306 réponses à ce sujet

[Erstus]

You are very correct - it's a shame, really. The Dragon Age universe is among my favorites and DAO really immersed me and left a long standing impression in me.

The atmosphere, writing, story, plots, choices and consquences...I could go on. DAI was a major disappointment for me.

[Tython]

I'm not sure what the Op was trying to say here. Going onto a DAI forum and saying they liked W3 better is not going to make you many friends. I played the Dragon Age, Witcher and Mass Effect series'. They are apples and oranges and each one was enjoyable in their own right. Each also had their strengths and weaknesses which I won't go into detail here because it's different for everyone.

 

It's fine you have an opinion that you liked one game over another. There's currently 12 pages of responses to add to your own. What I dislike is when someone says you're wrong because you like this game over that game because of XYZ.

 

I loved DAI but if someone else doesn't, that's fine. They can go play something else. Just don't tell me I'm wrong because I connected to the story and characters enough to replay it a bunch of times.

[shepard0445]

I'm not sure what the Op was trying to say here. Going onto a DAI forum and saying they liked W3 better is not going to make you many friends. I played the Dragon Age, Witcher and Mass Effect series'. They are apples and oranges and each one was enjoyable in their own right. Each also had their strengths and weaknesses which I won't go into detail here because it's different for everyone.

 

It's fine you have an opinion that you liked one game over another. There's currently 12 pages of responses to add to your own. What I dislike is when someone says you're wrong because you like this game over that game because of XYZ.

 

I loved DAI but if someone else doesn't, that's fine. They can go play something else. Just don't tell me I'm wrong because I connected to the story and characters enough to replay it a bunch of times.

I want to point out the problems about DAI and used TW3 and DAO as an exampel to proof that it is possible to make it better. And if i want to make many friends i wouldn´t post my opinion anywere. If a person don´t likes my opinion than we can disscus it and if they like they can feel free to add me to their friends list.

 

Thx for the nice comment.

[shepard0445]

I am sure the most of you have already heard it. The plan on abandoning DAI already.

 

The Trespasser DLC will be the last thing they do for DAI.

 

If this DLC isn´t going to be atleast 50h or have a great story DAI is really lost. 

With a good DLC DAI can get great but i am not so sure that this Dlc is going to  be great enough to save DAI.

[KaiserShep]

50 hours? What the hell. Not even Awakening was anywhere near that long at its paltry 15+. 

[shepard0445]

50 hours? What the hell. Not even Awakening was anywhere near that long at its paltry 15+. 

Some how it must make up for the disapointment DAI was. 

 

And by the side the story of DAI was only around 15h so the last content puplished for it should comprehend this.

 

By the way I know that this is unrealistic but that is what i want to see to save DAI.

[D_Schattenjager]

Let's talk about ignoring facts. You can't access the tavern with the dam controls from any map but the Crestwood map. What the developers could have done doesn't matter, what matters is what's actually in the game. I know, I'm making stuff up again, since you can't refute it with anything but "But you don't know anything about game development". Here's what I do know: That tavern cannot be accessed from anywhere but the Crestwood map. You can't even warp to it, like a camp, you have to walk to it. When you open the dam controls, you can then access areas of the map that were underwater. This means that the environment changes drastically after you open the flood gates, which was the whole point of this little exchange. After you close the formally underwater rift, the environment changes even more.

 

You don't get the fact that since its a separate map so you can potentially access it from Skyhold if you had access to the code (which I am guessing the devs do)

If you are arguing this then any discussion with you on game designing with you is futile because you don't understand the basics. You are asking me to discuss Laplace transformation when you don't show an ability to understand basic Algebra. Thanks but no thanks 

 

Regarding to my original argument --> The Curr Gen console and PC specific Tresspasser DLC has clearly shown how good DAI could have actually been if Prev Gen had been omitted. It justifies everything I said and since this (old gen console support) was the basis of all my argument ... I rest my case 

[Erstus]

I am sure the most of you have already heard it. The plan on abandoning DAI already.
 
The Trespasser DLC will be the last thing they do for DAI.
 
If this DLC isn´t going to be atleast 50h or have a great story DAI is really lost. 
With a good DLC DAI can get great but i am not so sure that this Dlc is going to  be great enough to save DAI.

They are not abandoning DAI...lol. DAI's story is basically finished. What more could they really add? More DLC like Descent, I guess.

Trespasser is an epilogue; an ending to tie up the Inquisition and the Inquisitor's story.

And 50 hours? That's unthinkable.

[robertthebard]

You don't get the fact that since its a separate map so you can potentially access it from Skyhold if you had access to the code (which I am guessing the devs do)
If you are arguing this then any discussion with you on game designing with you is futile because you don't understand the basics. You are asking me to discuss Laplace transformation when you don't show an ability to understand basic Algebra. Thanks but no thanks 
 
Regarding to my original argument --> The Curr Gen console and PC specific Tresspasser DLC has clearly shown how good DAI could have actually been if Prev Gen had been omitted. It justifies everything I said and since this (old gen console support) was the basis of all my argument ... I rest my case 

We're not discussing game development, we're discussing which environments were the best example of changes. You went with some huts not being on fire in the Hinterlands, I went with Crestwood. I understand a lot of things, first and foremost that you don't understand what the dialog is about. I'd go back and copy paste some text, but you'd then accuse me of something else. Again, for the third time, and you know what they say, third time's the charm, even stupid people can pick up clues on the third run, you cannot access that tavern from anywhere but Crestwood, just as you can't access the cave where the formerly underwater lake was from anywhere but Crestwood. However, by your logic, with the proper area codes, I can warp to any location I chose, in any game ever developed, because they all have area codes. I know this to particularly be true in The Witcher, I've designed areas in the Aurora Engine, the one The Witcher started with.

You decided I didn't know anything about game development based on some perverted need to attempt to sell me on how much better the Witcher is. I asked for some video of you selecting the tavern from a world map, and now I don't know anything about basic algebra? What we have here is a fanboy that's backed himself into a corner. You cannot refute what I said, so you try to dismiss it with "you don't know what you're talking about, or about XXX or now YYY", when XXX or YYY have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

So, my take away is, you don't know what environmental changes is, if you don't comprehend that being able to access an area that was underwater, and now isn't, isn't a dramatic environmental change. This is obviously the case, since your only refutation on the point is either "you don't know anything about game design" or "you don't know anything about basic algebra". So how about you explain to me how draining the lake isn't a dramatic environmental change, or the weather changing from constant thunderstorms to having some sunshine mixed in with the rain due to closing the formerly underwater rift isn't a major environmental change? If all you're going to do is the atypical CDPR fanboy "well, the witcher did it better, derp", don't bother, that's not the point of contention here, despite how much you try to deflect it to that.

[KaiserShep]

Some how it must make up for the disapointment DAI was.

And by the side the story of DAI was only around 15h so the last content puplished for it should comprehend this.

By the way I know that this is unrealistic but that is what i want to see to save DAI.

The main story of any of these games is considerably shorter when you beeline to the story milestones, the best example being Mass Effect. The only thing that makes Origins any longer is the fact that you have to backtrack through everything to get out of an area.

[D_Schattenjager]

You decided I didn't know anything about game development based on some perverted need to attempt to sell me on how much better the Witcher is. I asked for some video of you selecting the tavern from a world map, and now I don't know anything about basic algebra? 

 

 

This is obviously the case, since your only refutation on the point is either "you don't know anything about game design" or "you don't know anything about basic algebra". 

 

Once again read what I type fully before bothering to respond. Do you even bother to read anything fully or just pick up half sentences at your convenience to respond? You have shown this in all your responses. You respond to half of my point instead of reading it in entirety and keep coming to wrong conclusions. best example is the quoted lines above. If you can't understand what I am posting don't expect me to glorify your gray cells ... 

 

 

What we have here is a fanboy that's backed himself into a corner. You cannot refute what I said, so you try to dismiss it with "you don't know what you're talking about, or about XXX or now YYY", when XXX or YYY have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

 

And what we have here is someone who thinks that the one who shouts loudest and gets angriest is always right. 

 

 

So, my take away is, you don't know what environmental changes is, if you don't comprehend that being able to access an area that was underwater, and now isn't, isn't a dramatic environmental change. 

 

I have already made my point pretty clear, your examples and comments show that you don't understand the basics and its got nothing to do with game programming also, its basic OOPS theory of class and objects, private and public members/functions etc .... essentially the basics of programming. Nothing wrong about it ... we can't expect everyone to be coding experts ... but you can't seriously expect me to discuss programming to someone who doesn't understand it.

 

Finally I think the basic premise and last line of my previous posts (which you failed to read again) has always said how DAI could have exceeded TW3, so they are not typical CDPR > Bioware responses. You would have got that IF you had bothered to read even one of my posts properly ...   ...

[robertthebard]

Once again read what I type fully before bothering to respond. Do you even bother to read anything fully or just pick up half sentences at your convenience to respond? You have shown this in all your responses. You respond to half of my point instead of reading it in entirety and keep coming to wrong conclusions. best example is the quoted lines above. If you can't understand what I am posting don't expect me to glorify your gray cells ... 
 
 

 
 

And what we have here is someone who thinks that the one who shouts loudest and gets angriest is always right. 
 
 


 
 


I have already made my point pretty clear, your examples and comments show that you don't understand the basics and its got nothing to do with game programming also, its basic OOPS theory of class and objects, private and public members/functions etc .... essentially the basics of programming. Nothing wrong about it ... we can't expect everyone to be coding experts ... but you can't seriously expect me to discuss programming to someone who doesn't understand it.
 
Finally I think the basic premise and last line of my previous posts (which you failed to read again) has always said how DAI could have exceeded TW3, so they are not typical CDPR > Bioware responses. You would have got that IF you had bothered to read even one of my posts properly ...   ...

Allow me to refresh your memory:
 

Dynamic Environment changes



Depending upon how you stabilize an area, you see civilians at campfires, but that is where it stops.

Best example is Hinterlands.

There are a lot of burning, broken and abandoned houses in this area. Once you solve the Refugee issues, you don't see any change in this map, people are still at Crossroads. Now I don't expect the houses to be rebuilt, but it would have been good to show people rebuilding in other areas after you have resolved everything there.



Compare this to W3, where villages are reestablished once you take care of Monsters in the area.



Graphics is not the only thing which has suffered. Size of areas and what they could do in an area has been impacted.

I actually don't mind the armors and all so much, although I feel Hair options could have been better cause it downright dumb to have same options for both men and women.

Source

I know, I don't know how to read, either, right? To this I replied with:

Nope, best example is Crestwood. Evidently, you weren't paying a lot of attention during that map. Close the rift that used to be under the lake, not that draining the lake isn't a major environmental change in and of itself, and check out the weather... Hope you didn't have anything that actually pertained to the game after this misinformation, because I stopped reading here.

Source

From this exchange we're now talking about how much I do or don't know about game design? I get it, you want to be all condescending and such, good luck with that, however, the point/counter point that got this exchange running is presented right here. Get as mad as you like, snip the hell out of my posts all you like, but the Hinterlands isn't the best example of environmental change in DA I. I know, I know, "But that's not what I meant, I was talking on metaphysical levels beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, so it's no wonder you can read exactly what I say, refute it with an obviously better example, and I can still come here and say 'You're wrong' so just deal with it", right?

ETA: I provided links to both posts, so people could see how much more you failed to notice while you were being all metaphysical with it...

[D_Schattenjager]

Allow me to refresh your memory:
 

Source

I know, I don't know how to read, either, right? To this I replied with:



Source

From this exchange we're now talking about how much I do or don't know about game design? I get it, you want to be all condescending and such, good luck with that, however, the point/counter point that got this exchange running is presented right here. Get as mad as you like, snip the hell out of my posts all you like, but the Hinterlands isn't the best example of environmental change in DA I. I know, I know, "But that's not what I meant, I was talking on metaphysical levels beyond the comprehension of mere mortals, so it's no wonder you can read exactly what I say, refute it with an obviously better example, and I can still come here and say 'You're wrong' so just deal with it", right?

ETA: I provided links to both posts, so people could see how much more you failed to notice while you were being all metaphysical with it...

 

You have my pity   ... not anger ...  once again and for last time "Please read what I typed properly" ... 

And you are still ignoring what my basic premise was  cause it suits your misdirected posts 

[robertthebard]

You have my pity   ... not anger ...  once again and for last time "Please read what I typed properly" ... 
And you are still ignoring what my basic premise was  cause it suits your misdirected posts

The information is right there, save your pity. I guess I didn't go all metaphysical to figure out that a few camps showing up here and there in the Hinterlands was a greater environmental change than draining the lake, or closing the main rift in Crestwood. You're right. I looked at what the game showed me, and ran with that. I'm so sorry that with your extensive background in coding, oh wait, that's right, you don't have one, but I digress, didn't allow you to understand that an area that was formerly underwater and is now available for exploration is a greater change than a few camps here and there.

Oh, that's right, it's not what's presented when you can't refute it, it's what, oh yeah: But that tavern isn't a part of Crestwood... However, your premise for this was "The Witcher did it better". I provided the post, you can backtrack the quotes if you want. You'll note I ignored all the other stuff you "missed" to support your premise, such as how columns move through hostile, or potentially hostile territory to blame "last gen support". Hey, guess what: No matter what platform you're on, if you drain a lake, and open up more territory to explore; that's a major environmental change...

[D_Schattenjager]

The information is right there, save your pity. I guess I didn't go all metaphysical to figure out that a few camps showing up here and there in the Hinterlands was a greater environmental change than draining the lake, or closing the main rift in Crestwood. You're right. I looked at what the game showed me, and ran with that. I'm so sorry that with your extensive background in coding, oh wait, that's right, you don't have one, but I digress, didn't allow you to understand that an area that was formerly underwater and is now available for exploration is a greater change than a few camps here and there.

Oh, that's right, it's not what's presented when you can't refute it, it's what, oh yeah: But that tavern isn't a part of Crestwood... However, your premise for this was "The Witcher did it better". I provided the post, you can backtrack the quotes if you want. You'll note I ignored all the other stuff you "missed" to support your premise, such as how columns move through hostile, or potentially hostile territory to blame "last gen support". Hey, guess what: No matter what platform you're on, if you drain a lake, and open up more territory to explore; that's a major environmental change...

Once again ... read what I said about 'my coding background' before you reply  ... you will go a long way in improving the accuracy and content of your posts if you 'read' and 'pay attention' instead of constant blinkered typing

 

I have already debunked all your other points ... so here goes for one last one

------------------------------

Crestwood Tavern is not on Crestwood map, when you open the dam gates in the tavern, what you see happening is on the Tavern's map only. If you open the design coding for the Crestwood, you will probably see two different skies and two different lakes tagged to Crestwood. I have not coded in game engines for a long time, so I can't be more specific but the basic blocks in gaming and non gaming programming are similar, so I know I am not way off

The opening of dam is an event which causes the engine to swap one for another. Same happens when you go into the Caves to close the rift this time for the Sky variable. Its a simple global variable check done when you are transitioning between the two maps or when you are transitioning from anywhere onto Crestwood map itself.

There are similar checks when you enter the Tavern and Chantry in Redcliffe village and also when you enter Valammar. 

Event based changes in a map where the Event does not happen on same map

Doing this level of change while you are on Crestwood map itself requires a lot of simultaneous background threads running when the events are happening. Consoles developed 7 years ago obviously did not have capability to handle this level, so hence they omitted it

There are also several instances where Event on same map causes immediate dynamic change (Camps, Keeps etc ...) plus the changes you do at Skyhold itself ... so obviously the engine could handle such coding. But they could not go beyond a certain limit due to prev console processing limitations.

------------------------------

This is not even complex coding, its quite basic event based programming. You did not demonstrate an ability to understand such simplicity ... 

------------------------------

Also Trespasser which came without prev gen console support has already proven me correct on many levels, so why should I bother proving anything further to you when Bioware content itself supports my view?

Ever tried playing with a few Trials on? Or did you find it too tough? 

Have you seen the host of new options in the Upgrades?

A simple permutation is enough to find the factor by which the possibilities have multiplied just by Upgrades (simple for me i.e.  )

Add to that the different abilities which enemies have by keeping just one trial on. The number of threads running during a map and combat have exponentially multiplied

 

Now, do you think Bioware coded all that complexity in between Thanksgiving 2014 and Labor Day 2015? 

Or

Did the original game already have all of this but they couldn't activate it because of prev gen consoles' computing ability?

 

Occam's Razor says the later, but I doubt you will understand this, since you haven't so far

 

Feel free to assume whatever you want ... I really don't need to prove anything to you ... This was my last post.As much as I loved bashing your nonsense, I enjoy playing DAI a lot more with all the new tricks available ... 

 

P.S: The Bold-Italic line above was my premise and reason for TW3 being better than DAI. You either missed that ,which makes all your ranting quite stupid,

or you are now pretending to miss it, which also makes all your ranting quite stupid. Feel free to take your pick. There isn't a third option because this view of mine has been pretty consistent in all my posts on different threads on BSN and beyond ...

[Giantdeathrobot]

Mate since you haven't read the books and are basing stuff on what you've heard I won't argue. TBH I don't think I would've argued even if you had because I'm bored stiff of people saying how dull the Witcher world is. If you didn't enjoy it, too bad. The world is based on medieval Europe and draws heavily from Eastern European mythology.

And as for the specific question why you might need to read the books to feel more interested in the world, the answer is the same as to why people recommend you read ASoIaF when you start watching Game of Thrones, or why people say read the Tolkien's books when you watch the movies. Because the books came first and are the source material. As a rule they provide more information than a TV show, or a game or a movie. The obvious exception is when books are written based on worlds created for games.

 

I didn't need to read ASOIAF to enjoy AGOT. It made me discover the book series, which I ended up prefering to the show more and more, but as a setting ShowWesteros stands on its own quite well.

 

Same for Film!Middle-Earth. While some things are obviously missing in the Jackson films, it still feels like a proper, self-contained story that requires no additional explanations to be interesting.

 

Less so with Game!Witcherverse. The bestiary is interesting, with wacky stuff such as Botchlings and Plagas of which Dragon Age might use more, but beyond that it fails to do anything of note if you ask me. In three games, Dragon Age has managed to create a large swath of very different cultures (some of them stereotypes to a degree, it is true) which each have complex social systems and a wide range of beliefs and customs regarding non-human races, class differences, handling of magic, and so on.

 

It has also built a highly complex mythology with several layers that the writers peel away as the games go on (albeit they do throw a lot of Ancient Evils in there, I admit). I mean, just look at the Elven Gods stuff. Between Solas, Mythal, Flemeth, the Evanuris, the Veil and all that jazz, there's tons of interesting lore to ponder and debate about. Compare that to how the Witcher games handled the Wild Hunt (bunch of sneering Bad Guys in Sauron lookalike armor out to kidnap Ciri because reasons) and the White Frost (Nebulous Evil Thing that was literally defeated by the Power of Love as an afterthought) and... yeah.

 

Or how the mages vs mundane conflict was portrayed. In Dragon Age, it spanned three games and was the source of much passionate debate in the fandom, to put it midly, because both sides had a point. In The Witcher, the Witch Hunters are literal mustache-twirling villains and the mages are poor, helpless victims helped by Good Guy Geralt. Not much depth or interest here, sadly.

 

Or how rulers are portrayed. Dragon Age has a lot of variety in rulers, as was the case in real life. From the Anoras and Bhelens to the Alistairs and Harrowmonts to the Celenes and Gaspards or Arishoks and Dumars and Zathrians and Merediths, it's got loads of variety in background, attitude, style of rulership, power, etc. After some time in The Witcher, I could hardly distinguish one warmongering, arsehole, Pogrom-happy king from the next, apart from Radovid who stood out by also being a tyrannical madman.

 

Doesn't mean the Witcher games are bad by any means. TW3 was a great game that I enjoyed a lot. But when compared to what Bioware did with Dragon Age, the setting leaves much to be desired IMO. As a backdrop to Geralt's adventures it serves its purposes quite well, but beyond that it lacks some flair I feel. 

[Erstus]

^^^ Good point about the DA universe and also on the Witch-Hunters. They just materialized in the third game with little backstory or context. In comparison with DA's Templar Order which is very well established and is a very grey matter. The Templars have a great deal of pros and cons which makes the their Order and the Chantry so interesting. I would say DA is a darker, and more morally grey universe than the Witcher. Not bashing Witcher, mind you. I love that series and the books.

I do miss the cinamatic dialogues fr Origins and DA2 though. This third person, Skyrim dialogue was a bad feature.

[D_Schattenjager]

TW3 world (as we have seen so far) is much smaller compared to Thedas. There is a scope to do a lot more in Thedas continent. We have barely explored a third of it so far ... Size wise Thedas is comparable to WoW 

[Erstus]

TW3 world (as we have seen so far) is much smaller compared to Thedas. There is a scope to do a lot more in Thedas continent. We have barely explored a third of it so far ... Size wise Thedas is comparable to WoW

I am interested in Zerkannia (?) I believe it is spelled. I hope we see future titles set in the Witcher universe.

[D_Schattenjager]

I believe its covered in the Hexer ... so maybe future games will go there

Still Thedas scope exceeds TW3 by big margin ...

[RepHope]

TW3 world (as we have seen so far) is much smaller compared to Thedas. There is a scope to do a lot more in Thedas continent. We have barely explored a third of it so far ... Size wise Thedas is comparable to WoW 

 

That's partly Sapowski's fault. He never really focused much on any of the other countries on the Continent. Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms were the main focus, although Zerrikanian warrior women did make an appearance. And Geralt wouldn't really have any reason to go to those places, so CDPR never really bothered incorporating them all that much. That said some non-white people showed up in the Hearts of Stone trailer, and CDPR did flesh out the setting by delving more into obscure lands like Hakland, and I believe creating some new ones.

 

I didn't need to read ASOIAF to enjoy AGOT. It made me discover the book series, which I ended up prefering to the show more and more, but as a setting ShowWesteros stands on its own quite well.

 

Same for Film!Middle-Earth. While some things are obviously missing in the Jackson films, it still feels like a proper, self-contained story that requires no additional explanations to be interesting.

 

Less so with Game!Witcherverse. The bestiary is interesting, with wacky stuff such as Botchlings and Plagas of which Dragon Age might use more, but beyond that it fails to do anything of note if you ask me. In three games, Dragon Age has managed to create a large swath of very different cultures (some of them stereotypes to a degree, it is true) which each have complex social systems and a wide range of beliefs and customs regarding non-human races, class differences, handling of magic, and so on.

 

It has also built a highly complex mythology with several layers that the writers peel away as the games go on (albeit they do throw a lot of Ancient Evils in there, I admit). I mean, just look at the Elven Gods stuff. Between Solas, Mythal, Flemeth, the Evanuris, the Veil and all that jazz, there's tons of interesting lore to ponder and debate about. Compare that to how the Witcher games handled the Wild Hunt (bunch of sneering Bad Guys in Sauron lookalike armor out to kidnap Ciri because reasons) and the White Frost (Nebulous Evil Thing that was literally defeated by the Power of Love as an afterthought) and... yeah.

 

Or how the mages vs mundane conflict was portrayed. In Dragon Age, it spanned three games and was the source of much passionate debate in the fandom, to put it midly, because both sides had a point. In The Witcher, the Witch Hunters are literal mustache-twirling villains and the mages are poor, helpless victims helped by Good Guy Geralt. Not much depth or interest here, sadly.

 

Or how rulers are portrayed. Dragon Age has a lot of variety in rulers, as was the case in real life. From the Anoras and Bhelens to the Alistairs and Harrowmonts to the Celenes and Gaspards or Arishoks and Dumars and Zathrians and Merediths, it's got loads of variety in background, attitude, style of rulership, power, etc. After some time in The Witcher, I could hardly distinguish one warmongering, arsehole, Pogrom-happy king from the next, apart from Radovid who stood out by also being a tyrannical madman.

 

Doesn't mean the Witcher games are bad by any means. TW3 was a great game that I enjoyed a lot. But when compared to what Bioware did with Dragon Age, the setting leaves much to be desired IMO. As a backdrop to Geralt's adventures it serves its purposes quite well, but beyond that it lacks some flair I feel. 

 

Lol, as someone who's been there trust me, you get plenty of passionate debate on the CDPR forums about the setting. I do think you're over exaggerating a bit though. DA has darkspawn and the archdemons which are as generically evil as you can get. However Witcher and Dragon Age are very different. DA is high fantasy now, elven gods, dwarven titans, religion, knights in shining armour, evil monsters from under the earth, magical realms all that stuff. Witcher is dark fantasy, it deals with stuff like racism, religious/cultural persecution, war, men vs. monsters, politics, in a way that DA never has. There was virtually nothing shown of the persecution of the elves in DA:I, and the persecution of mages mostly happened off-screen or was laughably done. Compare that to Witcher where you're outright shown people burning on pyres.

 

The best way to sum up the difference is that the Witcherverse is the future Morrigain, Flemeth, and Solas fear, despise, and want to prevent. It's a world where the magic has mostly died out, the elves and dwarves are doomed, the dragons are gone, the protectors of humanity (Witchers/Wardens) are unwanted and unneeded.

 

 

I am interested in Zerkannia (?) I believe it is spelled. I hope we see future titles set in the Witcher universe.

They've mentioned we might. I can't see us returning to the Northern Realms without canonizing an ending. The difference between a North rules by Radovid and one ruled by Djikstra, Emhyr, or Ciri, are vast, and CDPR has always treated imports as more of a gimmick than Bioware has.

[RepHope]

I believe its covered in the Hexer ... so maybe future games will go there

Still Thedas scope exceeds TW3 by big margin ...

 

It's not that Thedas is bigger. It's that the focus has always been on the Northern Realms and Nilfgaard. You've got plenty of other countries, but because they don't involve themselves in the central conflict, they don't receive much attention. CDPR has talked about the other countries on the Continent, even mentioned that there are other Continents to the East and West, as well as wholly different worlds, like what you see in Through Time and Space, like the Aen Elle world, or the Arthurian world.

 

It's just that the focus was always on one specific part of the Continent.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

 

Lol, as someone who's been there trust me, you get plenty of passionate debate on the CDPR forums about the setting. I do think you're over exaggerating a bit though. DA has darkspawn and the archdemons which are as generically evil as you can get. However Witcher and Dragon Age are very different. DA is high fantasy now, elven gods, dwarven titans, religion, knights in shining armour, evil monsters from under the earth, magical realms all that stuff. Witcher is dark fantasy, it deals with stuff like racism, religious/cultural persecution, war, men vs. monsters, politics, in a way that DA never has. There was virtually nothing shown of the persecution of the elves in DA:I, and the persecution of mages mostly happened off-screen or was laughably done. Compare that to Witcher where you're outright shown people burning on pyres.

 

The best way to sum up the difference is that the Witcherverse is the future Morrigain, Flemeth, and Solas fear, despise, and want to prevent. It's a world where the magic has mostly died out, the elves and dwarves are doomed, the dragons are gone, the protectors of humanity (Witchers/Wardens) are unwanted and unneeded.

 

 

 

See, people say TW is dark fantasy, but it still has time travel, teleporters, funny talking trolls, magic cell phones, dimension-traveling elves, world-destroying evils, magic swords, Chosen One types with special blood, powerful ancient elven mages, and a bevy of sorceresses that are each more beautiful than the last (while male sorcerers have boils).

 

Sure, it's less high fantasy than Dragon Age. On that front, we agree. But I don't see them as completely different by any means. AsoIaF is more my idea of dark fantasy, where magic is fairly rare, very mysterious and almost always paid for in blood and executed in the dark corners of the world by people performing occult rituals.

 

As for portraying violence, Inquisition has people having their throat slit on screen, including a completely innocent, protesting girl if you go that route. That's fairly comparable to burning people at the stake in my mind. You can behead people yourself or order them brainwashed or made your personal slaves. The Ghouls and Red Templars are also pretty gruesome if you ask me, considering they were humans once. The series as a whole also very much delves in racism, religious tensions, cultural differences, slavery, blood magic, and all that good stuff. Maybe not quite as much as The Witcher, but I don't personally see that as a marked difference to be honest.

 

I feel the two series are much more alike than their respective hardcore fans want to admit; mind you, this also applies to some Dragon Age fans who portray The Witcher as some sort of braindead dudebro romp oozing machismo where Geralt is a pure male power fantasy, because that view is also wrong in my opinion.

[RepHope]

See, people say TW is dark fantasy, but it still has time travel, teleporters, funny talking trolls, magic cell phones, dimension-traveling elves, world-destroying evils, magic swords, Chosen One types with special blood, powerful ancient elven mages, and a bevy of sorceresses that are each more beautiful than the last (while male sorcerers have boils).

 

Sure, it's less high fantasy than Dragon Age. On that front, we agree. But I don't see them as completely different by any means. AsoIaF is more my idea of dark fantasy, where magic is fairly rare, very mysterious and almost always paid for in blood and executed in the dark corners of the world by people performing occult rituals.

 

As for portraying violence, Inquisition has people having their throat slit on screen, including a completely innocent, protesting girl if you go that route. That's fairly comparable to burning people at the stake in my mind. You can behead people yourself or order them brainwashed or made your personal slaves. The Ghouls and Red Templars are also pretty gruesome if you ask me, considering they were humans once. The series as a whole also very much delves in racism, religious tensions, cultural differences, slavery, blood magic, and all that good stuff. Maybe not quite as much as The Witcher, but I don't personally see that as a marked difference to be honest.

 

I feel the two series are much more alike than their respective hardcore fans want to admit; mind you, this also applies to some Dragon Age fans who portray The Witcher as some sort of braindead dudebro romp oozing machismo where Geralt is a pure male power fantasy, because that view is also wrong in my opinion.

I'd say there is some substantial differences between the two though. In DA and ME, playing as "the Paragon" generally gets you the best reward. All your companions are usually good, or at the very least moralistic. You can improve the lot of the world with hard work and the Power of Friendship, and stuff tends to fall into black and white labels. The villains are either mind-controlled by an Ancient Evil, or indoctrinated by some artifact. (Thankfully Weekes looks to be putting a stop to that, I harbor no hope for Walters, and only some for Gaider).

 

In CDPR games there typically is no "good ending", (although W3 does have something close to one, but it could also be called "selfish") or "good people". Iorveth and Roche are basically the same person on opposite sides, and the elves are pretty much reaping what they sow. Triss selfishly takes advantage of Geralt's amnesia to satisfy her own desires. Yen is basically Morrigain, she only cares about Ciri, and Geralt somewhat. Dandelion is a selfish and self-absorbed ******. Zoltan was a bandit. They're still likeable people with some virtues, but there are no Cassandra's in the mix. Nobody better exemplifies that than the Bloody Baron, one of the best characters I've ever met.

 

 No matter what ending you get someone gets screwed. If Nilfgaard wins, Temeria does ok, but the rest of the North is going to get crushed under a totalitarian, slave-trading, expansionist empire. Even putting Ciri on the throne is a bittersweet ending, and unlike Leliana who is able to overturn decades of tradition just because she wants to, it's never said that Ciri will be successful in her attempt.

 

That said they both touch on similar subjects and are very gritty in how they approach subjects like religion, magic, and race relations. DA is much more optimistic and "lighter" than Witcher though. Love them both though, and Trespasser/Weekes at the helm has reignited my interest in the franchise, after DAI killed it.

 

Gotta laugh at people saying Geralt is a "male power fantasy" especially since W3 punishes you for playing like that with Triss and Yen . He spends most of the time doing someone else's bidding (usually a woman's), getting tricked and everyone makes fun of him for the way he takes Yen's abuse.