Is Witcher 2 Open World
The Witcher 3 has one, but so does almost every game released these days. It's a trend, and not a very good one at that, either, as more and more developers are throwing out actual good game design, and replacing it with vast open worlds and bullshit padding checklists and filler quests instead.What made The Witcher 3's open world different? Why was it so great?
Well, time for another bullet list. The size. Seriously, the size of The Witcher 3's world is seriously impressive. It's a continent sized world that can overwhelm you with its size and scope. If size is all you want with your open worlds, then The Witcher 3's open world should be it.The Witcher 3's world is vast, and even after a hundred hours in, you'll be finding something or the other that is new to explore.
The variety: The variety that The Witcher 3's world exhibits can be almost shocking- apart from a desert area, we have everything here. A densely populated urban area, like Novigrad and Oxenfurt. Tropical swamplands, like Velen. Nordic, Skyrim-esque settings with Skellige. Mountainous landscapes with Kaer Morhen. The Witcher 3's world is vast, and more importantly, it's always changing, so you are always excited to explore it. Content.
An open world is nothing without content- it's just vast tracts of land you must cross, adding needlessly to game time. The Witcher 3's open world is not like that- it is full of meaningful things to do. New areas to explore, monsters and beasts to take on, dungeons to discover, emergent quests that show up as you play, points of discovery and areas of interest, scripted quests, and more- and the best part is just how high quality it all is. Quality of content. The quality of content matters almost more than the quantity. Having a game full of Ubisoft-esque checklists isn't fun, it's a chore. The Witcher sidesteps this by filling up its massive world with actual, meaningful content that all feels like it amounts to something.
This cannot be overstated- CD Projekt RED have gone out of their way to ensure that the world of The Witcher 3 feels believable. They have pulled out all stops. The writing and structure of a single quest in Witcher 3 is probably better than the standard of writing for the main quest in an average video game. Compared to the competition in the genre, which is Bethesda, Witcher's writing can come as such an enormous step up, you may find Bethesda games ruined for you forever.
World building. As I said before, CD Projekt RED have gone all out to make their world believable. Nah, Skyrim is still a better open world. Witcher 3's side quests get predictable. There isn't much running into random things in the open world, pretty much every side quest can be found on a notice board first. The treasure hunting becomes super useless really fast unless you're looking for Witcher gear. There isn't nearly as much to interact with like with skyrim.Also, the npc chatter and actions are fucking horrible.
Its not really any different than what the older asscreed games did. There are tons of nameless npc clones wandering the streets doing nothing and the 'sound' of the city is just as bad as previous Witcher games where there is a noticeable loop.It has no emergent game play. You'll never travel to a major city or town and see it getting attacked by a dragon while some npcs fight it and others run for cover.
I never even saw monsters fight each other in the open world like they do in skyrim.Bethesda games have so many more systems and their games are so much more ambitious than any other open world games. Yea, Witcher 3 did it's best to imitate Skyrim but it failed in a lot not ways. On a technical level the open world is a marvel.
No loading screens except when you travel between continents is impressive considering how large the maps are and how incredible the visuals are. But the open world isn't well-designed if you value exploration; it doesn't feel like you can just set out and do random shit and have fun doing random shit. Your goal here isn't to live out whatever fantasy you want-it's to roleplay as Geralt and complete quests. So like you said, The Witcher 3 is just an RPG set in a large open-world rather than a true open-world game with RPG mechanics. It's not Skyrim with decent gameplay and a good story. Bethesda and Rockstar do open-worlds better because their games allow you to do almost anything you want and create the stories you want to create.
There is emergent gameplay in Skyrim and GTA V; there isn't in The Witcher 3.Of course, that doesn't mean The Witcher 3 is a bad game, or that it plays second-fiddle to Skyrim as an RPG; it's undoubtedly one of the best RPGs ever made. But it's not a shining example of what open worlds should be unless you somehow think player freedom isn't important. And just when you thought CDPR couldn’t get any better, your standard physical copy is the equivalent of what eidos/square enix would sell to you as a limited edition yet you get Witcher 3 for the price of a standard edition.
To be even more perfect then they already are they also include a wholehearted note thanking fans. In addition they also release DLC which is worthwhile. Hearts of Stone for $9 alone has more content than all Destiny and all of its shitty DLC.
Man I really hope Bioware can learn from CDPR, make a good game. There are thousands of reasons why The Witcher 3 is the best but let me summarise it below. Everything OP has mentioned, though he doesn’t even scratch the surface for the sheer joy you’ll experience from the game. The physical edition is actually worth it. Devs are humble and respect their fans. No DRM. Romance options are actually good.
Bioware needs to take a page from CDPR, make female characters hot and stop forcing the gay romance crap down our throats. I haven’t played Fallout 4 but I heard from all my friends that are playing it there are gay romance and you can even get with a robot. WTF?!?. This is one of the most important points, they were criticized for not having enough Triss content, instead of making a DLC and making you pay for it (I’m looking right at Bioware), they just put it in a patch. HAS ANY OTHER DEVELOPER BEEN THIS GOOD? I DIDN’T THINK SOCan The Witcher 3 be better than it already is? Sure, they could start by delivering the initial E3 graphics for the PC version, making the ending a cinematic ending like MGS4 instead of slideshows but that’s about it.
The thing is Witcher 3 has proven that good graphics is nice but it isn’t everything and the ending is nonetheless satisfying. The depression you suffer at the end of Witcher 3 because you don’t want to ever leave the universe doesn’t count;-)If you haven’t played The Witcher 3, boy you are missing outI didn’t have a gaming desktop until end of last year, I knew I needed one because I wanted to enjoy The Witcher 3 to the fullest.
I bought a PS3 just for Uncharted 2 and The Last of Us, a PS4 just for Uncharted 4 and I’m not ashamed even if The Witcher 3 is the only game I play on my desktop. Nah, Skyrim is still a better open world. Witcher 3's side quests get predictable.
There isn't much running into random things in the open world, pretty much every side quest can be found on a notice board first. The treasure hunting becomes super useless really fast unless you're looking for Witcher gear. There isn't nearly as much to interact with like with skyrim.Also, the npc chatter and actions are fucking horrible. Its not really any different than what the older asscreed games did. There are tons of nameless npc clones wandering the streets doing nothing and the 'sound' of the city is just as bad as previous Witcher games where there is a noticeable loop.It has no emergent game play. You'll never travel to a major city or town and see it getting attacked by a dragon while some npcs fight it and others run for cover. I never even saw monsters fight each other in the open world like they do in skyrim.Bethesda games have so many more systems and their games are so much more ambitious than any other open world games.
Yea, Witcher 3 did it's best to imitate Skyrim but it failed in a lot not ways.Bethesda games also have shit writing, shit characters, and shit mechanics. These things are also vital at building worlds.If any Bethesda game had good emergent gameplay, its Fallout New Vegas.oh wait, that's Obsidian.Monsters and men fight eachother in TW3.
What are you smoking? There are also many quests picked up running around the open world. You can bag like 10 quests roaming Novigrad. There is even quests that are found on small isles in Skellige.Witcher 3 quests are known for their unpredictability.more so than Bethesda. Nah, Skyrim is still a better open world. Witcher 3's side quests get predictable.
There isn't much running into random things in the open world, pretty much every side quest can be found on a notice board first. The treasure hunting becomes super useless really fast unless you're looking for Witcher gear. There isn't nearly as much to interact with like with skyrim.Also, the npc chatter and actions are fucking horrible. Its not really any different than what the older asscreed games did. There are tons of nameless npc clones wandering the streets doing nothing and the 'sound' of the city is just as bad as previous Witcher games where there is a noticeable loop.It has no emergent game play. You'll never travel to a major city or town and see it getting attacked by a dragon while some npcs fight it and others run for cover.
I never even saw monsters fight each other in the open world like they do in skyrim.Bethesda games have so many more systems and their games are so much more ambitious than any other open world games. Yea, Witcher 3 did it's best to imitate Skyrim but it failed in a lot not ways.NO.Imitate?Skyrim has lore. That's the only thing that puts it above The Witcher 3. And it absolutely smashes The Witcher 3's face in when it comes to Lore. Nah, Skyrim is still a better open world. Witcher 3's side quests get predictable. There isn't much running into random things in the open world, pretty much every side quest can be found on a notice board first.
The treasure hunting becomes super useless really fast unless you're looking for Witcher gear. There isn't nearly as much to interact with like with skyrim.Also, the npc chatter and actions are fucking horrible. Its not really any different than what the older asscreed games did. There are tons of nameless npc clones wandering the streets doing nothing and the 'sound' of the city is just as bad as previous Witcher games where there is a noticeable loop.It has no emergent game play.
You'll never travel to a major city or town and see it getting attacked by a dragon while some npcs fight it and others run for cover. I never even saw monsters fight each other in the open world like they do in skyrim.Bethesda games have so many more systems and their games are so much more ambitious than any other open world games. Yea, Witcher 3 did it's best to imitate Skyrim but it failed in a lot not ways.NO.Imitate?Skyrim has lore. That's the only thing that puts it above The Witcher 3. And it absolutely smashes The Witcher 3's face in when it comes to Lore.WrongThe Witcher is a novel series and its lore more than puts Skyrim to shame. Nah, Skyrim is still a better open world. Witcher 3's side quests get predictable.
There isn't much running into random things in the open world, pretty much every side quest can be found on a notice board first. The treasure hunting becomes super useless really fast unless you're looking for Witcher gear. There isn't nearly as much to interact with like with skyrim.Also, the npc chatter and actions are fucking horrible.
Its not really any different than what the older asscreed games did. There are tons of nameless npc clones wandering the streets doing nothing and the 'sound' of the city is just as bad as previous Witcher games where there is a noticeable loop.It has no emergent game play. You'll never travel to a major city or town and see it getting attacked by a dragon while some npcs fight it and others run for cover. I never even saw monsters fight each other in the open world like they do in skyrim.Bethesda games have so many more systems and their games are so much more ambitious than any other open world games. Yea, Witcher 3 did it's best to imitate Skyrim but it failed in a lot not ways.NO.Imitate?Skyrim has lore.
That's the only thing that puts it above The Witcher 3. And it absolutely smashes The Witcher 3's face in when it comes to Lore.WrongThe Witcher is a novel series and its lore more than puts Skyrim to shame.DO you think I don't know??Go check the TES lore.Then be quiet afterwards.Shame on you. Can't believe you said The Witcher 3 has more lore than TES.
It's too big and that's why I couldn't get into it. Most open world games have a hard time sucking me in immediately and if I'm not immersed/invested in the world they created within the first 5-7 hours, then I'm pretty much done with the game.
With Witcher 3 it was a combination of being overwhelmed by how much different shit there is to do, boring characters/dialog, a story that starts off way too slow, a combat system that isn't all that satisfying, and worst of all the main protagonist you are forced to play as seems so disinterested in everything that is going on almost like he hates himself for existing in the world. Nah, Skyrim is still a better open world. Witcher 3's side quests get predictable. There isn't much running into random things in the open world, pretty much every side quest can be found on a notice board first. The treasure hunting becomes super useless really fast unless you're looking for Witcher gear. There isn't nearly as much to interact with like with skyrim.Also, the npc chatter and actions are fucking horrible.
Its not really any different than what the older asscreed games did. There are tons of nameless npc clones wandering the streets doing nothing and the 'sound' of the city is just as bad as previous Witcher games where there is a noticeable loop.It has no emergent game play. You'll never travel to a major city or town and see it getting attacked by a dragon while some npcs fight it and others run for cover. I never even saw monsters fight each other in the open world like they do in skyrim.Bethesda games have so many more systems and their games are so much more ambitious than any other open world games. Yea, Witcher 3 did it's best to imitate Skyrim but it failed in a lot not ways.NO.Imitate?Skyrim has lore. That's the only thing that puts it above The Witcher 3.
And it absolutely smashes The Witcher 3's face in when it comes to Lore.WrongThe Witcher is a novel series and its lore more than puts Skyrim to shame.DO you think I don't know??Go check the TES lore.Then be quiet afterwards.Shame on you. Can't believe you said The Witcher 3 has more lore than TES.The Witcher has BETTER lore, lets put it that way.Its not random setting shit, it builds the thematic nature of its universe. TES does not do that. Nah, Skyrim is still a better open world. Witcher 3's side quests get predictable.
There isn't much running into random things in the open world, pretty much every side quest can be found on a notice board first. The treasure hunting becomes super useless really fast unless you're looking for Witcher gear.
There isn't nearly as much to interact with like with skyrim.Also, the npc chatter and actions are fucking horrible. Its not really any different than what the older asscreed games did. There are tons of nameless npc clones wandering the streets doing nothing and the 'sound' of the city is just as bad as previous Witcher games where there is a noticeable loop.It has no emergent game play. You'll never travel to a major city or town and see it getting attacked by a dragon while some npcs fight it and others run for cover. I never even saw monsters fight each other in the open world like they do in skyrim.Bethesda games have so many more systems and their games are so much more ambitious than any other open world games.
Yea, Witcher 3 did it's best to imitate Skyrim but it failed in a lot not ways.NO.Imitate?Skyrim has lore. That's the only thing that puts it above The Witcher 3. And it absolutely smashes The Witcher 3's face in when it comes to Lore.WrongThe Witcher is a novel series and its lore more than puts Skyrim to shame.DO you think I don't know??Go check the TES lore.Then be quiet afterwards.Shame on you. Can't believe you said The Witcher 3 has more lore than TES.The Witcher has BETTER lore, lets put it that way.Its not random setting shit, it builds the thematic nature of its universe.
TES does not do that.What are you saying?Better lore. How?Lore is a thematic build up of any universe.TES lore has been building up since the late 90s. It's extremely interconnected.It's so much richer than The Witcher 3. Simply because it has more. There is no such thing as better lore. And it's not random setting.This proves that you don't know at all.Skyrim held artifacts, daedric princes, aedric gods and so much more.
That you can read about in the previous games and that have recorded lore that date ages back in the TES history. It's ridiculously rich.too the point where it's funny to read your comment.Whenever you explore the dwemer ruins you are busy with a part of the lore that already played out in one of the first games of the series. You are left with an entire race's ruins that vanished off the face of Tamriel.and if you read the lore.exploring those ruins will have more actual meaning and impact.This isn't a competition here. Go read some of the lore. I'd recommend you read it if you like lore aspects of gaming.
It's probably one of the best you'll get in gaming.The Witcher 3 is a brilliant game don't get me wrong. It's story is so much more intriguing than Skyrim's without a doubt. I play The Witcher 3 for it's story. I play Skyrim for it's lore and how it stacks a bunch of more stories on to that foundation making it richer.Very different focuses here. @charizard1605: I mean that it's not as believable as GTAV. Gtav feels like a real world. There is a wide variety of Npcs with different dialogue and animations.
Its not just filled with 'shady person #8' who just walks around novigrad all day like every other shady person that looks just like him. Even the radio station that's playing when you Jack someone is often fitting to that type of person.
There is a stupid amount of detail in every inch of gtav that most people won't ever even notice. Something the witcher lacks.
Witchers world feels like a video game world, it doesn't feel real or lived in like gtav and skyrim. @charizard1605: I mean that it's not as believable as GTAV.
Gtav feels like a real world. There is a wide variety of Npcs with different dialogue and animations. Its not just filled with 'shady person #8' who just walks around novigrad all day like every other shady person that looks just like him. Even the radio station that's playing when you Jack someone is often fitting to that type of person.
There is a stupid amount of detail in every inch of gtav that most people won't ever even notice. Something the witcher lacks.
Witchers world feels like a video game world, it doesn't feel real or lived in like gtav and skyrimBe quiet. You're doing this wrong.Witcher's open world is perfectly fine. GTA V shouldn't have been mentioned here. Witcher has a history as a foundation. Does Los Santos have a history foundation?
In that case The Witcher 3 felt way more real. The Witcher 3 has novels.
The Witcher 3 beats the crap out of both Skyrim and GTA V when it comes to open worlds.Talking about 'feeling more real'. On a technical level the open world is a marvel. No loading screens except when you travel between continents is impressive considering how large the maps are and how incredible the visuals are.
But the open world isn't well-designed if you value exploration; it doesn't feel like you can just set out and do random shit and have fun doing random shit. Your goal here isn't to live out whatever fantasy you want-it's to roleplay as Geralt and complete quests. So like you said, The Witcher 3 is just an RPG set in a large open-world rather than a true open-world game with RPG mechanics. It's not Skyrim with decent gameplay and a good story. Bethesda and Rockstar do open-worlds better because their games allow you to do almost anything you want and create the stories you want to create.
There is emergent gameplay in Skyrim and GTA V; there isn't in The Witcher 3.Of course, that doesn't mean The Witcher 3 is a bad game, or that it plays second-fiddle to Skyrim as an RPG; it's undoubtedly one of the best RPGs ever made. But it's not a shining example of what open worlds should be unless you somehow think player freedom isn't important.I want to throw two things into the discussion as response:a) The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay. As an example, I am on horseback between towns or whatever, and I am attacked by a griffin or a basilisk.
Unscripted moment, and I take it down without any preparation that goes with a quest or a monster contract. The point here is, The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay, and it is great- it is just not the central attraction like it would be in Skyrim.b) Emergent gameplay itself is not necessary for a good open world game- that would be a sandbox. An open world is just that, an open world, and while it can have some possibilities for emergent gameplay, the two do not always go together.
For instance, consider, well, the vast majority of open world games on the market- Assassin's Creed, Mad Max, Batman, Shadow of Mordor, Watch Dogs- and notice how they are not about emergent gameplay, but undoubtedly open world.Emergent gameplay is more of a sandbox trend (and Bethesda games tend towards being sandboxes more than anything else). The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay, and I would argue it has enough to be a good open world game- I will also gladly concede it does not rival a true sandbox in that regard.NO.Imitate?Skyrim has lore. That's the only thing that puts it above The Witcher 3. And it absolutely smashes The Witcher 3's face in when it comes to Lore.WrongThe Witcher is a novel series and its lore more than puts Skyrim to shame.DO you think I don't know??Go check the TES lore.Then be quiet afterwards.Shame on you. Can't believe you said The Witcher 3 has more lore than TES.The Witcher has BETTER lore, lets put it that way.Its not random setting shit, it builds the thematic nature of its universe.
TES does not do that.What are you saying?Better lore. How?Lore is a thematic build up of any universe.TES lore has been building up since the late 90s. It's extremely interconnected.It's so much richer than The Witcher 3. Simply because it has more. There is no such thing as better lore. And it's not random setting.This proves that you don't know at all.Skyrim held artifacts, daedric princes, aedric gods and so much more. That you can read about in the previous games and that have recorded lore that date ages back in the TES history.
It's ridiculously rich.too the point where it's funny to read your comment.Whenever you explore the dwemer ruins you are busy with a part of the lore that already played out in one of the first games of the series. You are left with an entire race's ruins that vanished off the face of Tamriel.and if you read the lore.exploring those ruins will have more actual meaning and impact.This isn't a competition here. Go read some of the lore. I'd recommend you read it if you like lore aspects of gaming.
It's probably one of the best you'll get in gaming.The Witcher 3 is a brilliant game don't get me wrong. It's story is so much more intriguing than Skyrim's without a doubt. I play The Witcher 3 for it's story. I play Skyrim for it's lore and how it stacks a bunch of more stories on to that foundation making it richer.Very different focuses here.Just because it has more doesn't mean its better.
In fact TES lore is quite broad. TW lore is focused. That's the difference.TW lore serves its story much better than TES's does. WrongThe Witcher is a novel series and its lore more than puts Skyrim to shame.DO you think I don't know??Go check the TES lore.Then be quiet afterwards.Shame on you. Can't believe you said The Witcher 3 has more lore than TES.The Witcher has BETTER lore, lets put it that way.Its not random setting shit, it builds the thematic nature of its universe. TES does not do that.What are you saying?Better lore. How?Lore is a thematic build up of any universe.TES lore has been building up since the late 90s.
It's extremely interconnected.It's so much richer than The Witcher 3. Simply because it has more. There is no such thing as better lore. And it's not random setting.This proves that you don't know at all.Skyrim held artifacts, daedric princes, aedric gods and so much more.
That you can read about in the previous games and that have recorded lore that date ages back in the TES history. It's ridiculously rich.too the point where it's funny to read your comment.Whenever you explore the dwemer ruins you are busy with a part of the lore that already played out in one of the first games of the series. You are left with an entire race's ruins that vanished off the face of Tamriel.and if you read the lore.exploring those ruins will have more actual meaning and impact.This isn't a competition here. Go read some of the lore.
I'd recommend you read it if you like lore aspects of gaming. It's probably one of the best you'll get in gaming.The Witcher 3 is a brilliant game don't get me wrong. It's story is so much more intriguing than Skyrim's without a doubt.
I play The Witcher 3 for it's story. I play Skyrim for it's lore and how it stacks a bunch of more stories on to that foundation making it richer.Very different focuses here.Just because it has more doesn't mean its better. In fact TES lore is quite broad.
TW lore is focused. That's the difference.TW lore serves its story much better than TES's does.I disagree. TES has a much broader story to begin with, while The Witcher's is more focused.
Both series have lore that serve their stories equally well. No it is not.What a compelling argument. I live for ones like this.Don't need a compelling argument. This is my opinion and even i spent a week writing a big opinion piece, it wont change yours, so really CBA.I played witcher 3, its good, but not all that.
Its not very immersive, i honestly enjoyed witcher 2 more.the NPC's in witcher 3's world certainly dont do it any favours.Skyrims world is way more interesting for me and like mems said, you have dragons randomly attacking towns and cities etc. Cant beat that. On a technical level the open world is a marvel. No loading screens except when you travel between continents is impressive considering how large the maps are and how incredible the visuals are.
But the open world isn't well-designed if you value exploration; it doesn't feel like you can just set out and do random shit and have fun doing random shit. Your goal here isn't to live out whatever fantasy you want-it's to roleplay as Geralt and complete quests. So like you said, The Witcher 3 is just an RPG set in a large open-world rather than a true open-world game with RPG mechanics. It's not Skyrim with decent gameplay and a good story. Bethesda and Rockstar do open-worlds better because their games allow you to do almost anything you want and create the stories you want to create.
There is emergent gameplay in Skyrim and GTA V; there isn't in The Witcher 3.Of course, that doesn't mean The Witcher 3 is a bad game, or that it plays second-fiddle to Skyrim as an RPG; it's undoubtedly one of the best RPGs ever made. But it's not a shining example of what open worlds should be unless you somehow think player freedom isn't important.I want to throw two things into the discussion as response:a) The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay. As an example, I am on horseback between towns or whatever, and I am attacked by a griffin or a basilisk.
Unscripted moment, and I take it down without any preparation that goes with a quest or a monster contract. The point here is, The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay, and it is great- it is just not the central attraction like it would be in Skyrim.b) Emergent gameplay itself is not necessary for a good open world game- that would be a sandbox.
An open world is just that, an open world, and while it can have some possibilities for emergent gameplay, the two do not always go together. For instance, consider, well, the vast majority of open world games on the market- Assassin's Creed, Mad Max, Batman, Shadow of Mordor, Watch Dogs- and notice how they are not about emergent gameplay, but undoubtedly open world.Emergent gameplay is more of a sandbox trend (and Bethesda games tend towards being sandboxes more than anything else). The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay, and I would argue it has enough to be a good open world game- I will also gladly concede it does not rival a true sandbox in that regard.Anyone that tries to put Skyrim's combat, 'emergent' gameplay, storytelling etc.against The Witcher 3 will lose. There's absolutely no way Skyrim is better in any of those.
The only thing that Skyrim beats The Witcher 3 at is lore.Bethesda is lazy. CD Project Red is not. Or if you want to say Bethesda isn't lazy then CD project will always put in more effort than Bethesda. @acp45: I disagree. Id put the witcher's open world a step above the 2nd assassins creed game and brotherhood. Sure, it's big and there lots of people moving around but it's a video game world.
Oh here's the quest board, here are the obvious spots for treasure, etc.Gtav fails as a video game. Outside of the main mission and side missions there isn't much to do but the world rock star built is incredible and that's what this thread is about.Its the randomness that makes these worlds great and believable. You can wander skyrim and see a giant randomly fighting a dragon or Suddenly you get attacked and find a note saying you've been marked for death for killing a dude.If we're just talking about the worlds these devs created and not the video game then Witcher 3 is nowhere near the top. On a technical level the open world is a marvel. No loading screens except when you travel between continents is impressive considering how large the maps are and how incredible the visuals are. But the open world isn't well-designed if you value exploration; it doesn't feel like you can just set out and do random shit and have fun doing random shit.
Your goal here isn't to live out whatever fantasy you want-it's to roleplay as Geralt and complete quests. So like you said, The Witcher 3 is just an RPG set in a large open-world rather than a true open-world game with RPG mechanics. It's not Skyrim with decent gameplay and a good story. Bethesda and Rockstar do open-worlds better because their games allow you to do almost anything you want and create the stories you want to create. There is emergent gameplay in Skyrim and GTA V; there isn't in The Witcher 3.Of course, that doesn't mean The Witcher 3 is a bad game, or that it plays second-fiddle to Skyrim as an RPG; it's undoubtedly one of the best RPGs ever made.
But it's not a shining example of what open worlds should be unless you somehow think player freedom isn't important.I want to throw two things into the discussion as response:a) The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay. As an example, I am on horseback between towns or whatever, and I am attacked by a griffin or a basilisk. Unscripted moment, and I take it down without any preparation that goes with a quest or a monster contract. The point here is, The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay, and it is great- it is just not the central attraction like it would be in Skyrim.b) Emergent gameplay itself is not necessary for a good open world game- that would be a sandbox. An open world is just that, an open world, and while it can have some possibilities for emergent gameplay, the two do not always go together. For instance, consider, well, the vast majority of open world games on the market- Assassin's Creed, Mad Max, Batman, Shadow of Mordor, Watch Dogs- and notice how they are not about emergent gameplay, but undoubtedly open world.Emergent gameplay is more of a sandbox trend (and Bethesda games tend towards being sandboxes more than anything else). The Witcher 3 does have emergent gameplay, and I would argue it has enough to be a good open world game- I will also gladly concede it does not rival a true sandbox in that regard.Anyone that tries to put Skyrim's combat, 'emergent' gameplay, storytelling etc.against The Witcher 3 will lose.
There's absolutely no way Skyrim is better in any of those. The only thing that Skyrim beats The Witcher 3 at is lore.Bethesda is lazy.
CD Project Red is not. Or if you want to say Bethesda isn't lazy then CD project will always put in more effort than Bethesda.I think Skyrim does win in three areas against Witcher 3:. The sandbox- it is simply far better a sandbox than The Witcher provides. Emergent gameplay- this is a thing that Skyrim is better at.
Witcher has emergent gameplay, sure, but having random dragons show up, giants intervene, and then escaping with mammoths hot on your trail is an experience that The Witcher simply cannot hope to provide. The music- Skyrim's music runs circles around The Witcher's soundtrack.
WrongThe Witcher is a novel series and its lore more than puts Skyrim to shame.DO you think I don't know??Go check the TES lore.Then be quiet afterwards.Shame on you. Can't believe you said The Witcher 3 has more lore than TES.The Witcher has BETTER lore, lets put it that way.Its not random setting shit, it builds the thematic nature of its universe.
TES does not do that.What are you saying?Better lore. How?Lore is a thematic build up of any universe.TES lore has been building up since the late 90s. It's extremely interconnected.It's so much richer than The Witcher 3. Simply because it has more. There is no such thing as better lore. And it's not random setting.This proves that you don't know at all.Skyrim held artifacts, daedric princes, aedric gods and so much more.
That you can read about in the previous games and that have recorded lore that date ages back in the TES history. It's ridiculously rich.too the point where it's funny to read your comment.Whenever you explore the dwemer ruins you are busy with a part of the lore that already played out in one of the first games of the series.
You are left with an entire race's ruins that vanished off the face of Tamriel.and if you read the lore.exploring those ruins will have more actual meaning and impact.This isn't a competition here. Go read some of the lore. I'd recommend you read it if you like lore aspects of gaming. It's probably one of the best you'll get in gaming.The Witcher 3 is a brilliant game don't get me wrong.
It's story is so much more intriguing than Skyrim's without a doubt. I play The Witcher 3 for it's story. I play Skyrim for it's lore and how it stacks a bunch of more stories on to that foundation making it richer.Very different focuses here.Just because it has more doesn't mean its better. In fact TES lore is quite broad. TW lore is focused. That's the difference.TW lore serves its story much better than TES's does.TES lore is broad as it is focused.
Look I don't want to argue with you about why TES's lore beats TW's. Just go read the damn stuff. You're just spouting a bunch of nonsense now.TW lore doesn't serve it's story well at all.
The Witcher 3's story is self maintained and would do absolutely fine without any lore at all.The Witcher 3 never had a focus on it's lore. You're comparing a some pretty ridiculously outscaled things here. Go read TES lore to an idea.
DO you think I don't know??Go check the TES lore.Then be quiet afterwards.Shame on you. Can't believe you said The Witcher 3 has more lore than TES.The Witcher has BETTER lore, lets put it that way.Its not random setting shit, it builds the thematic nature of its universe. TES does not do that.What are you saying?Better lore. How?Lore is a thematic build up of any universe.TES lore has been building up since the late 90s. It's extremely interconnected.It's so much richer than The Witcher 3. Simply because it has more.
There is no such thing as better lore. And it's not random setting.This proves that you don't know at all.Skyrim held artifacts, daedric princes, aedric gods and so much more. That you can read about in the previous games and that have recorded lore that date ages back in the TES history. It's ridiculously rich.too the point where it's funny to read your comment.Whenever you explore the dwemer ruins you are busy with a part of the lore that already played out in one of the first games of the series. You are left with an entire race's ruins that vanished off the face of Tamriel.and if you read the lore.exploring those ruins will have more actual meaning and impact.This isn't a competition here.
Go read some of the lore. I'd recommend you read it if you like lore aspects of gaming. It's probably one of the best you'll get in gaming.The Witcher 3 is a brilliant game don't get me wrong.
It's story is so much more intriguing than Skyrim's without a doubt. I play The Witcher 3 for it's story.
I play Skyrim for it's lore and how it stacks a bunch of more stories on to that foundation making it richer.Very different focuses here.Just because it has more doesn't mean its better. In fact TES lore is quite broad. TW lore is focused. That's the difference.TW lore serves its story much better than TES's does.TES lore is broad as it is focused.
Look I don't want to argue with you about why TES's lore beats TW's. Just go read the damn stuff. You're just spouting a bunch of nonsense now.TW lore doesn't serve it's story well at all. The Witcher 3's story is self maintained and would do absolutely fine without any lore at all.The Witcher 3 never had a focus on it's lore. You're comparing a some pretty ridiculously outscaled things here. Go read TES lore to an idea.Eh, Witcher 3 does have the Wild Hunt and the Conjunction of Spheres as its central plot point.
That's lore, and it is directly tied to the main story. Hell yeah.Majority of those who disagree just like to do random shit, spend their time killing ppl on the streets and walk through a shallow and hollow world like Skyrim, what's the point?! TW3 gives you purpose and story, CDPR is not a lazy dev like Bethesda.to feel like you can escape to another world and feel immersed there.
That is a lot harder to do with a fixed character and story. That is entirely the reason i play videogames.not everyone needs a big drawn out story like TW3 in order to enjoy and get a lot out of the game.The witchers world is restrictive in a lot of ways that worlds like skyrim and fallout are not.
Ciri is a central character, and she's even playable in certain linear sequences.In true sprawling RPG fashion, that’s not all that The WItcher 3 is about: finding Ciri isn’t the crux of the game’s narrative. Other power struggles come into play later on, and then some other stuff happens, and then the whole world is at stake and you’re the one to save it.
It’s a fantasy RPG, after all, and while the ending is typically grandiose and heartstopping, the main thread would feel a bit rote without its minor story arcs. You won’t care so much that the world is at stake unless you’ve made the effort to learn a bit about it via sidequests. And while newcomers won’t feel punished for, they’ll miss the rewarding familiarity of old characters and references. To accommodate new players, dialogue options are sprinkled with opportunities to gain background information on plotlines involving historical events.You’ll usually have a handful of main quests in your log, as well as potentially dozens of secondary ones, as well as Witcher contracts (fully fledged, investigation-led monster-slaying jaunts), and each is complemented with cutscenes. Certain secondary quests appear to affect the main narrative proper, and CD Projekt RED has done an admirable job blurring the lines between primary and secondary. Everything in The Witcher 3 feels big: the dungeons are huge and sprawling, the decisions immeasurably consequential, the moral responsibility through the roof.Truth of the matter is that the best stories you’ll take away from The Witcher 3 are peripheral to the main narrative. This is for two reasons: while Geralt is a character that you can’t aesthetically customise to any satisfying degree (you can’t deck him out in mage gowns), you can really make him yours thanks to a nuanced and consequential dialogue system.
The second reason is more obvious: the Northern Realms is among the most lifelike, sadly beautiful and strange fantasy worlds ever committed to code, and you’ll want to pick it apart. You play a dual role as Geralt: steely, masculine protagonist on the one hand, and foolhardy, ignorant tourist on the other.The White WolfAs a Witcher, Geralt is armed with two swords and five magic abilities called Signs in addition to bombs, crossbows and other, more spoilery strategies. Combat in The Witcher 3 is simple: slash away at your foes, apply effects and buffs where necessary, roll or block to evade, and sprinkle in sign abilities where needed. These signs include a fiery blast, a telekinetic stun, an offensive shield, a mind control ability, and a static magic trap.While simple to learn, the combat system punishes mindless hacking and slashing against anything but low-level wolves and dogs. Geralt’s cumbersome gait, and your inability to break his animations, means close attention needs to be paid to most encounters.
Like the Souls series, a defensive approach is important until you’ve sussed out the weaknesses of your opponent. Some will be resistant to your fire sign, so you may be better off equipping a protective shield, and so on. Overall, it’s satisfying to exercise caution and dexterity, especially at higher difficulty settings where you can’t just meditate to replenish Geralt’s health bar.During my first playthrough I felt that levelling Geralt was excruciatingly slow, but it happens at a fast clip if you know what you’re doing, and skill points can be acquired throughout the world without grinding.
Is Witcher 2 Worth Playing
There are four main categories to sink levels into, and three have five deeper categories of their own. The problem, early on in the game, is knowing what to prioritise—especially since trees need to be equipped in one of a series of growing slots. I specialised in swordplay and Igni in the early hours (fast attacks and Geralt’s fire ability), but it’s possible to go more defensive. For example, levelling your mind control ability will influence dialogue options against non-aggressive characters. Despite being a Witcher, bandits still insist on roughing Geralt up. It doesn't end well for them.The biggest bone of contention is going to be the alchemy and crafting systems, which are incredibly detailed in The Witcher 3.
Geralt finds alchemy blueprints regularly, but happening across the ingredients required to create them is slow unless you know where to look (and you won’t). Thing is, there are hundreds of ingredients, and The Northern Realms are huge. Once you’ve found the ingredients you’ll never need to acquire them again, but when it comes to upgrading armor and weapons it’s important to have a game plan, and it’s unwise to concentrate on improving the lowly weapons you’ll find early game, which are colour coded according to their power.While there’s nothing wrong with complex crafting systems, it’s not improved by The Witcher 3’s dense and sometimes tedious user interface. There’s evidence of console-centric design in the radial menus and keybinds (number buttons can switch between signs but won’t immediately cast them as in Witcher 2), but the inventory and character menus are clearly designed with PC in mind. That said, a few more categories would help: it’s only a matter of hours before your Usable Items and Ingredients tabs are swollen to the brim, with no rhyme or reason as to how items are sorted. Overall, the PC version still feels the best.The PC advantage is obvious when it comes to combat, which benefits from a mouse and keyboard.
Due to Geralt’s syrupy movements the ability to more rapidly adjust the camera with the mouse is a saving grace, especially when the game’s lock-on system leaves a lot to be desired. It definitely locks on, but when it comes to scrolling through enemies on the battlefield it’s less than ideal. It’ll usually take a left-to-right approach, rather than a back-to-front approach, which doesn’t work well when you’ve got more than three enemies baying for your blood, and one right up in your face.Having personally played the game across two systems (a high-spec gaming laptop as well as a console build), I can confirm that fighting is much more enjoyable at 60 frames per second. It makes blocking and parrying a lot more readable against human characters, and a little bit of slowdown during evasive moves can prove an annoyance. Image 4 of 4Lay of the LandThere are two main regions in The Witcher 3: the aforementioned Velen and The Skellige Isles. There are a few smaller areas, but it’s in these main regions that the bulk of The Witcher 3 plays out.
They’re big, of course, but that’s not what matters. The Northern Realms are the most vibrant video game locations I’ve ever seen: less cartoony and more detailed than Dragon Age: Inquisition, and more naturalistic—less uncanny, less janky—than Skyrim. But that’s not hugely important either.What’s important is that when all of the Witcher 3’s environmental elements work in concert—the weather you can forecast by looking at the sky, the foliage that rustles and bends in the breeze—it’s hard not to feel something. When the sun sets it appears to melt in a sea of apocalyptic orange, and you know what?
It’s a beautiful, sad orange. The Northern Realms are engaging and lifelike, sure, but they convey melancholy unlike any other open world I’ve encountered.That melancholy extends to the people and situations Geralt encounters too.
Witchers are scorned for being mutants and sub-humans, and they’re reputed to not feel anything. The thing is that I, the player, couldn’t help being affected, and while many of the dialogue decisions I made appeared to be morally-inclined, it was sometimes hard to make decisions along those lines without feeling like I’d done something wrong. This is a dark fantasy. It’s dark and horrible and oppressive.This can be alarming. There are some obscenely vicious characters in The Witcher 3 that you’re allowed to feel sympathy for. You might not, but the option is there, and that’s perilous territory for a video game. CD Projekt RED has approached this openness with as much sensitivity as possible, but in the end, it’s hard not to cringe in dismay when you’re given the option to sympathise with a domestically violent character.There are other minor issues with CD Projekt RED’s world-building.
There are few fetch quests as such, but there are several occasions where you’ll go to talk to one character, who will advise you to go talk to another character, who will advise you to go seek out four other characters, and so on. In a 100+ hour game these moments barely make a dent, but they’re a clumsy way to present story in a narrative-driven RPG. As incentive to explore the world they don’t work, because there’s ample reason to explore anyway.Then there’s the investigation scenarios, where Geralt uses his Witcher sense to detect telltale signs in the environment.
There’s little thought needed on the player’s part, as simply finding the objects will help Geralt deduce his next move. This works especially well in Geralt’s monster contract quests, but as part of grander narratives they could benefit from a little more depth. I’d have liked to be forced to use my brain a bit more.Meanwhile, The Witcher 3 doesn’t bring much that’s bracingly new to the modern RPG. It’s a series of refinements: the questing and attention to detail is better than Skyrim, the pervasive sense of dread is thicker than Fallout 3 and the decisions more impactful than Mass Effect 2.
It relies on familiar gameplay beats to tell a story, but shows no evidence of wanting to experiment on a grander scale. I was never surprised by the game’s systems as much as I was intrigued by its setting.Beneath the SkinComparing notes with my PC Gamer colleagues, the game ran well on a variety of configurations. Using an Intel i5-2500k processor and an Nvidia GTX 980 at 2560x1440, we were able to run everything on Ultra, barring HairWorks and Foliage Visibility Range, which we ran at High. The game operated comfortably at around 50 fps in 1440p, though with HairWorks on and Foliage set to Ultra, it dipped to 25-35 fps. Meanwhile, using an i7-5960x and Nvidia Titan X, we had no problem maintaining a consistent 60 fps at 1080p.
Framerates tended to be more stable compared to another recent heavyhitter,.Overall, on a two-year-old system 60 fps should be manageable with some settings adjustments, and while the game really sings at high-to-ultra settings in 1080p, the differences between those settings tend to be subtle. On a high-end laptop I only had framerate issues in specific locations around Velen, where unusually thick foliage and water effects culminated in drops to around the 45 fps mark. Compared to the PS4’s wavering 30 fps and frequent, pre-launch slow downs, it’s a huge improvement.The still has a reputation for pushing PC graphics to the limit, and while graphics in The Witcher 3 are undoubtedly impressive, it’s not the Crysis many expected it to be. The fidelity matters less here than the scale. As storms approach, and gales rustle and bend tree branches, and as the deers run for cover, it’s hard to dispute this is a gorgeous game. The lighting and weather effects are breathtaking. It’s difficult to resist stopping to stare into the distance.
That's me, staring into the distance again.Still, on a granular scale it’s unlikely to endure as the graphical showpiece its predecessor was. You don’t have to look far to find low-quality textures. Foliage is thick and abundant, but leaves are flat 2D textures bisecting to create the illusion of 3D. Clothing still looks thick and lived-in, but not dramatically better than Witcher 2.
Facial animations and non-mocapped character animations don’t push any new boundaries and occasionally look awkward or stiff. Skin pores and facial expressions are fine, but even mocapped faces lag behind the most impressive contemporary facial animation.These aren’t criticisms so much as observations that The Witcher 3 isn’t the great leap forward some might have hoped.
Designing open worlds like this doesn’t come without compromises. It’s disappointing that it doesn’t live up to the potential showcased in the first trailers, but we can only enjoy what’s in front of us for what it is.It’s the storytelling and art direction that impresses more than the raw details, and these are the reasons The Witcher 3 consumed me. I felt more engaged with the Northern Realms than I ever did Skyrim, and even as the narrative advanced and tension mounted—and even when I felt I knew the lay of the land pretty well—I was still compelled to take it slowly and learn.For a game boasting all of the political treachery and turmoil common in the genre, The Witcher 3 succeeds because it puts people first.
More compelling than Geralt’s lofty, heroic journey are the stories about the humdrum, circumstantial horrors of the helpless as they watch their world crumble. I’m looking forward to returning to The Northern Realms and visiting all of its villages and ruins. That’s where the heart of The Witcher 3 lies: not in its hero, but in the complicated world it brings to life.