15896 réponses à ce sujet

[Hazegurl]

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.

I don't consider TW not having a cc a negative.  Walking around as Geralt with black hair while everyone calls you "The White Wolf" is rather silly.  But I will say that DAI has a nice CC.

 

I agree that preorder success can be achieved by a lot of hype. However, appealing to a varied audience does not equal success. Sometimes a company can do too much and end up failing or not being as successful as they could have been if they had simply remained focused.  Sure DAI gives us different classes, yet they strip them down anyway.  They give us different races, yet it doesn't fit their story or lore.  I'd rather have a fixed protag that gives us a compelling story than running around a soulless world with pointy ears. I just don't see much role playing in DAI, period. You walk around and get called Inquisitor and you chase down Cory.  As a Qunari, Elf, Mage, or Dwarf.  How is the story any different than just playing a warrior human?

[Eelectrica]

I'd rather have a fixed protag that gives us a compelling story than running around a soulless world with pointy ears. I just don't see much role playing in DAI, period. You walk around and get called Inquisitor and you chase down Cory.  As a Qunari, Elf, Mage, or Dwarf.  How is the story any different than just playing a warrior human?

This is where I draw the line.

Given the choice between a fixed protagonist or my own, I'll pick my own every time. In an RPG I want my character. I accept that in the Witcher games I'm given Geralt, that's fine, I'd prefer to play an elven or dwarven character in that universe, but I don't have the choice so I just move on and accept it.

 

As an elven inquisitor, I thought the story was more personal, we also have the unique Solas romance option which I didn't do as I just don't bother with them, but to learn more about the Solas character I might just do that. I don't see it as a soulless world just because I get to pick my own character.
 

The fundamental story isn't going to change, and that's fine. We have some reaction to our character such as the elves in the exalted plains, or even the flowers on the grave guy. More of that next time around would be awesome sure, but it was something, and no reason to drop character choice for a fixed character because it didn't quite reach its potential.

 

My other two playthroughs were as a Dwarf and a Qunari, and they were fun as well, could have been more unique dialogues and other bonuses perhaps, such as a Scout Harding romance for Dwarven quizzy, but still running through the world as a Qunari mage was cool especially as they're supposed to have lips sealed shut and all.

Never did play as a human, I do have an idea for a douche bag human inquisitor who has his head so far up his ass as to believe he is the herald. Maybe I'll do it sometime.

 

Playing as a qunari could be very cool in DA4 if it's heading up north as is strongly rumored.

[KaiserShep]

Yeah, I can take or leave a lot of things, but for Dragon Age, or any BioWare game for that matter, I will not accept any less than a protagonist we can customize.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The thing to remember about the race selection in DAI is that is was added on during the time extension. If it was part of the development process from the beginning, the world would have been a lot more reactive than it is, and it still reacts to your race more than many expected. 

[Eelectrica]

The thing to remember about the race selection in DAI is that is was added on during the time extension. If it was part of the development process from the beginning, the world would have been a lot more reactive than it is, and it still reacts to your race more than many expected. 

Exactly. In DA4 I'd like this to be included from the beginning.

And then people are going to bring up the only 20% or whatever choose to play as other races. Still around what... A million people or more? that's not too shabby,

According to this interview: http://www.rockpaper...hale-interview/only 18% of people played as femshep. So there's that.

[Zinho73]

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.

TW3 over DAI:

I don't know about the graphics. I can see someone thinking that the scenery in DAI is more interesting, because it is more artistic and tW3 goes for more realism. Animations, facial expressions and textures are not on the same level, though. TW3 wins hands down. The art direction in both games I think is solid, though.

 

DAI ovr TW3:

1. Varied roleplaying: In DAI your guy (or girl) looks different, but the overall story arc do not strays too far, regardless of your appearance. I do not see that difference in roleplaying The Witcher and roleplaying The Inquisitor. DA players tend to use a lot of head-canon due to the involvement with the series. It does has more variation visually, but in terms of reaction to what my character does and speaks I will have to give the nod to TW3. Without spoiling much, you can start a brawl or happily drink with some thugs, at several times you can chose between live and death of several NPCs, you can be cruel or a nice guy. You are always Geralt, but there is more range to work with TW3. Yes, you can play an Elf in DAI, but the life story of your Elf Inquisitor will not be that different from my dwarf inquisitor while my daughter's Witcher is a nice guy, that has discounts with most vendors and my Witcher was responsible for the extinction of at least two settlements and is a complete ******.

 

In DAI you can play several guys with some variation between them, in TW 3 you can play one guy with more range between being good or bad and more outcomes based on your decisions. For example, in DAI you can chose between mages or templars as main allies and in TW 3 there is a particular quest that has more options on who will appear to help you, depending on what you did during the game.

 

2. I talked a lot about combat in other posts already, but I will summarize here: I think combat in DAI is a dumb MMO light affair. The tactical system is broken and the great advantage of having a party is wasted in the system - it is way easier and quicker to just control one guy. The animations do not have weight to them and it is so automatic that my son with one year and eleven months can press buttons randomly and destroy 80 to 90 percent of the enemies (he cannot fight dragons and bears, obviously and I have to adjust the camera and move the character a bit sometimes).

TW 3 is quirky, with uneven enemy forces spread around and is overdependent of the dodge button. That said, if you play thinking like the character, or roleplaying the Witcher you are supposed to be (studying your enemies, using signs, using bombs, timing your strong and quick attacks) it can be very rewarding, more than it has any right to be due to its shortcomings.

 

I got the feeling that I learned to be a badass in TW3. In DAI I learned to avoid the tactical cam like the plague.

 

I guess, in the end, in both games you have to overcome something in order to get the best experience possible, but I got the feeling that I had to use some skill and roleplaying in the Witcher and in DAI I had to use lots of patience. It is way more easier to avoid being trapped in the scenery than teaching Varik to keep his distance.

[KaiserShep]

I'd rather have a fixed protag that gives us a compelling story than running around a soulless world with pointy ears. I just don't see much role playing in DAI, period. You walk around and get called Inquisitor and you chase down Cory.  As a Qunari, Elf, Mage, or Dwarf.  How is the story any different than just playing a warrior human?

 

I don't believe that these things are mutually exclusive. Nothing precludes a customizable protagonist from having a compelling story, nor does the fixed one guarantee it.

[Zinho73]

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!" 

Party banter in DA series are awesome. They do more to flesh out a character personality and the interactions between them than any conversation or cut scene.  And I think it can be compared with TW3 because it does has banter (villagers and NPCs that will accompany you from time to time) TW 3 has several good moments of banter, but DA is much superior in this aspect.

 

However, I have a very personal problem with it. In DAI, the banter does not work properly for me. It triggers very rarely and I can complete almost all quests in a region without hearing a pip. And, yes, I have tried everything.

 

So, even in that aspect, for me, TW 3 wins, because I can actually hear the banter. And, on that note, the whole game sounds better than DAI, channels are better distributed, I do not have any subtle drops in sound when I move away as all ambient noise fades perfectly. But since DAI doesn't like my computer I do not know if this is a real issue. 

 

Don't get me wrong, sound in DAI is great, but in TW3 the sound really shines, specially in combat, with the music, the monsters and the sword hitting things are really well balanced. And on that note, some sound design on TW monsters are just amazing.

[Gorwath-F]

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.

 

The Inquistor is not a character. He is a blank slate. As much as I dislike DA2, Hawke offered more roleplaying opportunities than the Inquisitor and Geralt is better than Hawke. Focussing on gender, racial or class choices is superficial and stupid.

 

For some time now, Bioware forgot how to populate their world with characters, instead settling for exposition mouthpieces, infodumps and childhood sob stories. The witcher on the other hand oozes personality. People I actually want to talk to. And dialogue options other than "Tell me about your country", "What do you think about our companions (just one sentence please)", and "Will you have sex with me?"

 

DA:I has one mode of combat (it's called SUCK if you are wondering). Combat is **** at best and broken at worst on PC. The Witcher 3 on the other hand is at least functional. So point to the Witcher, basically for showing up.

 

As for wider audience, the whole middle of the road, desperate not to offend approach of recent BioWare has left them with fewer sold games. Which is the only metric that counts, sycophantic critics and personal satisfaction do not matter. Maybe by trying to please everyone they are actually pleasing no one?

 

As for party, I guess one might give that point to DA:I, as it has one and the Witcher does not. Even if everything about party AI and combat sucks.

 

 

Needless to say, there is no metric in which DA:I comes out ahead.

[MoonDrummer]

The thing to remember about the race selection in DAI is that is was added on during the time extension. If it was part of the development process from the beginning, the world would have been a lot more reactive than it is, and it still reacts to your race more than many expected.

Doesn't matter how it would have been, what matters is how it is, and at the moment the race of the inquisitor has next to no impact on the world.

[Eelectrica]

Doesn't matter how it would have been, what matters is how it is, and at the moment the race of the inquisitor has next to no impact on the world.

Nor should it have an impact on the world. It's more of a way to personalize  the adventure through the world.

[Elhanan]

The Inquistor is not a character. He is a blank slate. As much as I dislike DA2, Hawke offered more roleplaying opportunities than the Inquistor and Geralt is better than Hawke. Focussing on gender, racial or class choices is superficial and stupid.
 
For some time now, Bioware forgot how to populate their world with characters, instead settling for exposition mouthpieces, infodumps and childhood sob stories. The witcher on the other hand oozes personality. People I actually want to talk to. And dialogue options other than "Tell me about your country", "What do you think about our companions (just one sentence please)", and "Will you have sex with me?"
 
DA:I has one mode of combat (it's called SUCK if you are wondering). Combat is **** at best and broken at worst on PC. The Witcher 3 on the other hand is at least functional. So point to the Witcher, basically for showing up.
 
As for wider audience, the whole middle of the road, desperate not to offend approach of recent BioWare has left them with fewer sold games. Which is the only metric that counts, sycophantic critics and personal satisfaction do not matter. Maybe by trying to please everyone they are actually pleasing no one?
 
As for party, I guess one might give that point to DA:I, as it has one and the Witcher does not. Even if everything about party AI and combat sucks.
 
 
Needless to say, there is no metric in which DA:I comes out ahead.

As much as it is your opinion, it does not equate to fact. 'Superficial, stupid, sob stories, suck, asterisks, etc' are not objective points; they are worth only as much as those opposing them. And if it were not for Bioware, I have doubts if the term sycophant would be used in the forums.

[KaiserShep]

Focussing on gender, racial or class choices is superficial and stupid

Well, that's like, your opinion, man. Class is an odd one to pick at in particular, since no matter how the system is devised, it would always at least be boiled down to mundane and mage, since magic only exists as an innate ability among the minority. It could mean that you'd simply do away with the option of actually being a mage (or less likely do away with being a mundane), but I don't see how that would really improve the experience in any way, shape or form. Putting aside the "stupid" part, since that's not very meaningful, I'm curious as to what the standard would be for what counts as superficial. Lots of things in these games could be considered superficial, that players may sorely miss if they were excluded.

 

 

Needless to say, there is no metric in which DA:I comes out ahead.

 

According to your own personal standards, of course.

[Hazegurl]

I don't believe that these things are mutually exclusive. Nothing precludes a customizable protagonist from having a compelling story, nor does the fixed one guarantee it.

True, I'd rather have a compelling PC period.  DAO was good with that.  Each race had an origin story of their own and you have more to work with. Wanted to roleplay a bitter city or Dalish elf, you got that chance.  Of course there were some things I had a problem with, such as deciding the fate of an entire kingdom et al. But DAO at least gave us something.

This is where I draw the line.

Given the choice between a fixed protagonist or my own, I'll pick my own every time. In an RPG I want my character. I accept that in the Witcher games I'm given Geralt, that's fine, I'd prefer to play an elven or dwarven character in that universe, but I don't have the choice so I just move on and accept it.

 

I wouldn't mind playing an elf in the Witcher provided that my elf would get treated like any elf walking around in that world.  If not, then why bother?  Also, if you were to play those non human races then you couldn't even be a Witcher. Sort of defeats the point of the game title.

 

As an elven inquisitor, I thought the story was more personal, we also have the unique Solas romance option which I didn't do as I just don't bother with them, but to learn more about the Solas character I might just do that. I don't see it as a soulless world just because I get to pick my own character.

 

IMO, Elf is the only race I could let slide as being the IQ.  But that is only because of the whole Mythal storyline and that's it.  I think the middle ground for DAI should have been Human or Elf.  That way they could offer us diverging story lines based on the race selected.  Probably could have given us a more personal story from it.

 

I didn't say DAI is souless because you get to pick your own character, but because the world is soulless period.

 

 

My other two playthroughs were as a Dwarf and a Qunari, and they were fun as well, could have been more unique dialogues and other bonuses perhaps, such as a Scout Harding romance for Dwarven quizzy, but still running through the world as a Qunari mage was cool especially as they're supposed to have lips sealed shut and all.

 

The only fun that comes with playing a dwarf or Qunari in DAI is that you look different and you get some new dialogue.  That's it.  You don't get to challenge IB about the Qun, you're treated the same as if you were a human anyway, and no one is after you to try and seal your mouth shut.

[KaiserShep]

Of course, this operates under the restrictions set by the material upon which the entire video game franchise is based, so it's a bit apples to oranges, since DA is not bound to any one character, let alone any character defined by novels.

[Hazegurl]

Needless to say, there is no metric in which DA:I comes out ahead.

They suck more, that gotta count for something.

[Hazegurl]

Nor should it have an impact on the world. It's more of a way to personalize  the adventure through the world.

[Eelectrica]

Why exactly should it impact the entire world? It's kind of a big world, and it seems not all of it are plagued by rifts. Those areas that aren't could and those that are only want them gone whether it's an elf, dwarf or qunari, whose cleaning them up.

[MoonDrummer]

Couldn't resist. 

[Grieving Natashina]

 

 

 

This isn't in response to the debate, just AIRPLANE! is one of my all time favorite movies.  Carry on.

[SnakeCode]

Why exactly should it impact the entire world? It's kind of a big world, and it seems not all of it are plagued by rifts. Those areas that aren't could and those that are only want them gone whether it's an elf, dwarf or qunari, whose cleaning them up.

 

I may be entirely wrong here, but I don't think people meant "impact the world" as in the outcome of quests, or story. I think people meant reactivity, as in from the general populace (granted, Thedas seems to be suffering from a severe case of underpopulation.) In TW3 for example, peasants are always remarking on how different and alien Geralt, as a witcher, is to them. Whether they're insulting, intrigued or downright afraid. It does a fantastic job of letting the player experience the lore first hand. How Witchers are a dying breed, and how despite their sole purpose is to protect people from monsters, the people are mistrustful and consider Witchers more beast than man.

 

Dragon Age: Inquisition for an example does a great job telling you how looked down upon elves are, or how Qunari are feared and considered heathens, but we are never shown this in game. We are treated as any Andrastian human would be treated. People accept (and even cheer) you becoming the leader of a religious order, with an army at your back. It's yet another case of Bioware having great lore but not using it.

[Eelectrica]

Dragon Age: Inquisition for an example does a great job telling you how looked down upon elves are, or how Qunari are feared and considered heathens, but we are never shown this in game. We are treated as any Andrastian human would be treated. People accept (and even cheer) you becoming the leader of a religious order, with an army at your back. It's yet another case of Bioware having great lore but not using it.

Yeah, that's all something that could certainly be improved upon next game with race selection. Because they didn't quite get right this time around doesn't mean it should be tossed out either. The populace showing disdain for an elven inquisitor or fear of a Qunari inquisitor would have been great, absolutely.

[Shechinah]

Dragon Age: Inquisition for an example does a great job telling you how looked down upon elves are, or how Qunari are feared and considered heathens, but we are never shown this in game. We are treated as any Andrastian human would be treated. People accept (and even cheer) you becoming the leader of a religious order, with an army at your back. It's yet another case of Bioware having great lore but not using it.

 

The interesting thing about Inquisition, to me, is that racial recognition while more a case of "tell-don't-show", it feels more explored than it did in Origins, in my opinion, because you can say, say as an elven Inquisitor, whether or not you liked your clan, liked living in the wilds and criticise aspects of being Dalish as well as support those aspects. That said, Inquisition is more a case of "tell-don't-show" in a lot of ways as oppose to Origins being more "show-don't-tell".

 

As far as I remember, the player did not get penalized in Origins if you played an elf other than being called a "knife-ear" and confused for a servant with the exception of the City Elf Origin. I would like to see this be more of a case in future installments although some players will likely not like it because it would mean a negative impact that is not solely verbal.

 

Note; I've had some issues regarding my computer so I've only had a chance to finish my elven Inquisitor playthrough and not reached very far with my other ones hence the focus on elves.      
 

[Lethaya]

Dragon Age: Inquisition for an example does a great job telling you how looked down upon elves are, or how Qunari are feared and considered heathens, but we are never shown this in game. We are treated as any Andrastian human would be treated. People accept (and even cheer) you becoming the leader of a religious order, with an army at your back. It's yet another case of Bioware having great lore but not using it.

 

I at least  liked (well, alright.... I booed my TV screen, but it was enjoyable nonetheless) that the race you picked determined your initial social standing in the Wicked Eyes Wicked Hearts questline. And that the nobility there treated you differently based on what you were. But I agree, racial choice needed more impact. Really, all of the origins needed more impact. But it was a late addition, so I'm not really surprised.

[rashie]

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.

Even DA:O was kinda watered down and far too simplistic but that's just the rantings of an old school and grumpy infinity engine veteran to speak about these days I guess.