The cool thing about the Witcher is that all three games have the same underlying "3 C's" gameplay loop: chatting, combat, and consequences. The first game was a humble Eurojank RPG with a bold vision: a dark fantasy world where there is no right answer, one where good and evil are the myths, rather than monsters and fairytales. The Witcher 2 amped up the production values and polished the visuals and gameplay to a sheen, retaining its hardcore roots but giving it much more modern presentation. And then the Witcher 3 scaled this up by an unfathomable factor while still retaining
everything that made the previous games great, all while presenting it as a AAA blockbuster franchise.
So CD Projekt have essentially made Eurojank RPGs mainstream. It's been quite a journey for Witcher video games, from
cancelled game to
Bioware-inspired RPG, to
the most critically-acclaimed game of all time, with a lot of stories inbetween.
People give DA:I a lot of shit about this but it just doesn't shove you into conversations automatically by doing the missions. If you go out of your way to try to initiate conversations with everyone as you go it has really good characterization and woldbuilding. TW3 has the best, but DA:I is really solid.
Completely disagree. DAI has dialog in the strongholds and cities, and in main or companion quests, but out in the world there is next to nothing. The side "quests" are two steps away from placeholders with dialog bordering "halp me pls" with responses that might as well be "ok / [leave]" with bits of exposition thrown in. If even that.
I really wouldn't be surprised if one region in the Witcher 3 (like Velen, Skellige, or Novigrad) has more main story content than all of Dragon Age: Inquisition's non-sidequest content (as in, main story and companion stuff). At the very least, it has a solid lead in choice and consequences in one region, vs. the whole of DAI. 'Cause when you cut DAI into its actual content--main, companion, and side content, you end up with, what, eight to ten main quests, about an hour long each, locked away depending on side content completion (power accumulation), a handful or two of companion quests of varying length, and hundreds of hours worth of repetitive side content, ranging from "pick up the thing" all the way to "kill the thing."
I will give DAI this, though: it does well when it focuses on its characters. I really liked Iron Bull and his people, Cassandra, and my dear Vivienne, but very few of the game's characters get this sort of treatment. It also has several good
ideas, but they're never anything beyond that (war table "metagame," some of the cinematic moments that don't really pay off, the whole dilomatic/rallying aspect, etc.)
Neither is keeping everything so vague you lack relational depth or worldview that has more shape than merely being a certain race and in weak/strong position, which I feel Witcher does. It's always like "Nobody knows where [insert race] really came from, but I'm a [different race] so I don't believe or trust them. We [insert race] are the real deal and everyone else is full of shit. P.S. We like [insert deity] which people like because it exists."
Vague poetry doesn't make up for the lacking depth of worldview, cultural ways, methods of approaching thought and circumstances, attitudes born of centuries of complex relations and socioeconomic turns, etc. All of that is far more convincing to me in Dragon Age. It is definitely far lesser than Witcher in realism of present circumstances, dealing with those circumstances, complexity of trusts amid differing motivations, new layers of concerns introduced to factor, limitations of capacity to act on the basis of being just one person in a larger world with higher powers, general presentation quality, etc. However the lore/worldbuilding and how it manifests in the people is so strong to me.
The big difference between the two is... Bioware made Dragon Age's lore from the ground up and they fully intend to use it, while the Witcher is based on a book that it has no direct interaction with (the books and games have separate canon).
Dragon Age's issue is, every single Dragon Age game has had a love-hate relationship with its core principals. Like, at its core, Dragon Age wants to be this mature, serious game, almost Witcher-like, where there is no good or evil, only shades of gray... but at the same time, it wants to be a heroic fantasy, where the Chosen Good triumphs over the Eternal Evil, and everything is Awesome. So politics and racism whilst battling against world-ending evils, covered in the blood of your enemies. And to compound this problem, every single game has had a dramatically different approach to what "Dragon Age"
really is; first there is DAO, a game that's basically Mass Effect in a nutshell, then DA2, a political thriller with a twist so stupid it ruined the franchise, and (currently) there's DAI, which is... a bit of both, really.
I guess what I'm saying is, while Dragon Age has a lot of lore behind it it lacks a central, I dunno,
thesis to bring it together. For this reason I find it difficult to praise its world building, when it has essentially had an identity crisis from day zero. Especially compared to the Witcher (as mentioned above) which has been consistent throughout, albeit on the "bigger than you" side.
Words, man. How did I write so many. Dragon Age and the Witcher do things to me.