15883 réponses à ce sujet

[Das Tentakel]

That's the only numbers out there, although apparently TW3 is the top debuting game in the UK for 2015.

 

Anecdotal evidence from work: 30.7% of the males in my department have bought the game or have announced they're going to buy it this week. That never, ever happened before with an RPG, not even Skyrim.

 

Of course, statistically this is from a small sample (4 out of 13 guys), therefore unreliable;  and of course popularity doesn't equal quality.

[Grieving Natashina]

Anecdotal evidence from work: 30.7% of the males in my department have bought the game or have announced they're going to buy it this week. That never, ever happened before with an RPG, not even Skyrim.

 

Of course, statistically this is from a small sample (4 out of 13 guys), therefore unreliable;  and of course popularity doesn't equal quality.

Fair enough.  Hopefully it's as good as it seems.    A lot of the folks I enjoy talking to on the forums are overall having a great time.  I hope your co-workers do too.

 

I'm honestly glad to see yet another RPG doing so well.  Throughout the course of this almost 100 (!) page thread, I've seen a lot of good ideas that BioWare can do.  I'd like to see both companies thrive, because more variety is a wonderful thing.

 

I remember back around 2005-2006.  The RPG market was so sparse, and everything not a JRPG was just brown and grey.   I don't want to see that happen again, so hopefully both companies can learn from each other.  I'd like us all get a better gaming experience.  I know I sound sappy in my posts sometimes, but I'm sincere when I say stuff like that.  

 

By the way, that's an extremely cute bunny-Cthulhu avatar you have.  

[AmberDragon]

I wasn't talking about wildlife. I was talking about domesticated farm animals dwelling inside the villages. I made it perfectly clear and precise.The dalish camp is not a village and the only animal present is Halla. The entire post I made was specifically about villages and the animals and people inside of them and how those things made a village feel more alive. You continuously ignored that and spoke of animals that dwelled in the wild. Very misleading complaints, which is why I said it was odd for you to say that. 
 

 
Not to mention that you see no one else riding horses out in the world. Your Inquisitor is the only one who ever rides one. Which is a bit weird. 
 
Also, about the world of TW3 feeling alive: For some reason if a game allows me to run into people, it becomes a compulsion. As soon as I find out, I begin my rampage of running into everyone I can. Today I ran into a little girl and she yelled at me. She said, "Gah! Why are you stepping all over me!" Pretty cute.

Have you noticed that in some towns/villages if you stand still long enough the children nearby will push you then giggle and run away trying to get you to play with them? That's cute too and again adds to the world feeling so alive as opposed to the statues in DAI.

Just finished the Uma quest last night, that almost had me in tears while

Spoiler

they were giving him the potions and he was screaming in pain, I really didn't want to keep giving him the potions. I really got to like the little guy and I liked how Geralt and Vesemir treated him as a person...

[Das Tentakel]

This is a very well written post and nicely thought out. Thumbs up. I agree TW3 is far from perfect in every concept, but it did strike the right spots quite often and at least it set up a good foundation for other games to build upon when considering moving on to a more open world concept.

Things change of course when a zone is pure wilderness, like a desert. Even here, though, what you see should match lore. For instance, the desert zones in DA:I are not ‘natural’ deserts but caused by the Blight, leading to depopulation and ultimately the abandonment of the Grey Warden forts in the area. The Grey Warden forts, however, are identical in style to the much earlier Tevinter ruins and there is not a trace of abandoned villages – while this is exactly what one would expect in the proximity of the abandoned Grey Warden fortifications. Abandoned villages can last a long time in desert conditions...

One of the weirdest things in DA:I are these (intact) palatial mansions in the middle of the forest like d’Onterre. Normally, big palatial mansions are in the middle of well-managed, cultivated landscape with one or more settlements nearby to provide labour, goods and services. You can have a ‘woodland park’ next to it, but always carefully managed. Orlesian nobles, unlike their peers from any historical culture or period, just plunk their mansions down in the middle of nowhere.

I would say that the environmental context in Witcher III is also better than in the case of DA and Skyrim. Skyrim, for instance, has farms on or next to the tundra (good luck trying that in reality).
In Witcher III, you do find abandoned settlements in swampy areas (for instance, next to the old manor that housed the Nilfgaardian garrison in White Orchard. However, I noticed an old waterwheel lying around, suggesting that this is a piece of low-lying land that was artificially kept dry. The whole region isn’t too far from the sea either, and I can tell you that modest fluctuations in sea level or precipitation can have disastrous consequences for settlements in low-lying land.

Another example of good environmental context is the huge Nilfgaardian army camp in the SE corner of the mainland zone. It is near a river, but protected by swampy ground on one side and the camp itself is on clearly higher ground and properly fortified.

All seemingly minor stuff, but it attests to a relatively high attention to details and context on the part of CDProjekt. It’s not perfect, I can probably point out dozens of little mistakes or things that feel 'off' if I’d care to, but by videogame standards it’s very, very impressive. I don’t think every gamer notices these things – many people aren’t particularly observant when it comes to their surroundings – but stuff like this adds up.

[Aulis Vaara]

Exploration, hunting lore, securing alliances and agents, stabilizing region and gaining power and influence... I'm not exactly sure what's NOT sure to be there, when it comes to purpose? Not to mention that different zones have different objectives in them - in one, you hunt for clues that help you eliminate red lyrium mines and track Corypheus' lieutenant, in another you secure horses for Inquisition and help refugees, in yet another you get rid of giant underwater rift, in yet another you occupy the keep in order to re-establish trade routes...

 

Exploration is better and more rewarding in The Witcher 3 AND I actually like using my horse.

 

The Witcher 3 lore is everywhere and we live through it while playing the game. Not a fair comparison, because DA lore is all about puzzling together the mystery of how the DA world works.

Securing alliances and agents, despite not really doing that, is also better in The Witcher 3, because your interactions with people are actually meaningful and consequential. For instance, you can send a certain person off to Kaer Morhen, or kill her for the stuff she carries, all through some complex dialogue that reveals. In DA:I everything just seems to be boiled down to the essential of "does this person join the inquisition or not?" without any motivations for them doing so or you ever seeing them again.

 

As for different zones: you named all of the interesting zones in DA:I (apart from the Arbor wilds). Look, all the regions in DA:I feel pretty much the same, and that's because there is zero variation in gameplay. In The Witcher 3, hunting a monster or freeing a village are different adventures and have different consequences. Hunting a monster will get you some rewards, but freeing a village will actually populate that village with friendly NPC's.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ok. trying to be serious.
i'm not sure how pause feature would help tho. you still need to push some action key after it - swing a sword/move/dodge, unless you want to use it for signs. if it's only for signs, it seems pretty useless.

It worked in Mass Effect. You couldn't fire your weapon while paused, but you could aim. All that was left was to unpause and fire in rapid succession.

The Witcher could allow something similar. It doesn't, but it could.

Without the pause-to-aim feature, ME would have been unplayable for me, and without something similar TW3 will remain unplayable for me.

[MoonDrummer]

Can someone tell me how much the game changes based on our choices from the second game? Do the Witchhunters disappear if I chose to save Triss instead of Saskia back in the Witcher 2? 

[LightningPoodle]

Can someone tell me how much the game changes based on our choices from the second game? Do the Witchhunters disappear if I chose to save Triss instead of Saskia back in the Witcher 2? 

 

Nope. I got to the end of Triss' quest line in Novigrad, encountered a bug before hand which was bugging me (nothing game breaking) so I restarted and made the decision to save Triss... P*ssed me off to discover that they, the Witch Hunters, are still there.

 

Edit:

 

I'm sure something changed from that decision, else it wouldn't have been included. It just wasn't the inclusion of Witch Hunters like I hoped.

 

The other decisions, I'm not sure yet because I picked the same ones for them. It was just the one I changed.

[correctamundo]

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.

 

Yes, and I have both games, like both games and steelcans opinion is subjective - not objective. TW3 may do certain things better but the notion of it blowing DAI "out of the water" is pure subjectivity.

[Hazegurl]

 

I love how you have to point out that you've made a joke, but didn't catch on me joking as well. Uncharitable much?

 

 

Then it's safe to say that we both suck at making jokes.

 

It's also not me who is arguing here for arguing's sake - it's you who are all out with your unreasonable disdain for games like Skyrim or dismissing creative freedom it gives as pretty much worthless pretend compared to games with fixed storyline (mind you, it's not that I'm against those games, I just find value in both).

 

Give me a break.  There are thousands of games in existence. I don't like them all and I doubt you like them all. Everyone has their tastes and I just don't like Skyrim nor view it as creative freedom. If you do then fine, that's you.  When I want to be creative I have other outlets for that.

 

It's such a vague term it can really encompass everything. And Skyrim and TES itself offers swathes of those, in a form of incredibly detailed world. The world-building is simply amazing - and while I enjoy the world built in DA immensely, it can't match the depth of world built in TES series.

 

And I find their world dull and uninspiring.  You have your opinion and I have mine.

 

t IS being a spectator if there's really nothing you can do except having influence on some details, like maybe armor and weapon specs or choosing this or that person to be killed or getting the best score. Like I said - just because a game gives you a few options to interact with, say an NPC or trigger a bomb does not make you an active participant. That's NOT what interactive storytelling is about. 

 

You have no idea what interactive storytelling is?  And how do you not do any of the things you've just listed in Skyrim?  You craft armor, look at stats, weapon specs, choose who to kill.  What else do you do? Oh yeah, you perform whatever task some NPC gives you and/or explore.  So according to your own logic, you're a spectator in Skyrim. 

 

Also - I hardly have to headcanon all the factions that I can encounter in Skyrim, all the stories I can play, all the NPCs I meet and all the conflicts I see. It's ridiculous to describe it as merely "cave looting" when there's a unique treasure to be found, an NPC to talk with, a lorebook or letter to read, a daedric lord to please or plead with or a larger tale to piece together. If you don't get the allure of it - or the pleasure of creating a character that "glues" it all together - fine.

 

 

Except your character never "glues" it all together because it's a world that never changes except how you head canon it changing.

 

But claiming that it's just 'cave looting' is not only ridiculous from a standpoint of content provided in Skyrim - it' ridiculous because I can call every other game the same thing, if I choose to ignore content it provides.

 

It is cave looting. You go into a cave, fight dwemer performing some errand (or not), loot, and then your done.  No, not every game is the same thing.  Just most rpgs. If you're lucky the game will add a way to ignore that type of game play completely or at least for most of the game.  Skyrim doesn't.

 

 

I didn't. Maybe if you've read more carefully, you'd notice that the exact phrase reads "you're doing even more of a pretending"...

 

Sorry, no touché moment for you.

 

 

No it is, cause you keep on mucking up your own argument.  You're so desperate to lift Skyrim up to the point where you argue against it even while arguing for it. Do you even know what your point is anymore?

 

Let's see. Skyrim has a story...but it doesn't.  You're not a spectator...but you are.  It fosters creativity...but it doesn't.  It's unique...but it's like every other game.

 

 

But in Skyrim nobody really holds my hand every step of the way. How I choose and when I choose to do things depends on me. I am NOT just a mere spectator - how and when I do things in each play-through depends in large part on me. 

 

 

Skyrim does do some hand holding.  You admitted it yourself.  It had npcs that gives you tasks, already created factions for you to join, et al.  It also has quest markers.  And according to you, you're pretending whether your playing Skyrim or a linear story.   Choosing to do tasks is in all rpgs.  I can skip over all the Witcher contacts in TW3 or do them when I feel like it, I can collect all the helix crap in Assassin's creed Unity (hated this game btw) or skip it.  Nope, not seeing anything Skyrim doing that's different except bore me to tears. 

 

Note: I'm not calling ACU an rpg. I used it an an ex, because it's an open world.

 

 

 

If you dislike Skyrim or other TES games, so be it. That you personally don't like Skyrim or other TES installments was never an issue here.

 

 

And yet you feel the need to get so riled up about it. If my opinion about Skyrim is not the problem, then why are we having this discussion? It seems like you should have shrugged at my opinion and moved on.

[VelvetV]

Other people have expressed concerns about the portrayal of the Baron, and I feel that the company can easily address that, and ensure that that their subsequent portrayals of morally grey characters and choices are less controversial, without sacrificing much.

 

Wyvernet, there are many characters like Baron in TW3 and this is intentional. To my own grief, as I didn't know what I was getting into when I waited for this game. The first two games in the series were normal, and although there were many "hard decisons", they were hard because you could sympathize with both sides. This one makes you hate the majority of all "sides" and characters instead, and not just major ones, but even some minor inconsequential ones in minor sidequests. Heck, it makes you hate even simple NPCs when you hear their chatter sometimes!  *shrug* So as much as I agree with you, I'm sure that CDPR is more than conscious and happy to portray people as scumbags. People love it, as you can see in this thread, they call it "adult" and "realistic", and it's one of the game's selling points.

 

And yeah I too would love to see a game portray awful people in a way they deserve rather than try to excuse them. It's such a rehashed thing to pull out a skeleton out of someone's closet, I'm sick of how every book and movie tries to do it these days. It's like literature and other forms of entertainment nowadays go in the direction of showcasing all the dirt inside. At some point it might've been a novelty, but ultimately it serves no purpose and I can't see the appeal anymore. Why are characters portrayed like dumb puppets of their own past? So ok, this guy is bad because he was abused, but what's the next step, is he going to stop being the dumb puppet or not? That is more interesting to see, but the change rarely gets explored seriously. Yet we as people have that wonderful thing called free will and can choose how to develop.

 

We're probably the minority, I start to think. People who're fed up with scumbags in real life and have no fascination with them and don't think that spilling dirt makes a character "adult".

 

P.S. I just remembered how I had a discussion on this topic once with a person who tried to defend a very cruel character by saying that after the kind of life he had he is supposed to be cruel and that it makes him a mature character. She believed that being kind and compassionate means that a person wears rose-tinted glasses and hasn't matured yet. I tried to defend an opposite point, saying that maturation comes past this stage, after someone becomes cruel in response to bad life, when they realize that behavior of others towards them doesn't define them and they can choose how to live on their own. It was a nice conversation, although ultimately fruitless on both sides.

[Hazegurl]

You can also scare people with Geralt's powers. In Novigrod when some random NPC calls Geralt a mutant or a freak, you can activate one of the signs. Geralt won't fully cast, but if you've got Igni selected for example he'll snap his fingers at the NPC and sparks will ignite off of him. Because many people fear magic in the Witcherverse, the NPCs will often scream and run away. If you do it to Guards or Witch Hunters, they'll attack.

Well I know what I'm doing the next time I play.

 

Oh yeah, did anyone catch, what I think is a Mass Effect reference? I was running through the streets and I could have sworn someone yelled "The Reapers are coming!" I hope I hear it again to make sure.

[Spectre Impersonator]

This is why portrayals of such sensitive subjects, in my opinion, should not be in video games. There are so many other morally grey situations to explore in works of fantasy fiction: a ruler starving their subjects in order to wage war, vigilante fighters, assassins, sacrificing loved ones to save a nation.

Seems to me that this is a very wavery line in the sand. You determine a ruler starving one's subjects to wage war as "morally grey"? Yet it crosses from gray to black to simply include domestic violence in a video game? If we as human beings are mature enough to debate the taking of another person's life as morally grey, I think we can handle domestic abuse.

[AppalachianApex]

Feedback: Be more like Dragon Age, because Dragon Age is great.

 

I take back what I said. Absolutely be more like Witcher 3.

[Spectre Impersonator]

 

Absolutely true:

 

My summary so far would be:

 

DA be more like The Witcher 3 in:

• Weight of side-quests
• Number of side quest steps and choices
• Stronger punch in use of cutcsene/animations
• TW3 Horses are better

DA should stay the same, develop its own course in:

• The world and graphics (to include destructibles)
• Companions and group chemistry
• Combat mechanics
• Inclusive play options for gamers

 

Very helpful to the goal and main idea of this thread. Thanks. I do agree with most of your thoughts and the checklist format makes it easy to see what details you feel strongly about.

[BabyPuncher]

P.S. I just remembered how I had a discussion on this topic once with a person who tried to defend a very cruel character by saying that after the kind of life he had he is supposed to be cruel and that it makes him a mature character. She believed that being kind and compassionate means that a person wears rose-tinted glasses and hasn't matured yet.

The answer is really very simple.

Because it facilitates a power fantasy.

When readers nod and smile along to this sort of fiction, they get to pretend to be little philosophers who understand the world for how it 'really is.' They get to pretend among the ranks of a rare few enlightened and pragmatic to face the 'brutality and unfairness' of the world and get ahead.

All this from the air conditioned comfort of their couch, of course, with a bowl of snacks nearby, and their smartphones and Facebook accounts at the immediate ready.

It's all laughably obvious nonsense, of course. It's pretty much a guarantee your friend has never and will never face a whit of actual 'brutality' in her life, let alone respond to it in any sort of capable fashion. And of course, she doesn't really believe a word of it

[SnakeCode]

Love all of the pseudo psychology and hilarious irony in that last post. Top kek.

[BabyPuncher]

Love all of the pseudo psychology and hilarious irony in that last post. Top kek.

Goodness, you're easily impressed. I have no idea the simple observation that people like certain stories because it makes them feel powerful was complex enough to qualify as 'psychology.' And what irony was that, exactly?

[o Ventus]

Reported you and Keith for trolling by the way, perhaps because you couldn't be bothered to read my most recent post or any of the others that were far more detailed, and for repeatedly impugning I haven't played these games with no basis whatsoever and designed purely to incite a reaction with no substantial contribution.

 

I'm saying that you haven't played these games because the things you're saying about them are hilariously and wildly inaccurate.

 

@bold: kek

Actually while we're on this topic, lets go through the games we have played shall we? I'm willing to bet both of you have played only DA or something.

 

BG1

BG: Tales of the Sword Coast

BG2

BG: ToB

KOTOR
ME1

ME2

ME3

NWN
NWN: SotU

NWN: HotU

DA:O

DA: Awakening

DA2

TW1

TW2

TW3/DA:I (not completed, but I watched the rest of DA:I because I couldn't manage, don't want to spoil TW3 but am some ways in)

 

The games in bold are the ones I've played. Half your list.

 

Anyway, that was a joke, obviously Hawke doesn't become king, he/she becomes champion, obviously he/she doesn't fight Bowser, he/she fights Arishok, and then ultimately Meredith who is basically the big bad Archdemon boss.

 

I understand what you meant, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.

[Elhanan]

That is the thing, Elhanan. There are no domesticated farm animals in the villages, sans the demon ram. The only other farm animal present are druffalo and those are only pinned in outskirting farms. The only horses present were at the Horsemaster, the camp in Storm Coast and the Refugee Camp in the Hinterlands, I believe. So, please. If I am mistaken, I welcome you to correct me. 
 
I stated that the villages in TW3 contained various farm animals such as chickens, geese, cats, dogs, pigs, goats, cows and horses and it made the villages feel more lived in. You replied with this: 

"Rams, Nugs, horses, Druffalo, Halla, and Mabari can be seen about the populated areas."
 
I brought up once again that I meant villages and farm animals and you keep saying you mean that, too. The animals you mentioned are not in any of the villages. 
 
As for the dalish camp, when I am discussing villages and villages only, why would I accept the dalish camp as an example just because they have a camp in the Exalted Plains and influence the area? It isn't a village, so when talking about villages, it would make no sense.  
 
 
I will disagree with this. I have seen some NPCs doing laundry, then return later to find them working in the field. I have seen them skinning leather only to see them inside their house sweeping their floor the next time I come 'round. I am not sure how complex their lives are to be. They're simple peasants doing what simple peasants do. The animals do different things, too. I saw a black and white dog outside a pub chasing his tail. When I came back to sell some stuff, he was laying by a man who was sitting outside his house smoking a pipe. One kid was singing a song about something one day, a few days later, he was singing a song about me (Geralt).
 
As for conversation, it's more varied that DAI, but as Hans said, all RPG suffer from that. It isn't perfect, but still more living than DAI and pretty awesome on it's on.

While animals may not be in the heart of the villages in the Hinterlands, rams and Nugs may be seen on the outskirts near the various gates. And you are correct; no dogs; one may hear them barking (ie; ambient sound) in Redcliffe. The horses, rams, Nugs, and Druffalo are seen at the farms; populated areas, so I stand by my quote.

However, in the Exalted Plains, domestic animals may be seen aplenty in the fields near the villages. However, many of the people are dead; corpses in the field. All this may attract wolves, but this does occur in the War torn villages of that area.

As for NPC's, one may venture around looking for critters, and gather random feedback to the Inq for what was done for them, or between one another discussing blankets, shelter, food, etc. Now while it was fun to follow the occasional NPC about in Skyrim, that was an Open World game; DAI is not, and does not require a daily schedule for every NPC. Currently, watching them pick weeds from gardens, cooking, chatting, shopping, while more specific NPC's can give more direct feedback is fine for myself. What would be good is a way to get them to move out of the way, but as one that hates crowds in RL, this may be more on me.

But I agree with another poster that debating domestic animals and locales is nonsensical. Both games seem to have them; both have varied approaches. I do know that the DAI engine had a problem with four-legged animations, so this might have something to do with fewer additions; uncertain. That said, am good with what I can see (and hear) in DAI. If TW3 can add something else besides hair, fur, feather, etc growth, I might be up for that.

[Elhanan]

no. it's a discussion about implementation of open world concept. from what i see TW3 did it much better than DAI because it feels like real open world, it's full of randomness and life, not a WoW map

Perhaps that is because TW3 may be an Open World; DAI is not, and do not believe it was presented as such. And it does resemble SWTOR maps, but much more detailed, except for the maps and actual sizes of the buildings.

[Han Shot First]

Perhaps that is because TW3 may be an Open World; DAI is not, and do not believe it was presented as such. And it does resemble SWTOR maps, but much more detailed, except for the maps and actual sizes of the buildings.

 

DA:I and TW3 are designed exactly the same in that regard. Both are partially open world and divided into maps.

[Elhanan]

DA:I and TW3 are designed exactly the same in that regard. Both are partially open world and divided into maps.

Only based on what has been seen on vids, one may move continually in TW3; areas are pocketed in DAI. Here is one such vid:



DAI is definitely not like Skyrim to me. The latter being the only Open World game I have played while I apparently await SkyWind to be the second.

[Zinho73]

Without the pause-to-aim feature, ME would have been unplayable for me, and without something similar TW3 will remain unplayable for me.

Which I hope you understand has not to do with the game itself.

 

I am an old geezer, with terrible reflexes and recurrent tendinitis. I vastly prefer turn-based combat but one of my favorite games of all time is Dark Souls.

 

Combat in Dark Souls and The Witcher are very similar in one respect: reflexes have nothing to do with them, preparation is the key - if you have very good reflexes you can do other stuff on those games (like fighting a boss at level one naked), but in both games you do not have even to think fast. If you are playing it right, the combat was already played in your head.

 

Of course you need a minimum of coordination and you can be surprised (in that case, run!). But last night I just fought a dozen pirates at once, all of higher levels, and it all felt very ponderous (although the action seemed more frantic). I was just executing a plan.

 

It can be extremely rewarding and with your gaming experience, i bet you will be nailing it in no time at all.

 

In most turn-based games you think while executing, in The Witcher 3 you think, than execute, but it is more or less the same amount of thinking (with obvious exceptions like XCOM, in which preparation also plays a big role).

 

In DAI, of course, you do not have to think at all and I only have to pause to move the dumb AI away from harm, not to re-access the combat zone. A few Dragons are more tricky and are the best battles of the game, though.

[VelvetV]

Can someone tell me how much the game changes based on our choices from the second game? Do the Witchhunters disappear if I chose to save Triss instead of Saskia back in the Witcher 2? 

 

Unfortunately, so far I've noticed no changes to the game based on my save. I tried to ask others what happened with their saves, and it would seem their saves affected nothing, our world state is still exactly the same. In some cases the world state contradicts some of end choices in TW2, although you're provided reasons why that happened.

 

I'm not bothered about it much, but that did make the TW2 ending choices rather meaningless. *shrug*

 

The only choices that affect anything is if you chose to allow certain characters survive, then you can meet them again. But not all such choices are meaningful. Care not for Saskia.