317 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

 Using Critic's review of MT is flawed as well. Many reviewers don't finish the game or play it enough to make a reasonable judgement on its content. But if you want to use it, TW3 has a better Metascore then DAI and ME3, as well as other Bioware games, so it should be better then all those games with a lower metascore, right?

 

The fact that Bioware made those games back in the day is relevant for Bioware's history, not for their current situation. I'm not denying the success of those games, but many things changed since then in Bioware.

What does it matter if TW is redefining the genre and BG did? Those games aren't in competition with each other so the fact that BG did refine the genre doesn't affect TW. Instead, current rpgs' success might influence other rpgs developers to follow their example (Case in point, Skyrim).

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

 Using Critic's review of MT is flawed as well. Many reviewers don't finish the game or play it enough to make a reasonable judgement on its content. But if you want to use it, TW3 has a better Metascore then DAI and ME3, as well as other Bioware games, so it should be better then all those games with a lower metascore, right?

 

The fact that Bioware made those games back in the day is relevant for Bioware's history, not for their current situation. I'm not denying the success of those games, but many things changed since then in Bioware.

What does it matter if TW is redefining the genre and BG did? Those games aren't in competition with each other so the fact that BG did refine the genre doesn't affect TW. Instead, current rpgs' success might influence other rpgs developers to follow their example (Case in point, Skyrim).

 

"Using Critic's review of MT is flawed as well. Many reviewers don't finish the game"
 

I'm sure you have evidence that this happened with the Mass Effect reviews and you are not just making an unsubstantiated claim, right?

 

"But if you want to use it, TW3 has a better Metascore then DAI and ME3"

 

Inquisition yes, but not Mass Effect 3 http://i.imgur.com/rX5C3Vh.jpg

(the version with the most reviews was the one used for obvious reasons, it has the most diverse opinions backing the metacritic up)

 

"The fact that Bioware made those games back in the day is relevant for Bioware's history, not for their current situation."

 

The current situation in that you're comparing 3 games at the later half of one long companies life cycle to that of a relatively new company that only has 3 games, right?

 

Bioware are the more reverred developers with superior accomplishments and the Mass Effect trilogy is the higher critically (and commercially) scoring franchise in comparison to the Witchers.

 

I don't know why this is up for argument, my initial point was very clear.

[Commander Rpg]

He doesn't consider them action because they have tactical pause/cam (in DAI). He doesn't have to use the action part of the gameplay even in ME since he can pause-to-aim.

He's wrong on this.

[The Elder King]

First off, I'm not mad. I like both companies, since they make games i generally enjoy.

I was talking in general, not about Mass Effect. But yes, I know for a fact that at least one reviewer of ME3 didn't complete the game when they published the review. Trusting MT blindly isn't a good approach in my opinion, but you're free to do what you want. It's not even about Bioware and its games' scores on MT, it's about Metacritic itself.

TW3 has 93 on PC, by the way.

 

No, the current situation is that you have to compare the companies for what they're doing right now. A software house could've made great games in the past and bad games now, the fact that they made great games doesn't change the fact that they're not a good software house right now (again, this is an example, i'm not referring to anyone in particular). 

Bioware made great games, without doing open worlds for a long time, but they still decided to go open world after seeing Skyrim's success. Other (current) games' success often developers when they make their next game.

 

Bioware has certainly a longer history of success (though I wouldn't say ME3, alone, is better received then TW3), but that doesn't mean that for that they're better then CDPR. And there's not an objective result either. It's subjective.

[kalikilic]

character creation should continue in the line set by DA:I however, becoming more intricate. and honestly, its no big deal to have better/beautiful options to choose from. eg. for hair etc. realistic is immersive and all that but i like beautiful characters. both male and female. its just such a thrill and sense of completeness to be able to play as a tall, dark and handsome man, or a beautiful charming woman. this is the only thing i feel was difficult in the character creation in DA:I. for me it was easy to make beautiful humans. but not so much for elves for e.g.

 

and please let there be a randomization button. pretty please. i spend 1 or 2 hours in character creation alone. a randomization button would rly speed things along.

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

First off, I'm not mad. I like both companies, since they make games i generally enjoy.

I was talking in general, not about Mass Effect. But yes, I know for a fact that at least one reviewer of ME3 didn't complete the game when they published the review. Trusting MT blindly isn't a good approach in my opinion, but you're free to do what you want. It's not even about Bioware and its games' scores on MT, it's about Metacritic itself.

TW3 has 93 on PC, by the way.

 

No, the current situation is that you have to compare the companies for what they're doing right now. A software house could've made great games in the past and bad games now, the fact that they made great games doesn't change the fact that they're not a good software house right now (again, this is an example, i'm not referring to anyone in particular). 

Bioware made great games, without doing open worlds for a long time, but they still decided to go open world after seeing Skyrim's success. Other (current) games' success often developers when they make their next game.

 

Bioware has certainly a longer history of success (though I wouldn't say ME3, alone, is better received then TW3), but that doesn't mean that for that they're better then CDPR. And there's not an objective result either. It's subjective.

 

"First off, I'm not mad. I like both companies, since they make games i generally enjoy."

 

Yea, I rephrased it, reading it over it came across pretty "troll" like on my part. See the edit.

 

"I was talking in general, not about Mass Effect. But yes, I know for a fact that at least one reviewer of ME3 didn't complete the game when they published the review"

 

Need a source on that.

 

"Trusting MT blindly isn't a good approach in my opinion,"

 

It would be blind if it was my only indicitive form. Pretty much in every measurable statistic the Mass Effect trilogy outranks the Witcher one and that's not even the 'prime' Bioware from the Baldur's gate days.

 

"

TW3 has 93 on PC, by the way.

"

 

Again, see the edit "(the version with the most reviews was the one used for obvious reasons, it has the most diverse opinions backing the metacritic up)". Even then your initial statement was wrong, at the best it's a draw.

 

 

"No, the current situation is that you have to compare the companies for what they're doing right now"

 

Right now Bioware haven't made a game this year, Andromeda is the Witchers answer as it's Biowares first fully next gen game and even then the Witcher 3 pales in comparison in my opinion (and statistically in terms of critical reception) to Mass Effect 2.

 

"w. A software house could've made great games in the past and bad games now,"

 

But Bioware don't make bad games now, in fact, even there most recent games have been better or at least on par with CDPRs most recent games (3 games to be exact). Witcher 3 isn't CDPRs only game, Witcher 1 and 2 were heavily flawed imo and I would even go as far as to argue that Inquisiton is better than them both.

 

Essentially the goalposts have been shifted, my initial claim was that Bioware were the more proven developers and Mass Effect series is the more critically acclaimed in comparison to the Witcher games and now you're stuck on an argument of semantics.

 

"but that doesn't mean that for that they're better then CDPR. And there's not an objective result either. It's subjective."

 

They are objectively more successful developers critically, you cannot convince me that CDPR who have made two highly polarizing RPGs and one extremely well received one is even close to comparing to Bioware who have made Kotor, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Dragon Age trilogy and the Mass Effect trilogy. You literally cannot even begin to convince me on your argument. The Mass Effect trilogy alone is the more crtiically and commercially successful franchise in comparison to the Witcher games.

 

Carry on yourself, my initial statement was not wrong.

[Elhanan]

Metacritic is flawed in both Pro and User scores:

* Anyone may post a review including those not having seen the game.
* Math is inaccurate for assigning scores and deriving totals.
* Reviews appear almost immediately after launch; possibly before.
* Extreme scores dilute the already obscured algorithms.

Older article, but still fits. Others may have more current info:

http://www.brainygam...metacritic.html

[The Elder King]

"First off, I'm not mad. I like both companies, since they make games i generally enjoy."

 

Yea, I rephrased it, reading it over it came across pretty "troll" like on my part. See the edit.

 

"I was talking in general, not about Mass Effect. But yes, I know for a fact that at least one reviewer of ME3 didn't complete the game when they published the review"

 

Need a source on that.

 

"Trusting MT blindly isn't a good approach in my opinion,"

 

It would be blind if it was my only indicitive form. Pretty much in every measurable statistic the Mass Effect trilogy outranks the Witcher one and that's not even the 'prime' Bioware from the Baldur's gate days.

 

"

TW3 has 93 on PC, by the way.

"

 

Again, see the edit "(the version with the most reviews was the one used for obvious reasons, it has the most diverse opinions backing the metacritic up)". Even then your initial statement was wrong, at the best it's a draw.

 

 

"No, the current situation is that you have to compare the companies for what they're doing right now"

 

Right now Bioware haven't made a game this year, Andromeda is the Witchers answer as it's Biowares first fully next gen game and even then the Witcher 3 pales in comparison in my opinion (and statistically in terms of critical reception) to Mass Effect 2.

 

"w. A software house could've made great games in the past and bad games now,"

 

But Bioware don't make bad games now, in fact, even there most recent games have been better or at least on par with CDPRs most recent games (3 games to be exact). Witcher 3 isn't CDPRs only game, Witcher 1 and 2 were heavily flawed imo and I would even go as far as to argue that Inquisiton is better than them both.

 

Essentially the goalposts have been shifted, my initial claim was that Bioware were the more proven developers and Mass Effect series is the more critically acclaimed in comparison to the Witcher games and now you're stuck on an argument of semantics.

 

"but that doesn't mean that for that they're better then CDPR. And there's not an objective result either. It's subjective."

 

They are objectively more successful developers critically, you cannot convince me that CDPR who have made two highly polarizing RPGs and one extremely well received one is even close to comparing to Bioware who have made Kotor, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Dragon Age trilogy and the Mass Effect trilogy. You literally cannot even begin to convince me on your argument. The Mass Effect trilogy alone is the more crtiically and commercially successful franchise in comparison to the Witcher games.

 

Carry on yourself, my initial statement was not wrong.

My point on TW3-ME3 MT was just that the fact that one has a better score doesn't mean it's better, as well as a draw doesn't mean one isn't better then the other. Also, commercial success isn't a definite fact as well, since ME3 was released on 3 platforms with a much bigger installed base then TW3. The timeframe, as well as the platforms where the games are  released influence the sales.

 

I was referring to the games Bioware and CDPR  released in those years since CDPR started developing. 

 

My point isn't that Bioware necessarily made bad games (though again that's subjective. You can find many people who don't value Bioware's recent games highly, as well as people who find CDRP's game even worse then you). What I meant is that Bioware's past isn't necessairly relevant now, since many of the dev who made those games in the past aren't here anymore.

 

The goapoast didn't change, expecially because you made that remark after my first post I quoted. Again, i already said Bioware  has a longer, more successful history (and CDPR has to prove themselves with another IP). I wasn't trying to convince you you're wrong, because I can't. I'm saying that yours is just an opinion and not a fact, and posting all those MT scores doesn't make everyone agreeing with you on Bioware's value.

[xkg]

The Mass Effect trilogy alone is the more crtiically and commercially successful franchise in comparison to the Witcher games.
 
Carry on yourself, my initial statement was not wrong.

 
According to available data they are quite on par. 14 million for Mass Effect and 8 million + 6 million for The Witcher

 

You also have to consider the fact that all three Mass Effect games are multi-platforms.The Witcher 1 is PC exclusive.

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

 
According to available data they are quite on par. 14 million for Mass Effect and 8 million + 6 million for The Witcher

 

You also have to consider the fact that all three Mass Effect games are multi-platforms.The Witcher 1 is PC exclusive.

 

Not what i've got

 

https://en.wikipedia...game_franchises

 

Mass Effect - 14 million

Witcher - 12 million

 

 

Metacritic is flawed in both Pro and User scores:

* Anyone may post a review including those not having seen the game.
* Math is inaccurate for assigning scores and deriving totals.
* Reviews appear almost immediately after launch; possibly before.
* Extreme scores dilute the already obscured algorithms.

Older article, but still fits. Others may have more current info:

http://www.brainygam...metacritic.html

 

 

Nowhere have you provided evidence to back up that the Mass Effect reviews were made by people who did not complete the game.

 

My point on TW3-ME3 MT was just that the fact that one has a better score doesn't mean it's better, as well as a draw doesn't mean one isn't better then the other. Also, commercial success isn't a definite fact as well, since ME3 was released on 3 platforms with a much bigger installed base then TW3. The timeframe, as well as the platforms where the games are  released influence the sales.

 

I was referring to the games Bioware and CDPR  released in those years since CDPR started developing. 

 

My point isn't that Bioware necessarily made bad games (though again that's subjective. You can find many people who don't value Bioware's recent games highly, as well as people who find CDRP's game even worse then you). What I meant is that Bioware's past isn't necessairly relevant now, since many of the dev who made those games in the past aren't here anymore.

 

The goapoast didn't change, expecially because you made that remark after my first post I quoted. Again, i already said Bioware  has a longer, more successful history (and CDPR has to prove themselves with another IP). I wasn't trying to convince you you're wrong, because I can't. I'm saying that yours is just an opinion and not a fact, and posting all those MT scores doesn't make everyone agreeing with you on Bioware's value.

 

 

"My point on TW3-ME3 MT was just that the fact that one has a better score doesn't mean it's better"

 

Nor did I claim that.

 

"as well as a draw doesn't mean one isn't better"

 

Nor did I claim that.

 

"Also, commercial success isn't a definite fact as well2

 

No ifs or buts will change the statements validity. My statement was correct.

 

"I was referring to the games Bioware and CDPR  released in those years since CDPR started developing."

 

Yes, you moved the goalposts. I already acknowledged that.

 

"My point isn't that Bioware necessarily made bad games (though again that's subjective. You can find many people who don't value Bioware's recent games highly, as well as people who find CDRP's game even worse then you)"

 

As you can find people who hate any number of things, including the heavily polarizing Witcher 1 and 2.

 

"What I meant is that Bioware's past isn't necessairly relevant now,"

 

It's relevant to my initial statement that you have repeatedly try to warp.

 

 

"The goapoast didn't change"

 

They almost entirely did.

 

"expecially because you made that remark after my first post I quoted"

 

A remark that is substantiated in fact and observable statistics.

 

"yours is just an opinion and not a fact"

 

It is definitely a fact. Bioware are more successful on every measurable scale. Commercially their Mass Effect series alone puts them at the very least on par with CDPRs accomplishments (not even including their recent MMO and plethora of other franchises) and critically they have made numerous genre defining games whereas CDPR have made one series that is also comparably inferior to Mass Effect alone from a critical and commercial standpoint.

 

I don't see any argument against this notion. A companies success can absolutely be measured, a games quality cannot but then again I never tried to imply that the Witcher series was objectively inferior from a quality standpoint to the Mass Effect series, only that the Mass Effect series is objectively more successful from a critical and commercial standpoint.

[Mummy22kids]

You know what would be great? If we didn't have to spend all the time between now and the release of MEA sifting through thread after thread of arguing about CDPR vs Bioware.  It went on and on before (and after) the release of DAI, it would be great if people could stop rehashing this.  Some people think BIo is better and prefer their games- great, Some people think CDPR is better and prefer their games- also great. You are not going to get a consensus and these threads have gotten as tedious as the romance threads, if not more-so.

[xkg]

Not what i've got

 

https://en.wikipedia...game_franchises

 

Mass Effect - 14 million

Witcher - 12 million

 

Maybe that's because wiki uses older source for its data in that list.

Spoiler

 

wiki's source:

25/10/2013 CD Projekt Red announces 6 million The Witcher sales

 

newer one:

02/09/2014 CD Projekt has sold eight million of the first and second part of Witcher

 

 

[Laughing_Man]

Metacritic user review scores are not accurate, but they are a great indication for things that the "traditional gaming press" tends to ignore.

 

If there is something that managed to annoy enough people to review bomb the game, I want to know about it.

 

I may not agree every time, but I'd prefer getting some sort of indication regarding controversial issues that might annoy me,

rather than buy the game and be disappointed.

[Elhanan]

... 
 
Nowhere have you provided evidence to back up that the Mass Effect reviews were made by people who did not complete the game....

Don't have to; the site allows false users to vote, so one cannot indicate that any score is valid.

[AlanC9]

He's wrong on this.

It's traditional to include an argument here. You know, some kind of reason why he's wrong.

[Commander Rpg]

It's traditional to include an argument here. You know, some kind of reason why he's wrong.

Every game I've listed (ME2, ME3, DA2, DA3) has been made for a heavy use of action through the battle system. ME1 was on the border, it gave time to not go into full action, although being action-focused, while the whole list I made is composed of games who are strongly action-focused. Practically every game in that list, even when having a little option to pause a little, is based on fast paces, little time to decide a long course of actions (I'm not saying there isn't tactic at all, but it lacks of strategy), and most importantly few choices about things like equipment, personalization and so forth.

 

This is where he's wrong, he said Bioware doesn't have to copy the other companies that insist on focusing the action on their Rpgs. I've shown why he's wrong, I did then and I've done now.

[Joxer]

The best RPGs in this year ME could learn something from:

- TheWitcher3

- Fallout4

- Pillars of Eternity

 

All three so different one would say hell there is nothing in all three to pick and use for ME4!

 

But there is, actually.

None of those three games have mandatory MMO crapware integrated.

[Lebanese Dude]

*snip*

 

I like you.

[Chealec]

I disagree

 

I have it ME2 > ME1 > Witcher 3 > ME3 > Dragon Age Origins > Witcher 1 >= Dragon Age Inquisition > Witcher 2 > Dragon Age 2

 

I found Witcher 1 and 2 pretty damn weak and extremely clunky but then again, these are our opinions.

 

I also enjoyed the world of Mass Effect much more and imo it's a lot more impressive given it having no source material to my knowledge as well as being different from the standard "High Fantasy" setting that have bloated the RPG genre a whole, I know the Witcher brings the "but it's alot darker!" gimmick that Game of Thrones implements but really, is it any different from the Baldur's Gate, Planescape or even Dragon Age Origin/Elder Scrolls settings?

 

Overall I just found the consistency in the Witcher games pretty underwhelming with Witcher 1 and 2 leaving a lot left to be desired but the Witcher 3 being a definite landmark for CDPR as RPG developers whereas Mass Effect was consistent from the start, sure the ending was a huge controversy but I would argue that the Witcher 3s ending wasn't much better. The way they handeled Emyhr and the Wild Hunt was extremely underwhelming and they were in essence cartoon villains and we didn't even see how Ciri (a walking Deus Ex Machina that would make the Star Child proud) defeated the White Frost nor what he White frost even was. We don't see how Ciri dies (if you get this ending) and we really don't see anything apart from the bittersweet "Well, Ciri defeated the White Frost I guess?" ending that in my opinion was even worse than the Mass Effect 3 (post Epilogue DLC) ending.

 

I think the reason nobody kicked up **** over the Witcher 3s disappointing climax was because nobody really cared about itt hroughout the trilogy, Mass Effect was building up to this epic finale, Witcher never was and I would even argue that this is because of the more consistent quality of writing found in the Mass Effect series in that it kept us engaged throughout.

 

Would you agree?

 

If I was going to put the whole list in order (rather than comparing each game in the series against its equivalents) it would be more like:

 

TW3 > ME3 (bar the ending) > ME2|TW1 (EE - can't decide which I prefer, purely subjectively) > TW2 > DAO > ME1 > DA2

 

Though it's a bit of a silly list as they're all still good games - even DA2 (well, good characters - indifferent story and horrendous overuse of assets).

 

 

I love the companions in BioWare games ... except in combat. I prefer TWs twitch-based combat in every way - but it just wouldn't work when you're lumbered with AI companions... unless the AI was really, really good and you could actually rely on them to be useful without having to pause the combat to give them orders.

 

If you want to talk about clunky controls ... Mass Effect 1

Bad inventory management? Mass Effect 1

Horrendous physics on the Mako? Yeah.

 

The setting for The Witcher wins out for me totally as it's completely steeped in old European folklore - it's not using Lord of the Rings as primary source material (like almost every other "high" RPG from D&D to Warhammer) but it is using the same source material that the Lord of the Rings used - it's a subtle but important distinction that allows CDPR a little more flexibility in interpretation. The architecture, the lighting and the whole feel of the Witcher series feels more genuinely Dark Ages European to me... Dragon Age is more Disney Medieval with tiny hint of the macabre - Fantasia vs The Brothers Grimm if you will.

 

The Wild Hunt? The spectral riders are a common theme across European folklore - making them "space elves" was Andrzej Sapkowski's spin on a very, very old ghost story. Making them space elves of a dying empire that spans worlds, slowly succumbing to the White Frost? I'm absolutely fine with that ... what more did you want from them? They're better realised than the Reapers IMO ... robo-space-Cthulhus who were so badly programmed they're killing the life they're supposed to protect?

 

As for Emhyr- he's much less of a cartoon bad guy than The Council in Mass Effect are cartoonish lampoons of "all politicians are bad mmmkay". The general, slightly cynical, treatment of politics is handled far more subtly and better in The Witcher series than anything in Mass Effect. Udina for crying out loud.

 

 

Ciri isn't a Deus Ex Machina, she wasn't created for TW3 purely to defeat the White Frost - you may not have seen her in the previous games but it's all there in Ithlinne's Prophecy from the get-go.

 

The world will die amidst frost and be reborn with the new sun. It will be reborn of Elder Blood, of Hen Ichaer, of the seed that has been sown. A seed which will not sprout but burst into flame.

 

It's not like the StarKid that's suddenly "TA DA! Here's the solution to all your problems in a way that makes absolutely no sense" ... everything that happens in The Witcher is foreshadowed from the beginning - especially if you read the books that litter the game. Do that and it's a much better realised world than either Thedas or that in the Mass Effect fiction.

 

We knew child of the Elder Blood would battle the White Frost almost from the get go.

 

As for the ending of TW3? You've got 3 possible Ciri outcomes I think - I've played the game through twice, I've not seen the "Ciri dies" ending yet. The two I've played had complete playable epilogues that wrapped everything up nicely and brought brilliant closure to the series (with familiar areas revisited with snow!) - other events were played out on the scroll.

 

The ending where Ciri and Geralt effectively ride of into the sunset together was my happy ending.

 

The ending where Ciri becomes Empress of Nilfgaard was bittersweet - it was triumphant but a little sad at the same time; once Geralt and Ciri had been re-united, gone for a stroll in the snow and talked, they were to be once again separated by circumstance.

 

 

The endings of Mass Effect 3 however left me feeling one of the following:

Destroy: well that sucks - why exactly did I spend all that time brokering peace between the Geth and Quarians

Synthesis: what .. the ... actual ... f*** - that makes no sense and is really, really creepy.

Control: well, I guess so - but crap, that mean TIM was right all along.

Refuse: this is the ending we all deserve.

 

... combined with "so what exactly was the purpose of any of the choices I made in the game if it all comes down to a button-push?!"

 

 

I enjoy Dragon Age and Mass Effect - I just happen to prefer The Witcher; so no - I wouldn't agree.

[rocklikeafool]

The best RPGs in this year ME could learn something from:

[...]

- Fallout4

[...]

You mean how to make a halfway decent game that's also a bad RPG? LOL

[Undead Han]

Some parts I couldn't agree more.

"I know a lot of fans would've liked to be able to play Krogan or Asari, more or less like The Elder Scrolls lets you choose between quite a lot of different races. But the way BioWare handles the limits of character customization, you can implement more immersive dialogue. Something Bethesda games don't offer."

Very well put.

Although I couldn't never start Witcher 1 or 2, I always ended up playing BioWare games instead but this third was a hit and there is actually much to look after.

 

I'd love to see multiple playable species in a Mass Effect game, but *only* if that didn't come at the cost of reduced content elsewhere. There is some reason to suspect that the blandness of the Inquisitor in comparison to previous Dragon Age protagonists, particularly Hawke, was due to DA:I having multiple playable races with varying backgrounds. it may have also been to blame for the lack of cinematic conversations with NPCs, since those would need to be tailored for several different versions of the protagonist that could come in different sizes.

 

If the tradeoff for having multiple playable species in a Mass Effect game is Dragon Age: Inquisition meets Space, I'm in the camp that hopes Bioware forever sticks with set human protagonists. 

[Lebanese Dude]

I hope you guys realize that someone's enjoyment of an RPG is directly correlated to their interest in the setting right?

 

Objectively speaking, both series utilize their setting rather well.

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

Don't have to; the site allows false users to vote, so one cannot indicate that any score is valid.

 

Critical reviews are not from the site itself, only user reviews are.

 

Essentially you have no argument.

 

 

*his post*

 

 

 

"

If you want to talk about clunky controls ... Mass Effect 1

Bad inventory management? Mass Effect 1

Horrendous physics on the Mako? Yeah."

 

That's the first installment, when you compare the combat in Mass Effect 1 and 2 to TW1 and TW2 the Witcher games look unplayable in comparison. In fact, TW1 is literally unplayable to some people with how weak the combat system is and TW2 is borderline unplayable without the combat mod, the targeting system is a joke.

 

"As for Emhyr- he's much less of a cartoon bad guy than The Council in Mass Effect are cartoonish lampoons of "all politicians are bad mmmkay"

 

I completely disagree, the Council actually offer reason with their points, especially in Mass Effect 1 in that some of them are torn on your position as Spectre as well as them only listening to the fact. Emyhr is far more cartoonish in comparison, even compared to literal machines in the Reapers the Reapers look more morally gray with their intentions. Udina himself has you questioning where is alliances lies, he always seem to be wanting to better the Human race offering a nice contrast to say a Paragon Shepard in that despite knowing that Udina wouldn't be the best representitive for the HUman race he sure would most likely be the best thing that happened to them.

 

Emyhr had something like 12 lines the whole time for **** sake. He almost wasn't a character at all.

 

Just compare the the Wild Hunt to the reapers

 

Wild Hunt - We wanna **** Ciri and get the powers because standard generic villainy of seeking power

Reapers - Wanting to strike a balance between synthetic and organic life

 

"Ciri isn't a Deus Ex Machina,"

 

Ciri is absolutely a Deus Ex Machina as much as she is a Mary Sue. The White Frost pop out of nowhere in the game and surprise surprise, Ciri is the "chosen one" who can stop it, this is some Lord of the Rings level of cliche bullcrap. By definition that is a Deus Ex Machina, they don't even explain how she stops it, it's completely absurd and forced.

 

 

"It's not like the StarKid that's suddenly"

 

The duration of which the characters are thrown into the mix doesn't somehow nullify them from their status, both Ciri and the Star Child are Deus Ex Machinas, at least the Star Child explains what the **** is going on. With Ciri she defeats the White Frost "because Mary Sue" or if she fails she dies because "reasons".

 

"Do that and it's a much better realised world than either Thedas or that in the Mass Effect fiction.12

 

World building has never been a strong point of the Witcher books and I absolutely find the Mass Effect world more impressive in that Bioware had no source material to work with. The world of Witcher 3 felt and looked generic aside from the monsters, Velen especially. I find the lore in Elder Scrolls/Dragon Age to bar far more interesting/impressive as they actually had no source material to work with.

 

"As for the ending of TW3? You've got 3 possible Ciri outcomes I think - I've played the game through twice, I've not seen the "Ciri dies" ending yet. The two I've played had complete playable epilogues that wrapped everything up nicely and brought brilliant closure to the series (with familiar areas revisited with snow!) - other events were played out on the scroll."

 

The closure is forced and the ending gave us now explanation as to how we got there. You see Ciri go into the portal thing and based on some arbitrary choices she either dies "because reasons" or she defeats the white frost "because reasons", it was perhaps the most rushed thing i've seen in the Witcher trilogy.

 

 

"The endings of Mass Effect 3 however left me feeling one of the following:"

 

Because the trilogy's excellent writing kept you engaged in a current surge of excitement and threat. The Reaper threat was always looming and hopeless, the characters progressed and developed with each game fantastically and even died based on choices only to never be seen in the sequels. I never questioned how the Witcher trilogy would end and franklly it didn't seem like anybody cared, it just felt disjointed and muddled up. The games never felt as a continuation, they each felt as their own individual stories which made the arbitrary "continuing of past game choices" meaningless to the point that I didn't care that Letho had survived. Witcher 3 is in essence one giant hunt for Ciri only to get this White Frost bombshell dropped on you with no explanation as to how it was defeated. The Witcher 2 ends on a weak cliffhanger in relations to Mass Effect 2s cliffhanger, ME3 picks up essentially directly after whereas TW3 has you hot on the trail of some character that was a mere whisper in prior games and the game is like "Well, love her, the books say so", Triss is essentially some rat control master in Novigrad and Geralt apparently left her because "**** it, Yen needs to fit into this somehow" and it just felt disjointed as ****.

 

Mass Effect dropped the ball because the build up was so well done. Witcher 3 didn't seem to be as disappoitning because there was almost no buildup to be found, you never felt a direct connection between the games, certainly not even close to the level Mass Effect games provided. Mass Effects characters had you grow up with them, Tali's buildup throughout ME1>ME3 was insane, Liaras change from ME1 as a shy naive Asari into the ****** Shadow Broker in ME2 was fantastic. Wrex and Garrus's friendship was truly beauitful, the Witcher had nothing that even comes close to this level of character progression and that's not even to mention how menacing the Reaper threat was with every new game.

 

I absolutely feel that the Mass Effect trilogy was infinitely better written than the Witcher trilogy as well as being more consistent. I never got the deal with the first two Witchers, I enjoyed the Witcher 3 but I feel that the hype isn't justified at all. This claim that it "redefined RPGs" is totally absurd to me, all it did was provide a quality product, it didn't redefine anything and in fact, I think it did a lot worse than other (even recent, let alone older) RPGs. I just think that the setting (high fantasy) struck the right notes with the Game of Thrones crowd mixed in with the pretty visuals and writing were good overall but the game dropped the ball hard where it counted. Take the characters for instance, they ultimately serve purely as props who say "Ciri is in another castle!".

 

The story dragged on, pacing was pretty mediocre and then they drop a bombshell on you that was amateurishly built up because "well, it's a big budget high fantasy game, we need some 'end of the world' jive in here somewhere".

[Nattfare]

I'd love to see multiple playable species in a Mass Effect game, but *only* if that didn't come at the cost of reduced content elsewhere. There is some reason to suspect that the blandness of the Inquisitor in comparison to previous Dragon Age protagonists, particularly Hawke, was due to DA:I having multiple playable races with varying backgrounds. it may have also been to blame for the lack of cinematic conversations with NPCs, since those would need to be tailored for several different versions of the protagonist that could come in different sizes.

 

If the tradeoff for having multiple playable species in a Mass Effect game is Dragon Age: Inquisition meets Space, I'm in the camp that hopes Bioware forever sticks with set human protagonists. 

 

Or maybe a set Turian/Krogan/Volus/any other race set protagonist? Maybe that would be regarded as a too big risk to take though.

[Elhanan]

Critical reviews are not from the site itself, only user reviews are.
 
Essentially you have no argument....

Need to re-read that article it seems, as it indicates that arbitrary scores are used in place of some reviews; hence the inaccuracy of the totals. The use of Metacritic as a defense is unwise.