To be honest, so did I. But that was because I tried downloading the 1.4 patch 2 times , and it kept giving MD5 integrity error. In the end I found it more convenient to buy the DVD version. Its a collectors item too, so I don't mind.chlong7 said:
I, for one, couldn't even be bothered playing through DAO to the end.That being said, I have only 1 completed playthrough of the Witcher as well. I've owned the game since... early 2008 I think. I will expand on my thoughts now;1. The differences in the story between DAO and TW1.DAO; you play as whoever you want (within 6 predefined archetypes). Once you have left your origin, the game follows a strictly pre-defined path as you are given tasks by the Warden. A major event occurs that sees a paradigm-shift in the nature of the game from pre-constructed narrative to a "make your own adventure" novel. The illusion of choice is maintained by offering the player 4 or 5 different locations to begin searching through, with those locations themselves allowing a 'weaving' of interdependent quests [notably the Red village quest with the boy which takes you to the tower which takes you to somewhere else]. While not a fault in itself to offer a pre-set narrative the story is weak for reasons I will detail below.Prima; The story is weakened by the sudden change in narrative style, from a predetermined path you are on it switches to a multiple-choice map. Instead of having a few choices that are well detailed to propel the character forward we are presented with 4 totally different locations that demand us to disregard all our narrative and plot points to focus on the immediate surroundings. The result here is that the story feels disjointed and schitsophrenic, major events from previous locations are ignored or deemed irrelevant by the game as a result of the developers desire to provide 'choice'. The truth is, you must still visit all these places, still complete their main quests and to the developers I say the only thing I'm lacking in this game is immersion.Secundo; The story itself revolves around a random individual from a variety of backgrounds and locations and races being selected by another individual to become some sort of demonically possessed undead-hunter/monster-slayer. The premise of the game offers no buildup to the Wardens arrival, no explanation of what he is or why he is here[there?] and expects you to blindly follow a total stranger into war against an army of undead with marginal or ineffective support and drink the blood of a demon. The story concludes with you, the player, the only remaining Warden on the continent, defeating a demon-god in combat with support from your [non-Warden] friends and allies. This suggests that the main character is infact nothing more than a living compass and that the entire game could have been completed by any suitably skilled individual who happened to walk in on the major population centres currently under attack. [If this series of events doesn't strike you, the reader, as totally inane and unbelievable then I wash my hands of you now.] Tertio; Aside from the main plot of the game [becoming harder to interpret and understand?] there are many minor quests that revolve around helping individuals within the towns you enter, as well as some activities relating to your comrades (though normally only when you meet them). Let's examine some specific examples: in Lothering you are tasked with collect bear hides (or was it spider husks, I forget) from the surrounding wilderness by some person in a tavern. What this person has in relation to the main story is left unexplored. The quest seems to exist only to provide 'xp' and pad out the game length by requiring you to kill a randomly assigned number of specific creatures. [obviously TW1 includes quests like this but we will focus on DAO for right now]. Another quest in Lothering includes exploring the same wilderness for a campsite (or somesuch) to find the occupants. This quest is resolved by finding it infested with spiders and a locked chest. The quest, we can conclude, exists for no reason than to provide 'xp' and equipment. Where companions are concerned the quests they require are predominantly fetch quests. Morrigan wants a book, Alistair is a wanker, OldWoman wants you to find[read:fetch] a friend/tutor in the tower and Lelaina wants you to have awkward conversations and feel scared as she watches you in your sleep [she probably wants some ridiculous religious symbol or "love and acceptance" or some other garbage but once again I never played the game through to completion]. From these points we can see that the nature of DAO has a large "MMO" focus to it. [I will come back to this later]TW1; TW1 follows the story of a Witcher, a person who typically was found as an orphan or promised to existing Witchers, who undergoes physical tests and biological modifications in order to become a 'professional monster slayer'. These words are important: they brook no further explanation of the characters motivations for his job and do not permit asinine or pretentious reinterpretations of who this man is, or what he does. He kills monsters for money, it's very simple. The characters' simplicity aside, the story of TW1 sees us assume command of the character 'Geralt', as he returns from death to his home Kaer Morhen, introducing us to people from his history and providing us a chance to establish a new identity to play off the canonical old one via Geralts struggle with amnesia. There are still flaws in the execution of TW1 and will be examined now.Prima; Choice and moral ambuiguity are [advertised on the box, but I digress] key parts of TW1. Geralt makes decisions and must deal with the consequences. This is sometimes handled poorly. Notably right at the start of the game, in chapter 1, when Geralt must decide to allow or not to allow a group of Scoiatel to collect some smuggled weapons. If he does allow them to take the weapons, in chapter 2 we find a character that would have accelerated a quest lying dead in an inn. The problem begins with the story behind the Scoiatel. It is not adequately explored before the decision over the smuggled goods becomes important. Chapter 1 is focussed on dealing with Abigail and the priest, not the Scoiatel and their war. If Geralt had been told bluntly that the Scoiatel were terrorists who murder merchants and peasants then the decision of the weapons would have had more impact, as Geralt would have knowingly been aiding a group of insurgents. What is found however is that the Scoiatel offer to pay Geralt and due to a lack of information we find later that someone important has just been killed. There was no reason to refuse them except for someone who has already played through the game and wanted to avoid that particular result.Secundo; The story itself is a rigid and linear progression of events that follow directly on from previous events, except for when it doesn't. By this I mean the infamous chapter 2 runes quest, the chapter 4 Dagon quest and the Chapter 4 sun-wraith quest. These quests unfortunately are quite long and are only tangentially related to the main plot. The story drags, forcing players to collect things that feel meaningless and offers no direct recompense to the character beyond 'xp' and potentially gear. The events are weakly held together by, at the end, forcing Geralt to speak about himself to a companion, therefore presumably assigning some measure of allegiance to a philosphical stand-point. The pacing of these quests, the subject matter and the results of them leave the player feeling like they have wasted their time.Now that the story has been looked at in brief, we can move on to gameplay. 2. Gameplay differences: analysing the combat system, the quest mechanic and the players involvement.DAO; This game claims to be the 'spiritual successor' of the Baldur's Gate series. As the producers of the games are the same people, that claim just doesn't make any sense. [Had they claimed it to be a literal successor to BG it would have implied some kind of actual balance or quality, so I can see why they didn't do that.] They said this because they wanted to give the impression that DAO had a combat system reminiscent of BG in function. In this at least they weren't lying. Fighters fight, rogues backstab and magi shoot fireballs. Friendly fire is a possibility which helps to encourage micromanagement of the characters and just generally compensate for a lack of well-programmed AI. Amusingly, the balance of the game is similar to BG, with casters being unstoppably powerful in later levels and fighters generally underperforming. Bioware didn't seek to just make a game that tips its hat to BG, they fumbled dumbly into making a clone of that game and tried to cover their tracks. The cooldowns on the narrow selection of abilities is the icing on the cake, screaming "MMO" into the eyes of every player.The quest mechanic is equally uninspired. I will compare it to WoW's quest log and say no more. The players involvment is the saddest part. Combat is a chore involving micromanagement of 4 unflexible characters, often resulting in every fight having the same solution (cone of cold, fireball, charge). This is as much to do with enemy variety as anything, to which I will point my finger at the dwarf tunnels and say no more. Overall player involvement in the game truly shines in combat, with most other times the player being a quest recepticle and scapegoat. Actual character interaction is kept to a bare minimum.TW1; The combat system of this game revolves around a timed series of clicks, feints and spells. The major difference between DAO and TW1 is the lack of cooldowns and the special enhancements provided by potions brewed by the player. Ultimately both games boil down to an attrition model with damage output variably being related to skill selection and play style.The quest mechanic has a duality to it. On one hand we have the obligations of a pest exterminator, in the killing of and collection from a selection of monsters in varying quantities. On the other hand we observe a traditional RPG staple of talking to people, doing them favours and exploration. Calling this method 'questing' is a derogative term to be used sparingly. Some 'quests' resolve without any benefit to the player and can be safely labeled as plot progression. Others are key checkpoints that when completed grant the player a predetermined benefit. Quests are in essence something that is a side focus and done purely for material benefit. What Geralt is doing, that is to say, the hunt of Salamandra and the return of the Witcher formulae is his quest. It spans the entire game. The game is his 'quest'. Every plot related activity is story progression. The monster killing activities similarly are "quests" in the sense that they provide some quantifiable return on effort.The players involvement is to assume the identity of Geralt, to shape him down any of 8 specialisations they prefer, to any degree and to not be dependant on one particular strategy at any time. The addition of alchemy which enhances certain abilities while producing another layer of threat to the health of the character is also noteworthy as players must balance a dependancy on alchemy against being good combatants. Where the story is concerned, the player conducts an investigation, an autopsy, makes key decisions about loyalty and whether or not to kill some characters. This requires background research and good reasoning skills.There is more I could say, but in consideration of the points above I challenge people to think for themselves about what *precisely* makes you feel the way you do. For me? I feel strongly that DAO was an aborted MMO, with a stale Bioware classic plot tacked on [I'm not kidding, someone actually produced a chart showing the similarities in plot for every Bioware game made since BG2. That so many similarities exist to warrent a chart, and then to have that chart actually provide visual assistance to the criticism is worrying] it's no surprise that the community is divided on it. There aren't many neutral people, but plenty of people who either love it or hate it. I would speculate at this point that the people who love it are fans of games that don't encourage independant thought and games that could get confused with a typical newgrounds hentai dating simulator. These players are willingly overlooking the MMO style UI and are quite willing to 'quest' for things. To support my argument I will bring your attention to the DLC for the game. Replacing a permanent subscription model for receiving more 'game time' via microtransactions (at US$11.25/hour for the record) does not make the game any less similar to more well known games that operate on an identical principle. The principle of "pay to play".I for one will not buy another Bioware game again. They and the publishers have demonstrated a continuing disregard for enduring games that will sell based on the merits of its content and rather than on marketing hype and the push for pre-orders. Games that are assumed to be good based on pre-orders are simply games that are not designed to stand up to the criticism they will face after release.
I came to The Witcher via Dragon Age, on the recommendation of Witcher fans at Bioware Social Network. I don't think The Witcher can compare to DAO because of the varied roleplay possibilities of having different origins and customizable characters. I've played DAO into the ground because of that, several hundred hours at least.However, on its own merits The Witcher is a beautiful game and I'm quite enjoying it (just started chapter II). The folklore basis is fascinating and Geralt is... uh, nice to look at. And listen to. 
Pity we don't get to see as much of him as the lingerie models he saves, lol.
Pity we don't get to see as much of him as the lingerie models he saves, lol.I'm sure they'll add your and his sex card in the next game update.Ceilan said:
lol I think my husband would have something to say about that. But I loved where the one guy, he was a merchant I think, said all the women talked about how Geralt whipped out his *bleep* as much as his sword. Ha!Vilgefortze said:I'm sure they'll add your and his sex card in the next game update.Vilgefortze said:
And you're assuming she's offended.. why?Every major criticism against DAO has been leveled at two things; the repetition and the stale characters. Your own PC is stale too. The only 'replay' value I could forsee in DAO is playing it through once, then doing the remaining 5 origins. I could never put myself through the main campaign again.Vilgefortze said:
It works like a charm when you use a cheat code to kill all hostiles nearby. Really, without those tedious, repetitive, battles, I've been able to complete DAO something like 3 times, and it was fun. But I'm terrified of people who play it multiple times *without* the cheat!
I consider telling married women I do not know that they have s*x with a game character offensive.MrBenis said:
Well, then be terrified of me. I played it without the cheat for 6 times. Now I'm so darn tired/disgusted with it, I can't bear to look at the disc anymore. I have effectively ruined DA for myself.MrBenis said:
I think the joke was clear enough and that you did not offend, but speaking as an unmarried woman you also do not know, I thought your gesture of politeness was very kind.Vilgefortze said:
That's basically what happened to me. I think the character creation screen is my favorite part of DA:O. The quality of the voice cast does a lot to carry the game, but it is standard high fantasy (not dark fantasy) and not otherwise uniquely compelling.Vilgefortze said:
*blush*chlong7 said:
Same here. I created around 10 different character profiles. That followed by a different origin story. Somehow the momentum carried me through the whole game. During my seventh attempt, I looked outside the window and saw beautiful flowers blooming. Wonderful weather of spring... Butterflies and a rainbow. So I deleted that profile, selected the profile I was going to import into DA2 , backed it up and removed all others. Then I uninstalled the game and vowed never to touch that disc again. Then I dressed and stepped out of my house, I took a deep breath of the invigorating air, and walked to the nearest store to buy ME2. What followed can be easily deduced.chlong7 said:
I couldn't know that before I played it. BTW it wasn't THAT bad. You just had to play it as a shooter and not as a rpg. It wasn't a bad shooter, but it was a failure as a rpg.fchopin said:
The thing with Dragon Age is that BioWare tried to pull off another Baldur's Gate, but it just didn't work. I see two reasons for this:1) Things have changed, the gaming industry has moved on. Back in the day BG 1 and 2 were the thing, ground-breaking, alien even. However, how many dungeon crawlers have come out since then? How many games have followed the same pattern? The whole deal with starting a nameless, unknown and lifeless character isn't so interesting to people anymore. Starting out with a shirt on your back and a rusty dagger on your hip, going on your first adventure to kill a pack of rats in the basement has lost its charm. Going through hordes of enemies and looting whatever you can get your hands on isn't as intriguing as it was. Granted, BioWare tried to move away from those familiar cliches, but it wasn't enough in my opinion. And, as has been mentioned in other posts, the BW model is getting old. In KOTOR you were a Jedi, a privileged group of individuals. You had to visit four planets, in no particular order, to find a map that eventually took you to the ending areas of the game. In Mass Effect you're a Specter, again a group of VIP's. And again you are given free reign to chose between four planets you need to visit, gathering various people and bits of information before moving on to the ending areas. In Dragon Age you are, oh surprise, one of the Grey Wardens, who are generally above the law. Again, you have four areas you need to visit (thank God they are not planets this time, yay for variety!)....the order, as you see fit. See the pattern?I won't even mention personalities here. The big, tough guy from a culture nobody really understands? Does it matter if its Mandalorian, Qunari or Krogan? The innocent, pure love interest or the more bad-ass one? The seemingly cynical, sarcastic bastard, who's all good and heroic at heart? Or perhaps the social outcast who spits on the morals of society and cracks a good joke now and again? Gimme a break. 2) Baldur's Gate 2 built on the first one, it virtually took its every aspect and turned it into something bigger, grander. Does Dragon Age expand on that? Not really. The fights weren't as challenging, more often than not you'd face a horde of enemies who would try to overwhelm you. There was no need for fine tactics, for solid positioning and smart buffing (the kind of stuff you'd need for the dragon battles in BG2, for example). Character relations seemed pretty shallow to me, especially between the various NPC's. KOTOR did much better in that regard, in my opinion. Yes, I understand it was never meant to be a Baldur's Gate 3, it was just a "spiritual successor" and I can see why they might name it as such. But I was expecting something more...awe-inspiring from the people who created BG and KOTOR.Don't get me wrong though, I loved Dragon Age, out of a pure nostalgic feeling. I've always been a sucker for games where you start out with some random guy nobody really cares about and go on to save the world. The party based, tactical combat and the long hours going through some dungeon. Sadly, I think some of those elements were dumbed down in Dragon Age, in order for it to be more accessible. Still, considering the stuff that comes out nowadays, the game was surprisingly good, even great I would say and (again something very rare) quite long. What the game lacks is...a soul, something which can make you feel part of the world and not just a spectator, something which The Witcher perfectly does.And since I'm throwing out old titles here, I'll make one last comparison before finishing this. If I were to say that Dragon Age is Baldur's Gate, then The Witcher is Planescape: Torment. The former gives you a tabula rasa, a mold which you can shape to whatever you deem fit. It's a hero's journey, from a humble beginning to the heights of end-game. The latter, on the other hand, gives you a character firmly rooted in the world. A character with old friends and foes, with established connections and a place in society. It's not a hero's journey, not in *that* sense of the word, instead it is a rather personal one - which explores the character himself, who he was, what he is and what he'll be. Naturally, the player still has the freedom to shape the character in whatever way they desire, but you're dealing with a much deeper personality here.I think both types of games have their pros and cons and both have their unique flavour and charm. When stuff like DLC enter the mix though, don't get me started...
Oh no not offended at all.Vilgefortze said:
I don't blame the women of Vizima for throwing themselves at him.Anyway, about DAO replay value, the changes between playthroughs are mostly related to origin and the romance you're pursuing. The main campaign doesn't change a lot. But I like to build character back stories etc., so it gave me a lot of fodder in that way. It's just what different people prefer, that's all. I enjoy learning about Geralt, but it's a character someone else made, not me.And there nothing wrong with that some ppl like strawberries more the grapes and other like apples and others like them all.Ceilan said:
Dragon Age is a great game, more polished than The Witcher. One of my disappointments with both games is how you level up and the skill trees. I hope both games improve on this.