Skyrim Vs Witcher 3

Zap! Woo hoo! High score! Computers, Consoles, and everything electronic.

Moderators: Cagliostro, lucimay, Creator, Sorus

Post Reply

Witcher 3 or Skyrim

Witcher 3
1
25%
Skyrim
3
75%
 
Total votes: 4

User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11545
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 6 times

Skyrim Vs Witcher 3

Post by peter »

I've completed Skyrim and half completed the Witcher 3, so now feel somewhat ready to make a comparison between the two. In brief, while the Witcher is unquestionably superior in terms of it's use of cut scenes, dialogue choices and the 'realistic' rendering of it's central character (the dovakihn was undeniably flat when compared to the roundness of Geralt with his quirky ironic sense of humour and undeniable goodness) and landscape, I think it fails in other areas where Skyrim suceeds. For all of its size and number of available quests, Skyrim seemed to keep the thing manageable in a way that the Witcher does not. In the Witcher one is simply overwhelmed as secondary quest is heaped upon Witcher contract upon treasure hunt. In Skyrim there was a distinctness, a separation between the various lines that the game could go off in, that seems absent in the Witcher and leads the experience, after the initial learning curve of getting Geralt up to speed level wise, to it all becoming a bit generic.

Now in fairness Skyrim was my first open world gaming experience and like sex, no matter how bad it was you're always going to remember it as being pretty good - but that said I still think that in terms of the gameplay Skyrim has the edge. Don't get me wrong, I love Geralt (not literally but.... ;) ) and his bawdy adventuring - but half (plus) way through, with a thousand secondary objectives that bring little progression in terms of exp etc left to complete, I'm getting a bit worn down by it. Frankly, and this is a thing that never happened in Skyrim, I'm simply getting a bit bored with it.

One problem is that I'm a completion purist. It bugs me to see those little boxes with red X's in them, to see quests left undone, to have quests failed etc. I've tried to complete each side quest as I reach the given or similar level (this maximises exp and makes for a more satisfying level of competition from the game) but it's been really difficult - I pick up loads of quests either way above my level or down below it - and it's taking forever. I imagine I've played hundreds of hours already - twelve plus weeks at an average of say two a day - and I'm not taking forever to do each quest, but I'm simply seeming to add more and more quests as I complete the ones I already have. In consequence I'm not getting through the main story at a satisfactory rate. In Skyrim there seemed to be more balance achieved between main and side quest activity, though looking back I do now remember that I did indeed complete the main quest significantly before completing all of the side quests. Perhaps this is the route I should take now with the Witcher. I'll think about it and let you know how I've decided to proceed!

:D
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61711
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post by Avatar »

Skyrim gets my vote.

Although your character in Skyrim was a bit flat, that's also almost the point. You are supposed to flesh them out as it were. There's no expectation.

Geralt on the other hand is a fully developed and realised character. You can't not be Geralt.

And that forces you into a certain mould which Skyrim doesn't do.

Luckily, I'm not a completionist. :D

(Have you played Fallout: New Vegas yet? Now that I hold up as comparable to Skyrim.)

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11545
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by peter »

No but I really do fancy it Av! :D (And I go all quivery just seeing you equate it with Skyrim!!! Like Homer Simpson with donuts :lol: )

But isn't it principally an online multiplayer game? I'm simply not good enough a player to take part in any teamwork dependant activity (plus my internet connection sucks at the best of times). I played Fallout 4 just briefly when I first got my PS4, but I had so many games tempting me away that after my first brief foray I moved on to something else, intending to return in due course. In fact, I'd intended to restart it before long, but maybe you think New Vegas is superior? Interested to hear your thoughts!

:)
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61711
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post by Avatar »

New Vegas is definitely superior. It's the one before Fallout 4.

(The online multi-player thing is Fallout 76. I don't do online multi-player. I don't play well with others. :D )

You can get the GOTY edition of FO:NV for a song these days, which I recommend doing. All the add-ons makes it huge.

The only two gameplay elements that are "worse" compared to Skyrim:

Levelling up is done in the "old school" way...you get XP, then you get a certain number of points that you can put into skills and perks. No "levelling by doing" that I so loved in Skyrim.

And you can't carry on playing when you've finished the main storyline. Once you complete the final mission, the game is over.

Other than that, it's great. Highly recommended.

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11545
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by peter »

Yes - realised after I posted Av that I was confusing the two and was just coming back to correct it. Yeah, I've heard great things in the past about Fallout New Vegas. Have you played Fallout 4 Av? you're whetting my appetite for New Vegas, but it might be tricky for me to play. My set up is now PS4, and while I do still have an Xbox 360, I'm so PS4 orientated that if F4 is of a similar calibre I'd probably go with that [having said that, it sounds to me like you are firmly in the FNV camp and this is impressive enough if set against a knowledge of Skyrim alone; if you have also played F4 and still majorly rate FNV as the better option - then frankly it's a done deal - out comes the old Xbox 360! :lol: ].
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61711
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post by Avatar »

Hahaha, if you'd just gone with the PC...

Yes, I've played (and completed) Fallout 4, and to be honest, was a bit underwhelmed.

They dumbed it down a lot. Removed some core features, changed others.

I haven't even picked up the expansions for it, one of which is allegedly an improvement on the original. Will wait until they're seriously discounted.

If you have to pick just one, FO:NV is unquestionably better.

The only advantage of FO4 is the base building (some people have built incredible bases) but because I play on a PC, I just add some Player house mods to NV. (Not sure if that would be available on PS or Xbox for a a game so "old."

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11545
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by peter »

Actually the base building was proving quite problematic for me; I couldn't seem to get how it was done! No doubt I'd have grasped it in time but in the main I could probably do without it. Anyways Av - for for thought!

:D
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61711
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post by Avatar »

Haha, I wasn't a massive fan of it myself, but I also didn't try too hard. :D

--A
User avatar
Rigel
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 2096
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Albuquerque

Post by Rigel »

I had the exact opposite reaction from you; Skyrim bored me, The Witcher kept me hooked.

Skyrim is just a bit too open-ended for me. If I want to go sit in a cabin in the woods I would much rather actually go sit in a cabin in the woods. I don't care to "inhabit" an open world made by Bethesda, especially as they are so atrocious when it comes to storytelling and character development.

It's the same reason I don't play Minecraft or other such games; I want a story to pull me through it, to give me a reason to play. Just being there (which is, by and large, the point of the Elder Scrolls games) does nothing for me. Of course, I can look outside my window and see the Sandias, so maybe I'm just a bit spoiled in terms of the environment I inhabit ;)
"You make me think Hell is run like a corporation."
"It's the other way around, but yes."
Obaki, Too Much Information
Post Reply

Return to “PC & Console Games”