9. How many GOTY's has CDprojeck won I believe it's zero and oh how many has BGS won, 3 and will probably be 4 when Skyrim comes out.

Considering CDprojeck has 2 games: Witcher 1 and 2 amd they both are greate games.
Also, CD is a small company of Polish publishers that wanted to make a game, and here we are Taking about a small game company agains one of the 3 best companies in the market.
For example the Witcher was considered a candidate for PRG of the YEAR. so that alone means it was a good RPG.

If they did, attributes and birthsigns wouldn't have been removed

If a company (not ZeniMax & Bethesda Softworks, fortunately), in every kind of business, ignores and not want to learn about the failures and successes of other competitors, then will end very soon...

Ultimately, what makes the success or failure of a game are we, the players, and we have the POWER to buy or not to buy the game, this is the question.

It can be as personal, is just you have to get the character involved with the world.

For example, a Set character can be already involved with the world, and you have to peresent sertain stuff to the player, like: this is your mother, this is your father, etc. this is why you fight.

in Oblivion, they tell you this is why you fight, and thats it. I Have played the game a bunch of times, my first time was i explore the game, i had fun, but i was playing and i had no stake in the world, i was the guild leader of every one, and so what. i walker around a god among men. My second play i just whent and beat the game as fast as posible. just to say i beat the main story. Now im playing with out touching the main story trying mods and stuff , moding, adding content.
But still i dont have a real reason to save the world, aside from that.

But how you make a game like Oblivion better at integrating you and the story?
Presenting you with choises that matter. For Example NV had good points and bad one. For example the starting was awefull im a currier and get shot and robed and go out looking for trouble, bad idea. there was cool, preseting you with frieds "companions" that need help. that the factions will help you eventualy in the last fight.

So having Frieds or companions with whom you make frienships. maybe a romance, finding and live and anventure with them.

Then you have something to loose. The more conections you create the more you will want to defend it. And thats how you create a more involving story.

Personal tip please stop the Quest that make you go from one corner of the world to the next. man i hate that.

At the end of a good quest you should make a friend, a companion, a love interest. some one that wants to be there where you are in trouble,

And i hope they add stuff like that to the main, side Quests, etc.

The Witcher 2 is a good game, the story is good, the gamplay could be better, but i love it. and if something could be take, its the story its important, how you present the characters, having a journal with tha major and minor characters, a good quest log, that not only tells you for those that want it where to go, but why you are going there.
All in all, realice a polished game.

They were axed because they're restrictive. Nothing more, nothing less.

@Ryo Sorry, but no. I don't agree with any of that. To each their own.

If only your post was convincing rather than repeating the same points and nonsensically criticising things that do not hamper the game. The voiced protagonist does work in a game like The Witcher as it is designed that way. The point of not being able to choose race or gender is also nonsensical in a game like this. You're meant to be Geralt but you're also given a chance to shape him in whatever way you want him to be. He feels very much a part of the world and less like a person on the sidelines. Your point about the inclusion of romance making the whole game suffer is ridiculous as well. Completely so as they have proven to implement it while also providing an expansive game with a variety of options. I really don't see how it cut down on anything, it was just another part of the world.
The whole 'GOTY' point was just laughable at best, please try harder.

Now, I'm not saying that I want these in Skyrim and the fact is ES is a different kind of beast entirely. What I am saying is that you're ignorantly bashing a game with negatives that aren't really negatives. It's like bashing Assassin's Creed because you can scale up buildings. They're made in different ways.

Now, what ES could learn from The Witcher (or actually pay a little attention to) is how to implement more interesting NPCs, how to make a town feel alive and how to implement interesting quest options with real consequences. I'm sure Bethesda have taken measures to improve Skyrim and have probably taken these ideas already on board (not necessarily from The Witcher but just in general) so I can't wait to see what they come up with.

I like the idea of doing a quest and knowing this will end not in one designed way, but this may end in a quite different way then last time I did that quest.

Then this will lead me to believe that my choices do have a impact and actually have meaning.

Rather then accept A go to B listen accept and go to C. Very linear.

Voiced Protagonist only works in a game designed that way. It works in Mass Effect because it's Shepards story and it work's in Witcher because it's Geralt's story but it wouldn't work in an Elder Scrolls game. The Negatives in Witcher are truly negative, not being able to use a potion in combat is stupid and a negative. I stand by my points do try again next time.

Yea, i'm with you on this. Of course it is more personal when you can design a story around one character. Beth could never do that because what works for a male Orc might not work for a female Argonian. On top of that, the characters background is left for the player to decide, which means they can't personalize the story around that either.

The only real discernible negative that you mentioned was the 'potion usage', the rest is down to the direction in which the game is going. And even so, the things with potions is that they're making you use your head rather than charge blindly into enemies. You're meant to plan ahead and act accordingly. It's a design that many are fine with.
I have to wonder whether you've played the game or not?

I've seen many posters just as well over in the Witcher thread in Community Discussion, who love the game but absolutely despise the potion mechanic.

No I haven't and I won't because I'm not a big fan of games that have a set protagonist that you can't customize. Geralt is Geralt he isn't your character and it's not your world unlike Skyrim where it's the opposite. Also the potions don't make you think ahead the only thing they make you do is focus on not getting hit which isn't the point of playing the game. The Point of playing is to defeat the enemy and how can you do that when your hands are tied back by not being able to drink a potion. I have no problem with a game being difficult but not when it's ridiculous like that feature is.

Complaining you can't use a potion in combat is stupid.
Can't see how you agree to this.

It's pretty clear that potion is for buffing up attributes making you stronger before the fight, it's called strategy.
Also drinking potions isn't what it's about when you fight, you have other abilities to aid you and you are not suppose to be concern if you need to take a potion in fight or not.

And my other point is that just because there is a character with the name -whatever- and the story is built around that person doesn't mean you can't get a story around yourself, it's just about what you write and how well you can write. Also if the game records your choices it can be used later in the game in dialogues if coded right.

Bethesda = freedom I'll take that potion when i feel like it.

It's not stupid at all, basically that means you go into combat with your hand tied behind your back because you can't use a potion in combat. The enemy could be equally leveled and that potion could make the difference not to mention that with Skyrim's combat it will be more difficult to dodge attacks because we don't have athletics anymore.

@Pepe Silvia, Agree completely and that is what makes Beth games great the ability to do what you want and not have your hand held or tied behind your back

There are many fans of the game who've said that they don't care much for the combat for one reason or another. Whether it's because it's too much fluff, too much rolling around, or what have you. There's also plenty of negative feedback about the potion mechanic and how alchemy is dumbed down from the first game. We'll agree to disagree about Geralt and pre made heroes.

lol. The point is to survive and that's what the Witcher pushes you to do. If you're dumb and expect to rush in then you're gonna die. I agree that I would have liked health potions to be usable during combat but the fact is, it's not that big of a deal. Geralt is Geralt, yes. I don't see where you're getting at here. Like I said, it's a different type of game and it's meant to be that way. You still can customise Geralt to be the way you want him to be (in terms of decisions, actions and the like) and the world of the Witcher feels very much alive and you feel very much apart of it. But then again, you'd know this if you played the game.

@ The Terror Of Death
3. Wrong. You can choose to pursue it or not.
4. Actually it fits the Witcher's approach on gameplay, it doesn't hold your hand... you have to experiment yourself with different strategies and play styles during combat. It depends on how you prefer to play, an "easy" game or a more "hardcoe" one. I play both types.
5. Ehm... as a PC gamer I prefer my games to take full advantage of my hardware which is above that of consoles. I don't really care on how many platforms it releases as long as it releases on PC and takes advantage of it. Selfish, I know.
6. TW2 is more than just pretty graphics... although it's true that it looks really really good.
7. Debatable IMO. Given how the main character is pre-determined, the voice works quite well, giving Geralt more personality. I do agree though that the lack of voice in games svck as Skyrim is a plus for the roleplayers.
9. This is where you shot your argument down... with a cannon... GOTY awards don't mean anything. Every publication and website choose their favorite games and give them these rewards, this isn't the Oscars...

:facepalm:

That's because they're different types of combat systems. The Witcher is more reliant on dodging around whereas the ES is noticeably less so. Which is why the whole potion mechanic is different! The whole point is to plan ahead so you can combat the enemy, doesn't if he's equally leveled to you or whatnot. It works in one game whereas it doesn't in another.
Each has to be appreciated for what it is.

3. You can but let's face it you'll have to do it eventually unlike Skyrim
4. Neither does Beth with the Elder Scrolls. The only hand holding is map markers for quests and fast travel
5. A PC exclusive game may have better tech available but that does not make it a better game
6. Graphics don't make a game better
7. pre-determined characters have better storys then customizable characters but the games that customizable characters are in are usually better off.
9. Is very relavent when the facts say that the game is GOTY. You may not consider a game like Oblivion GOTY right now but back when it came out it certainly was.

Points number 1,2 and 8 are missing I guess that means you agree with those points.

I don't like you Witcher 2 Fan boooyz in a Skyrim Forum

:tes:

This is soooo true

3. You didn't play the game yet you say you have to pursue a romance... hmm...
4. But Ob is more forgiving combat wise. So drinking potions mid combat fits it. In TW2 the lack of that ability enhances it's particular take on combat.
5. Didn't say it did... but it's kinda like the icing on the cake.
6. See above.
7. I agree that being able to determine the physical traits of your character is awesome (I love it when games I like allow me to do that)... but IMO that doesn't make it a better game.
9. My point is that it's not an industry wide vote, it's more of a personal thing and is highly subjective. IGN can claim Skyrim is GOTY while say CVG can go with TW2. Nwo they both have GOTY status. So what...

I either agree with them or I consider them highly subjective.

@ IGB
I'm far from it lol

TW2 certainly has it's flaws but I don't see this whole attitude towards other RPGs on forums like this or Bioware's. A game can get something right and another can get another thing right, I don't see why there's this need to choose X over Y , can't one simply play and enjoy both for what they are? Can't you see that game X is doing this better (or not even better, just differently) then game Y? If it's different then it's bad? Why?

lol. You don't have to be 'Fan boooys' to argue against silly points. Truth be told, I'm much more of an Elder Scrolls man but it's still annoying to see something ignorantly trashed. Joys of the 'net, I guess.

I'm glad this isn't turning into a vs. thread that will get clos-- OH WAIT NEVER MIND