I'm only guessing, but I think it was a typo - they may have meant "Wheel of Time". There are parallels. Blight, Shadow(Dark)spawn, broad notions of gender equality, lots of apostrophes in the names etc etc.
But plagiarism...doubtful.
this, sorry -- but someone read that series and claimed it was matched kingdoms, problems, wardens, even characters just with removing some letters here and there
If the Dragon Age games are heavily influenced by Wheel of Time, then I suppose it is only being true to their source material that DA:O and especially DA:I feel so bloated.
this, sorry -- but someone read that series and claimed it was matched kingdoms, problems, wardens, even characters just with removing some letters here and there
this, sorry -- but someone read that series and claimed it was matched kingdoms, problems, wardens, even characters just with removing some letters here and there
In that case, I'm not sure this someone has read any of the Wheel of Time books at all.
this, sorry -- but someone read that series and claimed it was matched kingdoms, problems, wardens, even characters just with removing some letters here and there
Yeah, I've also read that series (four times), even have a quote from the final chapter of book 6 in my sig, and as mentioned, there are undoubtedly parallels (intentional or not) but plagiarism is a very serious accusation. It is also, in my view, very false. The central problem in tWoT is a conflict with a Dark One (the devil/Satan/Lucifer/whatever) by the forces of humanity who must contend with the fact that any man that can use magic is either insane and must killed, or a servant of the Dark One and must be killed. Warders are bodyguards of female magic users, not an independent order charged with protecting the world from an ancient evil.
Nations - well, as BabyPuncher mentions, archetypes exist and that's just life. Names...? Not sure about that - do you have specific examples? Logain and Perrin are the only ones I can remember from the top of my head.
I'm kinda in the same boat as KBomb here, if we could have a rich, immersive world, deep characters both large and small, deep, branching quest lines etc AND the option to create my own character, i'd be in gaming heaven. If I am forced to choose though, then i'd gladly take the former over the latter. It just so happens that i've found games with a set protagonist tend to have deeper, more cohesive stories, in rpgs or otherwise.
Funny you mention Red Dead Redemption by the way, anyone else getting serious RDR vibes from TW3?
YES! Finally someone that sees the RDR in The Witcher 3 and not Skyrim and other blah.
My opinion on the main mission.
One word
EPIC
There are actually two major battles that take place where your previous choices earlier ingame have an impact. The planning and preparations by all the characters involved puts Mass Effect and Dragon Age to shame. Unlike DAI where the ending is abrupt and wrapped up with a random fourman fight scene in some random location. TW3 actually have the characters formulate a plan where everyone has a job to do to ensure the success of the fight. Especially with the first battle. You have to really pay attention to what you're told to do and where you need to be. The second battle is pure wonderful chaos, just make sure you have your potions, bombs et al ready. The antagonists are complex although I would have liked to have seen more of them. By the end I sort of understood their motivations. The bond between Ciri and Geralt is just beautiful.
Sounds fantastic and I'm really looking forward to progressing further. I was always let down by the lack of depth and alternate variations to the Suicide Mission and Priority: Earth in Mass Effect and HUGELY disappointed by that pathetic final "battle" in Inquisition. Not only did Inquisition lack build up and drama, it lacked choice and freedom. Well summed up.
In that case, I'm not sure this someone has read any of the Wheel of Time books at all.
They made a well received post a bit back. I might have butchered the details with my generalizing post. They seemed like a fan of the Wheel of Time series in how they described the events which happened and paralleled them with the DAO world.
Please don't take my word -- I haven't read it, all I will say is that it seemed believable.
I love it how TW3 gets praised for everything that it does better, yet when DA:I is discussed, it still gets bashed here, in a comparison (!) thread, for things that TW3 completely failed to implement or did it at a minimum bare-bones level. Like the scope of variety in role-playing your character. This is really objective comparison and feedback, indeed, no overreaction and one-sidedness. 
I personally see these few points that TW3 has over DA:I:
- side quests are more involving
- main quest in DA:I feels shorter in comparison
- more background NPCs, whereas in DA:I we mostly traverse desolate areas without many NPCs and hear them chatter at fewer places, like Skyhold and Val Royeux
- better graphics
- more detailed sfx (weather, day\night cycle)
And these few points that DA:I has over TW3:
- varied role-playing, as we can create a character with choice of race, gender, class + more varied dialogue responses and reactions
- companion banter of very good quality in addition to NPC chatter
- more varied combat + more varied ways to play it (pure action with or without pause, tac-cam)
- chooses to appeal to wider audience (which, in turn, creates more role-playing opportunities)
- a party (while you can still choose to play solo, a party allows for more tactics and variety)
I could name other points, but those would be highly debatable. Like which game does side characters or romance better, etc.
Yep. Noticed this as well. CDPR devs are also much more helpful than Bioware's ones. They reply to almost all queries about quests, Gwent and what have you.
For instance, I was wondering if my Geralt will ever see Triss again because he did not choose to romance her and instead went for Yennefer. Within an hour of posting a thread about it, a CDPR dev gave a non-spoiler reply and a spoiler reply.
By contrast Bioware devs don't even bother to help out in this fashion.
For a company who covets a reputation of "listening to the fans", Bioware has not had a very impressive track record of communication since Inquisition's release. I think that lack of acknowledgement of various bugs and rushed state of the primary quest was more disappointing to me than the game itself.
I love it how TW3 gets praised for everything that it does better, yet when DA:I is discussed, it still gets bashed here, in a comparison (!) thread, for things that TW3 completely failed to implement or did it at a minimum bare-bones level. Like the scope of variety in role-playing your character. This is really objective comparison and feedback, indeed, no overreaction and one-sidedness.
DAI had Morrigan, who for me will always beat the LI's of TW3. 
that's a positive right?
Nations - well, as BabyPuncher mentions, archetypes exist and that's just life. Names...? Not sure about that - do you have specific examples? Logain and Perrin are the only ones I can remember from the top of my head.
And these few points that DA:I has over TW3:
- varied role-playing, as we can create a character with choice of race, gender, class + more varied dialogue responses and reactions
- companion banter of very good quality in addition to NPC chatter
- more varied combat + more varied ways to play it (pure action with or without pause, tac-cam)
- chooses to appeal to wider audience (which, in turn, creates more role-playing opportunities)
- a party (while you can still choose to play solo, a party allows for more tactics and variety)
I could name other points, but those would be highly debatable. Like which game does side characters or romance better, etc.
Going through each of these points....
-Character creation isn't really considered a point over TW3 because TW3 doesn't have character creation as a design choice; not as a mistake. A better comparison'll probably come when I believe they'll implement it in Cyberpunk.
-Agreed, though most of TW3 doesn't have companions, so I would certainly hope DA:I is better in this aspect.
-Both games have actually gotten criticism over combat, though it's harder due to the combat systems inherently being different. The answer is: Dragon's Dogma is superior.
-Agreed, but this goes back to the game allowing a created protagonist with more freedoms in beliefs, sexuality, etc.. Also, just because the protagonist is a straight male doesn't mean it can't appeal to multiple types of people. If Ciri's the protagonist in the next game, I don't believe it won't appeal to me anymore just like The Last of Us doesn't just appeal to only one demographic.
-Like the character creation, this is more of a design choice.
In comparison, your points of where TW3 is better involve elements that DA:I and TW3 share rather than about character creation and party members.
Have seen enough TW3 vids to know that the longer cut-scenes are why I am thankful that these are not extant in DAI as opposed to ME3. I enjoy the 'G' in a RPG; not watching short films.
As for characters, both DAI and TW3 seem to have some good examples. And as I have skipped the TW series, I cannot tell how much lore should be known to play the game.
But I do know that Bioware is fairly good about avoiding the need for a Dune type of glossary to continue gameplay. And as one that is not a lore purist, I appreciate this gesture; also a reason I skipped the sequels to Dune.
If this is the kind of game you're looking for, less storytelling and drama but more grinding gameplay, I can see why you quite liked Inquisition. Without those elements being consistently portrayed, I just can't maintain interest. I find no utility in wandering through empty areas and need to be consistently informed or reminded of what the point everything. Maybe I'm just not good enough at maintaining character. But isn't it a bit immersion breaking to stroll through the wilderness for hours upon hours when the fate of the world is at stake? The immediacy of the Mass Effect series works better for me in that there's always something relevant to do. As for The Witcher, I haven't reached the point where I'm even close to bored of the side quests yet, as they fit comfortably enough around Geralt's quest to find Cirri.
I've played more TW3 and have more thoughts on comparisons. Despite my better judgment I'm posting them here, but I'm basically going to ignore a bunch of posters for the sake of my sanity.
I love it how TW3 gets praised for everything that it does better, yet when DA:I is discussed, it still gets bashed here, in a comparison (!) thread, for things that TW3 completely failed to implement or did it at a minimum bare-bones level. Like the scope of variety in role-playing your character. This is really objective comparison and feedback, indeed, no overreaction and one-sidedness.
I personally see these few points that TW3 has over DA:I:
- side quests are more involving
- main quest in DA:I feels shorter in comparison
- more background NPCs, whereas in DA:I we mostly traverse desolate areas without many NPCs and hear them chatter at fewer places, like Skyhold and Val Royeux
- better graphics
- more detailed sfx (weather, day\night cycle)
And these few points that DA:I has over TW3:
- varied role-playing, as we can create a character with choice of race, gender, class + more varied dialogue responses and reactions
- companion banter of very good quality in addition to NPC chatter
- more varied combat + more varied ways to play it (pure action with or without pause, tac-cam)
- chooses to appeal to wider audience (which, in turn, creates more role-playing opportunities)
- a party (while you can still choose to play solo, a party allows for more tactics and variety)
I could name other points, but those would be highly debatable. Like which game does side characters or romance better, etc.
-Character creation isn't really considered a point over TW3 because TW3 doesn't have character creation as a design choice; not as a mistake. A better comparison'll probably come when I believe they'll implement it in Cyberpunk.
The lack of a vegetarian option isn't an issue because they decided not to offer one. Have some delicious steak, vegetarians!
Or let me try it differently: the lack of cutscenes in DA:I for most conversations isn't really a point over DA:I (re: TW3) because DA:I doesn't have cutscenes for most conversations as a design choice.
More to the point, people don't apply this both ways when they should. DA:I has companions and they eat up lots of resources (esp. VO and word budget). But no one says "Ah, well, those crap side quests? Think of all the design choices made to allow for 5 hrs of party banter!"
-Character creation isn't really considered a point over TW3 because TW3 doesn't have character creation as a design choice; not as a mistake. A better comparison'll probably come when I believe they'll implement it in Cyberpunk.
Ok, but then would you agree that DA:I doesn't have as many background NPCs to create an "alive world" as a design choice, not a mistake? After all, their intent was likely to create long stretches of desolate and largely unexplored regions. Yet here DA:I was many times judged negatively for having a world that is not alive enough, which essentially comes down to quantity of background NPCs. Can we dismiss it as a design choice or not? I think not, as people won't stop feeling that the TW3 world is more alive even if we do.
So aren't we already bordering on ridiculous by arbitary deciding not to include something as an advantage by calling its absence a a design choice?
But more importantly, keep in mind that I'm not only speaking of character creation per se, like creating an appearance, I'm speaking of role-playing. As Geralt, you have very little choice in your reactions and responses. He's too defined. So if you want to, you can change this point to be about absence of varied responses and role-playing opportunities in the shoes of one character only. Case in point, about the Letho meeting:
-Both games have actually gotten criticism over combat, though it's harder due to the combat systems inherently being different.
I'm not choosing which combat is better, only which is more varied. The German Gothic game series were mentioned in the thread before, that's the closest to the Witcher action combat if you chose to play warrior rather than mage or archer, but the Gothic games still had more combat variety, because other class abilities were not blocked to you, and they were very extensive. Which proves that action combat can be done better. In a "more varied" way, not better subjectively, as it's always a matter of preference. I don't understand why that shouldn't be an advantage. And please don't forget DA:I giving players a choice to play in Tac-Cam, which can mimick the feel of turn-based combat for those with consoles or controllers. In comparison, if you dislike fast action combat, you have to pass on TW3.
-Agreed, but this goes back to the game allowing a created protagonist with more freedoms in beliefs, sexuality, etc.. Also, just because the protagonist is a straight male doesn't mean it can't appeal to multiple types of people. If Ciri's the protagonist in the next game, I don't believe it won't appeal to me anymore just like The Last of Us doesn't just appeal to only one demographic.
I agree with that, but we both know that having a choice appeals to a lot more people, so it's definite advantage.
-Like the character creation, this is more of a design choice.
Controlled party is debatable point, yes, which I specified. Still a plus if you want a more varied combat and role-playing, but debatable.
In comparison, your points of where TW3 is better involve elements that DA:I and TW3 share rather than about character creation and party members.
And these few points that DA:I has over TW3:
- varied role-playing, as we can create a character with choice of race, gender, class + more varied dialogue responses and reactions
- companion banter of very good quality in addition to NPC chatter
- more varied combat + more varied ways to play it (pure action with or without pause, tac-cam)
- chooses to appeal to wider audience (which, in turn, creates more role-playing opportunities)
- a party (while you can still choose to play solo, a party allows for more tactics and variety)
I could name other points, but those would be highly debatable. Like which game does side characters or romance better, etc.
1. TW3 never advertised a CC so we can't compare that. Geralt is a fixed character and that is how he looks and what's more important to me is that the characters respond to how he looks.
2. I do love DAI companion banter...when I got it to work. But oh man, it was not fun running around DAI for hours with no banter. In TW3, I don't care if I hear banter cause the world itself is interesting and I enjoy meeting up with the various people in the area.
3. I can't praise DAI combat. Not when they did better in DAO by giving us variety. Geralt does have his own combat style though so I imagine it would suck for those who don't like it. But I'm enjoying it, magic and swordplay. oh yeah.
4. TW3 does appeal to a wide audience. 1 million preorders don't lie. And with mod support it's gonna get even better. Actually CDPR proves that you don't have to try and make everyone happy to create a successful game. It's not the end of the world if some people don't want to buy it. I would say that DA could learn this lesson.
5. I agree, I like having a party. This is probably the only thing I can say DAI has over TW3.
Speaking of Banter, due to the bugs and someone mentioed the various resources it took up. That made me wonder, I don't think that the ME series had banter in the same way that dragon age did. Though you did have a lot of conversations back on the Normandy, party member comments during missions, and at certain areas in the different worlds.
I wonder if this might be a better method to use for the Dragon Age series?
3. I can't praise DAI combat. Not when they did better in DAO by giving us variety. Geralt does have his own combat style though so I imagine it would suck for those who don't like it. But I'm enjoying it, magic and swordplay. oh yeah.
DAO's combat had variety?
To me the biggest difference is (1) the world, and how we interact with it (because it feels less like themepark zones and more like an actual world) and (2) how TW3 handled its trash open world content.
(2) I think is important, so let me expand with an example.
Thanks for your opinion, you brought up many truthful points that I glossed over, like rewards feeling more rewarding and consequences of your immediate actions having an immediate reflection in the world around. DA:I tried to do that, I feel, however, they followed the "tell, not show" principle a bit too much. Whenever you were making a difference, you were told about it more often than shown it, except some notable cases like Crestwood changing its weather.
A lot of the TW3 open world content is functionally identical to the rifts: a zone of enemies with no dialogue that you're meant to clear out for a notional reward, with no other content besides combat in the immediate sense. This includes camps, monster dens, and "hidden treasures". It's all the same thing design-wise... except for a few minor bells and whistles that make so much of a difference (and use no cutscenes!) that it's almost incomparable genius.
I'm still undecided whether I like TW3's monster dens and hidden treasure more than astrariums and climbing around for shards! When you've seen enough dens, they're as repetitive as astrariums. Hidden treasures are done nicely sometimes, but are often instead just a chest somewhere, guarded by a bear or other creatures. The density of monsters in particular cheapens the rarity of being a witcher and makes you question why you're so despised if all these people literally depend on you. The XP gain from monsters is laughable, so I'm not sure why there are so many and it greatly reminds me of DA:I's trash combat with low-level enemies. This seems to be something that both games don't shine at...
Sometimes there's a "prisoner" you can free. If you do that you get a new merchant in an area. From a design POV that's a merchant that would always have been there... but now you have an unlock and you feel like you're engaging with the world.
A lot of people use this as an example of the world having verisimilitude in TW3, but I actually think TW3 is even more crap at that than DA:I. Enemies are distributed by level in seemingly random and incomprehensible patterns. I'm not even sure what levels mean because a monstrous cockatrice that threatens a town is like... lv. 10, but some random drowner near a mudhole is level 16; you'd think the drowner pack is way worse.
True. Both games have a not very shining approach to this, DA:I keeps enemies at more even levels and so most of them quickly become an excess of boring combat that any sane player would try to avoid. TW3 is uneven and while it's somewhat better, it makes the world look ridiculous, because it's unknown how all these people survive in it, with strong monsters frolicking a few steps away. Also I can complain that there's no way to put any note on the map and it's very hard to rely on your memory alone in such a big game to remember which levels are monsters that are guarding a treasure, or which level bandits are, etc. Do I have to ride all over the maps after gaining a few levels just to check out levels of enemies again? A note-adding feature would make things a lot more comfortable for a game that uses highly varied monster levels in the same region.
there's not much to do in a lot of the towns, and there's nothing really happening (at least as far as I've gotten in Velen) between the two sides supposedly at war (basically, it's exactly like the Exalted Plains).
True, this is a bit of a downside. Long stretches of land without anything to do except riding through them on horse. And monsters roaming in some places. This is compensated with nice graphics to observe during the ride, though. But yeah, that jumped at me in the very beginning of the game that the world's size is big but density of what you can do it it is small.
DAO's combat had variety?
You can be a focused warrior, rogue, or mage though not really in-between? Gothic had variety like VelvetZ said, though like Fable, you usually ended up being a mishmash of the classes.
More to the point, people don't apply this both ways when they should. DA:I has companions and they eat up lots of resources (esp. VO and word budget). But no one says "Ah, well, those crap side quests? Think of all the design choices made to allow for 5 hrs of party banter!"
I'm actually cool with accepting that DA:I doesn't have the same number of background characters and such due to the complexity of always having characters with you. As for the latter, I thought about bringing up the recent criticism of how the VO and word budget for party banter could have been better used throughout the game rather than on banter.
Character creation can certainly be considered an advantage if that's what one wants, but I don't think the lack of it is a disadvantage either. Planescape Torment only has one set character due to wanting to tell a specific story, and many would say it's stronger for it.
1. TW3 never advertised a CC so we can't compare that. Geralt is a fixed character and that is how he looks and what's more important to me is that the characters respond to how he looks.
2. I do love DAI companion banter...when I got it to work. But oh man, it was not fun running around DAI for hours with no banter. In TW3, I don't care if I hear banter cause the world itself is interesting and I enjoy meeting up with the various people in the area.
3. I can't praise DAI combat. Not when they did better in DAO by giving us variety. Geralt does have his own combat style though so I imagine it would suck for those who don't like it. But I'm enjoying it, magic and swordplay. oh yeah.
4. TW3 does appeal to a wide audience. 1 million preorders don't lie. And with mod support it's gonna get even better. Actually CDPR proves that you don't have to try and make everyone happy to create a successful game. It's not the end of the world if some people don't want to buy it. I would say that DA could learn this lesson.
5. I agree, I like having a party. This is probably the only thing I can say DAI has over TW3.
I don't think we can dismiss some advantages just because another game didn't advertise for them or they didn't work in your game or because an older game in the same series did that specific advantage better.
As for preorders, they come from PR campaigns. I have no idea how the PR camplaigns or quantity of preorders compare between the games, but I believe it's common sense to think that shooting for a more varied audience for a game would always yield it more new buyers. Also I did mention that it presents more opportunities for role-playing as a side-effect, and I feel like these two consequences are more or less intertwined. At least in RPGs. For a game that's called a role-playing game, why wouldn't it be an advantage to have more role-playing? Having a single defined character with defined personality can be ok in an RPG, too, some of my favorite games have those, but I doubt that it can be called an advantage.
DAO's combat had variety?
You're free to consider 8 slots and one specialization combat freedom.
I prefer to decide who to buff, where to crowd control, who to heal and when, cast entropy, be a battlemage et al.
You're free to consider 8 slots and one specialization combat freedom.
I prefer to decide who to buff, where to crowd control, who to heal and when, cast entropy, be a battlemage et al.
While I agree 8 slots was kinda meh, I actually prefer one specialization
You can still buff, you can still do crowd control, use a healing grenade, maybe they'll bring that back in a future game
Retour en haut