While I don't agree 100% with this article its still, well interesting to read.
I never played Final Fantasy so I cannot compare the combat to it. I will say the combat in DAI was a huge let down for me (compared to the previous DA games).
http://www.usgamer.n...age-inquisition
While I don't agree 100% with this article its still, well interesting to read.
I never played Final Fantasy so I cannot compare the combat to it. I will say the combat in DAI was a huge let down for me (compared to the previous DA games).
And here I was expecting another discussion about blood magic and "Aunt Flo". 
What CDPR has achieved is leaving me ultimately cold and uninterested in The Witcher 3. It's somewhere on the list of "games I might want to play" but... it's just there. I have no incentive to move it up the list, and actually give it a shot.
I missed the sale on Witcher 1 few days ago on Steam, why? Because I ultimately have so little interest in it. Yes, I did react with an "Oh, well..." but that's as far as it went.
What has BioWare achieved, meanwhile? I love Dragon Age.
An article of the dangers of allowing others to form one's own opinion.
That it not necessarily a bad thing.
I read it til the end but I must confess that he lost me there:
It also has a great villain - a dangerous enemy from Dragon Age II who serves as a great foil for your Inquisition.
Final Fantasy 12 is one of the games I play on a routine bases.. You can not compare FF 12 with any of the Dragon Age games since the Fantasy 12 has different combat and magic controls..
In FF12 (PS2) the X button and the left side up/down control buttons does all combat striking and magic moves- the magic is in a drop down window. The left joy stick moves the characters and the right the camera. This is the simplest method of combat. Why anybody would need to go into the gambits during a battle remains a mystery to me.
For those of you that hasn't played FF12 and still have their trusty PS2 (I have a PS1,2 and 3, yes,I know I'm a PS Fanboy 
) I highly recommend doing so. Its a sweet game that has several twist and turns in the story line.
Actually, you know what? It wasn't CDPR. It wasn't even Miracle of Sound.
MY FRIEND had to convince me Witcher's worth playing. Damn, he's a good one. I must convince him back about Inquisition.
That it not necessarily a bad thing.
What CDPR has achieved is leaving me ultimately cold and uninterested in The Witcher 3. It's somewhere on the list of "games I might want to play" but... it's just there. I have no incentive to move it up the list, and actually give it a shot.
I missed the sale on Witcher 1 few days ago on Steam, why? Because I ultimately have so little interest in it. Yes, I did react with an "Oh, well..." but that's as far as it went.
What has BioWare achieved, meanwhile? I love Dragon Age.
Actually, you know what? It wasn't CDPR. It wasn't even Miracle of Sound.
MY FRIEND had to convince me Witcher's worth playing. Damn, he's a good one. I must convince him back about Inquisition.
I'm confused. Are yoou saying you have not played Witcher 3, played it and did not like it, or played it and loved it?
True; keeping an open mind and being able to change is a positive thing. But allowing peer or social pressure to permit one's opinion to change perspective is precarious.
Personally, the more I see of TW3, the less appealing it becomes to me. Cut-scenes before entering a merchant's inventory is tedious, and the same for some minor quests (eg; killing a Cockatrice gains cut-scenes before and after, but seem to add little or no impact). And the Action style combat rolling and dodging not only appears to be all but impossible for my Twitchless fingers to perform, but seems rather repetitive and dull given the focus on melee one must have.
Am glad that DAI has Pause functionality and is different than this; much prefer a RPG that prefers gameplay to film.
Actually this brings up something that I have not thought of in a while in regards to Witcher 3. Witcher 3 may be the more superior game to DA I (in my opinion it isn't) but there is no way it is the superior RPG.
Look at what you can control in DA.
Your race.
Your gender
Your general physical makeup.
Whether to be ass hole or Saint.
Your fighting style.
Your relationship with other characters, your choices matter in this regard and effect how they view you.
And whether or not to do many whole quests or not.
In Witcher 3 you get to control:
Your dialog choices. Generally whether to be an ******* and a saint. 
And ditto for the quests.
I'm confused. Are yoou saying you have not played Witcher 3, played it and did not like it, or played it and loved it?
It's one of my two chief weapons as the Inquisitor.
CONFUSION!
I haven't played it. My friend convinced me today.
It's one of my two chief weapons as the Inquisitor.
CONFUSION!
I haven't played it. My friend convinced me today.
Ah. Well I was probably gonna play it anyways but my GF convinced me on the timing and not to wait. Pretty good game all and all.
I'm confused. Are yoou saying you have not played Witcher 3, played it and did not like it, or played it and loved it?
Actually this brings up something that I have not thought of in a while in regards to Witcher 3. Witcher 3 may be the more superior game to DA I (in my opinion it isn't) but there is no way it is the superior RPG.
Look at what you can control in DA.
Your race.
Your gender
Your general physical makeup.
Whether to be ass hole or Saint.
Your fighting style.
Your relationship with other characters, your choices matter in this regard and effect how they view you.
And whether or not to do many whole quests or not.
In Witcher 3 you get to control:
Your dialog choices. Generally whether to be an ******* and a saint.
And ditto for the quests.
Controlling physical makeup or race or gender isn't necessary to be an RPG.
The definition of what makes a game an RPG has changed over the years, but at it's core, it's still about building your character. Physical bells and whistles are certainly part of it, but they are peripheral IMO. The numbers still matter most.
I mean Planescape Torment did not have physical customization. It was still an amazing RPG.
And seriously? The Witcher 3 does not have customization for how you fight....have you played the game? Did you just play at easy level and breeze through swinging the sword? Do you know there are potions, bombs, oils and signs? Do you know that even at normal difficulty, you need to prepare for engagements?
TW3 does not have classes sure, but it has squeezed as much depth into its one Witcher class as any other RPG in recent history.
Controlling physical makeup or race or gender isn't necessary to be an RPG.
The definition of what makes a game an RPG has changed over the years, but at it's core, it's still about building your character. Physical bells and whistles are certainly part of it, but they are peripheral IMO. The numbers still matter most.
I mean Planescape Torment did not have physical customization. It was still an amazing RPG.
And seriously? The Witcher 3 does not have customization for how you fight....have you played the game? Did you just play at easy level and breeze through swinging the sword? Do you know there are potions, bombs, oils and signs? Do you know that even at normal difficulty, you need to prepare for engagements?
TW3 does not have classes sure, but it has squeezed as much depth into its one Witcher class as any other RPG in recent history.
Sure. Its peripheral but it still has more peripherals then Witcher 3 does. Which as for the combat. Sure. I guess. But essentially even with all the hoity toity 'preparations' that are touted the primary combat means for killing in the game is 'run up and whack something to death with your large pointy stick.'. Either in 'fast' or 'strong' style.
...Because aside from the 'preparations' applying one oil to one sword for one fight...DA I had bombs and all that stuff to.
Reviews/ opinions whether 'professional' or user mean little to me and I let neither influence my gaming choices ( i'm looking at you metacritic ). Ultimately what does convince me is the fact that only Bioware historically has made RPG's that I fall in love with and have for the most part have never failed to deliver that for me personally ( DA 2 was perhaps a low point but was still a decent enough game) and while I have both Witcher 1 and 2 sat in my Steam library, ( thanks to my youngest ) I have never felt any compulsion to play them. While I concede they are well made, have a well crafted lore and story, they lack the fundamentals that I require in my RPG's. I feel the same way about Bethesda games, I like them well enough, but i've never fallen in love with them. I loved Inquisition when it was released and I love it more today.
But then I also hold the apparently contentious opinion that ME3 was the best in the trilogy, DA2 wasn't a bad game and Carth wasn't whiny, so uh....yeah, i'll just go sit at the table for one.
Yuph, RPG is about building your character. Emphasis on the YOUR. Geralt is not yours. Geralt is prepackaged and can't deviate too far from his canon self.
And yes, you can pick between sorta nice and nasty, but it's still Geralt.
As for 'classes', I don't see the Witcher having all that much depth. It simply a different design philosophy than Dragon Age, since you're playing a single jack of all trades, rather than running a party of specialists.
And trying to compare an isometric game from a generation where the kind of customization wasn't even possible... It's not just apples and oranges. It hippos and igneous rock.
Finally, stats aren't the be all end all of a game. They are a tool. Again, this is a role playing game, not a roll playing game. And for those who don't like that, maybe Bioware isn't the company you want to buy games from.
Yeah in talking to people I call the Inquisitor 'my' Inquisitor. Or 'Benjamin' and 'Kara'. Geralt is always Geralt.
I'm of the view that an RPG can contain a pre-built character, but you're rolling the dice on whether a pre-built character actually appeals to the audience. To the majority of TW3 fans, Geralt obviously holds some kind of appeal. Myself, I just can't stand him.
Anyways, I think the article is generally a fair critique. The game is a little over-stuffed with side quests, which I believe is the result of the devs trying to give the players as much as they could possibly want to do without considering that a large number of players want to do everything.
The main take away is that the game holds up a year after the fact, and some of the criticism around DAI is unfair.
I'd have less issue with the article and the author if she'd actually stood by her opinion rather than waffled. Because either she jumped on the DAI is great train without thinking or she backed off because of the DAI hate. Or she just didn't bother to think at all about her choice, and got caught out.I'm of the view that an RPG can contain a pre-built character, but you're rolling the dice on whether a pre-built character actually appeals to the audience. To the majority of TW3 fans, Geralt obviously holds some kind of appeal. Myself, I just can't stand him.
Anyways, I think the article is generally a fair critique. The game is a little over-stuffed with side quests, which I believe is the result of the devs trying to give the players as much as they could possibly want to do without considering that a large number of players want to do everything.
The main take away is that the game holds up a year after the fact, and some of the criticism around DAI is unfair.
Yuph, RPG is about building your character. Emphasis on the YOUR. Geralt is not yours. Geralt is prepackaged and can't deviate too far from his canon self.
And yes, you can pick between sorta nice and nasty, but it's still Geralt.
As for 'classes', I don't see the Witcher having all that much depth. It simply a different design philosophy than Dragon Age, since you're playing a single jack of all trades, rather than running a party of specialists.
And trying to compare an isometric game from a generation where the kind of customization wasn't even possible... It's not just apples and oranges. It hippos and igneous rock.
Finally, stats aren't the be all end all of a game. They are a tool. Again, this is a role playing game, not a roll playing game. And for those who don't like that, maybe Bioware isn't the company you want to buy games from.
Sure. Its peripheral but it still has more peripherals then Witcher 3 does. Which as for the combat. Sure. I guess. But essentially even with all the hoity toity 'preparations' that are touted the primary combat means for killing in the game is 'run up and whack something to death with your large pointy stick.'. Either in 'fast' or 'strong' style.
...Because aside from the 'preparations' applying one oil to one sword for one fight...DA I had bombs and all that stuff to.
For the jocks it's all hoity toity to build up your character and min max every stat according to the play style too.
And if you want to simplify, in the end it's all about clicking the LMB. Sometimes the RMB. And the keyboard keys. And WASD.
Anyhow, I do agree. DAI has faaaaaar more peripherals than TW3 does.
Yuph, RPG is about building your character. Emphasis on the YOUR. Geralt is not yours. Geralt is prepackaged and can't deviate too far from his canon self.
And yes, you can pick between sorta nice and nasty, but it's still Geralt.
As for 'classes', I don't see the Witcher having all that much depth. It simply a different design philosophy than Dragon Age, since you're playing a single jack of all trades, rather than running a party of specialists.
And trying to compare an isometric game from a generation where the kind of customization wasn't even possible... It's not just apples and oranges. It hippos and igneous rock.
Finally, stats aren't the be all end all of a game. They are a tool. Again, this is a role playing game, not a roll playing game. And for those who don't like that, maybe Bioware isn't the company you want to buy games from.
You are mistaken. Originally the emphasis on YOUR wasn't that you decided the story, or the looks or even the morality. YOUR meant deciding the stats.
But like you said it's apples and oranges. We have more types of RPGs today than I care to count. There's the Bioware RPG. There's the more classic RPG like Pillar of Eternity. There's Divinity Original Sin (which I've been meaning to get and play since forever).
I guess TW3 and DAI fall into the action RPG category. TW3 is more traditional in how it permits controlling character stats.
BW RPGs have their own niche. And TW3 cannot really compare. I just wish the combat was deeper.
Edit:
In continuation of the first point before I meandered away. Choices were a part of the game even back then. But they were small immediate choices. With immediate ramifications.
When people see RPG they tend to think there is only one type and one type only. Such as, if you do not have the option to build your character, then the game is not an RPG. This of course is not at all true.
An RPG is based on the choices you make as a character, not about spending hours in a character creation screen. Granted building your own character does add the feeling that this is your character and their story. While pre-built characters may not project this feeling, you can however make the character your own by the choices you choose to do.
In Witcher 3 you player Gerald. Whereas in DAI you build your own character. Playing a pre-built character or making your own does not mean one game is better over the other. All it means is these games have two different RPG set-ups. Gerald can be your character depending on what you choose to do. Granted you may not feel as close connection to say your, Warden, Hawke or Inquisitor but your telling Gerald's story through your actions, much as you are doing for the Inquisitor.
With Dungeons and Dragons a Dungeon Master can offer you a pre-built character or build your own. Does it make the game any less of an RPG? Of course not.
There are several RPG games I have played where a character was already pre-built such as, Fable and Witcher. Pre-building a character is nice, but, I tend to look at the story set-up first. If the story peaks my interest, I could careless if I can make my character or not. Many people do not feel this way and refuse to play a game because they cannot build their character - that is fine. But to go out of their way to say a game without a character creation is not an RPG is based on opinion not fact.
Retour en haut