TW3 vs DA:I [SPOILERS]

+
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.

That is exactly what I think. It applies to DA as well.

Or maybe they could have still been open world but on a smaller scale...It all feels excessive to me.

BTW, DA is on sale right now if you are interested in playing it. You could probably get it even cheaper on the mexican Origin store. I got it for 40$ at release.
 
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.

The story would have been better no doubt
But thats the case with DA:I too, the rather lackluster open world (especially compared to TW3) drags it down
 
The forts in this game are really well designed from a defensive POV. I keep thinking "If I had an army I would put archers here, hold this chokepoint here, put a trap there" and I am quite disappointed we didn't get a mission where we had to protect a fort (not necessarily Skyhold) and we got to have a preparation phase where we put soldiers on battlements and chokepoints, assign healers to squads, place traps. All influenced by the types of alliances and quests you have conducted with the Inquisition. Shame, it feels to me like the forts were built with this in mind because a lot of care seems to have put in making them realistic from a defense POV.
 
Last edited:
My view?
TW3 blows Dragon Age out of narrative experience by miles. TW3 narration is like a new standard and class for RPG games.
 
My view?
TW3 blows Dragon Age out of narrative experience by miles. TW3 narration is like a new standard and class for RPG games.

Agreed DA:I looks cheap and just bad compared to TW3, almost everything is worse
I don't get how people can even put these two in the same league

TW3 isn't perfect but its miles above DA:I (which was just terrible, surprised it was this succesful)
 
I disagree that it's not in the same league but hey, opinions are opinions. I like both games for similar and different reasons.
 
I disagree that it's not in the same league but hey, opinions are opinions. I like both games for similar and different reasons.

Yep
The only thing it does better is Save Import but thats about it

TW3 is better in every way apart from that imho, now DA:O would be a different question (sure its a big old but its a classic, still like it)
 
DA:I actually had a far better antagonist, better politics, a strong religious conflict that was superbly written.

The argument DA:I is garbage compared to the TW3 is a load of nonsense, gameplay is better in TW3 but graphics aren't overall.
 
DA:I actually had a far better antagonist, better politics, a strong religious conflict that was superbly written.

The argument DA:I is garbage compared to the TW3 is a load of nonsense, gameplay is better in TW3 but graphics aren't overall.

Honestly, I find the open world aspects of both games to be excessive and I think both games are pretty shallow in the end, it's just that The Witcher does a much better job at masking it. For example, TW doesn't have fetch quests per se but most quests are still "gor here and kill this" or "go to this guy and talk to him" but this is masked by the fact that it doesn't have "bring me 10 bear asses" objectives AND it has excellent cutscenes which Dragon Age SORELY lacks. Plus TW has a FAR FAR better introductory zone than The Hinterlands, which is the absolute worst zone in the game, especially when compared to the really good ones.

The open world is so big in both games that they overwhelm me, and not in a good way. I used the cake analogy in a previous thread. I view both games like a cake. You have this huge cake made with the finest ingredients and you're like "man, there's so much cake, I sure got my money's worth out of it". You start eating it, really enjoying yourself but when you feel like you've had enough you realize there's still half of it left and say "I should finish it because I don't want this awesome cake to go stale" so you force yourself to finish it but you end up feeling stuffed, fat and sick and to me at least the latter half of both games felt like leftovers in a way.

In Dragon Age I think The Fallow Mire, The Western Approach, The Hissing Wastes, Emprise du Lion (GOD I love this zone) and the Emerald Graves are really well done and have higher environment variety than TW does but the rest of the zones? Did the game really need Storm Coast, Crestwood and the Exalted Plains? I am replaying the game now and I have absolutely no desire to go to those zones again, they feel like wasted resources to me, respirces which could have been better spent in making Inquisition customization more important, more cutscenes and make unique gameplay in each zone. After the third or so zone, it really starts to feel like the previous one, just with better loot and a different environment...similar to WOW zones.

I got a similar feeling in TW. Did the two zones really need to be so big? That budget could have been used to make our decisions in TW2 matter more or idk...something else.

I also think that DA has far superior exploration to TW3. Exploration in TW3 consists of finding points of interest and linear and short dungeons. Dragon Age has these fucking HUUUGE dungeons with lots of nonlinearity like the Temple of Dirthamen which took me an hour to complete and that is just ONE of them. Of course, TW3 has the far far superior capital city of Novigrad. Nothing to argue there.

I also agree that religion is handled far better in DA. Does the Maker exist? Does it matter as long as people believe? Is the Divine from the Fade really her? All v very interesting stuff. Also, while TW story was very well realized, the chase for Ciri was a bit too "find this guy so that you can find that guy so that you can find the other guy that leads you to that guy". Both have great stories but I think both could have been a lot better.

Ah yes and DA has the AMAZING dragon battles. Holy shit were they fun. Combat is better overall in TW3 though. Constantly got Gothic 2 flashbacks in it.

So overall I think that TW3 is SLIGHTLY better than DA.
 
Last edited:
DA:I actually had a far better antagonist, better politics, a strong religious conflict that was superbly written.

The argument DA:I is garbage compared to the TW3 is a load of nonsense, gameplay is better in TW3 but graphics aren't overall.

Better antagonist? How is Cory better than the Wild Hunt?
They are both terrible and generic villians
Same with politics the one's in TW3 suck no doubt but the one's in DA:I are not better

Overal TW3 clearly wins in the side quests and the open world department and since those are the main point of both games I would say DA:I is definitely pretty lackluster compared to TW3
 
Last edited:
Better antagonist? How is Cory better than the Wild Hunt?
They are both terrible and generic villians
Same with politics the one's in TW3 suck no doubt but the one's in DA:I are not better

Corypheus at least has a far larger presence in the entire game and although he does feel like a generic villain he has a decent amount of depth, but he's more like a force that you're struggling against through the entire game.

Whereas the Wild Hunt does fuck all besides Kaer Morhen.

As for politics not being better. Bollocks really. Both games feature politicians using religion for their own ends, but unlike TW3 where it simply boils down to an insane fool that's leading fanatics to kill everyone that's not pure human the religion of DA:I is fleshed out, complex, nuanced and it's portrayal is exceptional and it ties very deeply with the politics as you rise to power using the belief that people have in who you are, even if you don't believe it yourself necessarily. Then there's your choice with the Divine and how that's affected by your overall choices.

On top of that the Orlesian Civil War is a hell lot more complex then the politics of TW3 in itself. Three factions on the surface but in reality there's more like five, all decently fleshed out with a good deal of variables to take into consideration and playing a role in the overall outcome of that decision.
 
Overal TW3 clearly wins in the side quests and the open world department and since those are the main point of both games I would say DA:I is definitely pretty lackluster compared to TW3

I agree on the side quest part (I mean who doesn't?) but open world is debatable. Is it more alive? Sure. Does it have the variety of DA? Hell no. In DA you go to deserts, snowcapped mountains, 3 varieties of forests, a foggy swamp. It also has far better and far bigger dungeons like the Temple of Dirthamen which took me almost an hour to finish. Witcher 3 dungeons took me 10 minutes max.
 
Corypheus at least has a far larger presence in the entire game and although he does feel like a generic villain he has a decent amount of depth, but he's more like a force that you're struggling against through the entire game.

Whereas the Wild Hunt does fuck all besides Kaer Morhen.

As for politics not being better. Bollocks really. Both games feature politicians using religion for their own ends, but unlike TW3 where it simply boils down to an insane fool that's leading fanatics to kill everyone that's not pure human the religion of DA:I is fleshed out, complex, nuanced and it's portrayal is exceptional and it ties very deeply with the politics as you rise to power using the belief that people have in who you are, even if you don't believe it yourself necessarily. Then there's your choice with the Divine and how that's affected by your overall choices.

On top of that the Orlesian Civil War is a hell lot more complex then the politics of TW3 in itself. Three factions on the surface but in reality there's more like five, all decently fleshed out with a good deal of variables to take into consideration and playing a role in the overall outcome of that decision.

Yeah he might have a larger presence but there is no struggling, he gets owned at every moment in the story (apart from Haven)
There is no depth, he is as generic as it gets (Eredin reminded me of him actually)

As for politics I really don't see how the Orlesian Civil War was complex, just like with TW3 you never see it actually happening, the players of the "game" are incredibly one dimensional, you get one silly quest to get to know them and after that its already finished...lol
Same with the religion, its never explored, you can be a Elf, Dwarf whatever and there is no opposition
Overall I think we can both agree that we have been spoiled by TW2 politics


---------- Updated at 10:48 PM ----------

I agree on the side quest part (I mean who doesn't?) but open world is debatable. Is it more alive? Sure. Does it have the variety of DA? Hell no. In DA you go to deserts, snowcapped mountains, 3 varieties of forests, a foggy swamp. It also has far better and far bigger dungeons like the Temple of Dirthamen which took me almost an hour to finish. Witcher 3 dungeons took me 10 minutes max.

It being more alive is a lot more important for me than variety (don't forget that DA:I is semi open world so its easier for it to have vastly different zones)

DA:I's zones are lifeless there is nothing interesting to encounter
The side quests are a joke, there are no NPC's and while the Dungeons are interesting and bigger since the side quests suck so much I have no motivation to finish them

There are no villiages or a city (like Novigrad), it feels artifical to me
 
Last edited:
I have never played the DA2 DLC but I've just watched the moment where you encounter Corypheus. He had such potential to be a great villain. Fantastic voice acting too.
 
I have never played the DA2 DLC but I've just watched the moment where you encounter Corypheus. He had such potential to be a great villain. Fantastic voice acting too.

Yeah he was great in that DLC, little did I know he would be turned into a generic and pathetic villian
 
Final Dragon Age: Inquisition DLC details (maybe) revealed by leaked survey

http://www.pcgamer.com/final-dragon-age-inquisition-dlc-details-maybe-revealed-by-leaked-survey/

PLEASE let it be better than the last DLC. It was just more Hinterlands.

Thankfully I didn't buy the DLC (didn't want to waste more money on the game), I did watch some gameplay though and its a shame what Bioware has turned DA into

Instead of story and character focused games with lots of cutscenes (think DA:O) meaningful side quests and long main quests we get big areas to "explore" that are bloated with filler content (lots of hollow and and inconsequential stuff)
 
CD Projeckt Red surpassing of Bioware

Wow, The Witcher 3 really and truly makes Dragon Age Inquisition look like amateur hour. CD Projeckt RED has completely and soundly thrashed in their third game a company whose logo was on the startup for their first game. Other than save import, Bioware has been mastered, well at least their Dragon Age Team, but I don't hold up hope for Mass Effect Andromeda either. I am looking more forward to Cyberpunk 2077 You see, its the culture that is the reason why.

Both CD Projeckt RED and Bioware bungled the endings to their games, as well as undersold them pre-release, leading to an enhanced redux of the ending. The Witcher 2 and Mass Effect 3. Both endings were indeed problematic, not with concept, but with execution. They were under explained, rushed, and confused, missing key details, and decisions failed to matter. Why would I rescue Triss in the original PC version of TW2? But both did well at fixed their problems while not compromising their visions of the ending, but only CDPR learned their lesson. While CDPR learned to finish and explain and clarify more in the future (and did so for TW3 for the most part), Bioware "learned" that you can't have a bittersweet ending to a three game series. WRONG, CDP just pulled it off.

I blame the fans for the most part if Bioware falls creatively, because fanbase can have impact on who you are. The Witcher fans for the most part, are great to CDPR, and understand when they screw up and for the most part, CDPR is humble about mistakes. But Bioware fans are a bunch of crybaby morons, with their forums toxic as hell. While Bioware did screw up the ending, the fans reaction is one of the most moronic things in gaming history and one of the ugliest. But still, after the Extended Cut, the moron fanbase still fails to get the ending. After playing through the ending and the game multiple times and actually analyzing it, the ending is actually pretty damn good. You see it was smart, bitter sweet sci-fi ending that you have to think about, and that you have to pick up the clues for. It wasn't a pew pew pew, blow up Harbinger in a boss fight ending and go home and bang the blue chick ending. These fans are so stupid they don't even get why the Starkid is even talking to Shepard or that just because you don't like a plot point or twist, doesn't mean its a plot hole. And people who say the ending doesn't fit the themes of the series should be slapped for stupidity because they seem to have fallen asleep and turned their brain off all series long. Nope, much of the fanbase wanted a happy ending, with the popularity of the idiotic MEHEM mod to prove my point. Going through Mass Effect 3 (after playing TW3, I can't determine which is better although standalone TW3 wins), I realize how dark and sad the game actually is. Walking through the Citadel and hearing those conversations for instance is a huge example. And IMO, Mass Effect 3 was the game Bioware needed to make, a risky, uncompromising game where there is no good and bad and that paragon decisions sometimes don't lead to the best outcome, but instead its their downfall not because of its problems because of the problems with the fanbase. The most damning thing was the attack on Bioware's creative freedom. But I rather take "art" over pew pew pew Michael bay boom to make dumb fans happy any day.

Now comparing DAI to TW3, can't start without talking about DA2 as well. DA2 was simply put, rushed out the door to meet an unrealistic deadline. I am suprise it was even playable and I am thankful for that. But they simply put, ran out of time and the writers didn;t get to do what they wanted fully. But the story themes and the characters were great and it was different. Instead of being a generic save the world plot, it is about how one person alone isn't to blame for a social failure, its everybody. Although DA2, characters from your party members to NPCs to the antagonists want to inflame and esclate the situation, so much so that your choices don;t matter. You are screwed, but that's the point. But nope, the dumb fanbase hated it and didn't get it. And DA2 did many other things wrong like repeat levels, shallow combat encounters, and small area to explore, but thats because it was rushed. But in DAI, Bioware not only created a game with the OPPOSITE problems to DA2, made an unfocused mess of a game, while being as generic and formulaic as possible. The story and its gameplay were segregated, characters no longer matter to the plot outside of Casandra and Solus, the side quests were shallow, political agendas were forced in, everything was told and rarely shown, and the main plot was dumb. Its like they reacted to the forums instead of making the game they truly wanted to make. It was made to check off forum fan requests and AAA open world checkboxes. And oh boy, not only the ending to DAI suck, but it was DAO over again. Also, I have noticed that none of the companions or advisors can die and they only leave if you make them in DAI, with only one choice being a tough bittersweet choice. And then there is a part where a character can be "killed", not killed, but "killed", but you can choose a character instead that you don;t care about to "die" in his or her place. Talk about dumbing things down mentally and emotionally. Instead of Bioware making the best game they wanted to make, they made a game the fans wanted them to make and after short term success, it would soon be easily surpassed by The Witcher 3 and is easily more forgettable than that controversial Mass Effect 3.

The Witcher 3 on the other hand, looks like it was made the way the designers wanted but the fans accepted. Thats one reason why everything flows well together and that even the missteps surpass other companies best efforts. Instead of reading and reacting to the fanbase to an extreme degree, CDP has seemed to evolve and fix things naturally, instead of nuking it and throwing it out. And it still feels like they have creative control of the story and that fans accept not only controversial storytelling but even aspects they don't even like. Not so with Bioware fans, who would have a 100 page tantrum thread on how their favorite character got shafted in the sequel. Over here, Iorveth threads seem far more civil and less demanding that CDP put him in the game.

And I think the difference is the culture of the fanbase, that the reason that CDPR finally truly may have surpassed Bioware. And really I think CDPR now makes the games th eBioware fanbase doesn't allow Bioware to make.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom