317 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Nah, the Council runs the universe.

I think they have this agenda against the "straight male gamer" and I'm like... I'm sorry.............................. but that "straight" gamer? It's a myth, most of the people who play games are something else, well, partially straight partially... I don't know, because I couldn't speak for those people, only to say I think their sexual interests often have latent LGBT or closested desires and stuff like that, maybe just combined with a lack of interest in committing themselves wholly to being LGBT or whatever, hence all this spat and blah blah.
 
Their target has really been the fake straight male/female gamer, which is like well whatever knocks yourselves out or something this really isn't my business it seems.
 
Just like most people who play games also watch TV show comic things or read comics or maybe read manga or something, the reality is there are very very few who basically only play video games, and if they did really exist, I bet they would actually be kind of enthusiastic about a random Bioware game, LGBT stuff being a totally harmless blob across what should ultimately be a compelling entertainment experience on some level, as well as keenly aware of the fact that there is no agenda being shoved down the throat.
Maybe boring or uninspired characters or worlds or ideas or places, sure, that has been known to happen.. for both canonically "straight" "gay" and everything in between characters.
 
It turns out arbitrarily-assigned-due-to-pandering-or-based-in-reality-sexual-preference does not discriminate in it's inability to do anything at all to boring video game characters, such characters will forever be boring, just like interesting characters are interesting regardless of not arbitrarly-assigned-due-to-pandering-or-based-in-reality-sexual-preference.
 
 

I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. What is it that you want Bio to do or not do?

[slimgrin]

It has to be said: those insanely high metacritic scores for the ME series reflect the kind of mainstream, easy to consume style of RPG that they are, and now sadly to a lesser degree, TW3. I've wanted to see ME go in the exact opposite direction since the first game. Not holding my breath though. My wish is for both CDPR and Bioware to look back at the old school CRPGs that didn't shy away from complexity and uncompromising gameplay. 

[Kroitz]

Errrr... Guys, do you know that an openworld RPG taking place on an alien planet and featuring the human colonisation was released this year? You even play a Pathfinder, finding ressources, building relationships with alien species...

 

His name is Xenoblade Chronicles X. I played it some hours and, so long, he give a strong feeling of "we are alone, cut from our bases and we must survive". And the humanity has the short stick, being totally overpowered by alien races in militaristic domain. Yeah it is on the WiiU, yes a lot of parts are rubbish... But the game is FULL of content, a good lore and with F***** MECHAS you can take at any time. It is only the first of a trilogy : Bioware must stay on their toes if they want to stay first.

 

The story is at best driving what little plot there is and at worst taking a dump on what it's trying to accomplish. It also does a poor job of explaining even a fourth of the features and mechanics it has to offer.

 

Still, it's one of my favorite games of 2015 because it delivers heavy on the G part of RPG. 60+ hours in and after getting the skell license it feels like managing a whole new team with additional sets of abilities and combat features.

 

I just hope we can get back to this setting:

 

Spoiler

 

With all the new systems of XB-X some day.

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

*his post*

"I actually found the combat controls in TW1 really natural after a while, I didn't have to think about switching between stances I just did it. I actually found TW2 combat more finickety - especially when combined with the (bad) decision to make it so you couldn't chug potions in combat, which took away your "get out of jail free" card when you screwed up."

 

I found them abysmal, this seems to be the general consensus even among Witcher fans.

"I find everything about ME1 more clunky; ME2 was fine and ME3 was just far better defined. But shooty combat is a completely different beast to stabby combat; it's harder to screw up. But I'll take the combat from The Witcher series over the two Dragon Age games I've played."

 

Explain, the controls in Witcher 2 are borderline broken as the lock on system is completely ridiculous as well as the whole 'back damage' attack as there is no strafe option so your back is in essence always vulnerable. Witcher 1 is also unplayable to most as it's just "not fun". As for Dragon Age, at least the combat is fun and didn't need mods to ammend them. I fail to see an argument for Mass Effect 1 being more clunky than Witcher 1 or 2.

"We'll just have to agree to disagree there then ;)"

 

Fair enough.

"The council, to me, are just weak political satire - shown as being ineffective and indecisive; a bland statement that democracy doesn't work... best to just let them die in ME1 - not that the replacement is any different to further hammer home the previous statement."

 

You're not giving examples, just making bold claims. I gave you direct examples where the council actual prove to be pretty morally gray as well as offering nice diversity and a clear insight into the tension (or lack thereof) between the races and Humans, captain Udina also. Care to provide examples?

"And no, Udina's alliance is to Udina - bog-standard, power-hungry political leech; I've never questioned his motivation until he was indoctrinated then it was just a matter of "meh, cop-out"."

 

Not at all. Especially not in Mass Effect 1 and besides, even if it was, what's wrong with that? Emyhr is literally the same in the games despite his book version being far more 'ambiguous'. He was handeled poorly.

"Emyhr's character however is demonstrated by the people whose lives he affects - from Geralt, Yen and Ciri to the Lodge and the armies on the battlefield, the Quartermaster, the widow... His motivations and actions are akin to those of any number of kings or rulers from history; he's not evil or cartoon villainous - he's a better portrayal of a Feudal Monarch than Udina is of a politician."

 

Not in the games he wasn't,  you never see him at all fleshed out, I don't know where you're getting all of this gibberish from game-wise.


"Totally missing the whole point of the Wild Hunt - they're the Vanguard of a race that's trying to survive. Only the blood of the Hen Ichaer has the power to allow them to transport entire populations across worlds - that's why they're after Ciri."

 

The whole point is them raping Ciri so that they can grow more powerful, that's literally it. No sugar coating it changes how cartoonishly evil they really are and it makes sense, the Witcher novels started out as a borderline satire of High Fantasy.

"The Reapers are the result of a stupid programming error on the part of Leviathan."

 

That's their origin, not their motivation. It's quite ironic how Synthetics written by Bioware are more relatable than the Wild Hunt written by CDPR, it highlights Biowares superior writing quite well in my opinion

"Ummmm - no, the White Frost is central to the entire story from the beginning, you even visit a potential future world where the White Frost has brought about the end of civilisation in the original Witcher finale."

 

Not at all, it's only slithered in now and again only to become the main theme towards the end. The main plot point in the beginning is a Mario tier "Ciri is in another castle" approach which was completely bland and boring as far as main stories go.

"How Ciri defeats it is irrelevant - she was always the only one that could. The decisions you make throughout the third game determine whether she has the independence and strength to survive."

 

Of course it's relevant, how can you claim such nonsense. The biggest threat in the Witcher universe being defeated by the biggest Mary Sue in gaming is "irrelevant"? Haha, that's rich.

"Actually it kinda does - a Deus Ex Machina is when you pull your finger out of your arse at the last moment to go "TA DA - this solves the unsolvable". The Elder blood being the only way to defeat the White Frost is central to the Witcher lore from the beginning."

 

Yep and Ciri solves the unsolvable. CDPR didn't even know how to write her defeating the White Frost, that's how insolvable it is. They just said "**** it, Ciri defeated the White Frost, I guess?" It was written terribly and clearly rushed.

"The starkid is a last minute arsepull, the child of the elder blood isn't... the fact that it's Ciri ... maybe."

 

The starkid at least explains what's going on and you at least understand/see it all happening,

 

Here's how the Witcher 3 handles the ending of the trilogy - Ciri just goes into a portal and kabam, everything is good again, yay! Oh wait, you didn't hug Ciri during that random moment?! Well, she died somehow. Sorry that you didn't get to see it, just take our word for it.

 

It was written so bad and clearly rushed that I was laughing when I saw the ending.

"Had BioWare finished ME3 with some kind of big Harbinger moment which could lead to the downfall of the Reapers that would be far less of a Deus Ex Machina as he foreshadows events through the first two games - and is pointlessly discarded in the third."

 

Yet Bioware still managed to close the show better than CDPR.


"Impressive in the amount of original work, agreed. I did however have a sense of Deja Vu first time I played Mass Effect - I was sure I'd played it before - it heavily drew from so many SciFi tropes."

 

I'm sure you will be able to draw numerous examples of ancient civilizations creating sentient robots to keep a balance between synthetic and organic life only for the robots to overthrow their masters.

"I find that because the world of The Witcher draws more heavily on European architecture and folklore it's better realised and fleshed out. Is that more impressive? Maybe not. Is it a stronger, more lived in feeling world? I think so."

 

I agree and disagree. I agree that Mass Effect is more impressive given the lack of source material but disagree that it is a more 'lived in' world as I don't even know what that means.


"Again, I feel you're missing the point. How she defeats the White Frost is irrelevant - whether she has the strength to survive doing so, whether you nurtured her independence or "daddied" her too much; that moulds her character, gives her the will and ability to survive."

 

Ciri defeating the greatest threat to the Witcher universe is not irrelevant, stop this cop out.

"I mean really, how do we defeat the Reapers? They come along and say, "Ok, your turn - pick a button". I hated that in Deus Ex : HR and I hate it in ME3."

 

it's explained pretty clearly actually - https://www.youtube....h?v=Q7lkTUPA-EY

"Except every time you come up against the Reapers you leave them as scrap metal; by the end of ME3 they don't even seem like a threat - super-shep will just blast them with his Jesus-lazors."

 

Nope, the first time you see one reaper in ME1 it takes a whole fleet to defeat it and it still wrecks damn near everybody. The second time you encounter 'reapers' is in ME2 when harbringer mind controls an entire race and literally "kills Shepard", third time you see it wrecking Earth at the start of ME3. Every time you see the Reapers they maintain their level of domination as solidify their intimidation. They sure as **** don't get rekt by some dwarf. The Witcher 3 suffers from a case most story focused RPGs suffer from. Your character is just too damn strong, how can you feel intimidated by the Wild Hunt when you wreck them at every encounter and by you I literally mean *Geralt* and in some cases a manlet dwarf. In Mass Effect not once do you, yourself feel as if you are capable of holding off the reaper invasion, ****, even at the end when you have entire fleets at your disposal you still feel as though "Oh ****, we're gonna get rekt aren't we?".

"OK - it doesn't quite work out like that, they basically just give up because you plugged a giant space battery into the Citadel. The character-writing is good throughout the Mass Effect trilogy ... but the actual story, nah. None of it makes any sense, you just go along for the ride."

 

The story was far better written than the Witcher games in my opinion. All of it made sense, even the ending.

"And killing Shepard at the start of ME2 to resurrect him to have ME2 as basically one largely irrelevant sidequest, from the point of view of the overarching story laid out in ME1, isn't disjointed?"

 

Yep, Mass Effect 2 was essentially a standalone plot bridging ME2-3 and thhey still handeled it well in that you never felt that way. The Witcher games tried to make the story feel interconnected but it failed and you ultimately didn't care for the plot at all, I mean look, the Wite Frost is arguably one of the bigger things in the Witcher Universe and you deem it "irrelevant", when writers have something as 'huge' as the White Frost and for them to make it boring to the point that you feel it necessary to write them off as "irrelevant" really highlights their inept writing ability.

"OK the side-characters carry through better in Mass Effect than The Witcher (mostly) but the story is actually more disjointed."

 

Not mostly, almost entirely and it is definitely not more disjointed. I can explain how all of the 3 games fit in perfectly whereas Witcher 1 (with some of the worst pacing i've seen in gaming period, seirously, it took me 3 playthroughs to get through Act 1 and 2) ended with you stopping an assassin on the kings life who was a Witcher, it then picks up during a giant siege with you aiding the king in battle (because reasons), it then gets all convoluted and Game of Thrones like with you trying to clear your name as the "Assassin of kings" which in the process of clearing you name you... assassinate Henslet (a king.. lmfao), you then fight that dragon (at this point I can barely even remember this plot, it was that uninteresting), Geralt "now has his memories back!" and the game ends on a cliff hanger (though I will admit, CDPR handeled Lethos character exceptionally well). Witcher 3 starts with you and Vesemir (because reasons) looking for Yennefer after abandoning Triss who is now some herder of mice (because reasons) and you're essentially left wondering what the **** even happened between each game to the point that the trilogy doesn't even feel like direct sequels.

 

Mass Effect 1 ends with you going back out to collect more data on the reapers with the Council (either dead or established), you come across a lead, get rekt, get revived by Cerberus and so on and so fourth, the game ends with you finding out that the Reapers are here and Mass Effect 3 picks up directly after that discovery with you preparing for war.

 

All of the games ended and started as you left off and they all felt directly connected with no explanations necessary, they all felt linked and the build up was near perfect, especially after that cliff hanger in Mass Effect 2 (that unlike Witcher 2) was done to near perfection.


"Irrelevant (see previous)."

 

Saying "i-it's irrelevant!" really is not an argument.


"There's no real cliffhanger at the end of either TW2 or ME2. The knock-on effects, if Legion or Wrex die, at the end of ME2 are however far more profound than anything that happens with side-characters in The Witcher."

 

Haha, of course there is. Mass Effect 2 literally ends with the Reapers (a whole damn fleet of them) entering the galaxy, see - https://www.youtube....h?v=e-RFVPZhXbo

 

How can you say with a straight face that this isn't a cliff hanger?

"You're totally ignoring the back-story; Geralt has lost his memory after escaping the Wild Hunt (with help from Ciri) when you first meet him in the games. He falls in love with Triss whilst not remembering Yen. When Yen's back on the scene, when he remembers... he has to make a choice."

 

A backstory not established in the games therefore it is CDPRs job to do so. It doesn't even show you him making that choice, this is one of the Witchers worst aspects. I spent two games developing a romance with Triss and then by Witcher 3 the game says "**** you Geralt left Triss to go clean up rat **** and is now hunting down Yen but you can romance Triss again if you want, I guess?". It was handeled terribly, that's the thing. CDPR cannot bridge the gap between their games to save themselves.


"Apart from the character and companions I didn't feel any real connection between the Mass Effect games."

 

I disagree for reasons explained above.

 

"ME2 was a great game but, to me, from the point of the overarching story felt like a wasted opportunity. It completely broke the flow; it killed the protagonist so that he could be resurrected by the Humanity First Policlub so that the cartoon politicians could waste a couple of years debating their navels while Space Jesus goes around hunting space zombies and solving daddy issues."

 

Better than somebody trying to clear their "King slayer" name by slaying more kings, lmfao.

"The Witcher story was more consistent throughout (as it tried to do less) - it was simply the story of Geralt (also) returning from the dead (basically), recovering his memory and friends with the threat of the White Frost looming over the whole thing until the end. More of the story in The Witcher is told through cutscenes and books though - for better or worse."

 

Not even close, the Witcher trilogys story literally didn't even matter, it was a jumbeled mess and it just felt like it lacked direction. You look at ME1 from the start and you know how **** is going to go down, you're gonna be collecting resources to **** them Reapers up. Witcher 1 starts of with you thinking the whole trilogy is wrapped around Geralt gettign his memory back only for the game to say "Well yea, Ciri is getting chased and hey, there's this threat to all human life known as the white frost that you should know about I guess" in the Witcher 3. It was a joke.

"However - I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me... it's a wonderful world where we can simply disagree and call it quits :P"

 

Agreed.

[The Elder King]

Not what i've got

 

https://en.wikipedia...game_franchises

 

Mass Effect - 14 million

Witcher - 12 million

 

 

 

 

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"

 

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.

You continue saying I moved the goalpost, so let's see which is your post I quoted, all right?

 

I thought neither game handeled smaller choices better and as for setting the prisoner free I only saw that happen once in Velen. The whispering tree also did have a clear cut answer, there was a book in the game that essentiallty explained the tree as being an evil spirit making it a no brainer to destroy it but I admit that the tree choice was probably the best done choice in the game.

 

As for exploration ME1 handeled it poorly due to the tech and it being an experimentation of the concept, what I meant was a more refined version of ME1s exploration in that there is a lot more to see and do in the planets as well as more variety.

 

 

 

 

 

"Lately" is an unfair term to use against a company as consistent as Bioware. Name me an RPG developer team that has this track record

 

• Jade Empire (89 metacritic)
• KOTOR (93 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Baldur's Gate 1 (93 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Baldur's Gate 2 (95 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Neverwinter Nights (90~metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Dragon Age Origins (93 metacritic)
• Dragon Age Inquisition (89 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 1 (91 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 2 (96 metacritic, on every top RPG list)
• Mass Effect 3 (93 metacritic)

 

Even their worst games (Dragon Age 2) are still above average. Compare them to the latest hyped up company CDPR who's first games included Witcher 1 (even hardcore witcher fans can't stomach that dreadful Act 1 and 2 with all the fetch quests and mediocre combat system), Witcher 2 (convoluted plot that didn't feel much like the Witcher at all and still a mediocre combat system, imo it's worse than the first one) and Witcher 3 (fantastic game that still pales in comparison to the best of Bioware or even the Mass Effect trilogy).

 

Bioware are a fantastic company, a few slip ups are inevitable especially considering how strongly they started off and even in their slip ups they produce fantastic games.

 

I really hate the latest "it's cool to hate on Bioware" meme that everybody insists on circlejerking about.

This is the post I quoted. Where did you ever talked about Bioware being better then CDPR?

And that's the post I replied you with:

 

This post is based on a lot of personal opinions, regardless of the fact that if you want to use Metacritic, you have to use both user and critic's reviews, since they're on the same level (both flawed). Also, Bioware made KOTOR as well.

 

For 'lately' I'd guess one could mean the games Bioware made from DAO. And those games should be used to compare other developers' games.

 

My goalpost didn't change one bit. And I didn't ever try to compare Bioware and CDPR. You did later, and I don't know even why. My post was about MT scores not beinga necessary reliable source in general. It wasn't even about Bioware's games in specific. Plus, I talked about comparing Bioware's games to other developers' games released on the same timeframe. I never said Bioware didn't have a longer and successful history then CDPR (on the contrary, I clearly stated that in at least on post, and I said that CDPR has to prove themselves on another IP then TW as well). You moved the goalpost and started comparing Bioware and CDPR while my point was more general, and not about those two. And you're still wrong though on ME and TW, since on a critic point TW3 managed to reach ME3, and con a commercial point the IP sales are similar/the same, even with a less base installed for TW (though it doesn't seem this factor is important to you)

 

Also, about the review, the site is Multiplayer.it. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Also saving Citadel council is pretty obviously the best choice in ME1.

Only if you know it will work, which Shepard doesn't.

The choice not to save the Council makes sense because Shepard isn't sure, at that moment, that Sovereign will be defeated. And if Sovereign isn't defeated, the survival of the Council won't matter.

Saving the Council is a forward-looking choice - trying to make the galaxy better following the defeat of Sovereign - but as trying to do that increases the chance that Sovereign won't be defeated at all, I think it's the reckless option.

Just like saving Redcliffe in DAO. Terrible idea.

[DarkLordAngel916]

 i think bioware was the best rpg game developers when your the beast you shouldn't have to learn from games they started  searching  for other  inferior games for inspiration   that's why bioware not as good as they were before. 

[The Elder King]

 i think bioware was the best rpg game developers when your the beast you shouldn't have to learn from games they started  searching  for other  inferior games for inspiration   that's why bioware not as good as they were before. 

They took inspiration from Skyrim because of the latter massive success (And probably for DA2's reception). And while I think they have to work more on their open world content, I understand while they did it.

[The Elder King]

Only if you know it will work, which Shepard doesn't.

The choice not to save the Council makes sense because Shepard isn't sure, at that moment, that Sovereign will be defeated. And if Sovereign isn't defeated, the survival of the Council won't matter.

Saving the Council is a forward-looking choice - trying to make the galaxy better following the defeat of Sovereign - but as trying to do that increases the chance that Sovereign won't be defeated at all, I think it's the reckless option.

Just like saving Redcliffe in DAO. Terrible idea.

Why do you think saving Redcliffe in DAO was a terrible idea? The Warden needed Eamon's support against Loghain. 

[KaiserShep]

Just like saving Redcliffe in DAO. Terrible idea.

 

It would have made far more sense if abandoning Redcliffe actually resulted in everyone dying, thereby denying the Warden any allies there, which should have been the risk of not helping to defend it. It just so happens that the game doesn't really go far enough with the option to abandon the village. 

[Amplitudelol]

One thing that all Devs should consider: the PC remains the top platform choice for many gamers. The controls, UI, AI, etc should reflect that understanding.

That said, the only RPG I have played recently that is in the same classroom as Bioware is Skyrim. XCOM is also a top fave, but is not a RPG. Don't care to try the TW series, FO series, and some others due to a focus on Action mode among other content.

 

Last time i checked console gaming was mainstream. No real chance for PC as leading platform which means the game will be ported to PC. Will it be bad, acceptable or even good? Anything is possible at this time, but gameplay will be optimized first and foremost for players with controller in their hands, thats 100%.

[Chealec]

They hadn't a clue what they were dealing with at that point, and needed to avoid causing a panic...

Look at recent terror attacks - governments love panic, or rather paranoia - it gives them carte blanche to impose whatever restrictions on freedom they like, impose whatever surveillance measures they like. It's the only reason Donald Trump hasn't been laughed off the face of the planet yet.

 

The council could have been more nuanced in the way they dealt with the aftermath of ME1 instead of sicking their fingers in their collective ears and saying "Ah yes, Reapers..."
 

[Elhanan]

Last time i checked console gaming was mainstream. No real chance for PC as leading platform which means the game will be ported to PC. Will it be bad, acceptable or even good? Anything is possible at this time, but gameplay will be optimized first and foremost for players with controller in their hands, thats 100%.

Mainstream or not, the PC crowd appears to be a bit tired of being the afterthought platform, and not just from Bioware. And some games are still being designed as PC only, so the apparent interest is still there.

Have nothing against console Players myself; simply unable to play most Action titles, and prefer the lesser long term expense and versatility of the PC.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Choices

 

It's true, in The Witcher II you get one specific choice that makes a giant difference. But in truth that's also a pretty simple intersection, not an effect based upon a cumulative of several choices. While playing the trilogy of Geralt I noticed some nice changes that alter outcomes within the specific game you play, but they don't cary over in any significant way to the next game.

 

Should choices matter in the short run, or the long run? To be honest, the further you delay the effects of choices, the more difficult (and ambitious) it becomes for a game developer to really make them count. How are you ever going to make Mass Effect games set after part three, while staying in our own milky way and not make one of the three 'color endings' canon, or deal with the situation on Rannoch or the fertility of the Korgan? It's nice Dragon Age II acknowledged your choice in who became the ruler of Ferelden, but it doesn't matter for the story at hand. Perhaps the focus on short term choices and consequences are more satisfying.

 

Choices are also one of two things in which The Witcher proofs to be more 'mature' than BioWare games. It's like cable television versus public-access. The choices are often about what's the lesser of two evils. It's nuanced. Not boy scout versus evil bastard.

 

The best game with player choice and consequences I've played is Life is Strange and it does have what you think is a "paragon" choice might lead to a "renegade" outcome and vice versa all leads to a heartbreaking final choice that leads to 2 very different endings,

[Chealec]

"I actually found the combat controls in TW1 really natural after a while, I didn't have to think about switching between stances I just did it. I actually found TW2 combat more finickety - especially when combined with the (bad) decision to make it so you couldn't chug potions in combat, which took away your "get out of jail free" card when you screwed up."

I found them abysmal, this seems to be the general consensus even among Witcher fans.

...

You found them abysmal as did most Witcher fans apparently ... and? I was fine with them (mouse + kb). There's no debate to be had here.

Ditto with ME1 being clunky - I find it almost unplayable after ME3... I don't need to justify the fact that it feels clunky any more than I need to justify why I don't like mushrooms or spiders - I just don't. This isn't something that's up for debate.

 

"The council, to me, are just weak political satire - shown as being ineffective and indecisive; a bland statement that democracy doesn't work... best to just let them die in ME1 - not that the replacement is any different to further hammer home the previous statement."

You're not giving examples, just making bold claims. I gave you direct examples where the council actual prove to be pretty morally gray as well as offering nice diversity and a clear insight into the tension (or lack thereof) between the races and Humans, captain Udina also. Care to provide examples?

How do you give examples of what's rammed down your throat throughout the whole game?
 
Every conversation with Bailey, everytime Anderson says "that's why I hate politicians" or words to that effect, every time Garrus complains about C-Sec being bound up in red tape, "Ah yes, Reapers ... we have dismissed this claim" ... the whole setup is a politcal parody of beurocratic incompetence ... throughout the whole trilogy - right up to where the Reapers arrive and take everyone by surprise despite having years to prepare.

You offer a few specific examples of what you perceive as the politicians being "morally ambigious" when the whole way all politicians are thematically dealt with, across the whole game, supports my viewpoint.

 

"Totally missing the whole point of the Wild Hunt - they're the Vanguard of a race that's trying to survive. Only the blood of the Hen Ichaer has the power to allow them to transport entire populations across worlds - that's why they're after Ciri."

The whole point is them raping Ciri so that they can grow more powerful, that's literally it. No sugar coating it changes how cartoonishly evil they really are and it makes sense, the Witcher novels started out as a borderline satire of High Fantasy.


"The Reapers are the result of a stupid programming error on the part of Leviathan."

That's their origin, not their motivation. It's quite ironic how Synthetics written by Bioware are more relatable than the Wild Hunt written by CDPR, it highlights Biowares superior writing quite well in my opinion

 
You're still missing the point - we're told that they're after Ciri because they need her power to flee their worlds and invade ours... not power for power's sake but for the sake of the Aen Elle. Ge'els isn't portayed as evil, nor is Avallac'h... not the Aen Elle in and of themselves.
 
The King of the Wild Hunt and his lackeys may be "evil" - but their motivations still make more sense than the Reapers.
 
The Reapers motivation is to harvest all advanced organic life to preserve the genetic code just in case that life creates AI that would destroy it... why? What stake do the Reapers have in this? Why would they care? ... and, at the end of it all, why do they just go "meh" and hand the reigns over to an organic, who's potentially sacrificed the entire Quarian race to assist the exact type of AI the Reapers are suppose to prevent?!
 
It's nonsense.

 

"Ummmm - no, the White Frost is central to the entire story from the beginning, you even visit a potential future world where the White Frost has brought about the end of civilisation in the original Witcher finale."

Not at all, it's only slithered in now and again only to become the main theme towards the end. The main plot point in the beginning is a Mario tier "Ciri is in another castle" approach which was completely bland and boring as far as main stories go.

"How Ciri defeats it is irrelevant - she was always the only one that could. The decisions you make throughout the third game determine whether she has the independence and strength to survive."

Of course it's relevant, how can you claim such nonsense. The biggest threat in the Witcher universe being defeated by the biggest Mary Sue in gaming is "irrelevant"? Haha, that's rich.

"Actually it kinda does - a Deus Ex Machina is when you pull your finger out of your arse at the last moment to go "TA DA - this solves the unsolvable". The Elder blood being the only way to defeat the White Frost is central to the Witcher lore from the beginning."

Yep and Ciri solves the unsolvable. CDPR didn't even know how to write her defeating the White Frost, that's how insolvable it is. They just said "**** it, Ciri defeated the White Frost, I guess?" It was written terribly and clearly rushed.


"The starkid is a last minute arsepull, the child of the elder blood isn't... the fact that it's Ciri ... maybe."

The starkid at least explains what's going on and you at least understand/see it all happening,

Here's how the Witcher 3 handles the ending of the trilogy - Ciri just goes into a portal and kabam, everything is good again, yay! Oh wait, you didn't hug Ciri during that random moment?! Well, she died somehow. Sorry that you didn't get to see it, just take our word for it.

It was written so bad and clearly rushed that I was laughing when I saw the ending.

"Had BioWare finished ME3 with some kind of big Harbinger moment which could lead to the downfall of the Reapers that would be far less of a Deus Ex Machina as he foreshadows events through the first two games - and is pointlessly discarded in the third."

Yet Bioware still managed to close the show better than CDPR.

Without the White Frost there would not necessarily be any Wild Hunt at least not in Geralt's world, Avallac'h wouldn't be assisting Ciri, the whole first game wouldn't have had an antagonist ... it would be a completely different game. Read between the lines.
 
Of course it's not relevant how Ciri defeats the White Frost - any more than it's relevant how the starbrat, or the starbrat and Shepard merging, somehow manage to rewrite the basic DNA/circuitry of every single organic and synethetic being in the galaxy. It happens because "reasons".
 
... and you know what - I'd rather the starkid didn't attempt to explain what was going on; I'd rather the Reapers motivations were left unknown than the nonsense ME3 ends with - I'd rather see Ciri step into the portal to the Conjuction and "fade to black" than see a green line bouncing around the galaxy destroying the Mass Effect Relay network as it goes.
 
When I first completed TW3 was just after another play-through of the ME trilogy... my first thought on completing TW3 the first time ... "F***, BioWare that's how you end a trilogy!" So I couldn't disagree more.

 

"Again, I feel you're missing the point. How she defeats the White Frost is irrelevant - whether she has the strength to survive doing so, whether you nurtured her independence or "daddied" her too much; that moulds her character, gives her the will and ability to survive."

Ciri defeating the greatest threat to the Witcher universe is not irrelevant, stop this cop out.

"I mean really, how do we defeat the Reapers? They come along and say, "Ok, your turn - pick a button". I hated that in Deus Ex : HR and I hate it in ME3."

it's explained pretty clearly actually - https://www.youtube....h?v=Q7lkTUPA-EY

I didn't say that Ciri defeating the White Frost was irrelevant but how she does so, and it is.

The question was rhetorical - we don't beat the Reapers, they just hand control over to Shepard because... yeah, ummm, somebody plugged in a battery?

 

"OK - it doesn't quite work out like that, they basically just give up because you plugged a giant space battery into the Citadel. The character-writing is good throughout the Mass Effect trilogy ... but the actual story, nah. None of it makes any sense, you just go along for the ride."

The story was far better written than the Witcher games in my opinion. All of it made sense, even the ending.

You were obviously playing a different version of Mass Effect to me then.
 

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

The Elder King, on 17 Dec 2015 - 06:32 AM, said:

*his post

 

 

Here's the goalpost shift.

 

 

This post is based on a lot of personal opinions, regardless of the fact that if you want to use Metacritic, you have to use both user and critic's reviews, since they're on the same level (both flawed). Also, Bioware made KOTOR as well.

 

For 'lately' I'd guess one could mean the games Bioware made from DAO. And those games should be used to compare other developers' games.

 

You changed my original statement which was saying that Bioware were essentially the most consistent RPG developers i've seen with their games and that even the recently hyped up CDPR pale in comparison, you then shifted my initial claim and started jabbering on about "w-well lately CDPR have been better!" which was never my initial statement in the first place.

 

If you're going to claim that you never shifted goalposts then at least use a post you made at the start of our discussion and not the end.

 

I'm also still waiting for some evidence that reviewers of Mass Effect never finished the game.

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

*his post*
 

 

So much for "agree to disagree".

 

 

 

"You found them abysmal as did most Witcher fans apparently ... and? I was fine with them (mouse + kb). There's no debate to be had here."

 

And I found them abysmal, what were you expecting me to say?

"Ditto with ME1 being clunky - I find it almost unplayable after ME3... I don't need to justify the fact that it feels clunky any more than I need to justify why I don't like mushrooms or spiders - I just don't. This isn't something that's up for debate."

 

Well when you can get me top rated comments on youtube videos relaying similar "unplayable" experiences with Mass Effect 1 as I so easily found with Witcher 1 (http://i.imgur.com/mggVUm6.jpg)then maybe i'll take your hyperbole more seriously.

 

And to be fair, when sequels render prior games hard to play then that is only a testament of how much the gameplay improved in that sequel whereas the Witcher 1 for many was unplayable from the start.

"How do you give examples of what's rammed down your throat throughout the whole game?"

 

By citing a few.
 
"Every conversation with Bailey, everytime Anderson says "that's why I hate politicians" or words to that effect, every time Garrus complains about C-Sec being bound up in red tape, "Ah yes, Reapers ... we have dismissed this claim" ... the whole setup is a politcal parody of beurocratic incompetence ... throughout the whole trilogy - right up to where the Reapers arrive and take everyone by surprise despite having years to prepare."

 

You've no effectively shifted from the Council, to Udina (who is not on the council from the start) to Bailey with no examples as to why you dislike them. Garrus complaining about the barriers held of what is essentially the space police? Oh my, I expected C-Sec to be mercenaries who let you operate how you want!

 

Your complaints strike me as that of reaching, I have highlighted my issue with Emyhr and rather than me dwelling on my subjective preference with him i highlighted the fact that he is barely a character in the game despite getting advertised as much, a problem that is on the Witcher forums as we speak that CDPR have acknowledged. Your issues are something i'm not even sure I fully understand. You're mad that politicans are acting like politicians? Is that it?

"You offer a few specific examples of what you perceive as the politicians being "morally ambigious" when the whole way all politicians are thematically dealt with, across the whole game, supports my viewpoint."

 

I gave you major ones. From the start for example the Turian council member offers restraint towards Shepard initially (due to the animosity between the Turians and Humans), he later warms up to you. The council from the start refuse to take Shepards words on Saren as fact without evidence, if you look at them clearly they do nothing "morally red", they are always pretty gray and professional with their handelings and act as they are meant to, politicians. I really don't understand your complaint.


"You're still missing the point - we're told that they're after Ciri because they need her power to flee their worlds and invade ours... not power for power's sake but for the sake of the Aen Elle. Ge'els isn't portayed as evil, nor is Avallac'h... not the Aen Elle in and of themselves."

 

There is no point, only sugar coatings. They want Ciris Elder Blood for more power, that's literally what they boil down to. What happened iirc from the books is they used to be able to time travel between multiple realms only to lose that "gene", a gene that raping Ciri will give them back, it's purely selfish motives with no relatable qualities at all.

 

Cartoonish evil.
 
"The King of the Wild Hunt and his lackeys may be "evil" - but their motivations still make more sense than the Reapers."

 

Nope.
 
"The Reapers motivation is to harvest all advanced organic life to preserve the genetic code just in case that life creates AI that would destroy it... why? What stake do the Reapers have in this? Why would they care? ... and, at the end of it all, why do they just go "meh" and hand the reigns over to an organic, who's potentially sacrificed the entire Quarian race to assist the exact type of AI the Reapers are suppose to prevent?!"

 

Why? Because if you played the game you would know that is how they are programmed, that's their whole point. They are machines at the end of the day doing what they were told to do. Reapers are not human nor are they syntehtic.

 

Read this - http://www.gamefaqs....fect-3/62239324

 

Theyir motivation is actually pretty cool.
 
"It's nonsense."

 

Alot better than "LEL, WE WANNA TIME TRAVELZ, BETTA RAPE DA CHOSEN ONEZ"

 
"Without the White Frost there would not necessarily be any Wild Hunt at least not in Geralt's world, Avallac'h wouldn't be assisting Ciri, the whole first game wouldn't have had an antagonist ... it would be a completely different game. Read between the lines."

 

Exactly, and the fact that they get 'defeated' without as much of a final farewell "fart" to let us know how they were stopped is disappointing as hell.
 
"Of course it's not relevant how Ciri defeats the White Frost - any more than it's relevant how the starbrat, or the starbrat and Shepard merging, somehow manage to rewrite the basic DNA/circuitry of every single organic and synethetic being in the galaxy. It happens because "reasons".

 

It is relevant. The starbrat expalins exactly how Shepard melds and if you play the first games you would know it was actually a constant theme. Saren represented the synthetic ending as that's what he aimed to do also, Illusive Man sought to control them and Anderson sought to destroy them. The ending was poorly executed but it wasn't an asspull, the star child maybe but at least he sufficiently explained everything that went wrong rather than Ciri walking into a portal and the game giving you what effectively amounts to a "Congratz, she did it I guess" message to pat you on the back.

 

And using the "reasons" excuse with Mass Effect is not applicable, they explain exactly how each ending is being played out to extreme detail, it's provided in the videos I linked. Watch them before you try to imitate my criticisms out of desperation.
 
.".. and you know what - I'd rather the starkid didn't attempt to explain what was going on; I'd rather the Reapers motivations were left unknown than the nonsense ME3 ends with - I'd rather see Ciri step into the portal to the Conjuction and "fade to black" than see a green line bouncing around the galaxy destroying the Mass Effect Relay network as it goes."

 

Well I wouldn't and i've explained why, it just seems like you're growing more and more defensive with each post growing less critical and more emotional. Witcher 3 is far more nonsense than Mass Effect 3s ending, the reason nobody cares about the Witcher 3s ending being lackluster is because nobody gave a poop about the trilogies plot in the first place.
 
"When I first completed TW3 was just after another play-through of the ME trilogy... my first thought on completing TW3 the first time ... "F***, BioWare that's how you end a trilogy!" So I couldn't disagree more."

 

Yea, by having a Mary Sue walk into a portal and defeating the greatest threat to the whole planet without as much of a whisper of explanation or dying in the process if you didn't hug her that one random time. It had the writing finess and arbitrary choice making of Fable 1.

 

All in all your argument is pretty weak, you were doing relatively well at the start when you were criticizing Mass Effect points (regardless of whether the complaints were valid or not) while providing points that the Witcher trilogy was better only for me to refute most claims and bring up what I consider as pretty much unrefutable claims (Mass Effects better handeling of choice, Witcher 3s choices always having a clear cut answer for the major choices, Wild Hunt being cartoonishly evil, the ending being rushed and underwhelming and Emyhr being severely underdeveloped) that has caused you to get defensive rather than remain critical. Hopefully you go back to your prior posts.

 

It's blatant why people think the Witcher 3 ended well, it had another "muh feels" moment that essentially jerked you off 2 minutes prior to the credits started rolling but when you break down how poorly Emyhr was written, how weak the Wild Hunt are as antagonists and how rushed the whole White Frost situation was you quickly begin the find the glaring flaws, flaws that I would argue are even worse than Mass Effect 3 when Mass Effect 3 is looked at as a single entity. Sure ME3 is more disappointing but is it a fair comparison when the only reason it's more disappointing is down to how well the build up of past games was? When you look at ME3 by itself it actually closed out pretty well, the Star Child is unexplained sure and a definite Deus Ex Machina but at least he does his job whereas Ciri, the Witcher 3s equivalent Deus Ex Machina doesn't explain sht, she goes into a portal, stops the white Frost because "trust me bro, take my word for it!" and possibly dies in the process based on a few laughably arbitrary choices.

 

Mass Effect 3 ending was disappointing because of how well past games built up the finale. Witcher 3s plot was disappointing because of how weakly written the ending was as a whole mixed in with the complete absence of any reason to give a ****. CDPR really don't know how to make a trilogy, too many MAJOR characters were rammed in at the last minute and CDPR told us to care because "the books said we should care!". It was terrible, compare the connection to Ciri with that of your squad mates in ME2 or ME3. Just that feeling in Mass Effect 2 of your squad mates dying due to a stupid tactical descision you made on the final mission (i.e, sending jacobs into the vents) is not even closed to matched in any of the Witcher games combined. CDPR just don't know how to get people to give a ****, sure I cared about Ciri because i've got past experience with the franchise (books, past games etc) but when I had to dig deep into external sources to give a **** then that's when you know the game's main characters were not given justice at all.

 

To be fair though, ending a trilogy when every prior game was borderline dog feces in regards to its character development, making you care, bridging of the games and overarching narrative isn't that hard. Probably why the Witcher 3s ending isn't scrutinized as much, it could have been Geralt slav-squatting atop a stop taking a steamy hot dump on Yens chest and it still have been a more pleasant experience than the Witcher 1 and 2 combined.

[Chealec]

"There's no real cliffhanger at the end of either TW2 or ME2. The knock-on effects, if Legion or Wrex die, at the end of ME2 are however far more profound than anything that happens with side-characters in The Witcher."

Haha, of course there is. Mass Effect 2 literally ends with the Reapers (a whole damn fleet of them) entering the galaxy, see - https://www.youtube....h?v=e-RFVPZhXbo

How can you say with a straight face that this isn't a cliff hanger?

OK - to be honest, I'd completely forgotten about that - fair point.

 

"You're totally ignoring the back-story; Geralt has lost his memory after escaping the Wild Hunt (with help from Ciri) when you first meet him in the games. He falls in love with Triss whilst not remembering Yen. When Yen's back on the scene, when he remembers... he has to make a choice."

A backstory not established in the games therefore it is CDPRs job to do so. It doesn't even show you him making that choice, this is one of the Witchers worst aspects. I spent two games developing a romance with Triss and then by Witcher 3 the game says "**** you Geralt left Triss to go clean up rat **** and is now hunting down Yen but you can romance Triss again if you want, I guess?". It was handeled terribly, that's the thing. CDPR cannot bridge the gap between their games to save themselves.

It's established througout the games via the "graphic novel" style cutscenes as Geralt pieces his memory back together... if Geralt could clearly remember everything there might not have been a relationship with Triss in the first place. If they spelt it out plainly from the offset it would totally negate how they're trying to portral Geralt's returning memory - those cutscenes occur as Geralt remembers thigs.
 
Spelling out Geralt and Yen's previous romance would make no sense.

 

"ME2 was a great game but, to me, from the point of the overarching story felt like a wasted opportunity. It completely broke the flow; it killed the protagonist so that he could be resurrected by the Humanity First Policlub so that the cartoon politicians could waste a couple of years debating their navels while Space Jesus goes around hunting space zombies and solving daddy issues."

Better than somebody trying to clear their "King slayer" name by slaying more kings, lmfao.

In short - no. Geralt never sets out to slay another King merely to catch the Kingslayer to clear his name; circumstances turn it all around and it all goes to hell somewhere along the way ... best laid plans and all that.

 

"The Witcher story was more consistent throughout (as it tried to do less) - it was simply the story of Geralt (also) returning from the dead (basically), recovering his memory and friends with the threat of the White Frost looming over the whole thing until the end. More of the story in The Witcher is told through cutscenes and books though - for better or worse."

Not even close, the Witcher trilogys story literally didn't even matter, it was a jumbeled mess and it just felt like it lacked direction. You look at ME1 from the start and you know how **** is going to go down, you're gonna be collecting resources to **** them Reapers up. Witcher 1 starts of with you thinking the whole trilogy is wrapped around Geralt gettign his memory back only for the game to say "Well yea, Ciri is getting chased and hey, there's this threat to all human life known as the white frost that you should know about I guess" in the Witcher 3. It was a joke.

 

ME1 set some great groundwork storywise.

ME2 binned it and did something completely different.

ME3 tried to glue the broken pieces back together, realised it was too broken and threw the starkid at us instead.

 

 

You've not actually played TW1 all the way through have you? The bit where you fight The Grand Master and/or Eredin in a future world of the White Frost.

[Chealec]

So much for "agree to disagree".

 

Sorry - you're not going to convince me nor I you - but I'm quite enjoying your arguments/reasoning

 

I'll read the rest later.

[The Elder King]

The Elder King, on 17 Dec 2015 - 06:32 AM, said:

 

 

Here's the goalpost shift.

 

 

 

You changed my original statement which was saying that Bioware were essentially the most consistent RPG developers i've seen with their games and that even the recently hyped up CDPR pale in comparison, you then shifted my initial claim and started jabbering on about "w-well lately CDPR have been better!" which was never my initial statement in the first place.

 

If you're going to claim that you never shifted goalposts then at least use a post you made at the start of our discussion and not the end.

 

I'm also still waiting for some evidence that reviewers of Mass Effect never finished the game.

I posted your first post I replied to, and the post I replied with, which was my first in this thread. Those posts  were the start of our discussion.

Also, I never changed your statement. I replied to your post by saying I disagree that MT scores are a reliable source. I didn't even mention CDPR on my first post.

 

And I never said CDPR are doing better lately then Bioware, I said that there are people who think that. The only time I said something similar is that, by your logic, by MT TW3 is better then some Bioware games (which isn't necessarily true).

 

The Multiplayer.it review of ME3 didn't mention the problems with ME3's endings, while he replied in news about them that the site published later by criticizing them. So he'll either didn't finish the game before making the review or intentionally omitted them.

 

But again, when I first talked about reviewers not finishing games I was talking in general, not about Bioware. You asked me if I know it happened for ME. You're thinking I'm criticizing Bioware or saying others are better while I'm not doing that.

[SarenDidNothingWrong]

*his post*

 

"OK - to be honest, I'd completely forgotten about that - fair point."

 

Glad you agree.

 

"It's established througout the games via the "graphic novel" style cutscenes as Geralt pieces his memory back together... if Geralt could clearly remember everything there might not have been a relationship with Triss in the first place. If they spelt it out plainly from the offset it would totally negate how they're trying to portral Geralt's returning memory - those cutscenes occur as Geralt remembers thigs."

 

That's the narrative that CDPR fail at, if they are going to push a Triss romance and give us the option to carry it on then they can't then turn around and say "**** it, we're removing choice from you off screen and Geralt leaves Triss to go become some lowly peasant in Novigrad", it's a complete slap in the face and was handeled poorly, it diminishes the Triss romance as a whole.
 
"Spelling out Geralt and Yen's previous romance would make no sense."

 

What do you mean?

 

"In short - no. Geralt never sets out to slay another King merely to catch the Kingslayer to clear his name; circumstances turn it all around and it all goes to hell somewhere along the way ... best laid plans and all that."

 

No, I was joking and merely highlighting the inconsistency and flawed narrative in the Witcher 2. I was laughing my ass of when geralt spends the whole game trying to clear his "kingslayer" name only to actually kill a king (or get the option too), it was handeled poorly.

 

 

"ME1 set some great groundwork storywise.

ME2 binned it and did something completely different.

ME3 tried to glue the broken pieces back together, realised it was too broken and threw the starkid at us instead."

 

I disagree, I felt ME3 had overall the best story minus the ending. The story in ME3 was glorious and it actually handeled some deep themes, I thought ME1s story was more consistent for sure.

 

I really fail to see how to came to this conclusion.

 

ME1 - sets up the Reapers as the antagonists

ME2 - Bridges the gap allowing you to gain more intel on them (as Shepard says he was going to do at the end of ME1)

ME3 - Reaper invasion starts

 

How did ME2 bin anything about the reapers? I'm really starting to question your experience with the Mass Effect games now.

 

 

"You've not actually played TW1 all the way through have you? The bit where you fight The Grand Master and/or Eredin in a future world of the White Frost."

 

Played it years ago and not a full playthrough, it was that bad. Same with Witcher 2. I couldn't stomach those games all at once, I had to take frequent breaks and play other games. The pacing and gameplay was just that bad.

Sorry - you're not going to convince me nor I you - but I'm quite enjoying your arguments/reasoning

 

I'll read the rest later.

 

Looking forward to it.

 

I posted your first post I replied to, and the post I replied with, which was my first in this thread. Those posts  were the start of our discussion.

Also, I never changed your statement. I replied to your post by saying I disagree that MT scores are a reliable source. I didn't even mention CDPR on my first post.

 

And I never said CDPR are doing better lately then Bioware, I said that there are people who think that. The only time I said something similar is that, by your logic, by MT TW3 is better then some Bioware games (which isn't necessarily true).

 

The Multiplayer.it review of ME3 didn't mention the problems with ME3's endings, while he replied in news about them that the site published later by criticizing them. So he'll either didn't finish the game before making the review or intentionally omitted them.

 

But again, when I first talked about reviewers not finishing games I was talking in general, not about Bioware. You asked me if I know it happened for ME. You're thinking I'm criticizing Bioware or saying others are better while I'm not doing that.

 

 

Fair enough, let's just forget this whole thing happened before it turns into a needless back and fourth. Forget I said anything.

[themikefest]

Also saving Citadel council is pretty obviously the best choice in ME1.

Why is it the best choice?

 

If anything, I would've left the choice up to Hackett. Shepard has no idea how large a force the geth have. When the Alliance comes through the relay, Hackett can survey the battle and determine if he has enough ships to save the asari ship or not. He can over ride Shepards decision

[Elhanan]

For myself, arguing the RP aspects is a bit counter-productive. My choices often differ from many here, yet where we seem to agree is that allowing the Player to control choices as much as possible is a good thing. Having these choices is more important than what was chosen, IMO.

Be it the options given in Charter Creation, Missions, items, etc, allowing the Player to have control is generally positive. This also can apply to the mechanics, as having Pause functionality is more key to me than many others. It is my hope moving forward in the ME series that this remains to be key.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Why do you think saving Redcliffe in DAO was a terrible idea? The Warden needed Eamon's support against Loghain.

The Warden didn't have reason to believe he could even get Eamon's support, assuming even that Eamon was alive (remember, there were treaties for the other factions, but not Eamon). Saving the town wasn't directly relevant to stopping the Blight, and put the Warden in significant danger.

Killing the Warden to save Redcliffe means the Archdemon wins, so saving Redcliffe was moot.

Moreover, if Eamon's a competent ruler, he should see the value in stopping the Archdemon even if Redcliffe has already been destroyed. And if he's not a competent ruler, why do we want his help?

The choice whether to save the Council is the same.

[SardaukarElite]

Why is it the best choice?

 

If anything, I would've left the choice up to Hackett. Shepard has no idea how large a force the geth have. When the Alliance comes through the relay, Hackett can survey the battle and determine if he has enough ships to save the asari ship or not. He can over ride Shepards decision

 

I would suggest that taking out the enemy fleet while it is isolated from the biggest capital ship every encountered and you have surprise, speed advantage and allies still on the field is always going to be tactically more sound than ignoring the enemy fleet and hoping it doesn't jump you after it's finished off your friends and you've moved into a confined space and turned your engines off.