Well, both games suffer from pop-in issues but DA:I has the ability to pop-in a bear or entire squad of Templars right on top of your head! That is definitely way better than a random NPC pop-in you get in TW3.
So, yeah, DA:I does pop-in better. 
Edit: to be fair, what I am calling "pop-in" above for DA:I is actually spawning but hey its a junk thread!
There are things both games do really well and things that both games are not so good at.
I do have to say that Geralt is an amazing character and his evolution to where he is at in this third game is remarkable...
Wow, you come here asking a question and when they answer you, you bash them to the grounds with replies you already had prepared. You just came here to start a fight, and even take a "schooling" vibe while doing so, being so impolite, rude, and even calling people stupid to their faces with phrases like "I dont know if you are able to know what is good writing with your grammar".
Skadi, you must be completely unbearable in real life, I pity all those around you.
If you think that Witcher 3 is totally better than DAI in everything, then why are you asking the question. Do you feel the compulsion to bash people? To clearly state that what they love is inferior to another game?
TW3 is an awesome game, DAI is an awesome game. I also would have loved to see DAI have more development and done some things like they did in TW3, but it did not happen. You must accept it, grow, get over it. Go on with your life. Its ok, everything will pass. Time will heal it all.
Feel any better?
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.
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".
At this point your arguments are little more than "is too", while I don't deny that the Witcher 3 has the odd fluff dialogue that does not have any significant effect on anything in the long run usually such dialogue options are meant to provoke vastly different responses instead of merely being 3 flavors of "I agree with you Dorian, your Father is a dick!" because god forbid the writers allow us to play character who could be potentially be seen as a homophobic bigot for disagreeing with a gay guy. But for the most part the Witcher 3 does away with such dialogue options altogether which I can't say I mind given the type of game they created.
Not sure what the Witcher zooming in has to do with anything or how it makes it feel more personal? Not sure what you even mean by more personal?
Really? Do you work for CDPR's advertising department? You could literally say that for any game...
Except for Dragon Age apparently, having a very hard time seeing how such an assertion could possibly apply to the Dragon Age series, for example if we look at a character like Loghain for instance (commonly considered the crowing jewel of villain writing by the Dragon Age fans, but an inconsistent mess by everyone else) the game tells us a lot of things about him, he is a patriot, he has a massive boner for Maric, he hates Orlesians, he does whatever he thinks is right for his country, he is an expert tactician. Now you tell me how these aspects of Loghain's character manifested themselves in his actions and personality?
Sure when you recruit him he gushes about Maric like a fangirl and tells you about how and why he hates Orlesians. But shouldn't an expert tactician know more about the area he chose as a defensive location? Shouldn't he know that the place he chose as a place for the beacon has a tunnel system that could be used to infiltrate the ruins? Why would a master tacticiain poison one of Ferelden's most powerful military figures and divide the army? Sure this would be a stroke of tactical brilliance if Loghain's goal was to hand Ferelden to the darkspawn but Loghain is supposedly a patriot? Such actions don't really fit the m.o of a supposed patriot and tactical genius? I could go on but the point is every one of Loghain's actions seems to be at odds with what we are told we are supposed to believe about the character.
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.
Can't say it was a brilliant idea to give the protagonist of Fallout 4 a voice, defined personality traits and a spouse considering the big appeal of Bethesda games (at least according to the fans) buuuuuuut then again I never had any real interest in Fallout 4 in the first place so I don't really care.
Wow, you come here asking a question and when they answer you, you bash them to the grounds with replies you already had prepared.
Here are some replies I prepared earlier? Well I must admit I was not prepared for that accusation, not sure why you think I have this magical ability to predict what Dragon Age fans are going to say, you don't really have to prepare material before hand when you have logic on your side, just because I am very good at sniffing out bullshit arguments does not mean I am not genuinely interested in finding the merits of the Dragon Age series, I believe that every game (or at least most games) has it's merits, just sometimes (which is the case with the Dragon Age series) those merits are harder to find which requires you to dig deeper and dispel a lot of bullshit along the way, doesn't mean I am not interested in learning what those merits are.
Believe me it is not my intention to call anyone stupid, however I can't shy away from the truth, I know it might make some people feel stupid when they are confronted with the truth but I am not in the business of sparing people's feelings by protecting them from the truth, guess that must be why Athiests are hated so much.
DA:I doesn't have Geralt, who is a terrible character that I can't stomach playing.
Just out of curiosity, why is he terrible?
Just out of curiosity, why is he terrible?
Because he is a white straight male?
I like him,but maybe he doesn't appeal for some people who wish to create their own protagonist.
Because he is a white straight male?
I like him,but maybe he doesn't appeal for some people who wish to create their own protagonist.
He's awesome like a cross between Batman and Jack Bauer.
That being said there really is not any substitute for creating a good character in an RPG.
Nothing against Geralt, but the last vibe I get from him is either Bruce Wayne or Batman. In either personality, style, or ability, they really have nothing in common, imo.
Because he is a white straight male?
Ah the straight white male, the last minority it is socially acceptable to hate on, well them and atheists.
Ah the straight white male, the last minority it is socially acceptable to hate on, well them and atheists.
If you believe that, try looking elsewhere at the global news. Please.
It was a joke, but then humour does seem to lost on SJWs so it is no wonder you took offense.
It was a joke, but then humour does seem to lost on SJWs so it is no wonder you took offense.
At this point your arguments are little more than "is too", while I don't deny that the Witcher 3 has the odd fluff dialogue that does not have any significant effect on anything in the long run usually such dialogue options are meant to provoke vastly different responses instead of merely being 3 flavors of "I agree with you Dorian, your Father is a dick!" because god forbid the writers allow us to play character who could be potentially be seen as a homophobic bigot for disagreeing with a gay guy. But for the most part the Witcher 3 does away with such dialogue options altogether which I can't say I mind given the type of game they created.
At this point your arguments are basically attempts to pass your personal opinion as unequivocal fact. You name one instance where you feel you were robbed of real dialog choice(which is fair to point out), but you can't pretend that the entire game is as such. Don't be sour because you feel robbed of the option to openly oppose Dorian's sexuality... For the record, I think they should have given you the option to do so just to reinforce the flexibility of player choice, but I also don't think it's a game breaking misstep since if you generate enough disapproval, you can get him to permanently leave.
Not sure what the Witcher zooming in has to do with anything or how it makes it feel more personal? Not sure what you even mean by more personal?
People love fact that every single conversation in TW3 is treated as a cutscene, where the camera cuts to an close up of the one speaking. What I mean by "more personal" is that, even though they could essentially be saying the same thing in TW3 vs DA, a lot of people give the nod to TW3 because of the cinematic angle as opposed to DA where only major conversations are given that cinematic treatment and others have the camera still in the same zoomed out 3rd person player-locked camera as it is when you are adventuring. That change in angle gives the illusion of importance and significance. I admit, even though it is convenient to stay zoomed out for cases where you feel like skipping a conversation by just walking away, TW3 nailed those angles and it shines when speaking with side quest givers. Both of these games are fetch quest heavy(as with any large-scale open world game), but that subtle camera touch makes it feel slightly less tedious when the conversation where the quest is given is treated as a cinematic even if the everything you had to do in the quest and all lines spoken are the same
Except for Dragon Age apparently, having a very hard time seeing how such an assertion could possibly apply to the Dragon Age series, for example if we look at a character like Loghain for instance (commonly considered the crowing jewel of villain writing by the Dragon Age fans, but an inconsistent mess by everyone else) the game tells us a lot of things about him, he is a patriot, he has a massive boner for Maric, he hates Orlesians, he does whatever he thinks is right for his country, he is an expert tactician. Now you tell me how these aspects of Loghain's character manifested themselves in his actions and personality?
Sure when you recruit him he gushes about Maric like a fangirl and tells you about how and why he hates Orlesians. But shouldn't an expert tactician know more about the area he chose as a defensive location? Shouldn't he know that the place he chose as a place for the beacon has a tunnel system that could be used to infiltrate the ruins? Why would a master tacticiain poison one of Ferelden's most powerful military figures and divide the army? Sure this would be a stroke of tactical brilliance if Loghain's goal was to hand Ferelden to the darkspawn but Loghain is supposedly a patriot? Such actions don't really fit the m.o of a supposed patriot and tactical genius? I could go on but the point is every one of Loghain's actions seems to be at odds with what we are told we are supposed to believe about the character.
I think you meant "Loghain is considered the crowning jewel of villain writing by Dragon Age fans, but an inconsistent mess by people who unilaterally favor the Witcher in the Witcher 3 vs Dragon Age: Inquisition argument." This is where opinions come in. Loghain was considered a good villain because you can understand his stance/actions and sympathize with his position as opposed to just being evil for the sake of needing an evil antagonist to the good guy hero.
I'm not going to go into the story to explain why I think he was an A+ protagonist because it's been clear from the start of this thread that you're staying put on your side of this debate. I will say that as much as I enjoy Witcher 3, I consider the Wild Hunt very underwhelming. And I'll also be the first to admit, as much as I enjoy DA: I, Corypheus should not have been the main protagonist...
Just out of curiosity, why is he terrible?
His gravelly monotone voice is grating and his jokes are not funny.
Actually, I tend to prefer Dragon Age to the Witcher but I thought Loghain was a mediocre antagonist who was handled terribly by the writers. He actually suffers from similar problems as Corypheus in ways. I also consider the Wild Hunt and Eredin quite inferior to Letho or even Jaques de Aldersburg as an antagonist though.I think you meant "Loghain is considered the crowning jewel of villain writing by Dragon Age fans, but an inconsistent mess by people who unilaterally favor the Witcher in the Witcher 3 vs Dragon Age: Inquisition argument." This is where opinions come in. Loghain was considered a good villain because you can understand his stance/actions and sympathize with his position as opposed to just being evil for the sake of needing an evil protagonist to the good guy hero.
I'm not going to go into the story to explain why I think he was an A+ protagonist because it's been clear from the start of this thread that you're staying put on your side of this debate. I will say that as much as I enjoy Witcher 3, I consider the Wild Hunt very underwhelming. And I'll also be the first to admit, as much as I enjoy DA: I, Corypheus should not have been the main protagonist...
Weather. CDPR needs to look at the Storm Coast, and at Crestwood before and after. I realize that DAI features static environments, while TW3's are dynamic, with day/night cycles and random weather. The problems with the latter, in almost every game which goes there are: (1) Weather is not really random. It tends toward certain patterns, with more sunshine in some locations, and more clouds and rain or snow in others. Determining the weather should be like picking cards at random from a skewed deck, rather than a straight random-number generator. (2) Weather doesn't usually change drastically multiple times per day. (3) Daylight is always daylight, even when in a blinding rainstorm. When it's darker at 2 PM on a rainy day than at 2 AM on a clear night, something is seriously amiss.
Not getting hopelessly stuck in the landscape. This is partly unfair, because you can always switch to a different party member in DAI. My inquisitor has gotten stuck. Besides switching, I can fast-travel from just about anywhere in DAI too, something TW3 annoyingly omits. When Geralt got stuck in combat mode on some stalagmites recently, there was absolutely nothing I could do but load a previous save.
DAI doesn't replay the same comic-book cutscene every time I load a game. The repetition is irritating.
DAI's mini-map never goes black when I gallop.
While DAI has scaling issues, it doesn't mix random encounters 20 levels above you with current questing at your level.
Horses/Mounts. Even ignoring the much greater variety of mounts in DAI, vs none (so far) in TW3, Roach behaves abominably compared to my trusty nameless mount in DAI. He will stop dead right when I need him to gallop the most. And whenever I get to a hillside, I don't even try to have him traverse it anymore. I hop off, do it myself, then I call him. His extra speed and (flawed) auto-navigation don't come close to making up for these problems. [After more experience, my disdain for Roach has only gotten worse.]
Breaking from combat mode. No game that separates exploration mode from combat mode seems to do a good job letting the player choose between them. The auto-switch is universal, at least in my experience. DAI doesn't really let you break from combat mode completely (it should) but at least it lets you disengage from battle and run. TW3 is determined to keep you in slow movement and turning around to face a hopelessly superior enemy. These encounters happen way more frequently than they should. At Lv 15, I'm just as likely to run into Lv-9 drowners and bandits, Lv-5 wolves and Lv-23+ horrors whose names I won't stick around long enough to read.
Combat consistency. While there are one or two instances in DAI where the rules of combat change as a way to advance the story, in TW3 they are way more numerous and way more frustrating. I've spent much of the time in the game developing a fighting-and-defense system that works for me. Then that all goes out the window when I'm dropped into the shoes of a different character, or I'm forced to defend myself without signs or weapons. These are forced and unpredictable events, not optional encounters. Ambushing and blindsiding me with a bunch of thugs, and then basically crippling Geralt's offense and (more importantly) defense, is frustration incarnate.
Technical polish. DAI has its share of bugs and glitches; but it looks like a gleaming example of programming excellence in comparison to TW3. Lately, I've been battling bugs about as much as I am drowners. The worst so far was a breath meter which would not refill even after leaving the poisonous area for one particular Lv-13 secondary quest. Every encounter with the gas would deplete it some more, until even a moment in the poison was fatal. Leaving, saving/reloading, waiting a long while--none cured it. Finally, I got the idea of riding to the nearest coast, and going for a swim. Diving and resurfacing did the trick, and kept me from having to reload a previous save.
More examples of technical grunge: A minimap that stays black for prolonged periods. Dead bodies that don't animate fully to the ground as they fall, staying in mid-air in freeze-frame fashion. An NPC floating along the ground--no walking animation at all. Instant death of an escorted character for no reason (game-ending). Ridiculously poor camera in close quarters. Vertigo-inducing camera swings when changing elevations. (Stair steps are the worst.) Blacksmiths/armorers who don't show up or remain unresponsive if I wait at their shops near their wakeup times. (Meditation cures this.) Forgetting to put away a sword after combat ends. Geralt keeps running around forever with a sword in his hand until I put it away manually. All of this after 7 patches.
Modifié par c0bra951, 04 août 2015 - 03:11 .
At this point your arguments are basically attempts to pass your personal opinion as unequivocal fact. You name one instance where you feel you were robbed of real dialog choice(which is fair to point out), but you can't pretend that the entire game is as such. Don't be sour because you feel robbed of the option to openly oppose Dorian's sexuality... For the record, I think they should have given you the option to do so just to reinforce the flexibility of player choice, but I also don't think it's a game breaking misstep since if you generate enough disapproval, you can get him to permanently leave.
I may have only pointed out one example but that does not mean it is the only example, if fact I am having a hard time remembering any scenes where I felt the dialogue options allowed me to define a strong headcanon personality for my Inquisitor, the only thing I remember being able to define was whether or not the Inquisitor believed they were the Herald of Andraste, to me the Inquisitor was basically medieval Commander Shepard but with a far blander personality, it seemed like there were only a few personality traits that the writers of Inquisiton deemed it acceptable for the Inquisitor to have and most of them were forced on your character whether you wanted it or not.
People love fact that every single conversation in TW3 is treated as a cutscene, where the camera cuts to an close up of the one speaking. What I mean by "more personal" is that, even though they could essentially be saying the same thing in TW3 vs DA, a lot of people give the nod to TW3 because of the cinematic angle as opposed to DA where only major conversations are given that cinematic treatment and others have the camera still in the same zoomed out 3rd person player-locked camera as it is when you are adventuring. That change in angle gives the illusion of importance and significance. I admit, even though it is convenient to stay zoomed out for cases where you feel like skipping a conversation by just walking away, TW3 nailed those angles and it shines when speaking with side quest givers. Both of these games are fetch quest heavy(as with any large-scale open world game), but that subtle camera touch makes it feel slightly less tedious when the conversation where the quest is given is treated as a cinematic even if the everything you had to do in the quest and all lines spoken are the same
It is not just because of the cinematic presentation of dialogue in the sidequests that people prefer the sidequests in the Witcher 3 it is because they are just genuinely more interesting, while I don't deny that the Witcher 3 has it's share of fetch quests it also has a lot of side quests that are genuinely quite good and infinitely more interesting than the ones in Inquisition, while I am sure the cinematic approach to dialogue helps it is not the only factor in play here.
His gravelly monotone voice is grating and his jokes are not funny.
I am fairly convinced his jokes are not supposed to be funny. There is a thematic thread running through Geralt that he's the best-of-the-best at killing monsters and people (and fairly incidentally good at winning the affections of women, it seems) but he's basically terrible at nearly everything else. Acting. Singing. Telling jokes. Just awful.
Some people might find that endearing. A hero who has flaws. flawless heroes often lack character.
Speaking of lacking chartacter, anyone ever notice the Inquisitor is never bad at anything? Even life-long Tal Vashoth mercs and Carta Thugs are inexplicably perfect ballroom dancers....
meh. I don't even agree that every aspect ot TW3 was better than DAI. But my wildest dreams would have a DA4 protagainist who was more like Geralt ...or Hawke.... than yet another medeival Cuh-bland-der Shepard.
I may have only pointed out one example but that does not mean it is the only example, if fact I am having a hard time remembering any scenes where I felt the dialogue options allowed me to define a strong headcanon personality for my Inquisitor, the only thing I remember being able to define was whether or not the Inquisitor believed they were the Herald of Andraste, to me the Inquisitor was basically medieval Commander Shepard but with a far blander personality, it seemed like there were only a few personality traits that the writers of Inquisiton deemed it acceptable for the Inquisitor to have and most of them were forced on your character whether you wanted it or not.
I'll quote your earlier response...
"character's personality manifest themselves in far more natural and organic ways, the way they act, the way they talk and what they do"
Your character's personality is supposed to be a culmination of dialog choices and in game actions. Are you suggesting that you select your personality from a drop-down list instead? You have the ability to choose whether you believe you were the Herald, you can choose the fate of certain prisoners when you "Sit in Judgement", you can choose a side to pick in the mage/templar war, you decide how to handle your companion quests (or skip them all together), you can somewhat direct normal conversations, you can decide your sexuality and choose whether or not to pursue a love interest, etc ... The direction you choose in handling those situations are what defines your in-game "personality". And based on your "personality" people around you receive you differently, even if it may just be slightly differently in some cases. Some companions may even decide to leave you if you generate enough disapproval. All that plays into "personality".
I don't care how much you hate DA:I, there is quantifiably much more flexibility to "take ownership of the narrative" in this game than the vast majority of games on the market. That's how this game garnered all those awards last year. Even considering conspiracy theories, it would be ignorant to claim that EA strong-armed or wrote checks to all those gaming publications to favorably review this one game. If that's the case, why pay off reviewers for this game when they release at least a handful of major titles every year? It would be smarter from a financial standpoint to get the masses to favorably support a game series that gets released annually like NBA Live 15 or a game they can constantly pump out add on packs for users to purchase for years after it's release like the Sims 4.
It is not just because of the cinematic presentation of dialogue in the sidequests that people prefer the sidequests in the Witcher 3 it is because they are just genuinely more interesting, while I don't deny that the Witcher 3 has it's share of fetch quests it also has a lot of side quests that are genuinely quite good and infinitely more interesting than the ones in Inquisition, while I am sure the cinematic approach to dialogue helps it is not the only factor in play here.
I stand by my point. At face value, these games essentially do the same thing in terms of their excessive, borderline pointless side/fetch quests. The main difference is presentation of said quest.
You are not going to explain because you know your assertion is bullshit, lets be totally honest here, do you honestly think you are fooling anyone with that claim?
Do you think you're fooling anyone by trying to debunk or invalidate something that's 100% subjective with your own personal opinion? I'm not going to explain because it would be beating a dead horse, which I'm already doing by continuing this back and forth. Your statements haven't caused the slightest shift in my opinion and mine haven't caused a shift in yours. I'm sure we could continue going back and forth until Dragon Age 4 and The Witcher 4 are released and still be in the same place where we started..
Yeah, not having to play as a dude.
I don't care about Witcher, don't care how good it is and no matter how much people brag about it I still will NEVER EVER play it. If the next Witcher let me choose my gender I will give it a try. Sure DA:I has problems but I still prefer it to Witcher.
But right now I'm just waiting for F4. At least Bethesda (and BW of course) know how important the ability to choose our gender is to some of us.
If given a choice - I will always play females. But a good story is a good story. A remarkable character is a remarkable character. By all means don't play the Witcher, but my gaming life would be a lot less sweet if I hadn't played Link in the Zelda games, Nathan Drake in Uncharted, Joel in the Last of Us and of course, Geralt in the Witcher!
Great stories, fun games, great characters.....
Speaking of lacking chartacter, anyone ever notice the Inquisitor is never bad at anything? Even life-long Tal Vashoth mercs and Carta Thugs are inexplicably perfect ballroom dancers....
meh. I don't even agree that every aspect ot TW3 was better than DAI. But my wildest dreams would have a DA4 protagainist who was more like Geralt ...or Hawke.... than yet another medeival Cuh-bland-der Shepard.
From a developer standpoint, I'm sure the blandness people complain about with the Inquisitor and Shepard is a result of leaving a "blank slate" personality for the player to fill in with the personality they choose. If they went with a pre-written protagonist(Geralt, for instance) it would be easier to write lines or actions specifically suited to that predefined personality. That and, you're at the mercy of the voice actor... which is why the male Shepard is pretty much a meme, while fem Shepard is generally praised.
Side note... I hope they don't make a DA game where the player defined character was forced into the Geralt/Fenris from DA2/Marcus Fenix/Batman/Clint Eastwood/hard-nosed tough guy, womanizer stereotype... I'm 110% cool with having a companion with that personality, but IMO, it's waay overdone. Though I do believe in their next game, they should give you the option for your player to go that route if you choose.... Time will tell...
Actually, I tend to prefer Dragon Age to the Witcher but I thought Loghain was a mediocre antagonist who was handled terribly by the writers. He actually suffers from similar problems as Corypheus in ways. I also consider the Wild Hunt and Eredin quite inferior to Letho or even Jaques de Aldersburg as an antagonist though.
And only those two would I consider ranking with Bioware's best antagonist, the most Glorious Strategist.
I don't think Loghain was the perfect antagonist, but as far as video games are concerned, I consider him a good one. My problem with Corypheus(and the Wild Hunt, for that matter) was that the game tried to hard to make him an untouchable, all-powerful god-like creature and his goal was pretty much to take over the world... extremely cliche... I liked Loghain as a villain because you can argue that his 'bad guy decisions' were logical, which can ultimately lead you to sympathize with him. I prefer villains that actually have a goal in mind that can make you understand why they are doing what they're doing, rather than the same ole "I'm going to destroy/take over the world, cause I'm a bad guy!"
Like I said, Loghain was a mediocre villain. By which I mean he works fine conceptually. His major problem was his handling, he was barely present for the majority of the plot and for all that time his motivation was vague and confused. You don't really get a decent understanding of his motives until the 11th hour. Aside from Redcliffe, none of the major quests have anything to do with him either. Until the Landsmeet he was little better than the Archdemon, a vague distant force to fight against.I don't think Loghain was the perfect antagonist, but as far as video games are concerned, I consider him a good one. My problem with Corypheus(and the Wild Hunt, for that matter) was that the game tried to hard to make him an untouchable, all-powerful god-like creature and his goal was pretty much to take over the world... extremely cliche... I liked Loghain as a villain because you can argue that his 'bad guy decisions' were logical, which can ultimately lead you to sympathize with him. I prefer villains that actually have a goal in mind that can make you understand why they are doing what they're doing, rather than the same ole "I'm going to destroy/take over the world, cause I'm a bad guy!"
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut