638 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Artifice]

Okay, I skimmed up to page 9. The Highlights for me were OP's claim that:

 

 

 

Overpraising overrated games has hurt the industry. Instead of improving what the game does wrong, flaws then become the norm. Look at SquareEnix.....FFVII has ruined them in the long run.

 

 

(Which makes me curious about when he thinks games with flaws weren't the norm, because it sounds like a myth to me)

 

...and the argument defending TW3's combat tooth and nail.

 

---

 

I am mostly enjoying my playthrough of TW3. I still like the interaction between Geralt and Yennefer as much as I did when I watched through their romance arc on Youtube, and I've gotten to the part where Jo Wyatt is talking, which is always nice.

 

But I find the combat pretty bland. It might not make me sleepy the way DAI combat does, but it doesn't draw me in very much either.

 

So yeah, I agree with Cyonan that there's a double standard here. The OP exalts The Witcher 3, while simultaneously denouncing the act of overpraising games with flaws.

 

Well, TW3 does have it's own flaws, and I'm increasingly wary of the circulating mindset that all other RPGs should emulate as much as possible. This series is heavily character driven, to the point that it's often soap operaesque. It's source material informs a lot of it's elements, including the romance story at it's core. In my opinion, most RPGs would suffer for trying to craft an imitation.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Okay, I skimmed up to page 9. The Highlights for me were OP's claim that:

 

 

 

(Which makes me curious about when he thinks games with flaws weren't the norm, because it sounds like a myth to me)

 

...and the argument defending TW3's combat tooth and nail.

 

---

 

I am mostly enjoying my playthrough of TW3. I still like the interaction between Geralt and Yennefer as much as I did when I watched through their romance arc on Youtube, and I've gotten to the part where Jo Wyatt is talking, which is always nice.

 

But I find the combat pretty bland. It might not make me sleepy the way DAI combat does, but it doesn't draw me in very much either.

 

So yeah, I agree with Cyonan that there's a double standard here. The OP exalts The Witcher 3, while simultaneously denouncing the act of overpraising games with flaws.

 

Well, TW3 does have it's own flaws, and I'm increasingly wary of the circulating mindset that all other RPGs should emulate as much as possible. This series is heavily character driven, to the point that it's often soap operaesque. It's source material informs a lot of it's elements, including the romance story at it's core. In my opinion, most RPGs would suffer for trying to imitate it.

 

That's a good point. I have no intention of starting the tired old ''what is an RPG'' circus, but I have to say that I don't think TW3 is a good RPG in the most traditional sense of the word. You have a set protagonist with a set backstory, a set and already existing ensemble of characters, a particular set of skills, so on and so forth. It works for that particular series of games, but you don't have much say in who Geralt is. Sure, you can choose between Yenn or Triss, or if you want to kill or spare X person. Beyond that, however, you have previous little choices. You can't choose to make him a believer or someone with active interest in politics, because that's not how his character works.

 

You roleplay as Geralt, not as your character. That's a pretty fundamental difference to me, something Bioware doesn't do. Yes, Mass Effect did go too far in robbing the player of Shepard's control especially in ME3, but it was still your Shepard; you defined their skillset, their backstory, their gender, their sexuality, their rapport with various characters, their opinions and ideals on various issues such as if they are a religious person in ME1. Dragon Age pushes that farther, allowing you to select races too.

 

This influences the entire game's design, really. In fact, Geralt being a Witcher, and thus a very competent tracker, is pretty much integral to him being in on the plot to find Ciri for instance. They can afford to do that, because 1) Geralt is always a Witcher, and 2) he can't not care about Ciri. This also allows them to pour that much more ressources into story and cutscenes, since they don't need to adjust them for several player types, don't need extra VAs, don't need race/gender/class/skill specific dialogs except for Axii reactions once in a while, so on and so forth. Random monster killing quests work in The Witcher since, well, it's literally what Witchers do.

 

And that's fine. No problem. There is a place for RPGs with set characters. But I don't want Bioware to do that. I don't want this to become a genre standard by any means. And I sure don't want twitchy action-based combat to replace slower, IMO far more enjoyable systems like Pillars of Eternity's. 

[sjsharp2011]

 

Hence why threads like this shouldn't exist. I hate comparing games from different developers. Apples and Oranges, people. 

yeah I can see why they might do with Dragon Age given that DA has a lot in common with the witcher in that they're both medieval worlds with a bit of fantasy thrown in. But with ME it makes no sense because there is no other game like it. And as I said in an earlier post the closest game I can think of that might come close to ME is Deus Ex really and even that is stretching it because even though Deus Ex has high tech wizadry and gun play it dosen't have aliens or space travel in it.

[Hazegurl]

So what I'm getting from this thread is that, according to the books, the primary reason anybody but Geralt wants to find Ciri is for dat booty.

I've never read the books. I'm only going by what I've heard.  Something about a prophecy that her child was supposed to save everyone not her. 

[txgoldrush]

Okay, I skimmed up to page 9. The Highlights for me were OP's claim that:

 

 

 

(Which makes me curious about when he thinks games with flaws weren't the norm, because it sounds like a myth to me)

 

...and the argument defending TW3's combat tooth and nail.

 

---

 

I am mostly enjoying my playthrough of TW3. I still like the interaction between Geralt and Yennefer as much as I did when I watched through their romance arc on Youtube, and I've gotten to the part where Jo Wyatt is talking, which is always nice.

 

But I find the combat pretty bland. It might not make me sleepy the way DAI combat does, but it doesn't draw me in very much either.

 

So yeah, I agree with Cyonan that there's a double standard here. The OP exalts The Witcher 3, while simultaneously denouncing the act of overpraising games with flaws.

 

Well, TW3 does have it's own flaws, and I'm increasingly wary of the circulating mindset that all other RPGs should emulate as much as possible. This series is heavily character driven, to the point that it's often soap operaesque. It's source material informs a lot of it's elements, including the romance story at it's core. In my opinion, most RPGs would suffer for trying to craft an imitation.

The thing is TW3's combat is serviceable, its not exceptional. Its not the highlight of the game and its not why people like the game. When the "highlight" of the game is itself flawed, then its a major problem.

 

And the problem with the story being character driven? Thats its strength, plain in simple. You can never have a good story without good characters.

[Hazegurl]

 

 

And the problem with the story being character driven? Thats its strength, plain in simple. You can never have a good story without good characters.

Yeah I'm not getting why an RPG shouldn't be character driven.  Give me a heavily character driven story any day over nine superficial companions and a PC with a background that can written on a postage stamp.

[The Elder King]

Yeah I'm not getting why an RPG shouldn't be character driven.  Give me a heavily character driven story any day over nine superficial companions and a PC with a background that can written on a postage stamp.

They're just different approaches in making rpgs. Some prefer one type, some other the latter.

[Lady Artifice]

And the problem with the story being character driven? Thats its strength, plain in simple. You can never have a good story without good characters.

 

Having good characters is not what "character driven story" means. A character driven story is one in which the major conflict in more internal, more focused on the emotional development and growth of the characters. In this way it is distinguished from a "plot driven story," where the threat and conflict is more external, and tend to be on a larger scale.

 

http://www.dorrancep...e/#.V1YBn53n-M8

 

Now both the Witcher and ME series' have an overlap here, but The Witcher tends much more toward major focus on interpersonal conflict, hence why I call it soap operaesque.

 

Actually, character driven stories are often the more looked down upon of the two in the world of fiction writing, because it includes genres like romance and melodramas. It is very definitely not a strength, any more than it's a strength for a mystery novel to be a mystery novel or action film to be an action film. It's just one of two perfectly viable styles of storytelling.

[Lady Artifice]

Yeah I'm not getting why an RPG shouldn't be character driven.  Give me a heavily character driven story any day over nine superficial companions and a PC with a background that can written on a postage stamp.

 

I have nothing against character driven stories. In fact, I sometimes prefer them. Sometimes.

 

But plot driven stories have their place as well, especially for those of us who want more freedom and control over a personalized protagonist. And maybe a little less heavy emphasis on personal drama.

[AlanC9]

Yeah I'm not getting why an RPG shouldn't be character driven.  Give me a heavily character driven story any day over nine superficial companions and a PC with a background that can written on a postage stamp.

Even when the character driving the story is your PC?

ME got plenty of grief for assigning emotions and beliefs to Shepard, and this got worse as the series went on. Thessia, anyone?

[Steelcan]

ME3 fails on both levels. As a character driven game and a plot driven one, so I fail to see what the distinction truly accomplishes here.

The plot is far too weak to be anything than a glorified MacGuffin, and the characters only get a chance to shine on the last DLC, prior to that it's been a game of "who can hold the idiot ball the longest" with a dash of rank incompetence and inconsistency thrown in for good measure.

It is to BioWare's credit that the game succeeds despite this however.

[Cyonan]

The thing is TW3's combat is serviceable, its not exceptional. Its not the highlight of the game and its not why people like the game. When the "highlight" of the game is itself flawed, then its a major problem.

 

And the problem with the story being character driven? Thats its strength, plain in simple. You can never have a good story without good characters.

 

Combat is something that most games expect me to do at least half the time, if not considerably more. Since The Witcher is not an exception to this, if you are expecting me to engage in combat half the time then I do consider it very noteworthy when I find that combat flawed.

 

It doesn't matter if it's not the highlight of the game, I'm still expected to do it half the time I'm playing the game.

 

I don't see a problem with the game being character driven or even Geralt being a pre-defined character but if we're going to give BioWare flak for it in Mass Effect 3, then we ought to do the same for CDPR. Why do they get pass for not allowing us to roleplay the PC in a RPG while BioWare doesn't?

[Lady Artifice]

Clearly, my assessment of The Witcher as a more character driven franchise is being interpreted as a criticism.

 

To clarify: It is not. Character driven stories can be wonderful. But for Bioware to make a dramatic shift to that storytelling style would mean them abandoning their niche appeal, and the personalization they have historically offered with their protagonists. That sounds to me like it could be as big a mistake as them trying so much to emulate Skyrim with DAI.

 

My opinion that Bioware should not have tried to copy Skyrim does not imply that I don't like Skyrim, and my belief that they should not copy The Witcher does not imply that I don't like The Witcher. All my opinion implies is that those respective franchises have elements that are very, very difficult to imitate well. The Witcher's primarily element being it's foundation in source material. Geralt will always have a motivation and a personality that's rooted well outside of the player's influence. None of Bioware's story universes have that kind of deep source to draw from, especially because they want to allow you as much roleplaying freedom as they can. 

[Drakoriz]

ME3 fails on both levels. As a character driven game and a plot driven one, so I fail to see what the distinction truly accomplishes here.

The plot is far too weak to be anything than a glorified MacGuffin, and the characters only get a chance to shine on the last DLC, prior to that it's been a game of "who can hold the idiot ball the longest" with a dash of rank incompetence and inconsistency thrown in for good measure.

It is to BioWare's credit that the game succeeds despite this however.

 

same can be say for the Witcher since you making that state base on your opinion only. .........

[Steelcan]

And another one that can only yell empty statements without backing it up... tell me how cut and paste village shows lore integration. Tell me how random question mark junk is even attempted to be explained why it is there and always surrounded by monsters. Tell me how the hunts actually had resulted and noticeable marks on the area you get the quests from and not just quest generators. If such generic quest generation is godly, then all RPGs are divine.

Let's face it, you have no ground to stand on. Hell, the vaunted Baron quest is almost the only one routinely raised and yer that is forced in order to proceed in the main quest. You keep screaming "TW3 does it better!" But I have yet to see an actual reason mentioned to defend it. It all boils diwn to "well... Uh... I liked it so it is fact these quests ae godly". And I am sick if the noisiest TW fans continually bleating about the quests and continually failing to back it up.

The villages aren't lore integration, and they make no sense to be brought up as such, unless you were just seeking to try and score some sort of insult points.  The best example of lore integration I can think of are the witcher senses and the witcher contract investigations.  It allowed the player to really feel as if Geralt is a super-human tracker, they showed and did not tell (though they did plenty of telling as well).  Another example would be the toxicity mechanic, that's lore made gameplay which is what lore integration is all about.

 

I didn't bring up the Baron, I mentioned two others that both blow out anyhting comparable that DA:I can come up with for a variety of reasons, and I inevitably will have to list them when you ask what they are.

 

And as for the loveliest ad hominem at the end, all I can say is that you are clearly being a tad worse in tone and posting etiquette than any Witcher fan on here.

[RoboticWater]

The thing is TW3's combat is serviceable, its not exceptional. Its not the highlight of the game and its not why people like the game. When the "highlight" of the game is itself flawed, then its a major problem.

I'd say there's also a problem when 50-60% (I'm probably underselling that as well) of your game is just "serviceable," especially when that game drags on into the 100s of hours. I can understand the argument for a Telltale game (or games of a similar length), but I'd rather not play my open world games cutscene to cutscene.

And to me, it's not just TW3's combat that's serviceable: a clunky UI, awkward movement controls, monotonous mission structure, and a rather superfluous and unrewarding loot system. The game is riddled these design failures, and I'm honestly annoyed that so many people ignore them. I love that the game has great writing, an original setting, and snazzy graphics, but that doesn't make TW3 a great game.

 

Even when the character driving the story is your PC?

ME got plenty of grief for assigning emotions and beliefs to Shepard, and this got worse as the series went on. Thessia, anyone?

Given the reception of TW3, I'd say the reaction to Shepard's more defined character is more about freedom being taken away than just lacking freedom in the first place. It also doesn't help that Shepard was railroaded as an emotional dope with poorly written dialog rather than a cool and collected Geralt.

[Steelcan]

Clearly, my assessment of The Witcher as a more character driven franchise is being interpreted as a criticism.

 

To clarify: It is not. Character driven stories can be wonderful. But for Bioware to make a dramatic shift to that storytelling style would mean them abandoning their niche appeal, and the personalization they have historically offered with their protagonists. That sounds to me like it could be as big a mistake as them trying so much to emulate Skyrim with DAI.

 

My opinion that Bioware should not have tried to copy Skyrim does not imply that I don't like Skyrim, and my belief that they should not copy The Witcher does not imply that I don't like The Witcher. All it implies is those respective franchises have elements that are very, very difficult to imitate well.

I'm saying more that ME3 already tried such a shift, and fell on its face a bit

[Steelcan]

And to me, it's not just TW3's combat that's serviceable: a clunky UI, awkward movement controls, monotonous mission structure, and a rather superfluous and unrewarding loot system. The game is riddled these design failures, and I'm honestly annoyed that so many people ignore them. I love that the game has great writing, an original setting, and snazzy graphics, but that doesn't make TW3 a great game.

I'm curious if you've seen the game since the most recent patch where they overhauled the UI?

 

I won't disagree that the filler missions (different from side missions imo) are annoying, and ultimately I skip most of them, and the loot system is superflous as best since Witcher gear is the only stuff worth bothering with.

 

As for the rest of the gameplay, I honestly kind of like it, all the different approaches to dealing with varying monster types, balancing stamina need for signs/dodging, potions and bombs, and so on.  However, I am aware that I am in the minority here.

[txgoldrush]

I'd say there's also a problem when 50-60% (I'm probably underselling that as well) of your game is just "serviceable," especially when that game drags on into the 100s of hours. I can understand the argument for a Telltale game (or games of a similar length), but I'd rather not play my open world games cutscene to cutscene.

And to me, it's not just TW3's combat that's serviceable: a clunky UI, awkward movement controls, monotonous mission structure, and a rather superfluous and unrewarding loot system. The game is riddled these design failures, and I'm honestly annoyed that so many people ignore them. I love that the game has great writing, an original setting, and snazzy graphics, but that doesn't make TW3 a great game.

 

Given the reception of TW3, I'd say the reaction to Shepard's more defined character is more about freedom being taken away than just lacking freedom in the first place. It also doesn't help that Shepard was railroaded as an emotional dope with poorly written dialog rather than a cool and collected Geralt.

CDPR fixed many of the issues and added an upscaling leveling feature if you outlevel the quest.

 

The combat is not action game level good, but ti is better than most of the genre. Thats why there is less criticism. Also, combat is not what people play the Witcher for.

[Lady Artifice]

I'm saying more that ME3 already tried such a shift, and fell on its face a bit

 

Well, I agree with you. (My eye roll was primarily directed elsewhere).

 

Bioware tries to be a chameleon a lot of the time, and it doesn't always work out.

[txgoldrush]

I'm curious if you've seen the game since the most recent patch where they overhauled the UI?

 

I won't disagree that the filler missions (different from side missions imo) are annoying, and ultimately I skip most of them, and the loot system is superflous as best since Witcher gear is the only stuff worth bothering with.

 

As for the rest of the gameplay, I honestly kind of like it, all the different approaches to dealing with varying monster types, balancing stamina need for signs/dodging, potions and bombs, and so on.  However, I am aware that I am in the minority here.

Many weapons and armor outclass Witcher gear. The new Grandmaster Gear can easily be outclassed by other armor picked up later in Blood and Wine, and the Aerodight is the games top Silver Sword.

[Steelcan]

Many weapons and armor outclass Witcher gear. The new Grandmaster Gear can easily be outclassed by other armor picked up later in Blood and Wine, and the Aerodight is the games top Silver Sword.

I can't speak for Blood and Wine as I've not played it yet.

 

(also all the non-witcher armor looks heinous, 90% of why I rush to Feline Witcher gear ASAP)

[Lady Artifice]

^ I can't bear to put Geralt in anything non-Witcher. It looks so wrong.

[NKnight7]

Same, the Witcher class armors were probably the best looking at least for me. Once I created the Mastercrafted Wolven armor I had a hard time switching to any other gear for Geralt.

[Kabraxal]

The villages aren't lore integration, and they make no sense to be brought up as such, unless you were just seeking to try and score some sort of insult points.  The best example of lore integration I can think of are the witcher senses and the witcher contract investigations.  It allowed the player to really feel as if Geralt is a super-human tracker, they showed and did not tell (though they did plenty of telling as well).  Another example would be the toxicity mechanic, that's lore made gameplay which is what lore integration is all about.
 
I didn't bring up the Baron, I mentioned two others that both blow out anyhting comparable that DA:I can come up with for a variety of reasons, and I inevitably will have to list them when you ask what they are.
 
And as for the loveliest ad hominem at the end, all I can say is that you are clearly being a tad worse in tone and posting etiquette than any Witcher fan on here.

Witcher senses as lore integration... you realise Bioware has designed and tweaked quests and responses around not only specialisations, but race and even gender right? Hell, banter shifts depending on such little things in Inquisition. So that one doesn't "blow DA out of the water". And the toxicity mechanic is lore integration but it isn't anything different from the skills in DA:I that use hurt mechanics for use. Again, no blowing out of the water happening.

And DA not only takes those little mechanics and executes them as well as TW, but the art design and ability to convey history with no words is beyond what CDPR accomplished in TW3. The closest to non generic medieval setting and a sense of a living history tgat TW3 comes is Skellige. It started to feel like you could feel how events sculpted that region. Thedas blows that out of the water though. Every zone managed to convey a sense of history with only the visuals.

So you still haven't proven TW3 "blows DA out of the water". And considering hiw you act as if your opinion is indisputable fact, yeah, the cute "your tone is worse" crap just keeps adding more reasons to why we have run out of patience with the TW talk on this forum. Here is the real fact: TW3 is not objectively better than DA:I.