306 réponses à ce sujet

[9TailsFox]

I haven't read this whole thread (because reasons) and I haven't played the Witcher (because reasons) but I will say that I watched a few scenes on YT via fluffy llama ninja or fluffy ninja llama whatever, and the voice acting from Triss and Geralt is truly terrible. And the writing was just silly.

That may be a one off but our game has them beat in that department hands down.

I haven't play/read/watch 100h game/book move. But I saw 100 seconds of it and it was terrible all game/book/move is bad. Fox news called they want to hire you. And witcher must be boring they should be striped of emotions and should only do job kill monsters.Doug Cockle Geralts voice actor portraits him perfect, sarcasm without emotion in voice and face. Geralt character done perfect.

[Fredward]

~reads The Witcher 3 in thread title~

 

 

Seriously why aren't other RPG forums plagued by this BS?

[Helios969]

~reads The Witcher 3 in thread title~

 

 

Seriously why aren't other RPG forums plagued by this BS?

Having started to visit TW3 forums I can confirm they are no different.  Same endlessly inane complaints about romance options, previous installments being better, other games superior, blah, blah, blah.

[Helios969]

The problem is, it's the game's job to engage me. It doesn't, or rather, it hasn't, over two installments. I like what CDPR's doing, so I buy their games, but the reality is, if they're not grabbing me, they're not, and they're not. As it stands right now, there are three games installed on this rig, single player, that is, that I haven't finished: The Witcher, The Witcher 2, and Prince of Persia. If I'm going to base my comparisons on that alone, then even the first 2 Assassin's Creed games, along with Brotherhood and Revelations are better than The Witcher, since I've got multiple completions on those as well.

That's the problem with jumping online and trying to portray one game as objectively better than another though, and this isn't directed at the poster I quoted here, but at the thread: The games didn't engage me enough to get me to complete them, but they have obviously engaged others. The whole concept is subjective, since it requires that one finds something that grabs them, and makes them keep playing. I recently purchased KotoR and KotoR 2, and have already completed a Light/Dark run of KotoR, and have the Darkside run done on KotoR 2, with the Light side run about 3/4 of the way through. I'm not even a huge SW fan, but they were on sale, and I was bored, so I got 'em and played 'em, and played 'em. They got my attention, and kept it long enough that I got up to grab a drink the other night, and realized it was 5:30AM, that's how hard they grabbed me, The Witcher has failed to do that, ever. So should I be going on about how bad they are?

Cannot really comment on anything else by CDPR as my only experience is with TW3.  As someone who is a life long fan of Bioware pretty much to the exclusion of every other game series out there, I found the experience wholly satisfying.   Take that for what it's worth.

[robertthebard]

~reads The Witcher 3 in thread title~
 

 
Seriously why aren't other RPG forums plagued by this BS?

Because their mods will lock 'em down and trash 'em, generally speaking. I know when I used to mod an MMO forum, that was our policy. Discussion of games other than the one the forum was for was in Off Topic, or it was moved there or sent to the trash.

[Majestic Jazz]

Witcher 3/DAO > DAI


/end thread

[panzerwzh]

Witcher 3 >DAO>>>DAI>>DA2.

 

My top 5 RPG:

1. Planescape torment

2. Fallout 2

3. BG 2

4. Witcher 3

5. Morrowind/ KOTOR

[TammieAZ]

Witcher 3 >DAO>>>DAI>>DA2.

 

My top 5 RPG:

1. Planescape torment

2. Fallout 2

3. BG 2

4. Witcher 3

5. Morrowind/ KOTOR

 

 

I gave the Witcher 3 a 6/10 

[9TailsFox]

-cut-

 

 

I gave the Witcher 3 a 6/10 

I gave Witcher 3 this was awesome. Wait how much you give DA:I like 3/10.

[Dreadstruck]

Witcher 3 >DAO>>>DAI>>DA2.

 

My top 5 RPG:

1. Planescape torment

2. Fallout 2

3. BG 2

4. Witcher 3

5. Morrowind/ KOTOR

 

I like your taste in RPGs. All of those are 10/10 for me, and yes even the Witcher 3.

 

EDIT: although come to think of it, it really lacks the first Deus Ex!

[panzerwzh]

I gave Witcher 3 this was awesome. Wait how much you give DA:I like 3/10.

1.5～2 tops

[BeauRoger]

Im really happy that The Witcher 3 turned out to be as good as it is, because it has set a new benchmark for these types of RPGs and hopefully forces Bioware to up their game a bit. DA:I and Witcher 3 are of course very comparable and occupy more or less the same rpg space (even if there are obvious differences), and i find many people who violently shake their head and try to tell you that they cant be compared at all are simply trying to take a cheap way out to avoid a constructive analysis and to shield DA:I and Bioware from criticism.

 

I think I agree with what seems to be the majority opinion online (not sure about this forum though) which is that The Witcher 3 is the best rpg in many, many years, and that bioware hasnt really produced a game of comparative quality in a very long time, if ever. For example, i value my Mass Effect experience as highly as my witcher 3 experience personally, but fully admit that The Witcher 3 is a more impressive achievement. When it comes to DA:I, (which i thoroughly enjoyed at the time) more concrete comparisons can obviously be made, such as quest design, world building, player agency, lore, narrative etc. The truth is that DA:I compares unfavorably in most areas that can be compared between the two, with the most glaring difference in quality being in quest design. Sure, apologists can always say that DA:I's "mmo" type side quests that are light on meaningful interaction and story telling and are heavy on looting and repetative mob slaying are not strictly speaking "objectively" worse, but they should expect to be taken about as seriously as a person saying that they prefer the AI in Daikatana to the AI in FEAR, for example. The witcher 3 quest design is so phenomenal that most side quests and contracts could be confused for critical path quests in any other rpg, such is the narrative quality, attention to detail and number of unique areas. I think its the best example to bring up, since the constrast between the witcher 3 and DA:I in this regard (both quality and quanitity) is downright humiliating when looking from biowares perspective. There are pretty big quality differences in other (comparable) areas as well, most notably in world building, overall narrative, task/gameplay variety, enemy variety, etc, but I'll stick to this example in this post.

[London]

Like a poster above me, I have two Witcher games installed that I will never finish, except that the two I have are Witcher 2 and Witcher 3. I paid full price for both, so I bought them with the intentions of liking them; these were not $2 steam sale purchases. At this point I made it maybe 20 hours into each game.

Between Witcher 3 and DAI, I believe that Witcher 3 is the better made game - but I nonetheless do not really enjoy playing it at all. I put nearly 200 hours into DAI because I am more invested in the DA cast and setting. I don't hate Geralt, but he doesn't really interest me either. I like some of Geralts friends, but you do not get much interaction with any of them in Witcher 3. In the 20 hours I played, I spent maybe 10 minutes with Yennefer and 5 minutes with someone from Witcher 2, and have yet to see any of Geralts other friends. I scanned spoilers and know they show up later - but I can't drag myself through hours of ?s to get another 5 or 10 minutes of screen time with someone I might care about.

if you go to CDProjekts forums you will see complaints about this, especially involving Triss and Iorveth, but also the fact that after beating the game the entire cast outside of Geralt are removed from the game so you can't even say hello to them. They also complain that the game does a poor job of making you even like Yennefer at all if you haven't read the books, and Yennefer is supposed to be a big deal. They complain about the clunky control scheme, combat being too easy after you level up, being annoyed by sirens constantly annoying the player later in the game and making the zone feel tedious,the characterization of Ciri the Mary Sue of the series, and more.

I appreciate that Witcher 3 is raising the bar in world and quest design, and I hope some of these technical improvements make their way back to DA4. Until then, I will keep playing the "worse" game because despite it faults, I enjoy it more.

[Al Foley]

Like a poster above me, I have two Witcher games installed that I will never finish, except that the two I have are Witcher 2 and Witcher 3. I paid full price for both, so I bought them with the intentions of liking them; these were not $2 steam sale purchases. At this point I made it maybe 20 hours into each game.

Between Witcher 3 and DAI, I believe that Witcher 3 is the better made game - but I nonetheless do not really enjoy playing it at all. I put nearly 200 hours into DAI because I am more invested in the DA cast and setting. I don't hate Geralt, but he doesn't really interest me either. I like some of Geralts friends, but you do not get much interaction with any of them in Witcher 3. In the 20 hours I played, I spent maybe 10 minutes with Yennefer and 5 minutes with someone from Witcher 2, and have yet to see any of Geralts other friends. I scanned spoilers and know they show up later - but I can't drag myself through hours of ?s to get another 5 or 10 minutes of screen time with someone I might care about.

if you go to CDProjekts forums you will see complaints about this, especially involving Triss and Iorveth, but also the fact that after beating the game the entire cast outside of Geralt are removed from the game so you can't even say hello to them. They also complain that the game does a poor job of making you even like Yennefer at all if you haven't read the books, and Yennefer is supposed to be a big deal. They complain about the clunky control scheme, combat being too easy after you level up, being annoyed by sirens constantly annoying the player later in the game and making the zone feel tedious,the characterization of Ciri the Mary Sue of the series, and more.

I appreciate that Witcher 3 is raising the bar in world and quest design, and I hope some of these technical improvements make their way back to DA4. Until then, I will keep playing the "worse" game because despite it faults, I enjoy it more.

Its funny that you should say it like this because this is the exact way I feel about DA O/ DA 2.  

[Balek-Vriege]

I think you guys are on to something.

 

What really makes someone like an RPG if they're an RPG fan is whether or not they're invested or immersed in the plot/setting/characters.  One RPG may be inferior to another in certain mechanics etc., but people may like one over the other mainly for the sole reason that they're interested in the protagonist, story and supporting characters while not in the latter.

 

Kind of like novels.

 

One of the things that works for and against the DA games is the custom protagonist.  It makes for fairly interesting play and RPing akin to D&D, but for those that don't take advantage of variation the game(s) feel more stale.

 

For all the demands that there must be different races, classes etc. 60-80% people (based on gathered stats) still play Human Male Warrior only in playthroughs.  Same with Mass Effect (Human Male Soldier).

 

I feel a lot of people who only play the above do themselves a disservice especially when comparing against predefined protagonist.  Other races and even genders can spice up the narrative even with little bits of special dialogue and perspectives.

 

In a matchup between a custom Human Male Warrior (Inquisitor) vs. pre-defined Human Male Warrior (Geralt), the custom will always lose out because there will never be as much focus on them sine they're customizable down to the background.

 

Based on the data this is where a lot of players that experience DA/custom character games vs. Witcher games are coming from I think.  They play a Bioware game with their human male warrior and feel their character is boring and done before, romanced the same type of characters etc. (yeah, because you keep playing the same character over a decade  ).  They don't have deep starting relationships or history with anyone because they can't unless they have amnesia, because they're custom protagonists.  They have to develop those over the course of the plot.

 

Then they hop on Witcher 3 and Geralt knows everyone, has history with them and has his own personality.  The characters and world react with eachother more fluidly because of this and having the whole series based on a series of novels doesn't hurt either.

 

I hope this issue doesn't push Bioware to create real pre-defined characters.  They started going that route but failed when DA2 was rushed regardless.  DAI was going that way but the community convinced them to create other options, extending development time.  It may still not have paid off in the end.  Mass Effect Andromeda is going to go the Human only route again so no Asari, Krogan, Salarian or other alien protagonist.

 

One of the things I always enjoyed about the BG and NWN series was that customization.  I would hate to see that all disappear in favour of pleasing the common denominator with human male "insert warrior/rogue" class here.  I know that for DAI, the surprisingly different and pleasing narrative was as Dalish Inquisitor.  That immersed me more in the story than other races and I know I wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much without it.

[Toasted Llama]

Im really happy that The Witcher 3 turned out to be as good as it is, because it has set a new benchmark for these types of RPGs and hopefully forces Bioware to up their game a bit. DA:I and Witcher 3 are of course very comparable and occupy more or less the same rpg space (even if there are obvious differences), and i find many people who violently shake their head and try to tell you that they cant be compared at all are simply trying to take a cheap way out to avoid a constructive analysis and to shield DA:I and Bioware from criticism.

 

I think I agree with what seems to be the majority opinion online (not sure about this forum though) which is that The Witcher 3 is the best rpg in many, many years, and that bioware hasnt really produced a game of comparative quality in a very long time, if ever. For example, i value my Mass Effect experience as highly as my witcher 3 experience personally, but fully admit that The Witcher 3 is a more impressive achievement. When it comes to DA:I, (which i thoroughly enjoyed at the time) more concrete comparisons can obviously be made, such as quest design, world building, player agency, lore, narrative etc. The truth is that DA:I compares unfavorably in most areas that can be compared between the two, with the most glaring difference in quality being in quest design. Sure, apologists can always say that DA:I's "mmo" type side quests that are light on meaningful interaction and story telling and are heavy on looting and repetative mob slaying are not strictly speaking "objectively" worse, but they should expect to be taken about as seriously as a person saying that they prefer the AI in Daikatana to the AI in FEAR, for example. The witcher 3 quest design is so phenomenal that most side quests and contracts could be confused for critical path quests in any other rpg, such is the narrative quality, attention to detail and number of unique areas. I think its the best example to bring up, since the constrast between the witcher 3 and DA:I in this regard (both quality and quanitity) is downright humiliating when looking from biowares perspective. There are pretty big quality differences in other (comparable) areas as well, most notably in world building, overall narrative, task/gameplay variety, enemy variety, etc, but I'll stick to this example in this post.

 

And again a post that is totally not biased or anything and totally doesn't use condescending language to attack DA:I even more.

[Balek-Vriege]

To BeauRoger's point though he's kind of correct.  I feel where Bioware can greatly improve is side quest design.  This has been a beef of mine as long as I can remember with almost all RPGs save for Fallout 1 and 2.

 

It seems the Witcher 3 is the first to break that glass ceiling of "Make side quests feel and play like the main quest."  I would have taken cutscene driven, map encompassing, main quest-like side quests in DAI over the many small side quests we got.

 

That said it's much easier to pull off in the Witcher.  Geralt is a monster hunter who hunts monsters.  That's a very easy character archetype to work with.

 

A Jesus/Joan of Arc character leading armies and the faithful against a harbinger of the apocalypse?  Not so easy to do in side quests, but designing side quests as "optional" main quests would have fit a lot more into DAI's narrative.  The stories for such side quests are there in the explorable areas too.  They're just not taken advantage of to their fullest.

 

Edit:  On the points of player agency and enemy variety I don't agree with.  Leaders delegate and I would have liked to have seen less player agency and more use of advisors and troops in explorable areas instead of the army of one (well, 4).  Enemy variety was fine when the main purpose of the Inquisitor is closing Rifts, fighting demons and stopping agents of Corypheus.  The Inquisitor shouldn't have even been fighting Great Bears.  We just needed the key enemies to be harder and more defined.

[robertthebard]

To BeauRoger's point though he's kind of correct.  I feel where Bioware can greatly improve is side quest design.  This has been a beef of mine as long as I can remember with almost all RPGs save for Fallout 1 and 2.
 
It seems the Witcher 3 is the first to break that glass ceiling of "Make side quests feel and play like the main quest."  I would have taken cutscene driven, map encompassing, main quest-like side quests in DAI over the many small side quests we got.
 
That said it's much easier to pull off in the Witcher.  Geralt is a monster hunter who hunts monsters.  That's a very easy character archetype to work with.
 
A Jesus/Joan of Arc character leading armies and the faithful against a harbinger of the apocalypse?  Not so easy to do in side quests, but designing side quests as "optional" main quests would have fit a lot more into DAI's narrative.  The stories for such side quests are there in the explorable areas too.  They're just not taken advantage of to their fullest.
 
Edit:  On the points of player agency and enemy variety I don't agree with.  Leaders delegate and I would have liked to have seen less player agency and more use of advisors and troops in explorable areas instead of the army of one (well, 4).  Enemy variety was fine when the main purpose of the Inquisitor is closing Rifts, fighting demons and stopping agents of Corypheus.  The Inquisitor shouldn't have even been fighting Great Bears.  We just needed the key enemies to be harder and more defined.

The problem I have with your edit is this: People are already complaining about how empty some of these areas are. While I question the logic of the Hissing Wastes being packed with mobs, all things considered, delegating the clearing of what's there to NPCs with no real involvement from the PC relegates the game to more of a Roller Coaster Tycoon situation, where all you're doing is RTS type stuff, instead of actually developing your character. That's not what I signed up for. There are missions where you can send out the troops to deal with stuff, some of the wyvern quests for example in the Western Approach, I think... However, even if we were limited to "closing rifts", we still have to travel to those rifts. They aren't "teleport to this one, then that one, then that one", in that we have to travel to them, and having the terrain be devoid of any life whatsoever doesn't make for interesting game play; again, see the complaints about the Hissing Wastes.

[Cobra's_back]

I think you guys are on to something.

 

What really makes someone like an RPG if they're an RPG fan is whether or not they're invested or immersed in the plot/setting/characters.  One RPG may be inferior to another in certain mechanics etc., but people may like one over the other mainly for the sole reason that they're interested in the protagonist, story and supporting characters while not in the latter.

 

Kind of like novels.

 

One of the things that works for and against the DA games is the custom protagonist.  It makes for fairly interesting play and RPing akin to D&D, but for those that don't take advantage of variation the game(s) feel more stale.

 

For all the demands that there must be different races, classes etc. 60-80% people (based on gathered stats) still play Human Male Warrior only in playthroughs.  Same with Mass Effect (Human Male Soldier).

 

I feel a lot of people who only play the above do themselves a disservice especially when comparing against predefined protagonist.  Other races and even genders can spice up the narrative even with little bits of special dialogue and perspectives.

 

In a matchup between a custom Human Male Warrior (Inquisitor) vs. pre-defined Human Male Warrior (Geralt), the custom will always lose out because there will never be as much focus on them sine they're customizable down to the background.

 

Based on the data this is where a lot of players that experience DA/custom character games vs. Witcher games are coming from I think.  They play a Bioware game with their human male warrior and feel their character is boring and done before, romanced the same type of characters etc. (yeah, because you keep playing the same character over a decade  ).  They don't have deep starting relationships or history with anyone because they can't unless they have amnesia, because they're custom protagonists.  They have to develop those over the course of the plot.

 

Then they hop on Witcher 3 and Geralt knows everyone, has history with them and has his own personality.  The characters and world react with eachother more fluidly because of this and having the whole series based on a series of novels doesn't hurt either.

 

I hope this issue doesn't push Bioware to create real pre-defined characters.  They started going that route but failed when DA2 was rushed regardless.  DAI was going that way but the community convinced them to create other options, extending development time.  It may still not have paid off in the end.  Mass Effect Andromeda is going to go the Human only route again so no Asari, Krogan, Salarian or other alien protagonist.

 

One of the things I always enjoyed about the BG and NWN series was that customization.  I would hate to see that all disappear in favour of pleasing the common denominator with human male "insert warrior/rogue" class here.  I know that for DAI, the surprisingly different and pleasing narrative was as Dalish Inquisitor.  That immersed me more in the story than other races and I know I wouldn't have enjoyed the game as much without it.

 

A logical and well written post even if I disagree.

 

Here is the deal no game has it all. Bioware fans required  custom protagonist. That is one of its strong suits and a big hit for DAO. Getting rid of that makes it a me-too product.  So I have to question why a person plays a DAO or DAI game if they are not looking for the following:

 

1. Multiple choice protagonist race and gender

 

2. Multiple controllable companions, i.e., controlling and building your companions for combat

 

3. Multiple outcomes not just paragon and renegade

 

Most of the players I know played warrior, rogue and mage with different races. DAO is still a classic per gaming magazines, because of the multiple builds, races and stories. Not that anyone wants to produce a game with DAO graphics for a game of current standards.

 

Therefore, are the people here who love Witcher 3 really big fans of customization and multiple outcomes? Could it be that this group picked the wrong game to play?

 

I know I wouldn't be too interested in an RPG that didn't allow customization, and multiple decisions besides paragon or renegade. I don't play an RPG just to play a game. My favorites at least allow customization of the protagonist or I just don't buy it.

 

Finally, DAI PC version did have some issues, and the removal of the combat wheel looks as if it was designed more for multiplayer. For some that may actually produce an opening for new game designers to produce games with a combat wheel and a strategic combat system. The point is whenever there is an opening some company may find it. All these designers should be trying to find their niche not copy someone else.

[Balek-Vriege]

The problem I have with your edit is this: People are already complaining about how empty some of these areas are. While I question the logic of the Hissing Wastes being packed with mobs, all things considered, delegating the clearing of what's there to NPCs with no real involvement from the PC relegates the game to more of a Roller Coaster Tycoon situation, where all you're doing is RTS type stuff, instead of actually developing your character. That's not what I signed up for. There are missions where you can send out the troops to deal with stuff, some of the wyvern quests for example in the Western Approach, I think... However, even if we were limited to "closing rifts", we still have to travel to those rifts. They aren't "teleport to this one, then that one, then that one", in that we have to travel to them, and having the terrain be devoid of any life whatsoever doesn't make for interesting game play; again, see the complaints about the Hissing Wastes.

 

My issue is that it doesn't immerse or make sense to me how zones, rifts and keeps were handled in DAI compared to what could have been done.

 

For example if DAI was real life, a movie or a novel, do you think the Inquisitor as a figure would be taking keeps/rifts solo with 3 companions?  Do you think the advisors or the Inquisition as whole would even allow for that?

 

No.  In an immersive sensible plot the Inquisitor wouldn't have left Skyhold without hundreds or even thousands of troops close behind after "In your Heart shall Burn."  Rifts would have been taken care of mostly through troops fighting off hoards of enemies with the Inquisitor safetly approaching to close Rifts or take keeps once they're secure.  Doesn't make sense to have someone who's so important to the worlds future doing 90% of the leg work in all zones with three people.  The Inquisitor getting killed by some stray arrow would have literally meant the end of the world.

 

Also the Inquisitor wouldn't have been doing many of the non-combat side quests they were doing.  I thought Hinterlands was a good start for the Herald to prove they're an "agent of the people" in a starter zone (gaining initial power and influence), but the leader role became less evident over the course of explorable maps not more.

 

Now we can't have the Inquisitor do nothing though since it is a game and player agency is needed. 

 

The way I would have done it (posted similar things in other threads) is design everything main quest-like and epic through and through.

 

Rift closing?  Each one would have been a hassle with hoards of demons and with many more involving Crestwood plots like the underwater Rift.  I have floated a Battle of Denerim mechanic a few times where you call Inquisition forces based on camps controlled in the map to help take keeps/rifts. You can choose not to but the fights would be very very demanding.  Super Rifts such as these would have allowed for more "world ending" design and feeling across all zones.

 

Keeps?  Same thing.  More numerous and challenging foes involving the Inquisitor and his troops.  Battle of Denerim-like mechanics again and the option to send ravens back to Skyhold, requesting advisor support (like siege weapons, basically reverse war table).  The ravens may have even been a means to start the quest, with Adamant-like cutscenes and a siege.  Dialogue, speeches, decisions and cutscenes with troops could have been used as well to define how your Inquisitor leads in Battle.

 

Settlements?  A while ago I thought up an idea of having settlements on explorable maps where you claimed them. Once claimed it triggers cutscenes where the Inquisitor would demand an audience with the town's mayor or its people to hear their petitions or problems.  How the Inquisitor speaks, responds and sounds triggers different side quests and war table operations.  Completing these would give the Inquisition control over the town, more power and influence and more troops to use in the reinforcements mechanic.

 

War Table Operations?  Little cutscenes with the Inquisitor making an appearance (with dialogue) in some would have been nice.  Going to the Haven memorial after finishing the operation to make a speech being an example.

 

As it was, there was no development of character for the Inquisitor in many of the side quests, maps and war table operations.  The quests were too small and underdeveloped for the protagonist's place in the world.

 

I don't think people would have cared about player agency if it was done as above.  The cool factor (well I think its cool) would have been enough and fitting.  Remember the leaked pre-alpha video that showed us an early Crestwood where you have to decide the fate of Crestwood or the Keep?  A lot of people were hyped for DAI based on that one video.  It probably was cut early on, along with customizable keeps later, because they were going to take too much development time and resources.  But I can dream.  The Witcher 3 vs. DAI side quest debate would have bee much more interesting though that's for sure.

 

It's unfortunate because I doubt the DA team will get another opportunity because it's most likely passed with DAI.  Unless we get another messianic leader of a continent spanning para-military force or a royal/general leading his/her country

 

@Ghostbusters101:  I 100% agree and was where I wanted to go with my post.  I think a lot of people think they like total customization because of various reasons (like nostalgia of older D&D games like BG/IWD/Torment), but in reality they never take advantage of it (as data suggests) and they would be a lot more happy with RPGs that have totally pre-defined characters.  Ones that fit their usual pick (Human Male Solder/Warrior archetype).  I just hope Bioware keeps making their games better based on customization rather than making a copycat of Witcher 3 because of loud demands to do so.

[robertthebard]

In sitting here reading through the last few posts, another thing occurred to me: TW series isn't an RPG, in the strictest sense. No matter what choices you make over the course of the entire series, there is a predetermined outcome. It is, at the end of the day, based on a series of novels, and will have to, at the end of the series, comply with what the novels have done. No matter what you do, things are going to be set to have happened in a certain way, because they have to follow the original story. In this, it has more in common with Assassin's Creed than DA I.

Spoiler

If you don't find a single feather in Assassin's Creed 2, the method used to "heal" Ezio's mother, she's healed in the next expansion. You can completely ignore the quest to do this, but it's assumed that you did it.

How is this any different than what we get in the Witcher? At the end of the day, it's an Action/Adventure game on rails, because the final destination is predetermined.

[robertthebard]

My issue is that it doesn't immerse or make sense to me how zones, rifts and keeps were handled in DAI compared to what could have been done.
 
For example if DAI was real life, a movie or a novel, do you think the Inquisitor as a figure would be taking keeps/rifts solo with 3 companions?  Do you think the advisors or the Inquisition as whole would even allow for that?
 
No.  In an immersive sensible plot the Inquisitor wouldn't have left Skyhold without hundreds or even thousands of troops close behind after "In your Heart shall Burn."  Rifts would have been taken care of mostly through troops fighting off hoards of enemies with the Inquisitor safetly approaching to close Rifts or take keeps once they're secure.  Doesn't make sense to have someone who's so important to the worlds future doing 90% of the leg work in all zones with three people.  The Inquisitor getting killed by some stray arrow would have literally meant the end of the world.

DA O must have killed you. In fact, just about any CRPG must have killed you. The protagonist is, after all, the driving force of the story, and should be sitting in a castle/keep/ship letting minions deal with stuff, instead of getting their hands dirty.
 

Also the Inquisitor wouldn't have been doing many of the non-combat side quests they were doing.  I thought Hinterlands was a good start for the Herald to prove they're an "agent of the people" in a starter zone (gaining initial power and influence), but the leader role became less evident over the course of explorable maps not more.

Except that it's not just the Inquisition that you're building up, it's the Inquisitor's reputation too. It's pretty hard to build the trust of the people if you're just another monarch type, hiding in your keep.
 

Now we can't have the Inquisitor do nothing though since it is a game and player agency is needed. 
 
The way I would have done it (posted similar things in other threads) is design everything main quest-like and epic through and through.

...and if you had unlimited resources, you could do just that. However, those resources aren't available. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that devs think of content, and presto, it's there. A three minute cutscene in NWNs took me about an hour to produce, after I got a handle on the tools. That's with far less sophisticated tools, and far less sophisticated needs, just as lip syncing, VA recordings, getting the two to mesh as accurately as possible, setting up the stage for the cutscene, which isn't necessarily where the actors are standing, etc etc. All of that costs money. So RPers take what they're given, and RP reasons to be out there getting their hands dirty, aside from the already stated: how much more boring can this get? All I do is sit in Skyhold, sending out troops, then I log out, and play a game where I can actually play for a while, then log in and rinse and repeat. A lot of people would cut out the middle man, and frankly, we already have our fair share of people going "it's an offline MMO"...
 

Rift closing?  Each one would have been a hassle with hoards of demons and with many more involving Crestwood plots like the underwater Rift.  I have floated a Battle of Denerim mechanic a few times where you call Inquisition forces based on camps controlled in the map to help take keeps/rifts. You can choose not to but the fights would be very very demanding.  Super Rifts such as these would have allowed for more "world ending" design and feeling across all zones.
 
Keeps?  Same thing.  More numerous and challenging foes involving the Inquisitor and his troops.  Battle of Denerim-like mechanics again and the option to send ravens back to Skyhold, requesting advisor support (like siege weapons, basically reverse war table).  The ravens may have even been a means to start the quest, with Adamant-like cutscenes and a siege.  Dialogue, speeches, decisions and cutscenes with troops could have been used as well to define how your Inquisitor leads in Battle.
 
Settlements?  A while ago I thought up an idea of having settlements on explorable maps where you claimed them. Once claimed it triggers cutscenes where the Inquisitor would demand an audience with the town's mayor or its people to hear their petitions or problems.  How the Inquisitor speaks, responds and sounds triggers different side quests and war table operations.  Completing these would give the Inquisition control over the town, more power and influence and more troops to use in the reinforcements mechanic.
 
War Table Operations?  Little cutscenes with the Inquisitor making an appearance (with dialogue) in some would have been nice.  Going to the Haven memorial after finishing the operation to make a speech being an example.
 
As it was, there was no development of character for the Inquisitor in many of the side quests, maps and war table operations.  The quests were too small and underdeveloped for the protagonist's place in the world.
 
I don't think people would have cared about player agency if it was done as above.  The cool factor (well I think its cool) would have been enough and fitting.  Remember the leaked pre-alpha video that showed us an early Crestwood where you have to decide the fate of Crestwood or the Keep?  A lot of people were hyped for DAI based on that one video.  It probably was cut early on, along with customizable keeps later, because they were going to take too much development time and resources.  But I can dream.  The Witcher 3 vs. DAI side quest debate would have bee much more interesting though that's for sure.
 
It's unfortunate because I doubt the DA team will get another opportunity because it's most likely passed with DAI.  Unless we get another messianic leader of a continent spanning para-military force or a royal/general leading his/her country.

Touched on most of this in my last comment above. Frankly, though, that's not the game I was looking for, and it's not the kind of game that BioWare puts out. People that are looking for those kinds of games tend to gravitate to them, and it's sad, because I don't even have an example to give; they don't interest me at all.

[Shaftell]

FACT: Witcher 3 is a better made game. More interactive world. More attention to detail in making each encounter personal with cut scenes.
OPINION: it doesn't necessarily mean it's the more enjoyable game. I personally loved it, but there's no point comparing these games, they're nothing alike. I felt like DAI is great on its own right, however I felt they tried to be a Jack of all trades that didn't fully succeed. The open world seems empty. Skyhold seems unfinished. The war table was not implemented to its full potential. Not enough armor choices. I can go on and on.
You don't have to like one over the other, this is a great time for RPGs because companies are taking note. CDPR really had lots of quality in building a game to its full potential and its attention to detail. Everyone will have to raise their expectations and devs will have to deliver. Happy gaming everyone :-)

[Balek-Vriege]

In sitting here reading through the last few posts, another thing occurred to me: TW series isn't an RPG, in the strictest sense. No matter what choices you make over the course of the entire series, there is a predetermined outcome. It is, at the end of the day, based on a series of novels, and will have to, at the end of the series, comply with what the novels have done. No matter what you do, things are going to be set to have happened in a certain way, because they have to follow the original story. In this, it has more in common with Assassin's Creed than DA I.

Spoiler

If you don't find a single feather in Assassin's Creed 2, the method used to "heal" Ezio's mother, she's healed in the next expansion. You can completely ignore the quest to do this, but it's assumed that you did it.

How is this any different than what we get in the Witcher? At the end of the day, it's an Action/Adventure game on rails, because the final destination is predetermined.

 

Very true.  To be honest many RPG series before Mass Effect started save imports suffered from this, with huge canon arguments breaking out between installments.  People fighting for their playthrough to become official so the sequel makes more sense for them.  Canon was usually limited to mostly generalities though, with dialogue options to help define your previous playthrough instead of a save.

 

NPC: "Too bad so and so died back in the day"

 

PC:  "I think you're wrong, so and so escaped based off recent historical accounts"

 

NPC:  "Oh yeah they did." 

 

So I still consider the Witcher series an Action/Adventure RPG because of that. Even if your decisions really have no impact one way or the other.  For a modern RPG series that was also trying to include viable save import functions they may have failed on that front.  They sacrificed player choice for plot opportunities rather than plot opportunities for player choice like Bioware (HoF).  The only time Bioware has done the former in a big way was with Leliana's revival if she was dead (thought dead anyways).

 

On the topic of your last post in response to me about player agency etc.  I don't believe that game has truly been made where you take control of a leader and truly lead armies and people in a RPG format.  It's a big undertaking but I think would be very rewarding and well received.  I know I have been waiting for it since getting a stronghold in BG2.  DAI is as close to that as any RPG has gotten and I think a lot of people may have been disappointed that it didn't go that far (looking at complaints after the pre-alpha Crestwood features failed to materialize ingame).

 

DAO it was understandable to not have an army or army mechanics, because you weren't a leader of one.  You were two lonely Wardens, cut off from Orlais GWs, with some other companions using treaties and favours to unite Ferelden to fight the Blight.  In the end we actually got a more epic and immersive battle in the Battle of Denerim than we got in DAI (Adamant Fortress was pretty cool though).

 

In Inquisition we have hundreds, then thousands, then probably tens of thousands of troops for most of the game.  However, we never see or are shown them at any time other than a brief cutscene at Adamant Fortress, before the Arbor wilds and looking down on army encampments from Skyhold.

 

But I totally agree.  Such a game would take so many resources and development time that you could risk the game itself.  It looked like the DA team was aiming for such a game, but cut most of it out because it would have eaten up their entire budget.

 

Edit:  But yeah most CRPGs have killed me when it comes to wanting an RPG as I described.  Give me my 4X RPG already!!!  I think I'm going to be waiting a long time or I will have settle with DAI or Mass Effect Andromeda the way it sounds.

[robertthebard]

Very true.  To be honest many RPG series before Mass Effect started save imports suffered from this, with huge canon arguments breaking out between installments.  People fighting for their playthrough to become official so the sequel makes more sense for them.  Canon was usually limited to mostly generalities though, with dialogue options to help define your previous playthrough instead of a save.
 
NPC: "Too bad so and so died back in the day"
 
PC:  "I think you're wrong, so and so escaped based off recent historical accounts"
 
NPC:  "Oh yeah they did." 
 
So I still consider the Witcher series an Action/Adventure RPG because of that. Even if your decisions really have no impact one way or the other.  For a modern RPG series that was also trying to include viable save import functions they may have failed on that front.  They sacrificed player choice for plot opportunities rather than plot opportunities for player choice like Bioware (HoF).  The only time Bioware has done the former in a big way was with Leliana's revival if she was dead (thought dead anyways).
 
On the topic of your last post in response to me about player agency etc.  I don't believe that game has truly been made where you take control of a leader and truly lead armies and people in a RPG format.  It's a big undertaking but I think would be very rewarding and well received.  I know I have been waiting for it since getting a stronghold in BG2.  DAI is as close to that as any RPG has gotten and I think a lot of people may have been disappointed that it did go that far (looking at complaints after the pre-alpha Crestwood features failed to materialize ingame).
 
DAO it was understandable to not have an army or army mechanics, because you weren't a leader of one.  You were two lonely Wardens, cut off from Orlais GWs, with some other companions using treaties and favours to unite Ferelden to fight the Blight.  In the end we actually got a more epic and immersive battle in the Battle of Denerim than we got in DAI (Adamant Fortress was pretty cool though).
 
In Inquisition we have hundreds, then thousands, then probably tens of thousands of troops for most of the game.  However, we never see or are shown them at any time other than a brief cutscene at Adamant Fortress, before the Arbor wilds and looking down on army encampments from Skyhold.
 
But I totally agree.  Such a game would take so many resources and development time that you could risk the game itself.  It looked like the DA team was aiming for such a game, but cut most of it out because it would have eaten up their entire budget.
 
Edit:  But yeah most CRPGs have killed me when it comes to wanting an RPG as I described.  Give me my 4X RPG already!!!  I think I'm going to be waiting a long time or I will have settle with DAI or Mass Effect Andromeda the way it sounds.

In the Battle of Denerim, we had 5 armies? Ferelden's forces, Red Cliffe's forces, elves/werewolves, dwarves/golems, mages/Templars. At that point, we also knew all we were required to do was slay the archdemon, so, by what you presented previously, we should have hung out at the back, and let everyone else deal with the darkspawn. It's a genre specific problem, not a BW problem per se: The protagonist is always the only one that can get anything done. It goes all the way back to pen and paper table top, and even novels.