BIOWARE VS CD PROJECKT RED, who are better rpg devs? ...

No other games have the immersion they do.

Sorry you enjoy on rails witcher games, and bioware is a joke these days.

There are practically 4 eras of BioWare

• Pre-RPG (Shattered Steel)
• d20 (Baldur's Gate-Kotor)
• Pre-EA (Jade Empire-DA:O (yes, it was published by EA, but most of the development was prior to that and thus it counts))
• Post-EA (Mass Effect 2 and up)

I like to consider the first 2, to be old BioWare.

Immersion, you mean the incredibly lacking storyline in pretty much every Bethesda rpg. The witcher 3 is far more immersive than your average Bugthesda RPG. Fallout 4 looks and plays like turd without mods. And don't get me started on vanilla skyrim with its puny towns, consisting merely of a handful of people. Bethesda games have always felt unfinished, the main reason why I play Bethesda games are mods.

Witcher 3 is not much immersive. not a game with shitty controls and garrett move like tank.

Games like Stalker and Metro show how make make game immersive.

Both are great, nice to see cdpr do a sci-fi RPG which is new to them we need bioware to make a fantasy RPG again to see if they still can .I'd like rockstar to make an RPG .

Bioware doesn't make rpgs

Bioware pretty much went down the tubes after BG2 (all right the NWN toolkit and HotU was ok)

Bethesda down the toilet after Morrowind (which was even a decline from Daggerfall in many ways outside the unique lore and alien setting)

And CD Proj isn't quite as bad as modern Bio/Beth, yea, but not good either.

The best stuff lies in the AA/mid tier/indie space now. AAA RPGs have more in common with shit like Assassins Creed and the like now, as opposed to proper RPGs.

That is a tough choice for me. I enjoy both companies games very much. I will give it a tie.

I really enjoyed all of their games, haven't played Bioware's cRPGs. CD Projekt Red is definitely my favourite, everything in Witcher 3 was quality.

That. 3 Witcher games and each has raised the standards for RPG's . And it also helps their newest card adventure game its great in its own right

Bioware honestly is all disappointment after the first mass effect and the first dragon age games.

Yeah, even though CD Projekt RED are the most competent of the 3. They still make games whose actual ROLEPLAYING is of extremely questionable quality.

The most polished turds, are still turds in the end. And even if Witcher is the most well executed of the 3. There is absolutely no compatability between me and those games. I like to roleplay in my RPGs, and Witcher does not do a good job with that. Neither does BioWare or Bethesda for that matter.

If Witcher 3 is the future of the AAA wRPGs, I want no part in it. Mid tier all the way. Some indies too, Underrail was my RPGoty of last year.

Yup. There's an expansion coming for UnderRail, btw.... http://www.underrail.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=162:underrail-expedition&catid=43:dev-log&Itemid=61

And the spin off dungeon crawler for Age of Decadence just came out too !

http://store.steampowered.com/app/531930/

https://www.gog.com/game/dungeon_rats?pp=cb4e5208b4cd87268b208e49452ed6e89a68e0b8

Bioware went downhill after Baldurs Gate 2.

Neverwinter Nights was a great toolset with a mediocre game attached. KOTOR was a great My First RPG, lacking any depth to its roleplaying. Mass Effect was even more shallow, but it has great presentation and okay shooty-combat. Dragon Age was a half-assed attempt to recaptur BG2's glory, but without the depth or talent that made BG2 great. And everything else has been their typical mass market fodder.

So...CDPR is obviously better now. It's even possible that CDPR in its prime is better than Bioware in its prime.

CD Project Red.

The only newer games I like from Bioware are the Mass Effect games.

Seriously ?

I like the party system in Dragon Age and Mass Effect better than being a lone wolf(pun not intended) like Geralt so for me that dynamic makes Bioware games more immersive.

I finally picked up and started playing Witcher 3 since it was on sale for a bit, and I'm actually happy to say that I love it. Probably one of my favorite games of last year, kind of wish I'd been playing it earlier. Combat's still a weakpoint but world and quest design are stellar. Characters are interesting and complex, and there's a mountain of great content that practically floods your quest log.

As for the topic itself, it would depend on if we're taking their whole catalog into account or just recent releases. I would say Witcher 3 is better than anything Bioware has put out in the last 5-6 years, with only really ME2 being the game that could maybe stand up to it in my eyes. However, I only sorta liked Witcher 2, and I did not like Witcher 1 at all. So considering their entire histories I would say Bioware has been the better company overall. But at this point I am far, far more interested in CD Red's future titles as compared to Bioware.

CD Projekt Red has not proven themselves as being good in RPGs in general. They have currently only made Witcher games. They may be good in making Witcher games, but they have not enough RPG games under their belt yet.

Bioware on the other hand, has made Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age, not to mention setting the template for Obsidian to make Planescape Torment, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights 2, and Pillars of Eternity.

Yes, Bioware used to be better back in the day compared to now. But from my perspective, you can't compare the relatively inexperienced CD Projekt Red to Bioware

Old BioWare > New CD Projeckt > Current BioWare > Old CD Projeckt

I was a fan of the very original Witcher with all its flaws, and then the diamond in the rough that was Witcher 1 Enhanced Edition. Back then CD Projeckt was inexperienced, clumsy and certainly inferior in objective aspects than top WRPG studios nowadays. To many degrees, their experience shows in Witcher 2 as well. Witcher 3 is probably their most complete product to date, and it's not entirely without flaws. I look forward to what they can achieve in the long run, and if they will continue to make great games or fade faster than BioWare.

As for BioWare? Before EA came along that studio has been releasing ageless classics since the 2D era. As great as Witcher 2 and 3 are, ultimately they are merely two games, and cannot compete in quantity with the number of amazing games BioWare has done long long ago.

At the end of the day, I guess I just wanna say **** EA. Unfortunately unlike Obsidian, which found its second life in Kickstarter, it may be too late for modern BioWare. The studio is still good, but I doubt it will ever reach true brilliance like it once did.

I like the futuristic sci-if setting of Mass Effect better. Excited though for CDPR's upcoming game, Cyberpunk 2077.

Guess you don't understand what the word role-playing actually means, it means changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. It doesn't necessarily mean you should be allowed customize your character to whatever you want, just that you take upon yourself another one's identity. The witcher 3 is very story orientated and the character Geralt is tied to a specific lore, allowing players to change his gender or face would be lore-breaking. Besides, the witcher 3 easily shits on fallout 4 when it comes to story-telling. Fallout and bethesda games had always poor characters and aweful writing. Both the witcher and mass effect game are story telling games, you actually feel sad when you lose somebody in the game. While bethesda rpgs on the other hand are sandbox games, do to the immense freedom that is giving to the player.

I get the feeling Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be a GOTY game that will blow us away with style. Whereas I heard some... dubious things about Andromeda.

I think you got it right.

Roleplaying means to play the role of someone other than yourself. However, since Geralt of Rivia is pre-defined. And already has a set agenda, skills, background, profession, personality and hte likes. You cant be whoever you want, you are geralt of rivia. Your role in the world has already been defined, and at most, you can vary up his actions as appropriote under his personality, at best mold his behaviour a bit, but still, for most of the part, his personality has already been defined for you. This is NOT good or compelling roleplaying. This is TERRIBLE roleplaying, and honestly no better than the "roleplaying" some jRPGs offer.

Fallout always had terrible writing? Fallout 1 and New Vegas were some of the most well written RPGs out there. And Bethesda games are hardly sandboxes. They are freeroam, there is barely any significant interaction with the game world, any significant interaction is entirely scripted by Bethesda. There is very little room for emergent gameplay, guards going after you if you hurt someone is not enough nor is being able to go anywhere in the world without restrictions. Actual sandboxes include Dwarf Fortress, Liberal Crime Squad, X3, Deus Ex, Rimworld, Simcity, The Sims, Any 4X and Grand Strategy game. The upcoming Zelda game also looks like a sandbox but I cant confirm just yet.

Personally, I never felt sad when someone died in Mass Effect. The characters in Mass Effect are the same dull archetypes we have seen over and over, and they are little more than that, archetypes. The characters in Witcher are better no doubt. But the characters in the Witcher, both the games and novels are rather meh too, in the grand scheme of things. The Witcher is pretty mid tier compared to other fantasy novels such as The Book of Malazan and the Black Company. Why play a game with subpar gameplay if the story is mediocre compared to other mediums? Why exactly should I play Mass Effect when I could read something like Dune? Dune has better characters, better writing, better lore and to kick it all off, it has no sleep inducing gameplay. Why exactly should I play The Witcher when I could read The Book of Malazan? Malazan has better characters, MUCH better writing and lore and once again, it doesnt have that godawful excuse for gameplay. For me to a like a game, good gameplay is a MUST. Even the best of the best in this industry are comparable to average novels, and I for one am not willing to lower my standards.

Yeah, "Roleplaying means to play the role of someone other than yourself", since I am not playing myself when I play as Geralt I am actually role-playing. Also, having the ability to pick between several types of character doesn't necessarily make the role-playing aspect of a game good. I take quality over quantity any day. Furthermore, I like to point out that the witcher 3 has better gameplay than fallout 4, sure you are only limited to sword fighting and signs (spell), However; as I said before I take quality over quantity any day. Fallout 4 has a lot of variety, but its pretty much average at everything. Sure, fallout 1 and 2 were great, but new vegas, sorry, but the writing is still terrible. I never end up caring for anything in these games. Finally, I haven't read these novels you mentioned, so I cant comment on that.

According to your definition of "role playing", almost every video game with a player character is a role-playing game. That would include everything from visual novels and adventure games to action games and platformers. That defeats the whole purpose of the "role-playing game" genre to begin with. The definition of "role playing" as used by the RPG genre is different from "role playing" in the general sense.

By the way, you should check out Dune. It's the grandaddy of Star Trek and Star Wars, and countless other sci-fi books/shows/movies. And its video game adaptation, Dune II, is the big daddy of RTS games.

No. And who the hell is Garrett ? So much for playing The Witcher 3.

I found The Witcher 3 to be very immersive.. I'm not saying Metro or Stalker isn't but seriously... are those the only games you can come up with in every bloddy thread?

If you want to talk about "TEH WRITING" then **** you are arguing about it in the wrong medium. Games and writing don't go well together. ffs. Get over it. What did you expect ? Why should you play The Witcher 3 ?! The devs ended up making a pretty believable world and if you actually play games with a level of openess instead of dissecting everything then maybe it can pull you in.... regardless of better source material you can throw at it. It might not have the insane amount of lore like the TES series for example... but it's more than enough to build it's world. Another factor is the game's visuals. While it's not photorealistic like all the sheep on SW want games to be, it's quite artisitic. Just these two factors add enough to make the game worthwhile. I can feel a sense of exploration whenever I'm walking accross the landscape as Geralt.. I got immersed but this is my subjective experience. It worked damn well on me at least.

If you play The Witcher 3 for it's gameplay you are a brain-dead idiot.

Stop being a snob and give credit where it's due.

So much for you standards.. Do you still even play games ?

@acp_45 Games and writing don't go well together.

I love the Witcher games but this is completely false. There have been a bunch of games that have focused on top level writing with very good results and it is becoming more popular to have good writing in some games with each passing year.

It is not just playing the role, otherwise Super Mario Bros would be an RPG. But perhaps more importantly is the ability to define the role. That is what seperates a quality roleplaying experience from a poor one. Planescape: Torment despite having a predefined protagonist, allowed you to define your character very well, the Witcher franchise didnt. Princess maker, a game which arguably isnt even an RPG, still allows you to much more greatly define Olive's role in the world than Witcher. Yet The Witcher, a fully fledged RPG, falls short compared to several non-RPGs in the whole defining a role bit. Face it, when it comes to roleplaying and defining a role, Witcher does a terrible job.

Fallout 4 is a pretty low bar though. I think BioWare, Bethesda and CD Projekt RED arent exactly very compelling developers.

As for the novels, do yourself a favor and read them. Malazan is a modern day classic in the fantasy genre, with the writer having a lot of goodwill. And believe me, it is EXTREMELY dark. Being a rather, non-romanticised look at human history and behaviours, and quite frankly, it makes The Witcher look like a children's book. Dune is a must-read for any sci fi fan. Otherwise, here is a pretty good flowchart, concerning npr's top 100 sci fi and fantasy novels.

If you like sci fi, but would rather watch a anime, there is the excellent anime Legend of Galactic Heroes.

Do yourself a favor and read or watch any of these, and see why I am so bitter with the direction wRPGs are taking. These devs are focusing on something that was never really a strenght of the genre in the first place, at the expense of its actual strengths.

Yeah, why should I?

There is a reason, I specifically stated htat if this is the direction mainstream wRPGs go, I am out.

Why should I lower my standards, I can stomach a poor or even a mediocre story if the gameplay is good. I play games for the gameplay, that is the one thing gaming can do that novels and film can't do better. And as it happens, roleplaying is the one bit of gameplay the RPG genre actually gets right (from a strategy perspective they are pretty lame compared to proper strategy games, and ARPGs are borderline cancer for most of hte part). Why play a game which fails at being a game, just because its story is good for video game standards... but why lower your standards to begin with?

Interesting that you bring up the Witcher when talking about writing. On my Kindle I have every single Witcher novel, even the ones that needed a fan translation to read in English. I've played 1,2, and 3 when those games were still new. Why did I play those games? The writing of course.

The books were good, but mostly carried due to the fact that they are in the style of fairy tales and not many other fantasy books do that well. Something like Uprooted by Naomi Novik is their only real recent competition.

The games were much different now. In 1 Geralt goes through a journey to figure out who is he after losing his memory. Were it not done so well I would have put the game down back in 2008. In fact the Witcher 1 and Mask of the Betrayer were the only good CRPGs of the mid 2000's. Gameplay was an interesting mechanic, and one I wished they had expanded upon.

Witcher 2 was a great game, easily the game of the year it came out. The gameplay is a poor attempt to copy Souls, but the story again carries it. Geralt's story continues as he goes to find the person who killed Foltest, while trying to discover himself. The whole game was alright until it split into two parts. Act 2 gives completely different perspective depending on which one you picked, converging again for a finale that will play out the same, but ultimately look much different because of the perspective given to characters in Act 2. As far as I'm concerned this story is the best in the video game series and one of the best examples to point to when you talk about C&C in games.

Witcher 3 was an extremely flawed game that I did not like the direction they took it. The open world had way too many monster nests, bandit camps, and don't even get me started on those smuggler's caches in Skellige. The gameplay was an improvement on the poor WItcher 2 attempt at Souls combat, but it is still really rough here. The sidequests were fantastic though. Even the hunt down and kill x or y quests felt like they were written well enough to be part of the main plot in another game.

The main plot in the Witcher 3 is why I picked it up. I've followed Geralt's story for a long time and I wanted to see how it ended having read all the books and played the two games up to this point. Well, the plot references a whole lot of events in the books now that Geralt's memory is back and it helps resolve some issues between Geralt and Trish/Yennefer. What happens to Ciri is mostly up to the player. The main plot was weaker then in 2, but still stronger then all the other entries.

The DLC I played didn't disappoint either. Gaunter O' Dimm and Von Everic's relationship was well told and I was thoroughly engaged. When all is said and done I did every single story thing in the main game + hearts of stone and clocked in at 85 hours (will dig out my save to prove it if you like). Had this game been just gameplay focused I wouldn't have even bothered to buy it.

So speak for yourself when you say that writing has no place in games. There are well written games and poorly written ones, same as any other medium with a plot.

Um I never said that writing doesn't have any place with games. I said they don't go very well together. My point still stands. Also I didn't say The Witcher's writing was bad ??? The guy was spitting out novels and trying to bash The Witcher as some sort of low tier source material for a game. Of course there is no way I can change their mind... so I tried to show other positive points that The Witcher 3 has going for it..

Gosh.. what are you trying to prove to me ? How well you know The Witcher series is irrelevant and you aren't telling me anything I didn't know.

TW3 is better then anything Bioware has ever produced.

But Bioware has more quality games.

Multimodality.

If you can't appreciate the rest of what a game offers excluding the gameplay then ****. The Witcher 3 is pretty stellar on more than one level, imo. Of course your subjective opinion is understandable... I'm not going there.

The Witcher trilogy is better than the Dragon Age trilogy. But Bioware also have the Mass Effect trilogy in the time CD Project have been around, and obviously a large back library of some of the best RPGs ever.

Bioware still the kings for me, but CD Project doing all the right things to take them down one day.

VERY interested to see how Mass Effect Andromeda turns out.

Not when it is all so bog standard. I do appreciate when games do something well, problem is, in the case of The Witcher, it is lagging so far behind other mediums, on the stuff it does well for gaming standards and is quite frankly subpar in things games do well (except for atmosphere, which is actually quite good, but good atmosphere alone can't carry a game).

• Good graphics can add to a game. And the technology can be fairly impressive. But overall, the technology in the gaming industry is rather lacking compared to the technology in the film industry. In many ways, we are very much picking up the scraps and leftovers from what Pixar deals with. Granted, it is harder to get this kind of technology in games, but the actual rendering techniques, many of them are seen in the film industry, years, if not decades before they are implemented in gaming.
• Good music, great. But most of it mostly adds to the atmosphere, and are simple, but catchy tunes. But in the end, it is nothing you will be listening to in your own free time over the much better alternatives from the music industry.
• Good sound adds to the atmosphere, and the gaming industry has done a fairly good job here. The gaming industry dont trail miserably behind its competition.
• Even the best gaming stories are comparable to average novels.
• Gaming does provide a good bang for the buck, no denying that.
• Games can be very atmospheric, no doubt. But there is a lot of underutilized potential, and the atmosphere in games, is comparable to other mediums, doing better in some genres and worse in others. Games do horror better than most mediums, with games like Witch's house, 5 Nights at Freddy's and Amnesia doing an excellent job. The only genre atm which I feel does horror better is surprisingly comic books. Which is mostly due to the works of a few EXTREMELY talented artists.

There really isn't much gaming has going for it. But what it does well, it does extremely well. It is exceptionally cheap entertainment, and the interactivity this medium offers is superb.

The Witcher has absolutely nothing to offer me. None of the reasons I play games for is present in The Witcher.

Unfortunately, that is the case. For a game to be considered as an RPG, it has to comply to a certain set of criteria - a leveling system being the fundamental criteria. What all ARPGs, WRPGs, JRPGs & CRPGs have in common is a leveling/skill system. Everything else such has character customization, extensiveness of dialog or free roaming is just a secondary feature, and varies from RPG to RPG.

We cannot start assigning any of those secondary features as a primary criteria for being an RPG. Mass Effect is a classical example of walking the line between a 3rd person shooter and an RPG. One could argue that Mass Effect is practically a shooter with a leveling system slapped on. We also cannot argue that it's considered an RPG solely because of the story and dialog. There are many other shooters out there with that level of depth in dialog and story.

Bottom line is, we cannot define an RPG in what 'Role Playing' means in a grammatical sense. There is an industry convention for what an RPG is, and we abide by that.

Levelling is not a primary criteria. There have been some RPGs out there with no levelling at all.

I find it rather sad, that levelling. A feature that only really existed as a vestige from the strategy game origins of the genre became the thing commonly associated with the genre. But ultimately, levelling is not what the genre is about. Roleplaying means exactly that. Role-playing, the ability to define and play a role. And that is the issue with a lot of these modern games, they completely miss that part and thus, become pretty lousy roleplaying experiences. Are they RPGs? Sure but they have a lot more in common with the hack and slash/hack and slay genre than they do with actual RPGs.

As right as you might be about many games being called RPGs due to the loose definition of an RPG, that is the way things are. Valid or not, many of the hack & slash games are still universally being considered as RPGs.

I agree that a leveling system alone should not define an entire genre, but unfortunately, that's what all RPGs have in common.

And regarding the concept of playing a role....technically every game puts you in some sort of role nowadays. The only thing preventing Assassin's Creed from being an RPG is stat points and a leveling system akin to most RPGs. That's the only thing i can think off.

Not in the tabletop universe ;) They are considered a decendant of the RPG genre, just like RPGs decended from Strategy games like Chainmail.

Roleplaying isnt just playing a role, but being able to define a role. Its the lack of defining a role which makes me consider The Witcher to be a piss poor RPG.

As someone who is a fan of the Forgotten Realms and Might & Magic CRPGs, it would be very easy for me to relate to your concept of defining a role. The Witcher games are also not my favorite RPG games for that very reason. I like playing a heavy armor, sword and shield guy. Gerald is more like a chainmail ranger-esque type of character, which I do not like using.

HOWEVER, most Final Fantasy games and JRPGs of the last 15 years are like that. You play as the character dictated to you, not unlike The Witcher. And even though I don't prefer such games, they make up half of the games within the RPG umbrella. And this is where I have to take a step back and acknowledge the fact that what I want from RPGs is quite exclusive to CRPGs - a sub genre of the overall RPG genre. And to say that every game must be like a CRPG to be considered an RPG is nothing short of being a snob

Bioware is the worst WRPG developer of all time. The last good game they made was Baldur's Gate 2. They make casual movie games for babies that hate RPG mechanics.

CD Projekt Red has made one terrible game, one mediocre game, and one decent game.

Bethesda dominates them both. But the real winner is Obsidian. They are better than Bioware + CD Projekt Red together.

After Baldur's Gate 2, they made Neverwinter Knights, KOTOR and Dragon Age: Origins, all of which are good games. Neverwinter Nights was not anywhere as good as Baldur's Gate, but still good. Dragon Age: Origins was the last game they made before EA bought them out

Final Fantasy games and the majority of jRPGs do a terrible job of being RPGs.

But a terrible RPG doesnt mean they are not RPGs. What it means is that they do a terrible job letting you roleplay. Afterall, a shooter with terrible gunplay is still a shooter.

Didn't play Neverwinter Nights.

KOTOR is my single biggest disappointment in gaming history. It was short, insultingly easy, so casual that it was baffling. It was a game where I literally just paused before any combat, selected my best damage ability for each character and just filled the queue up with that ability, and then unpaused and watched my party slaughter everything without me even needing to tell them to move. It was a game that played itself. So pathetic, mind numbingly easy. KOTOR is the most overrated game of all time.

Dragon Age: Origins was really, really tedious. Again, insultingly easy. Turn the difficulty up, it doesn't matter, even on the hardest difficulty mode one mage fireball would clear most groups of enemies so just put a tank in a choke, LOS pull the enemies, fireball them and that's it. Use this strategy throughout the entire game. The game was positively bloated with mind numbing trash fights. DA:O was supposed to be the spiritual successor to BG but it was just a single player World of Warcraft with Final Fantasy XII AI options. And it wasn't even 1/100000th as good as World of Wacraft.

Don't even get me started on Jade Empire or Mass Effect. Those games were just WRETCHED.

I agree with what you are saying in your post. You are busy comparing single modes across different mediums though.. which is anecdotal at best. You are praising good graphics yet you bring up how they were first implemented in another industry. I wasn't referring to a comparison of technologies. What I meant through multimodality wasn't that there a lot of modes you can experience seperately... rather how some of them can combine to form a package... You are clearly comparing sound and graphics to how they are used in other mediums... The implementation there is different. Obvious stuff.

You said you play games for the gameplay.. I was just trying to bring up the fact that games are a combination of modes combined...with interactivity being it's unique signature. Your reply ended up dissecting each mode and belittling them in the process because you are comparing them to another industry such as film or music.... Yeh, not what I was talking about at all.

not well :)

No its not anecdotal. The point is that games are trailing behind in almost every area. That interactivty, is one of the few things it has going for it. A product that is mediocre in every area (The Witcher) really has no reason I should play/watch/read it. I like my products to excel in areas.

Why play the Witcher when I can read The Black Company which has much better characters, much better lore, all while not having that atrocious excuse for gameplay? The gameplay is detrimental in the case of the Witcher.

Who the hell is Garret in TW 3? Are you confusing Geralt with Garret??? :P