Forums » General Gaming

• Gollum

  

  • 558 posts
   

  January 18, 2016 11:48 PM EST

  Not finished it yet, but I can safely assume that I'll like Skyrim better by the end of the Witcher 3. Both games have rather shallow characters, but I give the slight edge to TW3. The dialogue is better in the Witcher as well, although it's been getting increasingly more boring.

  As far as the open world aspect, it is no contest at all. Skyrim alllll the way. All of the dungeons, bandit camps, and ruins that fill the wilderness in Skyrim are way more interesting than what's in TW3. I also feel like every new area (province? state?) I go to in TW3 gets increasingly worse explorability (not a word apparently). TW3's graphics are pretty good for it's size, and I like the art design a tad more than Skyrim's.

  I like Skyrim's combat/gameplay and leveling system better. For some reason in TW3 they like to throw four plus enemies at you every encounter. And some of the quests recommended levels make absolutely no sense at all: I was given a level 14 quest and I was supposed to kill three level 16 trolls?

  I feel like some of my enjoyment of TW3 was hampered by me not playing or reading anything Witcher-related previously. Also, all of the false hype got the best of me.

  There is just one quest in the Witcher that really pissed me off. Spoiler: The one where you throw the baby in the stove. Yeah, it wasn't the jarl's baby, but whose was it?! The monster plaguing the jarl feeds off of guilt, but when Geralt realizes it wasn't the jarl's kid, Geralt doesn't feel guilty anymore? He still killed an infant. They all acted like no harm was done. And what about those guards who died for nothing trying to save the jarl's supposed kid? Their lives didn't matter?

  But overall, I have to give it to Skyrim. Replayability, gameplay, the world, and lore beats out the Witcher 3's graphics, (slightly better) art design, and chars/dialogue.

  Maybe I should have had the balls to initiate a sex scene. Maybe I should've had the ovaries to go into that sauna without a towel. But until then, I don't think I'll be able to fully appreciate TW3.

• Chris

  

  • 1441 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 12:49 AM EST

  I've readThe Last Wish,and have played all the games saved for the first, and in love both of them.
• Idesto

  

  • 394 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 3:39 AM EST

  I really enjoyed Witcher 2, then I discovered Skyrim...

  I never finished the final fight: combat is hard (for me) on any level, & the xbox controls were fiddly - at least until I got a a new controller. I didn't explore the alternative storylines either. I may do someday.

  It was really well written, had great characters - central to which is Geralt - great stories, great quests. It's not afraid to be real too, unlike the TES games: it has 'BAD' LANGUAGE and SEX (shock horror!). It seems to me to be an RPG for grown-ups. Finally!  However it is very linear; the open world of Skyrim is the main reason I switched: you can 't have an immersive RPG experience without the freedom of choice that this gives. 

  As for TW3: it looks fantastic. However I haven't finished Skyrim, let alone its DLCs, and I want to play Morrowind &/or  Fallout 3 next, then there's F:NV & F4, not to mention DA & KotOR. 

  So many games, so little time!

• Matt Feeney the New Guy

  

  • 1124 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 10:16 AM EST

  "I was given a level 14 quest and I was supposed to kill three level 16 trolls?"

  I mean they're only two levels above you. It's designed so the player can fight enemies a few levels above you. More than a few levels if you're really good, though it can be boring to fight an enemy too high level since you'll do basically no damage.

  "Spoiler: The one where you throw the baby in the stove. Yeah, it wasn't the jarl's baby, but whose was it?!"

  It was the Jarl's baby, but Cerys (or whatever her name was) took it out of the stove through a secondary compartment. No baby was harmed.

• Paws

  

  • 1595 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 1:44 PM EST

  When I played Witcher 2 I really struggled. The game was so not what I was expecting and out of my comfort zone. I was expecting something more like Dragon Age, I think. Yet when I played Witcher 3 and things clicked, went back and enjoyed Assassin of Kings properly.

  you can 't have an immersive RPG experience without the freedom of choice that this gives. 

  I disagree with this. The more a character is predefined, the more choice and consequence can the player be presented with. The Witcher series is incredibly immersive compared to Skyrim's many immersion breaking moments - the game simply cannot take all the combinations of choices a blank slate character brings. Set your age slider to max but the npcs will still call you "child."

  As for TW3: it looks fantastic. However I haven't finished Skyrim, let alone its DLCs,

  You lucky git! I'd love to have that experience again. When did you get into Skyrim?

• Mirric

  

  • 411 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 1:46 PM EST

  I have never played a witcher game. Ive read the Books but never played the games. So i dont have a opinion.
• Idesto

  

  • 394 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 2:05 PM EST

  Skyrim definitely has its limitations! You make a good point. TW2 is full of character choices, it has a really strong character-driven story-line. I dislike its linearity however. When you leave the area associated with each story arc you can't go back. Your current area is largely defined by tracks & roads, whereas in Skyrim you can do or go more or less whatever & wherever you like. It thus feels more real: to me, anyway. 

  I started playing in February 2014, apparently: I looked it up; I thought it was a year later! I have a slow play style, as you may have seen in some of my posts! I also tend to blow hot and cold, as with most things. I stopped playing when I went overseas in August & have only just restarted. 

• Gollum

  

  • 558 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 6:01 PM EST

  Yeah, that was my problem... I was doing no damage.

  I wish she told me about that secondary compartment, I was left with the impression that I burned a child alive and the pellar guy was hiding in the back room with the jarl's kid. Also I feel like those soldiers died for nothing.

• Paws

  

  • 1595 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 9:29 PM EST

  The Witcher 3 is much better at non-linearity although as Gollum mentioned it struggles with scaling. I think Skyrim has it beat in that area as the world scaling in TES V was a vast improvement on Morrrowind and Oblivion's system.

  in Skyrim you can do or go more or less whatever & wherever you like. It thus feels more real: to me, anyway. 

  I hear you. W3 is close to Skyrim's go anywhere and do anything but obviously falls short due to having a pre-defined character. Yet what it lacks in breadth it can compensate for in depth, the motivations and payoffs for Geralt's motives are more easy to address.

  I started playing in February 2014, apparently: I looked it up; I thought it was a year later! I have a slow play style, as you may have seen in some of my posts! I also tend to blow hot and cold, as with most things. I stopped playing when I went overseas in August & have only just restarted. 

  What else do you play? What are your other passions?

• Paws

  

  • 1595 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 9:33 PM EST

  There is just one quest in the Witcher that really pissed me off. Spoiler: The one where you throw the baby in the stove. Yeah, it wasn't the jarl's baby, but whose was it?!

  Both games have rather shallow characters, but I give the slight edge to TW3.

  I feel like some of my enjoyment of TW3 was hampered by me not playing or reading anything Witcher-related previously. Also, all of the false hype got the best of me.

  I don't even know where to start. Shallow characters only slightly edging Skyrim's almost non-existent dialogue system? That's crazy, dude!

• Gollum

  

  • 558 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 10:16 PM EST

  Hardly any character development in either game. The characters in TW3 have personalities, but so do the ones in Skyrim. For every merchant in the Witcher, there's a Belethor in Skyrim...

  I can understand playing through all of the Witcher games and getting to see how the characters change from game to game (if at all), but I started on the third of the series and I just don't see any more character development than in Skyrim (besides a few characters).

  I really misinterpreted that quest, but I didn't know I was wrong until I went on the internet. Might've been a console glitch, but when Geralt was given the baby to toss into the flames, it's eyes were a solid dark red, making me believe there were two different babies being dealt with (I felt so confused and it ruined the quest for me).

• Paws

  

  • 1595 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 10:37 PM EST

  I started with W2 and didn't really get on that well. I had no prior knowledge and it wasn't until I played W3 that I got it. The game really does repay those with a slower approach I think. Many of the character's are detailed more in the glossaries and reading them helps.

  I reject the lack of development, though. Who are you referring to specifically? Geralt himself hardly changes because he is the PC, but Ciri, Triss, Yen and Lambert can evolve very well indeed. Peripheral characters also get their time, many questlines play out differently based on your choices and most of them have a meaningful effect on the characters. Compare that with Skyrim and tell me who you can influence in that game?

• Gollum

  

  • 558 posts
   

  January 19, 2016 11:15 PM EST

  Maybe I haven't gotten far enough to see anyone change, but apparently Triss is gone somewhere with a bunch of mages and I'll never see her again. Though I doubt it.

  I also don't consider dialogue options a part of individual characters. You can have great characters with no dialogue options (ie. Dark Souls), and mediocre characters with dialogue options (ie. Zoltan). As far as Skyrim you can influence Balgruuf, the entirety of the Dark Brotherhood, Delphine, Cicero, a few Companions, Sinding, Volkihar vs. Dawnguard, Madanach, and that's it off the top of my head. In the Witcher it seems like you can influence more outcomes, but on a much smaller scale. Probably since Witchers aren't supposed to do anything crazy like killing kings. I have no idea who Lambert is, maybe I should spend some time in the glossary after all.

  I also don't like the story as much in the Witcher, going on wild goose chases is getting real old now... Skyrim's story was nothing special either, but at least it varied what you had to do. Not just going to every next area because there's a rumor your daughter might've been there. Like seriously, so much of TW3 is just going around and doing  tasks for information. The parts where you play as Ciri are fun, but it makes it seem like you are always so far behind and you aren't getting anywhere.

• Karver the Lorc

  

  • 649 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 1:23 AM EST

  Wait what? 

  As far as Skyrim you can influence Balgruuf, the entirety of the Dark Brotherhood, Delphine, Cicero, a few Companions, Sinding, Volkihar vs. Dawnguard, Madanach

  This is what you consider influencing? How can you Influence Balgruuf? Either way, he joins Empire. Dark Brotherhood? All you do is follow the questline, there are absolutely no choices there, except for Cicero and that´s the oldest and poorest choice of all: Kill or let live. And when you let him live, he´s your follower suddenly. That choice would have bite you in the arse in Witcher.

  Companions? That you cure them of their curse? Why should I when they actually aren´t acting like werewolves in the game? Do they change in the middle of the fight? Blah.

  Sinding is actually quite good quest, but frankly, it´s just another Kill or let live. Madanach the same, no consequences. You´ll allowed into the city again, Madanach is loose on the Reach but nothing has changed. Nothing.

  Volkihar vs Dawnguard. Like if that choice actually mattered. You either want to be pals with vampires or with vampire hunters. It´s classic Gothic 1 choice, where it doesn´t matter wich faction you chose. In the end, you will end where the game wants you.

  Frankly, all these "influence options" you mentioned...I didn´t give a shit about them. I didn´t think about them, because I knew there won´t be now consequences. Witcher is different in that. Your choices will eventually haunt you.

• Chris

  

  • 1441 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 1:48 AM EST

  Like with Telltale, or Life is Strange

• Karver the Lorc

  

  • 649 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 1:56 AM EST

  Yeah. But if you wanted to say that you have a feeling that your character in Skyrim is more important, than I agree with that. In the end, you´re yet another prophesized hero that has to save the world and do million of extra ordinary things.

  Geralt is merely a simple Witcher, after all.

• Chris

  

  • 1441 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 2:06 AM EST

  Who happens to have a hand in saving the world. In Oblivion, you're the Lancelot to Martin's Arthur

• Karver the Lorc

  

  • 649 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 2:15 AM EST

  True, that´s why I like Oblivion somewhat more, but still, it doesn´t change the fact that without you, Martin would be useless, Blades would be useless and other things. But now we entered the land of details.

• Idesto

  

  • 394 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 5:31 AM EST

  I got into Civ 3 for a while after coming back from overseas: I used to love Civ 2. I seem to have now played it to death - I'll no doubt return. More recently I;ve been playing Fable 3, believe it or not. That's mostly because it's undemanding in terms of both energy & brainpower; also I love its sense of humour. It's British, damnit!

  I'm playing Skyrim again right now, but I have a lot less spare time available.

  As for other interests: music is the main one; mainly listening, but I also love singing. I play a little piano too but unfortunately I don't have a keyboard at the moment.  I enjoy TV as well: sci-fi, fantasy, sports, comedy, music & some drama. 

  Writing & reading, obviously. 

  I've actually been going out a lot this year: there's a good pub music scene here, & I've joined a choir!

  You? 

• Overhate

  

  • 288 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 5:33 AM EST

  Civ=Sid Meier's Civilization?

  Somehow I've only played the odd numbers from this series - 1, 3 and 5

• Idesto

  

  • 394 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 5:58 AM EST

  Yes. Civ 2 is probably the game I've spent most hours playing, at least along with Skyrim: amazing game, especially for its time. Civ 3 is a great update. I think I need a second screen for IV for micro-management, & I don't like the look of V.

• Gollum

  

  • 558 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 5:14 PM EST

  When I mentioned the Dark Brotherhood I meant killing it off or keeping it alive. And for some reason I thought that Balgruuf always chose the opposite side of you in the civil war.

  I have yet to have a choice in the Witcher haunt me. Maybe "eventually" is a key word on your sentence, because I have yet to even finish the game. Triss feeling bad after flaming that guy's ballsack for thirty seconds longer doesn't do much for me.

  I have also seen some "false" choice in TW3, as well. You have to fight the Bloody Baron's miscarried child no matter what option you pick.

  Would you consider that Greybeard dining room, dinner table, political debate quest "influencing"?

• Karver the Lorc

  

  • 649 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 5:16 PM EST

  Fight the child? Actually, no. You either fight the child or you fight the Shades when you´re escorting Baron and the child to his treshold.

• Gollum

  

  • 558 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 5:20 PM EST

  Must be a glitch then. When I tried to take the child up the hill it transformed while I was fighting shades.

  And when I chose the other option I had to fight both the botchling and the shades again.

• Chris

  

  • 1441 posts
   

  January 20, 2016 5:31 PM EST

  Also, in the later parts of his quests, The Baron's fate depends on the outcome of the last quest