644 réponses à ce sujet

[chrstnmonks]

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

And In The DA universe if you sleep with them you geyt an achievement how is that any better?

[PearsAndCherries]

-I love the group-banter in DA:I, up to the point where I ask my boyfriend to be quiet when there's banter going on.

-I like the story in the Witcher a lot but as I played DA:O as a 15/16 year old, I can't help but feel more emotionally invested in the whole DA world. 

 

[Kylisse]

Dragon Age games are for me about the characters and how I interact with them and their various story archs. The Witcher doesn't even seem to try to do this. There are characters but they are shallow foils, props for Geralt. I played through half of the first, the entire second and about 20 hours of the third and I didn't feel anything about the characters was compelling, and the main story was either incomprehensible or boring. The main narrative in the DA games aren't exactly treading new ground in storytelling but at least I don't doze off in the midst of the cut scenes, and feel propelled through the game for reasons that aren't as tedious as Geralt's.

[SurelyForth]

And In The DA universe if you sleep with them you geyt an achievement how is that any better?

 

Because a handful of achievements is not equal to several objectifying drawings of women. Also, the achievements in DA are for romancing companions, all of whom have well developed characters- it tends to amount to more than a **** and run with an NPC. If you got an achievement for sleeping with Isabela in DAO or Jethann in DA2, then you might have a point. As it is, you do not.

[Ballax]

I think TW3 and DAI's difference is more in presentation than in story, let me give you an example:

 

A lot of Geralt's conversations involve the thirty billionth straight white male protagonist who happens to be an emotionally tortured monster hunter who's super good at fighting, magic, alchemy, tracking and more. I could feel myself groaning internally at the whole idea of Geralt, yet the little micromovements, the hair detailing, the facial expressions and ultra realistic pre-modeled face all helped me to really believe that as uncreative a character as Geralt might be he's a real person going on a real journey.

 

In opposition let's talk about a character like Cassandra. At first she's a hard nosed quasi fanatic with a sword, the first time you see her it's clear you'd have a better time arguing with the Chant of Light itself rather than the Seeker holding it. And yet over the course of the game you see her make jokes, fumble in social situations and develop her own side-interests like Varric's smut books and you see her profess romantic ideals and all without ever forgetting that she's still a tough as nails soldier of the faith. But it's presented with an awkwardly animated stand in for a woman with frequent clipping issues.

 

I would say that Dragon Age is fillet mignion served bare on a plastic tray and The Witcher 3 is a ham sandwich served on fine china. The former is a richly detailed world presented poorly and the witcher is an unremarkable idea presented well.

[Linkenski]

Whenever people compare these games and point to DA being better becuase "party and party banter!" then you're doing it wrong lol. Those can't be compared that way. That's where the two are fundamentally different and it becomes a matter of what you like better.

 

There are other things though, like the storytelling, the environmental designs, the conversation systems etc. those things are more directly comparable.

[chrstnmonks]

Because a handful of achievements is not equal to several objectifying drawings of women. Also, the achievements in DA are for romancing companions, all of whom have well developed characters- it tends to amount to more than a **** and run with an NPC. If you got an achievement for sleeping with Isabela in DAO or Jethann in DA2, then you might have a point. As it is, you do not.

I am a woman and I liked the cards didn't see them that way at all.  Saw them as nothing more than a way to deal with sex scenes. Also well developed is an opinion. Also let us keep in mind in DAO and DA2 at least the end game of the so called romances was to get your partner in bed. Which you get an achievement for. So IMO the point stands.

[Elhanan]

I am a woman and I liked the cards didn't see them that way at all.  Saw them as nothing more than a way to deal with sex scenes. Also well developed is an opinion. Also let us keep in mind in DAO and DA2 at least the end game of the so called romances was to get your partner in bed. Which you get an achievement for. So IMO the point stands.

My romance in DA2 was with Aveline; possibly my favorite, and one of best written heart on a sleeve relationships I have experienced in a game. Also like flirting with Scout Harding. No sex involved with either; simply romantic intrigue.

[Xetykins]

 
A lot of Geralt's conversations involve the thirty billionth straight white male protagonist

I guess I missed all his "straight white male" conversations with the monsters.

Fb

the facial expressions and ultra realistic pre-modeled face all helped me to really believe that as uncreative a character as Geralt might be he's a real person going on a real journey.

Nevermind all the monsters he's killed or spared along the way depending on your moral compass. Or the whole ordeal of looking for his daughter. As long as the hair and face is well done, then I guess the character's journey becomes believable?

I wonder if Geralt' character becomes "creative" if he is anything BUT a straight white male with a lot of romance options.

[FKA_Servo]

I wonder if Geralt' character becomes "creative" if he is anything BUT a straight white male with a lot of romance options.

 

It's undeniably true that he'd be a lot less typical. Which is valuable in and of itself.

 

I can't think of too many creative new character archtypes personally, but as well done and enjoyable as Geralt is, he's not exactly a new paradigm, and it's not a merit-less complaint. This is a good chunk of why I think that CCs are so valuable, and even applicable to a relatively "set protagonist" situation like Shepard or Hawke.

 

Spoiler

 

EDIT: Forget it, no point.

 

[Xetykins]

It's undeniably true that he'd be a lot less typical. Which is valuable in and of itself.

I can't think of too many creative new character archtypes personally, but as well done and enjoyable as Geralt is, he's not exactly a new paradigm, and it's not a merit-less complaint. This is a good chunk of why I think that CCs are so valuable, and even applicable to a relatively "set protagonist" situation like Shepard or Hawke.

Spoiler

http://tvtropes.org/...n/WhiteMaleLead

Outdated, yet relevant

Soooo what are you trying to say with those pictures? You are agreeing that the protagonist's looks is what makes their journey believable? Cuz that was what I was quoting at.

Looking at your pics those are the ones who are more "typical" than a horribly scarred face, blonde, rough and a cat eyed witcher who by the way looks like a freaky ghoul when intoxicated.

[FKA_Servo]

Soooo what are you trying to say with those pictures? You are agreeing that the protagonist's looks is what makes their journey believable? Cuz that was what I was quoting at.

 

I guess I thought the poster you quoted was saying something else, since the sentence in question doesn't end. My takeaway was that they (and by extension, you) were commenting on the (verifiable and egregious) lack of diversity in most games. If your comment was more pointed, then apologies. Geralt's face does look great. But I think Ballax agrees with you, in that case.

[Xetykins]

I guess I thought the poster you quoted was saying something else, since the sentence in question doesn't end. My takeaway was that they (and by extension, you) were commenting on the (verifiable and egregious) lack of diversity in most games. If your comment was more pointed, then apologies. Geralt's face does look great. But I think Ballax agrees with you, in that case.

I agree with the lack of diversity. Super straight female here where only Bioware has managed to scratch that itch. In fact I've never ever played a male toon before. But I cant label the integrity of a protagonist's journey based on his looks or his sex and sexual orientation.

[Nefla]

Dragon Age games are for me about the characters and how I interact with them and their various story archs. The Witcher doesn't even seem to try to do this. There are characters but they are shallow foils, props for Geralt. I played through half of the first, the entire second and about 20 hours of the third and I didn't feel anything about the characters was compelling, and the main story was either incomprehensible or boring. The main narrative in the DA games aren't exactly treading new ground in storytelling but at least I don't doze off in the midst of the cut scenes, and feel propelled through the game for reasons that aren't as tedious as Geralt's.

Interesting, I felt completely the opposite! I never played TW1 so I can't speak on it and I agree that TW2 didn't have many interesting characters though I felt the game made up for it with its' branching plotlines and political intrique but TW3 just blew me away. While I loved the characters in previous BW games, I felt the companions in DA:I were very weak and lacking. For the most part, each one felt more like a caricature than a developed and interesting character that would let me grow attached to them. The non companion characters and NPCs however were a thousand times worse. Not a single one seemed like an interesting or memorable character, they all just felt like cardboard cutouts that you were told something about but never experienced it for yourself ex: "this is the empress, she's cunning, manipulative, and ruthless" and yet in game she just sort of faffs around for a while in a hideous dress and doesn't do or say anything. I thought TW3 had fantastic characters (which I really hadn't expected) and I cared about all of them. Even the small-time side quest NPCs felt way more like real people with real lives and motivations. IMO characters have always been BioWare's #1 strength and I felt they severely neglected that aspect with DA:I in favor of large and pretty maps, "exploration" and combat.

[hoechlbear]

Interesting, I felt completely the opposite! I never played TW1 so I can't speak on it and I agree that TW2 didn't have many interesting characters though I felt the game made up for it with its' branching plotlines and political intrique but TW3 just blew me away. While I loved the characters in previous BW games, I felt the companions in DA:I were very weak and lacking. For the most part, each one felt more like a caricature than a developed and interesting character that would let me grow attached to them. The non companion characters and NPCs however were a thousand times worse. Not a single one seemed like an interesting or memorable character, they all just felt like cardboard cutouts that you were told something about but never experienced it for yourself ex: "this is the empress, she's cunning, manipulative, and ruthless" and yet in game she just sort of faffs around for a while in a hideous dress and doesn't do or say anything. I thought TW3 had fantastic characters (which I really hadn't expected) and I cared about all of them. Even the small-time side quest NPCs felt way more like real people with real lives and motivations. IMO characters have always been BioWare's #1 strength and I felt they severely neglected that aspect with DA:I in favor of large and pretty maps, "exploration" and combat.

 

Agreed. There are so many interesting side characters in TW3. It may not be a companion based game but the amount of characters you meet in that game is overwhelming and I was 100 times more invested on them than I ever was with DAI's characters. And I'm not even talking about Geralt's friends. I'm talking about all the NPCs you meet and interact with throughout the game. Not only the more important characters (like Cerys, I love that girl and her quest is brilliant) but also those you meet on more simple sidequests (Nidas' story, for instances, really stuck with me). I didn't feel anything like that for DAI's companions, let alone the emotionless NPCs you barely get to interact with on the worlds.

[Wolven_Soul]

Interesting, I felt completely the opposite! I never played TW1 so I can't speak on it and I agree that TW2 didn't have many interesting characters though I felt the game made up for it with its' branching plotlines and political intrique but TW3 just blew me away. While I loved the characters in previous BW games, I felt the companions in DA:I were very weak and lacking. For the most part, each one felt more like a caricature than a developed and interesting character that would let me grow attached to them. The non companion characters and NPCs however were a thousand times worse. Not a single one seemed like an interesting or memorable character, they all just felt like cardboard cutouts that you were told something about but never experienced it for yourself ex: "this is the empress, she's cunning, manipulative, and ruthless" and yet in game she just sort of faffs around for a while in a hideous dress and doesn't do or say anything. I thought TW3 had fantastic characters (which I really hadn't expected) and I cared about all of them. Even the small-time side quest NPCs felt way more like real people with real lives and motivations. IMO characters have always been BioWare's #1 strength and I felt they severely neglected that aspect with DA:I in favor of large and pretty maps, "exploration" and combat.

 

I'm not sure I would add in the combat with pretty maps and exploration, as DA:I's combat is not really all that great.  The removal of tactics really hurt the combat.  But everything else I am in agreement with you.  All the characters in that game were fantastic.  The game had me carrying about the smallest of characters, while in DA:I I didn't even care about what happened to Clarel.  

[Giantdeathrobot]

-Crafting. In Witcher, it's just ''spend X materials to have Y item pop in your inventory, which you probably can't use yet''. Inquisition has a deeper, far more flexible crafting system that allows you to create a wide variety of items, sometimes with very interesting effects. TW3 does have better art design on the armor themselves (Bear School armor  ) but crafting is miles ahead in Inquisition.

 

-Playing with a party. Absolutely essential to me enjoying an RPG to its fullest, even if it's just a follower ala Fallout. The silent adventurer type quickly runs out of things to say, and the bond between, say, Geralt and Zolton isn't as good as the one my Inquisitior formed with his friend Solas. A lot of that comes from having the latter fight by my side and have party banter.

 

-Combat system. Yes, Inquisition's system is flawed, and the tactical camera sucks. But it's still better than the Arkham Asylum style, attack attack roll counter thing that TW3 has. Having a party also helps, since you can change playstyles on the fly.

 

-Variety and progression. Tying with the above, Inquisition has several varied combat styles. My Tempest PC doesn't play like my Reaver PC doesn't play like my KE PC doesn't play like my Champion PC. I am on my second playthrough of TW3, and my alchemy specced Geralt plays just about the same as my combat specced Geralt. Worse, my level 1 Geralt plays almost the same as my level 36 Geralt. When measured against Inquisition, where my puny level 1 mage became a level 23 KE god, it pales. 

 

-Special encounters. Literally the only fight I fondly remember in TW3 is Imlerith when he goes bersek. Everything else was beatable with the same attack attack Quen dodge routine. Dragon fights in Inquisition were awesome, Envy was great, and I quite liked fighting Samson or Calpernia. 

 

-Main story overall. TW3's has some amazing moments (Velen, Kaer Morhen) but some really boring ones too (Novigrad both times around, Skellige isn't that amazing). Inquisition is overall better. The main story is too short, true, but the sequences at Haven, Adamant and the Arbor Wilds stand out in particular. And please don,t say Inquisition's plot is simple, it is, but TW3's is almost literally ''find Ciri, defend her, than smack cackling villain Eredin in the face while she defeats the White Frost thanks to the power of love''.

 

-World building. The author of the Witcher books wasn't a world builder, and it shows. The setting has tons of anachronisms, inconsistencies, and random things mashed together because they're cool. Not to mention the grey morality is hampered by some really mediocre and formulaic storytelling in some sections, such as every single king being an ******* and every single religion save one being bad. Dragon Age has a much more solid setting, as wel las a mythology that expands as the games are released and becomes more interesting with each installment.

 

-Environments. Yes, Velen and Skellige are pretty. Yes, technically TW3 looks just better than Inquisition. But the areas start to look samey after 40-50 hours. Inquisition has far more variety, from lush green forests to stormy coasts and nighttime deserts.

 

 

Do note, I enjoyed TW3 and Inquisition pretty much eually (thanks in large part to TW3's simply superior side content). Inquisition definitely does some things better from where I stand.

[KBomb]

-Crafting. In Witcher, it's just ''spend X materials to have Y item pop in your inventory, which you probably can't use yet''. Inquisition has a deeper, far more flexible crafting system that allows you to create a wide variety of items, sometimes with very interesting effects. TW3 does have better art design on the armor themselves (Bear School armor  ) but crafting is miles ahead in Inquisition.

 

-Playing with a party. Absolutely essential to me enjoying an RPG to its fullest, even if it's just a follower ala Fallout. The silent adventurer type quickly runs out of things to say, and the bond between, say, Geralt and Zolton isn't as good as the one my Inquisitior formed with his friend Solas. A lot of that comes from having the latter fight by my side and have party banter.

 

-Combat system. Yes, Inquisition's system is flawed, and the tactical camera sucks. But it's still better than the Arkham Asylum style, attack attack roll counter thing that TW3 has. Having a party also helps, since you can change playstyles on the fly.

 

-Variety and progression. Tying with the above, Inquisition has several varied combat styles. My Tempest PC doesn't play like my Reaver PC doesn't play like my KE PC doesn't play like my Champion PC. I am on my second playthrough of TW3, and my alchemy specced Geralt plays just about the same as my combat specced Geralt. Worse, my level 1 Geralt plays almost the same as my level 36 Geralt. When measured against Inquisition, where my puny level 1 mage became a level 23 KE god, it pales.

 

-Special encounters. Literally the only fight I fondly remember in TW3 is Imlerith when he goes bersek. Everything else was beatable with the same attack attack Quen dodge routine. Dragon fights in Inquisition were awesome, Envy was great, and I quite liked fighting Samson or Calpernia.

 

-Main story overall. TW3's has some amazing moments (Velen, Kaer Morhen) but some really boring ones too (Novigrad both times around, Skellige isn't that amazing). Inquisition is overall better. The main story is too short, true, but the sequences at Haven, Adamant and the Arbor Wilds stand out in particular. And please don,t say Inquisition's plot is simple, it is, but TW3's is almost literally ''find Ciri, defend her, than smack cackling villain Eredin in the face while she defeats the White Frost thanks to the power of love''.

 

-World building. The author of the Witcher books wasn't a world builder, and it shows. The setting has tons of anachronisms, inconsistencies, and random things mashed together because they're cool. Not to mention the grey morality is hampered by some really mediocre and formulaic storytelling in some sections, such as every single king being an ******* and every single religion save one being bad. Dragon Age has a much more solid setting, as wel las a mythology that expands as the games are released and becomes more interesting with each installment.

 

-Environments. Yes, Velen and Skellige are pretty. Yes, technically TW3 looks just better than Inquisition. But the areas start to look samey after 40-50 hours. Inquisition has far more variety, from lush green forests to stormy coasts and nighttime deserts.

Do note, I enjoyed TW3 and Inquisition pretty much eually (thanks in large part to TW3's simply superior side content). Inquisition definitely does some things better from where I stand.

Just to touch on some of your points a bit:

 

Crafting: If you're crafting armor or weapons you can't use, that isn't the game's fault. It clearly tells you in the crafting diagram what level you need to be to use the item you're crafting. There is also a wide variety of things you can craft in TW3's system such as potions, poisons, decoctions, mutagens, crafting components, runes, bombs, arrows, armor and weapons--which can be upgraded, changing not only the stats, but the look of the armor. You can also dismantle old weapons, old armor and junk items to gain more crafting materials and components. You also have to watch out for which potions you use together and keep an eye on your toxicity. You just can't pop as many as you wish, it will literally poison Geralt and begin to kill him and it isn't just a buff effect---his skin changes, his eyes changes and the world around him takes on a skewed view. I get that you like DAI's crafting better, I just fail to see how it's miles ahead? What about it is innovative, exactly? 

 

Variety and Progression: TW3 has many combat styles, as well. Yes, you can ignore them and just spam swordplay, Quen and bombs and do mostly fine, but the same can be said for any class in DAI. You also can never touch your party's tactics and not have much of an issue. I don't choose to play that way in DAI and I don't choose to spam in TW3 either. In both games, the tactics and strategy are there, if you don't enjoy one or the other, that is an opinion, but to say TW3 doesn't have much variety in combat is simply not true. I say the same thing to people who state that DAI hasn't any tactics. The tactics are there, if one doesn't use them properly, it isn't the game's fault-- it isn't Bioware's or CDPR's either. As for progression, Geralt starts out pretty mushy, imo---but for instance, I am level 31 now and can pretty much obliterate anything if I use the proper potions, decoctions and bombs, even things higher than me. However, if I just go in swinging my sword, I am going to get wrecked, especially against foes that poison you, cause you to hallucinate, bleed or attacks you in packs. 

 

Special Encounters: There really isn't a debate here. This is purely your preference and it isn't wrong. I just wanted to say that for me--I love Calpernia. She is one of my favorites and I really wish I could have seen more of her character. I think she was really written well and complex. However, you don't have to fight her and then it's just kind of...done. As with you, I am sure, special encounters you remember isn't based solely on combat. I loved the scene...

 

Spoiler

where Geralt beats the poop out of Whoreson Jr.  and any moment with the Crones is great and memorable--especially on Bald Mountain.

 

 

But yeah, that is really just about preference, but again, the spamming of Quen and sword is on the player. 

 

World Building: TW3's main plot was far from simple. It's a pretty entwined plot lined with politics, war and the Wild Hunt. DA's lore and story changes as plot dictates. I am not saying that's a bad thing, but it's far from solid. Every game it's the same formula. Bad guys here, savior there. Qunari are bad guys, Qunari are good guys, Darkspawn infects and kills, Darkspawn taint really isn't that bad after all and anyone can fight within the Deep Roads without much fear of it, kill off a character, it's okay. They're written back in for plot reasons. And I would say the Chantry is a one "true" religion in DA. TW and DA aren't that different in that aspect. Different races, peoples have different religions and Gods, but Eternal Fire is the " true" one, same as DA has many God's and religions, but the Chantry is there one "true" one. 

 

Lastly, Environments: Out of everything, I think I disagree with this the most. DAI has snowy landscapes, farmland, deserts, and plains, swamps. TW3 has those same environments, including a vast water mechanic that allows you to traverse from place to place with boats--boats that you can run into wreckage, icebergs and shoals that will sink your craft, causing you to have to swim back to shore. It also has dynamic weather and a day/night cycle where not only the people react to it, but monsters and animals do, as well. Snow and rain and storms make the environment act accordingly. Have you watched the sun set or rise while in the sea or atop a tall mountain? It is truly breathtaking. There is even a potion that you can only use in storms. In the game when...

 

Spoiler

Geralt is stepping through the portals to different worlds, you actually see each world differently. They aren't similar at all

 

 

Please don't think I am trying to discount your opinions, I'm not. You wrote out a well thought and polite comparison and I value that it's your opinion. I just wanted to touch on those points for those who may want to give TW3 a go. I hope it doesn't offend.

[wicked cool]

W3 beats dai in a steaight up fight for fane of year but dai does some things better

Gerault is drizzt,conan,harry potter, Legolas, batman, etc. hes not your creation and therefore he takes a huge hit in roleplaying. Right now im playing as a carta dwarf and theres truly a race difference that w3/skyrim etc never conveyed
The supporting cast-gerault is your main hero but other than his romance he really is a solo act. Hes liam neeson in you know the dialogue before he even says it. Dai and tge da universe has a better overall cast. I wouldt t trade varric, solas, morrigan etc for the small handul of witcher characters.

To me w3 is lord of the rings movies with wow these scenes rock and great casting etc but you know that gerault will live while the da universe is the GOT tv series with great acting and you dont know who dies/betrays and who the hero is

[Giantdeathrobot]

snipped for brevity's sake

 

Oh, I completely understand your points. This is my opinion, there are many like it but it is mine. I'm certainly not offended by anyone not sharing it. 

 

What annoys me is when people (on both sides of this ''debate'', mind you, but the Witcher groupies seem more visible) act as if their opinion is absolute truth and go ''X game is objectively superior to Y, prove me wrong fanboys'' like the OP is doing. Nothing wrong with prefering TW3. There is something wrong with thinking this entitles you to belittle everyone else just because you like a game over the other. 

[Queen Skadi]

My romance in DA2 was with Aveline; possibly my favorite.

 

Did not know getting rejected counted as romance? Well perhaps for you it might but I always thought a romance only counts when 2 willing people reciprocate their feelings for one another?

[Elhanan]

Did not know getting rejected counted as romance? Well perhaps for you it might but I always thought a romance only counts when 2 willing people reciprocate their feelings for one another?

Must be unfamiliar with the term 'unrequited love'; hardly new to the romantic genre.

[Queen Skadi]

Must be unfamiliar with the term 'unrequited love'; hardly new to the romantic genre.

 

Call it what you want, I call it "creepy"

[correctamundo]

Must be unfamiliar with the term 'unrequited love'; hardly new to the romantic genre.

 

Remember that Skadi believes that going to brothel and buying sex is the same as romance.

[Queen Skadi]

Remember that Skadi believes that going to brothel and buying sex is the same as romance.

 

Well if your goal is to get to the sex scene at the end it does streamline the process, and at least the prostitute is a willing participant in the act.