184 réponses à ce sujet

[MoonDrummer]

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.

Yeah, if anything it is Yennefer that treats him poorly. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Most of that wouldn't bother me at all, but I'll agree the combat is terrible. But then I think that about almost all action combat.

[HiroVoid]

Yeah, if anything it is Yennefer that treats him poorly. 

Just another example of sexism.

[Dio Demon]

Just another example of sexism.

That's not sexism... that's called being a b*tch.

[Mihura]

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.

 

Did you even read what I was referring too? it is obvious that you can play the games without it but you lost a lot and most of the time dislike Geralt because of that. In my opinion Geralt is a more likable character if you read them, the books are essential to enjoy the game in a full spectrum. Here is a good video about that. 

And I really do not get why are people so against the idea that the books are a big part of the lore. The last game is heavily base on the books. What did you expected?

 

[Steelcan]

Just another example of sexism.

Geralt doesn't treat Yennefer poorly because she's mean, he worships her like a sick dog while she treats him like a illiterate gardener who needs to be spoken to slowly

[Br3admax]

Honestly, this is the most emotionally vulnerable I've seen Geralt yet, in the games, to the point where he's literally begging at time to be given a chance to prove he's still human. It's kind of sad, really. Of course you'd have to actually play the game to know that. 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

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.

those books are really terrible fanfiction with western culture influences. dragons take away the uniqueness of this setting imho.

short stories were amazing tho, full of folklore. TW1 is more close to them than TW2.

i wish i'd stopped reading after stories, seriously.

 

Geralt is not manly man, he's a cringy pisspot and a disturbing father-figure. no idea how all those chicks find him attractive, must be Sapkowski's fantasy

[DragonsDream]

Did you even read what I was referring too? it is obvious that you can play the games without it but you lost a lot and most of the time dislike Geralt because of that. In my opinion Geralt is a more likable character if you read them, the books are essential to enjoy the game in a full spectrum. Here is a good video about that. 

And I really do not get why are people so against the idea that the books are a big part of the lore. The last game is heavily base on the books. What did you expected?

 

because if any piece of media (game, movies, TV show, etc) requires/relies on the audience having experienced some other piece of media (book, movie, amusement park ride, whatever) then that piece of media has failed. X must stand on it's own. If X fails, you cannot say "but if you experience Y, which X was based on, then X becomes better." No, X is still exactly the same as it was before. That you have taken some of Y and transferred it to X is on you. If X needed that stuff from Y to be good, then X should have included it.

[TheOgre]

One, I would consider this to be the wrong forum if it is intended to be a feedback and two, if it is intended to be feedback then we already have a thread in regards to Dragon Age Inquisition and Witcher 3 so please, use that one rather than create additional threads that has the same intent.

 

Three; while it seems you consider the "nutshell" segment as highlighting a failure on Inquisition's part, you may want to consider that not everyone interested in a mature fantasy game are interested in "have your fingernails pulled out with pliers while your friend watches" and that CD Projekt and Bioware deals in two different kinds of brands of fantasy something both parties have acknowledged and consider the other no lesser for.

 

Hi I love TW3 

 

But I totally agree with this quote here.  I don't think it's appropriate to start a new topic here. Plus this is very spoiler heavy without tags for the OP.

[Ennai and 54 others]

I think the gore ,torture and horror factor in video games is important.Real world villains are ACTUALLY evil.When people are actually evil the moustache twirling is only the beggining.They eventually cause blood to flow.They cause pain and suffering and mountains of rotting corpses.

[Dreadstruck]

Geralt doesn't treat Yennefer poorly because she's mean, he worships her like a sick dog while she treats him like a illiterate gardener who needs to be spoken to slowly

That is... actually a very accurate description. lol

[Torgette]

I think the gore ,torture and horror factor in video games is important.Real world villains are ACTUALLY evil.When people are actually evil the moustache twirling is only the beggining.They eventually cause blood to flow.They cause pain and suffering and mountains of rotting corpses.

 

Yes, but video games should also be fun escapism and not a liveleak "shock" simulator with linkin park playing nonstop in the background. Not to mention real world violence is something video games have never been able to replicate, and is really something I hope they don't - real world violence is incredibly depressing.

[SnakeCode]

 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?

 

As others have said, this is so inaccurate it's borderline offensive. Yennefer treats Geralt like dirt and yet he worships the ground she walks on. He doesn't have any of the power in that relationship. She say's jump and Geralt says "how high?" She's hardly a "notch on his belt."

 

Triss gets a pass from most, but she used Geralt's amnesia to take advantage of him, since he didn't remember he was in love with Yen. If a guy had done that to a female character we would never hear the end of it. 

 

Also, I cannot stress this enough, if Geralt came across as some kind of player, it's because YOU (general you) played him as one. You have the option to be as faithful or promiscuous as you wish, but that isn't how CDPR portray him. 

[SnakeCode]

because if any piece of media (game, movies, TV show, etc) requires/relies on the audience having experienced some other piece of media (book, movie, amusement park ride, whatever) then that piece of media has failed. X must stand on it's own. If X fails, you cannot say "but if you experience Y, which X was based on, then X becomes better." No, X is still exactly the same as it was before. That you have taken some of Y and transferred it to X is on you. If X needed that stuff from Y to be good, then X should have included it.

 

To be fair, Inquisition is guilty of this. You need to have read The Masked Empire to really have an informed interest in Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts. The entire backstory for this quest plays out in the books, as does any characterization and development of Celene, Gaspard and Brialla. Going into that quest it felt like we were supposed to know who they are and what's going on already. 

[Mihura]

Geralt doesn't treat Yennefer poorly because she's mean, he worships her like a sick dog while she treats him like a illiterate gardener who needs to be spoken to slowly

 

Well it is not different from Lambert at all, personality wise. I find their romances a lot more compelling than Triss but than again my favorite characters are Vivienne, Cassandra, Isabela and so on... There are various scenes in the game that show that most of Yen aggressiveness comes from her insecurities, not the most healthy romance but still fun to watch.

As for the rest, well there is a lot of shows, games and books that expand using different platforms of art, Marvel, Bioware..etc, sure the books are not the best among fantasy but there are mostly good overall, if you do not read them things like "Butcher of Blaviken" will not mean much.

[Torgette]

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".

 

Definitely, there's also a ton of auto-dialogue in the game as well. Geralt alone probably accounts for like half of the spoken dialogue in any of the witcher games.

 

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.

 

DAI's main plot had lots of good beats and ideas, but it feels like they ran out of time or money and rushed the ending. Should've had another good 4 hours of main plot stuff minimum. As for side stuff, cutscenes will always outperform a note on the ground at establishing atmosphere - DAI had plenty of well written side stuff but... it was mostly all told rather than shown.

[KilrB]

That's something I really like about TW3, lives feel like they actually matter.

 

I just had a random encounter where three peasants were about to hang a Nilfgaardian deserter who was trying to get home to his wife. I couldn't talk them down so a fight ensued and I was forced to kill them. The Nilfgaardian emphatically thanked Geralt and told him he'd done the right thing, to which Geralt replies with something like "Did I? If I hadn't have intervened, one man would have died. Now there's three." 

 

Spoiler

Prophetic words ... you will meet him again.

[pdusen]

In what sense?

 

I had a hard time getting started with TW1 because, aside from the combat being genuinely awful, the game looks and feels drastically older than it actually is (awkward graphics, awkward UI, awkward cutscenes, awkward VO delivery, and so on, and so on...).

 

The delivery of the content was so bad that it took me three different attempts to get far enough into the game that the quality of the overall story finally hooked me and I could play through to the end.

 

Thankfully, CDPR seems to have learned their lessons with regard to these issues. TW2 was improved in all of these aspects except for the combat (which was drastically different but nearly as bad), and TW3 seems to be well-made in pretty much all of these aspects.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In general, I would count a bad PC UI as a hallmark of modern games, not older ones.

BioWare's best UI was released in 2002 (NWN).

[pdusen]

In general, I would count a bad PC UI as a hallmark of modern games, not older ones.

BioWare's best UI was released in 2002 (NWN).

 

We can argue back and forth about that. My point was just that to me, TW1's UI sucked, and the whole game felt old.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We can argue back and forth about that. My point was just that to me, TW1's UI sucked, and the whole game felt old.

Since I happily still play old games, I doubt that would bother me.

Old doesn't necessarily equal bad.

[Rawgrim]

Since I happily still play old games, I doubt that would bother me.

Old doesn't necessarily equal bad.

 

Hear hear!

[Torgette]

In general, I would count a bad PC UI as a hallmark of modern games, not older ones.

BioWare's best UI was released in 2002 (NWN).

 

I feel like modern UI's try to do too much, old UI's were actually extremely simple in design and that made them elegant - it also let artists do more to make them look interesting.

[pdusen]

Since I happily still play old games, I doubt that would bother me.

Old doesn't necessarily equal bad.

 

I don't know what it is, but old games are just difficult for me to work up the will to keep playing now. For example, I played KOTOR many years ago and absolutely loved it, but nowadays I just can't do it anymore. It's weird.

 

Anyway, that's the same difficulty I had with TW1.