If they have they would do better with their games that focus on better gameplay, dynamic worlds, and better stories and not creating sub par cheap made games with great stories and characters.
The game has poor combat system, the world is bland, lifeless, and very boring and Skyrim has better world design, boring side quest and a cliché hero story. I don't even know how in the world that game got GOTY award. Sure the characters are fun to play with and to talk to but overall the game is pretty boring because they either rushing it to get money or doing half-ass work and not taking their time to make Dragon Age game the best. Witcher 3 on the other hand deserved GOTY because they offer more to the RPG genre that DA and even Skyrim lacks, I would suggest that they don't rest on their laurels and step up their game.They have: Dragon Age Inquisition. It was DICE GOTY; might have heard of it.
I don't even know how in the world that game got GOTY award.
The power of the almighty dollar. I like to think like at those Spike game awards, you have corporate reps from various AAA publishers in an auction like setting buy the awards in the back room.
"Next up for auction, Best music in a game. Starting bid is at five million."
It would seem that way.The power of the almighty dollar. I like to think like at those Spike game awards, you have corporate reps from various AAA publishers in an auction like setting buy the awards in the back room.
"Next up for auction, Best music in a game. Starting bid is at five million."
The game has poor combat system, the world is bland, lifeless, and very boring and Skyrim has better world design, boring side quest and a cliché hero story. I don't even know how in the world that game got GOTY award. Sure the characters are fun to play with and to talk to but overall the game is pretty boring because they either rushing it to get money or doing half-ass work and not taking their time to make Dragon Age game the best. Witcher 3 on the other hand deserved GOTY because they offer more to the RPG genre that DA and even Skyrim lacks, I would suggest that they don't rest on their laurels and step up their game.
The game has poor combat system, the world is bland, lifeless, and very boring and Skyrim has better world design, boring side quest and a cliché hero story. I don't even know how in the world that game got GOTY award. Sure the characters are fun to play with and to talk to but overall the game is pretty boring because they either rushing it to get money or doing half-ass work and not taking their time to make Dragon Age game the best. Witcher 3 on the other hand deserved GOTY because they offer more to the RPG genre that DA and even Skyrim lacks, I would suggest that they don't rest on their laurels and step up their game.
You criticize poor gameplay as a reason for why DA is bad but then praising Witcher which was its weakest component? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of either DAI or Witcher 3, and I would even say that Witcher 3 is better than DAI, IMO. Games evolve over the years, so there's no point in bringing an old game like Skyrim for comparison. Plus, game of the year doesn't mean anything since most of these awards are just depending on the taste of the reviewers who post their GOTY list. Their opinions are no more valid than you or me or anyone. Personally, I could care less about how polished a game is. What determine game of the year for me is how long I can play the game and how drawn I am to the game. Even if a game is technically flawed, if I can put in hundreds of hours into it more than any other games, then it is game of the year for me. Games at the end of the day are just meant to be enjoyed, it's an entertainment medium and cater to different tastes. People are looking way too hard for validation about their game of choice and just relax and enjoy the medium. Many games nowadays can learn something from each other, and I do see them taking notes from one another, so you have nothing to worry about. The developers don't make games to irritate the fans, they do listen to the fans and I can see changes the fans complain about get changes or added in subsequent games. These games require you to put many hours into it, so along the way, there bounds to be mistakes or features that polarize the fanbase, that's to be expected, as long as they can learn from it is all that matters at the end of the day.
The power of the almighty dollar. I like to think like at those Spike game awards, you have corporate reps from various AAA publishers in an auction like setting buy the awards in the back room.
"Next up for auction, Best music in a game. Starting bid is at five million."
So CD Projekt won by outbiding their competition and bribing their way to victory so that they could pretend the game won by its merits alone. Oh, or did they win because they managed to win the hearts of the corrupted judges and without sullying themselves by resorting to the dirty means of the other developers like the underdog high school band overcoming adversity and saving their school in an inspirational film?
Personally, I like to think that the games won because Dragon Age and Witcher earned their rewards through their respective and shared merits.
You criticize poor gameplay as a reason for why DA is bad but then praising Witcher which was its weakest component? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of either DAI or Witcher 3, and I would even say that Witcher 3 is better than DAI, IMO. Games evolve over the years, so there's no point in bringing an old game like Skyrim for comparison. Plus, game of the year doesn't mean anything since most of these awards are just depending on the taste of the reviewers who post their GOTY list. Their opinions are no more valid than you or me or anyone. Personally, I could care less about how polished a game is. What determine game of the year for me is how long I can play the game and how drawn I am to the game. Even if a game is technically flawed, if I can put in hundreds of hours into it more than any other games, then it is game of the year for me. Games at the end of the day are just meant to be enjoyed, it's an entertainment medium and cater to different tastes. People are looking way too hard for validation about their game of choice and just relax and enjoy the medium. Many games nowadays can learn something from each other, and I do see them taking notes from one another, so you have nothing to worry about. The developers don't make games to irritate the fans, they do listen to the fans and I can see changes the fans complain about get changes or added in subsequent games. These games require you to put many hours into it, so along the way, there bounds to be mistakes or features that polarize the fanbase, that's to be expected, as long as they can learn from it is all that matters at the end of the day.
The only complain I have for combat in the W3 is the hideous random enemy locking and the stupid single lock camera pan on an enemy. If you lock onto a single target you are good as dead because the camera also locks into the movements of the enemy which is stupid now knowing who is on your back. Then there's Geralt randomly targeting anyone constantly shifting targets ~_~
And in the opinion of many others, there is hope that this success is repeated.
My name is Legion, for I am many.
My name is Legion, for I am many.
My name is Legion, for I am many.
Jebus!!!!!!
The only complain I have for combat in the W3 is the hideous random enemy locking and the stupid single lock camera pan on an enemy. If you lock onto a single target you are good as dead because the camera also locks into the movements of the enemy which is stupid now knowing who is on your back. Then there's Geralt randomly targeting anyone constantly shifting targets ~_~
Don't use the lock. It's a free form style of combat and the lock-on works against that. Took me a while to figure it out because I was playing it like TW2.
So CD Projekt won by outbiding their competition and bribing their way to victory so that they could pretend the game won by its merits alone. Oh, or did they win because they managed to win the hearts of the corrupted judges and without sullying themselves by resorting to the dirty means of the other developers like the underdog high school band overcoming adversity and saving their school in an inspirational film?
Personally, I like to think that the games won because Dragon Age and Witcher earned their rewards through their respective and shared merits.
Did I say or imply the Witcher did that? No. I refereed to the games that don't deserve all those awards and titles that IGN throws out 9/10s like candy.
I believe giving credit where credit is due, if a game is better than the other then my hat's off to them. And that's the thing games are meant to be fun, BioWare (In my own point of view anyway) make games that are more of a chore than making them fun to play with and every gamer has different tastes, and importantly they have no balance. What I mean by balance is that they didn't focus on all attributes to make a game like animations, gameplay, combat design, storytelling and so forth. I think they should have balance of every game they make instead of just strongly focus on storyline and character development and leave everything else sub par. What's important also they need to step up their competition by keeping up with other games and LEARN from those games NOT to be like those games to find ways to make their games better than them, like CD Projeckt learned from Skyrim and they find ways to offer gamers better experience than Skyrim could offer. I just hope that BioWare won't screw this up with ME:A.You criticize poor gameplay as a reason for why DA is bad but then praising Witcher which was its weakest component? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of either DAI or Witcher 3, and I would even say that Witcher 3 is better than DAI, IMO. Games evolve over the years, so there's no point in bringing an old game like Skyrim for comparison. Plus, game of the year doesn't mean anything since most of these awards are just depending on the taste of the reviewers who post their GOTY list. Their opinions are no more valid than you or me or anyone. Personally, I could care less about how polished a game is. What determine game of the year for me is how long I can play the game and how drawn I am to the game. Even if a game is technically flawed, if I can put in hundreds of hours into it more than any other games, then it is game of the year for me. Games at the end of the day are just meant to be enjoyed, it's an entertainment medium and cater to different tastes. People are looking way too hard for validation about their game of choice and just relax and enjoy the medium. Many games nowadays can learn something from each other, and I do see them taking notes from one another, so you have nothing to worry about. The developers don't make games to irritate the fans, they do listen to the fans and I can see changes the fans complain about get changes or added in subsequent games. These games require you to put many hours into it, so along the way, there bounds to be mistakes or features that polarize the fanbase, that's to be expected, as long as they can learn from it is all that matters at the end of the day.
Don't use the lock. It's a free form style of combat and the lock-on works against that. Took me a while to figure it out because I was playing it like TW2.
no locking the camara really dont help much the combat on Witcher 3.
I believe giving credit where credit is due, if a game is better than the other then my hat's off to them. And that's the thing games are meant to be fun, BioWare (In my own point of view anyway) make games that are more of a chore than making them fun to play with and every gamer has different tastes, and importantly they have no balance. What I mean by balance is that they didn't focus on all attributes to make a game like animations, gameplay, combat design, storytelling and so forth. I think they should have balance of every game they make instead of just strongly focus on storyline and character development and leave everything else sub par. What's important also they need to step up their competition by keeping up with other games and LEARN from those games NOT to be like those games to find ways to make their games better than them, like CD Projeckt learned from Skyrim and they find ways to offer gamers better experience than Skyrim could offer. I just hope that BioWare won't screw this up with ME:A.
is your opinion man, i will trade any day Witcher 3 for a new TES game, bc i have 10 times more fun exploring a Bethesda world that is full with interesting areas to discovers, that the empty maps of Witcher 3.
CD proyect did a good job with Witcher 3 but isnt something godly like most fans want me to think. Witcher 3 have issues, like the combat, or the craft system that is boring. Or like i point the empty maps with 0 interesting location to explore.
Is more i hope Bioware didnt look at CDproyect much but i like what Bioware had made over the years. While CDproyect did somethign decent this time around and that all.
Hey as I said different gamers have different tastes. I just hope that BioWare doesn't waste this opportunity to be better @ making games than their previous games.is your opinion man, i will trade any day Witcher 3 for a new TES game, bc i have 10 times more fun exploring a Bethesda world that is full with interesting areas to discovers, that the empty maps of Witcher 3.
CD proyect did a good job with Witcher 3 but isnt something godly like most fans want me to think. Witcher 3 have issues, like the combat, or the craft system that is boring. Or like i point the empty maps with 0 interesting location to explore.
Is more i hope Bioware didnt look at CDproyect much but i like what Bioware had made over the years. While CDproyect did somethign decent this time around and that all.
Don't use the lock. It's a free form style of combat and the lock-on works against that. Took me a while to figure it out because I was playing it like TW2.
It's still not a very good combat system if you ask me. Very samey and repetitive once you get to the midgame. Humanoids are all fought the exact same way, and monsters are either small annoying ones that you run after constantly or big stompy ones whose charge you evade then Strong Attack. Only one that requires a particular Sign are those every frustrating Noonwraith types.
For me the cardinal sin is that, save for nigh useless bombs and impractical upgraded Signs, a level 1 Geralt plays the same way as a level 35 one. In an RPG, that just doesn't fly for me. My squishy level 1 mage didn't play at all like my fully upgraded, badass Knight Enchanter level 27 mage in DAI. My level 1 Cipher in Pillars of Eternity doesn't at all play like my level 12 one with fully enchanted gear and vast array of powers. So on and so forth.
Cripes, even action games like the Batman Arkhams usually have more interesting character progression than TW3. You're basically just upping stats in that game the vast majority of the time.
Did I say or imply the Witcher did that? No. I refereed to the games that don't deserve all those awards and titles that IGN throws out 9/10s like candy.
I may have misunderstood your post. Allow me to clarify how and why I understood it the way I did so we can see if it was a misunderstanding;
You italic' and underlined the following bit from N7Phantom's post about Inquisition; "I don't even know how in the world that game got GOTY award."
You stated that Dragon Age: Inquistion attained it's Game of the Year award through bribery as indicated by this bit of your post "The power of the almighty dollar." You then followed that bit with this speculatory thought that has the same focus on awards bought through bribery; "I like to think like at those Spike game awards, you have corporate reps from various AAA publishers in an auction like setting buy the awards in the back room."
Because of this, I came to the conclusion that you were speculating that bribery was the means by which corporations achieve the awards given by the Spike Video Game Awards.
I was, however, given the mistaken impression by a source during my research that Witcher 2 had won an award from the Spike Video Game Awards when in actuality it had only been nominated so on that I did make a mistake. I used Witcher 2 because I was trying to assertain with certainty whether or not Witcher 3 had been awarded by the Spike Video Game Awards. If it has then I do believe you would have, unintentionally or not, implied that Witcher 3 and CD Project came by the awards it and they did through bribery as they would have been amongst the corporations participating the award auction per how you speculated the Spike Video Game Awards functioned.
I do still maintain fully that I quesion the speculatory thought that the awards are distributed based on monetary promises as I see more than a medium number of games that not only won awards but were also acclaimed as much by critics as by players. It should especially be noted that some of these games are not from what I believe to be studios that has a great financial wealth at their disposal nor are they considered to be amongst the bigger companies in the gaming industries with some seeming very minor.
It's still not a very good combat system if you ask me. Very samey and repetitive once you get to the midgame. Humanoids are all fought the exact same way, and monsters are either small annoying ones that you run after constantly or big stompy ones whose charge you evade then Strong Attack. Only one that requires a particular Sign are those every frustrating Noonwraith types.
For me the cardinal sin is that, save for nigh useless bombs and impractical upgraded Signs, a level 1 Geralt plays the same way as a level 35 one. In an RPG, that just doesn't fly for me. My squishy level 1 mage didn't play at all like my fully upgraded, badass Knight Enchanter level 27 mage in DAI. My level 1 Cipher in Pillars of Eternity doesn't at all play like my level 12 one with fully enchanted gear and vast array of powers. So on and so forth.
Cripes, even action games like the Batman Arkhams usually have more interesting character progression than TW3. You're basically just upping stats in that game the vast majority of the time.
While this is partly true about the character progression, and they themselves said they would add numerous special animations and attacks as you leveled up, it just didn't happen given the scope of the game. It's clear they only had so much in resources and combat got the short end of the stick. But it's still fun, and has decent depth if you choose to experiment and do more than spam roll and strong attack.
Hmm, those aren't evil choices at all. That's just the player taking the dickish option. Shepard shooting Mordin in the back is far worse than al lthe dickish actions Geralt has done across ll 3 games put together.
The most evil thing I remember Geralt doing is being able to kill a few sentient monsters (a succubus, a shapeshifter and trolls) because of what they are. Which is kinda his job, and nowhere near on the villainy scale compared to the sociopathic asshats he faces.
Well at least Shepard had a reason for killing Mordin. Geralt can't say the same for releasing Black Beauty. Which actually I found pretty amusing.
Villager: "So what happened in there?"
Geralt: "Oh, I found an evil spirit and released it."
Villager: "Oh... Ah... Okay. Hmm. What about the town?"
Geralt: "Not my problem. YEEAAAAAAHH"
Did I say or imply the Witcher did that? No. I refereed to the games that don't deserve all those awards and titles that IGN throws out 9/10s like candy.
GameSpot awarded Witcher 3 a 10/10
is your opinion man, i will trade any day Witcher 3 for a new TES game, bc i have 10 times more fun exploring a Bethesda world that is full with interesting areas to discovers, that the empty maps of Witcher 3.
CD proyect did a good job with Witcher 3 but isnt something godly like most fans want me to think. Witcher 3 have issues, like the combat, or the craft system that is boring. Or like i point the empty maps with 0 interesting location to explore.
Is more i hope Bioware didnt look at CDproyect much but i like what Bioware had made over the years. While CDproyect did somethign decent this time around and that all.
With all do respect, the latest TES game is boring and empty as hell without mods
It's still not a very good combat system icbask me. Very samey and repetitive once you get to the midgame. Humanoids are all fought the exact same way, and monsters are either small annoying ones that you run after constantly or big stompy ones whose charge you evade then Strong Attack. Only one that requires a particular Sign are those every frustrating Noonwraith types.
For me the cardinal sin is that, save for nigh useless bombs and impractical upgraded Signs, a level 1 Geralt plays the same way as a level 35 one. In an RPG, that just doesn't fly for me. My squishy level 1 mage didn't play at all like my fully upgraded, badass Knight Enchanter level 27 mage in DAI. My level 1 Cipher in Pillars of Eternity doesn't at all play like my level 12 one with fully enchanted gear and vast array of powers. So on and so forth.
Cripes, even action games like the Batman Arkhams usually have more interesting character progression than TW3. You're basically just upping stats in that game the vast majority of the time.
Wait what difficulty were you playing on? I play on death march and blood and broken bones...bombs are useful against a group of enemies and at higher levels it requires you to constantly dance and cast signs in combat. Besides Geralt is a swordsman, anyone expecting a Witcher to be a master Archer or mage is... Stupid
But it's true and a theory that makes perfect sense, they hyped their game so they can shoot up their sale numbers and make more money by bribing people to like their game to give out grandiose reviews to have people buy them like hotcakes. I'll give you a prime example from my own personal experience: Back in 2008 when I was in the 11th grade I saw a review about Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots got a 10/10 that they said it was the best stealth-action game ever, so I bought it and begin to play it. Come to find out this game is a piece of garbage of overacting typical Japanese theatrics, the storyline is very confusing of who's who, every person got different names like Liquid Ocelot is Liquid's doppelganger, Big Mama is Eva, that makes me want to say who the hell are you?! And the characters are childish and minds like children that made the whole experience unbearable and that game got a perfect score? And I came to a conclusion that they bribed someone to say this game is the best of the best so they can shoot up their sales. And this is why I go to YouTube and watch games for now on to see and decide to buy this game or no, can't trust no developer these days.I may have misunderstood your post. Allow me to clarify how and why I understood it the way I did so we can see if it was a misunderstanding;
You italic' and underlined the following bit from N7Phantom's post about Inquisition; "I don't even know how in the world that game got GOTY award."
You stated that Dragon Age: Inquistion attained it's Game of the Year award through bribery as indicated by this bit of your post "The power of the almighty dollar." You then followed that bit with this speculatory thought that has the same focus on awards bought through bribery; "I like to think like at those Spike game awards, you have corporate reps from various AAA publishers in an auction like setting buy the awards in the back room."
Because of this, I came to the conclusion that you were speculating that bribery was the means by which corporations achieve the awards given by the Spike Video Game Awards.
I was, however, given the mistaken impression by a source during my research that Witcher 2 had won an award from the Spike Video Game Awards when in actuality it had only been nominated so on that I did make a mistake. I used Witcher 2 because I was trying to assertain with certainty whether or not Witcher 3 had been awarded by the Spike Video Game Awards. If it has then I do believe you would have, unintentionally or not, implied that Witcher 3 and CD Project came by the awards it and they did through bribery as they would have been amongst the corporations participating the award auction per how you speculated the Spike Video Game Awards functioned.
I do still maintain fully that I quesion the speculatory thought that the awards are distributed based on monetary promises as I see more than a medium number of games that not only won awards but were also acclaimed as much by critics as by players. It should especially be noted that some of these games are not from what I believe to be studios that has a great financial wealth at their disposal nor are they considered to be amongst the bigger companies in the gaming industries with some seeming very minor.
Retour en haut