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.
Its not tho, its not very good, but it isnt bad either.
Sure, but its far from being only fake C&C.
On the main quest sure, tho im fairly certain by cutscenes you mean dialogues.
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.
Its the end of a trilogy, and its not bad in itself.
Comes with an open world.
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.
Fair point, tho its not as bad as other games and often gives breathing room.
under-developed skill system
True
Yes.
Nope, tho admitely there are mmos with better quests than most rpgs. But then again, you wouldnt know, being an ignorant faggot and all.
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.
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.
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.
Its a witcher game were you are geralt, i dont remember him ever being parcitularly stealthy.
Wrong, this is arguably the strongest point of the game, and its good, at times its very, very good.
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.
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.
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
No game is perfect, so yeah, it has its flaws, but its fine.
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.
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.