to say goodbye to teammates. Only story details. 

[Morty Smith]

With the Keep - going forward - you don´t actually have to pay or play the DLC and if your still interested in the story details but don´t want to buy it just look it up on some channel.

[Wolven_Soul]

I don't understand your point here. You learn in the epilogue of DA:I how Leliana will be as a Divine, just as you learn how Emhyr, Ciri, or Radovid rules. How is this any different? The difference is actually that in Trespasser you get to see it, while The Witcher 3 is over and that will never be fleshed out more either in DLC or future games. The choices you made as to who rules the North in The Witcher also only exists in epilogue, therefore is it now a bad choice/consequense situation? I decided to have Radovid removed from the equation and Novigrad didn't change, the game didn't change, i wasn't chased or investigated, i got a 30 second epilogue slide just like i did with making Leliana Divine.

 

You say this last part like its a bad thing. DA is expanding, and we are learning more and seeing our choice's branching out. The Witcher will also have paid content and it will not touch the main story or the choices we made, and this is a good thing? I accept that people don't like how DA:I handled choices and consequenses, but in my opinion they did it quite well seeing where the series is and how many variables there is per save and how much dialogue has to altered etc. 

 

PS - The second point was solved in Trespasser, quite brilliantly i might add. 

 

Ahh but there were plenty of other choices in TW3 where we do get to actually see the outcomes of what we do or do not do.  Depending on who we help make the ruler in Skellige, the other person is who comes to help us at Kaer Morhen.  A small thing true, but an important thing.

 

Spoiler

Also, with the Bloody Baron's quest, if Anna ends up dying we see the Baron handing by his neck at the end of the rope.  If Anna lives with her cracked mind, Crows Perch changes quite a bit as the Baron's men call open season on all the peasant's there.

 

 

There are other things as well, big and small.  We shouldn't have to wait until a paid DLC comes out to actually get to 'see' the outcomes of some of our choices, without seeing some kind of consequences in the game.  Don't get me wrong, it's great that they expand on it in Trespasser, I am all for that, I truly am.  But we should have gotten to see something in the main game as well, something more than just a few dialogue lines.

 

For instance, Cole should have changed depending on the outcome of his story.  More than just getting a different looking card on the character choice screen.  It might be just me but I think his abilities should have gotten changed in some way or fashion once that choice is made.  

[Xetykins]

What's the point of even playing/ buying a game though if you'd rather watch it on YT

I mean the purpose of playing a game, in this case an rpg, is to experience it. To roleplay the story it tells.

Initially watching the witcher cutscenes ( something I whole heartedly regret) was not enough for me. I HAD to get into this world and get immersed.

[TmTapani]

A very good comparison and analysis of romances in TW3 .

 

Also a great example on how well written set protagonists give much, much stronger tools for storytelling. (The key point here is the well written bit.) I do however understand the appeal of creating your "own" characters, playing Baldur's gate is still every bit as much fun as it was 17 years ago. But, in reality, having character creation in these games is actually a limiting factor as far as the story goes. It always has been, even in the glory days of the past, and it still continues to be. Creating "your own character and story" is nothing but an illusion. The actual effects of it are cosmetic at best, non-existent at worst. If they weren't, the game would be a writers nightmare.

[Elhanan]

It absolutely did wrap up the main story. 
 

Spoiler

The whole entire story arc for Solas was concluded for the Inquisition and led into future games. In order to experience that, you have to pay for it. What happens to the Inquisitor's anchor is wrapped up, you have to pay to experience the conclusion of the Inquisitor. The conclusion to Bull's story arc is concluded in the dlc and you can even kill him. I'd say that is a pretty big deal if you romanced him.

 
To think the end of Corypheus was the only final conclusion that pertains to the Inquisition is myopic. Also, I didn't say anything about it being wrong to use a dlc to say goodbye to teammates. Only story details.

I did not say that you said it was wrong; again, folks are reading into my posts. I simply stated what was there (ie; Companion farewells), and that the story was not completed:

Spoiler

At the end, the Inquisition or remaining team is looking for Solace, so this is obviously not concluded. And while the Inq may not be the main character, they still may play a role in the future title much like Hawke did in DAI. And while the Iron Bull may die, this did not stop Leliana either.

[Elhanan]

What's the point of even playing/ buying a game though if you'd rather watch it on YT

I mean the purpose of playing a game, in this case an rpg, is to experience it. To roleplay the story it tells.

Initially watching the witcher cutscenes ( something I whole heartedly regret) was not enough for me. I HAD to get into this world and get immersed.

I have seem more of TW3 on yt than playing it on my own system; saved me from wasting funds and more of my own time trying and failing at it.

[Elhanan]

Also a great example on how well written set protagonists give much, much stronger tools for storytelling. (The key point here is the well written bit.) I do however understand the appeal of creating your "own" characters, playing Baldur's gate is still every bit as much fun as it was 17 years ago. But, in reality, having character creation in these games is actually a limiting factor as far as the story goes. It always has been, even in the glory days of the past, and it still continues to be. Creating "your own character and story" is nothing but an illusion. The actual effects of it are cosmetic at best, non-existent at worst. If they weren't, the game would be a writers nightmare.

That would seem to rely on the subjective viewpoint of each Player. Personally find myself more attached to the HoF and the Inquisitor than Shepard, though I enjoy playing them all.

[TmTapani]

That would seem to rely on the subjective viewpoint of each Player. Personally find myself more attached to the HoF and the Inquisitor than Shepard, though I enjoy playing them all.

 

The question isn't about attachment. It's about storytelling and the fact that having a cc in a game actually limits the possibilities you can have with it, as absurd as that might initially seem.

[panzerwzh]

Also a great example on how well written set protagonists give much, much stronger tools for storytelling. (The key point here is the well written bit.) I do however understand the appeal of creating your "own" characters, playing Baldur's gate is still every bit as much fun as it was 17 years ago. But, in reality, having character creation in these games is actually a limiting factor as far as the story goes. It always has been, even in the glory days of the past, and it still continues to be. Creating "your own character and story" is nothing but an illusion. The actual effects of it are cosmetic at best, non-existent at worst. If they weren't, the game would be a writers nightmare.

Agree! The well written bit is also true for so many supporting or even questing NPCs (i.e. bloody Baron, Kiera, little red and even the poor witcher of cat school). Each of them shows clear motivation ( not for Geralt of course), emotional delima and complexity. That's why the journey of TW3 is so memeriable. And none of them cost extra money to enjoy.

[Elhanan]

The question isn't about attachment. It's about storytelling and the fact that having a cc in a game actually limits the possibilities you can have with it, as absurd as that might initially seem.

This would seem to be the case if one is not going to get the option. Have played several set characters in NWN mods that were entertaining based on great storytelling; still prefer to use a character creator and choose the methods on how that character should be played.

Even on a set character, it is my understanding that each Player may choose how to use Geralt in TW3. I doubt that many would prefer to be locked into gameplay as a default alchemist or other option now available.

Prefer player choice in a RPG.

[Xetykins]

Whoever said about locking into a gameplay? Was Shepard locked? You still missed TmTapani's point by a mile btw.

Having said that, I would not want each and every game to have set protagonist. I would like some games to give me the choice to create my own gender for example. And you can totally have a great created character, DAO is a testament to that imho.

Anyway, if TW3 was not such an amazing game, I will never have played it because of the fixed male character. It would take all kinds of amazing for me to play these games, and TW3 is just that. But I still won't romance anyone there. I REFUSE TO!