114 réponses à ce sujet

[Almostfaceman]

DAI main quests also follow a similar formula. The only fetch quests in Tw3 are the Witcher gear hunts and gwent collection. 75% of the side content in DAI is painfully visible fetch quests.

 

Painfully? 

 

[Donk]

DAI main quests also follow a similar formula. The only fetch quests in Tw3 are the Witcher gear hunts and gwent collection. 75% of the side content in DAI is painfully visible fetch quests.

This is coming from somebody who actually prefers TW3.. Your bias and trolling is obvious.

For those who haven't played TW3:
yes, it's true that there are more cutscenes and fleshed out sidequests, however; there is a degree of grinding, due to a bunch of undiscovered locations that appear as question marks on the maps. While the content is optional, you kinda have to do them if you want recipes for oils, potions and concoctions. Additionally there are treasure hunts, which offer no xp but instead better gear than the common, basic armours and weapons you find as you go along. Now if you're playing at a difficult setting you *need* the recipes for those concoctions, oils and potions.

There is also far too much of this grinding, which is one of few criticisms I have toward the game. The other major one is the levelling system, and the fact that you can't tackle most of the quests in the starting area (Velen) because they are too high.

[Serza]

You speak as if The Witcher was the saint series.

 

TW1, in fact, has an entire chapter built around fetchquesting, if not more.

[Kleon]

It amazes me how people with thousands of posts on this forum zealously defend DAI and completely ignore any kind of argumentation and contradict themselvs.

 

Beside obvious differences between the two games that make some comparisons just not logical, like DAI and its playable companions and customizable protagonist vs single set protagonist of The Witcher, there are many areas where comparisons are possible. Main quest, quest design, dialogue, maps and so  forth.

 

Main subject of the thread: Toussaint was depicted in a book long before anything  Dragon Age related was even in making. Far, far away in middle/eastern Europe.

 

As to other subjects that showed up... You must be really blind to say that DAI is anywhere close to TW3 in comparable aspects. 

 

DAI  - there are practicly no villages and no cities. Orleasian capital? Laughable square. Redclife? Beyond main story and a couple fetch quests there was absolutely nothing else to do. NPCs in those "cities" had couple lines of dialogue and were just stationary lifeless manequinns. No day/night cycle. There were actual regions DEDICATED to fetch quests. You could run for hours and not have a single encounter with an NPC or even (!!!!!!) hear any of your companions talk (!!!), companion dialogue a typically DA thing. You would run around and hear Geralt remark on a thing or two wherever you went, but in DAI you had your Inquisitor and 3 companions and they wouldn't say a word. This is how much empty, fetch quest space there is in DAI. 

 

Where you can compare the two games, TW3 did everything better than DAI.  I suspect that those who have those thousands of posts practicly live on those forums or spend every waking moment playing DA. If anyone is biased, it is them, which really discredicts their opnions as much as opinions of those who say that DAI is supposedly better than TW3, but they didn't play TW3. 

[Donk]

It amazes me how people with thousands of posts on this forum zealously defend DAI and completely ignore any kind of argumentation and contradict themselvs.

Beside obvious differences between the two games that make some comparisons just not logical, like DAI and its playable companions and customizable protagonist vs single set protagonist of The Witcher, there are many areas where comparisons are possible. Main quest, quest design, dialogue, maps and so forth.

Main subject of the thread: Toussaint was depicted in a book long before anything Dragon Age related was even in making. Far, far away in middle/eastern Europe.

As to other subjects that showed up... You must be really blind to say that DAI is anywhere close to TW3 in comparable aspects.

DAI - there are practicly no villages and no cities. Orleasian capital? Laughable square. Redclife? Beyond main story and a couple fetch quests there was absolutely nothing else to do. NPCs in those "cities" had couple lines of dialogue and were just stationary lifeless manequinns. No day/night cycle. There were actual regions DEDICATED to fetch quests. You could run for hours and not have a single encounter with an NPC or even (!!!!!!) hear any of your companions talk (!!!), companion dialogue a typically DA thing. You would run around and hear Geralt remark on a thing or two wherever you went, but in DAI you had your Inquisitor and 3 companions and they wouldn't say a word. This is how much empty, fetch quest space there is in DAI.

Where you can compare the two games, TW3 did everything better than DAI. I suspect that those who have those thousands of posts practicly live on those forums or spend every waking moment playing DA. If anyone is biased, it is them, which really discredicts their opnions as much as opinions of those who say that DAI is supposedly better than TW3, but they didn't play TW3.

I like both and have played both. My verdict: where the zealous fanbases are concerned they're both as bad as each other.

[Al Foley]

It amazes me how people with thousands of posts on this forum zealously defend DAI and completely ignore any kind of argumentation and contradict themselvs.

 

Beside obvious differences between the two games that make some comparisons just not logical, like DAI and its playable companions and customizable protagonist vs single set protagonist of The Witcher, there are many areas where comparisons are possible. Main quest, quest design, dialogue, maps and so  forth.

 

Main subject of the thread: Toussaint was depicted in a book long before anything  Dragon Age related was even in making. Far, far away in middle/eastern Europe.

 

As to other subjects that showed up... You must be really blind to say that DAI is anywhere close to TW3 in comparable aspects. 

 

DAI  - there are practicly no villages and no cities. Orleasian capital? Laughable square. Redclife? Beyond main story and a couple fetch quests there was absolutely nothing else to do. NPCs in those "cities" had couple lines of dialogue and were just stationary lifeless manequinns. No day/night cycle. There were actual regions DEDICATED to fetch quests. You could run for hours and not have a single encounter with an NPC or even (!!!!!!) hear any of your companions talk (!!!), companion dialogue a typically DA thing. You would run around and hear Geralt remark on a thing or two wherever you went, but in DAI you had your Inquisitor and 3 companions and they wouldn't say a word. This is how much empty, fetch quest space there is in DAI. 

 

Where you can compare the two games, TW3 did everything better than DAI.  I suspect that those who have those thousands of posts practicly live on those forums or spend every waking moment playing DA. If anyone is biased, it is them, which really discredicts their opnions as much as opinions of those who say that DAI is supposedly better than TW3, but they didn't play TW3. 

...*SNORT*.  

 

I don't know for me it always comes down to enjoyment.  And I enjoyed DA I more then i enjoyed the Witcher 3.  As for the banter issue, I hardly ever heard Geralt comment on much of anything out in the open world except for 'its getting windy' when it was about to rain and meanwhile you had Sera in DA I saying things like 'the Veil is getting wobbly here.'  Now I am not trying to bash one or the other in this context but I am pointing out that everyone's experience is different.  You hear/ remember different things in Witcher 3, I hear and remember different things from DA I. 

[MisterJB]

Certainly, TW3 did open world much better but DAI is superior in other aspects. Story, for instance, which is a comparable aspect.

 

The Witcher 2 is one of my favorite games of all time precisely because the politics of it were so extremely complex. You had the Lodge, the Monarchs, Saskia, Letho, Emhyr and others characters all with their realistic and intelligent schemes which you could help influence to get radically different endings. From saving Annais and deciding on who to give her to to allowing Nilfgaard's plans to come to fruition, you felt that your choices actually mattered.

 

In TW3, Radovid and Emhyr are the only players on the board and they do absolutely nothing the whole game.

 

Meanwhile, DAI managed to surpass all of the politics of TW3 with just one quest where Briala, Gaspard, Celene and Florianne all have their complex strategies to outscheme each other and you can influence it all. Whether or not it's better than TW2 is debatable but I think we can safely say that in this aspect, DAI surpassed TW3.

[fhs33721]

In TW3, Radovid and Emhyr are the only players on the board and they do absolutely nothing the whole game.

Hey now, Radivid was being very active at..... uhm.... ranting about chess like a crazy person? Yes, that.

[Donk]

Certainly, TW3 did open world much better but DAI is superior in other aspects. Story, for instance, which is a comparable aspect.

The Witcher 2 is one of my favorite games of all time precisely because the politics of it were so extremely complex. You had the Lodge, the Monarchs, Saskia, Letho, Emhyr and others characters all with their realistic and intelligent schemes which you could help influence to get radically different endings. From saving Annais and deciding on who to give her to to allowing Nilfgaard's plans to come to fruition, you felt that your choices actually mattered.

In TW3, Radovid and Emhyr are the only players on the board and they do absolutely nothing the whole game.

Meanwhile, DAI managed to surpass all of the politics of TW3 with just one quest where Briala, Gaspard, Celene and Florianne all have their complex strategies to outscheme each other and you can influence it all. Whether or not it's better than TW2 is debatable but I think we can safely say that in this aspect, DAI surpassed TW3.

You obviously like politics in stories.

I don't (although when it comes to fantasy worlds they are somewhat necessary)

I actually think TW3's story was better than DAI's. Only in terms of how it was written and executed, as the general idea of DAI, the lore bomb with Solas and the potential for future plots I believe is "better". (The Witcher's story at least in terms of the game is over anyway.)

[Al Foley]

This is coming from somebody who actually prefers TW3.. Your bias and trolling is obvious.

For those who haven't played TW3:
yes, it's true that there are more cutscenes and fleshed out sidequests, however; there is a degree of grinding, due to a bunch of undiscovered locations that appear as question marks on the maps. While the content is optional, you kinda have to do them if you want recipes for oils, potions and concoctions. Additionally there are treasure hunts, which offer no xp but instead better gear than the common, basic armours and weapons you find as you go along. Now if you're playing at a difficult setting you *need* the recipes for those concoctions, oils and potions.

There is also far too much of this grinding, which is one of few criticisms I have toward the game. The other major one is the levelling system, and the fact that you can't tackle most of the quests in the starting area (Velen) because they are too high.

I found that to be one of the worse and most tedious aspects of the game too because the game actively punished you for taking the time to do that and do the exploration...which is a nice occasional side dish to the main courses in RPGs...yet when I did, not even a lot of them, I found myself running into quests where I would spend a lot of time on it and go to great lengths, main story or borderline main story missions too, and then at the end I would get...1 Xp.  Rage inducing.  At least DA I always made sure to reward you for every thing you were doing and the main quests always gave you heaps of experience. 

[Fiskrens]

I'm on @Al Foley's side: DAI simply was more enjoyable than TW3, despite any technical superiority. Maybe it's the large amount of rather repetitive fighting?

And The Witcher series have always looked at Bioware's latest and greatest for - if nothing else - inspiration. Sometimes it gives improvement, sometimes not. Just look at the introductory and interlude scenes in TW1. Heck, they even used a Bioware engine for the first game. Nothing wrong with any of that, that's just what gaming companies do. And should continue to.

[MisterJB]

And Corypheus is a better villain than Eredin.

 

They both suffer from very low screen time which is spent on villainous rants. But not only does Corypheus has better lines and we receive some insight into his point of view in Calpernia's quest, he actually had varied and smart plans.

 

Plan 1: Send Tevinter Magister with time altering magic to recruit the Southern Mages.

Plan 2: Use Envy Demon and Red Lyrium to corrupt the Templars.

Plan 3: Assassinate Empress Celene while blaming the chief contestant for the throne so there is chaos in the Empire.

Plan 4: Use a fake Calling and a Tevinter Magister to corrupt the Grey Wardens into creating an army of demons.

 

And that is without counting everything else we can counter on the War Table missions.

Eredin, well...

 

Plan 1: Locate Ciri and send all our riders to capture her.

[Al Foley]

I'm on @Al Foley's side: DAI simply was more enjoyable than TW3, despite any technical superiority. Maybe it's the large amount of rather repetitive fighting?

And The Witcher series have always looked at Bioware's latest and greatest for - if nothing else - inspiration. Sometimes it gives improvement, sometimes not. Just look at the introductory and interlude scenes in TW1. Heck, they even used a Bioware engine for the first game. Nothing wrong with any of that, that's just what gaming companies do. And should continue to.

Hey if BioWare borrows from the Witcher 3 in terms of...a few things anyways, I mean specifically going back to more meaningful side quests and more cut scenes, I will be a very happy camper.  

 

And Corypheus is a better villain than Eredin.

 

They both suffer from very low screen time which is spent on villainous rants. But not only does Corypheus has better lines and we receive some insight into his point of view in Calpernia's quest, he actually had varied and smart plans.

 

Plan 1: Send Tevinter Magister with time altering magic to recruit the Southern Mages.

Plan 2: Use Envy Demon and Red Lyrium to corrupt the Templars.

Plan 3: Assassinate Empress Celene while blaming the chief contestant for the throne so there is chaos in the Empire.

Plan 4: Use a fake Calling and a Tevinter Magister to corrupt the Grey Wardens into creating an army of demons.

 

And that is without counting everything else we can counter on the War Table missions.

Eredid, well...

 

Plan 1: Locate Ciri and send all our riders to capture her.

Tell me about it.  Its annoying that people call Cory a mustache twirler with no depth and then praise TW 3.  And this was the problem for pretty much all the villains in TW 3, with the exception of the Crones of Crookback bog but that was only because of their music.  

 

[fhs33721]

Tell me about it.  Its annoying that people call Cory a mustache twirler with no depth and then praise TW 3.  And this was the problem for pretty much all the villains in TW 3, with the exception of the Crones of Crookback bog but that was only because of their music. 

For a series that get's praises for it's grey and gray morality The withcer 3's major villains do actually disapoint in that regard due to the fact that they pretty much all irredeemable monsters. From kills a dozen prostitutes a day junior over batshit insane Radovid and Sauron expy Eredin to an entity that is literally named "Evil Incarnate".

[Al Foley]

For a series that get's praises for it's grey and gray morality The withcer 3's major villains do actually disapoint due to the fact that they pretty much all irredeemable monsters. From kills a dozen prostitutes a day junior over batshit insane Radovid and Sauron expy Eredin to an entity that is literally named "Evil Incarnate".

Not sure I met that guy.  I mean hell the flashback scene where Eredin was all "The King is dead, long live the King," I remember looking at my screen and going 
"Really WItcher?"

 

Now Gaunter O'Dimm.  Him I ****** worship.  A fantastic bad guy, one of the best bad guys in video gaming history and its something that I think a lot of people should learn from.  Building up a relationship, and then that greaking quest man. 

[Kabraxal]

Hey if BioWare borrows from the Witcher 3 in terms of...a few things anyways, I mean specifically going back to more meaningful side quests and more cut scenes, I will be a very happy camper.  
 

Tell me about it.  Its annoying that people call Cory a mustache twirler with no depth and then praise TW 3.  And this was the problem for pretty much all the villains in TW 3, with the exception of the Crones of Crookback bog but that was only because of their music.  
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=ob9F1lsULIA

What's worse... Eredin not only has depth in the books, but is basically a different character. He is do ooc in TW3 it is laughable. The main quest in TW3 was a failur to me in large part because of the lack of depth and poor writing about the Wild Hunt itself. At least Corypheus is consistent with his character and the reasoning behind his actions is actually not only sound, but scarily close to being understood as a simply a good man far out of time and place trying to fix what he sees as wrong. DA:I has a much better grasp of "grey" because both Cory and Solas have understandable motives not born out of pure evil.

The Wild Hunt could have and should have been similar to this in TW3... But they were reduced to mere rabid killers. But then, TW game universe has very few good/likeable characters. Like Westeros, it is probably best to crash an asteroid into the world and start over.

[Serza]

Whoa. Someone saying The Witcher could have learned from Inquisition.

 

I never thought I'd see the day.

[straykat]

I think Corypheus is a good concept too. It's the execution that sucks. The whole faith angle sucks. Both on his and the player's part. Not because I don't like the subject. Just that Bioware is incapable of it.

[Al Foley]

What's worse... Eredin not only has depth in the books, but is basically a different character. He is do ooc in TW3 it is laughable. The main quest in TW3 was a failur to me in large part because of the lack of depth and poor writing about the Wild Hunt itself. At least Corypheus is consistent with his character and the reasoning behind his actions is actually not only sound, but scarily close to being understood as a simply a good man far out of time and place trying to fix what he sees as wrong. DA:I has a much better grasp of "grey" because both Cory and Solas have understandable motives not born out of pure evil.

The Wild Hunt could have and should have been similar to this in TW3... But they were reduced to mere rabid killers. But then, TW game universe has very few good/likeable characters. Like Westeros, it is probably best to crash an asteroid into the world and start over.

 

*grunts* And the additional shame is there could have been some depth there.  The idea of the Wild Hunt doing its...Wild Hunting...is somewhat interesting.  Refugees seeking a new home before the appocylypse...but, like most of the ideas explored in the Witcher it has no real depth.  

 

I mean hell seriously Witcher 3 is a great video game but gets a lot of the non video game thingies 'wrong' but DA I might be a mediocre video game but gets a lot of its non video game thingies so 'right.'

I think Corypheus is a good concept too. It's the execution that sucks. The whole faith angle sucks. Both on his and the player's part. Not because I don't like the subject. Just that Bioware is incapable of it.

How?

[straykat]

*grunts* And the additional shame is there could have been some depth there.  The idea of the Wild Hunt doing its...Wild Hunting...is somewhat interesting.  Refugees seeking a new home before the appocylypse...but, like most of the ideas explored in the Witcher it has no real depth.  

 

I mean hell seriously Witcher 3 is a great video game but gets a lot of the non video game thingies 'wrong' but DA I might be a mediocre video game but gets a lot of its non video game thingies so 'right.'

How?

 

How... as in what? How they can write a better faith based concept?

 

I would say they shouldn't have done it to begin with actually. It's not a subject that can be addressed easily in games. Most games or "fantasy" tales that give silly faith based storylines excuse these problems with "prophecy". The "chosen ones" are expected in that case. They don't have to talk about much there... it's all taken for granted. But here, it's relying on even headier territory... and they can't do it.

 

I think it'd be easier avoid Corypheus, period. This could have been an interim story about the mage/temp war and Orlesian politics. Not everything under the sun.

[CrimsonN7]

*Never played a Witcher game*

 

No idea what is going on here.

[Al Foley]

How... as in what? How they can write a better faith based concept?

 

I would say they shouldn't have done it to begin with actually. It's not a subject that can be addressed easily in games. Most games or "fantasy" tales that give silly faith based storylines excuse these problems with "prophecy". The "chosen ones" are expected in that case. They don't have to talk about much there... it's all taken for granted. But here, it's relying on even headier territory... and they can't do it.

 

I think it'd be easier avoid Corypheus, period. This could have been an interim story about the mage/temp war and Orlesian politics. Not everything under the sun.

We got that game already though.  It was called Dragon Age 2. And while I loved Dragon Age 2 in its own way I do ot want to play it again. 

[Kabraxal]

How... as in what? How they can write a better faith based concept?
 
I would say they shouldn't have done it to begin with actually. It's not a subject that can be addressed easily in games. Most games or "fantasy" tales that give silly faith based storylines excuse these problems with "prophecy". The "chosen ones" are expected in that case. They don't have to talk about much there... it's all taken for granted. But here, it's relying on even headier territory... and they can't do it.
 
I think it'd be easier avoid Corypheus, period. This could have been an interim story about the mage/temp war and Orlesian politics. Not everything under the sun.

I actually found how Inquisition let the player decide how they view faith was the best take on faith in gaming... As the player, you aren't forced to accept "prophecy" or "chosen one destiny" and can look at it all as a screwed up accident if you so please. All this game or franchise has done, is have events happen and has not canonised any one perspective on those events. The only definitive religous belief that has been put into direct question is the Elven pantheon... But given the hints on the world pre fade, even that "challenge" doesn't put a stamp on anything.

In short, whole heartedly disagree thet DA:I handled faith poorly. No game has come close to matching how deftly Bioware handled such issues.

[straykat]

I actually found how Inquisition let the player decide how they view faith was the best take on faith in gaming... As the player, you aren't forced to accept "prophecy" or "chosen one destiny" and can look at it all as a screwed up accident if you so please. All this game or franchise has done, is have events happen and has not canonised any one perspective on those events. The only definitive religous belief that has been put into direct question is the Elven pantheon... But given the hints on the world pre fade, even that "challenge" doesn't put a stamp on anything.

In short, whole heartedly disagree thet DA:I handled faith poorly. No game has come close to matching how deftly Bioware handled such issues.

 

It's not even consistent with their own religion. It doesn't address anything. The Chantry are Deists. Deists wouldn't be so quick to believe in a Herald. It would suddenly mean they're not Deists any longer. Before, Leliana was the only non-Deist. That's what made her unique.

 

I wouldn't be surprised this was created by some marketer, who wanted to have some chosen one with "glowy" graphics like the Dragonborn and pushed the idea of a "chosen one" on to the team. And that's why it's so half-assed. 

[fhs33721]

It's not even consistent with their own religion. It doesn't address anything. The Chantry are Deists. Deists wouldn't be so quick to believe in a Herald. It would suddenly mean they're not Deists any longer. Before, Leliana was the only non-Deist. That's what made her unique.

Well they never were completly deist to begin with. After all according to their holy scripture the maker was heavily involved in human affairs at least during the time of Andraste where he directly made contact with Andraste and directly helped her in her war against Tevinter. And only after the humans betrayed Andraste he stopped interfering. So I see no reason why  the Chantry shouldn't believe in a "Herald", if there has already been one before.