Biowhores grudgingly admit: Witcher > DA2

[UndetectedButthurt]

BIO forumites are dumb morans so the fact that some prefer TW just further rpoves that. L0L

The Witcher is one of the shittiest games ever. period.

Bullshit! Why do you lie?

 

[torpid]

Combat mechanics aside, the staple of a RPG is player driven character development. If you're playing a pre-made character, even if you can adjust his stats, it takes away a great deal of its RPGness.

I have to quote J.E Sawyer on this topic, as i found his definition of rpgs be close to mine:

"I don't have any difficulty classifying them because I don't intrinsically link styles of combat with the RPG genre. I classify games as RPGs based on their interactive storytelling. More specifically, if you have the ability to define and express your character(s) personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story, it's an RPG. If you don't have that ability, it's not."

"Don't get me wrong; I like character statistics and advancement. I think they should be part of all sorts of games, and I appreciate it whenever I can get it. But when it comes to the sort of games I help make that are going to be called "RPG", it's important to me that we always do our best to actively support the player's ability to the sort of character they want to make -- with a heavy focus on personality reactivity."

And that definition excludes a large majority of RPGs ever made. Am I expressing my characters' personality in Icewind Dale? What about Might & Magic?

Why do you hate Planescape: Torment Mastermind?

PST has a great story, but as an RPG it's pretty limited. Its most attractive feature is that it's unique; if RPGs had all started ressembling PST they would've quickly lost their defining features and probably folded into adventure games, removing the unnecessary combat and stats.

 

[Jim Cojones]

While I've yet to play either for longer than five minutes (my computer is old) I have to ask:

Isn't The Witcher an action RPG with a single set player character and "rhythm game" combat, while DA:O lets you create your own character, assemble a party and toggle the option to make combat turn-based (or at least RTwP)?

If so, then how the heck is The Witcher a superior RPG to DA:O? It can't be a lack of sexual escapades with random NPCs.

Not exactly. To be precise, The Witcher is an action adventure with RPG elements, a single...

But the question wasn't which game is a better RPG, it was whether any of these games is enjoyable, regardless of the genre they belongs to.

 

[Dele]

Combat mechanics aside, the staple of a RPG is player driven character development. If you're playing a pre-made character, even if you can adjust his stats, it takes away a great deal of its RPGness.

I have to quote J.E Sawyer on this topic, as i found his definition of rpgs be close to mine:

"I don't have any difficulty classifying them because I don't intrinsically link styles of combat with the RPG genre. I classify games as RPGs based on their interactive storytelling. More specifically, if you have the ability to define and express your character(s) personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story, it's an RPG. If you don't have that ability, it's not."

"Don't get me wrong; I like character statistics and advancement. I think they should be part of all sorts of games, and I appreciate it whenever I can get it. But when it comes to the sort of games I help make that are going to be called "RPG", it's important to me that we always do our best to actively support the player's ability to the sort of character they want to make -- with a heavy focus on personality reactivity."

And that definition excludes a large majority of RPGs ever made. Am I expressing my characters' personality in Icewind Dale? What about Might & Magic?

I haven't played iwd enough to comment on that, but seeing as sawyer was the lead designer on iwd2 you'd think it has atleast some of it, they are essentially action rpgs.

 

[Volourn]

So, VD and Sawyer don't believe the GB, M&M, and Wizardry games are RPGs. Well, fuck 'em.

 

[DarthBehemoth]

I actually enjoyed the Witcher, I personally think it's a better RPG than DA2

 

[DriacKin]

Imo, DA:O was a very mediocre game. It had a few bright spots, but just had too many boring or cringeworthy moments.
The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

I haven't played DA2 yet, and I doubt I will any time soon.

 

[DarthBehemoth]

The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

Wrong. The Witcher had some nice C&C and wasn't mostly cutscenes. I admit the combat is terribad and the VA leaves a lot to be desired, but it's miles ahead of DA2.

 

[J_C]

BIO forumites are dumb morans so the fact that some prefer TW just further rpoves that. L0L

The Witcher is one of the shittiest games ever. period.

It can't be the shittiest game EVER, because it is still better than DA1-2. This is a fact.

 

[The Ninth Circle]

The constant debate over what constitutes an RPG is mind-numbing.

 

[Mastermind]

Combat mechanics aside, the staple of a RPG is player driven character development. If you're playing a pre-made character, even if you can adjust his stats, it takes away a great deal of its RPGness.

I have to quote J.E Sawyer on this topic, as i found his definition of rpgs be close to mine:

"I don't have any difficulty classifying them because I don't intrinsically link styles of combat with the RPG genre. I classify games as RPGs based on their interactive storytelling. More specifically, if you have the ability to define and express your character(s) personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story, it's an RPG. If you don't have that ability, it's not."

"Don't get me wrong; I like character statistics and advancement. I think they should be part of all sorts of games, and I appreciate it whenever I can get it. But when it comes to the sort of games I help make that are going to be called "RPG", it's important to me that we always do our best to actively support the player's ability to the sort of character they want to make -- with a heavy focus on personality reactivity."

I like sawyer as a dev but usually when he opens his mouth dumb shit comes out. I've read his definition of a RPG before and it's retarded. It would discard so many games (mostly classics) that are quite clearly RPGs that it's hard to take seriously. Nevermind that his criteria exist in games that are not actually RPGs too.

 

[Captain Shrek]

The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

Wrong.

How can one be wrong about their fucking Opinion?

 

[Lyric Suite]

I couldn't even finish The Witcher, due to it crashing like a motherfucker, but the start was pretty fucking bad. Worse than DA2's, in fact.

You mean the prologue? The game becomes infinitely better after that.

 

[Lyric Suite]

How can one be wrong about their fucking Opinion?

Because some people are dumber then others.

 

[circ]

Are you sure LS? I agree, it was quite fun about midway in the first village when you started to get some interesting quests under your belt. But once you get to the second city, shit just got boring and repetitive as hell. Not helped by the shit combo combat.

 

[Destroid]

They deserve:

 

[TripJack]

i'm never going to play dragon age 2 but yeah the witcher is clearly better

 

[Overweight Manatee]

While I've yet to play either for longer than five minutes (my computer is old) I have to ask:

Isn't The Witcher an action RPG with a single set player character and "rhythm game" combat, while DA:O lets you create your own character, assemble a party and toggle the option to make combat turn-based (or at least RTwP)?

If so, then how the heck is The Witcher a superior RPG to DA:O? It can't be a lack of sexual escapades with random NPCs.

Some people don't equate the combat mechanics to whether or not an RPG is good or not.

Combat mechanics aside, the staple of a RPG is player driven character development. If you're playing a pre-made character, even if you can adjust his stats, it takes away a great deal of its RPGness.

this.

Depends. If you could customize the sex/face/name of Geralt (who would be referred to as 'the witcher' throughout the game anyway) would it really make a difference? For 95% of games so-called character creation does nothing but create characters with slightly different starting powers who are otherwise reskinned versions of each other. The scarce few games who actually let you choose different characters and have the game react in markedly different ways, those do good things.

 

[DriacKin]

The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

Wrong. The Witcher had some nice C&C and wasn't mostly cutscenes. I admit the combat is terribad and the VA leaves a lot to be desired, but it's miles ahead of DA2.

Wrong. The C&C in Witcher was nothing more than Biowarian style choices without comsequences.

 

[DriacKin]

The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

Wrong.

How can one be wrong about their fucking Opinion?

Because this is RPGCodex.

 

[turn_based_fanboy]

The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

Wrong. The Witcher had some nice C&C and wasn't mostly cutscenes. I admit the combat is terribad and the VA leaves a lot to be desired, but it's miles ahead of DA2.

It only had terrible VA if you played inferior translated version
Orginal VA was top notch.

 

[Stainless Veteran]

The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

Wrong. The Witcher had some nice C&C and wasn't mostly cutscenes. I admit the combat is terribad and the VA leaves a lot to be desired, but it's miles ahead of DA2.

It only had terrible VA if you played inferior translated version
Orginal VA was top notch.

Depends on translated version. Geralt's russian VA was p. good.

 

[J_C]

The Witcher, on the other hand, was absolutely fucking awful.

Wrong. The Witcher had some nice C&C and wasn't mostly cutscenes. I admit the combat is terribad and the VA leaves a lot to be desired, but it's miles ahead of DA2.

Wrong. The C&C in Witcher was nothing more than Biowarian style choices without comsequences.

This is Volly level trolling. How can you say this, when clearly there were consequences to your choices?

If you don't agree, please tell me what kind of consequences would you like in the game?

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

The Witcher had some nice C&C and wasn't mostly cutscenes.

fuck no just no

cc in twihcer1

prologue:

u go with triss or you go with that retarded boy-choice!!!!!!!!

1 act
you fight some random faggots on the bridge or some random faggots with mutants- fukking consequences!!!!



the rest of c&c is about taking sides, and only outcome is whether you buy junk from dwarf or fucking smuggler.

no fuck i forgot after 2 act in shitty cutscene geralt mentioned how it could be fucking different(the slaughter in the swamps) if he choosed to help knights instead of elves^^ as if it wasnt fucking obvious.

with all fucking flaws da2 has better c&c , better story, better combat(nightmare pussys ) , better boss fights, damn isabella has better rack than triss

 

[circ]

damn isabella has better rack than triss

Only good DA 2 memory I have. And I shall treasure it forever.