645 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

I don't think Loghain was the perfect antagonist, but as far as video games are concerned, I consider him a good one. My problem with Corypheus(and the Wild Hunt, for that matter) was that the game tried to hard to make him an untouchable, all-powerful god-like creature and his goal was pretty much to take over the world... extremely cliche... I liked Loghain as a villain because you can argue that his 'bad guy decisions' were logical, which can ultimately lead you to sympathize with him. I prefer villains that actually have a goal in mind that can make you understand why they are doing what they're doing, rather than the same ole "I'm going to destroy/take over the world, cause I'm a bad guy!"

Like I said, Loghain was a mediocre villain. By which I mean he works fine conceptually. His major problem was his handling, he was barely present for the majority of the plot and for all that time his motivation was vague and confused. You don't really get a decent understanding of his motives until the 11th hour. Aside from Redcliffe, none of the major quests have anything to do with him either. Until the Landsmeet he was little better than the Archdemon, a vague distant force to fight against.

Corypheus suffered from similar problems, though I think his motives were more nuanced than you credit.

[Dreadstruck]

If given a choice - I will always play females. But a good story is a good story. A remarkable character is a remarkable character. By all means don't play the Witcher, but my gaming life would be a  lot less sweet if I hadn't played Link in the Zelda games, Nathan Drake in Uncharted,  Joel in the Last of Us and of course, Geralt in the Witcher!

 

Great stories, fun games, great characters.....

 

You. I like you.

[JediMindTrix]

Not sure if this was stated yet or not, but... being able to wear what you craft, when you craft it. Witcher 3, seems like everything I find the designs to craft that is of any value, I can't use for x amount of levels, and by time I'm that level, I've found something that's better already.

[cdizzle2k3]

Like I said, Loghain was a mediocre villain. By which I mean he works fine conceptually. His major problem was his handling, he was barely present for the majority of the plot and for all that time his motivation was vague and confused. You don't really get a decent understanding of his motives until the 11th hour. Aside from Redcliffe, none of the major quests have anything to do with him either. Until the Landsmeet he was little better than the Archdemon, a vague distant force to fight against.

Corypheus suffered from similar problems, though I think his motives were more nuanced than you credit.

I can agree with your point They definitely missed an opportunity to make it much more than it was. He had the framework laid out for him to be an epic nemesis, but they didn't utilize all that potential. Still, I personally would not consider him mediocre, especially when compared to other villains gaming.

 

And yeah I know Corypheus had a little more to him, but I just consider him too underwhelming to be the main antagonist.

[Queen Skadi]

I'll quote your earlier response... 

 

"character's personality manifest themselves in far more natural and organic ways, the way they act, the way they talk and what they do"

 

Your character's personality is supposed to be a culmination of dialog choices and in game actions. Are you suggesting that you select your personality from a drop-down list instead? You have the ability to choose whether you believe you were the Herald, you can choose the fate of certain prisoners when you "Sit in Judgement", you can choose a side to pick in the mage/templar war, you decide how to handle your companion quests (or skip them all together), you can somewhat direct normal conversations, you can decide your sexuality and choose whether or not to pursue a love interest, etc ... The direction you choose in handling those situations are what defines your in-game "personality". And based on your "personality" people around you receive you differently, even if it may just be slightly differently in some cases. Some companions may even decide to leave you if you generate enough disapproval. All that plays into "personality".

 

You do know you make similar and more substantial decisions in the Witcher 3 don't you, these decisions don't define Geralt as a character so much as they fit within the context of what Geralt would believably do, and it is no different in Inquisition, people are not so inflexible that their personality dictates that there is only one course of action they are willing to consider in any given situation and while a person's actions can tell you a lot about the person it does not mean that it is the only thing they were considering doing at the time and all the choices the writers give you in Inquisition are designed to fit within the context of the limited personalities the writers deemed acceptable to have

 

You can't play a ruthless character as while you might get the odd (very rare) choice to do something that could be considered ruthless this personality choice is negated by all the times the game forces your character to be sympathetic and merciful, you can't play a tactless Inquisitor as even though you might get the opportunity brash from time time to time it is negated by all the times the game forces your character to be charming, witty and an inexplicably good dancer.

 

Sure you get to define whether or not your character believes they are Andraste's chosen or whether your character is gay, straight or bisexual, but other than that there isn't really much you can define about your character outside the personality the writers deemed acceptable for the Inquisitor to have.

 

I don't care how much you hate DA:I, there is quantifiably much more flexibility to "take ownership of the narrative" in this game than the vast majority of games on the market. 

 

Are you talking about every game in the market or only the games that claim "taking ownership of the narrative" is a marketable feature.

 

If you are talking all games in general then no poopsiedoodles (the Mods don't like swearing as I recently found out) Sherlock, that is because most games focus on a linear story and "allowing the player to take ownership of the narrative" was never something that was a part of their design goals, however among games that do have that as a marketable feature Inquisition falls flat on it's face and can't hope to compete, I could point out many MANY older RPGs from years past but I don't have to as there was even a game released last year (the same year as Inquisition) that allowed the player to take far more ownership over the narrative and the personality of their character (or characters). That game was Divinity: Original Sin and in all honesty it was a game that actually deserved to win GOTY (and surprisingly actually did win Gamespot's GOTY) but never had much of a chance of being recognized due to it being an indie game and lacking mainstream appeal among the general gaming public.

 

The only reason Inquisition won GOTY was due to the lack of competition from the AAA sector as quite frankly 2014 was a pretty poor year for video games

 

I stand by my point. At face value, these games essentially do the same thing in terms of their excessive, borderline pointless side/fetch quests. The main difference is presentation of said quest. 

 

The presentation, the writing , the atmosphere and tone, there are plenty of things you can point to as to why the sidequests in the Witcher 3 are better, saying it is just the cinematic conversations is not giving the side quests the credit they are due.

 

Do you think you're fooling anyone by trying to debunk or invalidate something that's 100% subjective with your own personal opinion? I'm not going to explain because it would be beating a dead horse, which I'm already doing by continuing this back and forth. Your statements haven't caused the slightest shift in my opinion and mine haven't caused a shift in yours. I'm sure we could continue going back and forth until Dragon Age 4 and The Witcher 4 are released and still be in the same place where we started..

 

 

If you truly believed that then I am sure you would have no problem explaining why, but for some reason I don't think you do, you may have once been able to successful convince yourself that Loghain was a good antagonist but now that you have been shown the truth you know in your heart that you were mistaken but for some reason your head is struggling to come to grips with that fact. I don't know if it is your hatred of me that refuses you to acknowledge that anything I say might have merit and since you know you can't prove me wrong you have resorted to the undignified retreat or whether it is the fact that you believe that you can't possibly have believed something that was false for so long that you must convince yourself that it is actually true in order to not feel silly.

 

And you say I am stubborn and refuse to budge.

[Queen Skadi]

Not sure if this was stated yet or not, but... being able to wear what you craft, when you craft it. Witcher 3, seems like everything I find the designs to craft that is of any value, I can't use for x amount of levels, and by time I'm that level, I've found something that's better already.

 

 

If feel like you deserve some sort of prize Coronas, while being able to wear what you wear when you craft it is not exactly what I had in mind it does bring up the subject of crafting which I do have to admit (at least when it comes to weapon and armour crafting) is much more interesting than the crafting in the Witcher 3.

[s-jay2676]

Maybe Inquisition doesn't do anything better than Witcher 3, but it also doesn't do anything worse. Both games are quite mediocre tbh and in my opinion don't live up to their potential. DA:I was my Most Disappointing Game of 2014 and it looks like the Witcher 3 will get the same honor this year.

[cdizzle2k3]

You do know you make similar and more substantial decisions in the Witcher 3 don't you, these decisions don't define Geralt as a character so much as they fit within the context of what Geralt would believably do, and it is no different in Inquisition, people are not so inflexible that their personality dictates that there is only one course of action they are willing to consider in any given situation and while a person's actions can tell you a lot about the person it does not mean that it is the only thing they were considering doing at the time and all the choices the writers give you in Inquisition are designed to fit within the context of the limited personalities the writers deemed acceptable to have

 

You can't play a ruthless character as while you might get the odd (very rare) choice to do something that could be considered ruthless this personality choice is negated by all the times the game forces your character to be sympathetic and merciful, you can't play a tactless Inquisitor as even though you might get the opportunity brash from time time to time it is negated by all the times the game forces your character to be charming, witty and an inexplicably good dancer.

 

Sure you get to define whether or not your character believes they are Andraste's chosen or whether your character is gay, straight or bisexual, but other than that there isn't really much you can define about your character outside the personality the writers deemed acceptable for the Inquisitor to have.

 

I've put dumped countless hours into both of these games, I know what their capabilities are. They both have parts where your decisions have long term effects. Sure, I'll say that TW3 has more instances where your actions/inactions directly affect the game environment. That's not what I'm talking about though. And for you to say all the times your character in Inquisition is forced to be charming, witty, and an inexplicably good dancer, I assume you mean that ONE mission that includes that ONE scene where you dance with Florianne. The scene where the dancing is a backdrop to the actual dialog that is going on, where you can still be "brash" or rude if you choose to. For you to take one instance and word your argument as "all the times" is a stretch. Sounds to me like you're upset that you can't kill your companions or tell the inquisition to eff off completely. There's plenty of opportunities for you to develop/display personality, you're just on your anti-Dragon Age crusade.

 

Are you talking about every game in the market or only the games that claim "taking ownership of the narrative" is a marketable feature.

 

If you are talking all games in general then no poopsiedoodles (the Mods don't like swearing as I recently found out) Sherlock, that is because most games focus on a linear story and "allowing the player to take ownership of the narrative" was never something that was a part of their design goals, however among games that do have that as a marketable feature Inquisition falls flat on it's face and can't hope to compete, I could point out many MANY older RPGs from years past but I don't have to as there was even a game released last year (the same year as Inquisition) that allowed the player to take far more ownership over the narrative and the personality of their character (or characters). That game was Divinity: Original Sin and in all honesty it was a game that actually deserved to win GOTY (and surprisingly actually did win Gamespot's GOTY) but never had much of a chance of being recognized due to it being an indie game and lacking mainstream appeal among the general gaming public.

 

The only reason Inquisition won GOTY was due to the lack of competition from the AAA sector as quite frankly 2014 was a pretty poor year for video games

No "poopsiedoodles" I was talking about games that claim that as a marketable feature! To do otherwise is like comparing apples to oranges, which honestly I think is the case when comparing DA: I to Witcher 3. For you to say it would "fall flat on it's face and can't hope to compete" when compared to other player driven narrative games just further reinforces the fact that you came into this thread with a biased agenda... which makes me question why you would post on this game's forum to begin with.

 

I've been gaming since the 80s, playing all types of genres.. and it's stretch to say there are MANY older RPGs that let the player take more ownership of the narrative, or even a comparable level of ownership for that matter, especially considering this game has to account for decisions that were made in it's 2 prequels. The field gets even emptier when you remove other games from Bioware like Mass Effect and KOTR.

 

 

 

The presentation, the writing , the atmosphere and tone, there are plenty of things you can point to as to why the sidequests in the Witcher 3 are better, saying it is just the cinematic conversations is not giving the side quests the credit they are due.

Again, this falls into the subjective argument territory, as does this entire thread....You can claim that the Witcher 3 is the greatest game ever conceived, people in a completely different game's fan forum aren't obliged to share your opinion. An opinion that says "I just have more fun playing this than that" is honestly a sufficient enough answer. As stated before, I think TW3 nailed the presentation of side/fetch quests. I don't agree that the writing is better...

 

I personally think DA had excellent writing, but it falls flat when the would-be interesting quest is just made into text and put into a randomly-found letter that you most likely aren't going to read. It ultimately translates into this:

1. Random item looted, which makes quest marker appear on map,
2. Go to quest marker and pick up another random item that you don't know the context of why or what you're picking up(since you didn't read the initial item that triggered the quest
3. Bring seemingly random item to another seemingly random location/person to complete quest

I assume most people who play games aren't going to be interested in reading a 500 word essay that pops up on the screen that initiates a quest... thus the understanding of and motivation to do quest are lost.  This is where TW3 kills DA, IMO. You could put the exact same thing into a cinematic dialog and people would actually pay attention to and care for it, even if the quest remains the same... Maybe add more dialog at the completion of it, or in the middle somewhere.

 

If you truly believed that then I am sure you would have no problem explaining why, but for some reason I don't think you do, you may have once been able to successful convince yourself that Loghain was a good antagonist but now that you have been shown the truth you know in your heart that you were mistaken but for some reason your head is struggling to come to grips with that fact. I don't know if it is your hatred of me that refuses you to acknowledge that anything I say might have merit and since you know you can't prove me wrong you have resorted to the undignified retreat or whether it is the fact that you believe that you can't possibly have believed something that was false for so long that you must convince yourself that it is actually true in order to not feel silly.

Well if you would actually read, I later ended up explaining why I thought he was a good antagonist in a reply to Heimdall. I'll make it easy for you since you like to make unsubstantiated claims...

 

 

 

I don't think Loghain was the perfect antagonist, but as far as video games are concerned, I consider him a good one. My problem with Corypheus(and the Wild Hunt, for that matter) was that the game tried to hard to make him an untouchable, all-powerful god-like creature and his goal was pretty much to take over the world... extremely cliche... I liked Loghain as a villain because you can argue that his 'bad guy decisions' were logical, which can ultimately lead you to sympathize with him. I prefer villains that actually have a goal in mind that can make you understand why they are doing what they're doing, rather than the same ole "I'm going to destroy/take over the world, cause I'm a bad guy!" 

 

And no... I don't care about you enough to say that I hate you. To hate someone requires someone to be emotionally invested... that's not the case here. I'm just a sucker for a debate. I DO believe you're being very condescending to others whose views on these games differ from yours by holding your personal opinion as higher or more valid. You can't debunk subjectivity with more subjectivity from the opposite viewpoint... Can't hold back keyboard warriors though... 

 

And you say I am stubborn and refuse to budge.

Yep! And apparently I'm not the only one...

[Queen Skadi]

 

I've put dumped countless hours into both of these games, I know what their capabilities are. They both have parts where your decisions have long term effects. Sure, I'll say that TW3 has more instances where your actions/inactions directly affect the game environment. That's not what I'm talking about though. And for you to say all the times your character in Inquisition is forced to be charming, witty, and an inexplicably good dancer, I assume you mean that ONE mission that includes that ONE scene where you dance with Florianne. The scene where the dancing is a backdrop to the actual dialog that is going on, where you can still be "brash" or rude if you choose to. For you to take one instance and word your argument as "all the times" is a stretch. Sounds to me like you're upset that you can't kill your companions or tell the inquisition to eff off completely. There's plenty of opportunities for you to develop/display personality, you're just on your anti-Dragon Age crusade.

 

The most "brash" option in that conversation is to say that you don't really care much for Orlesian politics and intrigues and as tame as that response it can still potentially get kicked out of the party which somehow dooms the world because you weren't sufficiently witty (or at least what the Bioware writers try to pass off as wit) at a party, essentially you cannot progress in the game unless you play a witty character else you are met with a fail state.

 

No "poopsiedoodles" I was talking about games that claim that as a marketable feature! To do otherwise is like comparing apples to oranges, which honestly I think is the case when comparing DA: I to Witcher 3. For you to say it would "fall flat on it's face and can't hope to compete" when compared to other player driven narrative games just further reinforces the fact that you came into this thread with a biased agenda... which makes me question why you would post on this game's forum to begin with.

 

I've been gaming since the 80s, playing all types of genres.. and it's stretch to say there are MANY older RPGs that let the player take more ownership of the narrative, or even a comparable level of ownership for that matter, especially considering this game has to account for decisions that were made in it's 2 prequels. The field gets even emptier when you remove other games from Bioware like Mass Effect and KOTR.

 

If you honestly think that Inquisition is at the top of the pile when it comes to giving the player ownership of the narrative and their characters then I don't care how long you have been gaming for you obviously haven't been playing the right games, there are more RPGs outside of just the titles Bioware has made and there were even games Bioware made before Kotor and Mass Effect, I suggest you give them a try, go play Divinity: Original Sin which was released the same year as Inquisition and tell me how it stacks up, go play Arcanum and Fallout 1 and 2 which are all games that were released over a decade ago and tell me how Inquisition stacks up.

 

Again, this falls into the subjective argument territory, as does this entire thread....You can claim that the Witcher 3 is the greatest game ever conceived, people in a completely different game's fan forum aren't obliged to share your opinion. An opinion that says "I just have more fun playing this than that" is honestly a sufficient enough answer. As stated before, I think TW3 nailed the presentation of side/fetch quests. I don't agree that the writing is better...

 

I personally think DA had excellent writing, but it falls flat when the would-be interesting quest is just made into text and put into a randomly-found letter that you most likely aren't going to read. It ultimately translates into this:

1. Random item looted, which makes quest marker appear on map,
2. 
   
3. Go to quest marker and pick up another random item that you don't know the context of why or what you're picking up(since you didn't read the initial item that triggered the quest
4. 
   
5. Bring seemingly random item to another seemingly random location/person to complete quest
6. 
   

I assume most people who play games aren't going to be interested in reading a 500 word essay that pops up on the screen that initiates a quest... thus the understanding of and motivation to do quest are lost.  This is where TW3 kills DA, IMO. You could put the exact same thing into a cinematic dialog and people would actually pay attention to and care for it, even if the quest remains the same... Maybe add more dialog at the completion of it, or in the middle somewhere.

 

While your description of the side quests fits the side quests in Inquisition perfectly it doesn't quite do the side quests in the Witcher 3 justice, while I do not deny there is the odd fetch quest many of the quests in the Witcher 3 are far more involved and require you to use your investigative skills to find clues and piece together the story and then make a decision and solve the quest based on what you have learnt, in Inquisition side quests consist of little more than getting 10 portions of ram meat or going to the marked area and interacting with somebodies lost goat to send it home, you don't really need a 500 hundred word essay to explain these quests.

 

Well if you would actually read, I later ended up explaining why I thought he was a good antagonist in a reply to Heimdall. I'll make it easy for you since you like to make unsubstantiated claims...

 

I did read it and no you did not explain how his actions and motivations are understandable and relatable which is what I asked you to explain, you merely said "they are too relatable and understandable" without saying how they are relatable and understandable, you never told us how Loghain's actions are understandable within the context of what we are told we should believe about the character.

 

I would ask you to explain but I am guessing I will get the same response I got last time which was "I wont explain because you are a big meanie who will just debunk my brilliant and indisputable arguments"?

[Super Drone]

From a developer standpoint, I'm sure the blandness people complain about with the Inquisitor and Shepard is a result of leaving a "blank slate" personality for the player to fill in with the personality they choose. If they went with a pre-written protagonist(Geralt, for instance) it would be easier to write lines or actions specifically suited to that predefined personality. That and, you're at the mercy of the voice actor... which is why the male Shepard is pretty much a meme, while fem Shepard is generally praised.

 

and by fill in their personality, you mean Headcanon. If our characters are only awesome in our imagination, then why bother giving them a voice at all?

 

Ditching the silent protagainist, but making the voice of the protagonist neutral and bland is absolutely the worst of both worlds. I could get behind the Warden, because you literally have to headcanon his dialogue. I loved Hawke. but the Inquisitor is just.. fail. Nothing he says is memorable, so why even give him a voice?

 

Side note... I hope they don't make a DA game where the player defined character was forced into the Geralt/Fenris from DA2/Marcus Fenix/Batman/Clint Eastwood/hard-nosed tough guy, womanizer stereotype... I'm 110% cool with having a companion with that personality, but IMO, it's waay overdone. Though I do believe in their next game, they should give you the option for your player to go that route if you choose.... Time will tell...

 

I would settle for them giving us the option of any kind of personality more complicated than "diplomatic", "Charming" (not even sarcastic anymore!), or "brusque" defined in the very vaguest of terms.  I would be happy with not having to imagine how cool the character is in my head instead of the character actually being cool.

[cdizzle2k3]

The most "brash" option in that conversation is to say that you don't really care much for Orlesian politics and intrigues and as tame as that response it can still potentially get kicked out of the party which somehow dooms the world because you weren't sufficiently witty (or at least what the Bioware writers try to pass off as wit) at a party, essentially you cannot progress in the game unless you play a witty character else you are met with a fail state.

Well being that the purpose of the quest is to gain favor of the "powers that be" their military will back you in the fight against Corypheus, of course you will get a fail state if you don't! That would be like me complaining that Witcher 3 doesn't let you have freedom because the game forces me to look for Ciri. And even that single quest allows for "brash" decisions such as 

Spoiler

allowing the Empress to be assassinated, or backing Gaspard or Briala to take over the throne

. Besides, for you to take that one instance and use as a rule to define all decision points for the entire game is ridiculous. 

 

If you honestly think that Inquisition is at the top of the pile when it comes to giving the player ownership of the narrative and their characters then I don't care how long you have been gaming for you obviously haven't been playing the right games, there are more RPGs outside of just the titles Bioware has made and there were even games Bioware made before Kotor and Mass Effect, I suggest you give them a try, go play Divinity: Original Sin which was released the same year as Inquisition and tell me how it stacks up, go play Arcanum and Fallout 1 and 2 which are all games that were released over a decade ago and tell me how Inquisition stacks up.

What makes you think I haven't played those games? Because your opinion is that DA:I is the worst RPG ever doesn't mean I have to agree with you. I can't speak for Divinity: Original Sin, so I'm not gonna speak on it. I do own all the Fallout games, Arcanum, Baulder's Gate, Chrono Trigger, and other games can be classed in that genre... Which one am I currently playing? Dragon Age: Inquisition... Does that mean I think they're terrible games? No... though I wasn't crazy about Arcanum... They're all great games, but they're from different generations and gaming has evolved(in case you haven't noticed). I don't envision myself starting a playthrough on any of those games any time soon... honestly I probably won't play them ever again.

 

Saying that I "obviously haven't been playing the right games" is a flat out ignorant statement. You don't know me, even if you did, what makes you think that I have to agree with what you consider good or bad? Get over yourself!

 

While your description of the side quests fits the side quests in Inquisition perfectly it doesn't quite do the side quests in the Witcher 3 justice, while I do not deny there is the odd fetch quest many of the quests in the Witcher 3 are far more involved and require you to use your investigative skills to find clues and piece together the story and then make a decision and solve the quest based on what you have learnt, in Inquisition side quests consist of little more than getting 10 portions of ram meat or going to the marked area and interacting with somebodies lost goat to send it home, you don't really need a 500 hundred word essay to explain these quests.

 

I like how you use lame examples when you're talking about DA, then act like that's all there is. That would be like if I said all Witcher 3 has you do is find old people's frying pans or pick flowers for a potion to bring back to an alchemist... Talk about not doing the game justice... And what exactly do you think the using your "investigative skills to find clues and piece together the story" involves? Holding down the "Witcher Senses" button to explicitly highlight objects, then walking up to the highlighted object and pressing another button to "examine" it, which then leads to Geralt saying a few lines of dialog and your quest tracker updating. Hmmm... that sounds eerily familiar....Oh yeah, Dragon Age: Inquisition has a "search button" that also highlights context specific items to interact with! Like I said, they're essentially doing the same thing with different initial presentation.

 

I did read it and no you did not explain how his actions and motivations are understandable and relatable which is what I asked you to explain, you merely said "they are too relatable and understandable" without saying how they are relatable and understandable, you never told us how Loghain's actions are understandable within the context of what we are told we should believe about the character.

I'm not going to go through the entire plot of the first game to break it down piece by piece for you.. But the initial action that turns him into an antagonist is how he ordered his soldiers to retreat at Battle of Ostagar, leaving King Cailan's men and the Grey Wardens to die. You can kind somewhat understand why he did so because from the beginning he considered King Cailan to be a young hothead who was too eager to jump headfirst into battle to prove his dominance. You could argue that he was right to think that a young, naive King was a less than ideal person to be leader of Ferelden in times of conflict...

 

How about YOU give an example of your ideal video game villain, since you're so big stating how terrible the DA ones are?

 

I would ask you to explain but I am guessing I will get the same response I got last time which was "I wont explain because you are a big meanie who will just debunk my brilliant and indisputable arguments"?

Oh please... The only thing you're debunking here is the thought that you might know how subjectivity works. 

[cdizzle2k3]

and by fill in their personality, you mean Headcanon. If our characters are only awesome in our imagination, then why bother giving them a voice at all?

 

Ditching the silent protagainist, but making the voice of the protagonist neutral and bland is absolutely the worst of both worlds. I could get behind the Warden, because you literally have to headcanon his dialogue. I loved Hawke. but the Inquisitor is just.. fail. Nothing he says is memorable, so why even give him a voice?

Well not voicing your protagonist in a dialog driven game wouldn't be considered acceptable nowadays. The voice actor's performance can make or break your immersion. I do think voice actor for Hawke did great, but I wouldn't consider the Inquisitor a fail... especially considering there was 4 possible voices you can pick from. I think they did a better job than male Shepard.

 

 

I would settle for them giving us the option of any kind of personality more complicated than "diplomatic", "Charming" (not even sarcastic anymore!), or "brusque" defined in the very vaguest of terms.  I would be happy with not having to imagine how cool the character is in my head instead of the character actually being cool.

I agree, but even those options are more than other games which usually just give you the option of "positive" vs "negative" or "good" vs "devious". I'm not saying we should settle... of course the goal should be to always strive for more. I definitely will expect more from this game's successor. I assume they will probably try to integrate some things from the oh so popular Witcher 3 vs DA:I debates by default. The Witcher 3 did put a lot of pressure on upcoming action / RPG style games... Fallout 4 is next up though... We'll see what happens...

[Elhanan]

DAI seems to offer more choices in dialogue that may appear in TW3, as the latter is based on a prewritten character. Uncertain, but even Skyrim appears to have offered more options. But pls get confirmation from someone that plays the games.

[stop_him]

Yes, I can make my own character, so I don't have to play as Grandpa Geralt who probably has gonorrhea by now. (I hope it's a really nasty drug resistant strain too).

[Super Drone]

Yes, I can make my own character, so I don't have to play as Grandpa Geralt who probably has gonorrhea by now. (I hope it's a really nasty drug resistant strain too).

 

1. He's immune to nearly all diseases.

 

2. Please, keep ****-shaming. Afterall, it's okay to do it to a guy, right? It's totally cool and doesn't at all contribute to the continuance of ****-shaming against women. . We all know you have an God-given right to be irrationally offended by heterosexual males having sex, wouldn't want to take that from you....

[Elhanan]

Given the option, prefer romance to sex; much longer shelf life. And romance in a CRPG is beyond a secondary priority for my chosen games, so this moves Leisure Suit Larry updates a bit further down the list....

[duckley]

Grandpa Geralt? Ageism?

In my opinion there is both romance and sex in The Witcher. And as an older woman I prefer romance with sex.

[Queen Skadi]

Well being that the purpose of the quest is to gain favor of the "powers that be" their military will back you in the fight against Corypheus, of course you will get a fail state if you don't! That would be like me complaining that Witcher 3 doesn't let you have freedom because the game forces me to look for Ciri. And even that single quest allows for "brash" decisions such as 

Spoiler

allowing the Empress to be assassinated, or backing Gaspard or Briala to take over the throne

. Besides, for you to take that one instance and use as a rule to define all decision points for the entire game is ridiculous.

 

The point is not that the game is bad because the story requires you complete certain mission in order to progress but that these missions don't give you much freedom to define the personality of the Inquisitor and even in one case results in a fail state if you don't chose the right witty dialogues.

 

First of all in a game that is trying to sell a choice driven narrative being kicked out of the party should not result in a fail state, there should be consequences for it but not a fail state, but it seems Bioware was more inclined to fill out the game world and pad out the length of the game with pointless areas and dull sidequests just so they could boast "HEY LOOK GAIS 200 HOURS (even though everyone that has done a full playthrough where they do everything have reported it is only less than 100 hours) WORTH OF CONTENT".

 

Second being slightly boorish is the lamest excuse for being kicked out of a party, sure it would have been more amusing if you could commit more amusing faux pas like getting drunk and pissing in everyone's soup but with the tameness of the actions that get you kicked out there should not have even been a fail state, the only thing putting a fail state in there served was tor reinforce the idea that you can't play an Inquisitor who isn't a witty charmer.

 

You keep saying "oh that is only one example, oh that is only one example" but while there may be only one example in each post each of my posts contain a unique example of this in play so obviously it is not just the one example. 

 

What makes you think I haven't played those games?

 

The fact that you place Inquisition on such a high pedestal regarding allowing the player to own the narrative and define the personality of their characters. You say that you can't speak on Divinity: Original Sin, is that because you haven't played it? Not exactly disproving my assertion.

 

But that being said you did say you weren't fond of Arcanum which I can understand, however the important thing is you have played it haven't you? Can you honestly say that Inquisiton gives you more ownership of your character and the narrative than Arcanum?

 

I like how you use lame examples when you're talking about DA, then act like that's all there is. That would be like if I said all Witcher 3 has you do is find old people's frying pans or pick flowers for a potion to bring back to an alchemist... Talk about not doing the game justice... And what exactly do you think the using your "investigative skills to find clues and piece together the story" involves? Holding down the "Witcher Senses" button to explicitly highlight objects, then walking up to the highlighted object and pressing another button to "examine" it, which then leads to Geralt saying a few lines of dialog and your quest tracker updating. Hmmm... that sounds eerily familiar....Oh yeah, Dragon Age: Inquisition has a "search button" that also highlights context specific items to interact with! Like I said, they're essentially doing the same thing with different initial presentation.

 

It is not just holding down witcher senses to scavenger hunt it is also paying attention to what these clues tell you, reading diary entries and notes and piecing together the clues to form your own conclusion about what happened and what course of action you should pursue regarding the quest, while there are some quests where Geralt automatically learns the conclusion and tellxs you what it is and what to do there are also a lot of quests that just give you the clues and let you try and figure out the answer? What should you do with the ghost in the tower? Do you trust her and take her remains off the island as she asks you, perhaps you should pay more attention to all the clues before making your decision.

 

I'm not going to go through the entire plot of the first game to break it down piece by piece for you.. But the initial action that turns him into an antagonist is how he ordered his soldiers to retreat at Battle of Ostagar, leaving King Cailan's men and the Grey Wardens to die. You can kind somewhat understand why he did so because from the beginning he considered King Cailan to be a young hothead who was too eager to jump headfirst into battle to prove his dominance. You could argue that he was right to think that a young, naive King was a less than ideal person to be leader of Ferelden in times of conflict...

 

How about YOU give an example of your ideal video game villain, since you're so big stating how terrible the DA ones are?

 

I'll show you mine if you show me yours? How did I know you would resort to that? Okay, I will cut you a deal, all you have to do is either admit you have no idea what you are talking about or make an attempt (key word attempt, does not matter if you fail the important part is that you try) at explaining how Loghain's actions fit and are understandable within the context of what we are told to believe about the character and I will reveal to you what a great video game antagonist truly is.

[correctamundo]

We get it. So having to act based on the clues in TW3 is fun and having to do it in DAI is bad form and unfun. As for your "amusing" faux pas, well maybe amusing to a three yearsold.

[cdizzle2k3]

The point is not that the game is bad because the story requires you complete certain mission in order to progress but that these missions don't give you much freedom to define the personality of the Inquisitor and even in one case results in a fail state if you don't chose the right witty dialogues.

 

First of all in a game that is trying to sell a choice driven narrative being kicked out of the party should not result in a fail state, there should be consequences for it but not a fail state, but it seems Bioware was more inclined to fill out the game world and pad out the length of the game with pointless areas and dull sidequests just so they could boast "HEY LOOK GAIS 200 HOURS (even though everyone that has done a full playthrough where they do everything have reported it is only less than 100 hours) WORTH OF CONTENT".

 

Second being slightly boorish is the lamest excuse for being kicked out of a party, sure it would have been more amusing if you could commit more amusing faux pas like getting drunk and pissing in everyone's soup but with the tameness of the actions that get you kicked out there should not have even been a fail state, the only thing putting a fail state in there served was tor reinforce the idea that you can't play an Inquisitor who isn't a witty charmer.

I'll restate, in case you missed it...

 

"Well being that the purpose of the quest is to gain favor of the "powers that be" their military will back you in the fight against Corypheus, of course you will get a fail state if you don't!"

 

And also, it's a far stretch to say that being "slightly boorish" would get you kicked out. You have plenty of opportunity to be an ass and "lose favor" without getting kicked out but also plenty of opportunity to "regain favor" without resulting to being a "witty charmer"  that requires little to no effort.

 

This was their take on the player having to "play politics" to form alliances... you know... like how real leaders have to "play politics" to get anything done... 

 

I'm sorry that writers didn't deem it necessary to allow you to play this level like an infant and give you the option to pee/poop/vomit on everyone.

 

 

The fact that you place Inquisition on such a high pedestal regarding allowing the player to own the narrative and define the personality of their characters. You say that you can't speak on Divinity: Original Sin, is that because you haven't played it? Not exactly disproving my assertion.

 

But that being said you did say you weren't fond of Arcanum which I can understand, however the important thing is you have played it haven't you? Can you honestly say that Inquisiton gives you more ownership of your character and the narrative than Arcanum?

So because I haven't played Divinity: Original Sin, you feel that your argument of "I haven't played the right games" is valid? Get over yourself....

 

Well if I wasn't fond of the game, why would I put it higher on your pedestal than I game I actually do have fun playing that follows the "player driven narrative" model? If you're judging based solely on the ability to take ownership, then something like the Sims or Minecraft/Terraria would be the undisputed king.

 

 

 

It is not just holding down witcher senses to scavenger hunt it is also paying attention to what these clues tell you, reading diary entries and notes and piecing together the clues to form your own conclusion about what happened and what course of action you should pursue regarding the quest, while there are some quests where Geralt automatically learns the conclusion and tellxs you what it is and what to do there are also a lot of quests that just give you the clues and let you try and figure out the answer? What should you do with the ghost in the tower? Do you trust her and take her remains off the island as she asks you, perhaps you should pay more attention to all the clues before making your decision.

 

It is exactly holding down witcher senses to scavenger hunt... You don't have to read the diary entries and notes to piece together anything. When a quest tells you to read a specific book, letter, etc..., all you have to do is open it in your inventory and the quest tracker updates to the next step. That follow what I said before about DA:I's presentation of quests via on screen text. Sure, it's there for you to read if you want, but you're not obligated to read it if you don't want to.

 

While actually reading them will give you more insight into what you're doing(same with DA), you are totally not required to do it at all. I stand by my initial point that they're essentially the same between the two games. 

 

 

 

I'll show you mine if you show me yours? How did I know you would resort to that? Okay, I will cut you a deal, all you have to do is either admit you have no idea what you are talking about or make an attempt (key word attempt, does not matter if you fail the important part is that you try) at explaining how Loghain's actions fit and are understandable within the context of what we are told to believe about the character and I will reveal to you what a great video game antagonist truly is.

 

Well since you're the one who's pretending to be such a master critic whose viewpoints are the only ones that matter, why shouldn't you explain what you call good? It's easy to sit there and call everyone else's opinion's stupid or irrelevant. My guess is that you either don't have a good answer or that you're buying yourself time to go research a good one before you come back...

 

I'll make it easier for you... Since this thread is about Inquisition vs Witcher 3, how about you name the best villain from the Witcher 3? I already said that I was unimpressed by the Wild Hunt, so since you love "debunking" subjective opinions, try to "correct me" into considering them great villains as a starting point.

 

I'm not playing into your egotistical game that your personal opinion is a reward... Like I said before, get over yourself.

[Queen Skadi]

I'll restate, in case you missed it...

 

"Well being that the purpose of the quest is to gain favor of the "powers that be" their military will back you in the fight against Corypheus, of course you will get a fail state if you don't!"

 

And also, it's a far stretch to say that being "slightly boorish" would get you kicked out. You have plenty of opportunity to be an ass and "lose favor" without getting kicked out but also plenty of opportunity to "regain favor" without resulting to being a "witty charmer"  that requires little to no effort.

 

This was their take on the player having to "play politics" to form alliances... you know... like how real leaders have to "play politics" to get anything done... 

 

Yes I get the writer's justification for having it for a fail state but this about the claim that Inquisition allows you to own the narrative and define your character. Also what do you mean by "plenty of opportunity to be an ass"? Just give me one example.

 

So because I haven't played Divinity: Original Sin, you feel that your argument of "I haven't played the right games" is valid? Get over yourself....

 

Well yeah.... not sure how or why this is up for debate? I said if you think Inquisition is the top of the pile when it comes to giving the player ownership of the narrative and their characters then obviously you haven't played games like Divinity: Original Sin and considering you openly admitted you have not played Divinity: Original Sin I fail to see how the statement is false?

 

Well if I wasn't fond of the game, why would I put it higher on your pedestal than I game I actually do have fun playing that follows the "player driven narrative" model? If you're judging based solely on the ability to take ownership, then something like the Sims or Minecraft/Terraria would be the undisputed king.

 

You don't have to be fond of a game to be able to at least recognize some of it's strengths, I can respect your opinion that you personally prefer Inquisition if that is genuinely how you feel but to close your mind to the possibility that there are games that potentially do things better is just ignorant beyond belief, it reaches a level of delusion that makes me wonder whether you really truly believe Inquisition is as great as you make it out to be or if it is some weird tick in your brain where you need to convince yourself of it's greatness in order to defend Bioware's honor or prove me wrong or some weird motive not backed by any real common sense.

 

Arcanum gives you far more ownership over your character and the narrative in Inquisition could ever hope to do, this is fact, not subjective, not opinion, cold hard fact, Arcanum allows you to do things Inquisition would never dream of letting you do, it gives you far more freedom to handle objectives in whatever method you deem necessary, more paths to take when doing the main quest and even allows you to do completely illogical things like blowing off the heads of major quest givers and finding your own way to the next objective or slaughter an entire town after a botched burglary where you used dynamite in the place of lockpicks.

 

And yeah if we are talking about making the narrative your own the Sims is the undisputed king in this regard.

 

It is exactly holding down witcher senses to scavenger hunt... You don't have to read the diary entries and notes to piece together anything. When a quest tells you to read a specific book, letter, etc..., all you have to do is open it in your inventory and the quest tracker updates to the next step. That follow what I said before about DA:I's presentation of quests via on screen text. Sure, it's there for you to read if you want, but you're not obligated to read it if you don't want to.

 

Of course you don't have to pay attention to the clues but if you are trying to get the best outcome in a quest you would be well served by doing so. In a quest where you fetch 10 portions of goat meat not a lot of context is required beyond villagers are hungry, need food, for some reason don't have hunters that can handle such mundane work so they need the Inquisitor to do it. But when you are deciding whether or not to hand over the soul of a man to 3 vengeful spirits you might want to pay closer attention to the clues to make sure you have the facts straight. That is the difference between the side quests in Inquisition and the Witcher 3, Inquisition has more examples of the former while Witcher 3 has more examples of the latter, the side quests in the Witcher 3 generally have far more effort and detail put into them than the ones in Inquisition.

 

Well since you're the one who's pretending to be such a master critic whose viewpoints are the only ones that matter, why shouldn't you explain what you call good? It's easy to sit there and call everyone else's opinion's stupid or irrelevant. My guess is that you either don't have a good answer or that you're buying yourself time to go research a good one before you come back...

 

Honey you have already given me more time than I need to form an answer to that question, hell I could have written an entire thesis on the subject of what makes a good antagonist by now, if you honestly don't want to give me more time to formulate a good answer then the best way to do that would be to fulfill my request forcing me to make good on my deal, that'l show me huh! the only person stalling for time is you buddy boy.

 

Besides you are the one claiming that Loghain was a great (A+ no less!) antagonist, all I have done is ask you to back that assertion up.

[DarthEmpress]

Off the top of my head, you can play the game completely as a girl character and pick different races, there are romances for all genders and almost all sexualities, the women characters aren't portrayed as objects, etc.

[Al Foley]

Off the top of my head, you can play the game completely as a girl character and pick different races, there are romances for all genders and almost all sexualities, the women characters aren't portrayed as objects, etc.

The women characters in the Witcher are not portrayed as objects.  

[Elhanan]

The women characters in the Witcher are not portrayed as objects.

Some seem to be, but this appears to be in the context that indicates those treating them as such are vile. This is like having demons illustrated as being a bad thing. And by reading various posts, some Players seem to treat women this way in almost any game. The designers cannot stop this.

[MyKingdomCold]

The women characters in the Witcher are not portrayed as objects.  

 

The women characters in the Witcher are not portrayed as objects.  

 

Maybe not as "objects" but in the past games if you slept with women you would get cards! Woo-ho! Talk about achievements!