306 réponses à ce sujet

[Balek-Vriege]

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.

 

 

Actually DAO handled the battle of Denerim perfectly imo.  By this point the protagonist has true power and armies ready to complete the narrative in a climactic battle.  A battle where you can summon allied armies to your side to help you reach the precipice of Fort Drakon and fulfill your purpose as a Grey Warden.  In which there are only 3? (or just you and Alistair by this point can't remember) in Ferelden.  There was no room for the Wardens to not be involved in the battle since its likely the Darkspawn could win if the Archdemon isn't slain before the battle is over (Think about the events of DAO's Darkspawn DLC and how that turned out for Denerim, Ferelden and Southern Thedas when the Archdemon was saved).  There needed to be more of that in DAI.

 

Enough player agency that its best for the protagonist to be present and involved in the battle, but not so much that the narrative artificially ignores the fact that you have soldiers.  A lot of them in fact.

 

My reasoning isn't to have us just lead from the back of our forces and let them do everything.  I want it to be the reason to have immersive and epic side stories where the Inquisitor can lead his/her forces from the front, have opportunities to speak/charge in with the troops, give speeches to the people of Southern Thedas while also still being challenged by combat by facing overwhelming numbers (not that DAI content was challenging save for JoH  ).  Map design and quests that really give you a feeling that the Inquisition is needed and the world is in fact ending.

 

That's a lot better than picking up codexes here and there that write about possible plots that could have been played.  Running fairly simple quests more fitting for the local sheep herder than the messianic leader of the Inquisition.  Better than taking keeps with only 10-20 Bandits/Venatori/Red Templars in them so that a party of 4 can take them.

 

Part of the problem is that RPGs stick to this old mentality in very big overarching plots.  Before it was impossible a decade ago due to technology limits.  That excuse is gone save for resource, budget and time reasons.  When they don't design big around big characters they scale the world and the story down until it doesn't have the impact it should.  I think this is what happened to DAI open world and why it was disappointing to many.  Skyrim also did this when it came to the Dovahkiin.  Lots of potential wasted.

 

You will notice in modern movies (technology limits overcome) and in novels since forever, that protagonist who are in positions of power (not deposed etc.), do lead armies and their characters are still able to develop with much of their personality being shaped by how they lead and the decisions they make.  Rather than sitting by campfires talking to companions although there's that too.

 

I just wish that with the technology of today game developers would try harder to catch up with other mediums.  RPGs don't have to follow the D&D run of the muck adventuring design for combat and plot advancement (table top doesn't even do this if a DM is imaginative enough).  It sometimes has the opposite effect where trying to conform to player agency limits hurts the narrative.  Especially for the reasons I have previously stated with the nature of Inquisitor-like protagonists.

 

Basically my point is that it doesn't have to be a false design choice between "You and three companions do everything in the game alone" and "All your supporting characters and extras do everything for you."  There's a third choice of "You and your three companions do many things in the game where supporting cast joins in where it makes sense."

[robertthebard]

Actually DAO handled the battle of Denerim perfectly imo.  By this point the protagonist has true power and armies ready to complete the narrative in a climactic battle.  A battle where you can summon allied armies to your side to help you reach the precipice of Fort Drakon and fulfill your purpose as a Grey Warden.  In which there are only 3? (or just you and Alistair by this point can't remember) in Ferelden.  There was no room for the Wardens to not be involved in the battle since its likely the Darkspawn could win if the Archdemon isn't slain before the battle is over (Think about the events of DAO's Darkspawn DLC and how that turned out for Denerim, Ferelden and Southern Thedas when the Archdemon was saved).  There needed to be more of that in DAI.
 
Enough player agency that its best for the protagonist to be present and involved in the battle, but not so much that the narrative artificially ignores the fact that you have soldiers.  A lot of them in fact.
 
My reasoning isn't to have us just lead from the back of our forces and let them do everything.  I want it to be the reason to have immersive and epic side stories where the Inquisitor can lead his/her forces from the front, have opportunities to speak/charge in with the troops, give speeches to the people of Southern Thedas while also still being challenged by combat by facing overwhelming numbers (not that DAI content was challenging save for JoH  ).  Map design and quests that really give you a feeling that the Inquisition is needed and the world is in fact ending.
 
That's a lot better than picking up codexes here and there that write about possible plots that could have been played.  Running fairly simple quests more fitting for the local sheep herder than the messianic leader of the Inquisition.  Better than taking keeps with only 10-20 Bandits/Venatori/Red Templars in them so that a party of 4 can take them.
 
Part of the problem is that RPGs stick to this old mentality in very big overarching plots.  Before it was impossible a decade ago due to technology limits.  That excuse is gone save for resource, budget and time reasons.  When they don't design big around big characters they scale the world and the story down until it doesn't have the impact it should.  I think this is what happened to DAI open world and why it was disappointing to many.  Skyrim also did this when it came to the Dovahkiin.  Lots of potential wasted.
 
You will notice in modern movies (technology limits overcome) and in novels since forever, that protagonist who are in positions of power (not deposed etc.), do lead armies and their characters are still able to develop with much of their personality being shaped by how they lead and the decisions they make.  Rather than sitting by campfires talking to companions although there's that too.
 
I just wish that with the technology of today game developers would try harder to catch up with other mediums.  RPGs don't have to follow the D&D run of the muck adventuring design for combat and plot advancement (table top doesn't even do this if a DM is imaginative enough).  It sometimes has the opposite effect where trying to conform to player agency limits hurts the narrative.  Especially for the reasons I have previously stated with the nature of Inquisitor-like protagonists.
 
Basically my point is that it doesn't have to be a false design choice between "You and three companions do everything in the game alone" and "All your supporting characters and extras do everything for you."  There's a third choice of "You and your three companions do many things in the game where supporting cast joins in where it makes sense."

Yet this contradicts the "The Inquisitor should never have to fight a bear" from a few pages ago, doesn't it? Here's the way it comes across to me: The Inquisitor shouldn't be putting himself at risk until it's time to close the rift, but, it's perfectly fine for the only person/persons that can actually end the Blight, with full knowledge that they are the only ones that can, to be fighting on the front lines to get to the archdemon. These two conditions are contradictory at the very core. If the protagonist shouldn't be in danger until the last minute, then they shouldn't be in danger until the last minute, not "Well, we have an army, so go ahead and go first, we'll come when you call".

[Balek-Vriege]

Yet this contradicts the "The Inquisitor should never have to fight a bear" from a few pages ago, doesn't it? Here's the way it comes across to me: The Inquisitor shouldn't be putting himself at risk until it's time to close the rift, but, it's perfectly fine for the only person/persons that can actually end the Blight, with full knowledge that they are the only ones that can, to be fighting on the front lines to get to the archdemon. These two conditions are contradictory at the very core. If the protagonist shouldn't be in danger until the last minute, then they shouldn't be in danger until the last minute, not "Well, we have an army, so go ahead and go first, we'll come when you call".

 

You misunderstood what the reference to fighting Great Bears was about.  In my original post edit I made note of two issues with the post I was replying to after agreeing on side quests being lackluster.  The Great Bear point pertains to the variety of enemies/monsters.  I guess my point was that I didn't want to be fighting various animals that don't make sense.  However, the post I was replying too could have been talking about enemy variety among factions (Venatori, Red Templars, Demons) which I would agree with.

 

Secondly, I already explained why DAO and the HoF are different compared to DAI and the Inquisitor and why less (or a different kind) of player agency is required.  Less open world designed around a party of 4.  More open world designed around a party of 4 with the possibility and inclusion of many allied/enemy NPCs.  I will go over it again though.

 

In DAO you had a total of 2 wardens + Morrigan+ other companions + a few merchant whatevers traveling with you.  The allies you pick up along the way are not your army to run around Ferelden with you.  They agree to help when the time comes to fight the Archdemon and our busy licking their own wounds after the Wardens help them.  They do help out when the Archdemon arrives in Denerim with the Darkspawn.  The player is able to command his allies as reinforcements while they head to Fort Drakon to slay the Archdemon.  A job only GWs can do which there are only 1-3 left in Ferelden (all the player agency you really need).  Full player agency for most of the game with your companions makes sense as you are alone.  However, you have the option to summon reinforcements to your side to take off the pressure from Darkspawn armies endgame.

 

This optionally lessens player agency in the purest sense, which most people (even DA Devs it seems as DA2/DAI shows) hold DA games to if  the pre-release community complaints of Advisors even existing or DAI mission/open world design are anything to go by.  Yet the Battle of Denerim was fun, immersive and more epic because you could call allies to help you reach Fort Dakkon.  That meant much bigger encounters with Darkspawn soldiers and waves of them to battle.  Following the narrative this way more than limiting it because of "player agency" made the endgame more fun and realistic to play. Rather than scaling back the scale of the battle so it can be taken easily by a small party with sporadic allies here and there not coming close to being numerically representative or as effective as they should be.

 

In DAI we do have an army.  Arguably pre-Skyhold we do not have command of it.  As the Herald pre-Skyhold, we're more of a rallying figurehead that's supposedly chosen by Andraste and the Maker.  So the nature of the quests in the Hinterlands, Mire and the Storm Coast made sense being small, character driven quests for the most part.  The Advisors were truly the ones in charge asking for your advice whenever they hit a stalemate.

 

Once we have Skyhold and are appointed Inquisitor, the protagonist is in the same position that our HoF was in by the Battle of Denerim, but with even more control over his/her forces plot wise.  Like I said in another post, the Inquisitor is now the leader of a para-military force numbering in the hundreds, thousands if not tens of thousands.  The protagonist is the only one that can close rifts and therefore truly stabilize regions (all the player agency you really need). So the Inquisitor's presence is required before Inquisition forces can truly take control of regions, as what would the point to clearing out rifts that leak infinite amounts of demons, if the Inquisitor isn't around to close them in a timely fashion?

 

This was a golden opportunity to feature Battle of Denerim-like mechanics and other ideas I mentioned in all open world post Skyhold (or even before but again I give that a pass).  Bigger battles, bigger quest design, bigger ramifications, bigger settlement quests and bigger encounters.  Instead our Inquisitor felt more like your common adventurer with absolutely no political or military power while in explorable areas (save for dialogue). Most likely due to artificial player agency limits where the main party must do everything alone or the lack of development resources/time.  The end result is that open world doesn't really work in DAI.  Personally my first playthrough was fine until Exalted Plains, but my 2nd and 3rd playthrough were pretty tedious when it came to open world completion. (completionist playthroughs unfortunately).

 

Sure we took keeps, killed dragons and closed rifts all by our lonesome.  We could be in combat right next to a camp with absolutely zero inquisition forces even noticing their Herald is under attack too. However, this didn't add or develop the narrative of the region, the Inquisition or the Inquisitor, but took away from it compared to what could have been.

 

If the DLC news is true I'm hoping a Qunari offensive on Skyhold and the Inquisition (maybe even a full invasion), provides an opportunity to add in some of what I feel this game needed quest design wise.

[Majestic Jazz]

You misunderstood what the reference to fighting Great Bears was about.  In my original post edit I made note of two issues with the post I was replying to after agreeing on side quests being lackluster.  The Great Bear point pertains to the variety of enemies/monsters.  I guess my point was that I didn't want to be fighting various animals that don't make sense.  However, the post I was replying too could have been talking about enemy variety among factions (Venatori, Red Templars, Demons) which I would agree with.

 

Secondly, I already explained why DAO and the HoF are different compared to DAI and the Inquisitor and why less (or a different kind) of player agency is required.  Less open world designed around a party of 4.  More open world designed around a party of 4 with the possibility and inclusion of many allied/enemy NPCs.  I will go over it again though.

 

In DAO you had a total of 2 wardens + Morrigan+ other companions + a few merchant whatevers traveling with you.  The allies you pick up along the way are not your army to run around Ferelden with you.  They agree to help when the time comes to fight the Archdemon and our busy licking their own wounds after the Wardens help them.  They do help out when the Archdemon arrives in Denerim with the Darkspawn.  The player is able to command his allies as reinforcements while they head to Fort Drakon to slay the Archdemon.  A job only GWs can do which there are only 1-3 left in Ferelden (all the player agency you really need).  Full player agency for most of the game with your companions makes sense as you are alone.  However, you have the option to summon reinforcements to your side to take off the pressure from Darkspawn armies endgame.

 

This optionally lessens player agency in the purest sense, which most people (even DA Devs it seems as DA2/DAI shows) hold DA games to if  the pre-release community complaints of Advisors even existing or DAI mission/open world design are anything to go by.  Yet the Battle of Denerim was fun, immersive and more epic because you could call allies to help you reach Fort Dakkon.  That meant much bigger encounters with Darkspawn soldiers and waves of them to battle.  Following the narrative this way more than limiting it because of "player agency" made the endgame more fun and realistic to play. Rather than scaling back the scale of the battle so it can be taken easily by a small party with sporadic allies here and there not coming close to being numerically representative or as effective as they should be.

 

In DAI we do have an army.  Arguably pre-Skyhold we do not have command of it.  As the Herald pre-Skyhold, we're more of a rallying figurehead that's supposedly chosen by Andraste and the Maker.  So the nature of the quests in the Hinterlands, Mire and the Storm Coast made sense being small, character driven quests for the most part.  The Advisors were truly the ones in charge asking for your advice whenever they hit a stalemate.

 

Once we have Skyhold and are appointed Inquisitor, the protagonist is in the same position that our HoF was in by the Battle of Denerim, but with even more control over his/her forces plot wise.  Like I said in another post, the Inquisitor is now the leader of a para-military force numbering in the hundreds, thousands if not tens of thousands.  The protagonist is the only one that can close rifts and therefore truly stabilize regions (all the player agency you really need). So the Inquisitor's presence is required before Inquisition forces can truly take control of regions, as what would the point to clearing out rifts that leak infinite amounts of demons, if the Inquisitor isn't around to close them in a timely fashion?

 

This was a golden opportunity to feature Battle of Denerim-like mechanics and other ideas I mentioned in all open world post Skyhold (or even before but again I give that a pass).  Bigger battles, bigger quest design, bigger ramifications, bigger settlement quests and bigger encounters.  Instead our Inquisitor felt more like your common adventurer with absolutely no political or military power while in explorable areas (save for dialogue). Most likely due to artificial player agency limits where the main party must do everything alone or the lack of development resources/time.  The end result is that open world doesn't really work in DAI.  Personally my first playthrough was fine until Exalted Plains, but my 2nd and 3rd playthrough were pretty tedious when it came to open world completion. (completionist playthroughs unfortunately).

 

Sure we took keeps, killed dragons and closed rifts all by our lonesome.  We could be in combat right next to a camp with absolutely zero inquisition forces even noticing their Herald is under attack too. However, this didn't add or develop the narrative of the region, the Inquisition or the Inquisitor, but took away from it compared to what could have been.

 

If the DLC news is true I'm hoping a Qunari offensive on Skyhold and the Inquisition (maybe even a full invasion), provides an opportunity to add in some of what I feel this game needed quest design wise.

 

 

Great post man, I am quoting you for emphasis. 

[panzerwzh]

IMHO,Witcher series perfectly demonstrates human's behaviors and reactions to poverty,racism social class and other mature social/historical themes within a mature, consistent and believable context. While DA series fails to keep its own lore/identity consistent in that regards. DAO has provide a solid foundation of a grim "medieval"-ish fantasy setting while DA2 and DAI failed to explore such setting. Instead, DA2 and DAI's world is just a beautiful "medieval-sh" facade of a 21 century core value system. Those inconsistencies castrates DA series' depth and complexity to address maturate issues in a believable way.

 

A very good summary of this topic:

[Shaftell]

LOL, I must be the only rpg fan who doesn't get TW3. That's because I got stuck in TW2 in the Kayran fight and lost all motivation to go on. Unless someone tells me that TW3 has no boss fights with prescripted combat moves (basically that amounted to a sequence of QTEs) I'm not going to play it. Too bad, I like the world and I'd probably like the story.

Having said that, Bioware should take some inspiration from the way choices and consequences were handled in TW games.

There's none of that so you will be fine :-)

[Kantr]

Do people go to CDPR's forums and bash The Witcher 3 by saying that DA:I is better?

[9TailsFox]

Do people go to CDPR's forums and bash The Witcher 3 by saying that DA:I is better?

No we still bash DA:I because Witcher is better. You don't even need 3, 2 is better or even 1.

[Kantr]

No we still bash DA:I because Witcher is better. You don't even need 3, 2 is better or even 1.

Whats that got to do with what I asked?

[9TailsFox]

Whats that got to do with what I asked?

 

Everything, you asked:

Do people go to CDPR's forums and bash The Witcher 3 by saying that DA:I is better?

[Kantr]

Everything, you asked:

I didnt ask which game was better or why people talk about why they dislike the game.

[robertthebard]

No we still bash DA:I because Witcher is better. You don't even need 3, 2 is better or even 1.

Based on my own criteria, the ability to finish the game at all, TW 1 and 2 suck, compared to KotoR and KotoR 2, let alone DA anything. Why? Because I have yet to finish either of the two Witcher games I own, and I have 2 KotoR and Kotor 2 runs in the books, despite owning both games for a considerably shorter amount of time. Therefore, based entirely on the fact that I have more games under my forum pic than you do, your opinion is wrong.

[Corto81]

Do people go to CDPR's forums and bash The Witcher 3 by saying that DA:I is better?

 

Not really.
There's a lot of criticism and some of it is borderline hate because "story isn't centered on politics" or "TW3 is too different from TW2" etc.

The warranted criticism is being replied to by CDPR people and most of it is being fixed ASAP (huge patch coming up fixing basically all the issues people had with the inventory, character movement, etc.).

Witcher 3 isn't perfect. But it's definitely a game I'd recommend to anyone and a game which I'm sure most people who would give it a fair chance would absolutely love.

 

But nobody says DA:I is better that TW3 or anything like that.
Because quite honestly, as a huge fan of DA:O - it hurts to say - DA:I is simply not in the same league with TW3.

World-building, writing, character depth, etc. Witcher just blows it out of the water.

 

I'm a huge fan of both franchises. But one is improving on their existing plans on what a deep, successful RPG looks like and wants to sell more units by making a better RPG... And to add to it, all their DLC content is free, they communicate and fix issues etx.

The other is trying to sell more units by streamlining their franchise, trying to draw in more "casual" (read:non-RPG) gamers, putting out a shallow, non-believable world with stereotyped characters... And to add to it, leaves old-gen fans out to dry, charges for everything and anything, and has some really rather shady business decisions when it comes how to treat their fans.

[9TailsFox]

Based on my own criteria, the ability to finish the game at all, TW 1 and 2 suck, compared to KotoR and KotoR 2, let alone DA anything. Why? Because I have yet to finish either of the two Witcher games I own, and I have 2 KotoR and Kotor 2 runs in the books, despite owning both games for a considerably shorter amount of time. Therefore, based entirely on the fact that I have more games under my forum pic than you do, your opinion is wrong.

This is my bigest problem with DA:I game just boring world is empty and worst level in game Hinterlands is first location makes it even worse. Based on my criteria's yes KotoR great same quality as witcher games and what I expect from game. KotR 2 was meh it was fine but don't know, it's just missing something, it's like playing DA2 after DA:O it's good game it's just not the same feeling.

 

You have more icons then me so my opinions is invalid, ok then good for you bad for me.

[blahblahblah]

Not really.
There's a lot of criticism and some of it is borderline hate because "story isn't centered on politics" or "TW3 is too different from TW2" etc.

The warranted criticism is being replied to by CDPR people and most of it is being fixed ASAP (huge patch coming up fixing basically all the issues people had with the inventory, character movement, etc.).

Witcher 3 isn't perfect. But it's definitely a game I'd recommend to anyone and a game which I'm sure most people who would give it a fair chance would absolutely love.

 

But nobody says DA:I is better that TW3 or anything like that.
Because quite honestly, as a huge fan of DA:O - it hurts to say - DA:I is simply not in the same league with TW3.

World-building, writing, character depth, etc. Witcher just blows it out of the water.

 

I'm a huge fan of both franchises. But one is improving on their existing plans on what a deep, successful RPG looks like and wants to sell more units by making a better RPG... And to add to it, all their DLC content is free, they communicate and fix issues etx.

The other is trying to sell more units by streamlining their franchise, trying to draw in more "casual" (read:non-RPG) gamers, putting out a shallow, non-believable world with stereotyped characters... And to add to it, leaves old-gen fans out to dry, charges for everything and anything, and has some really rather shady business decisions when it comes how to treat their fans.

Yeah, since the day when DAO was released.

[robertthebard]

This is my bigest problem with DA:I game just boring world is empty and worst level in game Hinterlands is first location makes it even worse. Based on my criteria's yes KotoR great same quality as witcher games and what I expect from game. KotR 2 was meh it was fine but don't know, it's just missing something, it's like playing DA2 after DA:O it's good game it's just not the same feeling.
 
You have more icons then me so my opinions is invalid, ok then good for you bad for me.

You missed the satire there, but that's to be expected, I guess. I added the bit you bolded to make a point: Opinions about games are subjective. The fact is, I have the enhanced edition of The Witcher, and despite not being able to actually finish it, I did buy the second one, also an Enhanced edition. I have been unable to finish it either. They don't grab me and make me realize OMG, it's 5 AM. An experience that I did have while running through KotoR, and have had with many of the games that I have installed on this rig currently, and other games that I have had on various rigs since I started gaming. However, since the criteria seems to be that personal opinions are objective, which means that they must be true for everyone, or else these types of threads wouldn't exist, then since I have more icons, it must surely mean that I have more experience with games, right? Neither KotoR game is there, nor is Jade Empire, or any of the BG games, or IWD games, or Planescape, etc etc. All games that have something the Witcher doesn't have, I managed to complete them, some of them many times, but all of them at least twice.

Yet, to read the majority of this thread, the Witcher series should be right up there on my list of completed games, especially the two I own. They're not. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because they're bad, or is it more likely that they just didn't appeal to me? You see, there's nothing wrong with games not appealing to everyone, it's sort of like music, and movies. However, the choice of what movies or music one likes are subjective, just like the games they like. Trying to storm the forums with "TW 3 is a better game" is trying to take a subjective opinion, and state it as an objective fact. The truth is, DA I is a better game, for my money, because I was able to complete it twice, something that all of the DA games to date have over any of the Witcher games installed on this rig: I was actually able to play them all the way through.

Now, let me explain what that means: Subjective is how I feel about a game, music, movies or whatever. These things can vary wildly from individual to individual, since people have different tastes in things they like. Objective, however, is a measurable quality. We all need air to live is an objective truth. A comparison of graphics is objective, a comparison of story is subjective, as, as we can see by clicking the link I provided, that is how we feel about it. So it's nice that you feel like TW 3 is a better game, maybe go over to CDPR's forums, and pat 'em on the back?

[London]

There are more than just minor complaints on cd's website. It's only here where many view Witcher 3 as something they need to defend, and talk about as much as possible on another company's forums. CD would likely have deleted these types of threads - a lot of people posted that their posts were removed. People here take for granted that BioWare just lets posters here **** on them and instead has Devs that just don't come here.

Some of the complants that I still saw over there:

A lot of complaining about CDProjekt red and false advertising concerning the graphics, and how even after apologizing they use one of those 2013 pictures on the box of the game. If BioWare did this, there would be 7000 new threads to complain about how evil and vindictive they are but for Cd its viewed as fine by most on these forums.

People have complained that the controls are worse than games from 2004.

They complained that Eredin is a horrible villain with 5 minutes of screen time and 12 lines in the entire game.

They complained that their portrayal of evil is childish - the uglier the character, the more likely they are evil.

They complained the game uses the same sex scene and just pastes in another woman.

They complained about the horrible DLC alternate look costumes being OOC (yes complaining about free content is a thing).

They complained that the pacing of the story is bad.

They complained that Ciris entire character is OOC from the books among those who read them.

They complained that a lot of the side content is repetitive and dull.

Inventory features needless clutter and an over saturation of junk to pick up with a sort feature that is badly implemented.

- so, in all in all a lot of these sound like nearly the same things people said when complaining about DAI. Hell they even complained about the lack of a chest. Except here people are throwing dance parties that a storage chest is coming in Witcher 3, but for DAI they stick up their nose and complain it should have always been there.

[Al Foley]

There are more than just minor complaints on cd's website. It's only here where many view Witcher 3 as something they need to defend, and talk about as much as possible on another company's forums. CD would likely have deleted these types of threads - a lot of people posted that their posts were removed. People here take for granted that BioWare just lets posters here **** on them and instead has Devs that just don't come here.

Some of the complants that I still saw over there:

A lot of complaining about CDProjekt red and false advertising concerning the graphics, and how even after apologizing they use one of those 2013 pictures on the box of the game. If BioWare did this, there would be 7000 new threads to complain about how evil and vindictive they are but for Cd its viewed as fine by most on these forums.

People have complained that the controls are worse than games from 2004.

They complained that Eredin is a horrible villain with 5 minutes of screen time and 12 lines in the entire game.

They complained that their portrayal of evil is childish - the uglier the character, the more likely they are evil.

They complained the game uses the same sex scene and just pastes in another woman.

They complained about the horrible DLC alternate look costumes being OOC (yes complaining about free content is a thing).

They complained that the pacing of the story is bad.

They complained that Ciris entire character is OOC from propose who read them.

They complained that a lot of the side content is repetitive and dull.

Inventory features needless clutter and an over saturation of junk to pick up with a sort feature that is badly implemented.

- so, in all in all a lot of these sound like nearly the same things people said when complaining about DAI. Hell they even complained forms storage chest. Except here people are throwing dance parties that a storage chest is coming in Witcher 3, but for DAI they stick up their nose and complain it should have always been there.

Fascinating, while watching the LP of the Witcher I was I noticed some of the dreaded Fetch quests, and similar things as in DA I.  

[Cyberstrike nTo]

That sound bite really raises excellent points.  I've taken many creative writing classes in my life and the one constant from teacher to teacher they would preach was "show, don't tell."  I never really thought about it in terms of video games until now but it really does apply.  TW3 constantly shows us an awful world while DAI tells us the world is awful.  The latter really does make it difficult to care about the world and the people in it while TW3 provides us a reason to look deeper into the social and political messages writers are trying to get across.

 

I'm actually the other way: I don't need to be shown how awful Thedas is, I can imagine how bad it is (and a lot worse) than anybody at BioWare could ever show me, However constantly showing me how bad the world of The Witcher actually turns me away and in the end I don't give a damn about it. 

[Cobra's_back]

 

I'm actually the other way: I don't need to be shown how awful Thedas is, I can imagine how bad it is (and a lot worse) than anybody at BioWare could ever show me, However constantly showing me how bad the world of The Witcher actually turns me away and in the end I don't give a damn about it. 

 

Same here. I don't need it as well. Read so much worst in history, and I don't need a game to tell me that human nature can be mortally bankrupt. A game is strictly entertainment. 

[Cobra's_back]

Not really.
There's a lot of criticism and some of it is borderline hate because "story isn't centered on politics" or "TW3 is too different from TW2" etc.

The warranted criticism is being replied to by CDPR people and most of it is being fixed ASAP (huge patch coming up fixing basically all the issues people had with the inventory, character movement, etc.).

Witcher 3 isn't perfect. But it's definitely a game I'd recommend to anyone and a game which I'm sure most people who would give it a fair chance would absolutely love.

 

But nobody says DA:I is better that TW3 or anything like that.
Because quite honestly, as a huge fan of DA:O - it hurts to say - DA:I is simply not in the same league with TW3.

World-building, writing, character depth, etc. Witcher just blows it out of the water.

 

I'm a huge fan of both franchises. But one is improving on their existing plans on what a deep, successful RPG looks like and wants to sell more units by making a better RPG... And to add to it, all their DLC content is free, they communicate and fix issues etx.

The other is trying to sell more units by streamlining their franchise, trying to draw in more "casual" (read:non-RPG) gamers, putting out a shallow, non-believable world with stereotyped characters... And to add to it, leaves old-gen fans out to dry, charges for everything and anything, and has some really rather shady business decisions when it comes how to treat their fans.

 

The problem with this post is that it lacks details.

 

So please explain which character is lacking and how? How is Flemeth lacking? Tell me which characters you have a problem with? None of these post even talk about character development in detail. So how is Varric, Cassandra and Solas lacking in character development?

[London]

I'm in the middle. I wouldn't mind a few scenes to amp up the setting through environmental storytelling. But I don't want to spend 200 hours in a situation where everyone is miserable.

[Al Foley]

I'm in the middle. I wouldn't mind a few scenes to amp up the setting through environmental storytelling. But I don't want to spend 200 hours in a situation where everyone is miserable.

which is Inquisition.  Its amazing how grim that game is just under the surface.  Scratch the pretty veneer and...yikes.. half eaten Bronto with their guts exposed, piles of Skeletons on the Exalted Plains, and that rather creepy note in the Emprise where someone is talking about their love and then you look around the room and see bloody surgical aparati.  I mean the list really goes on.  It just does not hit you over the head with it like the Witcher does, that one scene towards the beginning of the game where the bar tender is nearly half beaten made me cringe, and felt was over the top.

[Cobra's_back]

which is Inquisition.  Its amazing how grim that game is just under the surface.  Scratch the pretty veneer and...yikes.. half eaten Bronto with their guts exposed, piles of Skeletons on the Exalted Plains, and that rather creepy note in the Emprise where someone is talking about their love and then you look around the room and see bloody surgical aparati.  I mean the list really goes on.  It just does not hit you over the head with it like the Witcher does, that one scene towards the beginning of the game where the bar tender is nearly half beaten made me cringe, and felt was over the top.

 

Let's not forget templars and villagers of Emprise being used a potting soil for red lyrium. The whole red lyrium rotting your brain, and crystallizing your body is a nasty way to go.

[Al Foley]

Let's not forget templars and villagers of Emprise being used a potting soil for red lyrium. The whole red lyrium rotting your brain, and crystallizing your body is a nasty way to go.

Indeed.  That "Red Lyrium is People" moment in In Hushed Whispers.  I mean Red Lyrium is just all sorts of creepy, also regular Lyrium, the Blight, they are just a trifecta of weirdness.  With the songs, and the music, and the compulsion to follow commands.  

 

I mean Dragon Age has kind of moved away from the whole body horror thing, like the Brood Mothers, but the universe is still quite nasty.