1eyedking Witcher 3 vs Fallout 4

[abija]

Take a look below:

The most experienced play-tester from CDP stated that minimum 25 hours are required to finish the main story. After the release, we found out that only the cutcenes for the main story take 13 hours.

This might indicate that 50% of the time in TW3 is spent on cutscenes and unfortunately ... this is somewhat correct.

Shit you probably know but deliberately ignored to make your point:
- most of those aren't cutscenes but dialogue
- the playtester skipped all dialogue and cutscenes
- even making abstraction of that, 50% of main story being cutscenes doesn't imply 50% of the game is cutscenes

 

[Carrion]

After the release, we found out that only the cutcenes for the main story take 13 hours.

Eh, that 13 hours also seems to include all dialogue that you'll come across during the main quest. Writing is the game's main strength, and it's not a problem if there's lots of it.

The most experienced play-tester from CDP stated that minimum 25 hours are required to finish the main story.

Fallout can be finished in ten minutes or so whereas Morrowind only takes three, so using the minimum time to estimate relations of different parts of a game maybe isn't all that fruitful.

 

[toro]

Take a look below:

The most experienced play-tester from CDP stated that minimum 25 hours are required to finish the main story. After the release, we found out that only the cutcenes for the main story take 13 hours.

This might indicate that 50% of the time in TW3 is spent on cutscenes and unfortunately ... this is somewhat correct.

Shit you probably know but deliberately ignored to make your point:
- most of those aren't cutscenes but dialogue
- the playtester skipped all dialogue and cutscenes
- even making abstraction of that, 50% of main story being cutscenes doesn't imply 50% of the game is cutscenes

True. But still, the amount of useless cutscenes is staggering: each merchant has something to say before you can buy anything, all NPCs are chatty chatty just for the sake of it and so on. Unfortunately F4 does the same shit with the merchants.

Anyway, in my opinion the time spent in dialogues/cutscenes is not gameplay. Or is it?

 

[toro]

After the release, we found out that only the cutcenes for the main story take 13 hours.

Eh, that 13 hours also seems to include all dialogue that you'll come across during the main quest. Writing is the game's main strength, and it's not a problem if there's lots of it.

Depends. Quantity != quality. The story has lows and highs. The problem is that the game forces you to swallow both regardless of your choices. For example, I would rate TW3 much higher if it wasn't for that unskipable Dandelion quest.

The most experienced play-tester from CDP stated that minimum 25 hours are required to finish the main story.

Fallout can be finished in ten minutes or so whereas Morrowind only takes three, so using the minimum time to estimate relations of different parts of a game maybe isn't all that fruitful.

Yep. My argument is flawed.

 

[Shin]

Hi my name is Shin and I just played Fable 2 for 400 hours and now I'm going to tell you that it was excruciatingly bad and I really hated it but I still played it because I'm super edgy. The story is shit, gameplay, sound effects sounds like turds, but I did like the interface. All the time while playing it I was thinking about how awesome Wizardry VII is and how Arcanum can give me a boner. Thanks for your time.

 

[Doktor Best]

I'd rather spend 13 hours walking up and down Arnika road then going through 13 hours of the Witcher's Male-Buffy's cutscenes. And I'd rather read a shitty Drizzt book before going through Sapkowski's clusterfucks he calls novels.

Yes, I know, I ain't planning a trip to Poland any time soon.

Take a look below:

The most experienced play-tester from CDP stated that minimum 25 hours are required to finish the main story. After the release, we found out that only the cutcenes for the main story take 13 hours.

This might indicate that 50% of the time in TW3 is spent on cutscenes and unfortunately ... this is somewhat correct.

Shit you probably know but deliberately ignored to make your point:
- most of those aren't cutscenes but dialogue
- the playtester skipped all dialogue and cutscenes
- even making abstraction of that, 50% of main story being cutscenes doesn't imply 50% of the game is cutscenes

True. But still, the amount of useless cutscenes is staggering: each merchant has something to say before you can buy anything, all NPCs are chatty chatty just for the sake of it and so on. Unfortunately F4 does the same shit with the merchants.

Anyway, in my opinion the time spent in dialogues/cutscenes is not gameplay. Or is it?

Cutscenes not, dialogue yes ofcourse if its interactive (i.e. multiple choice) which is the case in witcher 3.

 

[odrzut]

I am a storyfag, I loved TW3. But it does have many plot holes. For example there should be no mages in Novigrad. Mages can teleport long range.I understand the appeal of writing a Holocaust story into the game, but holocaust story doesn't make sense if Jews can teleport out of ghetto at will.

Also it's hard to reconcile "Ciri's in danger" with gwent and other distractions. I can live with this because the sidequests were the witcher game I always wanted - with Geralt doing the stuff he was doing in the short stories. But IMHO they should just skip main story altogether. All the good stuff could have been made into sidequest anyway.

I can appreciate the message (it doesn't matter how good you're at your job, only thing that matters is how you raised your kids), but you really don't have to make 100h long game to say that. Could have been another optional side quest.

From what I've seen (let's plays by gopher) Fallout 4 is just a bad minecraft clone with guns. Quests and characters are much worse, and gameplay is meh in both games.

So, Fallout 4 sucks more.

 

[Lhynn]

... something something ...

You are too much of a fanboy to realize that the majority of TW3 content is polished shit. dednaem critic is solid.

Not a witcher fanboy, i only played 3 and expected to hate it. His critic is nitpicky bullshit.

TW3 does have better highlight moments than F4 but their impact is nerfed by pushing all the other shitty linear content down the players throats. And as retarded as it might be, at least F4 is not pulling this shit which really matters when the game is labeled "open-world".

At least fallout 4 is shit from start to finish, witcher 3 has good stuff mixed in with the shit, so therefore w3 is worse? that what you are trying to tell me?

The most experienced play-tester from CDP stated that minimum 25 hours are required to finish the main story. After the release, we found out that only the cutcenes for the main story take 13 hours.
This might indicate that 50% of the time in TW3 is spent on cutscenes and unfortunately ... this is somewhat correct. Now, you can pretend that is not true but the quantity of cut-scenes in TW3 is awful.

Is it? i thought it was amazingly well done, lip sync of that level isnt something ive seen before, the facial expresion of the characters were really good. It was very professionally made by talented people that cared, that much was obvious.

So, how about that player agency in TW3? Is this even a game if 50% of time is spent with CYOA stuff? Why shit from CDP is more tasty than shit from Bethesda?

What do cutscenes have to do with player agency? You can literally dictate the fate of almost everyone in the game within the narrative in those same cutscenes or dialogues, while in fallout 4 you can say Yes, No (Yes), Sarcasm (Yes) but being able to lift a fork and store it in your inventory to absolutely no effect in the game world makes it somewhat better?

Your problem, toro, is that you are willing to consider every flawed element as shit, and in that way its very easy to compare stuff thats good to stuff thats bad as exactly the same. You disregard witchers 3 strong but flawed writing because its not perfect or presents no plotholes before realizing works that are plothole free are not necesarily good or even better in any way that works that dont, its a retarded assumption to make and you do it willingly because you WANT to hate on the game. Its an incredibly childish thing to do, as with everything there are degrees that your binary "shit"/"not-shit" way of classifying things doesnt allow for.
Same as the retard newfag rising retarded points that prove absolutely nothing more than him having more free time than its healthy to have.

 

[toro]

Anyway, in my opinion the time spent in dialogues/cutscenes is not gameplay. Or is it?

Cutscenes not, dialogue yes ofcourse if its interactive (i.e. multiple choice) which is the case in witcher 3.

Fair enough. NPC interaction through dialogues is gameplay.

However the implementation in TW3 is quite retarded:
- You don't actually have control on what Geralt is actually saying. A seemingly reasonable answer can lead to violence and vice-versa.
- Cutcenes are prolonged on purpose. I understand that every fart and every snore must be shown in order to increase immersion. But I can honestly say that TW3 is the first game which made me feel cutscenes fatigue.
- Most dialogue choices don't matter. Like 90% of them. However when they do matter, the consequences are postponed until the end of the game (see Ciri story line).

I'm not saying F4 is better in this case. It's even more retarded but at least they don't do the entire charade with "multiple choices".

 

[toro]

TW3 does have better highlight moments than F4 but their impact is nerfed by pushing all the other shitty linear content down the players throats. And as retarded as it might be, at least F4 is not pulling this shit which really matters when the game is labeled "open-world".

At least fallout 4 is shit from start to finish, witcher 3 has good stuff mixed in with the shit, so therefore w3 is worse? that what you are trying to tell me?

No. They suck in different ways but overall they are on par.

The most experienced play-tester from CDP stated that minimum 25 hours are required to finish the main story. After the release, we found out that only the cutcenes for the main story take 13 hours.
This might indicate that 50% of the time in TW3 is spent on cutscenes and unfortunately ... this is somewhat correct. Now, you can pretend that is not true but the quantity of cut-scenes in TW3 is awful.

Is it? i thought it was amazingly well done, lip sync of that level isnt something ive seen before, the facial expresion of the characters were really good. It was very professionally made by talented people that cared, that much was obvious.

True. Lip sync is the defining characteristic of the RPG genre.

So, how about that player agency in TW3? Is this even a game if 50% of time is spent with CYOA stuff? Why shit from CDP is more tasty than shit from Bethesda?

What do cutscenes have to do with player agency? You can literally dictate the fate of almost everyone in the game within the narrative in those same cutscenes or dialogues, while in fallout 4 you can say Yes, No (Yes), Sarcasm (Yes) but being able to lift a fork and store it in your inventory to absolutely no effect in the game world makes it somewhat better?

Geralt is Geralt. He know things you don't know and he doesn't know things you know. Like for example: the Crones were clearly inspired by Hansel and Gretel. But can you say something or do something about them? Nope. You have to solve the list of quests until the designer allows you to do something about them. That's basically your power to "literally" dictate shit.

Fallout 4 is shit in this department. No contest. I will not even bother to argue about it.

Your problem, toro, is that you are willing to consider every flawed element as shit, and in that way its very easy to compare stuff thats good to stuff thats bad as exactly the same. You disregard witchers 3 strong but flawed writing because its not perfect or presents no plotholes before realizing works that are plothole free are not necesarily good or even better in any way that works that dont, its a retarded assumption to make and you do it willingly because you WANT to hate on the game. Its an incredibly childish thing to do, as with everything there are degrees that your binary "shit"/"not-shit" way of classifying things doesnt allow for.
Same as the retard newfag rising retarded points that prove absolutely nothing more than him having more free time than its healthy to have.

I don't want to hate the game. I've spent time and money on it.

My original statement was made after finishing F4 and realizing that both - F4 and TW3 - are quite similar in delivering an underwhelming experience. TW3 should trash F4 in all departments but it doesn't cause the impaired F4 has better gameplay and you can actually play different characters.

As I've said before I really don't give a shit about both games and I've persisted with this discussion just because of your butthurt. I mean you have to be delusional not to see that there are big problems with TW3. Cause really, you have exactly one post in which you somewhat acknowledge that TW3 had plot holes. And that's it.

Janky and tedious combat, fake C&C, cutscenes spam, repetitive game world, forced linear story progression, EPIC story, retarded story pacing, obnoxious NPCs, fake plot urgency, under-developed skill system, level/rewards scaling, mmorpg quest design, infinite ammo/potions, UI abomination, limited selection of armors, required fast travel/quest compass, unrewarding exploration, no stealth approach, weak atmosphere (!?), insignificant villain, cringe worthy sex-scenes, overuse of witcher senses, gwent (cool) time consuming, too edgy and other things. Basically there is nothing wrong with TW3 and it might be the greatest RPG ever ... and I'm the problem cause I'm childish and the game is fine. Please fuck off.

The truth is: take away the open world bullshit from TW3 and you might have a good game. However that is not possible and in the current state the good parts are over-shadowed by the tedious shit which makes for an underwhelming game experience. And that's about it.

 

[Doktor Best]

Anyway, in my opinion the time spent in dialogues/cutscenes is not gameplay. Or is it?

Cutscenes not, dialogue yes ofcourse if its interactive (i.e. multiple choice) which is the case in witcher 3.

Fair enough. NPC interaction through dialogues is gameplay.

However the implementation in TW3 is quite retarded:- You don't actually have control on what Geralt is actually saying. A seemingly reasonable answer can lead to violence and vice-versa.
- Cutcenes are prolonged on purpose. I understand that every fart and every snore must be shown in order to increase immersion. But I can honestly say that TW3 is the first game which made me feel cutscenes fatigue.
- Most dialogue choices don't matter. Like 90% of them. However when they do matter, the consequences are postponed until the end of the game (see Ciri story line).

I'm not saying F4 is better in this case. It's even more retarded but at least they don't do the entire charade with "multiple choices".

Maybe its not as satisfying, but seeing the direct actions of your choices in the exact manner you set them in movement by your dialogue choices directly after you made them is pretty artificial shit. Also not all of those decisions play out like that. I never felt like im in absolutely no control of my actions, maybe because i know the world quite well and know what actions can lead to bad shit happening. I knew for example not to trust Djikstra, because even though he is very well written and appears broish, i knew he was going to be a prick at some point, because thats exactly how he was depicted in the books.

And Witcher 3 has an enormous amount of C&C, so im a bit sceptical about that 90% number you dropped out of your ass. Not all of those choices lead to worldchanging consequences, but almost all sidequests have those small little details attached to them that make you feel you did some change in this world.

 

[Rivmusique]

I enjoyed the "you played it, therefore you liked it!" that went on in the last 2 pages.

 

[GrainWetski]

Anyway, in my opinion the time spent in dialogues/cutscenes is not gameplay. Or is it?

Cutscenes not, dialogue yes ofcourse if its interactive (i.e. multiple choice) which is the case in witcher 3.

Fair enough. NPC interaction through dialogues is gameplay.

However the implementation in TW3 is quite retarded:- You don't actually have control on what Geralt is actually saying. A seemingly reasonable answer can lead to violence and vice-versa.
- Cutcenes are prolonged on purpose. I understand that every fart and every snore must be shown in order to increase immersion. But I can honestly say that TW3 is the first game which made me feel cutscenes fatigue.
- Most dialogue choices don't matter. Like 90% of them. However when they do matter, the consequences are postponed until the end of the game (see Ciri story line).

I'm not saying F4 is better in this case. It's even more retarded but at least they don't do the entire charade with "multiple choices".

Maybe its not as satisfying, but seeing the direct actions of your choices in the exact manner you set them in movement by your dialogue choices directly after you made them is pretty artificial shit. Also not all of those decisions play out like that. I never felt like im in absolutely no control of my actions, maybe because i know the world quite well and know what actions can lead to bad shit happening. I knew for example not to trust Djikstra, because even though he is very well written and appears broish, i knew he was going to be a prick at some point, because thats exactly how he was depicted in the books.

And Witcher 3 has an enormous amount of C&C, so im a bit sceptical about that 90% number you dropped out of your ass. Not all of those choices lead to worldchanging consequences, but almost all sidequests have those small little details attached to them that make you feel you did some change in this world.

He's just a Fallout 4 fanboy. The game is so bad that when you're a fanboy, the only thing you can come up with is "It's as shit as this other shitty game".

 

[Lhynn]

No. They suck in different ways but overall they are on par.

Delusional fanboy.

True. Lip sync is the defining characteristic of the RPG genre.

You brought up cutscenes i brought up the exceptional quality they had.

Geralt is Geralt. He know things you don't know and he doesn't know things you know. Like for example: the Crones were clearly inspired by Hansel and Gretel. But can you say something or do something about them? Nope. You have to solve the list of quests until the designer allows you to do something about them. That's basically your power to "literally" dictate shit.

Its made clear that you cant beat the crones there because of magical reasons and blah. Which was fitting for both the atmosphere they were going for and the setting. Its a nice way to tell you that neither steel or silver work on everything all the time, this is a theme repeated thought the game, the overwhelming power of mystical forces that you can barely understand. It simply fit the theme.

I don't want to hate the game. I've spent time and money on it.

Yeah you do.

My original statement was made after finishing F4 and realizing that both - F4 and TW3 - are quite similar in delivering an underwhelming experience. TW3 should trash F4 in all departments but it doesn't cause the impaired F4 has better gameplay and you can actually play different characters.

How does it have better gameplay? Fallout 4 is a below average shooter, and the only thing thats clear here is that you have poor taste in shooters.

As I've said before I really don't give a shit about both games and I've persisted with this discussion just because of your butthurt.

But im not butthurt bro, i just am amazed of how poorly you are able to argue your case.

I mean you have to be delusional not to see that there are big problems with TW3.

Sure, but i see those big problems, so i dont see the problem.

Cause really, you have exactly one post in which you somewhat acknowledge that TW3 had plot holes. And that's it.

But plotholes arent a problem on themselves, the greatest works of literature are riddled with plotholes. They are only a problem when they turn the work into a nonsensical mess and when they obscure the narrative, or when they are so blatant that they take you out of it.

Janky and tedious combat

Its not tho, its not very good, but it isnt bad either.

fake C&C

Sure, but its far from being only fake C&C.

cutscenes spam

On the main quest sure, tho im fairly certain by cutscenes you mean dialogues.

repetitive game world

I dont even know what kind of criticism this is.

forced linear story progression

This isnt a bad thing, as branching story progression doesnt necessarily means its good. This is merely a characteristic.

EPIC story

Its the end of a trilogy, and its not bad in itself.

retarded story pacing

Comes with an open world.

obnoxious NPCs

Other than dandelion i didnt find myself dreading talking to anybody else, if anything after the baron i was looking forward to meeting more and more people.

fake plot urgency

Fair point, tho its not as bad as other games and often gives breathing room.

under-developed skill system

True

level/rewards scaling

Yes.

mmorpg quest design

Nope, tho admitely there are mmos with better quests than most rpgs. But then again, you wouldnt know, being an ignorant faggot and all.

infinite ammo/potions

Wasnt particularly bothered by not having to farm crafting materials over and over again. Tho the infinite ammo was shit, it was alleviated by the fact that if you wanted it to be effective you had to use special ammo, and that i dont think i ever fired a single crossbow shot in the entire game, despite having unlimited ammo, which is more of a sign of how useless was the new addition than anything.

UI abomination

Yup, wasnt as bad as others but it was still consolized shit.

limited selection of armors

As opposed to other games that offer an unlimited selection of armors? Tho i do get your point, witcher gear was simply the best and rendered everything else irrelevant, it simply made it so it had no reason to exist. Useless gear is something of a staple of the genre tho.

required fast travel/quest compass

Fair points.

unrewarding exploration

I wouldnt say unrewarding as much as a mixed bag, some exploration was very rewarding and had a meaningful impact on your character, other was kind of irrelevant, which i thought was the way you did exploration.

no stealth approach

Its a witcher game were you are geralt, i dont remember him ever being parcitularly stealthy.

weak atmosphere (!?)

Wrong, this is arguably the strongest point of the game, and its good, at times its very, very good.

insignificant villain

The villain was indeed not very interesting, but then again, the game wasnt about the villain in the first place. Hes just an obstacle to help deliver the main theme of the game.

cringe worthy sex-scenes

I didnt cringe, i didnt fap either, its a witcher game and you are playing as geralt, sex should be a thing.

overuse of witcher senses

Sure.

gwent (cool) time consuming

It could consume 0 minutes 0 seconds. And spending time on it rewarded you with a fairly decent quest that reminded me of maveric. Plus the game itself was fairly fun.

too edgy

Was it?

Basically there is nothing wrong with TW3 and it might be the greatest RPG ever

Never said that

I'm the problem cause I'm childish

Yup

and the game is fine.

No game is perfect, so yeah, it has its flaws, but its fine.

Please fuck off.

no u

The truth is: take away the open world bullshit from TW3 and you might have a good game.

A better game for certain.

However that is not possible and in the current state the good parts are over-shadowed by the tedious shit which makes for an underwhelming game experience.

Not really, the good that this game offers is very impressive, the bad that it has is at least easily digestible.

And that's about it.

Alright, i still dont see how F4 could even compete with witcher 3 in any of the things you mentioned, fallout 4 is a turd of purest kind, which makes you a hypocrite for even bringing it up.

 

[toro]

Anyway, in my opinion the time spent in dialogues/cutscenes is not gameplay. Or is it?

Cutscenes not, dialogue yes ofcourse if its interactive (i.e. multiple choice) which is the case in witcher 3.

Fair enough. NPC interaction through dialogues is gameplay.

However the implementation in TW3 is quite retarded:- You don't actually have control on what Geralt is actually saying. A seemingly reasonable answer can lead to violence and vice-versa.
- Cutcenes are prolonged on purpose. I understand that every fart and every snore must be shown in order to increase immersion. But I can honestly say that TW3 is the first game which made me feel cutscenes fatigue.
- Most dialogue choices don't matter. Like 90% of them. However when they do matter, the consequences are postponed until the end of the game (see Ciri story line).

I'm not saying F4 is better in this case. It's even more retarded but at least they don't do the entire charade with "multiple choices".

Maybe its not as satisfying, but seeing the direct actions of your choices in the exact manner you set them in movement by your dialogue choices directly after you made them is pretty artificial shit. Also not all of those decisions play out like that. I never felt like im in absolutely no control of my actions, maybe because i know the world quite well and know what actions can lead to bad shit happening. I knew for example not to trust Djikstra, because even though he is very well written and appears broish, i knew he was going to be a prick at some point, because thats exactly how he was depicted in the books.

And Witcher 3 has an enormous amount of C&C, so im a bit sceptical about that 90% number you dropped out of your ass. Not all of those choices lead to worldchanging consequences, but almost all sidequests have those small little details attached to them that make you feel you did some change in this world.

He's just a Fallout 4 fanboy. The game is so bad that when you're a fanboy, the only thing you can come up with is "It's as shit as this other shitty game".

Thanks for labeling me. Great argument.

 

[toro]

No. They suck in different ways but overall they are on par.

Delusional fanboy.

True. Lip sync is the defining characteristic of the RPG genre.

You brought up cutscenes i brought up the exceptional quality they had.

Geralt is Geralt. He know things you don't know and he doesn't know things you know. Like for example: the Crones were clearly inspired by Hansel and Gretel. But can you say something or do something about them? Nope. You have to solve the list of quests until the designer allows you to do something about them. That's basically your power to "literally" dictate shit.

Its made clear that you cant beat the crones there because of magical reasons and blah. Which was fitting for both the atmosphere they were going for and the setting. Its a nice way to tell you that neither steel or silver work on everything all the time, this is a theme repeated thought the game, the overwhelming power of mystical forces that you can barely understand. It simply fit the theme.

I don't want to hate the game. I've spent time and money on it.

Yeah you do.

My original statement was made after finishing F4 and realizing that both - F4 and TW3 - are quite similar in delivering an underwhelming experience. TW3 should trash F4 in all departments but it doesn't cause the impaired F4 has better gameplay and you can actually play different characters.

How does it have better gameplay? Fallout 4 is a below average shooter, and the only thing thats clear here is that you have poor taste in shooters.

As I've said before I really don't give a shit about both games and I've persisted with this discussion just because of your butthurt.

But im not butthurt bro, i just am amazed of how poorly you are able to argue your case.

I mean you have to be delusional not to see that there are big problems with TW3.

Sure, but i see those big problems, so i dont see the problem.

Cause really, you have exactly one post in which you somewhat acknowledge that TW3 had plot holes. And that's it.

But plotholes arent a problem on themselves, the greatest works of literature are riddled with plotholes. They are only a problem when they turn the work into a nonsensical mess and when they obscure the narrative, or when they are so blatant that they take you out of it.

Janky and tedious combat

Its not tho, its not very good, but it isnt bad either.

fake C&C

Sure, but its far from being only fake C&C.

cutscenes spam

On the main quest sure, tho im fairly certain by cutscenes you mean dialogues.

repetitive game world

I dont even know what kind of criticism this is.

forced linear story progression

This isnt a bad thing, as branching story progression doesnt necessarily means its good. This is merely a characteristic.

EPIC story

Its the end of a trilogy, and its not bad in itself.

retarded story pacing

Comes with an open world.

obnoxious NPCs

Other than dandelion i didnt find myself dreading talking to anybody else, if anything after the baron i was looking forward to meeting more and more people.

fake plot urgency

Fair point, tho its not as bad as other games and often gives breathing room.

under-developed skill system

True

level/rewards scaling

Yes.

mmorpg quest design

Nope, tho admitely there are mmos with better quests than most rpgs. But then again, you wouldnt know, being an ignorant faggot and all.

infinite ammo/potions

Wasnt particularly bothered by not having to farm crafting materials over and over again. Tho the infinite ammo was shit, it was alleviated by the fact that if you wanted it to be effective you had to use special ammo, and that i dont think i ever fired a single crossbow shot in the entire game, despite having unlimited ammo, which is more of a sign of how useless was the new addition than anything.

UI abomination

Yup, wasnt as bad as others but it was still consolized shit.

limited selection of armors

As opposed to other games that offer an unlimited selection of armors? Tho i do get your point, witcher gear was simply the best and rendered everything else irrelevant, it simply made it so it had no reason to exist. Useless gear is something of a staple of the genre tho.

required fast travel/quest compass

Fair points.

unrewarding exploration

I wouldnt say unrewarding as much as a mixed bag, some exploration was very rewarding and had a meaningful impact on your character, other was kind of irrelevant, which i thought was the way you did exploration.

no stealth approach

Its a witcher game were you are geralt, i dont remember him ever being parcitularly stealthy.

weak atmosphere (!?)

Wrong, this is arguably the strongest point of the game, and its good, at times its very, very good.

insignificant villain

The villain was indeed not very interesting, but then again, the game wasnt about the villain in the first place. Hes just an obstacle to help deliver the main theme of the game.

cringe worthy sex-scenes

I didnt cringe, i didnt fap either, its a witcher game and you are playing as geralt, sex should be a thing.

overuse of witcher senses

Sure.

gwent (cool) time consuming

It could consume 0 minutes 0 seconds. And spending time on it rewarded you with a fairly decent quest that reminded me of maveric. Plus the game itself was fairly fun.

too edgy

Was it?

Basically there is nothing wrong with TW3 and it might be the greatest RPG ever

Never said that

I'm the problem cause I'm childish

Yup

and the game is fine.

No game is perfect, so yeah, it has its flaws, but its fine.

Please fuck off.

no u

The truth is: take away the open world bullshit from TW3 and you might have a good game.

A better game for certain.

However that is not possible and in the current state the good parts are over-shadowed by the tedious shit which makes for an underwhelming game experience.

Not really, the good that this game offers is very impressive, the bad that it has is at least easily digestible.

And that's about it.

Alright, i still dont see how F4 could even compete with witcher 3 in any of the things you mentioned, fallout 4 is a turd of purest kind, which makes you a hypocrite for even bringing it up.

 

[a Goat]

toro Your view on FO4 being salvageable is disgusting but I invite you to anti-STORYFAGGOT coalition anyway

 

[toro]

toro Your view on FO4 being salvageable is disgusting but I invite you to anti-STORYFAGGOT coalition anyway

Thanks for the offer but I cannot do it man. I'm a part-time storyfaggot.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Its a funny text yes but well, all in all hes just being an edgy prick, because despite all his hate, he enjoyed the game enough to go through the whole 80-120 hour playthrough. Ofcourse only to make sure the game sucks as much as he figured right from the beginning.

Agreed, he should have played for one hour if he wanted us to take his opinion seriously.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Anything is better than the Witcher.

 

[Perkel]

I am a storyfag, I loved TW3. But it does have many plot holes. For example there should be no mages in Novigrad. Mages can teleport long range.I understand the appeal of writing a Holocaust story into the game, but holocaust story doesn't make sense if Jews can teleport out of ghetto at will.

Also it's hard to reconcile "Ciri's in danger" with gwent and other distractions. I can live with this because the sidequests were the witcher game I always wanted - with Geralt doing the stuff he was doing in the short stories. But IMHO they should just skip main story altogether. All the good stuff could have been made into sidequest anyway.

This is because of lore. Teleportation isn't mass travel system, isn't as convenient as you may think (long teleportation requires multiple stops, it is draining for mage and requires preparations in those stops to minimalize effort), can be easily traced and using it sends signal to anyone near who can detect it. So yes Tris and few other mages could teleport away (leaving rest) but they would be eventually hunted down one way or the other.
This is why mages stayed in Novigrad despite fact that witch hunters were everywhere. Because novigrad was huge city and hiding in it was easy. Basically like jews in WW2 hiding in cities instead of rural areas.

Tris organizes ship so they won't be followed or prepared for them in one of stops they would be using via teleportation. Once they get confirmation from Kovir kingdom that they will be protected there they run away.

Also it's hard to reconcile "Ciri's in danger" with gwent and other distractions. I can live with this because the sidequests were the witcher game I always wanted - with Geralt doing the stuff he was doing in the short stories. But IMHO they should just skip main story altogether. All the good stuff could have been made into sidequest anyway.

Actually this fits lore and books. I mean books also area basically like game where Geralt spends shit load of time searching Ciri doing random stuff from monster hunting to fucking whores. Whole point of game is to get clues about her.

 

[toro]

Anything is better than the Witcher.

WTF

 

[Eirinjas]

Pick any Witcher game, they're all better than Fallout 4.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Including the Witcher MOBA?

 

[Eirinjas]

Including the Witcher MOBA?

*shakes magic eight ball* ....YES.