That's what I'm trying to say in my bumbling way. And really BW could learn varied side quests from themselves because they have done it before it's just they have this one step forward two steps back thing going on.
Yep. Bioware knows how to do this stuff well. Sometimes, some things are just a development casualty (and I am quite willing to believe that Bioware could stand to manage its resources more efficiently).
Add to that, quests and enemies in both DAI and TW3 were all over the place. It was annoying going to a question mark on my map in W3, or to a rift in DAI, only to find that it was too high and one hit I'll get my arse kicked.
Which?
All of them. Bioware have never made a game that comes close to how good TW3 is. It's better looking, better acted, better story, better quest system, better combat and it worked on the PC. No pre-order gifts either, not to mention twelve free DLCs (when was the last time EA gave anything away for free?) plus two expansions coming that are larger than some games. It's more mature and your actions actually have consequences unlike Bioware games. In every conceivable way The Witcher 3 is better than anything Bioware have ever made, which is not to say Bioware games are bad, but they do seriously need to up their game with Andromeda because The Witcher 3 raised the bar pretty damn high for RPGs.
All of them. Bioware have never made a game that comes close to how good TW3 is. It's better looking, better acted, better story, better quest system, better combat and it worked on the PC. No pre-order gifts either, not to mention twelve free DLCs (when was the last time EA gave anything away for free?) plus two expansions coming that are larger than some games. It's more mature and your actions actually have consequences unlike Bioware games. In every conceivable way The Witcher 3 is better than anything Bioware have ever made, which is not to say Bioware games are bad, but they do seriously need to up their game with Andromeda because The Witcher 3 raised the bar pretty damn high for RPGs.
This sure is a debatable list of things.
This is VERY annoying in BOTH- DAI AND W3.
Simply going from point A to point B you can run into something that's double-triple your character.
Take "Wandering In The Dark" main story mission in W3 for example.
The elven ruins are surrounded by lvl13 Griffon, town full of lvl10-12 corpse eaters, lvl11 drowners, big spider thingy ( that just shows a big red skull not even a lvl it's so much higher in lvl) etc.
Recommended lvl to do that mission? 6. (I was working with a lvl5 geralt at the time.)And it's surrounded by enemies that can 1-hit your character.
Why do rpgs do that?
Like in general? What's the point other than to ****** people off?
That **** just makes me mad. Don't put a bunch of high lvl mobs that I have to dance around near my objective!
Freaking CAZADORES IN NEW VEGAS *incoherent rage*
(Yes that is one of my buttons especially when I have to spend an hour taking some stupid roundabout route to get to it because lol have to go around a stupidly placed op mob that doesn't even make sense in the area).
Why do rpgs do that?
Like in general? What's the point other than to ****** people off?
That **** just makes me mad. Don't put a bunch of high lvl mobs that I have to dance around near my objective!
Freaking CAZADORES IN NEW VEGAS *incoherent rage*
(Yes that is one of my buttons especially when I have to spend an hour taking some stupid roundabout route to get to it because lol have to go around a stupidly placed op mob that doesn't even make sense in the area).
At least in NV it was possible to get through them or the Deathclaws. I think there are also some routes popular among Speedrunners that go through the desert/mountains that let you skip most of the trip and are mostly safe.
This is VERY annoying in BOTH- DAI AND W3.
Simply going from point A to point B you can run into something that's double-triple your character.
Take "Wandering In The Dark" main story mission in W3 for example.
The elven ruins are surrounded by lvl13 Griffon, town full of lvl10-12 corpse eaters, lvl11 drowners, big spider thingy ( that just shows a big red skull not even a lvl it's so much higher in lvl) etc.
Recommended lvl to do that mission? 6. (I was working with a lvl5 geralt at the time.)And it's surrounded by enemies that can 1-hit your character.
I remember wandering in the forest on the East side of the map doing some random quest (Lv8-9 I think) and I ran into one the Sylvan Demons, it shot its roots into the ground and I died...
This is VERY annoying in BOTH- DAI AND W3.
Simply going from point A to point B you can run into something that's double-triple your character.
Take "Wandering In The Dark" main story mission in W3 for example.
The elven ruins are surrounded by lvl13 Griffon, town full of lvl10-12 corpse eaters, lvl11 drowners, big spider thingy ( that just shows a big red skull not even a lvl it's so much higher in lvl) etc.
Recommended lvl to do that mission? 6. (I was working with a lvl5 geralt at the time.)And it's surrounded by enemies that can 1-hit your character.
Yeah, while I like that there's no level scaling, it should be more region based. Having level 15 Noonwraiths right next to level 3 bandits and level 5 wolves is annoying, just as having camps of level 15 deserters next to the starting towns in Velen is just frustrating.
New Vegas did it right IMO. It stuck the really dangerous critters to a region (the north of Goodsprings) and some very specific places around the map. It didn't sprinkle Deathclaws and Cazadores across the map willy nilly.
At least in NV it was possible to get through them or the Deathclaws. I think there are also some routes popular among Speedrunners that go through the desert/mountains that let you skip most of the trip and are mostly safe.
Yeah but that runs into the other issue. I now have to take a long roundabout route. Sometimes this makes sense. Sometimes. (Like the deathclaws. That I had no issue with cause that made sense).
Do you know what hurts me? I played the Witcher 1. I think I finished it but it was nothing much so I dedcided I wouldn't pikc up the next one. And I didn't for a long time, but it kept getting these rave reviews from everyone everywhere so I decided why not and picked up the one with everything for cheap. I didn't finish it because there's just something not there for me. Maybe it's that I find Geralt fundamentally bland. I do remember outsmarting a golem which was nice. In the Witcher 1 I remember talking to a ghost in a field which I think I considered poignant. Anyway, point is: here I am again being personally unimpressed with the Witcher series and hearing rave reviews from everyone everywhere. Should I get it? I'll probably just wind up thinking Geralt is the oats of breakfast cereals again tho.
Anyway! I do like what I hear about its side quests though, I like me some nicely done side quests and it was something DAI lacked big time so yeah more of that Bioware.
All of them. Bioware have never made a game that comes close to how good TW3 is. It's better looking, better acted, better story, better quest system, better combat and it worked on the PC. No pre-order gifts either, not to mention twelve free DLCs (when was the last time EA gave anything away for free?) plus two expansions coming that are larger than some games. It's more mature and your actions actually have consequences unlike Bioware games. In every conceivable way The Witcher 3 is better than anything Bioware have ever made, which is not to say Bioware games are bad, but they do seriously need to up their game with Andromeda because The Witcher 3 raised the bar pretty damn high for RPGs.
That's pretty damn subjective statement.
Personally, I believe Biowares high point is still BG2 and that it comes very close to the masterpiece that is Witcher 3, and that they haven't peaked past that in the last 15 years even if all of their games except for DA2 and to a degree DA:I entertained me enough to play them multiple times. But that's just my personal opinion and nothing I will state as a fact.
Freaking CAZADORES IN NEW VEGAS *incoherent rage*
****.THOSE.THINGS
KILL THOSE FUCKERS WITH FIRE
Do you know what hurts me? I played the Witcher 1. I think I finished it but it was nothing much so I dedcided I wouldn't pikc up the next one. And I didn't for a long time, but it kept getting these rave reviews from everyone everywhere so I decided why not and picked up the one with everything for cheap. I didn't finish it because there's just something not there for me. Maybe it's that I find Geralt fundamentally bland. I do remember outsmarting a golem which was nice. In the Witcher 1 I remember talking to a ghost in a field which I think I considered poignant. Anyway, point is: here I am again being personally unimpressed with the Witcher series and hearing rave reviews from everyone everywhere. Should I get it? I'll probably just wind up thinking Geralt is the oats of breakfast cereals again tho.
Anyway! I do like what I hear about its side quests though, I like me some nicely done side quests and it was something DAI lacked big time so yeah more of that Bioware.
Personally I prefer the Witcher series to the Dragon Age series. I also think The Witcher 2 is the weakest of the trilogy - I hate inescapable boss fights (drop into a room with no exits and have to duke it out) and quick time events - both of which were in TW2.
However, just because I really like The Witcher series doesn't mean you have to 
If you didn't like the original Witcher; you'll probably not like TW2 or TW3 either.
This is VERY annoying in BOTH- DAI AND W3.
Simply going from point A to point B you can run into something that's double-triple your character.
Take "Wandering In The Dark" main story mission in W3 for example.
The elven ruins are surrounded by lvl13 Griffon, town full of lvl10-12 corpse eaters, lvl11 drowners, big spider thingy ( that just shows a big red skull not even a lvl it's so much higher in lvl) etc.
Recommended lvl to do that mission? 6. (I was working with a lvl5 geralt at the time.)And it's surrounded by enemies that can 1-hit your character.
I hate it when monsters scale with your level; they don't in The Witcher, in fact by the end of the original game Drowners see you and run away... I have no problems with bumping into random monsters that I stand zero chance against and have to run away from myself (though this one Royal Wyvern in TW3 must have chased me halfway across the bloody map).
I would much rather that than have sort of level restricted "zones" - there are parts in Divinity Original Sin where the NPCs warn you that you're likely to get your arse handed to you on a plate if you go that way ... but they don't actually stop you. I like that.
Do you know what hurts me? I played the Witcher 1. I think I finished it but it was nothing much so I dedcided I wouldn't pikc up the next one. And I didn't for a long time, but it kept getting these rave reviews from everyone everywhere so I decided why not and picked up the one with everything for cheap. I didn't finish it because there's just something not there for me. Maybe it's that I find Geralt fundamentally bland. I do remember outsmarting a golem which was nice. In the Witcher 1 I remember talking to a ghost in a field which I think I considered poignant. Anyway, point is: here I am again being personally unimpressed with the Witcher series and hearing rave reviews from everyone everywhere. Should I get it? I'll probably just wind up thinking Geralt is the oats of breakfast cereals again tho.
Anyway! I do like what I hear about its side quests though, I like me some nicely done side quests and it was something DAI lacked big time so yeah more of that Bioware.
If you don't mind being spoiled, I'd suggest watching at least portion of a Let's Play first. That is always the best bet when you're on the fence about purchasing a game. It will give you a better idea of whether you'd enjoy it than reading or watching reviews. Reviews can often boil down to personal preferences.
Do you know what hurts me? I played the Witcher 1. I think I finished it but it was nothing much so I dedcided I wouldn't pikc up the next one. And I didn't for a long time, but it kept getting these rave reviews from everyone everywhere so I decided why not and picked up the one with everything for cheap. I didn't finish it because there's just something not there for me. Maybe it's that I find Geralt fundamentally bland. I do remember outsmarting a golem which was nice. In the Witcher 1 I remember talking to a ghost in a field which I think I considered poignant. Anyway, point is: here I am again being personally unimpressed with the Witcher series and hearing rave reviews from everyone everywhere. Should I get it? I'll probably just wind up thinking Geralt is the oats of breakfast cereals again tho.
Anyway! I do like what I hear about its side quests though, I like me some nicely done side quests and it was something DAI lacked big time so yeah more of that Bioware.
For what it's worth, until I started looking into TW3 (and decided that it looked pretty darn neat), I had written off the entire series based on the first chapter of the first game. Once I was determined to play the third one, I went back and fought through the first two. The first one is irredeemably bad, the second one is much better and has some very cool stuff about it, but is only really impressive in comparison to the first one, which is, again, irredeemably bad. The third one stands the first two in the corner handily. I've spent around a hundred hours playing it, and I think I'm maybe 1/3 of the way through the story.
I would never say the game is for everyone, and I think that many of its merits are massively subjective (and I wouldn't blame anyone for passing on it), but if you're at all interested, I would say the third one is worth your time. I felt the same about Geralt initially. He started boring in the earlier games, but depending on how you play him, he ends up being a nice, funny dude in the third one.
Not that I wouldn't murder for the ability to play a game like this with a custom protagonist, of course.
The first one is irredeemably bad, the second one is much better...
I really liked the first one and thought the second was actually worse (apart from the graphics) ... but I'll agree that the third is the best 
It's all subjective.
I really liked the first one and thought the second was actually worse (apart from the graphics) ... but I'll agree that the third is the best
It's all subjective.
I will say that dice poker in all its iterations is superior to that damn card game.
****.THOSE.THINGS
KILL THOSE FUCKERS WITH FIRE
yes, fire is there weakness. or rapid fire guns aimed at their wings. They die pretty easy to either one. Or you can snipe them from outside of detectable range with a scope, or blow them to pieces with explosions.
Really tired of the whining whenever a developer put a dark soul tier difficult enemy into a game, and not confine them to a conveniently out of the way area. And you people think you want antagonists able to best the player character? I don't think you know what you want and are confused.
Ok I'll bite.
1. Character modelling.
2. Character animation.
3. Side quests that feel engaging and that you're making an actual difference in people's lives.
4. How to write romances the develop naturally over the course of the story, and feel like it's blooming because the characters truly like each other, not because the player kept selecting Flirt at every given opportunity. I can tell you what is it about Geralt and Triss's personality and actions that draw them to each other. Not so much for the majority of Bioware romances.
5. How to write a tearjerking ending without just killing off the main character to achieve that.
6. How not to make nude scenes look awkward, but I guess that falls into both #1 and #2.
7. Players should not be given the choice to make life altering decisions for other characters, that they're fully capable of doing themselves. Ciri decides her future based on how she's treated by Geralt and the time and places she is throughout that game. Iron Bull has to be told by the player that sacrificing his family is wrong.
I could go on a little bit more, but those are the notable ones to me.
Just for reference i agree, just wanted it in writing
................... not to say Bioware games are bad, but they do seriously need to up their game with Andromeda because The Witcher 3 raised the bar pretty damn high for RPGs.
The Witcher 3 raised the bar pretty damn high for RPGs.
If I had to choose two things that Bioware should learn from CDprojektRed, it's Character Animation/Modelling and Writing. I know it's lazy to just say writing, but CDprojektRed does an incredible job with it's characters and storylines. They even put a lot of effort into their side quests to make you feel like you're really making a difference in people's lives and that what you're doing (most of the time) actually matters or at least will have a significant enough of an impact on somebody.
Bioware's writers are a mixed bag these days. I'm gonna leave out names for fear of getting into trouble with mods, but I can only think of a couple writers were are truly good who are still at Bioware. The rest range from flat out bad to hit or miss. It is nice to see Drew K back. I know some people on here wanna dog on the guy, but I think the guy has done more good than bad. He brought us two of some of the most beloved Bioware stories, so that has to count for something. I don't know if his plan is to work on ToR storylines and then leave again, but I hope he's on board to write future games. But out of all the things that have decline in Bioware games over the years, the quality of writing is probably the one that taken more toll than anything else.
The only thing that's remained pretty strong is their ability to write interesting characters (though I'd still argue they're not AS good as they used to be). But in terms of antagonists, plot and pacing, it's been noticeably worse these past 5 years. The villains suck, the overall story has been pretty average, and the last three games in a row have had underwhelming climaxes/final battles, which is something Bioware games REALLY used to excel at. That's not to say their games don't have their highs, but they are pretty far apart from each other.
Debating whether I should actually jump in and discuss the numerous problems with TW3's writing, especially the last act.
By all means,Debating whether I should actually jump in and discuss the numerous problems with TW3's writing, especially the last act.
By all means,
Let-her-rip-tater-chip.
W3 is FAR from perfect, and it does have issues, certainly.
But overall, I liked it,
Although I may not be the best judge since I like the metro IP and those "dog approved" Subaru commercials
I like it too, about as much as Life is Strange if I'm keeping score for 2015 so far.
But, damn.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut