645 réponses à ce sujet

[Heyokah]

Aw shucks...

 

[gangly369]

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.

 

I find it funny that you avoided every single character I mentioned from the Witcher series (Dandelion, Triss, Zoltan, Roche, etc.), and instead just latched onto characters I didn't put into my 'speech'.

 

I never said Letho wasn't an interesting character, nor did I put Loghain on a pedestal for being the ultimate villian. In fact, if we're comparing antagonists, I certainly believe that the Witcher series has an edge.

 

What I was alluding to, if you had actually read my 'speech' were the companions and the romance options, which I again note, you failed to mention at all. You talk instead about how 'having huge monologues' do not add depth, and that the witcher series prefers to 'use actions over words' to explain their characters.

 

After statements like that, I have to wonder if you actually paid attention to ANY of the characters in the DA series, or if you're just trying to start a fight (for whatever reason). 

 

Take for example Oghren in DA:O (DA:A he was admittedly brutal). You have this jackass drunk who lives his life out of a bottle. He was a former champion of the Warrior caste, husband to a living Paragon, and now he has nothing. His wife abandoned him to go journey for a mystical anvil, he was disgraced on the Proving Grounds, and he was an ass. But he changes throughout the game. While journeying in the Deep Roads he comes face to face with the madness of what Branka has done, the atrocities that were committed against her people (Brood Mother anyone?). 

 

Take another character. Blackwall from DAI. (SPOILERS if for whatever reason you still haven't beat DA:I)

 

Here we have a man recruiting others to become Grey Wardens. He is the perfect image of chivalry and justice. He stands up against the nobility, helps the downtrodden, etc., Yet throughout the game we get little slip ups by him, little nuggets of information that allude to Blackwall not being who he really said he was. And then of course we find out this whole Grey Warden thing was a lie, that he was instead a murderer and traitor who had never undergone the trial to become a Grey Warden.

 

Of course, perhaps that's too many words for you. Maybe you like having characters who spend the majority of their time in the game having sex with the protagonist before getting kidnapped. And guess what? That;s fine. I'm not arrogant enough to think that my opinion is the sole correct answer. It's a shame though that you seem to believe that there are 'right' and 'wrong' answers here, however, as it makes it nearly impossible to actually have a discussion. You wanted opinions on what people thought made DA stand out from the Witcher for themselves. There aren't any wrong answers to a question like that.

[AllThatJazz]

I prefer dragon Age for numerous reasons (which I have posted before on the other thread almost exactly like this in Feedback, so I do have to wonder what the point of this thread is, but okay).

Obviously this is subjective.

The setting. I find Witcher's too grimdark, it depresses me and I don't enjoy spending time in the world as much. DA is the right mix of levity and darkness for me, though I think that darkness wasn't presented as well in DA2 and Inquisition as it was in Origins. I do not believe that a fantasy setting has to strive for historical or social 'realism' in order to be enjoyable, interesting or compelling. I prefer DA's more inclusive take to Witcher's more hostile setting. I realise there are people who take the opposite view and that's fine, since there are games to cater for these different tastes.

The characters. In both games there are compelling characters. But very few that I actually like and want to spend time with in TW. If I'm spending hundreds of hours in a game, then an emotional investment in the form of characters I want to save the world for is important to me. DA has tons of such characters, TW has ... Ciri, Roche and maybe Zoltan (though as dwarves go I'd still prefer Oghren, Varric and Sigrun). I find everyone else in TW to be either quite crappy people, or just irritating (Triss and Dandelion - it really didn't help that they had quite a few quests devoted to them - made Novigrad a bit of a chore for me, tbh).

Geralt. He's fine for a single play through I guess, but any more and I find him quite dull. I do prefer making my own character. Planescape: Torment is one of my favourite games. Aside from his gender and appearance, Nameless was very easy to make 'my own' in terms of his character. Mike Thorton was the same in Alpha Protocol. Not so Geralt (especially in TW 2/3, it was better in 1). His relationships, general outlook and motivations (with slight variation), all predetermined. In another genre this doesn't bother me. In a crpg, it does.

Autodialogue. Too much of it in TW3, nowhere near as much in DAI. There was a quest in TW3 called Get Junior. At the resolution of that quest, autodialogue decided my motivation for me. I didn't like it in ME3, I don't like it in Witcher. It takes a character I already don't think of as my own, and takes away even more agency. Whereas in Inquisition I was given tons of opportunity to establish my character through dialogue.

[Heimdall]

Well truth be told I did not mention those details because I found them fairly inconsequential in the discussion of depth, but ok, I acknowledge that interacting with the fade and the black city turned the magisters into Darkspawn (because again, reasons?) and that they poison stuff they interact with, this gives them oh so much more depth how?

I don't think I can answer that question until you tell me what exactly "depth" means to you.

[Realmzmaster]

I've never played a FIFA game. I'm not at all interested in sports games. Maybe that means I can't speak to their quality, but I can certainly pronounce them not worth my time.

One thing is for sure - Dragon Age and TW are very different kinds of games. Frankly, if Realmzmaster would rather play a RTwP party RPG, then I don't know why he'd go out of his way to play it at all. He probably doesn't like action games, which at the end of the day, is what the gameplay in TW adds up to. Both can exist harmoniously, because while there is overlap, they have different goals, and they're aimed at different audiences.

Reading through the whole thing, this is a really pointless thread, and I'm certain you're just trolling everyone. If you're not trolling, then the existence of Dragon Age, and the fact that other people like it a lot, apparently threatens your enjoyment of the witcher. Maybe step away from the forum and go do something you actually enjoy rather then antagonize DA fans and then get all butthurt when every opinion isn't in line with your own.

 

Actually, Witcher 1 was based on the Aurora engine which Bioware used to fuel Neverwinter Nights. I heard that the Witcher 1 was using the engine and decided to give it a try. I should have done more research on the game. CDPR made the combat far more action oriented. As I progressed into the game I found myself not liking the characters and lore. The only redeeming factor was the poker dice mini-game. IMHO.

 

The reason I have two copies of Witcher 2 is because my son-in-law is a manager of a Gamestop. He got copies of the PC version which does not sell in his area. They ended up in the 99 cent sale. He bought them to me along with other pc games like Dungeon Siege III along with a copy of Farcry 2.

[Lebanese Dude]

I don't think I can answer that question until you tell me what exactly "depth" means to you.

 

Depth is a measurement of the thickness of a stack of Geralt sex cards.

 

I kid.

 

Maybe.

[dsl08002]

Its only the characters that DAI wins over tw3 in my opinion but other then that NO

[Sui Causa]

>asks for peoples opinions on something.

>answers all those that don't agree with them with "actually you're wrong."

 

If only Witcher fanboys liked the game enough to actually play it then to come into other video games forums to bash them under the guise of comparing in a civil way.

[draken-heart]

Let's see. Nothing, but only because i NEVER played ANY Witcher game at all.

[Queen Skadi]

 

Fair question and I'll attempt to answer in the utmost unbiased fashion.  First off, I love both games for what they are.  They are in the same genre but they truly are not the same type of game in my view.  That aside I'll give you a quick answer, and one whicher ((:  ) I believe is the most important from a purely economical point of view - replayability.

 

Now for the answer most will skip:  (TL/DR and all that)

 

TW3 gives you a great protagonist in Geralt - if you enjoy a scarred, grey haired, yellow cat-eyed mutant with zero emotion who loves shagging chicks on unicorns then TW3 wins hands down.  Certainly you can specialize in various witcher skills - those being swordplay, alchemy, and/or spells but in the end the min/maxers will fixate on and cherry pick certain abilities.  Yes, you can make a pure alchemist type Geralt or even purely use signs or swords but it seems (to me at least) a rather weak form of character specialization.  I have tried them all and while the gameplay varies the overall mechanics do not.  Not to mention the fact that alchemy is rather clunky and you only need to use the crossbow while underwater.  YES - Geralt can 1-2 shot almost anything at any level while underwater with a crossbow.  On land the crossbow does nothing more than make flying creatures crash to the ground or tickles everything else.

 

DA:I gives you the ability to truly customize a character that you become invested in. 3 classes, 3 specializations per class, and 4 races - while that doesn't seem like much (and it really isn't) you do have far more freedom when creating YOUR character.  Geralt is Geralt - love him or hate him.  Beyond character creation you have a party that you can craft equipment for and choose who you wish to join you.  Now here is the rub in the replayability department - if you care nothing for the party banter then this means nothing in regards to replayability.  As for me, it does.  Your mileage may vary.

 

Yes I believe we already covered this, while Inquisition has far more variety in character creation this is something the Witcher games don't really attempt to do, the focus in the Witcher games is creating an experience from the eyes of one character and one class, a witcher, the gameplay is focused around giving depth to one class rather than sharing it around 3 classes, it is not something that can be compared, perhaps when Cyberpunk 2077 comes out you can compare how it and Inquisition far in regards to giving you character customization options but it is just not something that the Witcher does so you can't really compare who does it better.

 

If you really want to see how Inquisition's character and class customization stacks up then go play a game like Arcanum and get back to me on how Inquisition fares in regards to how class and ability options provide for different gameplay styles and opportunities.

 

But in my opinion DA:I wins.  Sure TW3 has 36 supposed end states but who really cares?  Did I get it on with Yennifer or Triss is the most pertinent question.  My first playthrough I was a **** and tried to persue them both.  Didn't turn out so well for poor Geralt but hey...2 more playthroughs and I am done.  With DA:I I still retain much greater character flexibility AND more romance options.

 

Soooooooo basically what you are saying that the only decision that matters in an RPG is who you choose to have sex with? You really aren't doing much to dispel those accusations that the Dragon Age fans care only about the romance sub plots and the Dragon Age games are little more than glorified dating simulators, basically what you are saying is that Inquisition does replayability better because there are more people to sleep with? I know I am going to cop flak for this as I have in the past in this thread for calling provably false things false but this assertion is false. Dragon Age has 8 people you can sleep with, Witcher 3 has 11 (at least by my count, might be more), last I checked 11 is a higher number than 8, I know at this moment many of you reading this are furiously typing "you are only saying that 11 is a higher number because you are a biased Witcher fan with pre-concieved opinions", ummm no 11 being a higher number than 8 is a fact, I am pretty sure if you ask any mathematician they will tell you that 11 is in fact the higher number.

 

But even so while who you choose to sleep with may be the most important decision you make in Inquisition this is not the case in the Witcher games as there are many game changing decisions you have to make that change the world and the journey in many interesting ways, unless you are willing to force yourself to play through Inquisition 8 times merely to see the final scene for every individual romance option (personally if I were that desperate to see these sex scenes I would resort to youtube first) I am pretty sure the Witcher games have the far greater replaybility in terms of choice and consequence.

[Queen Skadi]

I find it funny that you avoided every single character I mentioned from the Witcher series (Dandelion, Triss, Zoltan, Roche, etc.), and instead just latched onto characters I didn't put into my 'speech'.

 

I never said Letho wasn't an interesting character, nor did I put Loghain on a pedestal for being the ultimate villian. In fact, if we're comparing antagonists, I certainly believe that the Witcher series has an edge.

 

What I was alluding to, if you had actually read my 'speech' were the companions and the romance options, which I again note, you failed to mention at all. You talk instead about how 'having huge monologues' do not add depth, and that the witcher series prefers to 'use actions over words' to explain their characters.

 

That is because the Witcher doesn't have companions and romance options in the same manner the Dragon Age games do, in the Witcher you don't have 3 subservient drones following you around the occasionally help with combat and babble about inconsequential crap with each other in an effort to distract the player from how boring the game world really is, in the Witcher your "companions" actually have minds of their own, Zoltan isnt just content to sit on his hands and wait for your orders like a good little boy, as soon as you find a way through the fog he is all like "**** you, I'm coming with you to join my brothers in the defense against the man you are currently working with", Roche isn't sitting on his hands either waiting for Geralt to tell him what to do either, in fact during the first act despite him having been the one that set Geralt free he doesn't fully trust him so he constantly has his agents spy on him, in fact when you and Zoltan go to see Iorveth for the first time he gets together his possy to follow you silently in the hopes of springing an ambush to capture both Iorveth and the Kingslayer which works counter intuitive to Geralt's plan.

 

What do the Dragon Age companions do in the Dragon Age games? Uhhhhhh ****** nothing? Occasionly they might go "I am sorry maam but I must say I disagree with your current course of action", and then your character goes "SHUT THE **** UP AND GET BACK IN LINE" and they go "yes maam" and they help you do the thing they disagreed with.

 

Actions speak far louder than words and while the Dragon Age games like to tell you about their characters the Witcher games actively show you what their characters are all about, while this approach may go over peoples heads the observant among us will appreciate how this approach gives the characters far more depth than the characters in Dragon Age can even hope to achieve.

 

 

 

 

Oh and before you say I ignored you lovely paragraphs about Oghren and Blackwall I did not bother responding to them because you did not have a point, everything you said about these characters was still telling rather than showing, the only thing showed of Oghren was him getting drunk and going "ASSCHABS", he does not confront Branka, your character does, and while he disagrees with what Branka is doing he will still help your character help Branka claim the anvil if that is what your character decides to do because in the end he is only there to provide another warrior option to help you in combat.

[Queen Skadi]

I don't think I can answer that question until you tell me what exactly "depth" means to you.

 

Why don't you give me yours so I can better understand your answer?

 

To me depth is the details and how they work together to create an entity that is more than just the sum of it's parts, it is the things that give characters, elements or stories greater meaning.

[Heyokah]

Skadi - next time be honest with yourself and others and admit that you are unwilling to accept opinions that differ from yours.  Be up front so that we can have a confrontation instead of a conversation.  Confrontation is obviously what you are after.

 

I would tell you to have a nice day but I do not want to argue about what constitutes a "nice" day (in my opinion) with you.

[Elhanan]

Yes I believe we already covered this, while Inquisition has far more variety in character creation this is something the Witcher games don't really attempt to do, the focus in the Witcher games is creating an experience from the eyes of one character and one class, a witcher, the gameplay is focused around giving depth to one class rather than sharing it around 3 classes, it is not something that can be compared, perhaps when Cyberpunk 2077 comes out you can compare how it and Inquisition far in regards to giving you character customization options but it is just not something that the Witcher does so you can't really compare who does it better.
 
If you really want to see how Inquisition's character and class customization stacks up then go play a game like Arcanum and get back to me on how Inquisition fares in regards to how class and ability options provide for different gameplay styles and opportunities.
 

 
Soooooooo basically what you are saying that the only decision that matters in an RPG is who you choose to have sex with? You really aren't doing much to dispel those accusations that the Dragon Age fans care only about the romance sub plots and the Dragon Age games are little more than glorified dating simulators, basically what you are saying is that Inquisition does replayability better because there are more people to sleep with? I know I am going to cop flak for this as I have in the past in this thread for calling provably false things false but this assertion is false. Dragon Age has 8 people you can sleep with, Witcher 3 has 11 (at least by my count, might be more), last I checked 11 is a higher number than 8, I know at this moment many of you reading this are furiously typing "you are only saying that 11 is a higher number because you are a biased Witcher fan with pre-concieved opinions", ummm no 11 being a higher number than 8 is a fact, I am pretty sure if you ask any mathematician they will tell you that 11 is in fact the higher number.
 
But even so while who you choose to sleep with may be the most important decision you make in Inquisition this is not the case in the Witcher games as there are many game changing decisions you have to make that change the world and the journey in many interesting ways, unless you are willing to force yourself to play through Inquisition 8 times merely to see the final scene for every individual romance option (personally if I were that desperate to see these sex scenes I would resort to youtube first) I am pretty sure the Witcher games have the far greater replaybility in terms of choice and consequence.

In DAI, one may skip the romances if they wish, as I am currently. In TW3, this may not be the case, as has been reported. Just in case some have forgotten that romance is not everyone's primary focus in a cRPG, and that DAI is hardly a dating sim.

[Queen Skadi]

Skadi - next time be honest with yourself and others and admit that you are unwilling to accept opinions that differ from yours.  Be up front so that we can have a confrontation instead of a conversation.  Confrontation is obviously what you are after.

 

I would tell you to have a nice day but I do not want to argue about what constitutes a "nice" day (in my opinion) with you.

 

Dude I am totally willing to accept other peoples opinions, you have stated that you prefer Dragon Age to the Witcher which is totally fine, you have every right to your opinion, however trying to say 8 is a higher number than 11 is not an opinion, it is simply false.

[Heyokah]

In this particular regard 8 IS higher than 11 unless you believe doing a couple of quests and then bedding an npc is considered romance (edit - or paying for it).

 

Silly argument either way.

[Queen Skadi]

In this particular regard 8 IS higher than 11 unless you believe doing a couple of quests and then bedding an npc is considered romance.

 

Silly argument either way.

 

The depth of the romances is not a factor here and does not change the fact that 11 is a higher number than 8, you said Dragon Age has greater replayability because their are more options of who to have sex with which is false, 11 options are more than 8 options, you can't argue with simple maths, remember back in first grade how they taught you about the greater than and less than signs? My teacher always said they were crocodiles looking to eat the bigger meal.

 

Finish this equation for me "11 _ 8", in the blank space provided do you put a > or a <? Remember the crocodile wants to eat the bigger number.

[Heyokah]

Your attempts at insulting me are falling flat.  I pointed out other reasons why I prefer DA:I you simply chose to exploit this one.  Please name each character in TW3 that you can romance.  That magical number of 11 doesn't hold up.  Prostitutes do not count even if paying for sex, in your opinion, equates to romance.

[Queen Skadi]

Your attempts at insulting me are falling flat.  I pointed out other reasons why I prefer DA:I you simply chose to exploit this one.  Please name each character in TW3 that you can romance.  That magical number of 11 doesn't hold up.  Prostitutes do not count even if paying for sex, in your opinion, equates to romance.

 

I am not trying to insult you, I am trying to help you, I just feel if you have a better understanding of the basic principles of mathematic equations you would have a better understanding of why your arguments are false, was my advice to view the greater than and less than signs as hungry crocodiles not helpful?

[Heyokah]

Crocodiles have nothing to do with unsubstantiated numbers.  

[Elhanan]

Crocodiles have nothing to do with unsubstantiated numbers.

Except when they swallow pirate clocks....

[Heyokah]

ok - but that is the only exception.

[Heimdall]

Why don't you give me yours so I can better understand your answer?
 
To me depth is the details and how they work together to create an entity that is more than just the sum of it's parts, it is the things that give characters, elements or stories greater meaning.

In that case, I think I already explained why I think the darkspawn have depth adequately.

[Queen Skadi]

In that case, I think I already explained why I think the darkspawn have depth adequately.

 

You did? Was it in another thread?

[Al Foley]

Witcher:

• Time/sunsets/rises/weather effects/ graphics in general.  
• Cutscenes, all cutscenes all the time.  

Dragon Age:

• Combat
• Secondary characters
• Dialog wheel.  

But the clincher is, the one thing that tends to divide one from the other.  GWENT.  I feel almost a little unfair saying this because Gwent is almost a game within a game.  And that there is no DA equivalent.  But seriously.  Gwent is so addictive and every time I see the option its like, yes, I'll play Gwent.  *cackles*