The bloody baron forces the player to endure the whining of drunkard combined with some rmb-spamming. I fail to see the maturity of it. If there were any emotional impact I failed to pick it up.
Um, what? You fail to see the emotional maturity of the player making a significant choice which not only can force the baron to acknowledge his wrongdoings but also arcs into further quests where you examine and influence the consequences of what happens with several other characters?!
Bioware did open areas okay in Dragon Age Inquisition.
What Bioware screwed up terribly, especially in comparison to CD Projekt Red's The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt, is questing.
Specifically, the quality of quests storylines, quest characters are poor. Many of the quests in Dragon Age Inquisition feel like an offline MMO fetch quest.
If Bioware could learn a thing or two from CD Projekt Red about quest design and implement it in Mass Effect Andromeda, then the game will be good.
However, I don't have any hopes for Bioware. They are the sort of developers who will spend their time reinventing the wheel and trying to be politically correct instead of having good quest storylines, good quest pathway branches and good quest characters.
Heck, can anyone here imagine Bioware doing something like the Bloody Baron questline in one of their games ? Nope.
In terms of what? Quest design? Character writing? Emotional investment? Themes? I think you gotta be more specific than ''do it like that''.
Also, yeah the Bloody Baron storyline was great. But apart from the funny romp at Kaer Morhen before the battle, nothing stood out in TW3 to me. After it, it was right back to half-assed, often black-and-white intrigues in Novigrad or running after Yenn in Skellige. One great questline doesn't, IMO, absolve the rest of the game's story problems. It's a great first impressions, sure, but the game never repeats it if you ask me.
Indeed, I found DA:I's ensemble cast and villains more interesting than TW3's for a variety of reasons. The quests were by and large, worse, that's true. But we can't really accuse Bioware of not having branchine paths when DA:I has two completely exclusive main quests, and that which one you choose affects several events later in the game as well, such as who you judge, who you fight in IYHSB and who are Cory's main forces from now on, as well as a handful of cosmetic differences in SKyhold. By comparison, the branching path in the BB story had you do a few extra chores for the spirit under the tree, and then linger a bit longer in the Crone's village if you decided to try to cure Anna. The story outcome changes, sure, but that's not even reflected in the gameplay since the Baron and his family vanish at the end regardless.
Um, what? You fail to see the emotional maturity of the player making a significant choice which not only can force the baron to acknowledge his wrongdoings but also arcs into further quests where you examine and influence the consequences of what happens with several other characters?!
Yes I fail to see how it is more mature. It is not like making antagonists see the folly of their ways is in any way excluded from DAI.
Yes I fail to see how it is more mature. It is not like making antagonists see the folly of their ways is in any way excluded from DAI.
The bloody baron isn't an antagonist. The crones are for that part of the story. He's just a deeply flawed man that Geralt needs to get information out of. That's a pretty common theme throughout the whole game, with "happy endings" not being the goal.
Bioware did open areas okay in Dragon Age Inquisition.
What Bioware screwed up terribly, especially in comparison to CD Projekt Red's The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt, is questing.
Specifically, the quality of quests storylines, quest characters are poor. Many of the quests in Dragon Age Inquisition feel like an offline MMO fetch quest.
If Bioware could learn a thing or two from CD Projekt Red about quest design and implement it in Mass Effect Andromeda, then the game will be good.
However, I don't have any hopes for Bioware. They are the sort of developers who will spend their time reinventing the wheel and trying to be politically correct instead of having good quest storylines, good quest pathway branches and good quest characters.
Heck, can anyone here imagine Bioware doing something like the Bloody Baron questline in one of their games ? Nope.
Indeed, I found DA:I's ensemble cast and villains more interesting than TW3's for a variety of reasons.
To be honest I'd say neither game had a terribly strong main villain between Cory and the Wild Hunt.
To be honest I'd say neither game had a terribly strong main villain between Cory and the Wild Hunt.
True for Corypheus, he didn't live up to his potential. But Calpernia and Samson were good, if a little underused, villains. We could also add Solas into the mix, which if you ask me blows any TW villain out of the water with the exception of Letho maybe. At least Hearts of Stone had a cool, if rather classical, villain. Better than those in the main game for sure.
In terms of characters, TW3 probably suffers a bit from not being party-based. There's some interesting characters, sure, but you just don't spend that much time with each. It's especially bad for Triss, who mostly vanishes from the game's plot after Novigrad even if you romance her.
Who even is the villain in the Witcher 3? I haven't gotten that far.
True for Corypheus, he didn't live up to his potential. But Calpernia and Samson were good, if a little underused, villains. We could also add Solas into the mix, which if you ask me blows any TW villain out of the water with the exception of Letho maybe. At least Hearts of Stone had a cool, if rather classical, villain. Better than those in the main game for sure.
In terms of characters, TW3 probably suffers a bit from not being party-based. There's some interesting characters, sure, but you just don't spend that much time with each. It's especially bad for Triss, who mostly vanishes from the game's plot after Novigrad even if you romance her.
Calpernia and Samson feel so underused that they're barely even on the radar. I've not played the DLC but I do hear Solas was a great villain. It's just a shame we actually have to pay extra to finally get a good main villain.
Companion wise I'd hand it to DA:I myself since that was one aspect they did really well. It's just the game's side questing that falls apart.
It's too bad they didn't give more to Triss fans. Yenn basically got the Liara treatment.
Who even is the villain in the Witcher 3? I haven't gotten that far.
Master Mirror. Forget about the chumps in spiked helmets.
Master Mirror. Forget about the chumps in spiked helmets.
Master Mirror. Forget about the chumps in spiked helmets.
He's definitely a much better villain than Eredin and his Sauron cosplayers ever were. I found that his voice actor and looks perfectly fit his character, for a reason I can't quite describe.
Letho is still the franchise's best antagonist. Maybe Blood and Wine will have a great one, however.
Who even is the villain in the Witcher 3? I haven't gotten that far.
Eredin and his Wild Hunt are... serviceable villains, they are strong and intimidating and want to take away the closest thing Geralt had to a daughter for nefarious purposes. But I have to agree with the rest here, Master Mirror is probably one of the best villains I can remember facing in a video game.
The kind of villain that has you second guessing yourself, and becomes creepier the more you get into the story.
He's a villain on a different scale... 10/10.
Calpernia and Samson feel so underused that they're barely even on the radar. I've not played the DLC but I do hear Solas was a great villain.
What makes Solas a great villain is he doesn't feel like a villain, and that's not just because he was a former ally. He feels like a living person instead of just Corypheus's 'blah I'm evil' shtick. Solas is closer to that of a character like Loghain, though not held back by supposed mental issues.
Have seen the Bloody Baron quest; not impressed, esp the floating baby. Much prefer deciding the fate of Bhelen, Zevran, Sten, and Loghain in DAO, choosing Mages or Templars in the sequels, and to pass judgment on various defendants in DAI.
There's no accounting for taste, and you have drawn your conclusions long before you watched it anyway.
Still, watching small snippets out of a video game, is the worst method to experience it.
I don't really expect you to be objective about it or give it a fair chance, but at the very least don't pretend like you know what you are talking about.
If you want to make comparisons go and actually play it like most people that talked about the subject, than we can have an actual discussion.
Throwing an out of context expression like "floating baby" in a derogatory manner just proves that you didn't even try playing / watching it with an open mind, you just had your DA:I crusade in front of you.
Eredin and his Wild Hunt are... serviceable villains, they are strong and intimidating and want to take away the closest thing Geralt had to a daughter for nefarious purposes. But I have to agree with the rest here, Master Mirror is probably one of the best villains I can remember facing in a video game.
The kind of villain that has you second guessing yourself, and becomes creepier the more you get into the story.
He's a villain on a different scale... 10/10.
I liked him a lot, but *snip*
I would recommend putting the first part under a spoiler tag, it's not huge or anything, but still.
The only thing the DAI plot does for me is ask "WTF were you thinking? Did you think I was 12 years old?"
? DAI has a mature plot. If there's a better discussion of the role of organized religion in games (not a terribly high bar, I know), I haven't seen it.
It's even a bit too subtle for its own fanbase in sections, if fans whining about being the Chosen One are any indication.
Spoiler
He is kind of a villain himself. Despite his circumstances, his situation and the misery caused was mostly his fault.
He is the younger, cooler, luckier version of the Bloody Baron.
It's even a bit too subtle for its own fanbase in sections, if fans whining about being the Chosen One are any indication.
It's less about subtlety, more about the overuse of a tired trope.
In any event, there was not much subtlety overall in DA:I, it was better than ME in this regard, but that's not saying much...
Bloody Baron is cool, but unfortunately cancelled out by how terrible Novigrad is. Thankfully the main story gets a lot better once Geralt and Ciri are travelling together.
It's less about subtlety, more about the overuse of a tired trope.
In any event, there was not much subtlety overall in DA:I, it was better than ME in this regard, but that's not saying much...
It is about subtlety if the point is to examine and subvert a tired trope, which they did. When the fanbase whines about being the Chosen One when you're the opposite of a Chosen One, then it's time to reexamine the text, so to speak.
There's no accounting for taste, and you have drawn your conclusions long before you watched it anyway.
Still, watching small snippets out of a video game, is the worst method to experience it.
I don't really expect you to be objective about it or give it a fair chance, but at the very least don't pretend like you know what you are talking about.
If you want to make comparisons go and actually play it like most people that talked about the subject, than we can have an actual discussion.
Throwing an out of context expression like "floating baby" in a derogatory manner just proves that you didn't even try playing / watching it with an open mind, you just had your DA:I crusade in front of you.
It is about subtlety if the point is to examine and subvert a tired trope, which they did. When the fanbase whines about being the Chosen One when you're the opposite of a Chosen One, then it's time to reexamine the text, so to speak.
I would say rather than being a good examination of the role of organized religion in a setting, DAI is excellent at personal faith and self-identity. Leliana and Cassandra are good examples of this, as is the Inquisitor and spirit!Justinia in the Fade. There is no point where our realization of how we got the Anchor affects how the rest of Thedas sees us, we will still be treated as the Herald for the rest of the game.
Trespasser does tarnish our image, but that's more of a political reason than religious. One of our options is to remain as the Divine's personal guard, so the Inquisitor remains an influential figure in the Chantry.
I don't think the tired trope was really subverted that much. We find out we're not Andraste's Herald. We face inner doubts about our role now that we know we're not chosen. The game continues on with no visceral reaction from the general populace/Chantry about this revelation. Most likely, our advisors don't even allow us to make this public knowledge.
The only possible changes to organized religion in Thedas are due to the choice of Divine, not anything to do with the Chosen One PC. There's no real discussion about schisms in the populace divided between those who believe we're the Herald and those who don't. This should have brought about a Reformation-style rupture within the Chantry or at least discussed the implications of this, but even after we return from the Fade everyone still treats us as the Herald.
The game is very good in highlighting personal faith and belief, but I wouldn't say it's great on organized religion.
Also, I wouldn't say the PC is the opposite of a Chosen One as much as a variation of a Chosen One trope. We're still the only person with a unique ability that is required to save the world. Just because we received that ability by pure chance rather than divine intervention doesn't negate the fact that we're still the only one with the world saving ability. We're the Chosen One of blind luck instead of the Maker.
Retour en haut