184 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Alright, I know I'm not going to be popular with this post, but I've been pondering investing time on TW3.
 
I'm an all-time fan of western RPGs since, well, the mid-80s (jeez I feel old), and I'm a firm believer that a proper RPG should start with a character creation screen. For that reason I don't consider The Witcher series to be an RPG, but more of an action/adventure game, and shouldn't be compared with DA:I or Skyrim but rather with Final Fantasy or Assassin's Creed.
 
The only thing I know from The Witcher is the tutorial of the first game, which was enough for me to shelve it after 30 minutes. I simply can't roleplay Geralt, whom I see like an emo morally gray Mary Sue psychopath who talks like Batman.
 
Now that doesn't prevent it from being a great game, just not my cup of tea. Should my biased-as-hell present self give TW3 a try?

This - although I've not gotten as far as the tutorial.

In my initial research of the franchise, Geralt came across as some sort of creepy lecher, and I've never been able to shake that image of the character. Even though the series (and its fans) boasts a lot of other great features, I have better things to do than try to get interested in a franchise that features an MC so unappealing to me.

[Torgette]

Alright, I know I'm not going to be popular with this post, but I've been pondering investing time on TW3.

 

I'm an all-time fan of western RPGs since, well, the mid-80s (jeez I feel old), and I'm a firm believer that a proper RPG should start with a character creation screen. For that reason I don't consider The Witcher series to be an RPG, but more of an action/adventure game, and shouldn't be compared with DA:I or Skyrim but rather with Final Fantasy or Assassin's Creed.

 

The only thing I know from The Witcher is the tutorial of the first game, which was enough for me to shelve it after 30 minutes. I simply can't roleplay Geralt, whom I see like an emo morally gray Mary Sue psychopath who talks like Batman.

 

Now that doesn't prevent it from being a great game, just not my cup of tea. Should my biased-as-hell present self give TW3 a try?

 

It's a really well made game regardless of genre, so play it for that at least.

[Mihura]

The problem is that people do not read the books before playing the games, so Geralt looks like your typical manly man protagonist with a deep voice.
When someone says "No you do not need the books do enjoy the games" it is a lie, you do need them believe me. The experience is so much better and you understand so much more, it is a completely different game, especially TW 3.

[pdusen]

When someone says "No you do not need the books do enjoy the games" it is a lie, you do need them believe me. The experience is so much better and you understand so much more, it is a completely different game, especially TW 3.

 

While I'm sure reading the books does grant you lots of context, I can assure you that I enjoy the games despite never having read the books, so you're wrong on that one.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

The problem is that people do not read the books before playing the games, so Geralt looks like your typical manly man protagonist with a deep voice.
When someone says "No you do not need the books do enjoy the games" it is a lie, you do need them believe me. The experience is so much better and you understand so much more, it is a completely different game, especially TW 3.

 

Lol, TW1 Geralt doesn't look manly one bit.

 

You don't need to read the books to appreciate the games (I only read book 1). You get to side different with factions, have varying story depending on your choices and choose what missions you want to do or not. Seems like an RPG to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There is one choice I can think of that had serious negative consequences that - to me - could only be a product of the quest giver refusing to give adequate information on what you were doing and otherwise behaving in such a villainous manner that deciding who to side with was a coin flip.

That would make the choice fairly uninteresting.

[Torgette]

So basically DA:I is **** and TW3 is a masterpiece?
Nothing new here we already know that

 

They're both linear rpg's very literally translated into open worlds, both have strengths and flaws, both can be boring at times, The Witcher 3 is just a better made game though. Part of me would rather be playing Far Cry 4 than either, it is what it is. 

[Br3admax]

The problem is that people do not read the books before playing the games, so Geralt looks like your typical manly man protagonist with a deep voice.
When someone says "No you do not need the books do enjoy the games" it is a lie, you do need them believe me. The experience is so much better and you understand so much more, it is a completely different game, especially TW 3.

I didn't read a single book and understand the story almost perfectly. It's not that hard, and Google can fill in the rest, which is minimal. Geralt wasn't that hard to get either, and the Geralt in the game is almost completely separate from the Geralt in the book up until the 3rd, where it's obvious who he really is by that point. 

[MoonDrummer]

The problem is that people do not read the books before playing the games, so Geralt looks like your typical manly man protagonist with a deep voice.
When someone says "No you do not need the books do enjoy the games" it is a lie, you do need them believe me. The experience is so much better and you understand so much more, it is a completely different game, especially TW 3.

I haven't read the books, and I enjoyed the games. 

[Mihura]

While I'm sure reading the books does grant you lots of context, I can assure you that I enjoy the games despite never having read the books, so you're wrong on that one.

 

 

Lol, TW1 Geralt doesn't look manly one bit.

 

You don't need to read the books to appreciate the games (I only read book 1). You get to side different with factions, have varying story depending on your choices and choose what missions you want to do or not. Seems like an RPG to me.

 

I was addressing the argument of Geralt having the deep voice of batman and showing no emotions and being your typical stoic manly guy at first glance. People that think this can read the books and the game is going to be much better, the emotional impact of some part of the game are 10 times better if you know Ciri already, there is a lot of references that will pass over your head without it.

Of course you can still enjoy the game but in my opinion people miss a lot.  

[Valkyrja]

""If you were to pretend to be a prisoner to sneak into a witch hunter lair in, say, Dragon Age: Inquisition, it’d probably be a jolly little adventure."

 

Sounds like breaking into the fortress in DA:O to rescue the Warden.

[konjusina]

It is also pretty pathetic when the Witcher 3 Baron quest-line has more content, plot and depth than the entire main plot-line of DA:I. Since BioWare started with their "Awesome button" it has all been downhill. Looking forward to Cyberpunk.

[In Exile]

Without having played Witcher 3 yet (it's downloading as I type) I suspect that this is mostly a matter of presentation. As far as I could see from various videos I've watched, all sidequests in W3 have cinematic dialogue, a proper cutscene and a couple of more lines of dialogue all in all. I'm pretty sure that if you gave the infamous "Templars killed my husband, bring me back the ring they stole" lady cutscenes and more dialogue, more options for the Inquisitor to react ("F*** Templars how could they do that!", "It's your fault for staying here, there is a war going on lady!", "You really should leave the area!", "I got your ring back but how about some contribution to the Inquisiton effort?") the sidequest couldn't be so easily devaluated as "senseless fetch quest". I feel like this is something the Witcher 3 does much better.
Or take the bear "ass" fetch quest - how about a cutscene when the Inquisitor finds the item that starts the quest? Cutscenes of heroic bear slaying? I bet that quest would have attracted far less criticism.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's not the fetch questy nature per se (obviously, because most quests in all games are fetch quests at their core) but the (lack of) presentation that makes them seem unimportant and thus make them a target for criticism.

Disclaimer - I love, love, LOVE DA:I. It's one of my favorite games ever made. I also fully expect to love Witcher 3. It's almost unfortunate that two great (and successful! never underestimated that!) games like these release so shortly after one another - where am I supposed to take the time for both? I'm still not done with DA:I! A great problem to have I think. Also (again, without having played W3 yet) I bet the DA team will have a close eye on the things Witcher 3 does well and I bet we'll see some of those things incorporated in DA4 so it's a win for everyone.
(and now I'll bow out of this thread because I really fear Witcher 3 spoilers)

It's more than just cutscenes. While the quests DO have far more cutscene and cinematic content there is also a great deal of clever design involved in the quests themselves and even when the same features are re-used (hunting monsters by speaking to witness and tracking the beast) each quest is designed in clever and involved enough way to feel fresh and interesting.

There's just no comparison in quality.

A lot of this derives from how the investment in TW3 is different. There's no multiple PC VO, Geralt has far fewer conversation options per scene, and there are no companions. If Bioware could cut all of that content to put it toward side quests DAI would have been a radically different game. Just saving the 5 hours of banter VO costs would have been huge for side quests.

[Hiemoth]

It's more than just cutscenes. While the quests DO have far more cutscene and cinematic content there is also a great deal of clever design involved in the quests themselves and even when the same features are re-used (hunting monsters by speaking to witness and tracking the beast) each quest is designed in clever and involved enough way to feel fresh and interesting.

There's just no comparison in quality.

A lot of this derives from how the investment in TW3 is different. There's no multiple PC VO, Geralt has far fewer conversation options per scene, and there are no companions. If Bioware could cut all of that content to put it toward side quests DAI would have been a radically different game. Just saving the 5 hours of banter VO costs would have been huge for side quests.

 

While I agree with most of this, I don't think that the multiple PC VOs was huge resource sink, especially from the point of view of cinematic content where the scene would have played differently.

[Mihura]

It's more than just cutscenes. While the quests DO have far more cutscene and cinematic content there is also a great deal of clever design involved in the quests themselves and even when the same features are re-used (hunting monsters by speaking to witness and tracking the beast) each quest is designed in clever and involved enough way to feel fresh and interesting.

There's just no comparison in quality.

A lot of this derives from how the investment in TW3 is different. There's no multiple PC VO, Geralt has far fewer conversation options per scene, and there are no companions. If Bioware could cut all of that content to put it toward side quests DAI would have been a radically different game. Just saving the 5 hours of banter VO costs would have been huge for side quests.

 

Agree, I am actually waiting for them to do Cyberpunk and see how it goes because that one is going to have CC, there is no way around that. TW 3 can do more because it is only one lead with a set personality. 

[Rawgrim]

Geralt probably has way more lines in the game than the Inquisitor voice actors, though. Considering almost all of the side quests are story based in TW3. They seem to involve plenty dialogues anyway. Instead of "Here is your ring back".

[Han Shot First]

It is also pretty pathetic when the Witcher 3 Baron quest-line has more content, plot and depth than the entire main plot-line of DA:I. Since BioWare started with their "Awesome button" it has all been downhill. Looking forward to Cyberpunk.

 

I thought DA:I's main plot had some great moments and was well-written overall, other than a slightly anti-climactic ending and Corypheus ceasing to feel like a threat after Haven. I think it is the side content and in all the little small touches that add atmosphere where TW3 outperforms DA:I.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TW1 is really dated, however.

In what sense?

[Saphiron123]

In what sense?

I tried playing it about two weeks ago, i just can't get through it. The character animations are years behind DAO, everyone's faces are almost completely dead and devoid of emotion, the graphics are fairly terrible, the voice acting in TW1 is pretty bad, and the combat system is really really bad imho.

TW2 is amazing though.

[Sifr]

 

A lot of this derives from how the investment in TW3 is different. There's no multiple PC VO, Geralt has far fewer conversation options per scene, and there are no companions. If Bioware could cut all of that content to put it toward side quests DAI would have been a radically different game. Just saving the 5 hours of banter VO costs would have been huge for side quests.

 

 But more side-quests don't always equal a good game and removing multiple protagonists and companions would ruin Dragon Age by taking out it's heart and what people adore about it. Solo runs, while challenging, do tend to get extremely dull after a while for that reason?

 

To be honest, the hardest thing for me to get into the Witcher is Geralt himself. I find it extremely hard to connect to or relate to the guy and he's not exactly that likeable? That and half the time I can't understand what Triss (or Yen) even see in him? Sure, most women in the games are simply notches on his belt for a quick fling, but these two are supposed to be people he's been serious about at one time or another, yet he treats them extremely poorly?

 

After DA2 and how many people didn't like how we went from multiple pcs to just one, I doubt they're be eager to limit us in that way again?

[slimgrin]

The problem is that people do not read the books before playing the games, so Geralt looks like your typical manly man protagonist with a deep voice.
When someone says "No you do not need the books do enjoy the games" it is a lie, you do need them believe me. The experience is so much better and you understand so much more, it is a completely different game, especially TW 3.

 

 

No you don't need the books. If someone can't take the time to look past his scarred chest and gravely voice, that's their loss. Just like claiming Alistair is a pansy twit by his voice and clean shaven look when there's a lot more to him, but you have to sink 40 hrs into DA to see it.

[Torgette]

It is also pretty pathetic when the Witcher 3 Baron quest-line has more content, plot and depth than the entire main plot-line of DA:I. Since BioWare started with their "Awesome button" it has all been downhill. Looking forward to Cyberpunk.

 

Well, if you feel that way then stop being so dramatic and move on.

[Dreadstruck]

To be honest, the hardest thing for me to get into the Witcher is Geralt himself. I find it extremely hard to connect to or relate to the guy and he's not exactly that likeable? That and half the time I can't understand what Triss (or Yen) even see in him? Sure, most women in the games are simply notches on his belt for a quick fling, but these two are supposed to be people he's been serious about at one time or another, yet he treats them extremely poorly?

He treats them poorly? Have we played the same game here?

Also, you might as well read the books or at least google the context to see where they're coming from.