187 réponses à ce sujet

[Dutch's Ghost]

The Baron story was a main quest.

DA Is story was a lot more then just 'blah blah I destroy the world'.

As far as the side stories are concerned, I think DA Is stories are a lot more mature then most people give it credit for. Just look at all the death, misery, destruction, and other mature content matter out there. As far as more realistic...who knows?

What mature side content in DAI lol? Bioware likes to tell instead of show.

[Dutch's Ghost]

The Witcher 3's story was quite dull and extremely unengaging when you get down to it... you are searching for your daughter, doing random things on the side, still searching, more long drawn out searching, o hey here's the Wild Hunt finally and then that finale with Ciri just being slammed in out of nowhere. Not that it was outright terrible, it was passable, but TW3 was nowhere near special in terms of story.

At times, it reminds me of FFXII and how the focus of the game was mistakenly put on the party instead of the more important political machinations that happened off screen. I know it's about Geralt, but the most important aspect of the game was the Wild Hunt and Ciri... both which played actual minimal roles and forced the game to draw out the story to tedious levels at times.

With DA:I, the story was tighter with the focus actually being on the main forces of the game, isntead of a tertiary character that wasn't as important to what was supposed to be the real threat. Also, Bioware just does better characters, which will always raise the level of a story no matter what.

DAI story was neither tighter nor was it focused. At best it was disjointed and that's a compliment, the characters are also pretty terrible for my tastes. Celen, Sara, Dorian, Bull, Viv, uuhhh......

[Dutch's Ghost]

TW3's main story has some great moments... but overall there's a lot of stumbling around not knowing what's going on except looking for Ciri. They did a better job maintaining the antagonist's sense of threat than Bioware did, but atleast Cory's motives were known and he actually had some depth (Even as underdeveloped as he was). Eredin is pretty much a complete mystery most of the plot except that he wants Ciri for "reasons", and he likes killing humans because racism.

You weren't paying attention. Eredin's and the Wild Hunts motives were well explained several times in the game.

[Kabraxal]

You weren't paying attention. Eredin's and the Wild Hunts motives were well explained several times in the game.

Their motives were stated, but since they were hardly in the game, it was all tell and no show. For such a "big" deal, the wild hunt amounted to very little in the game.

And if you play da:i by main quest only, the story is tight. Do the same fir TW3 and the problems are still the same. And you might not like the characters, but the interaction is far beyond the witcher in every way.

[hoechlbear]

I do think that the environments of DA:I are much better than TW3. The vast majority of TW3 areas are forests, mountains, swamps etc, and there really isn't much variety until you get to Skellige, and even then it just adds snow and mountains. Don't get me wrong, there are some beautifully crafted areas but most of it is samey. I actually think that the Cosmonaut mission was created just to give the area design team at CDPR a chance to do something a bit different and show that they can make something different.

 

DA:I, while sure they're mostly filled with fetch quests, has some fantastic areas. I can't really think of an area that doesn't have some kind of artistic merit. Even the Hissing Wastes, while mostly sand and night time, has those huge statues of buried dwarven paragons that when I first saw them made me stop and say wow. The Western Approach was a bit meh for me though.

 

DAI has like 10 huge maps where all you see is forests, deserts and mountains so I'm not sure why you're complaining about TW3 where you actually have more than that. Not only do you have dozens of little small villages but you also have the city of Novigrad which is huge and a nice change when you spend some time exploring the wilderness. If anything, TW3 had what DAI didn't have: a city and several villages that are immersive and look alive. Personally I don't care how pretty DAI's maps were if in the end most sidequests required you to pick letters from the ground and you barely interact with NPCs when exploring the maps. I don't play games to look at the prettiness of it and to me, that's the only thing DAI's worlds were good for. But that's just my opinion.

[sammael]

they mainstory in da:i is anything but tight, and the thing with da:i is that you cant only play the story you are FORCED to do sidequest to be able to continue the main plot, and you dont really get a real connection with the characters as you do in TW3, theres alot more emotion in the cinematics between the characters then it is in da:i

[Elhanan]

they mainstory in da:i is anything but tight, and the thing with da:i is that you cant only play the story you are FORCED to do sidequest to be able to continue the main plot, and you dont really get a real connection with the characters as you do in TW3, theres alot more emotion in the cinematics between the characters then it is in da:i

Can not speak of the drama of TW3, but one does not require a cut-scene or cinematics to convey emotion; ask someone that actually reads occasionally. And I do not recall being forced to do side content; chose to so willingly. Actually, many have reportedly became stuck in the Hinterlands by not following the MQ, so this accusation seems to be without merit.

[sammael]

And if you play da:i by main quest only, the story is tight. Do the same fir TW3 and the problems are still the same. And you might not like the characters, but the interaction is far beyond the witcher in every way.

 

Well the thing is, you cant play mainstory only in DA:I since you need to gather enough Power to be able to open new areas thus forcing you to play sidequests.

 

And the characters themselves are so lifeless in da:i compared to the emotional cinematic interactions you have in TW3, i miss some of the mind blowing fealings you get in TW3 cinematics in DA:I, i Think they focused to much on all the lifeless areas that they missed out on some of the more important parts of the game, parts they hade in the previous titles wich is too bad
 

[Kabraxal]

Well the thing is, you cant play mainstory only in DA:I since you need to gather enough Power to be able to open new areas thus forcing you to play sidequests.
 
And the characters themselves are so lifeless in da:i compared to the emotional cinematic interactions you have in TW3, i miss some of the mind blowing fealings you get in TW3 cinematics in DA:I, i Think they focused to much on all the lifeless areas that they missed out on some of the more important parts of the game, parts they hade in the previous titles wich is too bad

DA characters lifeless? Have you even played the game? The characters and character interaction are amazing in this game... The only scene to match it in TW is the drinking seen near the end if the game.

[Lebanese Dude]

DA characters lifeless? Have you even played the game? The characters and character interaction are amazing in this game... The only scene to match it in TW is the drinking seen near the end if the game.

 

Just ignore that poster. If DAI (and any other BioWare game) does anything right, it's the developments of characters and their interactions. It would be understandable for someone who allegedly enjoys RPGs to not like some or even most of the cast of characters and the setting, but to label it all "lifeless" is clear hyperbole.

 

---

 

Frankly, I find it hilarious that people in this thread continue to ignore the fact that TW3 is a third game in a series with the same character, while DAI is the third game in an installment with a new protagonist. 

 

Any emotions you may feel towards some, if not most, of Geralt's "companions" is the result of interactions across three games. No **** it's going to sometimes feel more "deep". A better game trilogy to compare it to in that regard would be the Mass Effect series.

[Dutch's Ghost]

Their motives were stated, but since they were hardly in the game, it was all tell and no show. For such a "big" deal, the wild hunt amounted to very little in the game.

And if you play da:i by main quest only, the story is tight. Do the same fir TW3 and the problems are still the same. And you might not like the characters, but the interaction is far beyond the witcher in every way.

 

The story is not tight even if you play ONLY the storyline which you cant because you need to accumulate power through playing fetch quests. The wildhunt is seen more throughout the Witcher 3 than Cory is within DAI. It's tell and not show with DAI, not Witcher 3. Enjoy your disjointed poorly made main quest.

[Dutch's Ghost]

The Witcher 3 Storyline stays consistent throughout. DAI storyline is severely disjointed and there are too much plot points like the civil war, templar-mage war that were cutshort and  poorly executed.

[sammael]

Frankly, I find it hilarious that people in this thread continue to ignore the fact that TW3 is a third game in a series with the same character, while DAI is the third game in an installment with a new protagonist. 

 

Or maby they should have put alittle more effort into the characters, the characters and character development was much better in the 2 previously titles, they have focused to much on creating a big good looking World, and to me it feals more like its some kind of pupeteer show, and it has nothing to do that its a new installment or a third in a series, this was a thing that was bad in the previously TW games also, they made it alot better, bioware made it worse in their third game

[Kabraxal]

The story is not tight even if you play ONLY the storyline which you cant because you need to accumulate power through playing fetch quests. The wildhunt is seen more throughout the Witcher 3 than Cory is within DAI. It's tell and not show with DAI, not Witcher 3. Enjoy your disjointed poorly made main quest.

Too bad you can't even bring up a single point to back it up in all this fanboy ranting. Maybe you should go to cdpr's site sonce you are clearly here to only and mindlessly bash dragon age. Maybe you'd be welcome there.

[Queen Skadi]

Dark content doesn't necessarily equate to "mature" or a better story either.

 

Not necessarily but I don't think that was the OP's claim, OP's claim is that the Witcher has a much more mature approach to storytelling and has a better story which isn't false.

[In Exile]

It's hilarious to watch the over-the-top love for TW3's much less beloved features on this forum sometimes. 

[In Exile]

Not necessarily but I don't think that was the OP's claim, OP's claim is that the Witcher has a much more mature approach to storytelling and has a better story which isn't false.

TW2, maybe. TW3, to a lesser extent. But the Witcher as a series or Geralt personally? Not so much. In the books, Geralt is basically what the the internet would mock as an SJW. 

[Queen Skadi]

Eredin is pretty much a complete mystery most of the plot except that he wants Ciri for "reasons"

 

Looks like somebody wasn't paying attention to the story, pretty sure it was explained a few times why Eredin wants Ciri, he wants to harness her power to easily traverse between worlds in order to be able to easier transport armies for a full scale invasion and conquering of worlds.

[In Exile]

Looks like somebody wasn't paying attention to the story, pretty sure it was explained a few times why Eredin wants Ciri, he wants to harness her power to easily traverse between worlds in order to be able to easier transport armies for a full scale invasion and conquering of worlds.

 

It's not particularly compelling character motivation, though. The Wild Hunt is basically just an lawful evil empire of space elves, and Ciri is a solution to their logistics problem. I really loved TW3's Act I-II story, but by Act III the story suffers a lot. Still a phenomenal game, but not without its flaws. 

[Kabraxal]

Not necessarily but I don't think that was the OP's claim, OP's claim is that the Witcher has a much more mature approach to storytelling and has a better story which isn't false.

I love how people throw "mature" out there wnd actually don't understand what mature actually is. Guess some only measure it by how bloody, sexual, and "dark" it is. Also, it's clear it isn't fact since many feel the story isn't better or "more mature" by some arbitrary measure.

[Queen Skadi]

It's not particularly compelling character motivation, though. The Wild Hunt is basically just an lawful evil empire of space elves, and Ciri is a solution to their logistics problem. I really loved TW3's Act I-II story, but by Act III the story suffers a lot. Still a phenomenal game, but not without its flaws. 

 

Not going to disagree with you there, just pointing out that there is actually a reason where somebody tried to claim their is none.

[In Exile]

I love how people throw "mature" out there wnd actually don't understand what mature actually is. Guess some only measure it by how bloody, sexual, and "dark" it is. Also, it's clear it isn't fact since many feel the story isn't better or "more mature" by some arbitrary measure.

 

What they really mean is that the game has a lot of abuse, generally by the powerful against the less powerful, that abuse is institutional so the player can't stop it and (often) it maps out on IRL prejudice or IRL forms of abuse. 

 

Good fiction often explores abuse and powerlessness, and those stories are some of the best we've got. The thing is, those stories work because the POV character isn't an all-powerful ubermensch who can't ever be harmed by the abusers. This is what makes video-games silly when it comes to so-called maturity, because the player character is totally immune, and is either a passive observer, a power-fantasy about a hero stepping in to stop the abuse, or an enabler/perpetrator of it. 

[In Exile]

Not going to disagree with you there, just pointing out that there is actually a reason where somebody tried to claim their is none.

 

That's fair. I can see why someone thinks that it's unexplained in the sense that the explanation isn't really developed in a satisfying way, but I'm rarely bothered by handwaves for the sake of the plot like that one. 

[Kabraxal]

What they really mean is that the game has a lot of abuse, generally by the powerful against the less powerful, that abuse is institutional so the player can't stop it and (often) it maps out on IRL prejudice or IRL forms of abuse. 
 
Good fiction often explores abuse and powerlessness, and those stories are some of the best we've got. The thing is, those stories work because the POV character isn't an all-powerful ubermensch who can't ever be harmed by the abusers. This is what makes video-games silly when it comes to so-called maturity, because the player character is totally immune, and is either a passive observer, a power-fantasy about a hero stepping in to stop the abuse, or an enabler/perpetrator of it.

By that token, both games are fairly equal given DA is no slouch in showing abuse of power and institution. Which makes me think many, when referring to TW3, are simply quantifying blood, sex, and angst quota. But then, that is the thing to do in some sects of entertainment.

[Queen Skadi]

I love how people throw "mature" out there wnd actually don't understand what mature actually is. Guess some only measure it by how bloody, sexual, and "dark" it is. Also, it's clear it isn't fact since many feel the story isn't better or "more mature" by some arbitrary measure.

 

Do you understand what mature is? I love how you think what people mean when they say the Witcher is mature is because it has ******, this is not the case, people call the Witcher games mature because they explore far more complex and mature themes that only mature people can truly understand and appreciate.