960 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

The witcher always had 1 option from the get go.It is a continuation of a book series, after all. But they did improve and add options for Geralt in each new game. Geralt can use more weapons than the Inquisitor can, for example. And he has way more options during level up than the Inquisitor has. So despite having just 1 character to pick from, the game still has more options. Maybe you should actually play it and see for yourself? Bioware made games that had tons of options more than DA:I did. And the first DA game had way more options than this game did.

While I am aware of the weaponry Geralt has available, I was not too keen on exploring the Silver sword vs other sword mechanics of the past games. And again, w/o any pause feature, it would likely be unimportant. And while Geralt has hair that can grow, can use signs, alchemy, etc; it's still a PC with a single representation whether or not the Player cares for it.

Four races, five classes, four voices, and a detailed CC does seem to be 'Better' than one; hence the thread.

[Elhanan]

Of the western RPGs, Dragon Age. 
 
The Mass Effect franchise does, and it is an Action RPG.

Not by the parameters I tend to use

I am replaying the ME games currently, and have little trouble playing on Insanity difficulty. Action games are ones that I cannot play due to my lack of Eye-Hand skills, neuropathy, and disability. They generally require or recommend controllers, and rely on the actual skills of the Player rather than those of the character; not a advisable choice for my gaming pleasure.

For my standards, ME series is an RPG; not an Action title.

[Elhanan]

U are trying to convince me to play the witcher 3  , i'll start with the walktrough on youtube to see exactly what u are talking about in matter of gameplay.

Gopher offers a LP of TW1, and TW2 is on-going currently; will be starting TW3 when completed and the gaming system is upgraded properly.

[Finesse]

I used to be in love with DA:I before it came out. And then it came out... well, I don't have to say more. After playing TW3, I realised that DA:I is soooo bad compared to TW3. I know 90% don't agree with me and probably hate me for saying that, it's okay, I won't mind, but if you have an open mind and think about other stuff, not just the character creation, you'll agree with me.

@Rawgrim said it better than me a couple of posts ago on this page.

And @Kmaru, JEEEEEEZ, dude....

'nuff said.

 

EDIT:

And I think Bioware needs to stop with the multiplayer bull... and focus on the singleplayer story and content.

[Elhanan]

Then why did Bioware market DA:I as an action-rpg, I wonder. It says "The new action-rpg from Bioware" right on the front main page of the DA:I website. It was in all the trailers too.
 
You have a pause button in the Witcher too, actually. Or rather it slows time down to a crawl when you have to access the inventory to add potions or swap weapons etc. The game lets you swap weapons. Another thing DA:I doesn't have.

Am aware of the Slow Time feature; a reason I suggested a mod that allows for a Transparent UI; an inventory screen makes for poor aiming and tactical appraisal. And while I do miss swapping weapons as a choice, I am still able to retain freedom in other areas beyond those of the books.

As for Action titles, reason I mentioned the Pause and Tac-Cam features of DAI; neither seem extant in TW3. These are features that I consider to be better.

[In Exile]

Bioware calls everything they do an action-RPG. They called DA:O and BG2 action-RPGs. Their labels don't mean anything.  

[Linkenski]

I honestly think the crafting is more satisfying in this game than it was in TW3, now that I'm playing it again (Jaws of Hakkon).

 

I think in terms of level-grading and stuff it's overly unbalanced but it's the tinting that makes it satisfying or the fact that you can unlock schematics for very early armor designs or cloth-based armors that look good and then scale up their armor rating to match your level. It's the sense of player customization that goes into it, that makes me want to spend an hour just crafting things in this game.

 

By all means, Bioware should keep the system and simply work on improving the balance issues.

[In Exile]

DA:I crafting lets you avoid what you find to be abominable designs more easily, but then I suppose I have such an incredible hatred for the vast majority of TW3 armours that I'm wholly incapable of an unbiased opinion on this front. Thank god for the cat and ursine armours, despite the fact I had to play for 20 hours in Velen in the starter armor. 

[Dread-Reaper]

DA:I crafting lets you avoid what you find to be abominable designs more easily, but then I suppose I have such an incredible hatred for the vast majority of TW3 armours that I'm wholly incapable of an unbiased opinion on this front. Thank god for the cat and ursine armours, despite the fact I had to play for 20 hours in Velen in the starter armor. 

Same, I keep the starting gear until I unlock the Feline Set, all the other armour just makes Geralt look old with a beer belly. Good thing there are mods to increase the armour value of the starting armour.

[In Exile]

Same, I keep the starting gear until I unlock the Feline Set, all the other armour just makes Geralt look old with a beer belly. Good thing there are mods to increase the armour value of the starting armour.

 

And that's the summary version of why I loathe, with a burning passion, almost any armor set that tries to be "authentic" to medieval armour or to that aesthetic. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

LOL!.... you are reaching and stretching to find something negative about TW3....

I complain about those things in every game in which they appear.

 

I have no particular need to dislike TW3.  I haven't played it, and I probably won't for the reasons I mentioned.

 

I'd rather play a turn-based game than an action game.  I'd rather not see my character's face than see him behave in ways I can't control.

[HowlingSiren]

I love the idea of multiple playable races, I really do. But I never felt those choices actually matter throughout the playthrough, or make any notable difference. In DAI, the only difference between playing a human, an elf or a qunari is the visual appearance of your character, some locked romances, a couple of text-based war missions and a few lines of dialogue here and there without any consequences. There are no specific quests for the different races and the backstory is relegated to a brief intro text (unlike DAO). It's all so homogeneous it actually felt jarring to me. I expected resistance to my dalish elf or my qunari, or even my mage, because that's the reality of the DA world, as exposed in DAO and DA2, something beyond "oh, you're a qunari AND a mage? Well, ok then".  It particularly struck me when my elf was named inquisitor, and had several response options, among which "I'm doing this for the elves". I expected that statement to have repercussions in front of an audience and in an organisation comprised 90% of humans, or in its relations with Orlais, but the racial tensions of Thedas and its fear of mages were just largely erased when it came to the Inquisitor. Not to mention the whole "chosen of Andraste" thing playing as an elf, where you can certainly say that you believe in dalish gods, but with no consequences. Hell, you could even decorate Skyhold with Tevinter banners without anyone raising an eyebrow. 

 

Unless BW decides to fully commit to the difference between the playable races and have that reflected in meaningful ways throughout the playthrough, in ways that are consistent with the lore, I'd actually prefer they stuck to a single race, with a well-developed back story and some depth and coherence to the character, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach they had in DAI. I can't help but feel that the Inquisitor felt so bland because of that. The only reason I prefer above all others my female elf playthrough is her relationship with Solas, and mostly in the context of the end game. I just hope that won't be erased with more railroading in the future game or DLC, though I'm doubtful, because in view of DAI, BW does not seem to think it's worthwhile, probably for cost-reasons, to create content that isn't shared among all players. 

[Elhanan]

And I found the added dialogue choices for Dwarves rather grand; made the experience feel varied and different as opposed to my Human Mage Inq. Plus, the Dwarven Archer campaign did not utilize the bonus dialogue options, so the racial dialogue stands out even more.

[ashwind]

I love the idea of multiple playable races, I really do. But I never felt those choices actually matter throughout the playthrough, or make any notable difference. In DAI, the only difference between playing a human, an elf or a qunari is the visual appearance of your character, some locked romances, a couple of text-based war missions and a few lines of dialogue here and there without any consequences. There are no specific quests for the different races and the backstory is relegated to a brief intro text (unlike DAO). It's all so homogeneous it actually felt jarring to me. I expected resistance to my dalish elf or my qunari, or even my mage, because that's the reality of the DA world, as exposed in DAO and DA2, something beyond "oh, you're a qunari AND a mage? Well, ok then".  It particularly struck me when my elf was named inquisitor, and had several response options, among which "I'm doing this for the elves". I expected that statement to have repercussions in front of an audience and in an organisation comprised 90% of humans, or in its relations with Orlais, but the racial tensions of Thedas and its fear of mages were just largely erased when it came to the Inquisitor. Not to mention the whole "chosen of Andraste" thing playing as an elf, where you can certainly say that you believe in dalish gods, but with no consequences. Hell, you could even decorate Skyhold with Tevinter banners without anyone raising an eyebrow. 

 

Unless BW decides to fully commit to the difference between the playable races and have that reflected in meaningful ways throughout the playthrough, in ways that are consistent with the lore, I'd actually prefer they stuck to a single race, with a well-developed back story and some depth and coherence to the character, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach they had in DAI. I can't help but feel that the Inquisitor felt so bland because of that. The only reason I prefer above all others my female elf playthrough is her relationship with Solas, and mostly in the context of the end game. I just hope that won't be erased with more railroading in the future game or DLC, though I'm doubtful, because in view of DAI, BW does not seem to think it's worthwhile, probably for cost-reasons, to create content that isn't shared among all players. 

 

Sometimes I pity Bioware and I feel like in DAI, regardless of race and profession, I am actually always playing the role of a Qunari. My character is not important and he/she is only define by his/her title: The Inquisitor.

 

Sometimes plot/story is compromise just to fit a race in because well... it is needed... much resource is poured into the game and it is often not very meaningful and impactful.

 

Take the Dwarven Inquisitor for example: You a Dwarf infiltrated probably one of the most important summit, spying on the negotiations because of Lyrium trade... I wonder how did the dwarf manage all that. Qunaris are hired as guards... okay, I can see how they can sneak in. Humans and Elves are easy enough... Dwarves? I imagine that a dwarf there would not be very inconspicuous.

[Megakoresh]

Well I was always an advocate of not judging something prior to it coming out. But W3 has come out and I sunk 200 hours into it... So as far as comparable factors go what does DAI do better than W3?

...

Nothing. I am serious. Absolutely nothing. Combat, PC selection, all of that are creative differences. In no way can they be compared. Witcher 3 combat is full-action. DAI combat is tactical strategy for the most part (it could have been partly action, and a good one, if they did proper controls for it). PC selection is again a creative choice - W3 lets you play as a character in the game world, while DAI lets YOU be the character - the Inquisitor is nothing more than a 3D model with a voice over, it serves only as a medium through which players communicate with the game world, it has no personality, and even no gender driven traits, which I consider a flaw - what's the point in selecting a different gender, if all that changes is a model and voice?

 

And don't even get me started on the whole "female friendliness". Every now and then I meet someone claiming how Witcher 3 is "not female-friendly" or "sexist" and I wish ESRB rating would include something like IQ requirement, or otherwise a test to make sure people dense enough to claim something like that don't experience products clearly far above their mental capacity.

 

Everything else that is comparable - progression, storyline, movement, detail, graphical fidelity, looting and biggest of all - quality of content Witcher 3 undeniably does better. And yes - romance too. For in Witcher 3 romance has meaning. You only have 2 options and they evoke real emotional feedback because the game has you investing a lot in either of them, and having a lot of background behind relationship with both of these characters makes the decision far more weighty. Dragon Age Inquisition doesn't even do what set previous DA games apart when it comes romance - it doesn't let you explore deeper and change personality and views of the characters you romance. That was a key part of previous game's romances and it is missing from Inquisition. DAI romances are nothing more than extra dialogue with a possible sex scene. It has no meaning within the game world.

 

So now that I played 2 games an equal measure of time, I an say with absolute certainty - DAI is an inferior game to Witcher 3 in every comparable respect. Without exception. Note that I am not hating on Inquisition - it has it's moments, especially if you use teleport hacks in trainers and hack the loot so you never have to collect stuff. But Witcher 3 is just a far far better game. It was created with love, passion and, well... for us. With profits being considered as something that will follow this quality and dedication - as they should be and as they have. Whereas DAI, while certainly having passionate developers, was built upon trends and checklists with developers struggling to balance what Inquisition needed to be with what it was required to be.

[Sartoz]

While I am aware of the weaponry Geralt has available, I was not too keen on exploring the Silver sword vs other sword mechanics of the past games. And again, w/o any pause feature, it would likely be unimportant. And while Geralt has hair that can grow, can use signs, alchemy, etc; it's still a PC with a single representation whether or not the Player cares for it.

Four races, five classes, four voices, and a detailed CC does seem to be 'Better' than one; hence the thread.

 

                                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

Four eunuch classes you mean. No weapon swap, castrated mage, no auto-attack to speak of, tac-cam whose view gets blocked,.. I can go on.

 

Interesting that you always pooh-pooed posts that complained about the awkward PC controls. Handicapped, as you are, kept telling us how you managed to get around and play the game. Yet, here you are complaining about no pause feature in  TW3.

 

Tsk, tsk...

[Sartoz]

And I found the added dialogue choices for Dwarves rather grand; made the experience feel varied and different as opposed to my Human Mage Inq. Plus, the Dwarven Archer campaign did not utilize the bonus dialogue options, so the racial dialogue stands out even more.

 

                                                                                   <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

C'mon, Ehanan, give me a crumb.

 

What's the bigest negative, for you, in DAI?

[Rawgrim]

While I am aware of the weaponry Geralt has available, I was not too keen on exploring the Silver sword vs other sword mechanics of the past games. And again, w/o any pause feature, it would likely be unimportant. And while Geralt has hair that can grow, can use signs, alchemy, etc; it's still a PC with a single representation whether or not the Player cares for it.

Four races, five classes, four voices, and a detailed CC does seem to be 'Better' than one; hence the thread.

 

You can uses axes, maces, clubs and short swords as well. Throwing daggers and throwing axes too (if I remember correctly).

[Elhanan]

You can uses axes, maces, clubs and short swords as well. Throwing daggers and throwing axes too (if I remember correctly).

Already know about additional weapons. And TW3 seemed to fix a sword issue of the past games; now Geralt seems to draw the correct sword by default, or that has been reported.

Still no Pause; a feature present in both DAI and Skyrim.

[Elhanan]

<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
 
Four eunuch classes you mean. No weapon swap, castrated mage, no auto-attack to speak of, tac-cam whose view gets blocked,.. I can go on.
 
Interesting that you always pooh-pooed posts that complained about the awkward PC controls. Handicapped, as you are, kept telling us how you managed to get around and play the game. Yet, here you are complaining about no pause feature in  TW3.
 
Tsk, tsk...

Even without weapon restrictions, the Mage and Rogue classes are more than capable. Both offer various ways to approach character builds, and offer versatility.

Same complaints; little constructive crit. And I know about the ability to go on....

As for my lack of ability to play Action games, that is kinda the point: am able to play hundreds of hours of Skyrim (ie; 2800+) and DAI (600+), yet am hesitant to approach TW3 as I know I am poor at such types of games. But am rather used to it.

[HowlingSiren]

Still no Pause; a feature present in both DAI and Skyrim.

There are several complaints on the CDPR or other forums about the game. Not once have I seen the lack of Pause mentioned as an issue. Because the way the controls are set up and combat is designed, you simply don't need to pause in combat. Played my first playthrough on Normal, now playing the hardest difficulty, and not once did I miss Pause, honestly. 

 

I completely agree that Pause and ideally TacCam are necessary for BW games where you control a party, or in games where you have access to a ton of abilities that might not be hotkeyed. I've been following this thread for a while now and have not seen players asking for Pause to be removed. Did I miss a "remove pause" petition somewhere or what? 

[Elhanan]

There are several complaints on the CDPR or other forums about the game. Not once have I seen the lack of Pause mentioned as an issue. Because the way the controls are set up and combat is designed, you simply don't need to pause in combat. Played my first playthrough on Normal, now playing the hardest difficulty, and not once did I miss Pause, honestly. 
 
I completely agree that Pause and ideally TacCam are necessary for BW games where you control a party, or in games where you have access to a ton of abilities that might not be hotkeyed. I've been following this thread for a while now and have not seen players asking for Pause to be removed. Did I miss a "remove pause" petition somewhere or what?

Have not seen one, but have read that TW1 did have Pause; chose to restrict the combat option for the sequels.

But among the complaints that I have read concerning TW3, several were from those with disabilities or similar issues that affect game control. I choose to skip the annoyance; still glancing at the mods occasionally to see if someone has added it. And Yes, I do need pause; perhaps most do not, but am guessing they have more effective reflexes.

[correctamundo]

Already know about additional weapons. And TW3 seemed to fix a sword issue of the past games; now Geralt seems to draw the correct sword by default, or that has been reported.
.

 

Most of the time anyway ;-)

[HowlingSiren]

Have not seen one, but have read that TW1 did have Pause; chose to restrict the combat option for the sequels.

But among the complaints that I have read concerning TW3, several were from those with disabilities or similar issues that affect game control. I choose to skip the annoyance; still glancing at the mods occasionally to see if someone has added it. And Yes, I do need pause; perhaps most do not, but am guessing they have more effective reflexes.

I see, you're worried that DA will become an action/reflex-driven, fast reaction-type game, effectively preventing you from playing it? But that's contrary to every single-player game BioWare ever developed. Their model and their strength is party-based combat with companions you control. I'm no developer, but I don't see how they could do that without pause or turn-based combat, unless they remove the ability to control the companions or remove the companions entirely. But can you imagine how that would go down with their fans?

[Elhanan]

I see, you're worried that DA will become an action/reflex-driven, fast reaction-type game, effectively preventing you from playing it? But that's contrary to every single-player game BioWare ever developed. Their model and their strength is party-based combat with companions you control. I'm no developer, but I don't see how they could do that without pause or turn-based combat, unless they remove the ability to control the companions or remove the companions entirely. But can you imagine how that would go down with their fans?

Am not worried about it; simply wish that the other titles would add Pause functionality to allow for more Players to enjoy the game.