After DA:I I would like Bioware to unlearn what it learned from Bethesda.
I agree, sigh... but what can you do?
BioWare could learn more from examining its own RPG heritage, than Bethesda has ever had to teach, but apparently when you're standing on the shoulders of giants, it's important to jump off and crawl under a rock.
You mean that TW3 stayed closer to Bethesda's approach than Ubi's?
(I haven't played it.)
No. I mean borrowed heavily from AC.
TW3 is far away from both bethesda's and ubi's approach. They are closer to classical bioware's approach, just on the larger scale.
That's not even close to being true. Everything about their design is different - from the investment in NPCs, to the world, to the scale of the story, to how how personal the story is and how involved the history of the protagonist is in it. It's not very similar to a Bioware game. Especially a small-scale game like KoTOR or BG2.
That's not even close to being true. Everything about their design is different - from the investment in NPCs, to the world, to the scale of the story, to how how personal the story is and how involved the history of the protagonist is in it. It's not very similar to a Bioware game. Especially a small-scale game like KoTOR or BG2.
We probably played different witchers, cause when i was running through sidequests, first association was bg2. Deep, long sidequest and every sidequest was interesting.
We probably played different witchers, cause when i was running through sidequests, first association was bg2. Deep, long sidequest and every sidequest was interesting.
This is the thing, though. If BioWare could be true to its roots you have potentially the best RPGs on the planet. Bethesda was always a distant second fiddle even in its best games, and now we have come to the situation where we're wondering how BioWare can best improve their games by aping the former runners-up.
Ultimately this is, I suppose, big business and big budgets - gotta chase the huge body of customers outside your current fanbase all the time, make those millions worth investing.
Honestly I no longer dare to hope with every new BioWare title that they'll make a return to their former world-beating, stellar form, I've had the enthusiasm crushed out of me on that score, but if for this game we could get one that hits all the right notes again by surprise, that'd be peachy. In my opinion there is no *way* they will achieve that by mimicking games like skyrim and the modern fallouts.
I just realized that Curie reminds me of Audrey Hepburn, particularly from her role in Sabrina.
Which resonates with me only because of the fact that she's my second favorite companion after Valentine, who is so reminiscent of Humphrey Bogart.
The Brotherhood sold me a gatling laser, they're aces in my book
We probably played different witchers, cause when i was running through sidequests, first association was bg2. Deep, long sidequest and every sidequest was interesting.
I think we played a different BG2, frankly, because "every sidequest was interesting" describes a really different game. Certainly a different TW3, because a huge chunk of the sidequests were a) clearing moster nests and 
finding "hidden" treasure.
I think we played a different BG2, frankly, because "every sidequest was interesting" describes a really different game. Certainly a different TW3, because a huge chunk of the sidequests were a) clearing moster nests and
Clearing monster nests probably took less then 5% of time for me, so I don't even count it. Finding treasure probably took as much. So it was just a little addition because the world was open. In everything else it was just perfect. All sidequests were wellwritten and with surprises. If you remove open world and its features and make it small world like bg2 it will be just the same.
Ultimately this is, I suppose, big business and big budgets - gotta chase the huge body of customers outside your current fanbase all the time, make those millions worth investing.
Yeah, exactly. If you get huge budget from EA you also get all this corporate MBA guys who feed you with all this market demand, wider fanbase and all this statistical and economical bs. After that in the end you just make a generic game which is supposed to please everybody but has no spark in it.
Clearing monster nests probably took less then 5% of time for me, so I don't even count it. Finding treasure probably took as much. So it was just a little addition because the world was open. In everything else it was just perfect. All sidequests were wellwritten and with surprises. If you remove open world and its features and make it small world like bg2 it will be just the same.
Clearing monster nests and finding treasure was a substantial portion of the game. I can't comment on how much time you spent, but even as the quest journal shows, those quests were a significant portion of the TW3 content. Those were "side quests". It wasn't a "little addition".
But this is a side point, since the actual structure of the game - and what makes TW3 so very amazing - has no connection with BG2. TW3 is a personal story for Geralt. It is based on his pre-existing relationships. The absolute best quests in the game turn completely on who Geralt is and his relationship with the characters in the quest. This is completely the opposite from BG2, where some of the best and most fun quests are about the way the game is designed around the variable protagonist (like the Stronghold quests).
I think we played a different BG2, frankly, because "every sidequest was interesting" describes a really different game. Certainly a different TW3, because a huge chunk of the sidequests were a) clearing moster nests and
Whether you found em interesting or not really depends on you, but if there's one thing to be said about BG2 its that there were absolutely no quests whatsoever based upon deliberate grinding in that game. It shed the "walk around mostly empty zones" aspect of the BG1 entirely.
Clearing monster nests and finding treasure was a substantial portion of the game. I can't comment on how much time you spent, but even as the quest journal shows, those quests were a significant portion of the TW3 content. Those were "side quests". It wasn't a "little addition".
But this is a side point, since the actual structure of the game - and what makes TW3 so very amazing - has no connection with BG2. TW3 is a personal story for Geralt. It is based on his pre-existing relationships. The absolute best quests in the game turn completely on who Geralt is and his relationship with the characters in the quest. This is completely the opposite from BG2, where some of the best and most fun quests are about the way the game is designed around the variable protagonist (like the Stronghold quests).
I'm currently playing through Witcher 3, almost to the end fo the DLC, and this basically captures my biggest bafflement in the reaction to it. I think it is a great game, I'm enjoying it more than I did DAI even though I understand they are different beasts, but but design-wise it's far closer to DA2, and the ME trilogy, than to DAO, DAI or BG2. The plot and narrative design in both the main and side quests don't work if Geralt isn't a very specific character with very specific existing relationships. This makes it a great game, but there is something utterly baffling about simultaneously asking BW to go back to their old glorious perfect games while holding as a current example a game that is not like them from almost any point of design.
A thing, though, I wish Bioware would learn, as a negative example, from both Witcher 3 and FO4 is how to maintain builds that feel different yet function as viable options. As much as I see complaints about the class structure in ME and DA games, playing games with free builds quickly shows how difficult it is to balance the character builds so that one or two builds aren't just vastly superior to the rest of the builds.
I think we played a different BG2, frankly, because "every sidequest was interesting" describes a really different game. Certainly a different TW3, because a huge chunk of the sidequests were a) clearing moster nests and
Not a single sidequest told you to clear a monster nest and or find a hidden treasure. You are confusing it with simple ? markers on the map.
Clearing monster nests and finding treasure was a substantial portion of the game. I can't comment on how much time you spent, but even as the quest journal shows, those quests were a significant portion of the TW3 content. Those were "side quests". It wasn't a "little addition".
Show me a screen of a quest which told you to clear a monster nest.
Hopefully they already learned their lesson chasing after Bethesda with DAI resulting in a pretty lackluster game. If they return to focus on storytelling with in depth characters and a satisfying conclusion (see DAO and ME2) it should be fine. If they try to cram in a bunch of FO4 successful innovations in the last year they'll repeat the mistakes of DAI.
Well let that be a lesson to them to not mimic games, instead learn from games and make them better like how CDPR looked at Skyrim and see what they can do better in Witcher 3 can offer gamers a unique experience where Skyrim lacks such as story, fluid combat and connection to characters, etc. I think BioWare should change their formula of making games not to mimic games and end up sub par games because of trying to be like other games. I think they should learn from that.
This, but to be fair its a common thing for fads to occur or studios trying to copy successful games, like ubi saying the next Ass Creed will be more witcher-esque
Frankly we can do with a bit less Witcher-esque games at this point...
...or at least games with what suits think makes The Witcher popular...
Frankly we can do with a bit less Witcher-esque games at this point...
...or at least games with what suits think makes The Witcher popular...
I have a lot of problems with The Witcher in the end, but one thing I will give it credit for; it proves the viability of a hybrid protagonist, in the same vein as Commander Shepard did.
I want that to be the case with Mass Effect, but I also want a bit more diversity in terms of powers and builds. How it was done in Mass Effect 3 was quite good, but it could be expanded a bit.
Like, imagine for a second an engineer track or tree that allows you to upgrade the Mako further. You can take that role or you can assign an engineer class to do it for you, much like how decryption and electronic skills worked in the original Mass Effect.
Does it serve a combat purpose? No, but it doesn't have to though. A bit more variety, mixed in with how Mass Effect did things in terms of character loadouts and power use in 3, would be the kind of perfection they need in terms of combat mechanics at least, and it would make the Pathfinder a more diverse character in the long run.
From Fallout 4, I think there is little they can actually borrow in the end, except the open world itself. How Fallout 4 set's mood and tone with the wasteland, with the environment and weather effects, is frankly brilliant. The first time I went into the Glowing Sea it was phenomenal....I want to see planets that are like that in some way.
Frankly we can do with a bit less Witcher-esque games at this point...
...or at least games with what suits think makes The Witcher popular...
Hate it or love it, CDPR did a fantastic job and what made it work was the effort put into it by the team and not that it was openworld or had a (retarded)horse
Hate it or love it, CDPR did a fantastic job and what made it work was the effort put into it by the team and not that it was openworld or had a (retarded)horse
Now if they only made combat worth a damn and made me care about Geralt. Baby steps I guess.
I have a lot of problems with The Witcher in the end, but one thing I will give it credit for; it proves the viability of a hybrid protagonist, in the same vein as Commander Shepard did.
I want that to be the case with Mass Effect, but I also want a bit more diversity in terms of powers and builds. How it was done in Mass Effect 3 was quite good, but it could be expanded a bit.
Like, imagine for a second an engineer track or tree that allows you to upgrade the Mako further. You can take that role or you can assign an engineer class to do it for you, much like how decryption and electronic skills worked in the original Mass Effect.
Does it serve a combat purpose? No, but it doesn't have to though. A bit more variety, mixed in with how Mass Effect did things in terms of character loadouts and power use in 3, would be the kind of perfection they need in terms of combat mechanics at least, and it would make the Pathfinder a more diverse character in the long run.
From Fallout 4, I think there is little they can actually borrow in the end, except the open world itself. How Fallout 4 set's mood and tone with the wasteland, with the environment and weather effects, is frankly brilliant. The first time I went into the Glowing Sea it was phenomenal....I want to see planets that are like that in some way.
Oh I admit, they make incredibly well-crafted games. I wish I could enjoy their work more.
It's just that when "The Witcher" comes up, I don' t think its the skill systems or builds that comes to mind. Or the choice and consequences systems. It's the whole "Crapsack World dark fantasy" and such that comes to mind. Frankly, I think were getting oversaturated on that.
Fallout 4 yeah, did exploration quite well. Complete with random encounters and rewards for exploring.
Just, don't do the settlement system. I got sick of rescuing hostages or hunting down ghouls. I gave you guys guns for a reason!
Oh I admit, they make incredibly well-crafted games. I wish I could enjoy their work more.
It's just that when "The Witcher" comes up, I don' t think its the skill systems or builds that comes to mind. Or the choice and consequences systems. It's the whole "Crapsack World dark fantasy" and such that comes to mind. Frankly, I think were getting oversaturated on that.
Fallout 4 yeah, did exploration quite well. Complete with random encounters and rewards for exploring.
Just, don't do the settlement system. I got sick of rescuing hostages or hunting down ghouls. I gave you guys guns for a reason!
Or, retool the settlement building to make it more intuitive.
For example, sending companions to defend or help settlements from attacks, they get EXP and rewards if successful, and lower EXP if they fail, which in turn effects your settlement.
It can also be tied to something like their trust in you; so you then have incentive to have friendly or rival relationships with characters, similar to dragon Age II.
Of course this is wishful thinking, it's doubtful it will work this way.
I just realized that Curie reminds me of Audrey Hepburn, particularly from her role in Sabrina.
Which resonates with me only because of the fact that she's my second favorite companion after Valentine, who is so reminiscent of Humphrey Bogart.
You are not alone in that perception, and a modder has attempted to visualise that perception
http://www.nexusmods...ut4/mods/7016/?
Now if they only made combat worth a damn and made me care about Geralt. Baby steps I guess.
For me its better than the typical bioware isometric tactical whatever thing and i read all the books so i am super biased when it comes to the world and characters of the witcher. But i get why its not for everyone.
Retour en haut