I heard a fan of the books say that the games are far more sexist.
I heard a fan of the books say that the games are far more sexist.
Because the game has you running around the world doing things including rummaging through crates for a couple of crowns whereas the books are one continuous journey. One has a huge amount of the world to explore, the other doesn't, but both sit in the same universe. If I was playing the game and I only heard one sexist comment, that would not be an accurate representation of the world The Witcher is set in. Same thing with the descrimination of Elves and Dwarves in The Witcher. If I didn't see that, it wouldn't be accurate and it would be far less immersive because of it.
Finishing The Witcher 3, in almost every possible way, TW3 completely annihilates DAI, so badly that I will probably shelve DAI for good and ignore the expansions (unless maybe if its about the Dread Wolf). Its seems to be that a smaller Polish studio who has only made in the past, two major games, has put out a game that outdoes what a corporate giant that owns a legendary RPG studio put out, Nevermind most of its catalog. Why? Because it feels like simply put, CD Projeckt RED put far more effort into TW3 than Bioware did with DAI. You can feel the limitations in DAI, in TW3 you really don't outside a few things. The world of TW3 feels like a living breathing world while DAI feels like lego-land. TW3's story completely outclasses DAI's weak plot, with CD Projeckt RED not afraid to spill budget into making great cutscenes and conversations, while Bioware rushed these moments with stilted acting.
Now here is where TW3 completely "ploughs" DAI.....side quest content. While Bioware made a bunch of MMO type fetch quests that have nothing to do with either the plot, or the character, CDP put huge effort into making great side content, with almost everything not only having a story, but optional quests that can even affect the plot. And I feel like I am playing a Witcher, which in DAI, never felt really like I was the Inquisitor. Nevermind choices. Only a couple choices matter in DAI, while in TW3, it affects not only who wins the war between Redenia and Nilfgaard, but what happens to Geralt and Ciri.
Other smaller things are superior too. The Witcher 3 character cast is beyond excellent, a huge improvement over the Iorveth-Roche show that was TW2 (although Ves and Saskia were great). It handles mature themes far better than DAI. It handles romances far better than DAI. DAI's romances were mediocre at best, irritating at worst, while TW3's Triss and Yennifer romance storylines were not only well crafted, but poignant as well. Hell, throwing around drunk Triss at a ball during fireworks....wow. It was about more than just sex in the end, it was about Geralt's future. And then Ciri...wow. Jo Wyatt plays her far better than she ever did Hawke. Ciri steals the show every time she appears, and if CDP makes her the lead next game, than take my money. As for political and social themes, even commenting on discrimination of gays, is handled far better in TW3 than in DAI, which shoves it down your throat.
The ONLY thing DAI did better, was save import.
Bioware, especially the DA team, must learn from TW3. They were bested in almost every possible way by a studio that poured their humble hearts out to making the best game possible instead of trying to make a rebound game that only "checks the boxes".
How does one WRPG developer failing help progress the WRPG genre? That is a very selfish statement.I can't wait until the day that CDPR manages to screw up somehow and Witcher fanboys have to eat some humble pie.
TW3 is better that 1 or 2, but still lacks a lot of what makes DA and Bioware games in general so good. Relationships. There ARE none outside the plot of the story, and they're limited by the franchise, so that's a hobble.
There's also the fact that it's hard to warm to Geralt. He's not my character the way the HoF or Hawke or the Herald are.
Story's interesting, ad CDPR managed to write an opening that wasn't profanity lade this time, but I found Dragon Age's story a lot more compelling ad I have a great deal more invested in it.
TW3 is a good game, but I'd rather NOT have Bioware take anything away and just make Dragon Age games.
Except that he doesn't.
But let's play the ignorant ape, far more easier than doing some proper research.
He doesn't like anything that isn't a bleeding heart paragon or paladin small steps hero.
Guest_PaladinDragoon_*
I still prefer the Dragon Age Universe over the Witcher Universe. I find the DA Universe vastly more interesting and rich in lore and story telling. Witcher 3 def feel like a much better game from the quests and story. Witcher 3 story just gripped me and I didn't care for the side stuff because I wanted to see how things unfold with the main quest. Ciri and Geralt just have great chemistry together. Speaking of Ciri they did an outstanding job with her character. She really grows on you as the story progresses.
learn how to read, sweetheart. i didnt say they can't be in places of power, I only said that they're MOSTLY not the ones who are usually and openly calling the shots in the world of Witcher and gave explanations why (expections usually make the rule - such as Saskia, Calanthé, Meve, Phillipa Eilhart etc.), which seems to be the issue when some people seem to think Witcher is some kind of misogynist wet dream or some crap like that when in fact, it's based on an already established world, with established history, society and heavily influenced by slavic nations circa 1200. it has nothing to do with some social injustice, not giving a chance to women etc. it's just devs being consistent with what was given to them by Andrzej Sapkowski.
i am fine if some people have a gripe with the game. it's probably not for everyone just as most Final Fantasy, Deus Ex or Gothic games. But to complain and belittle about equality in a game like this seems just silly to me.
What if the devs decided to take artistic license and reinvent the social standards within the Witcher setting? If they did, imo it would've been perfectly valid/not game breaking/disbelief breaking at all. But the devs did not. And that's fine, although I don't think you can blame ppl who've been spoiled by Bioware's standards to be bored by the Witcher universe, like you said, to each their own.
My previous remark was based on your statement that the setting of a warlord society is the reason for the Witcher's presentation of gender, as if this game adaption of a fantasy novel should be that obligated to real world historical standards, which imo is a weak statement in the world of modern artistic adaptions. If your main belief in the Witcher's presentation of gender is its faithfulness to the novels, whatever, but that doesn't justify nonsense like "women won't be calling the shots in a warlord society"
and don't be creepy and call me 'sweetheart' thanks
I hear these glowing testimonials and then I think maybe I should try it but then I remember that Geralt is the day old, dry toast of video game protagonists and go on enjoying my technically inferior game.
Btw, random question but how much do you guys think the demographic between Bioware games and the Witcher will differ?
There's also the fact that it's hard to warm to Geralt. He's not my character the way the HoF or Hawke or the Herald are.
Which the topic is "be more like TW3".
Not really what I want Bioware to do, other than put far more effort into the game.
(underline is mine)
You can ask Verizon, or Comcast, or Time Warner Cable, etc what do you want them to do. You DON'T ask Beethoven to change the 9th Symphony to be more like 6th Symphony. Games ARE NOT SERVICES that you should be threatening for them to get your coin, games are the realization of the artistic expression of a team of people. You are free to walk away from the game if you don't like it, but your 60 bucks DON'T give you the right to blackmail the game producer to follow your whims.
I have to disagree here. He may not be the blank mannequin that the HoF or Inquisitor are, but, save gender and class choice, he's almost exactly like Hawke as far as defining the character goes. Just as you can have Hawke respond snarky or noble, or aggressively, Geralt can be kind, cold, dickish, humorous, and so on. You can absolutely define how Geralt responds to most conversations.
Save for Gender and class, and looks and relationships that are predefined and don't change with your actions. And he's certainly not like Hawke in that you know anything really about him or his past unless you have either played the game or read the books. You have to pick the correct options in conversation to get that info or look it up on line.
Hawke, you start OFF with your family running from the Blight. You have these people and how you act toward them and how they REACT toward you is important. I found nothing of that in TW3.
In fact I commented to my husband that you could scratch the names Geralt and Ciri off and replace them with Logan and Kitty and get a similar game.
I agree that TW3's sidequests are better than most of DA:I's, but I think TW3's plot is also just a little more sidequest-friendly. Geralt doesn't have nearly the power and influence of the Inquisitor, and nobody expects him to solve huge political dilemmas or existential threats all by himself. He's a free-lancer who's trained in killing monsters and seems to be a pretty good "detective" when it comes to figuring out confusing situations and ascertaining people's motives. But if he existed in DA:I's world, he would probably be at most one of the Inquisitor's companions, and perhaps even just somebody they'd run across in the course of dealing with bigger problems.
Weak and repetitive sidequest content is part of DA:I's problem, but I think it also just has a basic structural problem, somewhat similar to ME1's "Race Against Time" - that is, you're told early on that what's happening is potentially this huge world-shaking threat, and yet you can address it purely at your own pace.
I hear these glowing testimonials and then I think maybe I should try it but then I remember that Geralt is the day old, dry toast of video game protagonists and go on enjoying my technically inferior game.
Btw, random question but how much do you guys think the demographic between Bioware games and the Witcher will differ?
Agreed 100% to your first comment.
To your question, I suspect that there is considerable overlap between the games. After all, they are both gritty fantasy-based AAA Western RPGs. There will be some places where one loses some of that playerbase (TW loses players who want diversity in the PC, as well as those who aren't interested in action RPGs; DA loses those who think it's not gritty enough or that the series is becoming too PC and watered down). But, in general, I suspect a lot of overlap. And both sides will have their fanboys who think that their preferred game is "objectively" better.
I have to disagree here. He may not be the blank mannequin that the HoF or Inquisitor are, but, save gender and class choice, he's almost exactly like Hawke as far as defining the character goes. Just as you can have Hawke respond snarky or noble, or aggressively, Geralt can be kind, cold, dickish, humorous, and so on. You can absolutely define how Geralt responds to most conversations.
Well, there's also a giant contingency of DA fans who find Hawke to be the worst of the DA protagonists for this exact reason. I suspect that the people who found Hawke to be superior to the Warden and Inquisitor are likely to be many of the same DA fans who wouldn't find Geralt to be off-putting as a pre-determined PC.
For me, if it's one extreme or the other, I'll take the 'blank mannequin' because, at least this way, I can be sure that I'll 'like' the PC since I've created him/her. With the pre-determined PC, sometimes I like them (Shep) and sometimes I don't (Hawke). It's hit or miss. With Geralt, I don't like him, so it's a deal breaker for me.
Geralt is a terrible character I can't stand playing. The Witcher will never beat Dragon Age for me because of this.
Well if Geralt is a terrible character which depends entirely on personal opinion(i must admit i like others type of character), at least he is a character, in DAI the Inquisitor is just a plot device, an instrument when it comes to that,the hand,the anchor is the protagonist of the story, the profile of the Inquisitor is the glowing hand which is sad.
I'd rather they look at Divinity Original Sin than the Witcher. The quests in that game also good plus there is more customization than in DAI, not less. Also I found the atmosphere more to my liking.
Funnily I don't see Divinity fans flooding the forum. Somehow they manage to enjoy their game in peace. But a quick visit at the Witcher forums is enough to explain this... It's full of spiteful Bioware ex-fans trying to get what they imagine Bioware gave them in the past. Like a guy with a new girlfriend who won't shut up about how wronged he was by his old girlfriend. Sad. Move on guys. Find peace.
Witcher 3 has side quests that put Dragon Age Inquisition to shame that's true but it also have it's fill of simple tressure hunts. The big problem with Witcher 3's treasure hunts though is that the gear and leveling system is completely trash. Most new abilities unless the player specialise in the sign tree are passive abilities. This makes leveling up completely meaningless since there is nothing interesting about a +5% damage and +1% stamina generation talent. The game is packed with those. Or 5% bonus for each medium/light/heavy armor you wear.
On top of that the items in the game is awful and for the most part not all that relevant. Most of the upgrades you will get is a sword in a slightly different colour, since they all look good there is no real fun in getting to use a new one. Especially since the best abilities they will have is again passive ones or small things like 1% chance to freeze. These things combined makes the actual gameplay in the game a bit of a chore and just not that interesting.
Also Dragon Age handles friendship/relationships better then Witcher 3. Witcher 3 might have a slightly more mature tone about it but interactions with friends is also very limited. Geralt seems to be a loner by nature and the only time you get to talk to your friends/lovers is when there is a specific quest they come along with. Even though there are many of these they are not nearly enough to get to know these people.
(underline is mine)
You can ask Verizon, or Comcast, or Time Warner Cable, etc what do you want them to do. You DON'T ask Beethoven to change the 9th Symphony to be more like 6th Symphony. Games ARE NOT SERVICES that you should be threatening for them to get your coin, games are the realization of the artistic expression of a team of people. You are free to walk away from the game if you don't like it, but your 60 bucks DON'T give you the right to blackmail the game producer to follow your whims.
TK514: yes I agree. Inquisition has better companions. If you notice, my post was in terms of quest design and customization, not characters.
Also finished DAI, but have chosen not to start TW3 at all due to chosen mechanics and content. And DAI is a story based RPG; not an Open World. Apple; meet orange.
See, this apples vs oranges argument is just ignorant.
When you look at the Dragon Age series and then look at The Elder Scrolls series, you'll see that they are apples and oranges. When you look at Mass Effect 1 and then a game like Gears of War, you'll see another apples and oranges representation. But that is not the point, the point that the OP makes is that at the end of the they, they are both WRPG games.
Obsidian, Bioware, Bethesda, and CD Projekt Red all has different styles and touches to their games which makes them all stand apart. However, all their games do share certain ideas that can be seen as a staple for the genre. Dragon Age/Elder Scrolls are apples and oranges and yet DAI too inspiration from Skyrim! So how do you explain that? Mass Effect 2's combat took inspiration from Gears of War, so how do you explain that!
Also finished DAI, but have chosen not to start TW3 at all due to chosen mechanics and content. And DAI is a story based RPG; not an Open World. Apple; meet orange.
Both games have zones and each zone has its own story.
Not exactly apples and oranges.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
