Deadfire won't win RPG of the year (VGA's)

[Franknstein]

What I really meant was that you should explain the correct spelling of Geralt of Riva to my phone...

 

Well, oh Boeroer's phone, you definitely ain't good with names. It's Rivia actually. =)

[Boeroer]

In German it's "Geralt von Riva", not Rivia. Actually I didn't even notice that there's that difference until you mentioned it. I wonder why they did this...

 

Edit: in the original it's "Rivii". So I guess neither Riva nor Rivia are truly right or wrong.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Boeroer

[Franknstein]

In German it's "Geralt von Riva", not Rivia. Actually I didn't even notice that there's that difference until you mentioned it. I wonder why they did this...

 

Edit: in the original it's "Rivii". So I guess neither Riva nor Rivia are truly right or wrong.

 

He is "from Rivia" – "iz Rivii", the land by itself is "Rivia". But why the change in the German translation? Wael knows.

 

Edit: "Lyria i *Rivia* to dwa królestwa leżące w Dol Angra połączone unią personalną." – Lyria and Rivia are two kingdoms lying in Dol Angra connected by a personal union.

 

I'm not making it up to fool with ya phone. =)

Edited November 23, 2018 by Franknstein

[Boeroer]

We love to "translate" lots of stuff without any need.

[InsaneCommander]

In German it's "Geralt von Riva", not Rivia. Actually I didn't even notice that there's that difference until you mentioned it. I wonder why they did this...

 

Edit: in the original it's "Rivii". So I guess neither Riva nor Rivia are truly right or wrong.

 

If the original is Rivii then your phone (and many others) are wrong.

[Boeroer]

I guess it's just the polish genitive (or whatever case is used here).

[Silvaren]

Maybe I wasn't clear with my thoughts.

 

As game Witcher 3 is borring and repetetive. During combat you can use fast attack, strong attack and optional whirl. You can use only three types of attacks during entire 100+ game and all weapons work the same. Signs doesn't matter much because you can't build character as mage, the have auxiliary role and when I was playing the game on hardest difficulty I used Quen 99% of the time. There is no "gamechangers" in combat because all weapons work the same way (difference is only in stats) and you have only 2 types of attacks + whirl. Even character progression is dumb because you won't learn new mechanics other than minor changes in using signs (which on hardest difficulty are pointless with except of Quen and situational Yrden or Axii). You don't learn new things, you only get % bonuses to stats. And when you learn enemies' animations after 15-20h combat stays borring to the end. I had to seek overleveled monsters with red skull to have any challenge.

 

As roleplay Witcher 3 is just bad. BioWare's games have in some way defined character but in both Mass Effect series and Dragon Age series player have much more freedom in conversations. Conversation wheel gives players more option to choose than conversations in Witcher 3, while people are constantly whining about how dumbed down is conversation wheel. From the point how conversation are constructed it's even more dumbed down in Witcher 3. And yes, games I mentioned before are much better in terms of conversation and role playing. In games made by Obsidian, Harebrained Schemes, Iron Tower, InXile, Stygian Software or Larian player have much more options to: 1. Express your character, 2. express your agenda, 3. affect conversation via dialog choices 4. affect the world via dialog choices 5. use character's stats and abilities to get different results in different situation 6. all options give player additional solutions to quests or encountered problems.

 

Quest design in Witcher 3 is terrible what means it's typical AAA cRPG. Player is led by the hand from point A to point B (Wticher senses) and find binary choice at the end. Games made by Obsidian, Harebrained Schemes, Iron Tower, InXile, Stygian Software or Larian player can chose different path, different way to solve the problem. Actually there are multiple solutions to most quests. Interplay's Fallout in 1997 gived players higher standards than Witcher 3 in 2015. Players could rescue Tandi in seven different ways. Players acted like they wanted. Vault dweller didn't have Witcher senses to follow throughout straight line. Play both Pillars, Torment Tides of Numenera, Wasteland 2, Age of Decadence, Shadowrun Dragonfall and Shadowrun Hong Kong and you will find more reactivity, more choices and non-linear quest design than in Witcher 3. And then compare the scale of sidequests from Witcher 3 to sidequests from Baldur's Gate II or Pillars of Eternity series. Show me sidequest in Witcher 3, where player can explore completly optional, huge, multi-leveled area with memorable characters and self contained storyline for 2-3 hours with fights, conversations, riddles, secrets and treasures. Show me in Witcher 3 equivalent of quests like The Cult of the Eyless, De,arnise Keep, Windspear Hills, Umar Hills with Temple Ruins, Planar Sphere, Sahuagin City, Watcher's Keep... Entire chapter in Underdark was optional in BG 2 because player could kill silver dragon end leave Underdark. Show me in Witcher 3 equivalent of quests like those in Raedric Hold, Fort Deadlight, Old City, Drowned Barrows... Sidequests in Witcher 3 are short. Main characters get maybe 1 hour-long. It's funny how people say "every sidequest in Witcher 3 tell the story". Isn't that obligatory for the cRPG genre? Seriously is it a new standard? Didn't you play any cRPG before 2015?

 

As story Witcher 3 gives deja vu for anyone who read the novels. Hypothetically - if you switch writers in game with Andrzej Sapkowski but the story remains the same, you could call it self-plagiarism, a salad out of old lettuce (if I used correct idiom, you know, I'm from Poland and in our country we say literally - reheated chop). Some characters are twisted, Triss for example. Imho she was ruined by CDP Red. She manipulated Geralt in the way she didn't act like that in the books. And when she admittted to this during one conversation I coudn't chose my answer because the game was running that conversation on railroads! Great role playing, trully. New standards. Ofcourse you can praise how well developed are characters in Witcher 3 but in fact it's not CDP Red thing but Andrzej Sapkowski.

 

Then if you say that Witcher 3 is better than other AAA cRPG - I would say that even Inquistion, Andromeda or dumbed down Fallouts from Bethesda in some ways are better (character progression system, itemisation, combat mechanics) and in other ways the same (quest design, certain characters sidequests). But Witcher 3 as other AAA cRPG is way below standards set by Interplay in the 90. and uphold by Obsidian, Harebrained Schemes, Iron Tower, InXile, Stygian Software and Larian.

 

Slasher/shooter with movie style sotrytelling are just more popular than niche cRPG with player's freedom in complex construction of content.

 

EDIT:

And all activities on the map, so called "points of interest" in Witcher 3 are just fillers. Pointless open world in sake of open world because they are popular and easy to sell. Jason Schreier wrote interesting thing in "Blood, sweat and pixels" about Witcher 3 development. CDP Red run out of ideas to fill the game with interesting content somewhere in the middle of the process. So even exploration is borring and repetetive. Yet people will say that open wolrd in Witcher 3 is the best ever. Great taste!

Edited November 24, 2018 by Silvaren

[Mikeymoonshine]

I think when it comes to roleplaying in the Witcher 3, the lack of choice doesn't bother me so much because you are playing an established character and the game doesn't pretend you aren't. You can basically choose to play a nice Geralt or a not nice Geralt most of the time. The real character from the books is probably somewhere in the middle of the two.

 

I can't agree that it's a worse roleplaying experience than something like dragon age Inquisition though just because that game has a character creator and four response options rather that two. Not when those response options usually boil down to saying the same thing or just yes or no in different ways, not when that character history, race, class, gender ect is meaningless the vast majority of the time and sometimes is ignored even when it should really matter. Inquisition puts almost all it's writing and cinematic moments into the main story which is actually very short and just gated by the worst kind of mmo teir content that the game calls "side quests" even the best side quests in Inquisition don't have cut scenes, or memorable characters with all that much writing or really any choices.

 

The choices you make in the main quests are almost always binary and only a few of them ever lead to anything other than there being a different set of NPC's in skyhold doing nothing for the rest of the game.

 

Yes side quests and main quests in modern AAA RPGs are shorter and tend not to include dungeon crawls. At least Witcher 3 has memorable side quests like tower full of mice, carnal sins, wild at heart and return to crookback bog. Quests that have choices, consequences a story, characters cut scenes ect. Some of the side quests even affect the main story.

 

Can you really say that's even equivalent to the best side quests in dragon age Inquisition or mass effect Andromeda?

 

I agree the game has a lot of interests and is not one of the best RPG experiences but we don't get the best RPG experiences anymore. Bioware and Bethesda should not get credit for their illusion of choices just so the Witcher 3 can be knocked down a peg.

[Silvaren]

Yes side quests and main quests in modern AAA RPGs are shorter and tend not to include dungeon crawls. At least Witcher 3 has memorable side quests like tower full of mice, carnal sins, wild at heart and return to crookback bog. Quests that have choices, consequences a story, characters cut scenes ect. Some of the side quests even affect the main story.

 

Can you really say that's even equivalent to the best side quests in dragon age Inquisition or mass effect Andromeda?

Both Inquisition and Androemda have companions sidequests and those are at the similar level as the sidequests about main cast of Witcher 3. Andromeda is obviously better than Inquisition. DAI has little to no itneresting sidequests outside of Inquisitor's inner circle. While in Andromeda most sidequests build upon few themes of the game, bringing another brick in the wall of consistent world. There are ofcourse companions' sidequests - up to 1 hours long with cutscenes, combat, choices. There are planetary stories - which add to the worldbuilding and overall multithread story. There are sidequests about few groups in Andromeda - initiative, outlaws, resistance, roekaar, kett, remnents. Some are bigger, some smaller, but they are intertwined. Execution is mixed in quality, as it is in Witcher 3 - it's still the same scheme - go from point A to point B and pick one of binary choice.

 

Story in Witcher 3 is about Geralt searching for Ciri (deja vu). It's simple, antagonists are flat - as same as surface of the story in Inquisition and Andromeda. But it's the difference between working on someones IP and working on your own IP. BioWare have paradoxaly greater creative freedom than CDP Red. They own THE Dragon Age Setting (in short - THEDAS), they own Mass Effect Universe. They can do whatever they want. When CDP Red was limited with Witcher's world - and Sapkowski himself said that this world is only a background to the story and this is why he wasn't bothering with drawing a map. Witcher's world is only a background. There is no story in it other than "the plot". Geralt is searching for Ciri, some side threads are in the background, the world is a background. In Inquisition and Andromeda on other hand - there is metaplot, there are stories which add worldbuilding. There are mysterious of the settings. In Witcher 3 it's hard to be surprised from the story or the world (at least if you are familiar with the books). THEDAS and ME Universe are expanding. Under the sufrace of cliche plot about saving the world from demons (Inquisition) or colonisation effort (Andromeda) there are metaplots - histories building upon huge lore. And all those little sidequests (in Andromeda for example) bring some hints to story of the world. Plot of Mass Effect Andromeda is more complex than people used to say, but it's hidden everywhere in the game. In planetary story missions, in sidequests, in little notes, datapads, on the map of the Heleus Cluster.

 

I found some interesting analysis of the C&C in games on MrBtongue's channel on yt. Good desinged choice are those which work as the cause and effect chain of events. Good C&C work as simiulation in the world, logical outcomes. Butterfly effect style of C&C is often artificial for the sake of "big surprise". Once again I'll bring first Fallout - if you buy water from merchants to make them deliver it to the Vault, to the hidden location of the Vault 13, Unity Forces will find the Vault quicker. Cause and effect. Contruary, the simple example of artificial C&C is the ending of Witcher 3. There are 5 basicaly random choices during interactions with Ciri which determine the outcome of entire game - no matter how you will act you have to gain certain number of points out of 5 maximum points. Is it simulation? Is it cause and effect? Witcher 3 has the same illusion of choice which can be found in other AAA games of this genre. Seriously, PoE 1 and Deadfire, TToN, Age of Decadence have bigger reactivity than Witcher 3.

 

Great panel about C&C and writing in games was presented by Josh Sawyer during GDC:

Edited November 24, 2018 by Silvaren

[house2fly]

Watch out, the witcher 3 defense force is very big and very aggressive

[Phyriel]

If you don't play as yourself you always play a role. So Witcher is a role playing game. I mean unless you are Gerald of Riva playing the Witcher series of course...

 

Who are you baiting this hard lol?:D Call of Duty rpg of the year please - I roleplay a soldier there. 

[Phyriel]

 

And the winner was Witcher 3 with pointless open world and linear quest design, binary choices and rather small reactivity, almost non-interactive dialogs without roleplay options and with less lines to pick than provides BioWare's wheel. And they call it "story driven rpg" while at least 70% of the game is focused on pointless combat with trashmobs, borring point of (no) interest aka "?" and short sidequest - few minutes long with NPCs whoes name no one remembers. And the combat - you have many "different" swords, all have the same attack animation - and people hated that in first Mass Effect where every weapon had the same feeling. No game changers throughout entire game. And most people say Witcher 3 set new standards for entire RPG genre...

 

i played a little bit of witcher 3 and i could tell early on that it was a more attractive looking skyrim with a better script but also with batman mechanics. he even has that detective vision lmao. i really cannot understand how so many people are like wow this is like the pinnacle of gaming a very basic batman controller mechanics and unlock system spun off into mad max and fantasy. its really straight console gaming for people that want to play games that feel like movies. they think the closer the game is to being like a movie "you" star in the better it is

 

i want to play a game, i also like having a squad anyway

 

*banging on table* where is my mass effect tactics

 

 

Exactly my thoughts, witcher games are more action adventure than rpgs... playing witcher feels more like playing lara croft or batman indeed. But honestly genre is in such a devolved state that I don't even care for "rpgs" anymore. I rather play mobas lol. Skyrim even tho it's pretty bad in vanilla state atleast gives you the option to mod the **** out of it and actually with something like close to 200+ mods make it probably a game that would still deserve a game of the year title (question is: if game allows to be moddable to such a degree to become really good is it its own achievement or not? for me it kinda is). Pillars 2 gained a lot in my eyes because its moddable and you have communities that will provide you with whatever tweak you fancy if vanilla game is bad (vanilla pillars 2 have tons of issues with balance still so I can't play it without mods anymore) and then you have games that are hardly moddable and you're stuck with whatever game studio offers (god bless refunds tho)

[Boeroer]

 

If you don't play as yourself you always play a role. So Witcher is a role playing game. I mean unless you are Gerald of Riva playing the Witcher series of course...

Who are you baiting this hard lol?:D Call of Duty rpg of the year please - I roleplay a soldier there.

Actually you do. Nothing funny about that. The transitions between Roleplaying game, Shooter, Hack&Slay, Roguelike, tactics game and whatnot can be fluid. Call of Duty has roleplaying elements, but they are not defining the game. It's based on your skill at the controller and not so much on stats, character XP and equipment. Thus very few people would call it a role playing game but a shooter. But control-wise it's not that much different from a first-person Fallout or Risen or something like that. If you'd give your soldier XP with which he could improve his aim, his dmg or whatnot you wouldn't be joking about calling it a Roleplaying game.

 

Playing the role of Geralt (including multiple options of character development through XP and so on) is defining the Witcher games though. And because of that it's totally fine to call it a Roleplaying game. I'm not a big fan of the Witcher games by the way. They are ok for me but nothing I would spend a lot of time with. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to be objective when talking about it. Exception: Diablo 3. One can't be objective about that one.

 

However - I merely wanted to point out that it's a bit questionable to deny the Witcher games the term "RPG" just because it's a first person game where you can't change the character's personality.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Boeroer

[AClaymoreWielder]

 

Funny how so many topics turn into DOS hate, are people really that butthurt that it sold much better than Deadfire? :D

 

lol "butthurt". are peeps still using that cringey adolescent sex-negative homophobic term in 2018? i love it.

 

 

LOL good summary of the term.

[AClaymoreWielder]

Regardless, now that Microsoft will support Obsidian. I bet money Obsidian will make something just as impacful as SWKOTOR 2 or New Vegas. I bet money the next game they make will be GOTY. Which ever year it hails from.

[Mikeymoonshine]

 

Both Inquisition and Androemda have companions sidequests and those are at the similar level as the sidequests about main cast of Witcher 3. Andromeda is obviously better than Inquisition. DAI has little to no itneresting sidequests outside of Inquisitor's inner circle. While in Andromeda most sidequests build upon few themes of the game, bringing another brick in the wall of consistent world. There are ofcourse companions' sidequests - up to 1 hours long with cutscenes, combat, choices. There are planetary stories - which add to the worldbuilding and overall multithread story. There are sidequests about few groups in Andromeda - initiative, outlaws, resistance, roekaar, kett, remnents. Some are bigger, some smaller, but they are intertwined. Execution is mixed in quality, as it is in Witcher 3 - it's still the same scheme - go from point A to point B and pick one of binary choice.

 

 

Fair I forgot about the companion and adviser side content but most of those quests are not exactly good. They still mostly boil down to meet companion somewhere, have a conversation, make one choice that doesn't matter, sometimes there is a fight. I only cited some of what I think are the best side quests in TW3 there are still many more side quests that have had just as much work put into them as any of these companion quests. Yes the witcher sense thing is annoying and there isn't enough choice but there is still a story to most of the quests and choices in many of them. 

 

Andromeda tried to do better here but the writing for most of those quests was still really bad and they were still incredibly short and meaningless most of the time. They also keep constantly trying to add in twists but the twists are all incredibly predictable and again choices that don't matter at all. 

 

 

 

Story in Witcher 3 is about Geralt searching for Ciri (deja vu). It's simple, antagonists are flat 

 

No disagreement there but Inquisition and Andromeda also have very simple stories and very flat main antagonists. Inquisition gets better antagonist wise if you consider the DLC but then so does TW3. 

 

I really don't see the amazing writing in these "metaplots" that you do, bioware's plots have always been rather terrible they just manage to hook you in with interesting characters but they seem to lose this quality more and more with every release. I also don't see how TW3 being limited from it's established world is somehow a point against it. As you said Bioware could do anything with their own IPs but they choose to just repeat the same tired old cliches again and again. 

 

I am familiar with the witcher 3 books and there are still many elements of the plot that are surprising and interesting. 

 

Inquisition and Andromeda do indeed hide a more complex plot behind a generic one and only hint at it in the main game, this is so they can sell the better plot as dlc or a sequel (like they did with Trespasser) and whatever they were planning to do before Andromeda was the disaster it was. How is this a good thing? 

 

 

Ok fine, some of the choices that affect the outcome are pretty random, in fact the entire last act is pretty weak. I never said TW3 did not have issues though or that all of the choices have meaning or consequences, I said that Inquisition and Andromeda are not better in this regard simply because they give you more lines to pick from and I stand by that statement. 

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

I keep thinking i should give the witcher a fair go. I played a bit of the original at launch and... eh, im sure its great and all, but i had no interest in being that geralt character. aint played alpha protocol for the same reason. i was one of those kids who always wanted james bond to lose.

[Manveru123]

Show us on the doll where did Geralt touch you.

As roleplay Witcher 3 is just bad. BioWare's games have in some way defined character but in both Mass Effect series and Dragon Age series player have much more freedom in conversations. Conversation wheel gives players more option to choose than conversations in Witcher 3, while people are constantly whining about how dumbed down is conversation wheel. From the point how conversation are constructed it's even more dumbed down in Witcher 3. And yes, games I mentioned before are much better in terms of conversation and role playing. In games made by Obsidian, Harebrained Schemes, Iron Tower, InXile, Stygian Software or Larian player have much more options to: 1. Express your character, 2. express your agenda, 3. affect conversation via dialog choices 4. affect the world via dialog choices 5. use character's stats and abilities to get different results in different situation 6. all options give player additional solutions to quests or encountered problems.

Quest design in Witcher 3 is terrible what means it's typical AAA cRPG. Player is led by the hand from point A to point B (Wticher senses) and find binary choice at the end. Games made by Obsidian, Harebrained Schemes, Iron Tower, InXile, Stygian Software or Larian player can chose different path, different way to solve the problem. Actually there are multiple solutions to most quests. Interplay's Fallout in 1997 gived players higher standards than Witcher 3 in 2015. Players could rescue Tandi in seven different ways. Players acted like they wanted. Vault dweller didn't have Witcher senses to follow throughout straight line. Play both Pillars, Torment Tides of Numenera, Wasteland 2, Age of Decadence, Shadowrun Dragonfall and Shadowrun Hong Kong and you will find more reactivity, more choices and non-linear quest design than in Witcher 3. And then compare the scale of sidequests from Witcher 3 to sidequests from Baldur's Gate II or Pillars of Eternity series. Show me sidequest in Witcher 3, where player can explore completly optional, huge, multi-leveled area with memorable characters and self contained storyline for 2-3 hours with fights, conversations, riddles, secrets and treasures. Show me in Witcher 3 equivalent of quests like The Cult of the Eyless, De,arnise Keep, Windspear Hills, Umar Hills with Temple Ruins, Planar Sphere, Sahuagin City, Watcher's Keep... Entire chapter in Underdark was optional in BG 2 because player could kill silver dragon end leave Underdark. Show me in Witcher 3 equivalent of quests like those in Raedric Hold, Fort Deadlight, Old City, Drowned Barrows... Sidequests in Witcher 3 are short. Main characters get maybe 1 hour-long. It's funny how people say "every sidequest in Witcher 3 tell the story". Isn't that obligatory for the cRPG genre? Seriously is it a new standard? Didn't you play any cRPG before 2015?

As story Witcher 3 gives deja vu for anyone who read the novels. Hypothetically - if you switch writers in game with Andrzej Sapkowski but the story remains the same, you could call it self-plagiarism, a salad out of old lettuce (if I used correct idiom, you know, I'm from Poland and in our country we say literally - reheated chop). Some characters are twisted, Triss for example. Imho she was ruined by CDP Red. She manipulated Geralt in the way she didn't act like that in the books. And when she admittted to this during one conversation I coudn't chose my answer because the game was running that conversation on railroads! Great role playing, trully. New standards. Ofcourse you can praise how well developed are characters in Witcher 3 but in fact it's not CDP Red thing but Andrzej Sapkowski.

Then if you say that Witcher 3 is better than other AAA cRPG - I would say that even Inquistion, Andromeda or dumbed down Fallouts from Bethesda in some ways are better (character progression system, itemisation, combat mechanics) and in other ways the same (quest design, certain characters sidequests). But Witcher 3 as other AAA cRPG is way below standards set by Interplay in the 90. and uphold by Obsidian, Harebrained Schemes, Iron Tower, InXile, Stygian Software and Larian.
 

Again, you are not playing as a random nobody that you can shape however you want to, you are playing as Geralt, who has a set in stone character and morals. You are not supposed to have a lot of choice in conversations. You say it's bad, me and millions of fans say it's awesome because Geralt is awesome. Sucks to be a hater I guess. Nobody needs to have a **** ton of dialogue choices that end up in the same thing, not to mention that in most crpg, 90% of the dialogue is just asking god damn questions "hey tell me about this place".

 

Most of the dungeons you mentioned are 10% story 90% combat, where the story is mostly at the beginning and at the end. Every single dungeon follows the same principles and the only difference is that the corridors are not the same. In Witcher 3, every dungeon is unique. Thank god (or a game designer) for that. If you want to keep playing the same thing over and over again, well go have fun with that.

 

Andrzej Sapkowski literally said that games are for stupid people. That is, until it turned out that the game made millions; then he was suddenly back with "GIMME MAH MONAYZ!". The fact that game Geralt is similar to novel Geralt is one of the biggest hooks of this game, but it has nothing to do with Sapkowski, who did absolutely nothing with the game itself (in fact, he stated that the game is no canon at all).

 

And then you mention Andromeda, the game that was so horrible that they didn't even bother making any story DLCs for it, because nobody would buy them anyway. Well except for you I guess. Andromeda basically killed Mass Effect. At this point this just looks like pointless rambling.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Manveru123

[house2fly]

Sapkowski deserves more money than he got imo. The Witcher is beloved because of his characters amd setting. Even the most die-hard Witcher 3 fan will never say they play it for the levelling system.

 

I keep thinking i should give the witcher a fair go. I played a bit of the original at launch and... eh, im sure its great and all, but i had no interest in being that geralt character. aint played alpha protocol for the same reason. i was one of those kids who always wanted james bond to lose.

of the many cool things about Alpha Protocol, one notable one is that it's short. Another one is that, while your character can't really lose, it's up to you to decide what winning means. It might mean siding with the villain...

[Manveru123]

He got exactly what he asked for initially. It's not CDPR fault that he was treating gaming as something for the lesser humans.

[SonicMage117]

Did I mention that Ciri is a total waifu? Not just her looks but her personality, she's just a relatable girl with a sword. Looking for acceptance and validation outside her royalty - it's a pretty rare story arch for such a character for the fact that she is or wants to be a Witcher. Of course, minus a few things and I suppose you'd get your average Disney princess but that also goes for any female royal warrior in games. Other female characters I really enjoyed that I thought that had alotta depth:

 

Red (Transistor)

Max, Kate Marsh and Chloe (Life Is Strange)

Nilan (Remember Me)

A2 (Nier: Automata)

Lara Croft (the newer Tomb Raiders)

- Of course there are more than this

 

I think characters like Bayonetta (from Bayonetta) and Imoen (from Baldurs Gate) are very flat characters but I mean, they're nice to look at

 

When looking at important female characters, it's always about relatability for me. Can they make me feel something, emotions perhaps? How do they carry themselves? Etc.

 

 

Crpg's make it much harder for me to feel the depth of those emotions because either: A.) The Crpg doesn't have voice acting and you have to read which defeats the purpose. Or B.) The Crpg features great voice acting but even so, you're still disconnected since you're far away from the person at an isometric angle, devs just try to trick you with cheap animations now with a character waving their hands while talking.

 

Anyway, Idk, I cared more about Ciri than Geralt, Yennifer, Triss or anyone else. I would love a game based solely on Ciri. I enjoyed her story and she's probably one of my personal favorite heroines in video gaming. Maybe that's just personal taste though. Meh.

[Manveru123]

Ciri's face is kinda off-putting to me. I don't know why. It just is

[InsaneCommander]

He got exactly what he asked for initially. It's not CDPR fault that he was treating gaming as something for the lesser humans.

 

How exactly was the deal? Can they keep making more games or is there a time limit? Either way, he signed the deal. Maybe next time (or with the Netflix show) he will do different. It's like Marvel, that "lost" Spiderman and other characters because they made the deal when they couldn't negotiate well. If they lose Luke Cage and Iron Fist in the same way, then it is because they didn't learn their lesson.

[house2fly]

I'm sure he's not legally entitled to anything. I just meant artistically and morally.

[InsaneCommander]

Of course, minus a few things and I suppose you'd get your average Disney princess

 

Don't give them any ideas. They've already bought Marvel, Star Wars and Fox...