How is it blind praise?
So whens someone's praise disagrees with you, its blind?
Is TW3 perfect? No. But it does set the bar for AAA open world titles for what it does. Watch whats going to happen to games that fail to reach that bar and keep doing what they are doing.
/sigh you really want me to go and look for your other post and i wasnt the only one saying it....... really im done dude. You can think whatever you want.
From my part i want Bioware to be Bioware and no CDproyect.
From my part i want Bioware to be Bioware and no CDproyect.
Bioware will be whoever Bioware wants to be. Not what their fans tell them to be.
Sure, TW3 may have a couple tedious side quest and they do have some very silly ones, but you cannot question the sheer amount of quality side quest lines with production values and attention to detail the main game has, with many playing a role in the main story. And they did not weaken the main story to do this like a Bethesda game would.
But its still an RPG and it does choice and consequence better than almost all Bioware games with only really ME3 and maybe BGII (on the gameplay and party composition side more than story) being an equal.
Dark Souls III is a broken mess and easily the weakest Soulsborne game. Its PvP is so bad, the covenants are so broken, the areas are recycled from past games, most of the bosses are complete rips from past games, its more linear than ever. I can go on. It is no where near the quality of Scholar of the First Sin.
I said souls game in general but nevertheless, Dark souls 2 was heavily criticized when it first came out and DS3 hasn't had time to release any dlcs yet. Scholar is the refined and polished version of DS2 released on new gen along with all the dlcs so that's hardly a fair comparison. Also with the same standards of being an Rpg that you have applied to TW3, Dark souls is just as equally an Rpg and can be considered in the same vein.
Anyways we're getting rather off topic so the initial point I was making was that you are too focused on Mass Effect being another Witcher. Sure the witcher had some fantastic side quests but Mass effect had companion quests and their loyalty follow ups which isn't something we see in the witcher at all. So is having such an interactive squad with you where as Geralt is more of a lone wolf. I agree with your point about the side quests but not with this whole crown business.
Bioware will be whoever Bioware wants to be. Not what their fans tell them to be.
i know =D
Yes but those numbers do make a lot of difference in game and how you play. You aren't gonna depend on Igni all that much if it does pathetic damage and you have an abysmal stamina recharge. For example during a particular fight against another witcher, you can either counter his strikes with swords and do damage, depend on signs to slow him down and weaken him or resort to poisons and bombs.
To draw a parallel, that would be like saying that all builds are basically the same in ME3 since any build can use any gun and the differences are only in numbers. You just shoot at your enemies and use power combos but the principle of dealing with an enemy say an atlas is the same, namely strip shields with respective powers and punch through armor with the respective ammo or power combos.
I guess this is a matter of preference anyway but still I feel it applies to the topic since we're discussing gameplay, something that affects Mass effect as well.
I'd say it's more like if Shepard always got every single ability, but which ones became stronger were dependent on which class you were playing. Possibly even make it classless without increasing the number of skill points you get, since Geralt can go with a hybrid build if you wish.
Admittedly ME3 MP probably is even better at this than SP was because of the focused nature of each kit. Only having 3 active abilities means each kit is far more focused on doing one specific style, and the variety in gameplay is in choosing different kits. Although I still feel ME3 SP provides far more variety in gameplay than TW3 does.
I actually did use Ingi a fair bit on my sword build, but primarily as CC that deals a small amount of damage over Aard's just CC.
I said souls game in general but nevertheless, Dark souls 2 was heavily criticized when it first came out and DS3 hasn't had time to release any dlcs yet. Scholar is the refined and polished version of DS2 released on new gen along with all the dlcs so that's hardly a fair comparison. Also with the same standards of being an Rpg that you have applied to TW3, Dark souls is just as equally an Rpg and can be considered in the same vein.
Anyways we're getting rather off topic so the initial point I was making was that you are too focused on Mass Effect being another Witcher. Sure the witcher had some fantastic side quests but Mass effect had companion quests and their loyalty follow ups which isn't something we see in the witcher at all. So is having such an interactive squad with you where as Geralt is more of a lone wolf. I agree with your point about the side quests but not with this whole crown business.
The Witcher 3 does have "companion" quests....they are just not in your party. Triss in "A Matter of Life and Death" and "Now or Never", "Cabaret" and "Carnal Sins" for Dandelion, "Possession" (and "King's Gambit") for Cerys, "Last Wish" for Yennifer, for example.
Comparing Dark Souls and The Witcher is like comparing Diablo to Planescape Torment....vastly different games.
And the hatred for Dark Souls II has made Dark Souls III even worse. DS3 has problems that cannot be fixed. It is mechanically busted and unbalanced. PvP is basically a lost cause because fixing one thing will break another. DS2's problems were fixable.
And DS3 should have been better than DS2 on release....its not, and will never be.
That's a hard thing to do. And Mass Effect 2 is Bioware best game.
And DS3 should have been better than DS2 on release....its not, and will never be.
I'll admit DS3 has been lukewarm for me at best, but vanilla/release DS2 was an awful experience in pvp and pve. I think DS2 with its DLC is the best soulsborne game outside of Bloodborne and its DLC, but vanilla DS2 was way weaker than what vanilla DS3 is right now.
Comparing Dark Souls and The Witcher is like comparing Diablo to Planescape Torment....vastly different games.
And here you are comparing Witcher to ME? Ironic.
Both are Bioware-esque games, and TW2 and TW3 has a dialogue system similar to the ME series.
I'll admit DS3 has been lukewarm for me at best, but vanilla/release DS2 was an awful experience in pvp and pve. I think DS2 with its DLC is the best soulsborne game outside of Bloodborne and its DLC, but vanilla DS2 was way weaker than what vanilla DS3 is right now.
so was DS1.
DS1 was broken at launch with bugs and overpowered builds, and PvP never got fixed. DS2 had balance problems as well but they were fixed in a couple months time, with faith based players getting how they played changed.
And vanilla DS2 had far more identity than DS3 has, which is fan service, the game.
I'd say it's more like if Shepard always got every single ability, but which ones became stronger were dependent on which class you were playing. Possibly even make it classless without increasing the number of skill points you get, since Geralt can go with a hybrid build if you wish.
Admittedly ME3 MP probably is even better at this than SP was because of the focused nature of each kit. Only having 3 active abilities means each kit is far more focused on doing one specific style, and the variety in gameplay is in choosing different kits. Although I still feel ME3 SP provides far more variety in gameplay than TW3 does.
I actually did use Ingi a fair bit on my sword build, but primarily as CC that deals a small amount of damage over Aard's just CC.
Yes but those powers are optional and you only have a limited number of points to spend so you can't have all of them active. Upgrading these powers does make a large difference in how they work and their effects on enemies as well as leading to different playstyles.
Shepard does have a large number of effective powers as well especially with all the companion powers you can unlock and in fact these are mostly either a power or a grenade in most cases. While in the Witcher, you have powers, potion abilities, sword skills, oils and bombs etc which I feel is even more diverse in nature that the general system of just having powers in ME3 .
I'm not saying the witcher is more varied than ME3 per se, rather my statement was against the argument that there was a lack of variety in TW3 combat.
The Witcher 3 does have "companion" quests....they are just not in your party. Triss in "A Matter of Life and Death" and "Now or Never", "Cabaret" and "Carnal Sins" for Dandelion, "Possession" (and "King's Gambit") for Cerys, "Last Wish" for Yennifer, for example.
Comparing Dark Souls and The Witcher is like comparing Diablo to Planescape Torment....vastly different games.
And the hatred for Dark Souls II has made Dark Souls III even worse. DS3 has problems that cannot be fixed. It is mechanically busted and unbalanced. PvP is basically a lost cause because fixing one thing will break another. DS2's problems were fixable.
And DS3 should have been better than DS2 on release....its not, and will never be.
(Well okay Jedi do too but I'm just quoting Yoda k)
so was DS1.
DS1 was broken at launch with bugs and overpowered builds, and PvP never got fixed. DS2 had balance problems as well but they were fixed in a couple months time, with faith based players getting how they played changed.
And vanilla DS2 had far more identity than DS3 has, which is fan service, the game.
So what if it had its 'own identity' that doesn't automatically make it a more interesting or better game.
Both are Bioware-esque games, and TW2 and TW3 has a dialogue system similar to the ME series.
So because they Both have a dialogue system that makes them comparable? Weak, this logic is flawed. By your meaning witcher can be compared to TT walking dead series or binary domain which is a third person shooter. And what do you mean by "bioware-esque" you mean RPG? Like the souls games LOL.
The Witcher is very similar to how Bioware does their games when it comes to storytelling and conversation. In fact the first game runs on the engine that powered NWN and they translated Baldur's Gate. So CDPR has history with Bioware.
The combat system is different but in many aspects, the way it tells story is the same. The Walking Dead is not a WRPG.
Dark Souls is rooted in Ultima Underworld, an action RPG dungeon crawler and is a modern form of it. Its no where near close.
So what if it had its 'own identity' that doesn't automatically make it a more interesting or better game.
but not having an identity hurts the game.
Hence one of the major complaints with Dark Souls III.
They are two different genres, you can't compare them. They don't even have the same gaming mechanics. Just because EAware have history with CDPR and just becuase story is probably driven in a similar fashion doesn't make the games similar or comparable. Like I said If Wicher can be compared to ME than it's comparable to TT walking dead and binary domain. It's silly.The Witcher is very similar to how Bioware does their games when it comes to storytelling and conversation. In fact the first game runs on the engine that powered NWN and they translated Baldur's Gate. So CDPR has history with Bioware.
The combat system is different but in many aspects, the way it tells story is the same.
Dark Souls is rooted in Ultima Underworld, an action RPG dungeon crawler and is a modern form of it. Its no where near close.
but not having an identity hurts the game.
Hence one of the major complaints with Dark Souls III.
Having an uninteresting unique 'identity' hurts the game too. I don't like a lot of the fan service in the DS3 (mainly Andre and the Firekeeper), but I still found it more interesting than DS2 even if DS3 didn't really bring much new lore into the world. DS2's DLC really saved that game, and I don't think its unreasonable for the same to happen to DS3. This is offtopic tho so, I'm just gonna agree to disagree on release DS2 vs DS3.
They are two differt genres, you can't compare them. They don't even have the same gaming mechanics. Just because EAware have history with CDPR and just becuase story is properly driven in a similar fashion doesn't make the games similar or comparable. Like I said If Wicher can be compared to ME than it's comparable to TT walking dead and binary domain. It's silly.
Wrong, both series are cinematic driven WRPGs, outside of combat, they can be compared and quite easily.
The only real difference is that there is no party in Witcher games. Their Bioware influence is very obvious. And KOTOR and Jade Empire have different game mechanics when it comes to combat, but that doesn't mean they are similar in the Bioware mold. Games like Alpha Protocol and XCOM Declassified are in that mold as well, as developers see the Mass effect system as a major influence, even cloning it.
And The Witcher and Mass Effect are far more similar than it is to Dark Souls, which once again, is rooted in Ultima Underworld and even Wizardry before that.
They are the same cinematic type that Bioware does and the fact is that they are both cinematic driven WRPG series
To be fair the Witcher has a lot more reference material than Mass Effect. The Witcher is also developed/published by the same entity. I'm sure BioWare and EA had at least a few conflict of interests in the creative process. With that said tho The Witcher 3 is better than anything BioWare has made since it joined EA. My only complaints with the Witcher 3 is its weak main plot/villains and the combat is a bit too repetitive.
I'd be very surprised, but also very happy if BioWare can make ME:A near the quality of TW:3. TW:3 is probably going to be better than most RPGs developed over the next decade tbh.
Having an uninteresting unique 'identity' hurts the game too. I don't like a lot of the fan service in the DS3 (mainly Andre and the Firekeeper), but I still found it more interesting than DS2 even if DS3 didn't really bring much new lore into the world. DS2's DLC really saved that game, and I don't think its unreasonable for the same to happen to DS3. This is offtopic tho so, I'm just gonna agree to disagree on release DS2 vs DS3.
No, Dark Souls II has a stronger player drive and journey and a far more philosophical take in the series. The DLC did improve the game, but the main game was no slouch and Vendrick's story was well done.
The problem with DS3 is the mechanics are terrible and unbalanced. The lack of poise makes heavy armor useless, but its way too generous equip load makes light armor useless. Because of lack of poise, quick weapons are better and there is more stamina to use. Vitality is overpowered because it has no diminishing returns on leveling up. You then turn the game into easy mode with a Havel's that can roll like a guy in Bloodborne. New Game Plus is terrible and a huge step down from Dark Souls II, which added new encounters, DS3 didn't bother. The PvP is broken irreparably because of the game's poor mechanics DS3 is so linear with an "L" shaped progression. And the covenants are far less interesting and game changing than DS2.
DS3 is a result of a cash grab, and a director that clearly took on too many projects. Dark Souls with Bloodborne speed doesn't really work.
DS3 is definitely in this conversation because this is a result of a company becoming complacent on success and stopping the innovation and the fresh new ideas that made the Souls series what it is. They just do not have a competitor that can take them out to the woodshed yet unlike Bioware, Bethesda, and Telltale.
so was DS1.
DS1 was broken at launch with bugs and overpowered builds, and PvP never got fixed. DS2 had balance problems as well but they were fixed in a couple months time, with faith based players getting how they played changed.
And vanilla DS2 had far more identity than DS3 has, which is fan service, the game.
And DS2 was not? They were of the same level if not worse than DS1, it's not for nothing that people kept mocking DS2 saying the B-Team made it. What with soul memory, level 838 havelmonsters in the arena, one shot ripostes, how you fell on your ass when you get parried, Santiers spear spam and much more. But they fixed a lot of that and the DLCs were amazing even though I haven't played all of them.
Now don't get me wrong, DS2 is in fact my favorite of the series and where I did the majority of my pvp but compared to the number of people who prefer DS1 to 2, I'm in a minority. Give it time for some balances to happen and for them to release their dlcs and DS3 could very well be the equal of the other souls games.
To be fair the Witcher has a lot more reference material than Mass Effect. The Witcher is also developed/published by the same entity. I'm sure BioWare and EA had at least a few conflict of interests in the creative process. With that said tho The Witcher 3 is better than anything BioWare has made since it joined EA. My only complaints with the Witcher 3 is its weak main plot/villains and the combat is a bit too repetitive.
I'd be very surprised, but also very happy if BioWare can make ME:A near the quality of TW:3. TW:3 is probably going to be better than most RPGs developed over the next decade tbh.
The main plot is far from weak as the story was actually about Ciri stepping out of Geralt's shadow and coming of age, and while Eredin is no Jacques De Aldesberg from TW1, he is from the books and his plot continues where Lady of the Lake let off.
And DS2 was not? They were of the same level if not worse than DS1, it's not for nothing that people kept mocking DS2 saying the B-Team made it. What with soul memory, level 838 havelmonsters in the arena, one shot ripostes, how you fell on your ass when you get parried, Santiers spear spam and much more. But they fixed a lot of that and the DLCs were amazing even though I haven't played all of them.
Now don't get me wrong, DS2 is in fact my favorite of the series and where I did the majority of my pvp but compared to the number of people who prefer DS1 to 2, I'm in a minority. Give it time for some balances to happen and for them to release their dlcs and DS3 could very well be the equal of the other souls games.
DS1 had people who used the Dragon Head to get as much souls as possible, and their Havel monsters were much worse due to the ultra powered Havel's ring. Do not get me started in that Fog Ring or the flippy ring.
And B Team fixed things better than A-Team did. With DS3, A-Team made a game that cannot be fixed.
Another thing is that fans love the original creator and think no one else can handle it better. We get dreck like Bioshock Infinite and especially its DLC because of this. I think Bioshock 2 is the best in the series (after its slow start), especially its DLC, which is the pinnacle of the series.
...
The problem with DS3 is the mechanics are terrible and unbalanced. The lack of poise makes heavy armor useless, but its way too generous equip load makes light armor useless. Because of lack of poise, quick weapons are better and there is more stamina to use. Vitality is overpowered because it has no diminishing returns on leveling up. You then turn the game into easy mode with a Havel's that can roll like a guy in Bloodborne.
There were quick rolling Havel monsters in ds2 as well along with a side dish of dark magic spam and short sword spam. Even now, if you'd play a few matches in the red arena, it's inevitable that you'd run into a couple or more havel mages on the way.
Quick weapons have always been better than slower weapons in ds2, but you can always overcome that with playstyle. I used to run an almost low poise UGS build in ds2 anyway so the difference in ds3 isn't all that bad Imo. Hell, it's a welcome change to poise stacking short sword spammers in the other two games. Granted I haven't played a lot of DS3 yet due to time constraints but this is the idea I got from what I've played so far.
Retour en haut