Wow, there are still people whining about the cards? Is it 2009 again or something?
Because none of this dumb crap is in subsequent Witcher games.. but knowing that would require some people with their knee jerk reactions to actually play them.. which would be quite a feat. 
Was I "whining"? I don't think I was. At least it wasn't my intention. And I know they aren't in the subsequent games. And the fact that they were removed must mean something, right?
Maybe not as "objects" but in the past games if you slept with women you would get cards! Woo-ho! Talk about achievements!
Ah yes the cards, quite a niggle for me to once a long time ago. But it is worth noting that....well you get a rather interesting event if you try and have a three some with the two female leads in the game.
Was I "whining"? I don't think I was. At least it wasn't my intention. And I know they aren't in the subsequent games. And the fact that they were removed must mean something, right?
It means they were a dumb idea and I am glad they're gone.
But fair enough, my apologies. I thought you were one of those people who usually moan about TW2 or TW3 without actually knowing what is going on in them.
It's usually spotted when someone keeps parrotting whatever hate they were fed about TW1, even when it comes to the newer titles, thus demonstrating their ignorance. I am just getting really fed up with these.
If you're not one of those, then cool. 
Was I "whining"? I don't think I was. At least it wasn't my intention. And I know they aren't in the subsequent games. And the fact that they were removed must mean something, right?
Yeah CDPR regretted the way it was viewed, they said they wanted it make the players care more about the relationship but it turned into a 'collect them all' game and that was not what they planned. I think I can even find the article.
http://www.gameinfor...-t-pan-out.aspx
From Maciej Szcześnik of CDProjektRED, The Witcher Lead Gameplay Designer,
"File those "sex cards" from the first game under failure. He discussed how the idea came from wanting to illustrate The Witcher's romances, hoping the cards would cement a deeper connection. The team wanted the cards to look like hand-drawn paintings, something more classical. The problem? When players got their hands on the game, it turned into a "collect them all minigame" more than the deep romantic connection. "That was quite embarrassing," Szcześnik said, "Not what we had planned." He noted if the team had thought through the consequences, maybe this reaction could have been avoided. It was a great lesson. "
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.
That picture is prize enough 
Late to the discussion but i just finished witcher 3 and here's my honest opinon:
Music: Witcher 3 > DAI (Sorry, the music in DAI is bland and unremarkable, except for the launchers same goes for DAO and DA2. Only mass effect stands on equal grounds here)
Combat/Gameplay: Witcher 3 > DAI (Please don't talk about "tactics" or "strategy", there are none in DAI, it attempts and fails miserably at making it into the "action" category and is really poor RPG wise. Micromanaging your dumb teammates is a frustrating chore. The two previous episodes were way better in that aspect)
UI: Witcher 3 > DAI (Yes there are some shortcomings, but we're far away from the crap bioware expects us to deal with, not to mention that CDPR actually listens to the community and they've already modified the UI for the better several times)
Story: Witcher 3 =< DAI (As much as i liked W3's story, bioware's characters are a tad better written)
Support: Witcher 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAI (The game's been out for like what, a little over two months? It's been patched eight times already with each patch bringing welcome fixes and improvements, not to mention that CDPR actually TALKS to people. Compared to that DAI still has 30 fps animations and elves with arms growing out of their buttocks).
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.
For you to understand the writer's justification for giving you a fail state, you sure are acting unreasonable about it... Games very seldom allow you to completely deviate from the main story, even if they allow you to "own the narrative". It's been quite a while since I've gone through that quest, but if I remember correctly you could
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.
Obviously your responses have devolved into full troll territory now...
I never said I didn't recognize things games do better than others. Never once did I say that. I never even said that DA was THE absolute greatest at it. You could also argue that Dishonored does a better job at allowing the player to alter the game environment. Games that give you the level of control that ANY of the games that we mentioned though are few and far between... A handful of notable games over the past couple decades doesn't exactly make it a crowded field. Name dropping games aside, the entire point of my statement was that I think it's extreme for you to say that Inquisition completely fails at allowing player control of in game events.
If that's what you genuinely believe, fine, just don't expect everyone to agree with you... Especially on a Dragon Age Inquisition forum... Common sense would tell you that.
I'm not interested in "defending Bioware's honor." Why would I? What I do know is there are some aspects of the game that I enjoy better than Witcher 3, but your one-tracked mind fails to see that it's ok for people to have different views from your own.
Bottom line, my original statement that you have been trying to refute of "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. " is still true. Just because you can name a few that do as much or more, they still make up a very small percentage of the market.
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.
In a quest where you retried an old lady's frying pan out of an abandoned house, not a lot of context is required beyond an old lady loaned someone a frying pan and she never got it back, for some reason she doesn't know anyone that can handle such mundane work(nor can she do it herself) so she needs a monster hunting Witcher to do it...
See, I can take a bad example and use it to prove a point as well!
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.
Sweety, if you can do so then what's the issue? I already said, I'm not going to play into your "my opinion is a reward that needs to be earned" game. I already gave my take on Loghain. Do I have to repost it for a 3rd time?? And do you really think anyone cares if you can write a thesis on a what you feel is a good antagonist? You could be writing a major antagonist for a big budget Hollywood film trilogy or be a writer for Marvel/DC comics; no one has to think your antagonist is good. Like I said already, get over yourself...
Bottom line is, you made a thread asking what people thought DA:I does better than TW3. People answered with their takes on what DA:I does better. You respond by basically saying that their opinions don't matter in a very condescending fashion, and that only people who share your opinion are valid. It's blatantly obvious that you were never interested in creating a two-way dialog to understand what people actually thought.
I'm not here to argue that DA: I is better than TW3 at all avenues. I'm responding to the original question that you asked and I gave my input. I heavily enjoy both of these titles. If this thread was asking what TW3 did better than DA:I, I'd be happy to give my input on that topic as well. That's not the what this topic is about now is it...
For you to understand the writer's justification for giving you a fail state, you sure are acting unreasonable about it.
Just because I understand what the writer's are using to justify their lazy plot design does not mean I think it is a good justification, if they are going to have it so the player can get kicked out of a party if they don't behave a certain way then they should at least put some effort into giving alternate branching plot lines or at the very least some alternate path that allows you to succeed despite being kicked out of the party, if they weren't prepared to do that then they could have just had the party play our largely the same without the possibility of a failure state.
Having a game over screen that tells the player that their lack of social grace opened up a singularity that caused the world to collapse in on itself is just lazy and bad no matter how you splice it.
It's been quite a while since I've gone through that quest, but if I remember correctly you could
Spoiler
OH HO You Firebrand rebel you! Not exactly the most ruthless or malevolent of things to do, besides when you perform an ass move on an ass the assiness of the move is kind of cancelled out, leaving him tied up fits within what the charming rogue would do (and lets face it would probably be considered the most socially acceptable thing to do at an Orlesian party) as the feelings of mooks like the one left tied up don't really deserve to be taken into consideration as they exist only to be punished in the most comedic of ways, besides lets not pretend he doesn't know what he did to deserve it.
I never said I didn't recognize things games do better than others.
Of course you didn't, you would never admit that to anyone let alone youself but you do seem to have trouble acknowledging the possibility that some games could potentially do things better than your beloved Inquisition even when it is obvious to almost everyone else that there are plenty of games that do things demonstrably better than Inquisition.
In a quest where you retried an old lady's frying pan out of an abandoned house, not a lot of context is required beyond an old lady loaned someone a frying pan and she never got it back, for some reason she doesn't know anyone that can handle such mundane work(nor can she do it herself) so she needs a monster hunting Witcher to do it...
Pretty sure the frying pan quest was meant as more of a joke making fun of the lame quests in other games but in all honesty I can't remember laughing all that hard at it, still side quests like the frying pan one are the exception in the Witcher 3, side quests like "fetch me 20 turkey gibblets" are the rule in Inquisition.
Sweety, if you can do so then what's the issue? I already said, I'm not going to play into your "my opinion is a reward that needs to be earned" game. I already gave my take on Loghain. Do I have to repost it for a 3rd time?? And do you really think anyone cares if you can write a thesis on a what you feel is a good antagonist? You could be writing a major antagonist for a big budget Hollywood film trilogy or be a writer for Marvel/DC comics; no one has to think your antagonist is good. Like I said already, get over yourself...
Bottom line is, you made a thread asking what people thought DA:I does better than TW3. People answered with their takes on what DA:I does better. You respond by basically saying that their opinions don't matter in a very condescending fashion, and that only people who share your opinion are valid. It's blatantly obvious that you were never interested in creating a two-way dialog to understand what people actually thought.
I'm not here to argue that DA: I is better than TW3 at all avenues. I'm responding to the original question that you asked and I gave my input. I heavily enjoy both of these titles. If this thread was asking what TW3 did better than DA:I, I'd be happy to give my input on that topic as well. That's not the what this topic is about now is it...
Thing is I don't have to, as you said this thread is about what Inquisition does better than the Witcher 3, not the other way round, I have already stated earlier that i would rather not be pointing out what the Witcher 3 does better if I don't have to as Dragon Age fans get a little upset when you point out things that other games do better than the Dragon Age ones and I would prefer not to cause a riot.
You are the one that made the claim that Loghain was a brilliant antagonist (A+ remember?) and all I have done is ask you to back up that claim. And no, saying "Loghain is such a great villain cause his actions are understandable!" does not cut it unless you explain how his actions are understandable as the claim that his actions make sense within the context of his character is the very claim that is currently under question.
However instead of backing up your claim you keep trying to avoid the subject by resulting to the childish "you show me yours and ill show you mine" tactic. Now I am perfectly happy to school you on what makes a great antagonist but I do have to admit I am genuinely curious to see how you plan to justify and back up your own assertions and I know that if I school you too early I will never see your poorly formed and amusing arguments.
If you genuinely wish me to school you on the subject of antagonists then all you have to do is make the attempt to explain why Loghain's is such a great antagonist and how his actions make sense within the context of his character, but as it stands your refusal to do so (and probable continual refusal in reply to this post) has made it abundantly clear to EVERYONE that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Levelling: DAI.
This is without a doubt. Witcher 3 levelling design left me completely shocked - what a way to make a skill tree look imposing and big! Lol.
First of all, you can only equip 12 skills total. Which makes creation of Geralt you want to play mostly impossible. Want to use both Signs and advanced Sword skills? Tough luck.
May be some people enjoy switching skills before battle, but I surely don't. Especially when there is no simple way to do this. And finally, most of the skills are just some passive garbage. Plus something to something! And of course you also have to equip it to enable! Great.
And what about those awesome looking skills - the Whirl especially? You would think each trees has something special like that? Think again..
On other hand I just love Inquisition skill system - apart from 8 skill rule of course -passives that do stuff, active that vary gameplay and specialisations too!
The levelling in DAI is a joke compared to the previous games, it's hardly better than in W3.
The levelling in DAI is a joke compared to the previous games, it's hardly better than in W3.
Do you really miss linear skill progressions and minimum requirements?
It's rather nice not to have to wait til level 100 to get access to the most fun skills.
That's just me though.
*casts Fire Mine"
"casts Pull of the Abyss*
*casts Static Cage*
MUAUAHHAHAHAHAHAHA LEVEL 10 CARNAGE!!!!!!!!!
What i miss is a fully tooltipped skill bar with more than 8 slots which were designed solely to fit a controller and not for what bioware calls "tactic".
DA does a better job of respecting past decisions.
If you choose Shani over Triss in W1, there's no difference in W2. If you did Iorveth's path and established a new kingdom ruled by Saskia in W2, not only is there no difference in W3 but Iorveth and Saskia aren't even in the game. Compare that to the many variations of Morrigan in DA:I, or who rules Ferelden.
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.
I like how making a female character attractive is the same as them being objects to some people. Super mature and classy. The hat trick would be judging the women in the Witcher series while simultaneously drooling over Cullen. You would win all the hypocrisy points then.
I bear no malice towards the Dragon Age series or it's fans but I can't just acknowledge something as true when I know it to be false, I know this is something that we commonly do when it comes to things like transgender people in order to avoid hurting their feelings but in the end I think lying to people in order to make them feel better only ends up causing more problems.
Wow. Just...
I had a more eloquent response to this, but I decided you are most definitely not worth my time so I'll just block you instead.
I like how making a female character attractive is the same them as them being objects to some people. Super mature and classy. The hat trick would be judging the women in the Witcher series while simultaneously drooling over Cullen. You would win all the hypocrisy points then.
You're not wrong, but why are you assuming that person is talking about Triss or one of the main characters 
I think they were referring to the sex cards in TW1 which to their credit have been removed.
Wow. Just...
I had a more eloquent response to this, but I decided you are most definitely not worth my time so I'll just block you instead.
Gotta admit I am curious as to what this poster found so offensive about the post he quoted? Was it the fact I prefer truth over falsehoods or is it because referring to transgender people as anything other than their preferred gender is considered taboo on these forums? I guess it is a good thing he didn't see my response to the "Why do people hate on me?" thread in off topic.
Kind of disappointed I did not get to see the "eloquent" response as well as SJW responses are usually comedy gold!
Gotta admit I am curious as to what this poster found so offensive about the post he quoted? Was it the fact I prefer truth over falsehoods or is it because referring to transgender people as anything other than their preferred gender is considered taboo on these forums? I guess it is a good thing he didn't see my response to the "Why do people hate on me?" thread in off topic.
Kind of disappointed I did not get to see the "eloquent" response as well as SJW responses are usually comedy gold!
Perhaps it is the idea presented that opinion = fact; it does not.
I hate to sound like a broken record and bring up the whole "8 vs 11" argument again but it seems you are unable to grasp what is fact and what is opinion. Now you might not like the fact that 11 is a higher number than 8 but that does not make it any less true, ask any mathematician if you don't believe me.
I hate to sound like a broken record and bring up the whole "8 vs 11" argument again but it seems you are unable to grasp what is fact and what is opinion. Now you might not like the fact that 11 is a higher number than 8 but that does not make it any less true, ask any mathematician if you don't believe me.
Just because I understand what the writer's are using to justify their lazy plot design does not mean I think it is a good justification, if they are going to have it so the player can get kicked out of a party if they don't behave a certain way then they should at least put some effort into giving alternate branching plot lines or at the very least some alternate path that allows you to succeed despite being kicked out of the party, if they weren't prepared to do that then they could have just had the party play our largely the same without the possibility of a failure state.
Having a game over screen that tells the player that their lack of social grace opened up a singularity that caused the world to collapse in on itself is just lazy and bad no matter how you splice it.
God forbid the writers give a fail game state for a situation that her grace Queen Skadi disagree with! In all seriousness though, it's completely reasonable for you say you dislike that quest. I thought it was interesting change of pace, with admittedly some cheesy mechanics. The dialog that you had throughout it's progression is what made it acceptable for me though. I thought the political blackmail / backstabbing / royal relatives trying to usurp each other is pretty reflective of actual history.
As for the "world collapsing" due to you getting thrown out of a party, an argument can be made that since you got thrown out,
Of course you didn't, you would never admit that to anyone let alone youself but you do seem to have trouble acknowledging the possibility that some games could potentially do things better than your beloved Inquisition even when it is obvious to almost everyone else that there are plenty of games that do things demonstrably better than Inquisition.
I know you're trying oh so hard to shove me into the "I think DA:I is the game to end all games" category, but I never made that claim. If anything, you're the one trying to convince everyone that of TW3. The only thing I said remotely close to the picture you're attempting to paint of my viewpoint is that I think DA:I gives you more flexibility to create your own narrative than the majority of the games on the market. And that's mathematically quantifiable by looking at story modifying decision points that the player is given. Whether you like the game or not, you can admit that it gives you flexibility in terms of direction(even if you wish you could take an alternate direction). It's even more so if you take into account that the decisions of the previous 2 games can modify the state of your game. Sure, you can say I'm praising the game for flexibility, but I never even made the claim that it was THE best at that! And for you to try to skew that into I think Inquisition is the best at everything ever is beyond ridiculous. But I know trolls gotta troll...
Pretty sure the frying pan quest was meant as more of a joke making fun of the lame quests in other games but in all honesty I can't remember laughing all that hard at it, still side quests like the frying pan one are the exception in the Witcher 3, side quests like "fetch me 20 turkey gibblets" are the rule in Inquisition.
Nah, I'm pretty sure they didn't do it as a joke... If I remember correctly, you find out the person she loaned the pan to was a spy or something., so it most likely made for you to discover a "startling revelation". But you DID bash DA specifically for the quest where you find someone's lost goat(don't you do the EXACT same thing in Witcher 3 with the Pellar's goat???). In DA, the quest was obviously written as a non-serious side quest, since it's some psychedelically colored, demon-possessed goat that the gives the owner monetary advice. Of course you would write this off as a stupid waste of time in DA, but consider the an equivalent example in the Witcher 3 to be developers "making fun of lame quests in other games"... Both of these games are similar in terms of substance in their side quests, it's just that the Witcher 3 nails the presentation of the quests, giving them in increased sense of importance.
I have already stated earlier that i would rather not be pointing out what the Witcher 3 does better if I don't have to as Dragon Age fans get a little upset when you point out things that other games do better than the Dragon Age ones and I would prefer not to cause a riot.
Really? Pretty sure your actions contradict that statement. You originally pretended like you were trying to open a dialog where people could express what they felt DA does better, but then proceed to tell them that their opinions were incorrect and that the Witcher 3 is the winner.
You are the one that made the claim that Loghain was a brilliant antagonist (A+ remember?) and all I have done is ask you to back up that claim. And blah blah blah blah blah.......
May be a higher number, but not when equating them to unequal things. Eleven feathers do not equal eight pieces of chicken; does not even equal one whole chicken.
Time for lunch; gonna have some tenders w/o the feathers....
Irrelevant, the quality of the items in question were not a factor in the conversation being referenced, it was purely about the numbers in regards to replayability, not subjective quality.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
