I do not like to give games number ratings, it is something that I dislike about a lot of review sites, but I will say this. I would recommend both The Witcher & DA:O to friends who enjoy roleplay & lore, great combat, & beautiful graphics, but I would recommend The Witcher first, then DA:O56236 said:Then maybe rank the games? Review them on a scale of 1-10?? That might help, and also your thoughts on features better in one game to the otheror some that yo might want to include n this one.56236 said:eace:
They will never run out, I will always play the Witcher. From the day I got it years ago, to now. I have replayed it so much that I will always replay it again ^^56236 said:
TW made my top 5 of all time. DA:O didn't.Then again, Baldur's Gate 1 didn't make my top 5 either, mainly 'cos the pacing is too slow.Although, in its early days, TW wasn't up there either, with a slew of problems .. chief among them horrendous load times and crash bugs.Just to make it easy to figure out, I just list it as The Witcher Enhanced Edition.Though some of my other favourites are way past their use-by date (e.g. ultima 4 was brilliant in its day, but the interface is now nigh unplayable .. uhh, EGA graphics + beeper sound + counter-intuitive 32 key control scheme)The one must-play game I often recommend is Planescape: Torment.That is, if you can get over the hacked up Dungeons & Dragons second edition rules and the maximum 800x600 resolution (hackable to larger resolutions, but some screens such as the inventory will end up tiny and in the corner).As awesome as TW is, I've played so many games not much gets to me. But Torment ... ripped my guts out.
Hmm .. awesome game with decent interface .. how about Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines?It's the source engine (like half life 2), though a beta version of it.So it's partly 1st person and partly 3rd person (default being 1st person for guns, 3rd person for melee)Only reason it didn't make my top 5 was 'cos troika went out of business before managing to fix all the game-breaking bugs.So ... it takes a fanpatch (I recommend Acrimonius & Tessera's 5.04AT patch) to get the game actually running without crashing.It also doesn't support widescreen, which is a big issue nowadays. Hackable (being the source engine), but then the heads-up display and cutscenes don't look quite right (being stretched).
Given Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II I was very much looking forward to Dragon's Age, a game I've been waiting for since 2004 when word first got out they were creating "the spiritual successor to the BG games". Let's face it, until the Witcher arrived the BG series (more specifically, BGII) was the best RPG to ever come out. The verdict after waiting five years to play Dragon's Age? It is good but has some severe limitations or cons if you will. I don't like the combat (the Witcher with its timing and different styles is lightyears better), the UI is a bit clunky and I'm not a fan of how you navigate through DA. Too, the graphics are rather generic. I much prefer the Witcher not only for those reasons (the Witcher, though dark, is a beautiful game and that's rather ironic since the Witcher uses a Bioware game engine) but also for its mood, incredible storyline and characters. I was hoping Dragon's Age would improve on how you play NPCs, but alas it is not much different than Neverwinter Nights. All in all I'm glad Dragon's Age is out there. In my opinion there can never be too many good RPGs let alone GREAT ones. Dragon's Age, however, does not belong on the same plateau of the BG series and the Witcher. Added to the reasons I've already listed is this: I still play BG II w/ Throne of Bhaal and I can't even count how many times I've played the Witcher. I have no doubt I'll still be playing both years from now. I can't see Dragon's Age possessing the same type of replayability. I think Dragon's Age is fun, it's good but it's not over the top fantastic.
Uh.. I completely disagree. Dragon Age is basically BG3 if you play it with the isometric camera. It even looks like BG, just with improved graphics. What do you mean "improve on how you play NPCs"? Do you mean party members? IF you mean that... it's not much different than NWN? That's bullshit, to be frank. In NWN all your companions did was follow you, you basically had no control over them. In DA:O you are in perfect control but you also have tactics which can do a lot for you.Dragon age also has pretty much the same combat as the BG series...phxwitcher said:
Ah, I just started a new playthrough of the Witcher. Now I remember why I like it more than DA:O and why it's so good..I mean.. just the atmosphere of Kaer Morhen is amazing. All the light coming from the cracks, the music, the history that you can almost touch... and of course the NPCs. The witchers are all very interesting and the conversations are fun.
NWN1 was designed to be a multiplayer game, where each player controls 1 character.In the campaign (which was total crap), each player can also hire a henchman.NWN2 party mechanics is much better, if not for the moronic AI.You'd often have the computer controlled mage start combat by casting invisibility, then immediately casting an attack spell (which cancels the invisibility, wasting time and a spell), which is likely to be a fireball which wipes the whole party (including the casting mage).BUT, if you're the type to micromanage every action of the whole party, it works better than DA:O, 'cos you can queue multiple actions per character, so if you're fast enough (like my 300+ actions-per-minute skillz from games like starcraft), you can micromanage the entire party's actions in real-time.Stop-start with pause is just ass by comparison. Just let me queue actions, and I'll be happier.BG1 combat is a lot like DA:O, yes. 'cos BG1 is low level, and so there isn't much to it.On the subject of BG2 combat, the scripting capabilities makes it a lot more like DA:O in that (if you can code in baldurs-gate-esque) you can make the AI do pretty much anything, including moving into pre-specified ranges and placing spells with some manner of precision. That is, if you want to write some extremely complicated scripts, BG2 characters can actually be quite smart.But, since you're playing high to epic levels, the combat is nothing like DA:O. Time stop, weapon immunity, spell triggers & spell sequencers & chain contingencies, summoning angels in turn have 20 spells of their own ...Despite the combos and tricks in DA:O, the magic system is childishly simple by comparison.Although on the whole it's probably more fair, since non-spellcasters actually have decent options apart from 2 or 3 abilities plus "attack that target."But, I'm going to guess that the devs decided against using dungeons & dragons rules because it's too complicated, and they'll run into the same problem as NWN2. I.e. people complaining that the AI is retarded.On the whole though, I'm going to claim that DA:O is a lot less BG3 than it is NWN3.Dezired said:
I know all that. Why did you quote me?The devs decided against D&D not because it's too complicated but because they didn't want WotC watching over their shoulders and breathing in their neck... if the game is D&D, WotC gets to say "well, that is a bit too dark for D&D.. scrap it." "well.. that doesn't actually fit too well into D&D.. scrap it" so the devs have to ask just about everything from them... and they can just say "no".Tlazolteotl said:
Uhh, did you play mask of the betrayer?Backstabbing and murder has nothing on consuming human souls to stay alive.