All these hate comments towards the Witcher 3 by people that have never even experienced the game most likely. If they had there is no way they would be saying Skyrim was still better. Skyrim NPCs= Dull, boring, monotone, completely unrealistic. Witcher 3 NPCs= Interesting, have a vocal range beyond "I'm dead inside and so is everyone else in this world," and realistic in the sense that a lot of NPCs are shown as having a black and white characterization. The Baron best shows this (don't worry, no spoilers).
The Witcher 3 is way bigger than Skyrim, and the choices you make truly do hold consequences, whether they be good or bad. The world sort of mirrors the real world in that some of the choices you make, you are not handheld, and told if this is a good or a bad choice, and a lot of times you really don't know either. You have to try and make what you think is the best choice, and even then, the outcome may not be to your liking.
The world and setting also ooze of character. It's a depressing, dark place where pretty much no one has a good time, and those rare touching moments feeling achingly sad for some reason. It's hard to explain, the Witcher 3 just has a lot of character to it. Skyrim is an alright game, but the world and characters are not at all memorable.
All these hate comments towards the Witcher 3 by people that have never even experienced the game most likely. If they had there is no way they would be saying Skyrim was still better. Skyrim NPCs= Dull, boring, monotone, completely unrealistic. Witcher 3 NPCs= Interesting, have a vocal range beyond "I'm dead inside and so is everyone else in this world," and realistic in the sense that a lot of NPCs are shown as having a black and white characterization. The Baron best shows this (don't worry, no spoilers).
The Witcher 3 is way bigger than Skyrim, and the choices you make truly do hold consequences, whether they be good or bad. The world sort of mirrors the real world in that some of the choices you make, you are not handheld, and told if this is a good or a bad choice, and a lot of times you really don't know either. You have to try and make what you think is the best choice, and even then, the outcome may not be to your liking.
The world and setting also ooze of character. It's a depressing, dark place where pretty much no one has a good time, and those rare touching moments feeling achingly sad for some reason. It's hard to explain, the Witcher 3 just has a lot of character to it. Skyrim is an alright game, but the world and characters are not at all memorable.
Poor people hate Witcher 3 becouse they cant run it with shitty PC that are mainly used for TF2,MOBA games and free to play games.
And what is it with people saying The Witcher is not a true RPG? You play the role of the Witcher Geralt of Rivia. You progress Geralt however you see fit between sword play, sign magic and alchemy. You make very grey choices with no real indicator of right and wrong. Seems pretty RPG like to me.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
My god, you guys are something else. I like both and appreciate them for their differences. How about that? Am I allowed to have that opinion? Can I please have the Witcher God's permission to enjoy Skyrim too?
They are entirely different games, people, and both have strengths and weaknesses. Sorry, the Witcher 3 is not perfect, nor is Skyrim. When deciding which you like more, it's simply a matter of which flaws you accept or don't notice versus which you simply can't get over. Currently, I favor Skyrim a bit more. I'm in the mood for a little more openness in the story. In a few weeks, I'll probably find myself chasing Ciri's skirt to the ends of the world again eager to see what happens next. They're not MMOs. Do whatever you want whenever you want. The Jones' don't play single player games.
Originally posted by alkarionlog Originally posted by husscoolOriginally posted by Righteous_RockOne is the greatest rpg of all time and one is the greatest rpg this month.
You hit the nail on the head there. Unfortunately for the Witcher, Skyrim does everything better right down to the feel of the world and the NPC's surrounding you. The Witcher 3 feels like they really loved Skyrim and wanted to make their own version of it. Sadly that does not equate to matching the very high bar Skyrim set. witcher combat is far bettter, plus you are considerating skyrim the stock game or after several mods being used on it? The Elder Scrolls games never had particularly good combat, but it's decent in Skyrim. The Witcher games have piss poor combat in comparison.
While they ARE different games. Skyrim felt VERY gamey and arcadey. Oblivion actually had a better world than Skyrim did, and Oblivion AI was VASTLY better than Skyrim as well, as far as NPCs go.
I actually think Witcher 3 is closer to Ultima 7 in the world "feel" like Oblivion was. Not so much the AI that UO7 had (I haven't really got that far in Witcher 3, just got to the city and my PC is too laggy for that epic city, so trying to find good settings in config file :P)
The world is VERY believable. Its hard to explain...but...like UO7...the world felt really really real. Like it could actually exist. All the NPCs are very believable, with "realistic" voice acting (one that I'd expect from a place like Witcher takes in). Even going around doing quests, some of the stories you get...its very believable and does effect the world in some way. Its not really like Ultima 7...but...for me...the world feels very similar to it. Which is the first game to have that feeling for me since Ultima 7 and Ultima 7 is ancient in years lol.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Love it, we actually get a well written article explaining (in quite good detail) how they are each their own game, and each good games in their own way. And we respond with....
**Que the endless bickering over which game is 'THE BEST'**
And we wonder why no games seem to hold our interest anymore. We get what looks to be a pretty good year for games, and we're too busy trying to argue how our favorite older game is 'still better'. Good grief.
It's actually OKAY to like more than one game. It's okay if you're favorite game isn't the hottest thing on the market every day, each year. Try and have some fun ffs.
To me the Witcher 3 is the pinnacle of open/semi open world RPGs. I feel like it stands out above DAI, Skyrim and everything else that came before. There is nothing cheap about it and no filler to be found. 10/10
Originally posted by TheScavenger While they ARE different games. Skyrim felt VERY gamey and arcadey. Oblivion actually had a better world than Skyrim did, and Oblivion AI was VASTLY better than Skyrim as well, as far as NPCs go.
I actually think Witcher 3 is closer to Ultima 7 in the world "feel" like Oblivion was. Not so much the AI that UO7 had (I haven't really got that far in Witcher 3, just got to the city and my PC is too laggy for that epic city, so trying to find good settings in config file :P)
The world is VERY believable. Its hard to explain...but...like UO7...the world felt really really real. Like it could actually exist. All the NPCs are very believable, with "realistic" voice acting (one that I'd expect from a place like Witcher takes in). Even going around doing quests, some of the stories you get...its very believable and does effect the world in some way. Its not really like Ultima 7...but...for me...the world feels very similar to it. Which is the first game to have that feeling for me since Ultima 7 and Ultima 7 is ancient in years lol.
The things that made Ultima VII's worlds so immersive: 1. Completely seamless world. No loading screens even if you travel from the the surface of one end of the world to the deepest dungeon level on the other end of the world. 2. NPCs (civilised) all had their own day-to-day routines they followed. Baker would eat his breakfast in the morning, go to his shop where you would see him bake bread, maybe go to the tavern for supper, then go home and sleep for the night. They didn't just mill about in the same area for ever or just stand in one spot. 3. NPCs all had their own fleshed out background stories. From their extensive dialogues you could tell a lot of thought had gone into their place in the community as well as their personality and relations. 4. NPCs would react to your actions. If you start a fight they would run to safety, if you stole their stuff and they saw you they'd call the guards etc. None of this modern crap like in most RPGs where they just stare at you blankly as you rob them of every single possession. 5. Simple but powerful and intuitive interface let you interact with the game world easily. You could open drawers, take out the clothes in them, go to the nearby barn, collect some crates, put the clothes in the crates, then stack the crates on top of each other to make an impromptu staircase, then walk up this staircase to reach a tall rock or roof otherwise unreachable. If there's a table in an inn with plates, cups, forks and meat, you can eat the meat, move the cups, playes and utensils to whereever you want or take it with you. You could even do stuff like bake bread by doing the same as the baker NPC - use a sack of flour to spread flour on a surface, fetch water in a bucket by using it on a well, use the water on the flour to make dough, move the dough into the oven and wait, then take the finished bread out of the oven and take it with you for when your party got hungry. 6. No intrusive UI elements taking your attention away from the game world like glowing arrows, blue circles, corner minimaps etc.
I've played through Skyrim multiple times. I do love the open world, no loading screen, but that is minimalistic when you compare the games. Skyrim I can do whatever I want, get lost doing your own thing (usually so lost I get bored and quit).
You are one person in the Witcher, in Skyrim you can look different but you'll always be the dragon born. The bow/crossbow debate is stupid, a bow is nice to use but just get used to it, no bows in Witcher (unless you wanna mod it up then BAM! bows!). Its still action based, there is gravity.
Skyrim is worse in regards to loading screens, everytime you open a damn door... give up your tiny grudges and maybe... play the game (all the way) before reviewing it?
If your going to grudge on "there's no first person" go play Mortal Online where your always first person, there's bows, gravity, open world, skill based combat, 100 million armors, 2 million weapons.
Everyone gets bored of games, just to find the ones that keep us content, and play them. Maybe don't write stupid reviews that argue about tiny details that dont even matter in the end.....
Originally posted by Shana77 Regarding the loading screens between zones, I'd argue that Skyrim is much worse since you get loading screens whenever you open a door.
Originally posted by Righteous_Rock One is the greatest rpg of all time and one is the greatest rpg this month.
So true. No one in their right mind can compare these games. Witcher will be forgotten in six months. Just like that other RPG that was all the hype awhile age. I think it was Dragon age something.
THe WITCHER 3 is releasing 16 free DLC's.I think only 2-3 have come out so far. The company said thy would be supporting( patches, new content,bug fixes etc) for the next two years. Modders have already begun to release mods for the game.
Both are so vastly different I can not even understand how they can be compared. I really like the Ultima 7 comparison, makes way more sense and comes a lot closer.
On a personal note, the last Elder Scrolls game I really enjoyed was Morrowind, I HATED Oblivion and kinda liked Skyrim but both felt so bland, no soul whatsoever and all that freedom and all those options felt meaningless because of that. Witcher 3 on the other hand, I love it. Its storytelling is insane, even the smallest Side quests have so much going on, get me so invested. The graphics, well, Skyrim modded looks really good but comparing them straight out of the box W3 runs circles around it. W3 world feels alive, more then Skyrim ever could, then again, Skyrim combat is a bit better. it is all personal preference and trying to 'objectively' prove that one game is better then the other is foolish. For me W3 is not only one of the best RPGs I have ever played, it is also one of the best games in general. Skyrim on the other hand is another game in a series that has gone downhill for me since Morrowind, I will never install it again. Gotta love opinions.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The Witcher 3 is almost 4 times larger than Skyrim. Each area is as big as Skyrim. Within each area there are NO loading screens. Unlike Skyrim where there's a loading screen every time you enter a city, house, shop, building, cave, ruin, dungeon, etc. etc. So, it's not open world, and it's very immersion-breaking to have part of the world (open land) open and the rest (every building, city, dungeon, cave, etc.) walled off behind a loading screen. If you add up all the loading time between the two games on a play through, Skyrim's will dwarf The Witcher's.
The Witcher 3 is in a whole different league above Skryim. It's just so polished and detailed. I thought Skryim's cities were awesome, until I visited Novigrad...Novigrad itself would take up a HUGE chunk of Skyrim's map.
Also, when Skyrim was released it was a buggy mess, which is what we've come to expect from Bethesda.
All these people doing exactly what the articles defined as pointless... I love skyrim but the witcher 3 definitely has my attention right now in ways that yet another playthrough of skyrim couldn't. It would be unfair to compare them at all. Witcher 3 definitely beats Dragon age though.
Yeah I don't see how you can compare them. DA:I and Witcher is more comparable; both forces you to play one type of character. With the difference that you can choose you gender and class in DA:I, but you're still locked in place, i.e. you cannot be anything else than the chaotic/lawful good Inquisitor.
While in Skyrim, being more generic fantasy, I can be more than just one thing.
Personally I have not played Witcher and most likely never will. Not as long as the game forces me to play a dude. DA:I all the way for me, if I want to play a character driven rpg.
Originally posted by Righteous_Rock One is the greatest rpg of all time and one is the greatest rpg this month.
You hit the nail on the head there. Unfortunately for the Witcher, Skyrim does everything better right down to the feel of the world and the NPC's surrounding you. The Witcher 3 feels like they really loved Skyrim and wanted to make their own version of it. Sadly that does not equate to matching the very high bar Skyrim set.
Sorry you skyrim fans are getting a little desperate. The Witcher 3 does almost everything better than skyrim did, it's really not a comparison to almost every gamer outside the skyrim fanboys.
But hey you got your opinion and the rest of the world has theirs.
Hypocritical.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Comments
All these hate comments towards the Witcher 3 by people that have never even experienced the game most likely. If they had there is no way they would be saying Skyrim was still better. Skyrim NPCs= Dull, boring, monotone, completely unrealistic. Witcher 3 NPCs= Interesting, have a vocal range beyond "I'm dead inside and so is everyone else in this world," and realistic in the sense that a lot of NPCs are shown as having a black and white characterization. The Baron best shows this (don't worry, no spoilers).
The Witcher 3 is way bigger than Skyrim, and the choices you make truly do hold consequences, whether they be good or bad. The world sort of mirrors the real world in that some of the choices you make, you are not handheld, and told if this is a good or a bad choice, and a lot of times you really don't know either. You have to try and make what you think is the best choice, and even then, the outcome may not be to your liking.
The world and setting also ooze of character. It's a depressing, dark place where pretty much no one has a good time, and those rare touching moments feeling achingly sad for some reason. It's hard to explain, the Witcher 3 just has a lot of character to it. Skyrim is an alright game, but the world and characters are not at all memorable.
Smile
Skyrim 8 point.
Witcher 3 10 point.
They never should done ESO, major fail there.
Elder scroll lore gets raped currently, thanks ESO cashshop "panter mounts" and silly story.
Poor people hate Witcher 3 becouse they cant run it with shitty PC that are mainly used for TF2,MOBA games and free to play games.
They are both RPGs. Done.
And what is it with people saying The Witcher is not a true RPG? You play the role of the Witcher Geralt of Rivia. You progress Geralt however you see fit between sword play, sign magic and alchemy. You make very grey choices with no real indicator of right and wrong. Seems pretty RPG like to me.
Who is Gerald?
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Geralt as Dragonborn. :-)
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
My god, you guys are something else. I like both and appreciate them for their differences. How about that? Am I allowed to have that opinion? Can I please have the Witcher God's permission to enjoy Skyrim too?
They are entirely different games, people, and both have strengths and weaknesses. Sorry, the Witcher 3 is not perfect, nor is Skyrim. When deciding which you like more, it's simply a matter of which flaws you accept or don't notice versus which you simply can't get over. Currently, I favor Skyrim a bit more. I'm in the mood for a little more openness in the story. In a few weeks, I'll probably find myself chasing Ciri's skirt to the ends of the world again eager to see what happens next. They're not MMOs. Do whatever you want whenever you want. The Jones' don't play single player games.
witcher combat is far bettter, plus you are considerating skyrim the stock game or after several mods being used on it?
The Elder Scrolls games never had particularly good combat, but it's decent in Skyrim. The Witcher games have piss poor combat in comparison.
While they ARE different games. Skyrim felt VERY gamey and arcadey. Oblivion actually had a better world than Skyrim did, and Oblivion AI was VASTLY better than Skyrim as well, as far as NPCs go.
I actually think Witcher 3 is closer to Ultima 7 in the world "feel" like Oblivion was. Not so much the AI that UO7 had (I haven't really got that far in Witcher 3, just got to the city and my PC is too laggy for that epic city, so trying to find good settings in config file :P)
The world is VERY believable. Its hard to explain...but...like UO7...the world felt really really real. Like it could actually exist. All the NPCs are very believable, with "realistic" voice acting (one that I'd expect from a place like Witcher takes in). Even going around doing quests, some of the stories you get...its very believable and does effect the world in some way. Its not really like Ultima 7...but...for me...the world feels very similar to it. Which is the first game to have that feeling for me since Ultima 7 and Ultima 7 is ancient in years lol.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Love it, we actually get a well written article explaining (in quite good detail) how they are each their own game, and each good games in their own way. And we respond with....
**Que the endless bickering over which game is 'THE BEST'**
And we wonder why no games seem to hold our interest anymore. We get what looks to be a pretty good year for games, and we're too busy trying to argue how our favorite older game is 'still better'. Good grief.
It's actually OKAY to like more than one game. It's okay if you're favorite game isn't the hottest thing on the market every day, each year. Try and have some fun ffs.
1. Completely seamless world. No loading screens even if you travel from the the surface of one end of the world to the deepest dungeon level on the other end of the world.
2. NPCs (civilised) all had their own day-to-day routines they followed. Baker would eat his breakfast in the morning, go to his shop where you would see him bake bread, maybe go to the tavern for supper, then go home and sleep for the night. They didn't just mill about in the same area for ever or just stand in one spot.
3. NPCs all had their own fleshed out background stories. From their extensive dialogues you could tell a lot of thought had gone into their place in the community as well as their personality and relations.
4. NPCs would react to your actions. If you start a fight they would run to safety, if you stole their stuff and they saw you they'd call the guards etc. None of this modern crap like in most RPGs where they just stare at you blankly as you rob them of every single possession.
5. Simple but powerful and intuitive interface let you interact with the game world easily. You could open drawers, take out the clothes in them, go to the nearby barn, collect some crates, put the clothes in the crates, then stack the crates on top of each other to make an impromptu staircase, then walk up this staircase to reach a tall rock or roof otherwise unreachable. If there's a table in an inn with plates, cups, forks and meat, you can eat the meat, move the cups, playes and utensils to whereever you want or take it with you. You could even do stuff like bake bread by doing the same as the baker NPC - use a sack of flour to spread flour on a surface, fetch water in a bucket by using it on a well, use the water on the flour to make dough, move the dough into the oven and wait, then take the finished bread out of the oven and take it with you for when your party got hungry.
6. No intrusive UI elements taking your attention away from the game world like glowing arrows, blue circles, corner minimaps etc.
I've played through Skyrim multiple times. I do love the open world, no loading screen, but that is minimalistic when you compare the games. Skyrim I can do whatever I want, get lost doing your own thing (usually so lost I get bored and quit).
You are one person in the Witcher, in Skyrim you can look different but you'll always be the dragon born. The bow/crossbow debate is stupid, a bow is nice to use but just get used to it, no bows in Witcher (unless you wanna mod it up then BAM! bows!). Its still action based, there is gravity.
Skyrim is worse in regards to loading screens, everytime you open a damn door... give up your tiny grudges and maybe... play the game (all the way) before reviewing it?
If your going to grudge on "there's no first person" go play Mortal Online where your always first person, there's bows, gravity, open world, skill based combat, 100 million armors, 2 million weapons.
Everyone gets bored of games, just to find the ones that keep us content, and play them. Maybe don't write stupid reviews that argue about tiny details that dont even matter in the end.....
Yeah, that annoys me as well.
THe WITCHER 3 is releasing 16 free DLC's.I think only 2-3 have come out so far. The company said thy would be supporting( patches, new content,bug fixes etc) for the next two years. Modders have already begun to release mods for the game.
Both are so vastly different I can not even understand how they can be compared. I really like the Ultima 7 comparison, makes way more sense and comes a lot closer.
On a personal note, the last Elder Scrolls game I really enjoyed was Morrowind, I HATED Oblivion and kinda liked Skyrim but both felt so bland, no soul whatsoever and all that freedom and all those options felt meaningless because of that. Witcher 3 on the other hand, I love it. Its storytelling is insane, even the smallest Side quests have so much going on, get me so invested. The graphics, well, Skyrim modded looks really good but comparing them straight out of the box W3 runs circles around it. W3 world feels alive, more then Skyrim ever could, then again, Skyrim combat is a bit better. it is all personal preference and trying to 'objectively' prove that one game is better then the other is foolish. For me W3 is not only one of the best RPGs I have ever played, it is also one of the best games in general. Skyrim on the other hand is another game in a series that has gone downhill for me since Morrowind, I will never install it again. Gotta love opinions.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Skyrim have alot more loading screens and if you push to far also invisable barrier.
TW3 is way more open then SKYRIM ever will be no dungeon loadscreens no house loadscreens no building loadscreens.
Skyrim OPEN WORLD RATING 7/9
The Witcher 3 OPEN WORLD RATING 9.5/10
Best TEST AND WHY ITS WAY BETTER OPEN WORLD IS NOVIGRAD.
Go walk through this HUGE OPEN WORLD city(almost all major citys skyrim combined is size of novigrad).
NO loading screens novigrad.
Whiterun ONE BIG LOADING SCREEN small and stupid little town not even realy feel like living breathing town.
CITY TW3 10/10
CITY SKYRIM 6/10
Played Skyrim 2800+ hours
Played TW3 so far 90hours.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
The Witcher 3 is almost 4 times larger than Skyrim. Each area is as big as Skyrim. Within each area there are NO loading screens. Unlike Skyrim where there's a loading screen every time you enter a city, house, shop, building, cave, ruin, dungeon, etc. etc. So, it's not open world, and it's very immersion-breaking to have part of the world (open land) open and the rest (every building, city, dungeon, cave, etc.) walled off behind a loading screen. If you add up all the loading time between the two games on a play through, Skyrim's will dwarf The Witcher's.
The Witcher 3 is in a whole different league above Skryim. It's just so polished and detailed. I thought Skryim's cities were awesome, until I visited Novigrad...Novigrad itself would take up a HUGE chunk of Skyrim's map.
Also, when Skyrim was released it was a buggy mess, which is what we've come to expect from Bethesda.
Yeah I don't see how you can compare them. DA:I and Witcher is more comparable; both forces you to play one type of character. With the difference that you can choose you gender and class in DA:I, but you're still locked in place, i.e. you cannot be anything else than the chaotic/lawful good Inquisitor.
While in Skyrim, being more generic fantasy, I can be more than just one thing.
Personally I have not played Witcher and most likely never will. Not as long as the game forces me to play a dude. DA:I all the way for me, if I want to play a character driven rpg.
Hypocritical.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.