TW3 vs DA:I [SPOILERS]

[DuranA]

Also DA:I was downgraded in terms of features (as seen in a 35 min demo). I'm a little mad at the fact almost nobody cared about that real and disappointing downgrade, while everyone is angry about the (very real but understandable) graphical downgrade of TW3.

While gameplay features where certainly cut out from DA:I Bioware never sought to deny the obvious, to try and silence criticism there like CDPR did.

They were quite very honest about the game from a marketing standpoint. Look at CDPR and how they handled the leaks compared to Bioware: They shut down every vid on YT.

 

[Cheylus]

It wasn't a leak, for BioWare. It was meant for everyone.

CDPR footage was meant for journos and journos only.

 

[octavian123]

I have just started playing DA:I again and am in the Hinterlands. There is nothing objectively bad with the zone but it just feels so bland when compared with zones like Emprise du Lyon or the Western Approach. Everything seems to be made from a shade of green or gray. Again, there is nothing wrong with it but it just feels meh.

Legendary game designer John Romero said that you should make the first level LAST because by the time you are making the first level you already know how to make a great level. What you see for the first time in a game is so important. The first zone, the first conversation, the first characters. Unfortunately, the Hinterlands just holds back the game. It might have been a good idea to make the first zone smaller.

 

[Cheylus]

The Hinterlands are like a slap in the face in slowmo. You expect it to hurt and wake you up at some points but it's so slow it never happens and you don't feel a thing.

I finished TW3 yesterday. Amazing game. In terms of comparison, it did everything better than DA:I except what I mentioned earlier (lighting, save import, sound effects) and that:
- "leveling" design: when you're on Death March difficulty and you don't know what to do with 20 of your 50 talent points, there is something wrong with how the game is designed. When you don't need to level up your character because all the slots are filled and you don't feel the need to use another build or create an alternative build, there is something wrong with your "RPG"
- DA:I main plot is... better and more interesting. Animations, emotions, cinematography (lacking in DA:I) helped in TW3. To sum it up, DA:I had a good story wrapped in an average game and a mediocre narrative, TW3 had a bad story (bad considering what they managed to do earlier) wrapped in a very good to excellent game and narrative.
- main antagonist is better in DA:I. Calpernia, Samson or Corypheus are way better than any rider of the Hunt considering what they are, do and represent. However "side" characters like the Bloody Baron are better than 90% of the characters in the Dragon Age franchise.

In the meantime, two days ago BioWare released a cosmetic DLC (2 diagrams of armor, weapons, 5 mounts and new objects for Skyhold) for... 5€.

Edit: I remember people mocking DAI one liners, bugs and floating objects and NPC, or the clipping. One liners are even worse in an otherwise well written game. At least they fit DAI.
Clipping is nothing to be proud of in TW3.

Mage oppression plot is more mature and intelligent in DA2 and DA:I.

 

[octavian123]

@Cheylus

Agree completely.

Keep in mind that the game was also made on last gen (probably because EA wanted to) which means a lot of features had to be cut out. I'm even willing to bet the distant conversation cam is because old gen couldn't handle the faces except on special occasions. If only they ditched last gen we could have gotten a far better game.

I do agree that most side characters are better in TW but I thought the companions in DA were pretty compelling especially Dorian, Solas, Vivienne and Cassandra. Morrigan and Flemeth were amazing as always and there is THAT scene with them that is just great.

In the end I think both games have pretty similar flaws that derive from them being open world but TW does a MUCH better job at masking them.

For example, a lot of people say that TW has no fetch quests. While it doesn't have "bring me 10 bear asses", most quests involve killing or talking to someone and MAYBE choosing between two different outcomes but this is masked by the excellent cinematics. I firmly believe that both franchises should be distinct but if there is one thing BioWare could learn from CDPR then it's how they should handle side quests.

That cosmetic DLC is bullshit and will just hurt their image in the long run, ESPECIALLY when TW3 had onlt just released a bunch of FREE cosmetic DLC but hey, EA will be EA. It's kind of strange because BioWare were actually the first to offer free DLC through the Cerberus Network. AFAIK Zaeed and the cosmetic DLCs were free.

 

[Cheylus]

I agree about DAI companions. In the realm of archetypes for instance Solas is a better Avallach. Vivienne is better than TW3 Philippa. Yennefer was a disappointment, Morrigan wasn't bad...

Archetypes though.

Aaaaand. Dragon Age is their lore, their universe, their characters fully. TW3 is a bit too TW1 2.0 and TW1 was already TW books 2.0. Characters and their relationships are due 75% to Sapkowski.

CDPR gave an excellent flesh to an already excellent material. BioWare made something of their own. I'm eager to see CDPR create their own lore.

 

[octavian123]

Just got in The Fallow Mire. It's amazing what a big quality difference there is between this zone and The Hinterlands.

One thing they COMPLETELY and utterly fucked up is the party AI. It's completely retarded and it pisses me off that I can't program my own tactics like in DA:O. They do the most fucktarded things imaginable. It's like coordinating a WoW 5 man with a bunch of 50 IQ retards.

 

[ZeroZero30]

For me personally TW3 wins by several country miles just because of its setting, tone and player character alone.

In DA:I, just like in the other DAs you basically end up being this high fantasy equivalent of Jesus Christ Superman the Savior, once again saving the day for everyone and the entire world from the big bad evil that threatens to undo existence itself.
Or something along those lines.

Everything just feels so... grand and monumental in scope or in regards to what's at stake that it becomes rather uninteresting and quite boring the more you progress. In my opinion of course.

I guess I just prefer low fantasy settings like TW3s that, while also sharing some high fantasy elements like elves or magic are more grounded and in some way modelled more closer after our own reality with all its grit and societal issues.

The player character, while predefined and customizable only to a certain degree also happens to be a lot more likeable and relatable than DAs fully customizable player character. Geralt, while having superhuman traits never comes across as an almost demigod-like whose shoulders basically have to bear the weight of the world. There's actually just a rather thin line that differentiates him from a regular human in the world of The Witcher, and when he's not dealing with monsters or some spectral retinue he's usually involved in the most mundane things you are involved in in real life just the same. Being able to effortlessly put yourself in Geralt's shoes at pretty much any given time is the decisive factor here.

DA:I -> too high fantasy, too bombastic and pompous in scale, unrelatable player character
TW3 -> more grounded low fantasy game equivalent of GoT, rather low key and not as world-shattering in scale, very likeable and in most aspects relatable player character

Just my two cents.

 

[Jou05]

The Hinterlands are like a slap in the face in slowmo. You expect it to hurt and wake you up at some points but it's so slow it never happens and you don't feel a thing.

I finished TW3 yesterday. Amazing game. In terms of comparison, it did everything better than DA:I except what I mentioned earlier (lighting, save import, sound effects) and that:
- "leveling" design: when you're on Death March difficulty and you don't know what to do with 20 of your 50 talent points, there is something wrong with how the game is designed. When you don't need to level up your character because all the slots are filled and you don't feel the need to use another build or create an alternative build, there is something wrong with your "RPG"
- DA:I main plot is... better and more interesting. Animations, emotions, cinematography (lacking in DA:I) helped in TW3. To sum it up, DA:I had a good story wrapped in an average game and a mediocre narrative, TW3 had a bad story (bad considering what they managed to do earlier) wrapped in a very good to excellent game and narrative.
- main antagonist is better in DA:I. Calpernia, Samson or Corypheus are way better than any rider of the Hunt considering what they are, do and represent. However "side" characters like the Bloody Baron are better than 90% of the characters in the Dragon Age franchise.

In the meantime, two days ago BioWare released a cosmetic DLC (2 diagrams of armor, weapons, 5 mounts and new objects for Skyhold) for... 5€.

Edit: I remember people mocking DAI one liners, bugs and floating objects and NPC, or the clipping. One liners are even worse in an otherwise well written game. At least they fit DAI.
Clipping is nothing to be proud of in TW3.

Mage oppression plot is more mature and intelligent in DA2 and DA:I.

How is DA:I's main plot better? Its the same old generic saving the world story that Bioware has rehashed 10 times only rushed this time around

And while I think the Wild Hunt are pretty bad antagonists, I wouldn't say Cory is any better
If anything he is even more of a joke and a Saturday morning cartoon villian

And the mage opression plot is more mature and intelligent? What?
If you mean by turning everyone into maniacs (basically the sum of DA2, everyone just went apeshit in Kirkwall) and crazy people is more mature then I guess you are right

And it was also resolved in a very rushed manner after the big build up in DA2, the big international conflict being solved in the first Act by the Inquisitor choosing one side or the other is hardly intelligent

---------- Updated at 01:36 AM ----------

I have just started playing DA:I again and am in the Hinterlands. There is nothing objectively bad with the zone but it just feels so bland when compared with zones like Emprise du Lyon or the Western Approach. Everything seems to be made from a shade of green or gray. Again, there is nothing wrong with it but it just feels meh.

Legendary game designer John Romero said that you should make the first level LAST because by the time you are making the first level you already know how to make a great level. What you see for the first time in a game is so important. The first zone, the first conversation, the first characters. Unfortunately, the Hinterlands just holds back the game. It might have been a good idea to make the first zone smaller.

I thought pretty much all zones sucked
They were lifeless and felt artificial instead of being living breathing open world areas like in TW3 or Skyrim
No interesting NPC's, no good side quests just the same old lame rifts and fetch quests to do

 

[octavian123]

@Jo05

Only The Hinterlands felt lifeless to me. I have just finished the Fallow Mire and it was just as awesome as when I first played through it. The area surrounding Haven is also very very pretty.

 

[Cheylus]

@Jou05
Hm, I didn't think DA:I was rushed, it even feels like the their less-rushed game lately, since ME1. But that's opinions and we won't have a productive argument on this point.

As for the "saving the world" plot, fine, but how a "find the princess who is in another castle and kill the bad one-liners factory who is really, really mean with people" is better? Main plot of TW3 is an excuse, a frame, to write compelling secondary stories with amazing narrative (the Baron, the Crones...). Unfortunately, nothing more. DA:I secondary plots (Wardens, Empress, Magi, Tevinter, Red Templars) are all related to the main plot in DA:I and doesn't feel like excuses.
DA:I main plot is stronger precisely because Corypheus had different long-time plans with the Magi, Tevinter or the Wardens. Compared to Corypheus, who isn't even a good villain per se, Eredin is brain dead, even the sort of alliance with the Crones is meaningless and unproductive. BioWare did try to make a sort of "Marvel" villain and managed to do it, whether it's likeable, good or not. I don't even know what CDPR wanted to achieve with the Hunt; it was shallow, a poor plot device, and something as mindless and purposeless as ME2 Collectors.
Even Corypheus' "nature" is more interesting in every way. The Crones were amazing.

How TW3 mages oppression better? They're victims and victims only, hide in basements, while witch hunters are basically the Waffen SS. How original. I'm sorry but aren't mages supposed to have some kind of powers?
If DA turned everyone into maniacs, TW3 DESTROYED this part of the plot by having Radovid displayed as a "crazy king", which is quite an achievement considering how bad DA2 plot is. While I see the cause behind the Templars and even sympathizes with them, there's simply nothing to put the mages hunt in TW3 into perspective. And mages/templars doesn't end with Inquisition first act. Supporting a new Divine in DA:I was more meaningful to me than influencing who will rule the North.
Mages are somehow slaughtered by very mean mages hunters, period. What a disgrace after the Scoiatel/human arguments in TW1 and TW2. TW3 solved this with dumb morality ("poor poor mages, bad bad hunters") - what a step back from TW1 or 2. In Dragon Age the issue is still there and both groups are defendable.

 

[Jou05]

@Jou05
Hm, I didn't think DA:I was rushed, it even feels like the their less-rushed game lately, since ME1. But that's opinions and we won't have a productive argument on this point.

As for the "saving the world" plot, fine, but how a "find the princess who is in another castle and kill the bad one-liners factory who is really, really mean with people" is better? Main plot of TW3 is an excuse, a frame, to write compelling secondary stories with amazing narrative (the Baron, the Crones...). Unfortunately, nothing more. DA:I secondary plots (Wardens, Empress, Magi, Tevinter, Red Templars) are all related to the main plot in DA:I and doesn't feel like excuses.
DA:I main plot is stronger precisely because Corypheus had different long-time plans with the Magi, Tevinter or the Wardens. Compared to Corypheus, who isn't even a good villain per se, Eredin is brain dead, even the sort of alliance with the Crones is meaningless and unproductive. BioWare did try to make a sort of "Marvel" villain and managed to do it, whether it's likeable, good or not. I don't even know what CDPR wanted to achieve with the Hunt; it was shallow, a poor plot device, and something as mindless and purposeless as ME2 Collectors.
Even Corypheus' "nature" is more interesting in every way. The Crones were amazing.

How TW3 mages oppression better? They're victims and victims only, hide in basements, while witch hunters are basically the Waffen SS. How original. I'm sorry but aren't mages supposed to have some kind of powers?
If DA turned everyone into maniacs, TW3 DESTROYED this part of the plot by having Radovid displayed as a "crazy king", which is quite an achievement considering how bad DA2 plot is. While I see the cause behind the Templars and even sympathizes with them, there's simply nothing to put the mages hunt in TW3 into perspective. And mages/templars doesn't end with Inquisition first act. Supporting a new Divine in DA:I was more meaningful to me than influencing who will rule the North.
Mages are somehow slaughtered by very mean mages hunters, period. What a disgrace after the Scoiatel/human arguments in TW1 and TW2. TW3 solved this with dumb morality ("poor poor mages, bad bad hunters") - what a step back from TW1 or 2. In Dragon Age the issue is still there and both groups are defendable.

You make some valid points like I already said I agree on Eredin, I expected more with CDPR

But I still disagree about Cory
Sure he had big plans but after Haven he wasn't threatening at all anymore he just got owned by the Inquisitor at every turn and his last desperate attempt was laughable ( I mean TW3's act 3 is rushed but DA I's ending is just terrible)

He is a lame rehashed Dlc villian who just like Eredin is a screaming generic villian and idiot

Sure you can make good points for both sides (mage and templar) but by turning one of them into evil fucks if you don't choose them the conflict looses all its tension and potential

And of course it ends after the first act, very unsatisfying and disappointing after all the build up
Thedas wide conflict solved by choosing who the Inquisitoe favours more ..lol

And the story in DA I is short and rushed as hell
Apart from the unsatisfying end to the Mage Templar conflict the breach plot is resolved way too early too (also in the first Act)

Its as if the Blight ended midway through in DA O

And from there on its just a silly power fantasy(with no hardships whatsoever) for people who felt like they had no control in DA2's plot

TW3's story is a clear step back from TW2 but its still on another level than DA I's silly plot

 

[octavian123]

The Hinterlands needed more places like Valammar and that castle before it. They have some really good level design (at least by modern standards). That castle from the Templar path was really good too.Witcher 3's levels often felt flat in comparison.

 

[Jou05]

The Hinterlands needed more places like Valammar and that castle before it. They have some really good level design (at least by modern standards). That castle from the Templar path was really good too.Witcher 3's levels often felt flat in comparison.

Disagree TW3's open world beats all the zones in DA:I which feel artificial (its not just the Hinterlands) and have variety just for variety's sake

In general TW3 makes DA:I look cheap in every way (except maybe save import)

 

[octavian123]

Disagree TW3's open world beats all the zones in DA:I which feel artificial (its not just the Hinterlands) and have variety just for variety's sake

In general TW3 makes DA:I look cheap in every way (except maybe save import)

When you say something like that, you'd best give examples.

I was talking about the level design of the dungeons. In TW3 they are mostly flat and linear and may have the occasional side corridor while Vallamar (for example) Is multilayered and if you don't have a rogue you won't be able to explore all of it which provides an extra dimension of gameplay. It also has some nice verticality to it. One moment you areabove, another below.

I have also completed a ginormous side dungeon in the temple of the elven god of wisdom that was very non-linear, had tons and tons of exploration and plenty of stuff for the observant eye. It took me almost an hour to fully explore it.

From a level design POV, TW3 doesn't have any dungeons like these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBuulB8M12o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss51odDX0t0

 

[Cheylus]

I tend to agree about the level design in DA:I and even about the variety.

A thought about it: while TW3 is beautiful and more realistic (I wonder if that's not why some consider it "better" somehow...), terrain level has 0 impact on how you play. You always end up fighting on the same level. Meanwhile, positionning is more important in DA:I and levels plays a part in combat (there are even skills about the level of the terrain). The number of times I was stuck in TW3 just because Geralt somehow refuses to jump in "combat mode"...

If I have to remember where I went in TW3 my mind says "plain swamp with drowners", "plain forest with wolves", "plain field with ghouls", "troll cave with a troll at the end of a corridor/Cat potion" and "elven ruins with a golem at the end of a corridor/Cat potion", with little to no verticality.

DA:I surprised me more in terms of level design, positionning, enemy placement.

I wouldn't say that level design in DA:I was brilliant though, far from it, but better than TW3? Definitely a thing I could agree with.

edit: huh, and even the lazy puzzles in DA:I were better than the three puzzles I had the displeasure to solve in 20 sec in TW3.
That's a shame considering I liked the "Cynthia" quest in Loc Muinne for its brilliant puzzles. I hoped it was a glimpse of TW3, I was wrong.

 

[octavian123]

@Cheylus

There's a pretty tricky one in The Exalted Plains.

I didn't say the level design in DA:I was great just that it was above average. I kept getting this nagging feeling that it could have been even better, like they didn't go all the way with it and that it felt kind of...timid. In fact that is how I would describe the game's goals: timid. It tried to do new things but didn't fully commit. It tried to make interesting level design and gameplay but didn't fully commit.

 

[Cheylus]

I thought Jaws of Hakkon (the DLC) level design was better than any "zone" in DA:I.
I just know that I had more pleasure exploring Thedas than I had exploring Skellige, Velen or Skyrim.

Hm, I forgot Novigrad though. Novigrad is the best city a RPG ever had to my knowledge.

 

[octavian123]

Oh absolutely, it is but I think there's a distinction.

 

[EliHarel]

I haven't played DA:I yet, but even if we theoretically say that TW3 is the best open world out there - I can't shake off a growing feeling of disappointment from certain, major things. The game is great, I enjoyed it a lot and it touched me often - but man, I think it could have been remarkably better if it wasn't an open world.