Triss > Keira > Any romance BW has ever written. Yen is an awful person, I don't even want to discuss her. And after BG2, ME, DAO, ME2, DA2 (*vomit*), ME3, and DAI, I've honestly never been into any BW romance.
QFT. I am baffeled that anyone could think otherwise. BW romances are so shallow and formulatic it's not even funny.
QFT. I am baffeled that anyone could think otherwise. BW romances are so shallow and formulatic it's not even funny.
Have to agree with this. The story was pretty basic. At least in the first game. The games scores tremendously on content and replay value, though. The companions and the combinations of companions was a particular joy too.
Well, BG wasn't about the story. It was revolutionary because of how it brought back D&D as a viable platform on the PC. The old reviews were all about gameplay, not story. And ignoring the commercial reception, BG2's edge over PS:T was considered fun gameplay, not it's (by comparison) pretty underwhelming and mediocre story.
Bioware's original niche was greating relatively fun, but cliche, B-movie stories combined with great gameplay. That was the BG series.
NWN was a total flop when Bioware wanted to get on the LAN MP wagon, much like Tales of the Sword Coast (with HoTU moving back to BG styles).
And then we had KoTOR, which was a radical turning point for Bioware and the game they've tried (in different ways) to always redo. That was the birth of their cinematic style and push toward accessibility. Every game thereafter was fundamentally influenced by KoTOR - JE, ME1, DA:O.
I must be one of the only BW fans on the forums that really liked the story for the entire Baldur's Gate series. The companions were fairly barebones in BG1, but I thought the main plot was great. The Time of Troubles from Forgotten Realms was very fun for me as a D&D nerd. 
Triss tops that by virtue of not being a horrible person who treats Geralt like a foreigner with a brain defect
plus
redhead...
Try reading the books then say Triss is not a horrible person.
redhead...
Traitor to your blonde obsession 
In the spirit of harmony, I can think of one thing neither the Witcher nor DA have from BioWare's old days. A curse so strong, that it haunts players to this day. One that was mainly the result of the awful AI movement. This was invoked even if players were careful to try to have their party members stop in time:
This pretty much sums it up for me, well besides the combat portion of this video. Combat as well is better in the witcher 3 in my opinion.
That image on the link that supposed to be Dragon Age: Inquisition isn't even from Dragon Age. Makes me not trust the objectivity of the creator when they can't even find a stock image from the game to use as the cover.
I must be one of the only BW fans on the forums that really liked the story for the entire Baldur's Gate series. The companions were fairly barebones in BG1, but I thought the main plot was great. The Time of Troubles from Forgotten Realms was very fun for me as a D&D nerd.
BG1 was a story that, for me, sounded great as a plot summary, but utterly failed in every aspect of its presentation and execution. The base conspiracy theory was interesting, especially the idea of Sarevok tricking the conspirators. But didn't handle the material with any dramatic tension. This is typically why I describe BG1 as essentially a giant Scavenger Hunt: the story consists of killing evil npc's and finding letters on their bodies directing you to a different npc, whom you then kill. In that sense, I considered the plot about as bare bones as the companions.
It also doesn't help that many criticisms that I've seen directed at many of Bioware's more recent games (claiming pre-EA was different) were also encountered in BG, leaving me with too high expectations based on other's claims. Killing off Hawke's brother/sister before we could forge a connection? Gorion dies after a single conversation. DA:I failing in choices and consequences? BG has practically none to speak of, beyond insane evil dialogue.
All imo, of course.
BG1 was a story that, for me, sounded great as a plot summary, but utterly failed in every aspect of its presentation and execution. The base conspiracy theory was interesting, especially the idea of Sarevok tricking the conspirators. But didn't handle the material with any dramatic tension. This is typically why I describe BG1 as essentially a giant Scavenger Hunt: the story consists of killing evil npc's and finding letters on their bodies directing you to a different npc, whom you then kill. In that sense, I considered the plot about as bare bones as the companions.
It also doesn't help that many criticisms that I've seen directed at many of Bioware's more recent games (claiming pre-EA was different) were also encountered in BG, leaving me with too high expectations based on other's claims. Killing off Hawke's brother/sister before we could forge a connection? Gorion dies after a single conversation. DA:I failing in choices and consequences? BG has practically none to speak of, beyond insane evil dialogue.
All imo, of course.
DA1 was - in terms of how it handled its quests, etc. - the closest game to BG1 that Bioware's attempted since, honestly, BG1. I think in terms of how it approached quests and non-companion characters, it's closer to BG1 than even BG2. And a lot of that is probably just cost-cutting related.
I did like BG2's story, mind you, but that was more because I came to it after HoTU. BG1 was mostly unplayable for me until recently.
I must be one of the only BW fans on the forums that really liked the story for the entire Baldur's Gate series. The companions were fairly barebones in BG1, but I thought the main plot was great. The Time of Troubles from Forgotten Realms was very fun for me as a D&D nerd.
Sadly not a D&D nerd.
I did really like (Ascension) BG2.
QFT. I am baffeled that anyone could think otherwise. BW romances are so shallow and formulatic it's not even funny.
*Insert friendship points into companion X to receive obligatory pre-final battle sex scene*
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
Possibly for some. However, possibly my fave Romance in the series (ie; Aveline in DA2) is not considered to be one, but rings true, and breaks hearts. Very memorable, and only could suffer it once. And I have read other post of reactions from the Romances with Solas and Cullen; does not appear to be shallow to these other Players.
But the Romance arcs are secondary for me, unless I accidently access one that could be a problem later. Then they are a minefield that is need of a map to escape. Am currently am replaying ME1, and may have been misunderstood by a couple of the ladies, and like that NEVER happens in RL....
I actually like many Bioware romances (Leliana, Morrigan, Miranda, Isabella etc.) but Aveline?
How was that a romance? Doesn't she just reject you?
I actually like many Bioware romances (Leliana, Morrigan, Miranda, Isabella etc.) but Aveline?
How was that a romance? Doesn't she just reject you?
In the spirit of harmony, I can think of one thing neither the Witcher nor DA have from BioWare's old days. A curse so strong, that it haunts players to this day. One that was mainly the result of the awful AI movement. This was invoked even if players were careful to try to have their party members stop in time:
Lol, okay, that was funny.
Plus Gaider just changes whatever he wants to fit his mood at the time. Mages were a genuine threat, now they're a joke. Qunari were fanatics with rigid rules and an unaccepting attitude, now they hug anybody whose different and accept fluid gender roles and vocations. The dude has zero respect for past lore.
Ya know, didn't think about it before but...yeah...your right.
This is a tough one... what does DAI do better than the Witcher 3....
After thinking hard and long, I can only say Combat; specifically the Epic Dragon Battles.
It still boggles my mind that people are still so high on Inquisition's dragon battles. For one thing, the only difference between them is what element the dragon uses as their breath weapon. Everything else about them was pretty much identical. They had a chance to do something really special with the dragon fights, and they failed. They could have had us using the environment against them, they could have dragged these battles out over multiple locations within the area.
The dragon battles really didn't feel any different in Inquisition than they did in the previous games, and that is really disappointing to me.
Suppose I'll give my two cents here (for things that can ACTUALLY be compared between the two games at any rate)
Things I think DA:I does better than Witcher 3:
-Loot (specifically, miscellaneous/crafting loot). The loot in Witcher 3 is more "believable" in Witcher 3. But damn it is it annoying to have my horse's saddlebags stuffed full of over a hundred different kinds of crafting materials and miscellaneous items not knowing when or if they'll ever be useful. In DA:I the loot is MUCH better.
Inquisition has better loot? I have to strongly disagree here. I really didn't like the loot in Inquisition. Everything looked the same and none of it really felt epic. Especially the rings and amulets, uggh, they were god awful.
Inquisition has better loot? I have to strongly disagree here. I really didn't like the loot in Inquisition. Everything looked the same and none of it really felt epic. Especially the rings and amulets, uggh, they were god awful.
Mages were a genuine threat, now they're a joke.
This isn't so much a lore issue than a gameplay/story segregation one. Some might not want to admit it, but this exists in Origins as well. Enemies that should by all rights be able to kill us in a single blow more often than not fail to do so. Take ogres. In a cut scene, one of these things picks up Cailan and snaps him like a twig with no problem, yet they pick us up and punch us a bit and we can take it, because the Warden's just that awesome. However much or little the game's combat balances out enemies has no real bearing on the lore. If these games reflected it exactly in gameplay, a mundane PC, especially one that lacks Templar abilities, should never be able to take on a group of mages head-on solo, but we can.
It still boggles my mind that people are still so high on Inquisition's dragon battles. For one thing, the only difference between them is what element the dragon uses as their breath weapon. Everything else about them was pretty much identical. They had a chance to do something really special with the dragon fights, and they failed. They could have had us using the environment against them, they could have dragged these battles out over multiple locations within the area.
The dragon battles really didn't feel any different in Inquisition than they did in the previous games, and that is really disappointing to me.
Because within the context of "What did DAI do better than TW3", the Dragon Battle of DAI does offer a level of excitement that is not found in TW3. That does not mean that we think that dragon fights in DAI is perfect.
TW3's combat while an improvement over previous Witcher game, it is still pretty weak.
Thus, I say that DAI's combat is better than TW3.
Because within the context of "What did DAI do better than TW3", the Dragon Battle of DAI does offer a level of excitement that is not found in TW3. That does not mean that we think that dragon fights in DAI is perfect.
TW3's combat while an improvement over previous Witcher game, it is still pretty weak.
Thus, I say that DAI's combat is better than TW3.
Still have to disagree. TW3's combat is fluid, responsive, and challenging. While I would have liked to have a few more combat abilities for Geralt, or perhaps some combos, it was still a lot better than holding down the main attack button, while occasionally pressing a button for a special attack, which was what Inquisition gave us.
Still have to disagree. TW3's combat is fluid, responsive, and challenging. While I would have liked to have a few more combat abilities for Geralt, or perhaps some combos, it was still a lot better than holding down the main attack button, while occasionally pressing a button for a special attack, which was what Inquisition gave us.
I dont simply "hold down" the attack button when playing DAI. Maybe because I never play range characters.
TW3's combat boils down to riposte, dodge & Signs. Challenging? In both DAI and TW3 maximum difficulty, I rarely get hit/hurt so both are not challenging per se.
So I can only compare them in terms of epicness and dragons win
It still boggles my mind that people are still so high on Inquisition's dragon battles. For one thing, the only difference between them is what element the dragon uses as their breath weapon. Everything else about them was pretty much identical. They had a chance to do something really special with the dragon fights, and they failed. They could have had us using the environment against them, they could have dragged these battles out over multiple locations within the area.
The dragon battles really didn't feel any different in Inquisition than they did in the previous games, and that is really disappointing to me.
I dont simply "hold down" the attack button when playing DAI. Maybe because I never play range characters.
TW3's combat boils down to riposte, dodge & Signs. Challenging? In both DAI and TW3 maximum difficulty, I rarely get hit/hurt so both are not challenging per se.
So I can only compare them in terms of epicness and dragons win
Hold down the attack button, mash the attack button, same difference to me. And yes, ripose and dodging take skill, more skill than is involved with Inquisition's combat. It's not perfect by any means, but it's fun.
And still, dragons are not that epic. I enjoy fights with cyclops and frost giants more than I did fights with dragons.
OT
not sure about DAI being more female friendly, don't really care about inclusiveness, romances.
what DAI does better than TW3:
- PC customization (i do mind RP human male warrior in every damn game. i really do)
- save import (or rather world state import)
- crafting (it's undeveloped, but better already)
- combat (tactical mode, poor implementation is still superior to no implementation at all)
Retour en haut
