Don't be naive, I was talking about the HINTERLANDS being the first starting zone in DA:I. The player base complained it was simply too big and people were getting bored quickly because of a lack of linearity and direction. So my statement said, it looks like TW3 learned from DA:I's mistake in that regards, and made the FIRST actual playable zone much smaller. No, the intro scene in DA:I was not the first zone, and neither was the fort. Hinterlands was confirmed by the devs to be the first official zone you play.
What's your point here with the refutation? Did someone piss on your cheerios?
Do you really think they designed the start area after they played DA:I?
Maybe they had the idea for a long time, based on their own experience and skills?
Sorry, but your logic in this regard is not very convincing, like at all. The DA:I thing, could have just confirmed that they made the right choice.
I really don't care what you think TBH. I'm making a statement, period. The developers of TW3 have already explicitly stated they PLAYED and ENJOYED DA:I. Therefore, it is a safe assumption to conclude they at the very minimum took the pro's and con's of the title when developing their own, and of course, added their own style to the criteria's. (EX: THE STARTING ZONE BEING MUCH SMALLER AND LINEAR). There's my damn point.
Edit: This anti- DA:I BS needs to stop. The developers already praised the game for being an awesome title. None of you here are above their words, so enough. DA:I and TW3 are fair game for comparison whether you like it or not. End of story.
Last edited:
If you can't accept people refuting your points then you're gonna have a bad time over here.
Both games were developed pretty much at the same time. I personally highly doubt the starting area of W3 took anything from DAI since you conceptualize and develop the starting area pretty early in development. So it just doesn't add up.
How is your position any stronger than mine? We're both speculating are we not? You have no idea what they did first or didn't, like I don't. I'm simply making a comparison and opening up the possibility that this is indeed what happened. Neither of us have substantive facts to back up our claims fully. However, I do have the fact that they admitted to playing DA:I thoroughly and enjoyed it. Therefore, I can conclude they have working knowledge of how it operates. Where is your proof of what they developed first???
Kinley's position is stronger because The Witcher 3 started development before Dragon Age Inquisition was even announced.
From a gameplay perspective it's completely logical to ease new players in to the world and the mechanics by using a prologue area.
Also The Witcher 3 was first set for a release in late 2014 it's absurd to think they overhauled the entire prologue because of DA:I
It's just logical to assume they both went down the same route without having anything to do with each other.
From a gameplay perspective it's completely logical to ease new players in to the world and the mechanics by using a prologue area.
Also The Witcher 3 was first set for a release in late 2014 it's absurd to think they overhauled the entire prologue because of DA:I
It's just logical to assume they both went down the same route without having anything to do with each other.
Last edited:
Because when the DAI came out W3 was pretty much content locked. You honestly believe they would go back and make changes to a starting zone based on feedback they got from DAI? That late into development?
"They said they played the game" holds hardly any water in this case.
Well, thank you for proving my point, you don't have anything to back your 'opinion'. You just assume some stuff and take them as a fact.
Your 'statement' does not make something true, just because you want it to be, period.
More speculation. Logic and speculation seldom go hand in hand, fyi. Talk to a stock broker. They already stated they worked on developing the land before the towns because they claimed most RPG's make that mistake of developing towns first. So I can speculate that this means their focus was on the open worlds environment and terrain and populating it above all else FIRST. Meaning these small little town-based started zones it has would have come further down in the development process. Meaning, ample time to play DA:I and get exposed to what it did right and what it did wrong.
I mean c'mon this is common sense in itself. Do company's not look to their competitors to see what they're doing right and wrong to capitalize on achievements and fix mistakes??? Common sense guys. To say that they didn't even take the time to use DA:I as a basis for anything is illogical.
Edit: You guys are right, I'll just take your years of experience in business - competitive intelligence and the plethora of designations after your names and take your positions as fact just because you think that's how they did it. You win.
Last edited:
You really have to make the distinction between opinion and fact. Nobody here was hating on DAI, and nobody is saying that you're flat out wrong. Just that it's highly unlikely. There are no facts on either side of the argument.
First
So others can't speculate, but you can? I mean come on, let's have a civilized conversation here.
No one says that CDPR is not looking at what the competition is doing, they most certainly are.
I'm sure the got valuable info from DA:I as a whole, what works and what doesn't, how it compares to what they are doing and if some of those ideas can be used to make the Witcher even better.
But you assume that they designed a whole area of the game only after they played DA:I or that they redesigned it entirely, which most certainly is not true.
You also for some reason think that we think that looking at the competition is bad or that they are not doing it, which is also very strange. I'm a bit confused here, how did you come to this conclusion?
and then
So others can't speculate, but you can? I mean come on, let's have a civilized conversation here.
No one says that CDPR is not looking at what the competition is doing, they most certainly are.
I'm sure the got valuable info from DA:I as a whole, what works and what doesn't, how it compares to what they are doing and if some of those ideas can be used to make the Witcher even better.
But you assume that they designed a whole area of the game only after they played DA:I or that they redesigned it entirely, which most certainly is not true.
You also for some reason think that we think that looking at the competition is bad or that they are not doing it, which is also very strange. I'm a bit confused here, how did you come to this conclusion?
Let's just get the topic back on subject. This will be an endless circle. You say there's no merit to the idea that DA:I influenced TW3's starting locations; I say it did. We have no idea what the plans were originally for the starter location. None of us except a direct dev comment about internal functions can clear this argument up.
And a claim of "well it just makes more sense they'd do this first, or do it this way" is just as baseless as me saying "they definitely did this, this way" because neither of us have the facts.
And a claim of "well it just makes more sense they'd do this first, or do it this way" is just as baseless as me saying "they definitely did this, this way" because neither of us have the facts.
I actually think DA:I got the idea from Witcher. Bioware sent spies to infiltrate CDPR HQ who successfully copied design docs without detection.
BTW I'm speculating so no body can say that this is wrong or ridiculous, it has just as much merit as what everyone else thinks!
Copying data is easy. Copying skill is another matter... ;D