1191 réponses à ce sujet

[Lulupab]

So what do you think about Trespasser versus Blood and Wine?

 

Not counting the price because EA is responsible for pricing, not Bioware.

[dreamgazer]

So like the Game of Thrones RPG made by whoever that everybody admits has a great story but terrible gameplay which is why no one played it.

No, the C&C and story variation in Protocol are definitely worth dealing with the gameplay. Same can't be said for the GoT RPG.

[In Exile]

I replay Placescape Torment every year despite it

1:Having a set character
2:having bad combat

Why do I replay it? Because it's a fantastic experience. Same with TW2 and I had more fun with TW3 and it's two expansions then I had in the longest time, only other recent games coming close being Bloodborne and dark souls 3.

I find PST hard to replay. But mostly because I find they there's really only one character that works for me.

[Kabraxal]

Well notice I didn't deny you guys felt the way you did about Coryfish versus whoever was the "antagonist" in TW3, but I think TW3 did something even better which was evolve on the concept of the "antagonist" by not emphasizing that part at all.
 
It's like someone who made a pretty good pie versus someone who invents cake.
 
At any rate, Solas isn't grey at all he's deep black and deep white, IMO.

If he's both then isn't that grey?

And I felt that The Wild Hunt and the Frost (or whatever that awful thing was supposed to be) were the antagonists on TW3... Just poorly written and rather stereotypical... Eredin even matched the typical "man on throne with slave" moment. It was cringe inducing for a supposed serious game.

[Lezio]

So what do you think about Trespasser versus Blood and Wine?

 

Not counting the price because EA is responsible for pricing, not Bioware.

 

Trespasser is a good DLC of an average game, Blood and Wine is a great EXPANSION of a great game

 

Quite a short answer, but this is how i see it. Trespasser actually tries to mend all the broken things in the main-game(overuse of Codex, lack of story-driven quests, non-sensical gameplay and story segregation, the Inquisitor finally becoming a character ecc ecc), and i do like it, but Blood And Wine makes an awesome experience even more awesome

[Hammerstorm]

What is it with this forum and poisoned wells today?

 

Bad infrastructure most likely. 

[LPPrince]

So what do you think about Trespasser versus Blood and Wine?

 

Not counting the price because EA is responsible for pricing, not Bioware.

 

 

Didn't play Trespasser. I only played Jaws. As for TW3 I played both Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine. And I won't begin to compare Jaws and those two as Jaws was only meant to be a smaller DLC from the get go whereas HoS and B&W were meant to be sizable.

[LPPrince]

No, the C&C and story variation in Protocol are definitely worth dealing with the gameplay. Same can't be said for the GoT RPG.

 

Fair enough. Didn't play either so I'll take your word for it.

[Fiery Phoenix]

So what do you think about Trespasser versus Blood and Wine?
 
Not counting the price because EA is responsible for pricing, not Bioware.

Trespasser was pretty good compared to the rest of DAI, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I did Blood and Wine. Plus, it took me about four hours versus the latter's ~30 hours.

[Lulupab]

If he's both then isn't that grey?

And I felt that The Wild Hunt and the Frost (or whatever that awful thing was supposed to be) were the antagonists on TW3... Just poorly written and rather stereotypical... Eredin even matched the typical "man on throne with slave" moment. It was cringe inducing for a supposed serious game.

 
The main game loses a lot of tempo after finding ciri and defending her at Kaer Morhen. The rest of the game is cringe, thankfully the ending is close at that point.

[Lulupab]

Trespasser is a good DLC of an average game, Blood and Wine is a great EXPANSION of a great game

But it has Solas. S.O.L.A.S

[Seraphim24]

If he's both then isn't that grey?

And I felt that The Wild Hunt and the Frost (or whatever that awful thing was supposed to be) were the antagonists on TW3... Just poorly written and rather stereotypical... Eredin even matched the typical "man on throne with slave" moment. It was cringe inducing for a supposed serious game.

 

I'm saying that just doesn't matter though... like I think you guys are always using this single frame of analysis.

 

A story isn't whatever Hollywood says it is or whether it accords with principles of "antagonist" or "protagonist" or from Greek mythology or a "tragic hero." A story is literally that it's someone's personal experience or story, and some people don't view the world in explicit lens of "antagonist" or "protagonist."

 

That's why TW3 succeeds it turns most of those concepts on their heads,who is the protagonist? Is it Ciri? Geralt? Who are the antagonists? Are they the Wild Hunt, the ancient Elves?

 

Stories are more fun when you don't know what's coming

 

But they aren't the only kinds of stories, either.

[Lulupab]

Didn't play Trespasser. I only played Jaws. As for TW3 I played both Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine. And I won't begin to compare Jaws and those two as Jaws was only meant to be a smaller DLC from the get go whereas HoS and B&W were meant to be sizable.

Pfft, judging DA:I without Trespasser is invalid.

[LPPrince]

But it has Solas. S.O.L.A.S

 

 

I can't see how the brief reappearance of a character can trump 30-40+hours of brand new content with new characters, a massive new location, new abilities, new items, and such and such. Unless it has more to it than a Solas return.

[nfi42]

Well notice I didn't deny you guys felt the way you did about Coryfish versus whoever was the "antagonist" in TW3, but I think TW3 did something even better which was evolve on the concept of the "antagonist" by not emphasizing that part at all.

 

It's like someone who made a pretty good pie versus someone who invents cake.

 

At any rate, Solas isn't grey at all he's deep black and deep white, IMO.

 

 

To me,  Solus was just a mcguffin.  I even romanced him with a dalish elf to try and understand him and saw nothing in him.  Maybe it's because I'm a straight guy.

[LPPrince]

Pfft, judging DA:I without Trespasser is invalid.

 

It is valid as Trespasser isn't part of the game at release. No one's gonna say that you need Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine to judge The Witcher 3.

[Lezio]

But it has Solas. S.O.L.A.S

 

Hate him

Hate him as i hated Arl Howe, though, not as i hated Kai "who are you and how did you get my number" Leng

[BadgerladDK]

The actual combat in Alpha Protocol is pretty terrible, though. Good role-playing experience, terrible "game".

Very true, the combat is clunky and hasn't aged well at all. Actually not unlike ME1 which I have many fond memories of, but after recently playing it again I definitely see the clunkiness that was pointed out by a friend who played 2 and 3 first. Always thought he was crazy for not finishing 1 when it finally came to PlayStation, but he's more of an action gamer than typical rpg fan, so I see his point.

For me, characters and story come before most things, so I can live with it in both AP and ME1, but I did eventually just lower the combat difficulty to brush through it and get on to ME2 combat.

[Lulupab]

It is valid as Trespasser isn't part of the game at release. No one's gonna say that you need Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine to judge The Witcher 3.

 

Does Witcher leave a blatant cliffhanger to be finished in a DLC? Nope.

 

So yes, its invalid because you don't know what happens after this cliffhanger.

[dreamgazer]

I can't see how the brief reappearance of a character can trump 30-40+hours of brand new content with new characters, a massive new location, new abilities, new items, and such and such. Unless it has more to it than a Solas return.

Of course it has more to it than a Solas return. It's also half the price.

[nfi42]

Pfft, judging DA:I without Trespasser is invalid.

 

Releasing DAI without Trespasser was just money grabbing.

[Kabraxal]

I'm saying that just doesn't matter though... like I think you guys are always using this single frame of analysis.
 
A story isn't whatever Hollywood says it is or whether it accords with principles of "antagonist" or "protagonist" or from Greek mythology or a "tragic hero." A story is literally that it's someone's personal experience or story, and some people don't view the world in explicit lens of "antagonist" or "protagonist."
 
That's why TW3 succeeds it turns most of those concepts on their heads,who is the protagonist? Is it Ciri? Geralt? Who are the antagonists? Are they the Wild Hunt, the ancient Elves?
 
Stories are more fun when you don't know what's coming
 
But they aren't the only kinds of stories, either.

That wasn't my experience with The Witcher, in any of the three games. I felt that there were defined protagonists and antagonists in TW3. So I don't see the ambiguity that you see in the game.

[LPPrince]

Does Witcher leave a blatant cliffhanger to be finished in a DLC? Nope.

 

So yes, its invalid because you don't know what happens after this cliffhanger.

 

 

Then thats a flaw on Inquisition. You'd think that ending cliffhangers would be dealt with in sequels, not DLCs.

[LPPrince]

Of course it has more to it than a Solas return. It's also half the price.

 

What does it bring? Does it have half the content that B&W has?

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I couldn't stomach playing DA:I more than once (which is rare for me, since I even replayed DA2 half a dozen times before they created the Keep). So I can't see myself bothering with Trespasser.