15890 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

Jeremy Clarkson should never have been sacked. Now the only show to bother watching on the BBC is Match of the Day.

 

Death to the TV licence!

 

Jeremy wanted it most of all. He wanted to be fired. Now he doesn't have to be tied to Top Gear, and he has James and Richard free to do anything with. 

 

If anything, I predict he'll do a show that does everything Top Gear was loved for while leaving out all the crap that made it a drudge to watch. Or vice versa, depending on your point of view. But I loved the show. 

 

The only thing missing is the Stig...

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Is this from an 'objective' pov? Where we use standards such as party, CC, more freedom of 'love interest' and what not? I'd agree with that if it's the case

 

From an RPG stand point, I am feeling more witcher myself.

Yes, I was speaking from an objective point of view. 

 

I think it is better subjectively too, but I know better than to argue subjectively in a DA vs TW thread.

[God]

I bet Bioware are hiding someplace under a bed, red with embarrassment after playing the Witcher 3.

 

Come on out from under there Bioware, time to start making proper games and redeem yourselves.  

 

Maybe, but I honestly don't see the point of comparing either games much. Doing both of the games leads me to the conclusion that they're two great games. I don't judge one game on the merits of another.

 

It might be why I'm a bit tired of seeing these threads all the time. Let Dragon Age be Dragon Age, and let the Witcher be the Witcher. 

[AlanC9]

Second, the action controls offer the potential for much more effective use of some abilities than the AI can manage. Parry, for example. A player triggering Parry manually can theoretically avoid all melee damage, but the AI doesn't do nearly as well. This encourages button mashing.

More precisely, a player can be more effective than the AI is permitted to be. It wouldn't be all that difficult to have the AI execute Parry with perfect efficiency, would it? (Of course, that would be unworkable in practice.)

[Gileadan]

You personally liking something better does not make said something objectively better.

All personal tastes aside, TW3 crushes DAI in the production value and attention to detail departments. It simply gave people more for less money. You may not like this "more", but it's there and was obviously crafted with care.

And as far as the writing and atmosphere goes, isn't it odd that the abusive family father (the bloody baron) seems to be the greater fiend than the ancient magister who aspires to godhood and wants to turn the world into some kind of post-apocalyptic red lyrium wasteland?

[Steelcan]

Yes, I was speaking from an objective point of view. 

 

I think it is better subjectively too, but I know better than to argue subjectively in a DA vs TW thread.

Objectively better on what merits?

 

Because TW3 blows DA:I out of the water in terms of main quest line quality, side quest quality, choice implementation, mounts, graphics, world dynamism, VA'ing, and so on.

 

Other things are subjective like strict role vs blank slate, the romances are certainly up for debate (Triss for life), gameplay is personal preference etc...

[The Elder King]

Yes, I was speaking from an objective point of view.

I think it is better subjectively too, but I know better than to argue subjectively in a DA vs TW thread.

Why the DA franchise is objectively better then TW franchise?

[AlanC9]

All personal tastes aside, TW3 crushes DAI in the production value and attention to detail departments. It simply gave people more for less money. You may not like this "more", but it's there and was obviously crafted with care.

This is a fight Bio can't actually win as long as CDPR can pay a roughly comparable staff in zlotys while making the bulk of their revenue in dollars and euros. (My impression is that CDPR has a lower cost of capital, too.) The question is where Bio should allocate their lower total zots. The only advantage Bio has is being able to license an engine rather than make their own, presumably on advantageous terms. But Frostbite comes with problems of its own.

I'd be OK with Bio making smaller games, myself, trading off size for polish.

[God]

Objectively better on what merits?

 

Because TW3 blows DA:I out of the water in terms of main quest line quality, side quest quality, choice implementation, mounts, graphics, world dynamism, VA'ing, and so on.

 

Other things are subjective like strict role vs blank slate, the romances are certainly up for debate (Triss for life), gameplay is personal preference etc...

 

Technically speaking, world dynamism is a point of view assessment. Same with choice implementation. And quality of main and side quests. Graphics and technology perhaps. I'd dispute Voice Acting. 

 

I'm more for blank slates that have a little bit of background. Romance is something I feel BW is going downhill on (as in, they're making them a bit too romance-centric, and trying to hard to appeal to everyone).

 

I'm not disputing your opinion, I'm just saying that I think you're falling into the old Ghost habit of proclaiming everything to be better than a BW game.

 

My advice? Judge a game on its own merits. Don't compare it to another. They aren't trying to do the same thing. They aren't trying to be the same thing.

[SofaJockey]

What hate? You never read the posts, that is obvious.

 

Let's not argue semantics, our perceptions clearly vary.

I read many of the posts - that thread was no rose garden.

[rashie]

More precisely, a player can be more effective than the AI is permitted to be. It wouldn't be all that difficult to have the AI execute Parry with perfect efficiency, would it? (Of course, that would be unworkable in practice.)

Good AI design isn't about making the enemy crush the player either way, its about having enemies that behave in a realistic manner were they actually seem alive and responds to the players actions dynamically to help suspend disbelief.  A good example of this is the AI in the elites Halo employ.

 

If you develop AI with that mindset in mind you have something great on your hands in terms of game design theory.

 

As for the witcher 3, pure button mashing is a recipe for pushing daisies in that game, at least on death march ( have no experience with other difficulties)

[Elhanan]

Objectively better on what merits?
 
Because TW3 blows DA:I out of the water in terms of main quest line quality, side quest quality, choice implementation, mounts, graphics, world dynamism, VA'ing, and so on.
 
Other things are subjective like strict role vs blank slate, the romances are certainly up for debate (Triss for life), gameplay is personal preference etc...

Seems like the same subjective objectivity being used here. Simply because one's opinion likes a system better than another does not make it factual. I will not compare because I will not be playing TW3, but one opinion is only worth as much as another; informed opinions are an exception.

[Elhanan]

Let's not argue semantics, our perceptions clearly vary.
I read many of the posts - that thread was no rose garden.

Uncertain of that; certainly was filled with similar fertilizer....

[herkles]

I'd love to see a Val Royeaux of this description. I feel like they have that ability in the next DA also depending on the plot or the circumstances. Maybe if say the Qunari, or Tevinter officially came marching down on Orlais and Fereldon. Or something of that nature.. I think it'd be a fantastic sight to see said Val Royeaux.

Since we're going north next game, it is doubtful. That said, there could be a DLC involving Val Royeaux that shows it off. 

 

I would love that, won't make up for it not being in the base game, but it would be nice to see. 

 

Since we are going north that leaves several main countries to explore, Rivain, Tevinter, Anderfels or Antivia. I want the next game to be either Tevinter or Rivain myself.

 

If we go to Tevinter, I want to see the main capital of Minrathous in all its glory. I want to see the circle of magi here, I want to see the slave markets(and MAYBE do something about them) I want to see normal tevinters going about their normal day. I want to see the dwarven proving grounds and embessay. I want to see the massive golems called Juggernaughts. I want to see the argant spire where the black divine lives. I want to see the city in its glory and horror.

 

If we do Rivain though, we have several places with different designs to use since the country is rather divided. You have the capital of Darismund which technically rules the realm, it follows the southern chantry. You have the fortress town of Kont-aar, a peaceful Qunari fortress on the mainland. Then you have the free city of Llomerryn, which is filled with pirates and other sort of people of all types; though it was the place that ended the exalted marches. Have several villages and towns throughout the region, this would give each major area its own feel and look.

 

One aspect that the Witcher covers really well and I was left wanting in DA:I is the horror aspects of certain enemies.

 

I'll take two examples, in The Witcher 3 there are 3 "Crones" (witches would be a better description) that exert immense power over Velen.  To say they are unpleasant would be an understatement, I felt like I needed a shower after talking to them and the entire swamp should be left int he capable hands of Aerys of the House Targaryen second of his name or the High Prophets of the Covenant Regret, Truth, and Mercy.

 

Seriously those 'women' (using the term extremely loosely) singlehandedly make the case for oppression of mages in TW3 universe.

 

Whereas in Dragon Age there is some sever lack of seeing the horror aspect of many vile creatures and people.  Red Templars are the best example I can think of given the lack of abominations, though I suppose the Envy/Nightmare demons might work.  We hear about how horrible lyrium transformation is, and we run across people who have been through it, but it still lacks emphasis and punch.  There is no visceral reaction really and what should by all accounts be atrocious creatures, are fairly "clean" looking.

 

I won't even touch the botchling though

 

Agreed, monsters here are monsters. I want to see the horror and dread that monsters inspire, the crones especially are good examples. 

 

I liked the Botchling it was adorable

[SnakeCode]

Seems like the same subjective objectivity being used here. Simply because one's opinion likes a system better than another does not make it factual. I will not compare because I will not be playing TW3, but one opinion is only worth as much as another; informed opinions are an exception.

 

Yes, but people who have actually played and experienced both games are the people with informed opinions. You and Hanako are basing your opinions off of second hand sources.

[Steelcan]

Technically speaking, world dynamism is a point of view assessment. Same with choice implementation. And quality of main and side quests. Graphics and technology perhaps. I'd dispute Voice Acting. 

 

I'm more for blank slates that have a little bit of background. Romance is something I feel BW is going downhill on (as in, they're making them a bit too romance-centric, and trying to hard to appeal to everyone).

 

My advice? Judge a game on its own merits. Don't compare it to another. They aren't trying to do the same thing. They aren't trying to be the same thing.

 

Well there's no much dispute on world dynamism really, one world reacts to the decisions you make and enemies fought, such as clearing out bandits squatting in villages or mosnters harassing a town.  DA:I has bits of this with the red templars/venatori making an appearance at Haven depending on choices made, and Crestwood is a good example of it being done right, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.  FOr choice implementaion, I cannot think of one decision made in DA:I that later comes back in a big way to influence the outcome of missions, there are small touches such as sparing the wardens in Adamant making talking down Clarel easier, but they aren't very common.  VA'ing is disputable, but I've been much more impressed with it in TW3, DA:I certainly has its moments, but its inconsistent.

 

I'm not saying they need to be the sasme thing, I'm saying there's areas that BioWare can look at TW3 and draw inspiration from something that they handled better.

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not good enough. Reasoning is not the underlying process behind the intelligent answer, reasoning is the intelligent answer. The protagonist is not being intelligent because he likes talking to himself. He's being intelligent as a means accomplish an end. It's a quality that acts in relation to the outside world. Is another character going to be convinced when the protagonist says "We should choose this option" and nothing else? No. It's irrelevant how good your headcanoned reason is it if only exists in the protagonist's head.

Same for any other quality. I don't care how awesome the person is if all he does it sit on his bed. I don't care if he's the most confident person in the world. It doesn't mean anything if we don't see it.

But that means you're limited to qualities to writers write. I don't want to be limited in that way.

There's no reason to explain reasoning. There's reason to offer persuasive justification, but the justification offered doesn't need to be the reason the speaker is actually following - it's just the reasoning he can sell.

If you're asking for more expressive Inquisitor dialogue, I can understand and even support that (though I fear that would just reveal the deficiencies of the paraphrase system again), but if your asking for the writers to give your character a personality for you, then I would be forced to disagree.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yes, but people who have actually played and experienced both games are the people with informed opinions. You and Hanako are basing your opinions off of second hand sources.

Except I've played the Witcher 3, some of it anyway, so I have first hand sources. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

More precisely, a player can be more effective than the AI is permitted to be. It wouldn't be all that difficult to have the AI execute Parry with perfect efficiency, would it? (Of course, that would be unworkable in practice.)

It would demostrate that the skill was broken, and needed to be fixed.

The AI should absolutely be able to use Parry perfectly.

[SnakeCode]

Except I've played the Witcher 3, some of it anyway, so I have first hand sources. 

 

In that case my apologies. I find it rather odd though that you'd play a game in a franchise that you've stated you intensely dislike multiple times. A game you knew you weren't going to like before you played it.

[herkles]

I don't want this thread to get bogged down in "the witcher is better" "no dragon age is better" they are both good games, both good series. I do not think either game is perfect. I want to provide feedback of what I think the witcher 3 did well that dragon age should look at so that way, the next dragon age game is a better game then the last. There are things I think the witcher did well, things that I think dragon age would be an even better game and series if they looked at, such as say Novigrad. 

[rashie]

It would demostrate that the skill was broken, and needed to be fixed.

The AI should absolutely be able to use Parry perfectly.

Good AI design isn't about making the enemy being able to perform combat perfectly, it can parry and it do so as well, but that doesn't mean it turn into button mashing.

 

If you button mash on 4th difficulty setting you are going to die, fast.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

In that case my apologies. I find it rather odd though that you'd play a game in a franchise that you've stated you intensely dislike multiple times. A game you knew you weren't going to like before you played it.

It's alright. I can understand the confusion. As for why I played it, someone here got it and said I should try it, so I did. 

While I still don't like, even could say hate, the Witcher franchise, I will admit The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is better than it's predecessors so I was actually surprised.

It also made me more hopeful towards CDPR doing Cyberpunk 2077, so long as it doesn't fall to the same trappings that the Witcher franchise did. Not that I expect it to not have some similarities, like a dark setting(because it's not part of the cyberpunk genre unless it has a dystopian setting) but I hope it's not just a "Witcher in the future". From what they've said so far, and the fact that they have the creator of the Cyberpunk tabletop RPGs Mike Pondsmith working with them to create what will be a new kind of RPG for them, it doesn't look like it will. 

[AlanC9]

Good AI design isn't about making the enemy crush the player either way, its about having enemies that behave in a realistic manner were they actually seem alive and responds to the players actions dynamically to help suspend disbelief.  A good example of this is the AI in the elites Halo employ.
 
If you develop AI with that mindset in mind you have something great on your hands in terms of game design theory.

But how do you map that onto abilities which are all about player reaction time?

[AlanC9]

It would demostrate that the skill was broken, and needed to be fixed.
The AI should absolutely be able to use Parry perfectly.

Only if an actual player can also use it perfectly, right?

This problem also appears in the later ME games, as you know. In theory an ME3 squadmate could shoot with more accuracy than any human player, assuming LOS to the target. I don't know exactly how Bio handles accuracy, but I do know that the squadmates have substantial damage penalties, which keep them from eclipsing Shepard.