15798 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePhoenixKing]

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some very awesome screenshots, thanks so much for sharing. Though I can't help but wonder how many of those lovely young women in the third are vampires...

 

Getting back on the subject of things Dragon Age could learn from Wild Hunt, here's a few things worth considering for DA4. Apologies too if I've mentioned these previously, it's been a long month.

 

- Leave moral questions open-ended and up to the player. One of the many great things about Wild Hunt was how it didn't really lecture the player on the right course of action to take, instead simply posing the question and leaving it up for them to decide. Inquisition, conversely, hammered home its themes and lessons with all the subtlety of a particularly obnoxious and intrusive anvil. "Blood magic is bad! The Dalish are a fundamentally flawed culture! The Wardens are out of control!" (and no, I'm not letting that go). Wild Hunt posed dilemmas, while Inquisition gave sermons. Is it any wonder the former's story is so much more engaging?

 

- Bring in more and crazier monsters. Wild Hunt really set the bar for awesome creature designs, and while Inquisition had some good ones (the Envy Demon really comes to mind), there's nothing as memorable or creative as the Ladies of the Wood, or the Frog Prince, or leshens, or that vampire in Oxenfurt who loved the blood of drunks. Bioware needs to up their monster-game for the next installment, and if they could bring back old classics like Desire Demons, Abominations, Broodmothers and old-style Shrieks, so much the better. Let's have some monsters that are actually monstrous, you know?

 

- Maintain character consistency. This was a big problem Inquisition had; too often, it felt like the characters were acting not according to who they were as people or in line with prior portrayals, but whatever the plot required them to be. Teagan's the most obvious example of this, but there are others (Fiona, the Wardens again, Hawke, etc). It's very hard to care about people if their characterization's gonna turn on a dime the instant the writers either feel lazy or write themselves into a corner. (And seriously, enough with the Sudden Sequel Heel Syndrome already. You'd think Bioware would have learned after Anders). Conversely, it was much easier to connect to Geralt's friends and allies because they were written consistently; who they were and why they wanted did not change according to the whims of the plot.

[Blooddrunk1004]

Getting back on the subject of things Dragon Age could learn from Wild Hunt, here's a few things worth considering for DA4. Apologies too if I've mentioned these previously, it's been a long month.

 

- Maintain character consistency. This was a big problem Inquisition had; too often, it felt like the characters were acting not according to who they were as people or in line with prior portrayals, but whatever the plot required them to be. Teagan's the most obvious example of this, but there are others (Fiona, the Wardens again, Hawke, etc). It's very hard to care about people if their characterization's gonna turn on a dime the instant the writers either feel lazy or write themselves into a corner. (And seriously, enough with the Sudden Sequel Heel Syndrome already. You'd think Bioware would have learned after Anders). Conversely, it was much easier to connect to Geralt's friends and allies because they were written consistently; who they were and why they wanted did not change according to the whims of the plot.

 

I think the reason why you can feel a lot more connected to the Witcher characters is because most of them are written like real humans instead of just being a fantasy figure.

 

Bloody Baron is a prime example, he's an a-hole but he has humanity in him. You either feel sorry for him or just wish you have a chance to kill him. Strongest thing about his character is that he has no happy ending, the best thing you can do for him is making him see and realize how bad he screwed up. It's hard to sympathize with women beating drunk assholes but this game managed to do it. And he is not the only character, he simply stands out from already a lot of stand out characters in W3 for me.

 

I think Bioware shoot itself in the foot when they announced they will have new protagonist in every DA game which in my opinion is a huge mistake, especially considering how Inquistion ended. They established the base, characters and even possibily a future villain and all that will be thrown away if we once again step into an unknown character again.

[In Exile]

I think the reason why you can feel a lot more connected to the Witcher characters is because most of them are written like real humans instead of just being a fantasy figure.

 

Bloody Baron is a prime example, he's an a-hole but he has humanity in him. You either feel sorry for him or just wish you have a chance to kill him. Strongest thing about his character is that he has no happy ending, the best thing you can do for him is making him see and realize how bad he screwed up. It's hard to sympathize with women beating drunk assholes but this game managed to do it. And he is not the only character, he simply stands out from already a lot of stand out characters in W3 for me.

 

I think Bioware shoot itself in the foot when they announced they will have new protagonist in every DA game which in my opinion is a huge mistake, especially considering how Inquistion ended. They established the base, characters and even possibily a future villain and all that will be thrown away if we once again step into an unknown character again.

 

I don't think you're right about Bioware. Look at your example - the Bloody Baron is a totally new character that has absolutely no connection with anything. Hell, Ciri is a "new" character, in the sense that she was never in any TW game beforehand. What TW does generally is have a very fixed protagonist with a very pre-determined past. That makes Geralt work, but Bioware can't do that even with the same protagonist because they either retcon your relationships (Hello MEs mandatory bros with Garrus) or just keep giving you new characters anyway. 

[Aren]

Spoiler

 

Some very awesome screenshots, thanks so much for sharing. Though I can't help but wonder how many of those lovely young women in the third are vampires...

 

Getting back on the subject of things Dragon Age could learn from Wild Hunt, here's a few things worth considering for DA4. Apologies too if I've mentioned these previously, it's been a long month.

 

- Leave moral questions open-ended and up to the player. One of the many great things about Wild Hunt was how it didn't really lecture the player on the right course of action to take, instead simply posing the question and leaving it up for them to decide. Inquisition, conversely, hammered home its themes and lessons with all the subtlety of a particularly obnoxious and intrusive anvil. "Blood magic is bad! The Dalish are a fundamentally flawed culture! The Wardens are out of control!" (and no, I'm not letting that go). Wild Hunt posed dilemmas, while Inquisition gave sermons. Is it any wonder the former's story is so much more engaging?

 

 

I don't really understand why Bioware assassinated the various organizations in the game.

See how foolish the templars,the grey wardens ,the mages  appear to be in fact Corypheus used them all.

In order to portray the Inquisition as the epitome of perfection?

Same old impression i had with DA, those who are not tied with the PC are  made clueless and incompetent.

[Aren]

 Bioware can't do that even with the same protagonist because they either retcon your relationships (Hello MEs mandatory bros with Garrus) or just keep giving you new characters anyway. 

I think a lot of problems come from the import system when it comes to the cameos of characters.

I don't really understand why Varric,Leliana,Morrigan ecc.... should behave in the same way in every world-state.

[Elhanan]

Spoiler

 
Some very awesome screenshots, thanks so much for sharing. Though I can't help but wonder how many of those lovely young women in the third are vampires...
 
Getting back on the subject of things Dragon Age could learn from Wild Hunt, here's a few things worth considering for DA4. Apologies too if I've mentioned these previously, it's been a long month.
 
- Leave moral questions open-ended and up to the player. One of the many great things about Wild Hunt was how it didn't really lecture the player on the right course of action to take, instead simply posing the question and leaving it up for them to decide. Inquisition, conversely, hammered home its themes and lessons with all the subtlety of a particularly obnoxious and intrusive anvil. "Blood magic is bad! The Dalish are a fundamentally flawed culture! The Wardens are out of control!" (and no, I'm not letting that go). Wild Hunt posed dilemmas, while Inquisition gave sermons. Is it any wonder the former's story is so much more engaging?
 
- Bring in more and crazier monsters. Wild Hunt really set the bar for awesome creature designs, and while Inquisition had some good ones (the Envy Demon really comes to mind), there's nothing as memorable or creative as the Ladies of the Wood, or the Frog Prince, or leshens, or that vampire in Oxenfurt who loved the blood of drunks. Bioware needs to up their monster-game for the next installment, and if they could bring back old classics like Desire Demons, Abominations, Broodmothers and old-style Shrieks, so much the better. Let's have some monsters that are actually monstrous, you know?
 
- Maintain character consistency. This was a big problem Inquisition had; too often, it felt like the characters were acting not according to who they were as people or in line with prior portrayals, but whatever the plot required them to be. Teagan's the most obvious example of this, but there are others (Fiona, the Wardens again, Hawke, etc). It's very hard to care about people if their characterization's gonna turn on a dime the instant the writers either feel lazy or write themselves into a corner. (And seriously, enough with the Sudden Sequel Heel Syndrome already. You'd think Bioware would have learned after Anders). Conversely, it was much easier to connect to Geralt's friends and allies because they were written consistently; who they were and why they wanted did not change according to the whims of the plot.

Must disagree. The DA series has held from the first that the social norm of Ferelden and many other countries is an abhorrence towards Blood magic due to mind control, yet there are presented exceptions (eg; the Warden can be saved with Blood magic). This is no different in DAI, where demons are shown to be corrupted spirits, Cole is of benefit, etc. And the Warden's were out of control because of the misuse of Blood magic, but again Stroud is presented as an exception; and the surviving ones are open to atone for their crimes.

Cannot speak to many of the monsters in TW3; the Griffin looks amazing, but the flying demonic baby is laughable. DAI offers the best Dragons I have seen in a game thus far; each one unique, and the variations of spiders and insects are enough to indicate that variety exists.

And while there have been changes to some characters in DA, there are also presented reasons (eg; Teagan's experiences in DAO, having to escort Isolde, being stuck as a diplomat, etc). Have not read any of the books, but experiences there may also directly affect the character (eg; Cole).

[ThePhoenixKing]

 

I don't really understand why Bioware assassinated the various organizations in the game.

See how foolish the templars,the grey wardens ,the mages  appear to be in fact Corypheus used them all.

In order to portray the Inquisition as the epitome of perfection?

Same old impression i had with DA, those who are not tied with the PC are  made clueless and incompetent.

 

 

Exactly! And that's one of the reasons why the Inquisition came across as so dull and unengaging; the writers couldn't make it stand on its own merits, so they just turned everyone else into either morons or monsters. Electing to lower the river because you can't be bothered to raise the bridge is pretty much the definition of bad writing. Wild Hunt didn't need to do that to tell a compelling story. Radovid didn't need to become a drooling rube in order to make his war with Nilfgaard interesting. CDPR didn't decide to make Dandelion a complete jerk in order to facilitate his Novigrad questline (indeed, he's at the most selfless he's ever been, really). There's a thoughtfulness to the character writing in Wild Hunt that Bioware would do well to emulate (or recapture, since Origins showed they were perfectly capable of doing it).

[slimgrin]

I wouldn't use Radovid as an example there, unless you mean to say he's an example of what not to do. They totally destroyed his character in TW3. 

[Blooddrunk1004]

I wouldn't use Radovid as an example there, unless you mean to say he's an example of what not to do. They totally destroyed his character in TW3. 

It just seems like CDPR has issues when they start making book/ prestablished characters into villains.

 

Radovid goes from chess master to Mad King from Game of Thrones "burn everything!" and Eredin who in books is a well established character with a good motivation gets Sauron treatment. Don't even make me start with Djikstra.... I think it's the best if they stick to making their own bad guys, Letho (TW2) and Gaunter O Dimm are on completely different level. They said that we should look forward to B&W main "big-bad", although i can't see how they can top what is basically a slavic version of Satan.

[Seraphim24]

The reason I liked a lot TW stuff more than a lot of DA stuff is really simple in some ways I just felt the characters were more likable, like, more compassionate, naturally empathetic, higher emotional intelligence and all that. 

 

They're people I wouldn't mind going bowling with or something kinda thing, whereas I feel like with DA characters increasingly I'd have to meet all these opaque requirements, I mean, not exactly rolling out the carpet for them to walk on sort of thing, but you know, just more difficult. 

 

I felt that way more about NWN and BG as well way back in the day, but I think with DA it headed in that super stiff LOTR sort of direction, where people are super elite and powerful but you have to press all 90 buttons to get them to do something. 

 

There's really something to be said for just the plain ability to just be nice. 

[Nette]

The armour in the last two kind of looks like his original Witcher outfit, nice.

The Viper gear set is the upgraded original outfit. It became available with HoS.

[Lezio]

Spoiler

- Maintain character consistency. This was a big problem Inquisition had; too often, it felt like the characters were acting not according to who they were as people or in line with prior portrayals, but whatever the plot required them to be. Teagan's the most obvious example of this, but there are others (Fiona, the Wardens again, Hawke, etc). It's very hard to care about people if their characterization's gonna turn on a dime the instant the writers either feel lazy or write themselves into a corner. (And seriously, enough with the Sudden Sequel Heel Syndrome already. You'd think Bioware would have learned after Anders). Conversely, it was much easier to connect to Geralt's friends and allies because they were written consistently; who they were and why they wanted did not change according to the whims of the plot.

 

Most of all, i was very disappointed by Celene in Inquisition. We had been hearing about her since Origins and, since Origins, she had been described as this (overall) awesome ruler of the most powerful nation in Thedas. For me, there was just this awe element to her similiar to, say, Emhyr's. An Empress. Hell, listening to Empress of Fire i can still remember how great i expected her to be

 

Then In Inquisition she's portrayed as this damsell in distress who hides naked guys in her palace, as i said i was very disappointed

[Elhanan]

Most of all, i was very disappointed by Celene in Inquisition. We had been hearing about her since Origins and, since Origins, she had been described as this (overall) awesome ruler of the most powerful nation in Thedas. For me, there was just this awe element to her similiar to, say, Emhyr's. An Empress. Hell, listening to Empress of Fire i can still remember how great i expected her to be
 
Then In Inquisition she's portrayed as this damsell in distress who hides naked guys in her palace, as i said i was very disappointed

I wasn't. She was a cunning diplomat that managed to outwit her rivals. While I may not agree with her plans and tactics, I found her to be the best choice as Empress.

[Lezio]

I wasn't. She was a cunning diplomat that managed to outwit her rivals. While I may not agree with her plans and tactics, I found her to be the best choice as Empress.

 

She gets killed if The Inquisitor doesn't prevent it, in her own place at her own ball. I was disappointed that someone who became Empress at 16, and stayed Empress in Orlais, was depicted as someone we "had" to save

Sure, they describe her as cunning, but in the game there's very little that actually shows her as such

[GrinningRogue]

Be more like Witcher 3, because spending 30% of your play time running around a map and dying (or using up resources) from inconsequential hordes of uninteresting low level mobs that keep popping up along the road is fun.

 

I don't mind stumbling into some high level monster lair. It's fun; tells you not to go there until later, or possibly an opportunity for your character to show how badass they are. But if I have to go back to a place in the middle of nowhere (no nearby fast travel point), just to say, deliver magical flowers to a widow to make her happy being reminded of her long dead husband, all while having to fight tens of 5hit-dead mobs just to get there, I wouldn't call that fun.

 

With games like DA, I play for the story, not for inventory management and travel-survival simulation. And what kind of story would it be if, the Inquisitor, Savior of Thedas, Dragon Hunter and Bane of Demons, died of a dog bite because she forgot to restock her potions between errands in the Hinterlands? After the 3rd playthrough, I start wishing there's a skip button for all that traveling. I'm just here for the feels, so let me get to it already. Enough with the open world.

[Han Shot First]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is how the people of Orlais should have looked.

 

TW3 is so much better than DA:I aesthetically, particularly with the clothing and hairstyles of the NPCs populating the game world.

[Elhanan]

She gets killed if The Inquisitor doesn't prevent it, in her own place at her own ball. I was disappointed that someone who became Empress at 16, and stayed Empress in Orlais, was depicted as someone we "had" to save
Sure, they describe her as cunning, but in the game there's very little that actually shows her as such

Given that there was a rift at the palace, as well as demons besides the usual guests, perhaps the invitation to the Inquisition is a Mark in her favor....

[Elhanan]

That is how the people of Orlais should have looked.
 
TW3 is so much better than DA:I aesthetically, particularly with the clothing and hairstyles of the NPCs populating the game world.

And that may be your opinion; it is certainly not mine. May be pretty on the surface, but the mixture of mud, blood, and excrement, public urination, general drunkenness, etc of many still are among the reasons I keep this title from my playlist.

[Nette]

Given that there was a rift at the palace, as well as demons besides the usual guests, perhaps the invitation to the Inquisition is a Mark in her favor....

She didn't invite the Inquisition, Gaspard did. Take off those rose-tinted glasses you seem to look at DAI with and admit it has flaws. (A lot of them in fact ) Celene got hit with the idiot-stick like so many others in DAI.

[Dread-Reaper]

The Viper gear set is the upgraded original outfit. It became available with HoS.

I meant his original TW1 gear.

[panzerwzh]

Yes, it looks like the default armor from TW1.

 

[slimgrin]

It just seems like CDPR has issues when they start making book/ prestablished characters into villains.

 

Radovid goes from chess master to Mad King from Game of Thrones "burn everything!" and Eredin who in books is a well established character with a good motivation gets Sauron treatment. Don't even make me start with Djikstra.... I think it's the best if they stick to making their own bad guys, Letho (TW2) and Gaunter O Dimm are on completely different level. They said that we should look forward to B&W main "big-bad", although i can't see how they can top what is basically a slavic version of Satan.

I've argued that the books have outlived their usefulness beyond providing an amazing setting and unique lore. But characters? They should leave Sapkowski's characters alone. For good. We know they'll continue the series somehow without Geralt, and they've proved they're at their best inventing their own characters, and especially their own villains: Loredo, Dethmold, De Aldersberg, Letho and O'Dim are all well written. Not a single baddie in TW3 comes close.

[panzerwzh]

That is how the people of Orlais should have looked.

 

TW3 is so much better than DA:I aesthetically, particularly with the clothing and hairstyles of the NPCs populating the game world.

 CDPR art design was pretty amazing in TW2 already. With the new engine in TW3 they really set the bar high.

 

 

[panzerwzh]

I've argued that the books have outlived their usefulness beyond providing an amazing setting and unique lore. But characters? They should leave Sapkowski's characters alone. For good. We know they'll continue the series somehow without Geralt, and they've proved they're at their best inventing their own characters, and especially their own villains: Loredo, Dethmold, De Aldersberg, Letho and O'Dim are all well written. Not a single baddie in TW3 comes close.

I agree with the leave book characters alone part but have to point out CDPR bring more life and depth into some book characters as well (Phillipa, Zoltan, Kiera etc.) 

[In Exile]

It just seems like CDPR has issues when they start making book/ prestablished characters into villains.

 

Radovid goes from chess master to Mad King from Game of Thrones "burn everything!" and Eredin who in books is a well established character with a good motivation gets Sauron treatment. Don't even make me start with Djikstra.... I think it's the best if they stick to making their own bad guys, Letho (TW2) and Gaunter O Dimm are on completely different level. They said that we should look forward to B&W main "big-bad", although i can't see how they can top what is basically a slavic version of Satan.

 

Didn't they lose their main political writer(s), i.e., the people that handled the politics plot in TW2? Like DA, I think this is less an issue with adaptation and more an issue that writing super-complex, politically savvy characters in a chess-master like politics plot is hard.