bjornk Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Do you understand the differance between expressing opinions and spiting on others that like the game? Is it okay when someone expresses opinions and gets threatened, insulted and attacked, because fanboys can't take criticism?
bjornk Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Can you point it out in this thread, please? Read the first page. Post something remotely criticizing anything about the TW franchise, even on a completely different thread, a fanboy will certainly show up and will tell you how wrong you are and how great TW series are.
trpd Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Do you understand the differance between expressing opinions and spiting on others that like the game? Is it okay when someone expresses opinions and gets threatened, insulted and attacked, because fanboys can't take criticism? No,but there are mods for that expecially if you are threatened, there is no need to enage in fistfight. However how does your question answer mine? Do you find it fair to call anyone disagreeing with you a fanboy? You do seem to have meme to disvalue opinions of others this way. (To be clear i do not consider You to be the only one guilty, but it does spin out easily someone posts something mildly disrespecting, then comes clear disrespect and then come insults. We can't do much about small slips as often people do them unintentionally, but there must be clear no to insults.)
bjornk Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 1. Don't think the game will be able to keep its name. There are way too many soul keepers. 2. It's Unreal 4. Comparing it to Skyrim is ridiculous. 3. I suppose the screenshot below could be a hint of its mature content. 4. From what I understand, HELM is an indie developer and this is their Twitter page. 5. Pre-alpha trailer. 6. An earlier article. @trpd: No,but there are mods for that expecially if you are threatened, there is no need to enage in fistfight. And what would you do if you get threatened by a mod? Do you find it fair to call anyone disagreeing with you a fanboy? Certainly not. Fanboys are the ones who never disagree respectfully.
ratrace Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I am starting to think that people don't like Witcher because you can't be a girl with a skimpy outfit. If people want to play like that - what is wrong with that? If you're referencing the aspect of maturity - playing as the ubiquitous muscled male overachiever is also highly overused. Game developers should stop forcing players into their visions of how their character must be. I always understood Role Playing Games as games where I can choose a role. If someone else wants me to play a certain role, it is called acting. I'm not an actor. Someone brought up the "Sims"-argument: Why not have an open world that does react to you, but does not put you in the center of all things happening? And if they react to you, this should be reasonable. Why not have a more intelligent dialogue system, no generic lines popping up over and over again ("I used to be an adventurer like you, but then blahblah..."), why not make it more like real life? Do people completely unknown to you bother you with meaningless and random banter on the streets? Or is it more like you need to address others to start a conversation?
lordofthedread Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I am starting to think that people don't like Witcher because you can't be a girl with a skimpy outfit. If people want to play like that - what is wrong with that? If you're referencing the aspect of maturity - playing as the ubiquitous muscled male overachiever is also highly overused. Game developers should stop forcing players into their visions of how their character must be. I always understood Role Playing Games as games where I can choose a role. If someone else wants me to play a certain role, it is called acting. I'm not an actor. Someone brought up the "Sims"-argument: Why not have an open world that does react to you, but does not put you in the center of all things happening? And if they react to you, this should be reasonable. Why not have a more intelligent dialogue system, no generic lines popping up over and over again ("I used to be an adventurer like you, but then blahblah..."), why not make it more like real life? Do people completely unknown to you bother you with meaningless and random banter on the streets? Or is it more like you need to address others to start a conversation? Well this is what is happening on games based on books, you can either deal with it or go on you merry way. Saying that this is a bad game because you can't change your gender (or can't customize you character the way you like) is plain stupid, you know what you are getting beforehand. It is like saying I don't like Tomb Raider because I can't play as a guy.....
Coopervane Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Saying that this is a bad game because you can't change your gender (or can't customize you character the way you like) is plain stupid, you know what you are getting beforehand. It is like saying I don't like Tomb Raider because I can't play as a guy..... Nobody's saying they are bad games, just that not having a char editor is a dealbreaker to them. They are very different arguments. We don't play games for the same reasons, everyone's looking for somthing different from a game, everyone has slightly different priorities. Some people hate the TES games because they want a really good story from their games, and TES never has that. Some people Love TES games for the freedom and sandbox they offer and find that more important. Both are perfectly valid viewpoints. And for some of us, playing a 100+ houer RPG with a character that we do not like or identify with is a dealbreaker, we might accept that from a 7 houer SP campaign, but not from a big scale RPG that can be played for hundreds of houers. We don't want to spend that long with a char we don't like, and we woulden't enjoy it. That does not make the game bad, but it does make it undesireable to some, and it will definately cost the game sales. That's just the reality of it. I do not considder the Witcher series as bad games, everyone says they are really well made, and i love CDProjRed's buisness model and wish i could support them. But i just can't enjoy their games myself, i hate the protagonist and i really do need a char-editor to get into a large RPG, there's just no two ways about that. Same with Soulkeeper. It looks really interesting, i wish i could get excited about it, but i can't. I need a char-editor, and it doesen't have it. All i can do is hope the Dev changes their mind and puts one in there, or the game simply won't be playable to me. And yes, someone saying they don't like the Tomb Raider games because they can't identify with Lara would also be a valid argument. Why woulden't it be?
dTd Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Yeah, I don't like the tomb raider games either Believe me, I gave TW a shot, I read all about the devs, thought the whole thing was cool. Just couldn't get into, felt I wasted my money. I wouldn't want a refund though since those devs might make somethings I love since they are so good at story and immersion, just add some character editing and I'm in. I want to play as "Fred" the average guy, or "Shaldryssa" the town gossip, or anyone but Gerault, he's an ass in my book lol.
arrow72 Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I am starting to think that people don't like Witcher because you can't be a girl with a skimpy outfit. Oh Gamer you got it so right Wow. Just wow Edit: Just from the promo image bjornk posted I got an intense dislike for the game. Having read the article it does sound quite interesting. Something to keep an eye on if nothing else.
trpd Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Yup tastes. For me it was godsend that you can play as the main character from book and not some spin off but continuation of the adventure. That doesn't happen in games based on books/movies, like you never get to play Luke (just example not real fan of SW). Something i'm curious about : Do you guys have issue just with lack of character creation or having character voiced all together? (with voiced characters you can have those curscene like dialogues). I suspect further CDPR games you will be able to create your own chracter but will stay voiced.
arrow72 Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Yup tastes. For me it was godsend that you can play as the main character from book and not some spin off but continuation of the adventure. That doesn't happen in games based on books/movies, like you never get to play Luke (just example not real fan of SW). Something i'm curious about : Do you guys have issue just with lack of character creation or having character voiced all together? (with voiced characters you can have those curscene like dialogues). I suspect further CDPR games you will be able to create your own chracter but will stay voiced. (sorry for derailing thread further but not much can be said about game in subject, besides that feminists are already sharpening pitchforks for it) Feminists sharpening pitchforks? On second though, don't elaborate. It'll only escalate. Delete the line and I'll remove mine to avoid it. Voiced characters are fine in my opinion. To me it's more about the character(s). If the main character is someone I can like/identify with/enjoy playing, then it's all good to me. For my part, I am just sick and tired of the burly, superhero, white male archetype (ironic, being a white male myself?). Which is why I enjoyed Mass Effect. Even Dragon Age (loved sarcastic Hawke in DA2). The voice/voiceactor and general character do determine my initial reaction. Give me Marcus Fenix and I'll puke. Give me Michael Thorton, and I'll rejoice. It's, like you said, a matter of taste.
GSBmodders Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Bioware had it all with Neverwinter Nights One, local servers, persistant worlds, D&D rules, great online community, bets tool kit eva!! . Ahh the good ole days of uber h4x wars and crashing mods.
GSBmodders Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I am starting to think that people don't like Witcher because you can't be a girl with a skimpy outfit. If people want to play like that - what is wrong with that? If you're referencing the aspect of maturity - playing as the ubiquitous muscled male overachiever is also highly overused. Game developers should stop forcing players into their visions of how their character must be. I always understood Role Playing Games as games where I can choose a role. If someone else wants me to play a certain role, it is called acting. I'm not an actor. Someone brought up the "Sims"-argument: Why not have an open world that does react to you, but does not put you in the center of all things happening? And if they react to you, this should be reasonable. Why not have a more intelligent dialogue system, no generic lines popping up over and over again ("I used to be an adventurer like you, but then blahblah..."), why not make it more like real life? Do people completely unknown to you bother you with meaningless and random banter on the streets? Or is it more like you need to address others to start a conversation? Well this is what is happening on games based on books, you can either deal with it or go on you merry way. Saying that this is a bad game because you can't change your gender (or can't customize you character the way you like) is plain stupid, you know what you are getting beforehand. It is like saying I don't like Tomb Raider because I can't play as a guy..... A game can be based on a book without all that shit, who say's that the player has to be "the fucking one" why not just for once be "the fucking ones" bff. witcher 3 could have had a whole new character that ran around and did his or her own shit and ocasionaly ran into geralt or maybe just called the fag a fucking cunt and moved on. there was nothing ( other then not wanting to invest time into a new main character ) that said oh yeah this shit has to be just like thus. For the record a male tomb raider would be badass just so long as he has 44DDD's and them tight shorts
Chaos63 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 For my part, I am just sick and tired of the burly, superhero, white male archetype (ironic, being a white male myself?). Maybe Cyberpunk will allow us to finally play as a "puny rape survivor ex-soldier stronk black trans ultimatesexual woman with a mustache who need no man" we've been anxiously waiting for. We can only hope, I guess.
lordofthedread Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I am starting to think that people don't like Witcher because you can't be a girl with a skimpy outfit. If people want to play like that - what is wrong with that? If you're referencing the aspect of maturity - playing as the ubiquitous muscled male overachiever is also highly overused. Game developers should stop forcing players into their visions of how their character must be. I always understood Role Playing Games as games where I can choose a role. If someone else wants me to play a certain role, it is called acting. I'm not an actor. Someone brought up the "Sims"-argument: Why not have an open world that does react to you, but does not put you in the center of all things happening? And if they react to you, this should be reasonable. Why not have a more intelligent dialogue system, no generic lines popping up over and over again ("I used to be an adventurer like you, but then blahblah..."), why not make it more like real life? Do people completely unknown to you bother you with meaningless and random banter on the streets? Or is it more like you need to address others to start a conversation? Well this is what is happening on games based on books, you can either deal with it or go on you merry way. Saying that this is a bad game because you can't change your gender (or can't customize you character the way you like) is plain stupid, you know what you are getting beforehand. It is like saying I don't like Tomb Raider because I can't play as a guy..... A game can be based on a book without all that shit, who say's that the player has to be "the fucking one" why not just for once be "the fucking ones" bff. witcher 3 could have had a whole new character that ran around and did his or her own shit and ocasionaly ran into geralt or maybe just called the fag a fucking cunt and moved on. there was nothing ( other then not wanting to invest time into a new main character ) that said oh yeah this shit has to be just like thus. For the record a male tomb raider would be badass just so long as he has 44DDD's and them tight shorts Then it would not be an adptation of the book story but a game based on the lore. And thus it would not be called The Witcher if you could play as someone else. The only issue I see here is people comparing every single other open world RPG to TW3 mostly because of the open world elements, but that's as far as the comparaison go, Skyrim is more like a sandbox game eventho it got a decent story while TW3 is a story driven RPG with open wolrd elements. Don't get me wrong, I loved Skyrim to death and I think it is a great game but, storywise, it is far inferior to TW3. And I think that is the core of the problem with open world games, you will have to sacrifice story to promote liberty of action and trying to make things interesting enough so you want to come back to it. For example the faction repetable quests in Skyrim are pretty dull and that's not what will make me come back for more, This is also true in TW3 with the question mark location, not interesting enough to keep me playing once the story ended. Only modding and expansions kept me entertained so far after the main story in Skyrim. Let's hope that will also be true for TW3. Even in the more complex RPG like the BG franchise you can feel like being a blank page at first but that's not entirely true, you are still one of Baal's rejects and that's what drives the story and makes it so interesting. Even Skyrim forces you to be the Dragonborn wether you like it or not, the fact that you are getting boobs or not won't change that, also your decisions in Skyrim have far less impact on the world than in TW3 for example. Back on topic let's hope Soulekeeper will do it right, so far the graphics are appealing, let's see where this goes.
arrow72 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 For my part, I am just sick and tired of the burly, superhero, white male archetype (ironic, being a white male myself?). Maybe Cyberpunk will allow us to finally play as a "puny rape survivor ex-soldier stronk black trans ultimatesexual woman with a mustache who need no man" we've been anxiously waiting for. We can only hope, I guess. You mean like Mike Thorton? Who I explicitly mentioned in my reply, and you ignored? Never really saw him as a "puny rape survivor ex-soldier stronk black trans ultimatesexual woman with a mustache who need no man". The more you know, I guess.
Chaos63 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 You mean like Mike Thorton? Who I explicitly mentioned in my reply, and you ignored? Never really saw him as a "puny rape survivor ex-soldier stronk black trans ultimatesexual woman with a mustache who need no man". The more you know, I guess. Chill man, I'm just messing around with you. And honestly, I'm just now on my way to googling who that guy even is.
leddis3 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Oh good. Another open world "RPG" with set characters. Because one wasn't enough. I swear, if the Fallout 4 set character rumour turns out to be true I'm done with gaming. Could TW3 fanboys stick to their circlejerk thread please? Heh. Careful. Saying anything against the almighty TW3 or it's fans is a punishable offence here. Maybe Cyberpunk will allow us to finally play as a "puny rape survivor ex-soldier stronk black trans ultimatesexual woman with a mustache who need no man" we've been anxiously waiting for. We can only hope, I guess. Or maybe just maybe Cyberpunk will actually allow us to role play with a character and thus CDPR will finally be telling the truth when they say they're an RPG developer. Even in the more complex RPG like the BG franchise you can feel like being a blank page at first but that's not entirely true, you are still one of Baal's rejects and that's what drives the story and makes it so interesting. Even Skyrim forces you to be the Dragonborn wether you like it or not, the fact that you are getting boobs or not won't change that, also your decisions in Skyrim have far less impact on the world than in TW3 for example. There is a fundamental mistake people seem to make in their reasoning regarding Skyrim. In Skyrim you have less of an impact on the story not because your character is created, but because Bethesda has shit writers. There is no reason why a created character couldn't have the supposed level of impact Geralt does in TW3. Geralt does not enable these choices, the writing does. All Geralt does is stifle potential choices, not to mention potential players, by WASTING an entire open world and storyline on this one set guy, this generic bulky white dude with a set history many of us can't stand. And nobody says a created character shouldn't have some background or driving force be it Dragonborne or Nerevarine or w/e. We're asking for RPGs, not life simulators.
dTd Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Being a bulky white dude I resent these comments Though that may be why I enjoy playing as something entirely different.
leddis3 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Being a bulky white dude I resent these comments Though that may be why I enjoy playing as something entirely different. People talk about bulky white dudes because that's all we get. I'm sure there'd be comments about slender black girls if that was the archetype shoved down our throat game after gamer after game. I'm perfectly fine with bulky white dudes in real life To be fair though, I don't hate Geralt because he's a bulky white dude, I hate him because he's an unlikable asshole mary sue author insert mess of a character.
Chaos63 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Oh good. Another open world "RPG" with set characters. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/role-playing+game
leddis3 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Oh good. Another open world "RPG" with set characters. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/role-playing+game The is a completely ill defined idea of an RPG in this context. By that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG. I've had this argument numerous times in numerous places so please go around in circles on this. I cannot assume the role of a set character. I can only act as them. In order to role play, it must be a character *I* have defined, a character *I* relate to, a character that is connected to *me*. As someone else said in this thread, anything else is not role play, it is acting. Soulkeeper is not an RPG and never will be, and neither is The Witcher 3, and until someone has the balls to make a true open-world RPG to compete with Bethesda, they will keep giving us mediocrity.
Chaos63 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 The is a completely ill defined idea of an RPG in this context. By that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG. I've had this argument numerous times in numerous places so please go around in circles on this. I cannot assume the role of a set character. I can only act as them. In order to role play, it must be a character *I* have defined, a character *I* relate to, a character that is connected to *me*. As someone else said in this thread, anything else is not role play, it is acting. Soulkeeper is not an RPG and never will be, and neither is The Witcher 3, and until someone has the balls to make a true open-world RPG to compete with Bethesda, they will keep giving us mediocrity. It sounds like the only way *you* can acknowledge something as an RPG is to either make one yourself or play D&D. The thing is, I know only one series that did this and that series is the Sims. Which I'll remind you, has no storyline whatsoever.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.