645 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

As you can tell I am playing the Witcher right now for the first tim...and in the subject of 'things DA does better'.  Quests, they are much easier to find especially on the world map.  I have almost given up trying to use the thing to find other quests since there is no marker pointing in the right direction to get to said quests.  This makes it...extremly annoying.  

[Narcosynthesis]

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?

 

Oh, sorry, I could have sworn that when I first read the OP a while back, the last sentence went on like "...but mainly because TW3 doesn't really do that at all." So, unless there was some tool, which would allow retroactive changes without a trace, I do owe you an apology for my poor memory. Sorry!  

Luckily for me (phew!) this was just the example for my overall point of your inconsistency when declaring features one game has but the other has not as invalid arguments (as stated in your second post on this thread) and then using precisely one of those arguments in your ladder-example. Retroactively declaring this a valid exception or maybe something entirely different because of the connection you draw to programming abilities doesn't change that you ruled it out in the first place for this discussion without making the fine distinction of "except when the absence/presence of one feature has a strong relevance for a superordinate issue".

 

And yes, I've actually read through the whole thread as might at some points have been evident from my postings - notably the points you decided to completely ignore, for example the reply to your "11 vs 8"-thing in my last post (to which you had no reply) or the aspects I mentioned in my earlier one (to which you had no reply). Finally: No, you don't need to make the effort and lower your expectations any further - it has been abundantly clear from your first post on that those are already very much null. And in that, at least, you have been very consistent.

[Heimdall]

I've concluded that Skadi is a troll

[AllThatJazz]

I've concluded that Skadi is a troll

Surely not. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[Nimlowyn]

So does a troll actually believe the stuff they say or is that inconsequential to the definition of a troll? Debate over here.

[Elhanan]

Surely not. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Recommend rubber soles, and don't call me Shirley....

[cdizzle2k3]

I find it hilarious that Dragon Age Inquisition was all fine and dandy... but now people are saying it's complete garbage because it doesn't have X feature that another game has that was made by a completely different development team, plays like a completely different game, has completely different lore, and was released 6 months later... 

 

For the record... I own both games, I enjoy both games. I actually started a second playthrough of DA: I while I was in the middle of a Witcher 3 playthrough. Witcher 3 is an excellent game, but it's existence does not render DA irrelevant. There was a reason DA won all those awards... just because TW3 was released. people act like all those accolades are now invalid. Pipe down with the fanboy-ism! Good games can co-exist!

[Queen Skadi]

Oh, sorry, I could have sworn that when I first read the OP a while back, the last sentence went on like "...but mainly because TW3 doesn't really do that at all." So, unless there was some tool, which would allow retroactive changes without a trace, I do owe you an apology for my poor memory. Sorry!  

Luckily for me (phew!) this was just the example for my overall point

 

Yes well the example you used was wrong and if that was the strongest example of your point it can't have been a very accurate point now could it? You see this is why I tried to avoid mentioning the things Witcher does better, because when you remind the Inquisition fanbase of how it fails in comparison to other games in it's field the chip on the Dragon Age fanbase to swell to epic proportions causing them to argue nonsense in order to prove those who merely spoke the truth wrong and that the laws of the universe are false, even now you refuse to acknowledge that you could even possibly have been wrong making the claim that I must have hacked the site in order to play nasty tricksies on you, if I had edited the post it would show up in the history of the post and it would show exactly what was said before your proposed edit.

 

Also why do people claim that if I ignore a portion of their post it must because it was a dynamite argument? Most of the time when I ignore a post it is because it just isn't worth responding to as I have already clarified the issue, in regards to the 8 vs 11 issue the person in question was claiming that Inquisition has more replay value because there are more people to sleep with which as I have already pointed out is false, Inquisition only has 8 people to sleep with, Witcher 3 has 11 (or more) people to sleep with, you can't argue with the maths, if it were an equation it would look like this "11 > 8", surely your teacher taught you about greater and less than signs in the first grade at least?

[Queen Skadi]

I find it hilarious that Dragon Age Inquisition was all fine and dandy... but now people are saying it's complete garbage because it doesn't have X feature that another game has that was made by a completely different development team, plays like a completely different game, has completely different lore, and was released 6 months later... 

 

For the record... I own both games, I enjoy both games. I actually started a second playthrough of DA: I while I was in the middle of a Witcher 3 playthrough. Witcher 3 is an excellent game, but it's existence does not render DA irrelevant. There was a reason DA won all those awards... just because TW3 was released. people act like all those accolades are now invalid. Pipe down with the fanboy-ism! Good games can co-exist!

 

I must have been one of the cool kids as I was saying Inquisition sucked before saying it sucked was cool, in fact as I recall many people were saying that, what is the user metacritic score for Inquisition? 5.8? That is a pretty far cry from the critical acclaim it received from the gaming publications that were payed a pretty hefty sum to advertise it on their sites, surely these sites don't have a hidden agenda do they? I mean how can there be so much difference between the opinions of the gaming media and the gaming public? Why would the gaming media lie to us? Surely they would not falsify a review to make something look better than it is to avoid angering the overlords who pay them for site advertising would they?

 

 

But that being said I don't like to hate on games and I would much rather find the positive rather than the negative, find what games do well as I would like to think that even the worst games have some redeeming quality.

[Seraphim24]

I mentioned this in another thread on the same topic, but DA:I has better gameplay design systems and actually, that arguably permeates some of the other features of the game such as environmental design.

 

Inquisition is of course inferior to Origins, which is of course inferior to the majesty of Baldur's Gate which had some of the most brilliant campaign structure (for lack of a better term) or Baldur's Gate 2 (which had some of the best boss fights).

[Corto81]

I find it hilarious that Dragon Age Inquisition was all fine and dandy... but now people are saying it's complete garbage because it doesn't have X feature that another game has that was made by a completely different development team, plays like a completely different game, has completely different lore, and was released 6 months later... 

 

 

I found it hilarious that DA:I was as praised as it was.

It's not "complete garbage", but it's shiny and good-looking, but ultimately shallow and streamlined.

 

(I can't be bothered to write a review on DA:I again, you can easily check my posts to see that this was my impression after playing through the game twice at launch)

[Elhanan]

GOTY 2014; count 'em all....

[bEVEsthda]

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.

 

I'm beginning this with a quote of your answer. This is no argument though. I understand perfectly what you're saying; you want to recommend me to play a good game because it's a good game and because otherwise I'll miss it. That's all well.

But what I really want to do is making my own point a bit clearer. More so for the sake of other posts here, than yours. Because I think a major point has been largely missed in this discussion, even if i think they're sort of on the right track when they mention things like Bioware's characters etc.

 

I don't really have any interest in games like TW or FF. "Role-watching", cinematic games. If they're great games or not doesn't really matter. While they are also labeled RPG, I find them completely different from the RPGs I want to play.

And rather uninteresting. What do they offer? A lot of cut scene videos. They're at best irrelevant to me. A good story. <Shrugs> That's not why I play games. To me, applying lofty literary critiques to a game plot is senseless. An RPG-plot does not serve literary ideals. It serves to provide a background for a player's emergent narrative and actions and decision. And that's something else. Most story elements serves a gameplay function.

Likewise, I've a hard time seeing any quality in character acting, that makes a game worth playing by itself. Those things are not important. Just like great graphics, they're worthless on their own. They can enhance the explicit definition of the experience, but they are not the experience. ...Or they should not be! In old games, which had none whatsoever character acting, there was still a ton of character personality and interaction, for those who play with emergent narrative. So movies and character acting is actually utterly redundant. It doesn't even need to be there!

The important thing is the gaming experience itself. That's also true for those who only want combat and to discover a story, a movie.

 

But the gaming experience I want from an RPG is the emergent narrative. And from the viewpoint of my own character. That's the entire interest I have in modern RPGs.

 

Combat used to be fun, in old tactical PC games like BG or IWD, but modern consolification has made combat gameplay more of a nuisance than fun. I'd rather play a FPS for combat gameplay + a story than an RPG. And that's all TW offers. And some big (unnecessarily and uselessly big) interactive story-branches. Those branches do not catapult TW to "role-playing" superiority. I'm guessing that if every game had them (at great cost), everyone, who now have their undies in a knot lauding this, would soon realize that it's not really any big value.

 

I used to be very worried that the type of "real" role-playing game that I desire would go extinct. Particularly in the wake of DA2 and ME2, ...and TW2. So I'm glad I sat through about an hour or so of a talk D.G. did, on writing RPGs. After that I'm very relieved and satisfied. Because what he said revealed that he (and thus Bioware writing teams in general, I assume) totally understands the sort of perspective I have. And he also seemed to take the view that writing & gameplay which leaves room for that, is better to pursue, than the simple jrpg-approach TW takes.

[Shechinah]

*snip*

Sadly, it would seem that you were not taught by your teacher or others on how to properly participate in a discussion and the proper manners with which to conduct one. It is a shame since you seem to have a genuine  interest in discussions.

[Lebanese Dude]

Stop feeding the troll.

[cdizzle2k3]

I found it hilarious that DA:I was as praised as it was.

It's not "complete garbage", but it's shiny and good-looking, but ultimately shallow and streamlined.

 

(I can't be bothered to write a review on DA:I again, you can easily check my posts to see that this was my impression after playing through the game twice at launch)

I don't need to see reviews to validate my own opinions. I owned all the DA games, KOTR games, and Mass Effect games and thoroughly enjoyed them all. I was gonna buy this game anyway, if only to complete the DA game story. I can honestly say that I think DA: I deserved it's accolades from last year. Granted, last year wasn't exactly a strong year for new releases... Do I think it would win those same accolades if it was released this year? No. Would I still enjoy it if it came out after TW3? Of course! I'm a fan of Bioware games.

 

I'm not a blind lemming. I recognize flaws. I never said it was the greatest game ever. Pretty much every time I play, I am able to point out things I wish were done differently... Same goes for every game I play.

[cdizzle2k3]

 

 

what is the user metacritic score for Inquisition? 5.8? That is a pretty far cry from the critical acclaim it received from the gaming publications that were payed a pretty hefty sum to advertise it on their sites, surely these sites don't have a hidden agenda do they? I mean how can there be so much difference between the opinions of the gaming media and the gaming public? 

 

Metacritic scores aren't a reliable source... Most people who would rate on Metacritic have an agenda and either think games are the "GOTY 10/10!" or "it sucks ass 1/10"

 

 

I don't like to hate on games and I would much rather find the positive rather than the negative, find what games do well as I would like to think that even the worst games have some redeeming quality.

 

Well it doesn't seem the case with this thread. People have been giving their own opinions on what they enjoy more about DA, and you have been quick to fight back their opinion and attempt to "school them" with your own personal opinion.

 

Just to humor the original topic. I have dumped hours upon hours into both games in question and my personal opinion (which doesn't need to be validated by anyone elses) is that 

• I feel more immersed into DA: I than TW3. Aside from the fact you can create your own character, you are given more dialog options and have the option to nudge conversations in a certain direction more than TW.
• I feel that the secondary characters are more well written. Sure this is arguable, but based on my opinion and my experience with both games, this is how I feel. 
• Color palette in DA:I is much more vibrant, where in TW3 the world is much darker and monotone(in color).
• Main character voice acting. DA voice acting is good all the way around(minus Iron Bull). TW3 voice acting is excellent with the exception of Geralt... who you hear the most. IMO, his voice actor is trying way too hard to "sound tough" and it almost makes me cringe everytime I hear him speak.

I think of it kind of like a Lord of the Rings vs Game of Thrones comparison. Both great, but they portray completely different atmospheres. 

[Queen Skadi]

Metacritic scores aren't a reliable source... Most people who would rate on Metacritic have an agenda and either think games are the "GOTY 10/10!" or "it sucks ass 1/10"

 

While I know that some user reviews are unfairly baised (lots of of user reviews on the Inquisition page saying "I have not yet played the game but I am giving it a 10 because the people who genuinely don't like the game are giving it a bad score") but if you take the metacritic user reviews as a general consensus when a game gets such a low user score that has got to clue you in that there is something wrong with the game (especially when you got so many people trying to falsely bump up the scores as well).

 

Which do you honestly think is more reliable? A reviewer that gets paid for ad space on their site and does not want to ****** off their customers by giving their game an unfavorable review or the general consensus of the gaming public? Not saying I trust the general consensus as I like to form my own opinions on things but it just so happens that may opinions coincide with that of the general gaming public.

 

Well it doesn't seem the case with this thread. People have been giving their own opinions on what they enjoy more about DA, and you have been quick to fight back their opinion and attempt to "school them" with your own personal opinion.

 

I have already stated that everyone has the right to their opinion and I respect that, if you want to say you like such and such more than whatever then you have every right to that opinion as their is no accounting for taste, that being said there are a lot of people who like to hide their ignorance by claiming everything is an "opinion" which is simply not true, some things are just fact, like 11 being a higher number than 8 for instance.

 

 

• I feel more immersed into DA: I than TW3. Aside from the fact you can create your own character, you are given more dialog options and have the option to nudge conversations in a certain direction more than TW

 

 

Not sure what you mean by this? Inquisition has more flavor dialogue sure but most of the time it has no effect on anything and often is little more than 3 ways of saying the same ****** thing making you wonder why the writers even bothered giving you a choice in the first place? It is clear that the writers had a certain and more defined character in mind for the Inquisitor and while some of the dialogue options may give you more freedom to define your Inquisitor's headcanon personality you are still heavily restricted in the type of Inquisitor you can play in regards to personality.

 

 

• I feel that the secondary characters are more well written. Sure this is arguable, but based on my opinion and my experience with both games, this is how I feel. 

 

 

Not sure you are the best person to judge how "more well written" the characters are with grammar like that, but if you want to say that you like the characters in the Dragon Age series more then go right ahead, I have no problem with you having that opinion.

 

 

 

• Color palette in DA:I is much more vibrant, where in TW3 the world is much darker and monotone(in color).

 

 

Depends on the environments but the Witcher series has always had a more consistently vibrant colour pallet than the Dragon Age series with the predominant colours in Origins through to Dragon Age 2 being grey and brown (with Awakening being exceptionally dull in a series that has had a reputation for being brown)

 

Personally I was taken aback by just how vibrant some of the areas in the Witcher games were, while there are a lot of areas in the Witcher games that have a colour pallet predominantly based around a smaller amount of colours there are also some areas with quite vibrant colours as well like Oxenfurt and certain districts of Novigrad, no matter where you were the colour pallet never felt out of place and always suited the ambiance and atmosphere of the area

 

 

• Main character voice acting. DA voice acting is good all the way around(minus Iron Bull). TW3 voice acting is excellent with the exception of Geralt... who you hear the most. IMO, his voice actor is trying way too hard to "sound tough" and it almost makes me cringe everytime I hear him speak.

 

 

Moot point for me as I can't really place one over the other, guess I prefer Geralt because for the most part the voice acting suited the character (even if it did fall flat in some areas and was consistently **** in the first Witcher game, though props to the voice actor for the MAJOR improvement in performance for the sequels) and I never really felt any of the voice actors in Inquisiton had any real character to them, but hey, dem opinions ey?

[MyKingdomCold]

Frame rate on consoles

Latest patch for TW3 made a choppy game even choppier

[c0bra951]

Metacritic scores aren't a reliable source... Most people who would rate on Metacritic have an agenda and either think games are the "GOTY 10/10!" or "it sucks ass 1/10"

 

The user scores, certainly.  They are entirely worthless, because of rampant fanboyism.  But I do find the metascores from professional writers helpful.  Everything comes out in the wash when you average out the more conscientious evaluations.

 

 

Frame rate on consoles

Latest patch for TW3 made a choppy game even choppier

 

I've yet to see what this criticism is all about.  1.07 is rock-steady so far on my XONE.  if it ever dips below 30 fps for any length of time, I've yet to encounter it.

[cdizzle2k3]

While I know that some user reviews are unfairly baised (lots of of user reviews on the Inquisition page saying "I have not yet played the game but I am giving it a 10 because the people who genuinely don't like the game are giving it a bad score") but if you take the metacritic user reviews as a general consensus when a game gets such a low user score that has got to clue you in that there is something wrong with the game (especially when you got so many people trying to falsely bump up the scores as well).

 

Take your pick on which one you deem more "trustworthy" than the other... I take everything on review sites with a grain of salt and base my opinion/hype on my personal experience with the game or with the developer's previous works. And you can't honestly say that every single review on major gaming websites is influenced by whether or not the reviewer wants to "****** off" readers with a good or bad review. They have varying opinions like everyone else. I'm not saying outside influence doesn't exist, but you can't say that it's the rule.

 

Not sure what you mean by this? Inquisition has more flavor dialogue sure but most of the time it has no effect on anything and often is little more than 3 ways of saying the same ****** thing making you wonder why the writers even bothered giving you a choice in the first place? It is clear that the writers had a certain and more defined character in mind for the Inquisitor and while some of the dialogue options may give you more freedom to define your Inquisitor's headcanon personality you are still heavily restricted in the type of Inquisitor you can play in regards to personality.

You say that as a jab to DA, but Witcher 3 is guilty of the same thing. Of course a lot of dialog options are an illusion, there's no such game AAA game that you can completely sculpt into your own complete story. All any game does that claims you 'choose your own path" is give you a seemingly complex flowchart of "decisions" to make and dialog options which ultimately boils down to a handful (if that) of final outcomes. TW3 is the no different. My original point I was making is that even though it may be "3 ways of saying the same ****** thing", that at least gives me the flexibility to respond in a more colorful manner if I wanted. Eg: responding "Of course" vs "Hell ****** yes" are 2 ways of saying the same answer, but depending on your personality, you would likely be inclined to say one than the other.

 

 

Not sure you are the best person to judge how "more well written" the characters are with grammar like that, but if you want to say that you like the characters in the Dragon Age series more then go right ahead, I have no problem with you having that opinion.

Since "well written"(or well-written) is used as a complex adjective in this case, it's usage not incorrect. Think of it say saying "more well-rounded". I know you're kind of equating it to me saying something like "more better" but that's not the case here. If that wording makes you feel uncomfortable, just mentally replace it with "engaging" so you get "more engaging". I'm trying to humor your original topic, but you're trying to invalidate my points by attacking my grammar(which wasn't even wrong here). C'mon man...

 

 

Depends on the environments but the Witcher series has always had a more consistently vibrant colour pallet than the Dragon Age series with the predominant colours in Origins through to Dragon Age 2 being grey and brown (with Awakening being exceptionally dull in a series that has had a reputation for being brown)

 

Personally I was taken aback by just how vibrant some of the areas in the Witcher games were, while there are a lot of areas in the Witcher games that have a colour pallet predominantly based around a smaller amount of colours there are also some areas with quite vibrant colours as well like Oxenfurt and certain districts of Novigrad, no matter where you were the colour pallet never felt out of place and always suited the ambiance and atmosphere of the area

 

 

 

Moot point for me as I can't really place one over the other, guess I prefer Geralt because for the most part the voice acting suited the character (even if it did fall flat in some areas and was consistently **** in the first Witcher game, though props to the voice actor for the MAJOR improvement in performance for the sequels) and I never really felt any of the voice actors in Inquisiton had any real character to them, but hey, dem opinions ey?

I do agree with you that the colors for DA:O and DA:2 were fairly dull, but I enjoyed the game enough to not be bothered by it. By no means am I saying that TW3 isn't a good looking game... It looks beautiful... textures/particle effects/animations are top tier, but I still prefer the actual color palette of DA:I.

 

And the voice acting... that's just my personal preference. I honestly would probably rather it be like Skyrim or something where you don't hear him talk. I know some people love Geralts scruffy voice, but I'm not one of them. 

[Queen Skadi]

You say that as a jab to DA, but Witcher 3 is guilty of the same thing. Of course a lot of dialog options are an illusion, there's no such game AAA game that you can completely sculpt into your own complete story. All any game does that claims you 'choose your own path" is give you a seemingly complex flowchart of "decisions" to make and dialog options which ultimately boils down to a handful (if that) of final outcomes. TW3 is the no different. My original point I was making is that even though it may be "3 ways of saying the same ****** thing", that at least gives me the flexibility to respond in a more colorful manner if I wanted. Eg: responding "Of course" vs "Hell ****** yes" are 2 ways of saying the same answer, but depending on your personality, you would likely be inclined to say one than the other.

 

Is it? Witcher 3 is definitely guilty of more autodialogue but most of the time when the game gives you dialogue options they serve a purpose, even if that purpose is little more than allowing the player the choice of being able to prod a character for further information on a subject or being able skip the investigative dialogue to move the conversation forward to it's logical conclusion, it largely does away with the fluff dialogue that allows your character to say the same thing in slightly different ways and when the game does offer you a choice it is usually between 2 or more different outcomes and approaches.

 

Considering the largely defined nature of the Geralt character I feel that the way CDPR handled dialogue options was probably the most suitable approach for the type of game they were trying to create.

 

Since "well written"(or well-written) is used as a complex adjective in this case, it's usage not incorrect. Think of it say saying "more well-rounded". I know you're kind of equating it to me saying something like "more better" but that's not the case here. If that wording makes you feel uncomfortable, just mentally replace it with "engaging" so you get "more engaging". I'm trying to humor your original topic, but you're trying to invalidate my points by attacking my grammar(which wasn't even wrong here). C'mon man...

 

I assumed you were trying to say "better written" but if you meant more well rounded or more engaging then you should have just said that. That said I am not sure what you mean by "more well rounded"? They have more fleshed out backstories? Just because the characters in the Witcher games don't constantly bore you with their backstories doesn't mean they don't have backstories and I certainly did not find the characters in the Dragon Age series to be more engaging either, the writers at CDPR prefer to let these aspects of their character's personality manifest themselves in far more natural and organic ways, the way they act, the way they talk and what they do, it allows the observant player to analyze the psychology of these characters through their actions and understand who they are and why they do what they do, and in some cases see a glimpse into the character's past and see how it has shaped the character into the person they are without that character even needing to say a word about their past, this to me is what gives the characters in the Witcher series their depth and makes them far more more engaging.

 

I do agree with you that the colors for DA:O and DA:2 were fairly dull, but I enjoyed the game enough to not be bothered by it. By no means am I saying that TW3 isn't a good looking game... It looks beautiful... textures/particle effects/animations are top tier, but I still prefer the actual color palette of DA:I.

 

And that is perfectly fine to say, Inquisition has made major leaps and bounds in this area over it's predecessors but I can't help but feel it is also a major shift in tone making the art direction in the Dragon Age series feel very inconsistent without a cohesive identity.

 

And the voice acting... that's just my personal preference. I honestly would probably rather it be like Skyrim or something where you don't hear him talk. I know some people love Geralts scruffy voice, but I'm not one of them. 

 

Silent protagonists and voiced protagonists both have their place in different types of games but when it comes to a game with a more defined main character like the Witcher games a voiced protagonist is the better fit.

 

Besides I felt the gruff and somewhat emotionless delivery of the voice actor was a good fit for the cynical and somewhat detached Geralt of Rivia.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

*snip*

 

 

The rationalizing in this post.

[cdizzle2k3]

 

 

Is it? Witcher 3 is definitely guilty of more autodialogue but most of the time when the game gives you dialogue options they serve a purpose, even if that purpose is little more than allowing the player the choice of being able to prod a character for further information on a subject or being able skip the investigative dialogue to move the conversation forward to it's logical conclusion, it largely does away with the fluff dialogue that allows your character to say the same thing in slightly different ways and when the game does offer you a choice it is usually between 2 or more different outcomes and approaches.

 

Considering the largely defined nature of the Geralt character I feel that the way CDPR handled dialogue options was probably the most suitable approach for the type of game they were trying to create.

There are plenty of instances where TW3 has what you call "fluff dialogue" especially when you throw in your logic of streamlining a "largely defined" character. Sure it is completely suitable for that game, but it would NOT be suitable for a DA game since the "fluff dialog" is necessary for giving the player a sense of the individuality, even if the final end result is the same as if you were to choose another similar dialog option. The approach is massively different in both games and, frankly, they both do them well.

 

I assumed you were trying to say "better written" but if you meant more well rounded or more engaging then you should have just said that. That said I am not sure what you mean by "more well rounded"? They have more fleshed out backstories? Just because the characters in the Witcher games don't constantly bore you with their backstories doesn't mean they don't have backstories and I certainly did not find the characters in the Dragon Age series to be more engaging either

They're synonyms, I can use which ever one I want...  Anyway, both of our arguments here are completely subjective. Once you take away the zoomed in camera angle that TW3 does for every conversation you initiate, it's basically the exact same as DA:I. The only difference is presentation, which I admit, TW3 nails. If DA:I zoomed in for each insignficant conversation you can have, it would give the same illusion of being more personal. Witcher games don't "constantly bore you with their backstories"? They do the same thing! Only difference is DA gives you the option of Investigating further on average than TW3 if you want them to further "bore you with their backstories". 

 

 

... the writers at CDPR prefer to let these aspects of their character's personality manifest themselves in far more natural and organic ways, the way they act, the way they talk and what they do, it allows the observant player to analyze the psychology of these characters through their actions and understand who they are and why they do what they do, and in some cases see a glimpse into the character's past and see how it has shaped the character into the person they are without that character even needing to say a word about their past, this to me is what gives the characters in the Witcher series their depth and makes them far more more engaging.

Really? Do you work for CDPR's advertising department? You could literally say that for any game...

 

Silent protagonists and voiced protagonists both have their place in different types of games but when it comes to a game with a more defined main character like the Witcher games a voiced protagonist is the better fit.

 

Besides I felt the gruff and somewhat emotionless delivery of the voice actor was a good fit for the cynical and somewhat detached Geralt of Rivia. 

Yeah, I was just taking a jab there... I don't actually think that he should've been silent, though I wouldn't complain if he was. Thousands of lines of recorded dialog is how AAA games are going to be from here on out, I'm sure. Even Bethesda realized that with their upcoming Fallout 4. It would be a technical step backwards to do otherwise.

[coldwetn0se]

Why do these threads always remind me of this: