960 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

@goofyomnivore:  Well - it's not subjective if you want to create a character.  

 

If you are looking for character creation - TW doesn't have one.  

 

So it factually has an inferior character creator because it doesn't have one at all. 

CC options are not an objective merit, they are a trade off

[FKA_Servo]

I like Cassandra too as a character I thought we were just talking about looks

 

Vivienne and Sera on the other hand are terrible characters

 

Cassandra looks like a BAMF. Vivienne is all around terrific, too.

 

Looks like my initial hypothesis was correct, in any event.

[Medhia_Nox]

@john_shepard:  Are they terribly designed characters... or, you just don't like their characters?  Cause there's a huge difference.

 

@Steel Can:  They are absolutely an objective merit if the goal is to create your own character.  

Whether creating your own character or not is better or worse is not the argument I'm approaching.  

[Senjougahara Hitagi]

Phillpa is a manipulating control freak. it isn't too surprising Radovid turned out how he did. I can't really think of a positive thing about Phillpa. Except she is exceptionally talented and driven to meet her own goals.

 

It's little bit harder with her, as it's with Yen, Shiele, Coral. Most of the sorceresses in fact share a lot of similar character traits when you think about it. Traits that make them less generally likable. But I do believe that they're competent, if nothing else. And that's not bad either. From our point of view, Phillipa is probably just a ****. But I'd say the should we ask Djikstra, he would probably didn't agree. 

[goofyomnivore]

@goofyomnivore:  Well - it's not subjective if you want to create a character.  

 

If you are looking for character creation - TW doesn't have one.  

 

So it factually has an inferior character creator because it doesn't have one at all. 

 

I guess I meant to say character creator vs fixed protagonist is preference. Sorry for not being clear.

 

But if TW3 doesn't have a character creator why are people comparing character creation to do DA:I? It would be like knocking TW3 for not having as good as soccer ball physics as Fifa.. 

[Wyvernet]

I haven't played the Witcher so as far as I'm aware of their women could be ten times superior to Dragon Age women. However, I personally don't think Bioware was out to create Strong Female Characters. They were trying to create female characters.

 

I mean, Vivienne and Sera seem to be deliberately created as characters that weren't necessarily likable. Even in-game characters have mixed views on them, considering the levels of snarkiness that party banters could develop into. What makes female characters decent, in my personal opinion, isn't how strong or likable they are, but is if they are given the same complexity that male characters are given. Or in other words, if they're treated as characters and human beings first, with gender being only one of their characteristics.

[Rifneno]

The only none subjective thing I can think of is the import system. But I don't know any other game that has anything like the Dragon Age Keep.

I'd say the quests are pretty non-subjective too. DAI is packed with fetch quests and other assorted mindless filler. TW3 has 100+ hours of content with barely anything that could be called a fetch quest. The black pearl one, maybe? I can't think of anything else. The variety of the quests is truly staggering. There's so many unique and interesting quests I'd have never believed it without seeing it.

lol, not even bothering with this because it's filled with so much bias

Right back atcha.

I'd argue that's not true. Not everyone in Witcher 2 sucks. Most of the minor unamed bandits nad other lowlifes, sure they do, but I don't think that Zoltan, Foltest or Dandelion do, or Ves, Triss, Saskia. Even Letho, Roche, Iroveth or Phillipa cannot be simply described as such. In fact, none of the major characters can. Sure, they have their flaws, but they don't have just those, they are some good things about them as well and that's what makes them more believable.

Uhh yes they can. Letho assassinated multiple monarchs with the intent of triggering a continental war. Tens of thousands of people are dead because of him. Iorveth is a terrorist, plain and simple. Some of the scoia'tael are good folk fighting for freedom and equal rights. Iorveth is not one of those. He's one of the few characters that actually deserves to be impaled. Philippa was assisting Letho in killing kings, though she "just" wanted to play at a political coup that put her and her ilk in charge of the north at the cost of the lives of anyone who got in their way, intentionally or not. Philippa is a real piece of work. Piece of something else, too. She's the sole reason Radovid turned into the monster he did.

[Rifneno]

@john_shepard:  Are they terribly designed characters... or, you just don't like their characters?  Cause there's a huge difference.

They're terrible designed characters. In fact, let's play this like a Vivienne conversation. I say they're terrible designed, and here are your two choices for a response: 1) *drools in a cup hanging from neck* Uhhh... ooohhh, shiny thing! 2) Oh you're so right. Everything you say is absolutely perfect.

[Steelcan]

I haven't played the Witcher so as far as I'm aware of their women could be ten times superior to Dragon Age women. However, I personally don't think Bioware was out to create Strong Female Characters. They were trying to create female characters.

 

I mean, Vivienne and Sera seem to be deliberately created as characters that weren't necessarily likable. Even in-game characters have mixed views on them, considering the levels of snarkiness that party banters could develop into. What makes female characters decent, in my personal opinion, isn't how strong or likable they are, but is if they are given the same complexity that male characters are given. Or in other words, if they're treated as characters and human beings first, with gender being only one of their characteristics.

So far I'd say the female characters in TE3 get much more development than the male ones.  Geralt, Lambert, Eskel, and Vesimir are all witchers a nd thus get much less emotional range, and really only Geralt gets significant development through his interaction with the others.

 

Contrast that to Keira, Ciri, Triss, Yennefer, or Cerys.

[goofyomnivore]

I'd say the quests are pretty non-subjective too. DAI is packed with fetch quests and other assorted mindless filler. TW3 has 100+ hours of content with barely anything that could be called a fetch quest. The black pearl one, maybe? I can't think of anything else. The variety of the quests is truly staggering. There's so many unique and interesting quests I'd have never believed it without seeing it.

 

I honestly got pretty bored of holding down LT for my Witcher senses searching for blood trails. It wasn't a fetch quest, but it wasn't exactly exciting either sometimes. I will agree tho TW3 did a much better job of sprinkling lore into their side quests compared to DA:I.

[Senjougahara Hitagi]

Uhh yes they can. Letho assassinated multiple monarchs with the intent of triggering a continental war. Tens of thousands of people are dead because of him. Iorveth is a terrorist, plain and simple. Some of the scoia'tael are good folk fighting for freedom and equal rights. Iorveth is not one of those. He's one of the few characters that actually deserves to be impaled. Philippa was assisting Letho in killing kings, though she "just" wanted to play at a political coup that put her and her ilk in charge of the north at the cost of the lives of anyone who got in their way, intentionally or not. Philippa is a real piece of work. Piece of something else, too. She's the sole reason Radovid turned into the monster he did.

 

Well, yeah, he did. But I guess, if I was at his place. I'd probably consider doing the same thing he did. I agree that I don't really have much to say when it comes to defending Iorveth or Phillipa though. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@Rifneno:  So, you're saying you can't disagree with Vivienne?  Cause I'm pretty sure I just left the manipulative ****** up on her balcony cause I wasn't playing games with her - and I actually did agree with her on many mage issues.  

[FKA_Servo]

I'll say it right now - the games would be more broadly appealing (definitely) and better (subjectively - better in my estimation, certainly) if Geralt were a Hawke or a Shepard, in that there's no reason you can't have a "fixed" (to the extent that Geralt seems to be fixed) character and still retain a character creator. Throw in a CC, record a male and female protagonist, and there you go. I guess it would play hell with some of the romances, but I'm just playing coulda woulda shoulda. It's not like they're anything like the ones in DA, anyway.

 

Just because he's the main character in the books doesn't mean he has to be the main character in the games (see: GoT games, any number of terrible LoTR games, etc and so forth). And it's not like The Witcher games straight up follow the books either, as far as I can see.

[Br3admax]

Considering that most people who buy the games just play default anyway, because actually making a character is work, that's definitely not true. Adding a CC in won't encourage any more people to buy the game in any significant way. 

[Hydwn]

Most things, in my estimation.  A lot of that is just preference on my part, but having watched the boyfriend play a good chunk of The Witcher 3 side-by-side with my gaming on Inquisition, I never felt the urge to switch games.

 

Story-wise, I find The Witcher's story convoluted and hard to follow.  My boyfriend actually stopped and restarted for that reason.  He has numerous complaints about the gameplay, as well, with XP being hard to come by and sudden jumps in the static levels of the enemy.  

 

Visually, both have stunning graphics, but stunning graphics are almost something expected with this generation of games.  I like what DAI chose to turn that perfect camera towards.  The Witcher suffers from serious "real is brown" that plagued DA's first two games.  The medieval vilages look authentic, and authentically ugly.  I've never seen such well-rendered pigpens.  The cutscenes are nicely rendered, but there's a lot of them.  Like JRPG a lot.  It looks like a movie sometimes.

 

But for me, the clincher is Geralt himself.  I don't like him.  He's a thirteen-year-old boy's power fantasy.  With boys-only clubhouse of powers that include perfect birth control and immunity to STIs - he's a mutant for consequence-free sex! - and that breathy voice that bad action-movie voice that sounds like he's having breathing problems.  There's even a section in the strat guide about all the women he can have sex with!  

 

It feels one giant leap below DAI's relationships in terms of maturity.

 

I also find it odd that a community that once wanted Origins 2 for the next DA game now wants them to model their next game after the most static protagoist in the current RPG gen.

 

Add to that so much fantasy boilerplate with no deconstruction, right down to typical dwarves with Scottish accents, and there's not much to recommend it.  It feels like it belongs to another era.

 

The sidequests look well-done.  And engaging, and better-written than the main plot.  That's all I can find to recommend it, and the only thing I might want the devs to look at.

[FKA_Servo]

Considering that most people who buy the games just play default anyway, because actually making a character is work, that's definitely not true. Adding a CC in won't encourage any more people to buy the game in any significant way. 

 

Wouldn't discourage anyone, though. The overwhelming majority of the unwashed masses who play these games don't clamor for changes of any sort on teh 4umz, either. We here are a minority.

 

I can't fathom how adding more choice or more customization is a bad thing in any sort of game that professes to be a RPG. And being able to choose your gender or appearance doesn't preclude having a strong personality or well-developed backstory.

[Steelcan]

Most things, in my estimation.  A lot of that is just preference on my part, but having watched the boyfriend play a good chunk of The Witcher 3 side-by-side with my gaming on Inquisition, I never felt the urge to switch games.

 

Story-wise, I find The Witcher's story convoluted and hard to follow.  My boyfriend actually stopped and restarted for that reason.  He has numerous complaints about the gameplay, as well, with XP being hard to come by and sudden jumps in the static levels of the enemy.  

 

Visually, both have stunning graphics, but stunning graphics are almost something expected with this generation of games.  I like what DAI chose to turn that perfect camera towards.  The Witcher suffers from serious "real is brown" that plagued DA's first two games.  The medieval vilages look authentic, and authentically ugly.  I've never seen such well-rendered pigpens.  The cutscenes are nicely rendered, but there's a lot of them.  Like JRPG a lot.  It looks like a movie sometimes.

 

But for me, the clincher is Geralt himself.  I don't like him.  He's a thirteen-year-old boy's power fantasy.  With boys-only clubhouse of powers that include perfect birth control and immunity to STIs - he's a mutant for consequence-free sex! - and that breathy voice that bad action-movie voice that sounds like he's having breathing problems.  There's even a section in the strat guide about all the women he can have sex with!  

 

It feels one giant leap below DAI's relationships in terms of maturity.

 

I also find it odd that a community that once wanted Origins 2 for the next DA game now wants them to model their next game after the most static protagoist in the current RPG gen.

 

Add to that so much fantasy boilerplate with no deconstruction, right down to typical dwarves with Scottish accents, and there's not much to recommend it.  It feels like it belongs to another era.

 

The sidequests look well-done.  And engaging, and better-written than the main plot.  That's all I can find to recommend it, and the only thing I might want the devs to look at.

so what I'm seeing is not only have you not actually played the game, you are ignoring vast amounts of it, and throwing in things like "deconstruction" as if they are objective goods (ignoring that just because there are dwarves with Scottish accents that doesn't mean anything in terms of deconstruction)

[Vox Draco]

Both games are great. And Quests, Story, NPC (Questgiver etc)-characters are, as far as I am concerned,better, much better in TW3...

 

BUT!

 

If I had to pick one game to take on a deserted island for a year I guess it would be DAI. AS the replay-value is a bit higher there. It's a bit more fun to play different char and experiment with different party-setups than with only playing Geralt once more ... in that regard TW3 is very limited in the long run, and always the same in terms of character-class and levelling that. TW3 is more like a very good book, which you usually don't read again just as you finished it, while DAI has a bit more to offer (to me...) on the gameplay-front...

 

That being said: Bioware, take some money and get some questwriters from CD Red, and see how you fill a world with interesting side-stories not written in a letter lying around in the wilderness. And damn it, look at Novigrad, and really, really think hard about Orlais-Capital-City...see any difference? Thank you for listening, I am waiting eagerly for DA4!

[Rifneno]

I can't fathom how adding more choice or more customization is a bad thing in any sort of game that professes to be a RPG.

Then go back and read one of the many messages about how having a fixed protagonist allows for a lot better character development and even just basic things like other characters being able to say your damn name. It's really not a difficult concept, and if you don't get it then it's your failing, not theirs.

[BioWareM0d13]

I don't think it is fair to compare DA:I and TW3 on what they intentionally did differently.

 

For example the Witcher series is based around an established character from a book series, and while Geralt has friends and potentially a love interest, it is more of a solo adventure than one based around a party. Companions tend to be temporary. In that the DA series and the Witcher are different games. There is nothing wrong with having a preference for either approach, but I think arguing one game is objectively better than the other based on those preferences is flawed.

 

Where it is fair to compare them is where the two series set out to do similar things. A good example is the partially open world approach that DA:I and TW3 used. It is also fair to compare the quality of the writing in either the main or side quests, or the structure of those quests.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

everything?

[Kroitz]

Kiera>Triss>Morrigan>Yen

 

Beeing #1 dad for ciri > Zoltan´s mohawk > Gwent > Calling a random dude drunk through a megascope at 2 am.

[SardaukarElite]

I can't fathom how adding more choice or more customization is a bad thing in any sort of game that professes to be a RPG. And being able to choose your gender or appearance doesn't preclude having a strong personality or well-developed backstory.

 

I love being able to make my own character but the problem with that is there are characters I simply won't make. I like playing defined characters as well because I get to experience other characters.

 

 

 He's a thirteen-year-old boy's power fantasy.  With boys-only clubhouse of powers that include perfect birth control and immunity to STIs - he's a mutant for consequence-free sex!

 

A male power fantasy could exist fine with Geralt leaving diseased pregnant women all over... whatever it's called (Temeria?). That he is a relatively risk free option is probably the closest Witcher gets to interesting gender discussion.