638 réponses à ce sujet

[Gwydden]

- a personal story instead of save the world one (see DA2)

People complained about that?

 

I've lost my faith in humanity. Again 

[UpUpAway]

Exactly. Declaring one thing more popular than another can be proven with numbers and evidence. It's only an issue when you claim that the first thing is factually superior, and then cite popularity as the reason why. 

 

The parameters behind the term "better" should, however, be defined in the statement, since "better" is inherently a subjective impression that can imply (but not always does imply) "superiority".  TW3 did receive a highere overall rating from critics after release than DA:I; and as long a "better" is being defined in that repect, to say that it was "better received" is indeed a factual statement.

[UpUpAway]

and do what? Better animations, level design, scene direction and mission integration?

 

Because outside of that, TW3 is a mix of what people complained about in Bioware games since 2010:

- auto-dialog 90% of the time

- too much MMOish content and auto-granted quests (treasure hunting, none-main quests monster contracts, monster nests, free the captured trader, etc)

- simplified character building

- large empty maps with respawning stuff that annoyingly aggro you when you travel around

- limited RPG dialogue options

- "companions" only talks to you in quests and certain point in the games, not when you wants to.

- forced "companions" for certain quests

- twitch action combat

- tacked on open world

- a personal story instead of save the world one (see DA2)

 

Again, we don't know that they haven't responded to the concerns expressed back then with ME:A.  The game has to come out before that can be assessed. 

 

ME:A is already written and they are working on polishing the game... we've been told that.  You don't just react to another game's success by scrapping half of the work you've done to date and trying to re-write it to fit a bunch of "concerned" fans engaged in rampant negative speculation (and who do not know what it is you have actually done) unless:  1) you delay the release by yet another year or; 2) you rush the whole thing and wind up in the same sort of mess you did with ME3.  It's just a recipe for disaster.

[Drakoriz]

and do what? Better animations, level design, scene direction and mission integration?

 

Because outside of that, TW3 is a mix of what people complained about in Bioware games since 2010:

- auto-dialog 90% of the time

- too much MMOish content and auto-granted quests (treasure hunting, none-main quests monster contracts, monster nests, free the captured trader, etc)

- simplified character building

- large empty maps with respawning stuff that annoyingly aggro you when you travel around

- limited RPG dialogue options

- "companions" only talks to you in quests and certain point in the games, not when you wants to.

- forced "companions" for certain quests

- twitch action combat

- tacked on open world

- a personal story instead of save the world one (see DA2)

 

I know right??? TW3 suffer from all those items, but for some reason CDproyect blind fanboy think the game is the second coming of Jesus or something.

 

They keep claiming that Witcher 3 is the new standard for the RPG/open world games when the game didnt do anything diferent outside past games.

 

Pretty much they get blind by the story and esthetic on the game. And think that is what make it perfect.

[CronoDragoon]

Note that The Witcher 3 is also a save the world(s) story. It just doesn't bother to develop that angle until the last 5 minutes of the game. Too busy chasing after Dandelion's ex-lovers for Important Plot Reasons.

Spoiler

Really though, that White Frost ending conflict was pretty dumb. Imagine if the Reapers had only been brought up in passing until the very end of Mass Effect, and then dealt with off-screen in one cutscene. I forgive you though, Witcher 3, because you gave us Skellige.

[Iakus]

People complained about that?

 

I've lost my faith in humanity. Again 

It wasn't that it was a "personal story" it's that Hawke's story couldn't really be changed.  He/she was a passenger in their own story.

 

Forget saving the world, Hawke couldn't save his own family!

[Khrystyn]

No visual-graphics wizardry can make a poor story better.

 

Q. Do any of you feel that cgi trailers are false advertising in regards to the actual graphic's quality we'll see in-game?

 

I mention this in this thread because I think it's easy to be wowed by cgi that has astounding visual effects. Sure, a game trailer can make the game look stunning and capture the "We've regained the crown" impression, but I can't help but feel that cgi is a misrepresentation of the actual product, and merely demonstrates what the designers have going on in their creative minds. Perhaps I'm too much of a 'doubting Thomas.'

 

I'd like to see BW release real game graphics videos for a pc/console monitor with 1920 x 1080, 2560 x 1440, and 3840 x 2160 pixel resolutions. Of course, my 1920 x 1080 monitor can't display what the higher resolutions will actually look like. I'll have to worship from below.   A release of in-game wallpaper scenes in different resolutions would be a great demonstration to rev us up. Hopefully the presentation on Sunday will have an on-screen demonstration of the game.

[Drakoriz]

No visual-graphics wizardry can make a poor story better.

 

Q. Do any of you feel that cgi trailers are false advertising in regards to the actual graphic's quality we'll see in-game?

 

I mention this in this thread because I think it's easy to be wowed by cgi that has astounding visual effects. Sure, a game trailer can make the game look stunning and capture the "We've regained the crown" impression, but I can't help but feel that cgi is a misrepresentation of the actual product, and merely demonstrates what the designers have going on in their creative minds. Perhaps I'm too much of a 'doubting Thomas.'

 

I'd like to see BW release real game graphics videos on a pc/console monitor with 1920 x 1080, 2560 x 1440, and 3840 x 2160 pixel resolutions. Of course, my 1920 x 1080 monitor can't display what the higher resolutions will actually look like. I'll have to worship from below.

 

agree, with you, but i just keep track of preview works.

 

Like i know Bioware will have good graphics, their games normally look amazing, DAI look good, same goes for ME3. (outside personal taste of the designs).

 

I mean i learn not to trust CGI. If not, as a fan of Blizzard, i will be complaining on their forums every day =P.

[Drakoriz]

Note that The Witcher 3 is also a save the world(s) story. It just doesn't bother to develop that angle until the last 5 minutes of the game. Too busy chasing after Dandelion's ex-lovers for Important Plot Reasons.

Spoiler

Really though, that White Frost ending conflict was pretty dumb. Imagine if the Reapers had only been brought up in passing until the very end of Mass Effect, and then dealt with off-screen in one cutscene. I forgive you though, Witcher 3, because you gave us Skellige.

 

heheh will Skellige look amazing and the story there was great, good lord i learn to hate boat riding on Witcher 3. (coming from a player that dont use fast travel options)

[Han Shot First]

Note that The Witcher 3 is also a save the world(s) story. It just doesn't bother to develop that angle until the last 5 minutes of the game. Too busy chasing after Dandelion's ex-lovers for Important Plot Reasons.

Spoiler

Really though, that White Frost ending conflict was pretty dumb. Imagine if the Reapers had only been brought up in passing until the very end of Mass Effect, and then dealt with off-screen in one cutscene. I forgive you though, Witcher 3, because you gave us Skellige.

Spoiler

While Eredin and the Wild Hunt were a bit underwhelming as villains (Gaunter O'Dimm in the Hearts of Stone DLC was so much better), I liked that Geralt doesn't really play a direct role in saving the world from the White Frost. It's up to Ciri to stop the White Frost, with Geralt as a supporting player. Since Ciri rather than Geralt is the game world's messiah, the White Frost didn't need more attention than it was given. Dealing with the White Frost wasn't Geralt's quest. It can't really be compared to Mass Effect and the Reapers, where Shepard is that series' Ciri rather than it's Geralt.

Since there are no shortage of chosen one heroes in RPGs, I liked that CD Projekt Red sort of diverged a bit from the usual by putting the player in the boots of a character that enables the hero to save the world, but is basically on the sidelines while the true hero of the story deals with the main threat.

[Hazegurl]

Note that The Witcher 3 is also a save the world(s) story. It just doesn't bother to develop that angle until the last 5 minutes of the game. Too busy chasing after Dandelion's ex-lovers for Important Plot Reasons.

Spoiler

Really though, that White Frost ending conflict was pretty dumb. Imagine if the Reapers had only been brought up in passing until the very end of Mass Effect, and then dealt with off-screen in one cutscene. I forgive you though, Witcher 3, because you gave us Skellige.

The White Frost was brought up in TW1.  It was the main motivation behind the villain's schemes.

 

But still, I hated the whole White Frost story, I think it was the dumbest aspects of the series.  But Alvin/Jacques was at least more interesting than Ciri and the Wild Hunt

 

 

It wasn't that it was a "personal story" it's that Hawke's story couldn't really be changed.  He/she was a passenger in their own story.

 

Forget saving the world, Hawke couldn't save his own family!

 

I like DA2 but BW tried too hard to make Hawke a struggling hero to the point where he just comes across as an incompetent loser at times. I would have been okay with his mother still dying had he done more than twiddle his thumbs during the investigation.

[Gwydden]

Note that The Witcher 3 is also a save the world(s) story. It just doesn't bother to develop that angle until the last 5 minutes of the game. Too busy chasing after Dandelion's ex-lovers for Important Plot Reasons.

Spoiler

Really though, that White Frost ending conflict was pretty dumb. Imagine if the Reapers had only been brought up in passing until the very end of Mass Effect, and then dealt with off-screen in one cutscene. I forgive you though, Witcher 3, because you gave us Skellige.

Good times!

 

It wasn't that it was a "personal story" it's that Hawke's story couldn't really be changed.  He/she was a passenger in their own story.

 

Forget saving the world, Hawke couldn't save his own family!

And that's a legitimate complain, but a very different one from saying DA2 sucked because it wasn't a save the world story. That game had plenty of issues, but that wasn't one of them.

[AlanC9]

The parameters behind the term "better" should, however, be defined in the statement, since "better" is inherently a subjective impression that can imply (but not always does imply) "superiority".  TW3 did receive a highere overall rating from critics after release than DA:I; and as long a "better" is being defined in that repect, to say that it was "better received" is indeed a factual statement.

It's funny to think about last year on this board, where people kept saying DAI's critic scores weren't meaningful. Ah, well .... haters gonna hate.

I've got a modest proposal here. Let's all just default to the OP's position, arguendo, that TW3 was the better game. Not because I agree with that -- my rig won't run TW3 and I haven't studied the design, so I have no substantive position -- but because it's an uninteresting question.

If TW3 is the better game, then we should be asking what Bio can learn from it. And if TW3 wasn't, we should still be asking what Bio can learn from it.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

Q. Do any of you feel that cgi trailers are false advertising in regards to the actual graphic's quality we'll see in-game?

Nope. Anyone who tries to see those as accurate representations of the final product deserves every ounce of disappointment they'll feel when they play the full game.

[Iakus]

 

And that's a legitimate complain, but a very different one from saying DA2 sucked because it wasn't a save the world story. That game had plenty of issues, but that wasn't one of them.

That's what I mean.  People weren't complaining that Hawke wasn't off saving the world, but that they, as Hawke had so little agency at all.

 

DA2 was supposed to be a "rise to power" story.  But Hawke never developed any real sense of growth or change in status.  Even as Champion of Kirkwall he/she was still cleaning up street gangs and such.

[AlanC9]

This is true for quite a few RPGs, though. It's just that nobody really cares about being unable to change the story when the story ends in triumph.

[CronoDragoon]

Spoiler

While Eredin and the Wild Hunt were a bit underwhelming as villains (Gaunter O'Dimm in the Hearts of Stone DLC was so much better), I liked that Geralt doesn't really play a direct role in saving the world from the White Frost. It's up to Ciri to stop the White Frost, with Geralt as a supporting player. Since Ciri rather than Geralt is the game world's messiah, the White Frost didn't need more attention than it was given. Dealing with the White Frost wasn't Geralt's quest. It can't really be compared to Mass Effect and the Reapers, where Shepard is that series' Ciri rather than it's Geralt.

Since there are no shortage of chosen one heroes in RPGs, I liked that CD Projekt Red sort of diverged a bit from the usual by putting the player in the boots of a character that enables the hero to save the world, but is basically on the sidelines while the true hero of the story deals with the main threat.

Spoiler

Oh, I'm not asking for Geralt to be the one who deals with the White Frost. I'm asking for the White Frost to not be brought up at all at the end of the game with very little integration into the story. There were plenty of ways you could have empowered Ciri and had Geralt serve as enabler/commenter without throwing in a save all the universes plotline.

[Jedi Comedian]

That's what I mean. People weren't complaining that Hawke wasn't off saving the world, but that they, as Hawke had so little agency at all.

DA2 was supposed to be a "rise to power" story. But Hawke never developed any real sense of growth or change in status. Even as Champion of Kirkwall he/she was still cleaning up street gangs and such.

True, the only difference between Act 1 and 2 is that Hawke has a better house. That and he dresses like Hugh Hefner while in his house LOL.

[Iakus]

 
If TW3 is the better game, then we should be asking what Bio can learn from it. And if TW3 wasn't, we should still be asking what Bio can learn from it.

Well, from The Witcher, Bioware should not learn

 

How to make an interesting protagonist

How to make any kind of world besides Crapsack

How to do "romances" that aren't Skinemax

How to make foul language sound natural

How to make sympathetic NPCs

Appropriate levels of gore.

 

But hey, if Bioware ever gets the right to do "Game of Thrones: The RPG" maybe there's something in there worth learning

[Iakus]

This is true for quite a few RPGs, though. It's just that nobody really cares about being unable to change the story when the story ends in triumph.

But that's just it, the game was advertised as a "rise to power"  Hawke going from penniless refugee to Champion of Kirkwall.

 

But whatever you think of the story (and I admit, I didn't find it awful) many people simply didn't feel that rise.

[UpUpAway]

It's funny to think about last year on this board, where people kept saying DAI's critic scores weren't meaningful. Ah, well .... haters gonna hate.

I've got a modest proposal here. Let's all just default to the OP's position, arguendo, that TW3 was the better game. Not because I agree with that -- my rig won't run TW3 and I haven't studied the design, so I have no substantive position -- but because it's an uninteresting question.

If TW3 is the better game, then we should be asking what Bio can learn from it. And if TW3 wasn't, we should still be asking what Bio can learn from it.

 

Agree that we should be asking what Bioware can learn from it's competitors all the time... it's just not the time now to be suggesting they abruptly change the course they've set for ME:A (whatever that course is) in order to chase some fictitious public opinion "crown."  ME:A may blow the doors off TW3 or it may not (it remains to be seen)... but the worse thing Bioware could do to it now is change their story direction.  They started their "roll of the dice" with ME:A a year or so ago... they just can't try to grab the dice back in mid-air.

 

ETA:  Also, I'm not suggesting that the critic scores are/were universally "meaningful."  I'm just saying that, if the person making a statement about what "better" sets out the parameters in terms of something that can be substantiated with numbers, then it can be deemed to be a factual statement.  The OP, however, did not define the parameters of what was intended by "better received" within their original statement... so, I see it as being somewhat understandable that this whole thread erupted the way it did.  Whether the thread was originally intended to be inflammatory is yet another question.

[azarhal]

 

And that's a legitimate complain, but a very different one from saying DA2 sucked because it wasn't a save the world story. That game had plenty of issues, but that wasn't one of them.

 

I've seen plenty of people complaining that they didn't get to save the world in DA2, usually bringing up that they could do it in every other BioWare games as to why DA2 should have it. It wasn't just "Hawke couldn't save his family" and "where's my player agency" complains.

[NKnight7]

No visual-graphics wizardry can make a poor story better.

 

Q. Do any of you feel that cgi trailers are false advertising in regards to the actual graphic's quality we'll see in-game?

 

I mention this in this thread because I think it's easy to be wowed by cgi that has astounding visual effects. Sure, a game trailer can make the game look stunning and capture the "We've regained the crown" impression, but I can't help but feel that cgi is a misrepresentation of the actual product, and merely demonstrates what the designers have going on in their creative minds. Perhaps I'm too much of a 'doubting Thomas.'

 

I'd like to see BW release real game graphics videos for a pc/console monitor with 1920 x 1080, 2560 x 1440, and 3840 x 2160 pixel resolutions. Of course, my 1920 x 1080 monitor can't display what the higher resolutions will actually look like. I'll have to worship from below.   A release of in-game wallpaper scenes in different resolutions would be a great demonstration to rev us up. Hopefully the presentation on Sunday will have an on-screen demonstration of the game.

 

No, that's why I typically wait to see actual gameplay of a game to get a feel of the graphical quality of the game.

[LinksOcarina]

The parameters behind the term "better" should, however, be defined in the statement, since "better" is inherently a subjective impression that can imply (but not always does imply) "superiority".  TW3 did receive a highere overall rating from critics after release than DA:I; and as long a "better" is being defined in that repect, to say that it was "better received" is indeed a factual statement.

 

And an irrelevant one in the grand scheme of things, because as you said, better is subjective in this instance, so the majority's opinion usually doesn't matter to the individual. 

[LinksOcarina]

That's what I mean.  People weren't complaining that Hawke wasn't off saving the world, but that they, as Hawke had so little agency at all.

 

DA2 was supposed to be a "rise to power" story.  But Hawke never developed any real sense of growth or change in status.  Even as Champion of Kirkwall he/she was still cleaning up street gangs and such.

 

one problem with that, can Hawke see a personality growth and change throughout the game if the player doesn't want that?

 

People argue Hawke has little agency in Dragon Age II, but the problem with that is people control every facet of Hawke's reactions, dialogue, and the like. It is up to the player to choose whether or not Hawke grows as a character- if the game did it it would be closer to The Witcher in terms of it's fixed personality/protagonist with Geralt, but much more in line with Commander Shepard and Mass Effect, a character who did go through character growth, much to the chagrin of the players because it was not controlled fully.

 

Folks can't have it both ways in that instance, if you ask me. So the argument that he never developed a sense of growth or change is squarely on the player, not the design. The design can only do so much with that; more money, passage of time, status and how people deal with you, respect you, come to depend on you, and the like. A lot of that is the periphery in the end, and not the forefront because of the political machinations going on around you, but it is there. It not "feeling" like a rise to power because of a lack of character growth is a poor example if you ask me.