477 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

You think the story and politics in DA is childish but not TW3s? The Witcher 3 was the typical cynical look at religion and politics that has been done to death while DA actually let the player decide how to treat religion, faith, and politics. That is far more mature in my mind than the heavy handed cynicism TW3 forces on you.

 

Yeah, that's one aspect I don't understand either. TW2 had some pretty good background politics, TW3 basically threw most of it away by making Radovid a mad villain, Emhyr a side character that doesn't actually do that much, killing off Henselt no matter what, and have Djikstra go full-on idiot in Chaper 3 by thinking he can take on Geralt and several special ops soldiers with a few goons at his side. The Orlesian politics were underdevelopped, but still had more to them than TW3's attempt. And Trespasser has more interesting political manoevers than TW3 for sure.

 

To say nothing of the laughably black and white mages vs witch hunters plot arc. That was just embarassing. Only way they could have made Menge more of a cliché villain is by having him twirl his moustache, and in general The Witcher's view on religion is that of an edgy teenager. Almost no nuance at all, just religion = bad except for one deity that almost no one worships.

[roelani]

I'm not sure the "instead" there is legit. It's not like that was an actual choice. If anything, MP subsidizes SP, not the other way around, since MP is the cheap part which produces extra revenue.

 

Yeah, you're probably right. I don't know who even shells out actual cash for things like in-game coins and chests and other such nonsense nowadays but apparently people have STILL not gotten burned to the point where they've learned to stay away from that sort of thing entirely. I guess if they're doing it, it must be bringing money in, otherwise the practice would be dead by now.

 

I will just ALWAYS find it absurd to shove a multiplayer mode into a game or a series of games entirely built on the experience of a rich, story-and-choice-driven single player experience. It makes no sense to me.

[roelani]

Yeah, that's one aspect I don't understand either. TW2 had some pretty good background politics, TW3 basically threw most of it away by making Radovid a mad villain, Emhyr a side character that doesn't actually do that much, killing off Henselt no matter what, and have Djikstra go full-on idiot in Chaper 3 by thinking he can take on Geralt and several special ops soldiers with a few goons at his side. The Orlesian politics were underdevelopped, but still had more to them than TW3's attempt. And Trespasser has more interesting political manoevers than TW3 for sure.

 

To say nothing of the laughably black and white mages vs witch hunters plot arc. That was just embarassing. Only way they could have made Menge more of a cliché villain is by having him twirl his moustache, and in general The Witcher's view on religion is that of an edgy teenager. Almost no nuance at all, just religion = bad except for one deity that almost no one worships.

 

... I miss Foltest.

[Lezio]

... I miss Foltest.

 

Which is funny to say, since in the political side he was such a mess   Having his only child married to a foreign King AND not trying to produce an actual legitimate male heir. He was an idiot, but he was great

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Well, Bayonet lives in a country where the Muslims light random women driving motorcycles on fire.

 

I don't blame him for being shaped by it. Anyone who actually lives with it would be. Instead of stewing in their ideals.

 

No, they don't light random women driving motorcycles on fire. However, they do these sorts of things -

 

http://www.thestar.c...arliament-told/

 

http://www.themalaym...-breaking-fatwa

 

http://www.themalaym...anisation-semin

 

http://www.theguardi...allah-bible-ban

 

http://www.themalaym...lim-lawyer-says

 

http://www.themalaym...r-lustful-teens

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...aysia-1.3521172

 

Those are just from the past few years. There's more if you want to look it up.

 

If you want my honest opinion, the only country that has a population of people practicing moderate Islam is Singapore and that's because the Singapore government regulate syariah court tightly, allows for conversion out of Islam, does not force conversion via marriage (in Malaysia if you marry a Muslim you have to convert), the Islamic call to prayer was turned inwards to broadcast towards the interior of the mosques as opposed to outwards, aggressive & insensitive proselytizing is banned and the Muslim population itself is very small.

 

That's the irony of it all - To have Islamic moderation, you have to have government imposition and government control, not freedom of religion. So yes, you can have moderate Islam, if it is tightly controlled and if the Muslim population is small. If there is no control or oversight and the population becomes significant, moderation goes out of the window.

 

Funnily enough, its a lot like mage situation. You need oversight with rules & regulations and not-very-significant population of mages in order for non-mages to flourish. If you don't have either, mages go out of control and they end up creating an environment where non-mages are oppressed second class citizens.

[Hasagawa]

You think the story and politics in DA is childish but not TW3s? The Witcher 3 was the typical cynical look at religion and politics that has been done to death while DA actually let the player decide how to treat religion, faith, and politics. That is far more mature in my mind than the heavy handed cynicism TW3 forces on you.

 

As I said before,thats my personal opinion, based on my own background. In DAI i can chose limited opinions to certain topics,but that's not impressed me. Since these opinions dont have real consequences in gameplay,.

[Hasagawa]

You think the story and politics in DA is childish but not TW3s? The Witcher 3 was the typical cynical look at religion and politics that has been done to death while DA actually let the player decide how to treat religion, faith, and politics. That is far more mature in my mind than the heavy handed cynicism TW3 forces on you.

 

Actually, in DAI there is not that much of freedom that you think. You still need to follow the path developers created.

 

I remebered a quest from DAI, where you need to company Sera to see a local noble. That man turns to know some secrets, he can be an important asset to inquisition, he can be useful. I INVITED him to skyhold, and then Sera just killed him! She killed a GUEST of mine, right under my watch. She heard the invitation!

 

Where I grow up,you have an obligation to protect your guest. I feel my PC need to challenge sera immediately,to protect his honor, sadly game dont give us this option. 

 

I think saying that in DAI you got more freedom to make your own opinion is when your own opinion happened to be included in this game, but for me DAI is filled with those moments where my PC cant be what I want him to be. 

 

There is another quest, my qunari PC challenge a noble for Josie, I dont bother the wartable side-quest because I want the duel to be fair, i want to win on my own, not because leliana give some dirts of my opponent. Besides, im a qunari,i killed many dragons, i dont afraid a single noble. 

 

Turns out im wrong, the look of my PC,is like he never used a sword before, he got defeated easily. Then I guess I have to keep my word,to leave josie,since my PC put honor above all. But no,game dont allow you to do that,as it didnt allow you to win fair and square.The duel is interrupted at the last minute, and i got spared thanks to my opponent. That momonet I feel humiliated, a warrior, a fighter, need the protection of a diplomat,in a duel. If im my PC i may want to commit seppuku by that time.

 

For me,DAI dont really have much freedom. Maybe more than TW3, but not enough to make it a better game.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Which is funny to say, since in the political side he was such a mess   Having his only child married to a foreign King AND not trying to produce an actual legitimate male heir. He was an idiot, but he was great

 

He was an arsewipe, but at least he was a fun guy to hang around. Radovid and his mad chess rambles were just cliché and boring.

 

Come to think of it, is there any ruler in the Witcher series who isn't a total douche? Crach is the only one I can fathom.

[Hasagawa]

TW3 lack of freedom of role-playing,i agree to that.You cant be yourself,(or anyone you want to be).You can only be Geralt of Rivia. But he is such a amazing character, playing as him is like reading a good novel or watch a wonderful film, I can totally enjoy that.

 

In DAI,my PC is boring, he cant say what I want him to say, cant be what I want him to be.In one play through, I tried to be a power-hungry and calculated bad guy.But no,you can only be a bad-tempered guy with good intention, whose badassness is equal to a sheep. For example, in one main mission, I tried to enlist those mages, but accidently traveled into future. In this future,mission failed and leliana get captured and tortured for more than a year, and her lover,HOF,didnt show up to save her.

 

At that point I thought, if I am a power hungry bad guy,I should send leliana to do the same scouting mission as before.She will failed, for certain, but thats point,I ll go to enlist templars after her failure. One less "adviser" supervising me,and Im one step further away from a figurehead who cant do anything without through these overpowered adviser. The game wont allow me to do it. 

 

Be a calculated bad guy, means you have to win the hearts of your (at least some of them) followers, therefore you become more powerful yourself. But there is no evil/bad compainions in this game, so u have to be a soft tempered paragon-Shepard-like guy to earn their trust. Exactly what I dont want to be in this play-through. Where is the freedom in that? If you can only be what developers want(by using companion attitude system) you to be. I remeber in BG2,you can have Viconia and Korgan Bloodaxe, in KOTOR you have darth bastila,HK47 and canderous. For me, I dont really feel there is a freedom of role-playing. Ironically, paragon-Shepard solves most problems and yield best outcome in every situation(Think about bloody baron mission and you know what im talking about),which I strongly doubt its the way real world works. Thats why I feel the world of DAI unreal and childish.

 

And about having your own opinion towards politics and religions. Yeah, you may say some pre-scripted opinions, as long as it dont go to far away.(For example,I cant tell them Im still loyal to Qun,i dont believe your bullshits about Maker. You may argue thats the background of your qunari character, but then,where is the freedom all DAI fans talked about?Is DAI really give you more freedom than TW3?)but they dont make a real difference in game,you still play the same main mission(which is too short). Only some conversions were affected.  

 

Sorry for my broken English. (Thats another improtant reason I dont like DAI and its companions. DAI fans praised its freedom and banter. But I dont get most of the humor in banter, and Sera's tongue is difficult for me to understand.In TW3, you have cinematic cut scenes and friendly subtitles.)

[Lezio]

He was an arsewipe, but at least he was a fun guy to hang around. Radovid and his mad chess rambles were just cliché and boring.

 

Come to think of it, is there any ruler in the Witcher series who isn't a total douche? Crach is the only one I can fathom.

 

Well, Queen Saskia, of course   Possibly Meve, i don't remember much about the books but i do remember thinking that she was a bit better than the other monarchs

[Toasted Llama]

The problem is people don't work that way, just look at the forums when BioWare announced they weren't bringing the last two DLCs to Dragon Age: Inquisition on the PS3/360.  I don't want to imagine what it might be like when it was the primary game and not extra content. 

 

That was different; if the people playing on PS3/Xbox 360 wanted to play the DLC not released to them, they would've had to buy the game TWICE. Had they known before hand or if the game was released only on next-gen, they did not have to waste the money they spent buying the game (and JoH in some cases) for the first time.

[Sanunes]

That was different; if the people playing on PS3/Xbox 360 wanted to play the DLC not released to them, they would've had to buy the game TWICE. Had they known before hand or if the game was released only on next-gen, they did not have to waste the money they spent buying the game (and JoH in some cases) for the first time.

 

For me at least I would be more upset at the split level of content, for unless they charge more for the PC version if I was to buy the game on the console I would be paying the same as a person who is buying it on the PC and they are getting more content then I am.  Especially if it is like what was cut from the Gamescon demonstration of Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

Edit:

 

For they never promised all DLC for all consoles, it would be different if they offered a season pass indicating all that content was going to be available on all platforms.  I would be disappointed that I couldn't have access to everything, but at the same time I never paid for that additional content.

Modifié par Sanunes, 22 avril 2016 - 03:36 .

[Toasted Llama]

For me at least I would be more upset at the split level of content, for unless they charge more for the PC version if I was to buy the game on the console I would be paying the same as a person who is buying it on the PC and they are getting more content then I am.  Especially if it is like what was cut from the Gamescon demonstration of Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

Edit:

 

For they never promised all DLC for all consoles, it would be different if they offered a season pass indicating all that content was going to be available on all platforms.  I would be disappointed that I couldn't have access to everything, but at the same time I never paid for that additional content.

 

Sure, the players didn't pay for it with a season pass, but they paid for the main game and you can't access the DLC unless you have the main game. Why would they have to buy the main game again if they want to access content that the developers consciously decided not to deliver to their platform? This could have been compensated by letting people trade their old-gen copy for a next-gen copy, but Bioware did not allow this.

[Fozee]

Where's the Xbox 360 love?

 

Loved it, and wish they would have made a console this generation. 

[Kabraxal]

Actually, in DAI there is not that much of freedom that you think. You still need to follow the path developers created.
 
I remebered a quest from DAI, where you need to company Sera to see a local noble. That man turns to know some secrets, he can be an important asset to inquisition, he can be useful. I INVITED him to skyhold, and then Sera just killed him! She killed a GUEST of mine, right under my watch. She heard the invitation!
 
Where I grow up,you have an obligation to protect your guest. I feel my PC need to challenge sera immediately,to protect his honor, sadly game dont give us this option. 
 
I think saying that in DAI you got more freedom to make your own opinion is when your own opinion happened to be included in this game, but for me DAI is filled with those moments where my PC cant be what I want him to be. 
 
There is another quest, my qunari PC challenge a noble for Josie, I dont bother the wartable side-quest because I want the duel to be fair, i want to win on my own, not because leliana give some dirts of my opponent. Besides, im a qunari,i killed many dragons, i dont afraid a single noble. 
 
Turns out im wrong, the look of my PC,is like he never used a sword before, he got defeated easily. Then I guess I have to keep my word,to leave josie,since my PC put honor above all. But no,game dont allow you to do that,as it didnt allow you to win fair and square.The duel is interrupted at the last minute, and i got spared thanks to my opponent. That momonet I feel humiliated, a warrior, a fighter, need the protection of a diplomat,in a duel. If im my PC i may want to commit seppuku by that time.
 
For me,DAI dont really have much freedom. Maybe more than TW3, but not enough to make it a better game.

First... That nobleman scene has varied outcomes and reactions available. Apparently you didn't replay that event to know that.

Second... I was directly responding to your claim that TW3 handled things like religion and politics more maturely... Your response has nothing to do with religion or politics.

[thesuperdarkone2]

No, they don't light random women driving motorcycles on fire. However, they do these sorts of things -

http://www.thestar.c...arliament-told/

http://www.themalaym...-breaking-fatwa

http://www.themalaym...anisation-semin

http://www.theguardi...allah-bible-ban

http://www.themalaym...lim-lawyer-says

http://www.themalaym...r-lustful-teens

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...aysia-1.3521172

Those are just from the past few years. There's more if you want to look it up.

If you want my honest opinion, the only country that has a population of people practicing moderate Islam is Singapore and that's because the Singapore government regulate syariah court tightly, allows for conversion out of Islam, does not force conversion via marriage (in Malaysia if you marry a Muslim you have to convert), the Islamic call to prayer was turned inwards to broadcast towards the interior of the mosques as opposed to outwards, aggressive & insensitive proselytizing is banned and the Muslim population itself is very small.

That's the irony of it all - To have Islamic moderation, you have to have government imposition and government control, not freedom of religion. So yes, you can have moderate Islam, if it is tightly controlled and if the Muslim population is small. If there is no control or oversight and the population becomes significant, moderation goes out of the window.

Funnily enough, its a lot like mage situation. You need oversight with rules & regulations and not-very-significant population of mages in order for non-mages to flourish. If you don't have either, mages go out of control and they end up creating an environment where non-mages are oppressed second class citizens.

Except you know mages don't do that in a divine Leliana ending with allied mages. Seems you are just treating mages like Muslims and think they will all be evil despite that not being the case.

The things you say would be the same as saying all Christians are the lords resistance army or the planned parenthood bomber. You are letting bad apples ruin your view of the entire group.

Also, fujny how this just further proves my point about Templar supporters having certain views in real life.

[vbibbi]

Except you know mages don't do that in a divine Leliana ending with allied mages. Seems you are just treating mages like Muslims and think they will all be evil despite that not being the case.

The things you say would be the same as saying all Christians are the lords resistance army or the planned parenthood bomber. You are letting bad apples ruin your view of the entire group.

Also, fujny how this just further proves my point about Templar supporters having certain views in real life.

 

Talk about first world problems. "I disagree with people about a video game and will compare them to extremely complex social and religious issues in the real world to validate my viewpoint."

[ArcaneEsper]

Except you know mages don't do that in a divine Leliana ending with allied mages. Seems you are just treating mages like Muslims and think they will all be evil despite that not being the case.

The things you say would be the same as saying all Christians are the lords resistance army or the planned parenthood bomber. You are letting bad apples ruin your view of the entire group.

Also, fujny how this just further proves my point about Templar supporters having certain views in real life.

He has his reasons. Which he stated. Drop it.

[Hasagawa]

First... That nobleman scene has varied outcomes and reactions available. Apparently you didn't replay that event to know that.

Second... I was directly responding to your claim that TW3 handled things like religion and politics more maturely... Your response has nothing to do with religion or politics.

 

 

Is there an outcome that allow me to challenge Sera,for her killing a guest under my protection?Or I have to make her happy, broke the role-playing,and that is the freedom of DAI.

 

There is no freedom in DAI, at least for me. As for maturely part about TW3, you can say its just my personal feeling.But I dont see why I have some very limited pre-scripted opinions about religion and politics(my personal opinion,sadly,is not included in the game) to express in DAI make it more maturely.  Also, It didn't even affect the main missions,only some conversions. Everything works best when you are sweet-tempered paragon guy, is that the real world you observed? I dont see it, thats why I feel in TW3,politics and religions are treated more maturely. 

[Seraphim24]

Indeed, that was the sole thing, that drove everything else.

[Reznore57]

Is there an outcome that allow me to challenge Sera,for her killing a guest under my protection?Or I have to make her happy, broke the role-playing,and that is the freedom of DAI.

 

I'm not sure why you think the noble is a guest under your protection?You're on his land , and he starts by threatening one of your allies .

Once you've beaten his mercenaries to death , he realises he's in hot water and play nice.

You have an option to take his land and make him work for the Inquisition , and in this case Sera doesn't touch him.

 

As for Sera , you can yell at her after the fact , and you have the option to throw her out of the Inquisition , and you can even make threats and having her running away for her life.

[Hasagawa]

I'm not sure why you think the noble is a guest under your protection?You're on his land , and he starts by threatening one of your allies .

Once you've beaten his mercenaries to death , he realises he's in hot water and play nice.

You have an option to take his land and make him work for the Inquisition , and in this case Sera doesn't touch him.

 

As for Sera , you can yell at her after the fact , and you have the option to throw her out of the Inquisition , and you can even make threats and having her running away for her life.

 

Because after I defeat his man,I, give my word, that he can be an asset of Inquisition,he is invited now. Sera,on the other hand,is just another asset of Inquisition,she cant make decision for me. And how that happened if I want to get him work for inquisition instead of letting Sera killed him? So I need to say something make her happy?Do something out of my aristocracy-respected, want to ally with nobles character?Why I want to take his land?In Inquisition, all real matters are handled through my self-claimed "advisers",why I need them to be more powerful?I already felt insecure among them, if they secretly plot to seize power and made me a martyr, there is almost nothing I can do. Of course I want to him too keep his lands,so I have a string on a noble, as an extra insurance. 

 

After that happened, I dont want to yell at Sera or throw her out of Inquisiton, I must fight her till one of us is dead.Thats how things need to be done in the teaching of classic Confucianism and some other east Asia philosophy,letting her run away when you had the chance to kill her is a stain on my honor.Thats the PC I want to play in that play-through.Besides,think logically, she is the notorious criminal known as Red Jenny who targetting nobles, If I put her head on a plate,if will buy me a great favor from nobles in Orlais,that can be a useful political asset. And even though I dont like Sera, I have to admit she is a capable fighter, why I need a capable fighter who hates me run freely?I'd kill her when I had the chance. Again, you can be bad this game,you can only be bad-tempered, right?I shouldnt expect so much from this game when I realized a recycled retard is the main evil in this game, who's incompetency made your achievement not heroic or epic at all.

 

The real problem is NOT why I want to do THAT, reason make internal sense to each player,not necessary to others. The real problem is,if a game ONLY allow you play certain type of Characters, then it is not a game of freedom, at least to me. Yes, TW3 lack the freedom of role-playing, so does DAI.

[Reznore57]

Because after I defeat his man,I, give my word, that he can be an asset of Inquisition,he is invited now. Sera,on the other hand,is just another asset of Inquisition,she cant make decision for me. And how that happened if I want to get him work for inquisition instead of letting Sera killed him? So I need to say something make her happy?Do something out of my aristocracy-respected, want to ally with nobles character?

 

 

You need some noble knowledge perk to get him to work for the Inquisition and Sera let him live.

And don't ask all the questions , after a while Sera loose her patience and boom brain wine.

[Hasagawa]

You need some noble knowledge perk to get him to work for the Inquisition and Sera let him live.

And don't ask all the questions , after a while Sera loose her patience and boom brain wine.

 

Yeah, but I need to take his land right?Why I want to take his land?In Inquisition, all real matters are handled through my self-claimed "advisers",why I need them to be more powerful?I already felt insecure among them, if they secretly plot to seize power and made me a martyr, there is almost nothing I can do. Of course I want to him too keep his lands,so I have a string on a noble, as an extra insurance. 

 

And no, sera cease to be more useful alive than dead at this point. I'd like to see her head on a plate, to win some favors, and stopping babysitting children with emotional problems ,thats what my PC want do, but not allowed to do.

[lynroy]

I've lost heads and tails of what this thread is supposed to be about.