645 réponses à ce sujet

[Queen Skadi]

Now, on a game to game level, TW3's design does one up DAI in a few aspects. 

 

I thought I already cleared this up? This is a thread about what Inquisition does better not what the Witcher 3 does better, asking people to find what the Witcher 3 does better is like asking people to go on a scavenger hunt locating gay guys in San Fran, not exactly a difficult task, besides if you even mention what the Witcher 3 does better it gets the Dragon Age fans a bit upset and causes the chip on their shoulder to swell to massive proportions leading them to launch a crusade to prove Dragon Age is the better game by throwing out arguments that require the laws of the universe to be broken in order to make sense, like 8 being a higher number than 11 or Bethesda being top notch programmers in the games industry.

 

Mentioning what the Witcher does better only seems to antagonize the Dragon Age audience and when the Dragon Age audience gets antagonized they lose every ounce of common sense, remember guys this isn't a competition, if it were a competition Inquisition would lose but it isn't, we are just trying to recognize some of the things Inquisition does well, surely it can't be that hard right?

[Jawzzus]

Well at least you're throwing out the falsehood that you're accepting varying opinions from yours, that's good.

[Queen Skadi]

- Replayability. TW3 world is huge, is fun, is "alive", but, at the same time I find it a little "excessive" which I know it's very ironically considering that often people complain because games are too mainstreamed, too short, too simplified and so on. But when it's nearly 2 months that you are playing everyday and you know you have cleared more or less half-game because your are a completionist you already know that it will be your one and only playthrough.

 

To be honest I found the amount of content in the Witcher 3 to be a little excessive too, they went a little overboard with stuff like treasure hunts, smuggler crates and points of interest to the point that I did not bother with most of it, but that being said this isn't a problem that is unique to the Witcher 3 as Inquisition has the same problem.

 

Difference is Witcher 3 actually had some top notch side quests, it had so much quality content that it did not need the extra stuff, Inquisition was pretty much all pointless filler, I would have been perfectly happy without it and I am not one of those gamers who complains about games being too short, I would rather play a game that keeps me on the edge of my seat for 10 hours than one that bores me for 100.

[Queen Skadi]

Well at least you're throwing out the falsehood that you're accepting varying opinions from yours, that's good.

 

As I said I can respect that people may have opinions that differentiate from mine and I would never try to claim that my personal opinions take precedence over anyone elses. However when it comes to facts I do have a hard time accepting facts that disagree with the laws of the universe, I mean facts are facts and despite how much you would rather that some facts arent true it is just one of those things we have to face up to and accept, lying to ourselves only causes our ill feelings towards the truth to manifest in ugly ways like getting really angry and trying to argue nonsense like 8 is a higher number than 11 and making yourself look like a fool.

 

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.

[ApostleinTriumph]

Aside from party banter and the personalities of the people in your party, I do not think so. I think TW3 is the best RPG I've ever played in my life so far.

[gangly369]

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.

 

You're right. the Witcher 3 DOESN"T have companions in the same sense as DA does.

 

THAT"S WHY I LIKE IT BETTER

 

Tough to imagine, I know. But you were asking what people believe DA does better than the Witcher. And I explained it to you. The characters, the companions and the romances. They both do it differently from one another, and I prefer DA's approach. That isn't wrong, it isn't right, it's an OPINION. Something you seem to have a tough time grasping when you sit there telling people that their opinions are wrong.

 

I'm confused as well, by how you're equating character depth. You point to an example of Zoltan being independent and running off to help his scoia'tael brothers.

 

Tell me, how is that any different from what Zoltan would normally do? He has always been a friend of the scoia'tael, throughout all 3 games. That has never changed. In fact, one might say *gasp* that Zoltan hasn't changed at all as a character!

 

But let's point to a similar example in the DA world. The Sacred Ashes quest. If you defile the Sacred Ashes whilst in the presence of Leliana and Wynne, guess what? They try to kill you! Here's another example. If you ****** off Zevran the entire game, tell him what a useless assassin he is and whatnot, he tries to kill you! In DA2, if you side with the Templars and rival Merrill, she tries to kill you!

 

But.....wait.....according to you, DA characters are all subservient and can't ever rebel against you....

 

Of course, the Witcher characters are totally different! If you side with the flaming rose instead of the scoia'tael in W1, Zoltan totally hates your guts! Oh wait, nevermind, he stays friends with you regardless.... but Roche man, if you tell him 'screw off, I'm gonna go with Iorveth', he totally holds that against you.....except he doesn't and he still helps you out as well as asks for help.....huh.

 

It's almost, like, all of these Witcher characters are subservient to Geralt? Like, they stay friends with him regardless of the **** he does.

[Queen Skadi]

You're right. the Witcher 3 DOESN"T have companions in the same sense as DA does.

 

THAT"S WHY I LIKE IT BETTER

 

And you have every right to that opinion sweetheart, not once did I ever try to take that away from you, if you prefer subservient drones with little depth to characters that let their actions speak for them then you have every right to that opinion. Congratulations you for having an opinion, not sure what you were hoping I would say to that? Everyone has the right to their own opinion and it seems you have exercised that right? well done you?

 

But when it comes to things like character depth you liking something better isn't really indicative of depth just like sales are not indicative of Justin Bieber's musical talents.

[Elhanan]

Sales are indicative of financial success. Character depth is indicative of writing success. For each standard, there is a proper measure.

And eight oranges are generally larger and have more volume than eleven crab apples....

[correctamundo]

Main character, companions, party banter, dungeons, romance, world, lore, main story quests. I could go on but that should suffice.

[Corto81]

Main character, companions, party banter, dungeons, romance, world, lore, main story quests. I could go on but that should suffice.

 

Have you actually played Witcher 3?

 

Aside from companions and party banter (which Witcher doesn't have), I thought TW3 absolutely murders DA:I in all the other areas.

Dungeons, maybe, as DA:I dungeons are more set up like classic MMO dungeons (which isn't a bad thing), and TW3 dungeons are more Dark Souls-style crawlers.

Main character is different, but Geralt always felt more my "own" than any of the bland Inquisitors I created.

He's likeable, he's gruff and mean and dangerous and funny and sarcastic - but most importantly, you always know his motivations and what makes him tick, who he is etc.

My inquisitor did a bunch of stuff because "plot" and I never identified with him at all.

(Bioware can do this right btw, I loved my Warden, even my Shep in ME1)

Main story isn't a contest, the pace felt much better in TW3 and the urgency to go after Ciri never let me go... It's also MUCH longer than DA:I main story. And MUCH deeper. DA:I story was just really ordinary and uninspired.

Romance is debatable, but comparing Triss and Yen to Josephine or Cass etc. feels like a joke to me.I can compare them to Morrigan, Leliana or Alistair, but DA:I romances leave much to be desired IMO.

Lore is fine in both games, but after reading the books post-TW3, I can say Sapkowski's world feels much more realistic, much more GoT-style than high fantasy.

And the world? Now see, this is where I can't say anything good when comparing DA:I to TW3.

TW3 has a living, breathing world, with a day-night, weather cycle, where people who move and talk and work and sleep...

They had that in TW2, now just went the extra step in Skyrim direction (in their own words, CDPR absolutely adore Skyrim) and made it open world.

Where as DA:I's world feels like a cardboard world made up specifically for your hero to quest in. All the NPCs stand in one place, everything feels dead and not real.

 

...

 

Now, I will say I went into Witcher 3 with an open mind.

I considered BG2, PS:T, DA:Origins, Dark Souls and Skyrim to be the pinnacle of RPGs at the time. Different games, but all deep RPGs in their own way.

DA2 was a letdown for me, and DA:I was more shiny and attractive, but just as shallow.

Witcher 3 absolutely blew me away in every aspect: characters, story, world, atmosphere, music, cut scenes (no game did cut scenes better IMO, maybe Last of Us... sick silent emotions and facial animations), combat...

 

...

 

Whether we like it or not here, on Bioware forums, TW3 is the new measuring stick for RPGs - and honestly, for gaming in general.

Both in game design, depth and quality - and how the dev treats their fans.

[correctamundo]

Well, it is your opinion anyway.

[bEVEsthda]

I really don't know much about TW3. I've only played TW2, so everything I'm saying is from the assumption that TW3 shares its fundamental narrative & gameplay principles with TW2.

I admire CDPR and TW series for a lot of things. The developers have a vision and integrity. They take their game seriously and the game takes itself seriously. The atmosphere they have created is tremendous. The first times I played TW2 I just went "Wow!". I was then fresh from DA2, which I loathe and despise, in part because of related reasons.

 

But I can't really see myself finishing TW2. If I buy TW3, it will be only because I want to support CDPR, because they as a developer is a fresh breeze, particularly in terms of what market segment they are not desperately trying to target.

 

Because TW2 narrative is really not what I want in a game like this. I play RPGs just to have the roleplay experience. Otherwise, I'd rather pick up a shooter or a flight simulator. And from my narrow and exacting perspective, TW isn't really an RPG.

So I am saying that - for me - DA:I does everything better than TW.

That is not saying that TW is a bad game. That's not my impression or opinion at all. But I'm not playing FIFA Soccer either.

[Narcosynthesis]

I thought I already cleared this up? This is a thread about what Inquisition does better not what the Witcher 3 does better, asking people to find what the Witcher 3 does better is like asking people to go on a scavenger hunt locating gay guys in San Fran, not exactly a difficult task, besides if you even mention what the Witcher 3 does better it gets the Dragon Age fans a bit upset and causes the chip on their shoulder to swell to massive proportions leading them to launch a crusade to prove Dragon Age is the better game by throwing out arguments that require the laws of the universe to be broken in order to make sense, like 8 being a higher number than 11 or Bethesda being top notch programmers in the games industry.

 

Mentioning what the Witcher does better only seems to antagonize the Dragon Age audience and when the Dragon Age audience gets antagonized they lose every ounce of common sense, remember guys this isn't a competition, if it were a competition Inquisition would lose but it isn't, we are just trying to recognize some of the things Inquisition does well, surely it can't be that hard right?

 

There are two things you can do when you’re so heavily criticized in the very thread you created: Taking a critical and self-reflected look at what you have been writing yourself and try to figure out if there might actually be a reason for the blowback or just assuming that everyone else is plain wrong and dismiss everything they write. While it is your prerogative to do the latter, it should also not be that big of a surprise to you if others will do exactly the same with your postings. Because:

• You can repeat your “11 vs 8”- or “Usain Bolt vs cripple”-analogies as often as you want, but that is not what is happening here. Both examples differ in one crucial aspect from what is happening when, say, talking about story-quality or character-depth or to a certain extend even the coding thing: they are clear-cut measurable(!) scales of a certain quality. But we’re not talking about “faster” or “higher” here, but instead about the infinitely more complex and blurry quality of “better”. What you fail to prove (and that’s why this analogy just doesn’t work) is that quality of story/depth of character/complexity of the game-world is just as objectively measurable as the exact time Mr Bolt takes to run a certain distance compared to someone else. As long as you can't offer an actual formula or something, but only refer to random examples, you can't blame others for doing the same and thus leaving it open to debate. I will most definitely not claim that it is completely a matter of opinion – there certainly are parameters that can be helpful defining it – but what you do is claiming that it is FACT without providing any objective proof, measurable quality unit or whatever. Or, to speak in your own analogy, you are not saying “11 is a higher number than 8”, but “11 is a better number than 8”…and then you are acting surprised when people don’t let that go unchallenged and claim that this depends on context, perspective and, yes, to a certain extend: opinion.
• You are not even consistent when it comes to your own rules when you’re bringing up that coding example. This one is indeed rather interesting because here I tend to agree even more with you on the general idea that there might be objectively measurable qualities here in terms of craftsmanship. However, the one example you keep bringing up here as proof (the thing with the ladders) is exactly the type of argument that you have yourself ruled out as invalid for the discussion you intend to have here because – as you repeatedly stated – this is not about stuff that is present in one game and absent in another.
• For someone who puts a great effort into claiming objectivity and looking for exactly that with this thread, almost everything you’ve produced (from the very thread title to almost every single post) is written in a heavily biased tone. And then you – again – act surprised when people get agitated and go “Oh, all this DA-people. Always so hot-headed.”

I’ll try an analogy myself (feel free to deconstruct!): This thread is basically like a supporter of one sports team going into a bar where people favoring an opposing team usually gather. Both teams play the same sports (= fantasy-themed RPG-games) and in the same professional league (= both AAA-games), both are veterans (= third game of a series) with varying success. Then said supporter sits him-/herself in front of the other ones and goes: “Hey guys, we all know my team is far superior and, of course, yours also sucks. But my team’s superiority will not be part of this discussion even though I’ll constantly point it out in everything I’m going to say, but don’t get agitated about that, okay? No, what I truly want is you to tell me if yours does anything better. Note that everything yours has and mine hasn’t is not allowed as part of this discussion, except for later when I compare two entirely different teams. Also note that every single thing you mention will be followed by me telling you that it is a lie, which is to be treated as a fact. I might occasionally give certain examples why your team sucks – examples that often work in both directions and can be applied to my team as well, but whenever you point that out, I’ll ignore that part of your statement and once again remind you that your team sucks. Oh, and please be civil, okay?” And now you are surprised that this thread is going as it does? Really?

[Queen Skadi]

 

• You can repeat your “11 vs 8” analogy

 

That wasn't an analogy, somebody actually tried to argue that 8 was a bigger number than 11 in this thread, I know I am just as flabbergasted as you that somebody would even attempt such fruitless argument, but this is what the Dragon Age fans resort to when they are angered and have a chip on their shoulder, it is why I try not to antagonize them by actively pointing out all the things the Witcher series does better but at the same time I refuse to lie to these people just to appease them.

 

 

• You are not even consistent when it comes to your own rules when you’re bringing up that coding example. This one is indeed rather interesting because here I tend to agree even more with you on the general idea that there might be objectively measurable qualities here in terms of craftsmanship. However, the one example you keep bringing up here as proof (the thing with the ladders) is exactly the type of argument that you have yourself ruled out as invalid for the discussion you intend to have here because – as you repeatedly stated – this is not about stuff that is present in one game and absent in another.

 

So you are saying that because there are no ladders in Bethesda games we can't compare Bethesda's ladder coding abilities? This might be true if the only reason there werent ladders in Bethesda games was because they havent attempted ladders and chose to focus their resources elsewhere, but this is not the case as Bethesda has attempted ladders before and the reason they arent in the game is because they could not get them to work, an official spokesperson for Bethesda (may even have been Todd Howard himself) has publically stated that they have tried to get ladders working in their games but they just could not pierce the shroud of mystery that is ladder coding.

[Akrabra]

Aside from party banter and the personalities of the people in your party, I do not think so. I think TW3 is the best RPG I've ever played in my life so far.

Then you need to play Planescape Torment and Baldurs Gate 2, and if you have then ignore this. 

[exboomer]

Well naturally all those femme fatale's running around. Some chicks just don't want to play as Gerault, I know it's hard to believe, judging by the sheer number of these Witcher-related threads, nonetheless, it is true. Well actually, no it's not, there are most likely guys who don't want to play as him either.

Geralt was always meant to be a male, the devs never considered making him a female IMO. Considering how much he sleeps around if Gerald was female he would be called a lot of names that can't be mentioned here.

[exboomer]

I really don't know much about TW3. I've only played TW2, so everything I'm saying is from the assumption that TW3 shares its fundamental narrative & gameplay principles with TW2.

I admire CDPR and TW series for a lot of things. The developers have a vision and integrity. They take their game seriously and the game takes itself seriously. The atmosphere they have created is tremendous. The first times I played TW2 I just went "Wow!". I was then fresh from DA2, which I loathe and despise, in part because of related reasons.

 

But I can't really see myself finishing TW2. If I buy TW3, it will be only because I want to support CDPR, because they as a developer is a fresh breeze, particularly in terms of what market segment they are not desperately trying to target.

 

Because TW2 narrative is really not what I want in a game like this. I play RPGs just to have the roleplay experience. Otherwise, I'd rather pick up a shooter or a flight simulator. And from my narrow and exacting perspective, TW isn't really an RPG.

So I am saying that - for me - DA:I does everything better than TW.

That is not saying that TW is a bad game. That's not my impression or opinion at all. But I'm not playing FIFA Soccer either.

TW3 continues and fleshes out what happened in TW2. Even if you don't finish TW2 I would still recommend playing TW3. The game play is better and the story line is the best I've come across since playing ME.  Having said that I still enjoyed playing DA:I even though it isn't close to being what TW3 is IMO.

[Narcosynthesis]

That wasn't an analogy, somebody actually tried to argue that 8 was a bigger number than 11 in this thread, I know I am just as flabbergasted as you that somebody would even attempt such fruitless argument, but this is what the Dragon Age fans resort to when they are angered and have a chip on their shoulder, it is why I try not to antagonize them by actively pointing out all the things the Witcher series does better but at the same time I refuse to lie to these people just to appease them.

 
Oh, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding there (seems to happen quite often here, eh?) because from your repeated usage of this example - interchangeably with the Bolt-thing - as substitutes for everything that is wrong with “the” DA-fans I was under the impression you weren’t still obsessing with that actual point of the discussion, which – if I remember correctly – was someone claiming DAI had more romance options (8) and you replying that TW3 had more sex options (11), taking the liberty of defining both as equal. Since I remain confident that most dictionaries would beg to differ and since the statements of the people you discussed it with also technically pointed out that they, too, were under the impression that there is an important differentiation to be made here, I fear that we have to agree to disagree. Things we can also agree on: 11 is more than 8 and in a hypothetical world, in which romance and sex are the same thing you were actually comparing apples with apples…and not with oranges.
 

So you are saying that because there are no ladders in Bethesda games we can't compare Bethesda's ladder coding abilities? This might be true if the only reason there werent ladders in Bethesda games was because they havent attempted ladders and chose to focus their resources elsewhere, but this is not the case as Bethesda has attempted ladders before and the reason they arent in the game is because they could not get them to work, an official spokesperson for Bethesda (may even have been Todd Howard himself) has publically stated that they have tried to get ladders working in their games but they just could not pierce the shroud of mystery that is ladder coding.

Oh, that’s what I was saying? And here I was under the impression that I was pointing out that you were taking great liberties in defining when the presence/absence of something is allowed to be perceived as a valid pro/contra argument for a superordinate value in this discussion – and when it’s not. For example that the ladder-thing is totally a symptom of a lack of programming skills (ironically, something we could actually agree on) and thus a flaw while, say, the absence of save imports/insignificance of past decisions in the TW-games is totally not allowed to be taken into account as a flaw in the category “player interactivity with the world/ROLE(!)-playing” because either they never made any official statement about whether they tried and failed or because you personally don’t care about that and so it’s not a something that is allowed to be taken into account when comparing the two titles.

[Elhanan]

And again, DAI allows for Pause and Tac-Cam to allow for Player options not available in TW3. Fact; not opinion.

DAI allows for multiple voices, races, and both genders as a Main Character. Fact; not opinion.

[Queen Skadi]

 the absence of save imports/insignificance of past decisions in the TW-games is totally not allowed to be taken into account as a flaw in the category “player interactivity with the world/ROLE(!)-playing” because either they never made any official statement about whether they tried and failed or because you personally don’t care about that and so it’s not a something that is allowed to be taken into account when comparing the two titles.

 

Where did I say save imports don't count? In fact did you read my OP? Pretty sure I gave reference to them in my opening post, while I don't expect you to read every page and post in the topic (though you probably should before you make your illformed rebuttals, though I have learned to expect less from Dragon Age fans) I would expect you to read the opening post at least, I mean it isn't even very long either, should I lower my expectations even further of you?

[Heimdall]

I thought I already cleared this up? This is a thread about what Inquisition does better not what the Witcher 3 does better, asking people to find what the Witcher 3 does better is like asking people to go on a scavenger hunt locating gay guys in San Fran, not exactly a difficult task, besides if you even mention what the Witcher 3 does better it gets the Dragon Age fans a bit upset and causes the chip on their shoulder to swell to massive proportions leading them to launch a crusade to prove Dragon Age is the better game by throwing out arguments that require the laws of the universe to be broken in order to make sense, like 8 being a higher number than 11 or Bethesda being top notch programmers in the games industry.

 

Mentioning what the Witcher does better only seems to antagonize the Dragon Age audience and when the Dragon Age audience gets antagonized they lose every ounce of common sense, remember guys this isn't a competition, if it were a competition Inquisition would lose but it isn't, we are just trying to recognize some of the things Inquisition does well, surely it can't be that hard right?

Your OP made it clear that you are operating under the idea that TW3 outperforms DAI in almost every conceivable way.  The post you quoted was about how the two games don't have an abundance of comparable features so its strange that you decided to pick that statement out just so you could harp on this. 

[Dreadstruck]

Oh wow. Yet again, another thread about TW3, this time in the other Scuttlebutt section.

 

Dis gon b gud.

 

[Lebanese Dude]

Geralt never loved you. You weren't Witcher material.

[Queen Skadi]

Your OP made it clear that you are operating under the idea that TW3 outperforms DAI in almost every conceivable way.  The post you quoted was about how the two games don't have an abundance of comparable features so its strange that you decided to pick that statement out just so you could harp on this. 

 

Heimdall I was trying to stop you from unnecessarily pointing out the things Witcher 3 does better, the Dragon Age fans are riled enough as it is we don't need you adding fuel to the fire.

[Heimdall]

Heimdall I was trying to stop you from unnecessarily pointing out the things Witcher 3 does better, the Dragon Age fans are riled enough as it is we don't need you adding fuel to the fire.

 What?

 

I don't even...