645 réponses à ce sujet

[Forsythia77]

I like the Witcher series.  I like  the Dragon Age series.  I'm not one of those women who won't play a game because of a male protagonist.  If I were, there would only be like three games out there I could play.  The  games are both different.  Sure they are RPGs but one is party based, one is not.  The issues are different, even if some of the elements in them overlap.  But that is the nature of the fantasy realm.  I hate that people immediately feel the need to compare or force a competition between the two games. DAI has some of the prettiest dragons I've seen in any game.  It hurts me to have to kill them. And in the Witcher, the fact that Geralt grows a beard as time passes is just one of those wonderful little immersive details that let you know that time is passing and to get a haircut, ya damn hippie. I like that Geralt has this subtle dry sense of humor.  I like that the party based banter in DA is just outright hilarious and not subtle at times.  I like the overly involved crafting in both games and the constant need to pick flowers.  I like that the actress who does Hawke's voice is also Ciri's voice.  My point is that both games are good.  And both games have things that make me want to punch a baby.  Neither is perfect.  Both are great fun.

[frankf43]

I wish I like the Witcher series. It would give me something new to play. 

[correctamundo]

I don't care too much about the beard thing though, if it wasn't for the drunken barber B-)

[Thibax]

Magic!

Spells! Spells! Spells!

And I want more.

I can be an archer in DAI too.

[Heimdall]

Corypheus had more depth than Eredin

 

...Which is impressive because Corypheus was extremely underdeveloped.

[Elhanan]

A Pause feature, and Tac-Cam are the main mechanical functions of that I am aware; do not own or play TW3.

Offensive content is largely avoidable in Bioware titles; one does not need to skip entire cut-scenes as a general rule. I am able to bench Companions that are known transgressors, and work fairly well with the rest of them.

Multiple options for the Main character: gender, race, and voice, as well as a detailed CC.

[Queen Skadi]

Well DA is much stronger and more fleshed out from a world building perspective.

 

Stronger? Most definitely not! More fleshed out? Ehhhhhhh, not sure I see that either, gonna need an example of what you mean?

[Queen Skadi]

Characters.

 

 

I've always felt that the DA series has trumped the Witcher series in this regard. The companions and the romances in the DA series have significantly more depth than those found in the Witcher, Witcher 2, and Witcher 3.

 

That isn't to say that the Witcher series has horrible characters. In particular, Iorveth and Roche in the Witcher 2 were both fantastic, with great background stories and some fantastic interactions with Geralt. Of course, fast-forward to the W3 and Iorveth gets about 1-2 mentions (with a grand total of zero appearances), and Roche barely gets any screen time (outside of yelling his love for Temeria and how crazy Radovid is). Its also hard to overlook the one-note characters such as Zoltan and Dandelion, who had little to no growth throughout the entirety of the series.

 

Furthermore, I felt CDPR did an absolutely horrible job with the portrayal of Triss Merrigold. She sort of just latches on to you in the first game, and appears to be all lovey-dovey and obsessed with Geralt for no reason (obviously there are reasons, but those are mostly found within the book series, not the game). The second game didn't improve on this much, especially considering she was only around for about 1/4 of the game. She has sex with you, sticks around in the bar, has sex with you again, and then gets kidnapped. Zero character development. To be fair, though, Triss in the third game felt much more 'alive' to me, and her personal struggles were told in a captivating way (although she contributes little to the end-game, something which a lot of Trissmancers were clearly upset about on the CDPR forums).

 

Lovely speech but too bad it is wrong, I mean it is a common misconception that people latch onto that the characters in the Dragon Age series have "depth" because they are all to eager to bore you with their backstory but when when the writers tell you what you should believe about the character only to have them act inconsistently and contrary to what we are told about them it is hard to see them as anything other than a shallow poorly written mess. To me depth is not about the character giving a huge monologue about their backstory but rather in how a character's personality and experiences manifest in their actions and their speech and the Witcher games have always been more about showing rather than telling.

 

for instance if I were to ask who has more depth? Loghain or Letho? The less observant person would probably say Loghain, that person would be dead ****** wrong, of course the writers tried to give the illusion of depth by telling the player at the end of the game that he was actually a misguided patriot doing only what he thought he needed to do in order to ensure the prosperity of his beloved Ferelden, but nah, that **** ain't gonna fly after all the things they had him do, if their was some rational believable reason that could realistically make the player believe that such actions could somehow be seen as beneficial to Ferelden then maybe I would be more inclined to believe it but as it stands I can't see any reason for Loghain's actions other than to paint him as the mustachio twirling villain who does what he did because "mwahahaha evil". Letho on the other hand you are not even told his backstory, he does not try to claim some altruistic motive to justify his actions, in fact I get the impression that there is even a part of him that enjoys subterfuge and punishing the arrogance and ignorance of the people he exploits in order to accomplish his goals, but it is through his actions and personality that you see why he is the way he is, you get a fairly good idea of the general backstory and how it has shaped him into who he is, everything he does makes sense within the context of the character as we know him.

 

Even characters like the Bloody Barron have far more depth than the characters in Dragon Age can even hope to possess and he is but a mere side character, while the show rather than tell approach may go over a lot of peoples heads the truly observant will appreciate the depth of the characters in the Witcher games a lot more, this is an area Dragon Age can't even hope to compete.

[United Servo Academy Choir]

Define "richer lore"

 

They knocked it out of the park with TheDAS (using that in the official and the original sense). Not only do you get the sense of real history in DA, if you take a look at the two World of Thedas volumes, the level of depth and detail that they went into when creating the world, cultures, and writing the history, is mind-blowing. To me, at any rate, but it's such an achievement that I can't be the only one who thinks that way. Tolkien level ****.

 

I'm finally playing TW games (and enjoying them very much), and the setting is good - works just fine for the story it tells - but very random. And nowhere near as coherent and carefully crafted as Thedas and its history. That comes out in spades.

 

 

Stronger? Most definitely not! More fleshed out? Ehhhhhhh, not sure I see that either, gonna need an example of what you mean?

 

It's certainly more internally consistent.

 

In world of Thedas, there's practically a year by year breakdown of Thedas' history from long before the first age. The extent to which the religions, countries, and cultures are fleshed out is astonishing. Hundreds of pages of background material and world-building.

 

The Witcher's setting is fine, but it's a frequently internally inconsistent hodgepodge of random things and rule of cool, if you think about it for more than a minute (and I've seen what appear to be die-hard fans of the books and games admit as much). It's very clearly not conceived as comprehensively as the DAS is.

[Heimdall]

Stronger? Most definitely not! More fleshed out? Ehhhhhhh, not sure I see that either, gonna need an example of what you mean?

I mean that there's a great deal more depth to the world in DA.  It isn't always handled well in game, but all the lore of Thedas' many cultures, religions, rich history of conflicts throughout the land for numerous causes is extensive.  The darkspawn lore alone is much better developed than the lore on almost any foe the Witcher has ever faced.  The extremely underdeveloped religious lore in the Witcher games has always bugged me personally.  There's also the matter of Sapowski's anachronisms occasionally sticking out like sore thumbs.  Basically, DA lore is more extensive and consistent in just about every arena.  The Witcher has some interesting lore about the many world, Conjunction of Spheres, and the Witchers themselves, but that's it.

 

EDIT:  Even the Conjunction of Spheres, interesting though it is, often just ends up being a throwaway explanation for all the random monsters we run into.  By contrast, DA is much more internally consistent.  Most monsters are produced through the Blight or spirits being involved.  It makes for a more coherent world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hawke now that's how a protag should be, he made my inquisitor pale in comparison

I completely disagree with that. Hawke was always just the character BioWare wrote. The Inquisitor could be nearly anyone I wanted him to be.

And that's one big way in which DAI was better than TW3.

[United Servo Academy Choir]

I completely disagree with that. Hawke was always just the character BioWare wrote. The Inquisitor could be nearly anyone I wanted him to be.

And that's one big way in which DAI was better than TW3.

To say that the two games scratch dramatically different itches would be a drastic (not to mention diplomatic) understatement. I don't understand why they even have to fight.

If you ask me, these fights are largely just the expression of CDPR versus Bioware/EA (which, considering some of their recent actions, is understandable).

I'm also getting the impression that the OP is already seems to know the answer to the question they posed, and are unlikely to respond favorably to anyone who doesn't straight up agree with them.

[Queen Skadi]

The darkspawn lore alone is much better developed than the lore on almost any foe the Witcher has ever faced.

 

Seriously? The Darkspawn are the very definition of your bog standard generic evil monster race, you cant honestly be trying to compare the Dragon Age bestiary to the Witcher bestiary can you? Dragon Age's bestiary can't possibly hope to compare, ill give you the point on religion though.

[Queen Skadi]

They knocked it out of the park with TheDAS (using that in the official and the original sense). Not only do you get the sense of real history in DA, if you take a look at the two World of Thedas volumes, the level of depth and detail that they went into when creating the world, cultures, and writing the history, is mind-blowing. To me, at any rate, but it's such an achievement that I can't be the only one who thinks that way. Tolkien level ****.

 

I'm finally playing TW games (and enjoying them very much), and the setting is good - works just fine for the story it tells - but very random. And nowhere near as coherent and carefully crafted as Thedas and its history. That comes out in spades.

 

To be honest I have never read any of the volumes of World of Thedas but judging the lore I have read in the game I wouldn't really call it a "believable sense of real history", yeah it has a timeline where a bunch of stuff happens but nothing really happens because it is the realistic outcome that would arise if all the things that the game uses as a catalyst for these events were to actually occur, it is more the result of "well we need the mages to be oppressed so lets just right some half arse reason as to how they managed to be oppressed despite having the power to incinerate whole armies with the click of their fingers".

 

To me Thedas (though I must admit I can appreciate and see the humour in the name calling the world an abbreviated version of "The Dragon Age Setting") would have to be one of the blandest medieval fantasy settings out there that tries to make up for it's lack of original thought by flipping certain tropes on their head without any real rhyme or reason other than to give the false impression that they are doing something different by playing the opposite game, and while Thedas may have more "fluff" details they are little more than white noise being either inconsequential and nonsense or contradicted by everything shown in the games.

[Queen Skadi]

I'm also getting the impression that the OP is already seems to know the answer to the question they posed, and are unlikely to respond favorably to anyone who doesn't straight up agree with them.

 

I respect people who disagree with my opinions however when somebody states something that is undeniably false I will call it out, for instance if you were to say that you personally like the characters in the Dragon age series better I can respect that, that is your opinion and I would not dare say you are wrong, however to say that the characters in the Dragon Age universe have more depth, well as I already pointed out that is a straight up lie and I will call it out as such.

 

Just because I am very good at seeing through bullshit doesn't mean I am not genuinely curious to find out what the Dragon Age series actually manages to do better, I truly want to know as I would much rather see the good in a game rather than point out how it fails, that being said I am having trouble doing this which is why I have come here asking for the help of the Dragon Age forum to help me see the good in the games.

[Apollexander]

Whatever TW3 does better blows Inquisition away.

Whatever Inquisition does better cannot be compared.

Are you satisfied?

[Heimdall]

Seriously? The Darkspawn are the very definition of your bog standard generic evil monster race, you cant honestly be trying to compare the Dragon Age bestiary to the Witcher bestiary can you? Dragon Age's bestiary can't possibly hope to compare, ill give you the point on religion though.

In terms of sheer variety, the Witcher's bestiary has the upper hand, but not in depth. The darkspawn lore: broodmothers, the Old Gods, the calling, the magisters and their invasion of the Golden Cory. The darkspawn themselves may be mindless monsters, but the lore behind them, what drives them, why they even exist, ties them to some of the most intriguing facets of the lore.

Though as an aside, the DA bestiary gets bonus points from me for reinventing the Phoenix as those firebreathing velociraptors in the Western Approach

EDIT: It should be said that I'm a bit of a lore nut.

[United Servo Academy Choir]

So I guess at the end of the day, we learned that the answer is either lots or nothing at all, depending on who you ask, and that you can't account for taste.

Which I think we already knew.

[Queen Skadi]

In terms of sheer variety, the Witcher's bestiary has the upper hand, but not in depth.

 

[Heimdall]

https://www.youtube....h?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by depth? Or what creatures you think fit the bill?

[Suledin]

[Queen Skadi]

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by depth? Or what creatures you think fit the bill?

 

How do you kill a Darkspawn? Whack it wit a sword, burn it with fire, who the **** cares as you cut them down by the hundreds every day.

 

How do you lift the curse on a Botchling? The Botchling is a creature born of a child that died in stillbirth and wasn't given a proper burial, seeking the acceptance it never got from those who discarded it it feeds on the life force of pregnant women until it is strong enough to exact it's vengeance on those who spurned it, the ritual to lift the curse involves the parent coming to terms and facing their loss by acknowledging and accepting the botchling as their child and asking forgiveness for abandoning it giving a measure of peace to both the parent and child.

 

Every creature in the Witcher universe needs to be studied, you need to learn it's strengths and it's weaknesses and how to fight it effectively using the right combination of fighting styles, traps, bombs, potions and poisons. While the conjunction of the spheres had a hand and explains the appearance of many of the creatures in the world it is not soley responsible for the creation of all monsters in the Witcher universe as many of the cursed creatures are born of far more complex emotions and circumstances than a mere darkspawn spewing into a woman's mouth.

 

As I said the Dragon Age bestiary can't possibly hope to compete.

[Heimdall]

How do you kill a Darkspawn? Whack it wit a sword, burn it with fire, who the **** cares as you cut them down by the hundreds every day.

How do you lift the curse on a Botchling? The Botchling is a creature born of a child that died in stillbirth and wasn't given a proper burial, seeking the acceptance it never got from those who discarded it it feeds on the life force of pregnant women until it is strong enough to exact it's vengeance on those who spurned it, the ritual to lift the curse involves the parent coming to terms and facing their loss by acknowledging and accepting the botchling as their child and asking forgiveness for abandoning it giving a measure of peace to both the parent and child.

Every creature in the Witcher universe needs to be studied, you need to learn it's strengths and it's weaknesses and how to fight it effectively using the right combination of fighting styles, traps, bombs, potions and poisons. While the conjunction of the spheres had a hand and explains the appearance of many of the creatures in the world it is not soley responsible for the creation of all monsters in the Witcher universe as many of the cursed creatures are born of far more complex emotions and circumstances than a mere darkspawn spewing into a woman's mouth.

As I said the Dragon Age bestiary can't possibly hope to compete.

The origin of the botching is interesting, but that they require elaborate methods to be killed (Or otherwise neutralized) is not fantastic depth, though it provides for some diversity of game mechanics. Frankly most creatures really do just require some smacking around with a sharp blade when it comes down to it.

(to be honest with you, the whole 'curses born of emotions' thing isn't something I was ever a fan of in the Witcher)

Going by your previous posts, I think we just have very different priorities about lore. You seem to care about it more as it translates to the gameplay where as I am more interested in lore as it contributes to the overall worldbuilding. In that, the darkspawn perform beautifully, far more than any botching.

[Queen Skadi]

The origin of the botching is interesting, but that they require elaborate methods to be killed (Or otherwise neutralized) is not fantastic depth, though it provides for some diversity of game mechanics. Frankly most creatures really do just require some smacking around with a sharp blade when it comes down to it.

(to be honest with you, the whole 'curses born of emotions' thing isn't something I was ever a fan of in the Witcher)

Going by your previous posts, I think we just have very different priorities about lore. You seem to care about it more as it translates to the gameplay where as I am more interested in lore as it contributes to the overall worldbuilding. In that, the darkspawn perform beautifully, far more than any botching.

 

You're grasping at straws Heimdall, the beasts in the Witcher universe are far more detailed in their creation, habits, strengths and weaknesses than the creatures in the Dragon Age universe and trying to redefine the definition of depth will not help you in your argument.

 

It is not just how the monster details manifest themselves in gameplay diversity (though I must admit part of why I love the Witcher games is how the lore of the universe has a greater role in defining the gameplay mechanics instead of having them be two seperate entities) but also how the monsters themselves inspire more complex emotions in the player, they don't just inspire fear, loathing and disgust, they also inspire pity, sadness and allow you to feel some sort of sympathy towards the creatures.

 

I gotta be totally honest with you here, i'm not exactly seeing all this depth you claim the Darkspawn have, not exactly sure where the depth in some guys going into the golden city and turning into darkspawn (because reasons?) and then spewing into ladies mouths to create Broodmothers is, care to elaborate?

 

The Botchling is but one of the many creatures in the Witcher Universe, the Darkspawn are pretty much the centre of the Thedas bestiary, you're trying to argue that Tiny Tim is a faster runner than Usain Bolt, it is a losing argument.

[Heimdall]

You're grasping at straws Heimdall, the beasts in the Witcher universe are far more detailed in their creation, habits, strengths and weaknesses than the creatures in the Dragon Age universe and trying to redefine the definition of depth will not help you in your argument.

Redefine? I've been using the same definition from the beginning. I only just realized you were using a different one. That's why I clarified.

It is not just how the monster details manifest themselves in gameplay diversity (though I must admit part of why I love the Witcher games is how the lore of the universe has a greater role in defining the gameplay mechanics instead of having them be two seperate entities) but also how the monsters themselves inspire more complex emotions in the player, they don't just inspire fear, loathing and disgust, they also inspire pity, sadness and allow you to feel some sort of sympathy towards the creatures.

Some of them, then again DA isn't totally lacking in that regard, remember the werewolves in the Brecillian? I also found that the sentient Disciples in Awakening posed an interesting dilemma. There's also an argument to be made for some abominations in that regard. Actually some spirits are more sympathetic than others.

I gotta be totally honest with you here, i'm not exactly seeing all this depth you claim the Darkspawn have, not exactly sure where the depth in some guys going into the golden city and turning into darkspawn (because reasons?) and then spewing into ladies mouths to create Broodmothers is, care to elaborate?

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by depth anymore. Do you have to feel sympathy for something for it to have depth? If so, that's not what I mean. I mean that all of those ties to the greater cosmology of the setting add to it, beg the question of "what is the Blight?" How does it twist and mutate the living? Why? Why was it in the Black City? Was it really the Old Gods that drew the Magisters there? What is the Calling and why does it drive them to seek out the Dragon-Gods? And the darkspawn don't know the answers to these questions themselves, as Awakening showed, and when that compulsion is taken away they're not unlike naive (Contagious and highly dangerous) children no more inherently malicious in their intent than anyone. So that's why I find the darkspawn interesting. They're a mystery, a puzzle wrapped up in the very fabric of Thedas itself.

The Botchling is but one of the many creatures in the Witcher Universe, the Darkspawn are pretty much the centre of the Thedas bestiary, you're trying to argue that Tiny Tim is a faster runner than Usain Bolt, it is a losing argument.

The center? The darkspawn haven't been a central enemy since the first game and Bioware has been expanding their bestiary since.

I will grant you that the Witcher tends to have more detailed creature lore overall, but I hold my stance on the darkspawn.