Why do people hate Skyrim's quests but praise Witcher 3? Even normalfags do. Witcher 3 is boring...

Why do people hate Skyrim's quests but praise Witcher 3? Even normalfags do. Witcher 3 is boring, moreso than Shitrim but people pretend it's good because of the sexstory.

...

Does not compute.

It's the new hipster thing. They loved Skyrim in 2012 but now they pretend that it was always "shallow and boring quests that don't affect the world" (true, and also true of every MMORPG).

But then they praise Witcher 3 which is the same boring shit because it's seen as the next level of "hardcore". Maybe they only know about these 2 games because they are the only recent AAA RPG?

The main story for W3 is lightyears ahead of Skyrim's. The side quests range from eh to really good, whereas Skyrim's range from pointless to meh only.

I've played the witcher 1 and 2, and neither game is particularly good. I like the idea of being a witcher, but nothing really effectively makes it an interesting and smooth experience to play with. Weird hit detection, bad combat systems, a lack of enjoyable ingredient searching, uninteresting game play scenarios that never really amounted to more than pick the right blade, right combat stance, and deliver the heaviest damage ASAP. Really unsatisfactory.

Frankly, the entire series is shit, and I just can't figure out why developers in the West can't figure out good game play.

Boring, unmemorable, winding and generic story that isn't fleshed out and is hollow with unresolved plotpoints. Maybe I need to read the books to appreciate the game but I sincerely doubt adherents even know it's based (loosely) off a book. I honestly think people play it because they want a Gay of Thones (also shit story) video game with soft sex scenes.

Because people equal "quests" with "good cutscenes": The Witcher 3 has well written characters and dialogues, hours and hours of cutscenes, and it manages to retain a decent quality in every situation.
Too bad the rest of the game is mediocre at best: the combat system simply isn't fun, but the game forces combat in every situation for lenght sake, exploration is ubisoft-tier and all the rpg elements like crafting, looting and character progression are just time consuming chores without any purpose or depth.

Because at least a few choices affect something in Witcher 3, not to mention the immersion. The side quests and contracts are better than the main quest, especially the expansions.

Hope they go back to the Witcher franchise at some point, make a game which is entirely comprised of Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine sized questlines. Each act is a different sized quest in a new area.

...

Oh look, OP is a faggot who only created this thread for shitflinging

Same here. I Witcher 1 was somewhat novel but nothing spectacular. Second was bad all around except for the bulky Witcher guy that goes around killing kings; good character and I liked the 1v1 duel with him. But the game wasn't good and certainly not good enough for me to bother trying W3.

I think Witcher 3 is pretty neat
And fights look much cooler than in skyrim

Every Witcher game is awful. Faggots praise it. Hope that clears things up for ya.

I liked skyrim when I modded that shit to hell. I absolutely loved witcher 3 when I added a simple infinite weight limit mod. Skyrim was empty and ugly without mods and witcher was tedious as fuck without the weight limit mod. Witcher is many times better, by default. Really, the only other bad thing I didn't like about witcher, was the neck breaking plot, if you get what I'm saying.

What type of people are you referring to, Op? Did you make a poll? A scientific poll? Any poll? How do you know this?

Check 'em.

Yeah, I used to be really into it, but I'll be honest, I can't remember why I liked them in the first place. I was a big PC gamer a few years ago, it probably had something to do with that. I grew out of that.

...

I haven't played the Witcher 3, but there's no way a game that takes its story from real literature is going to be outdone by a game that has "towns" with two people in them and watered-down quests from Morrowind and Oblivion. Skyrim is just a more technically competent rehash of Oblivion, and Oblivion is just a rehashed Morrowind that loses all sense of narrative and character by trying to introduce too much half-baked open world technology. The Witcher, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a guy like Todd Howard ruining the coherence of the game by peddling lies and gimmicky features.

Nice work trying to keep Skyrim's discussion alive, user. Specially now that they released a 'new' version.

Oy, vey. What a coincidence!

when critiquing one game and mentioning another in a practically equally bad light, it's important to deflect so all discussion in the same light is painted as shilling.

a little low but whatever you gotta do to peddle that narrative

i can appreciate its technically competent world design (true open-world(no compromises), complex quests/rpg mechanics(well prequels were better but still))

but its generic as fuck compared to later thats masterfully crafted in many ways
(world/storyline/characters alone are WAY better)

*i mean earlier entries not prequels

Whoever made your pic related edit is pure cancer and should actually know their shit before spouting nonsense like this.

Foliage is composed of intersecting planes in both pictures, with the exact same materials and density. Only the texture resolution and filtering/mipmapping differ.
In the 2013 trailer footage, lights are pre-baked in the scenes (more control, much less resource-hungry, allowing for higher detail), LoD is higher and the devs added a fuckton of bloom. The footage's color values are also edited with levels to make the palette more atmospheric and harmonious. If they had given such an ambience to the actual game it would be a visual mess during gameplay, making what is happening onscreen harder to read (cf shadow of mordor).

In the more recent footage and current gameplay, foliage textures are lower res (thus lighter) and are affected with non-anisotropic trilinear filtering (makes the stretch look better when texels > pixels on the displayed texture), thus the blurry look.
Shading isn't flat, but dynamic. Flat shadows are a result of baked lighting.

Doctoring footage (especially early stuff) is a standard in the industry. Almost every studio does it, some being more tame than others. I've seen much more honest, but CDPR is a pretty shy one.


Now for OP's point, I think people hate both equally in general. Hand-holding quests with makers as a main padding design is absolute cancer and give the player a false feeling of agency while actually being boring grind.
If there is a tendency to blame Skyrim more than Witcher 3, it is mostly coming from the (justified imo) hate against bethesda and their antics. Another reason would be the afterburn from skyrim's exaggerated hype and popularity.

The Witcher 3 is a heavily modded Skyrim

Skyrim was such a letdown. Nice shaders and production quality, zero content or innovation. The one redeeming quality Oblivion had was its variety of alternate storylines (Dark Brotherhood, Sheogorath, Thieves Guild, etc.) while Skyrim didn't even bother to get those right. It was a game completely devoid character or a compelling narrative So, keeping that in mind, is The Witcher 3 THAT bad? I find it hard to believe.

the witcher 3 makes poor use of its open world. I never really trust anything with an open world, but it all goes to waste once they boil it down to follow the GPS dot game play. That's all it ever is. They try at times to have directions but they fail so you can never turn that shit off 100% and play smoothly.

Witcher 3 wins out in terms of writing, art direction, certain quest design, choices and consequences given, and even the combat is salvageable with a few tweaks.

Skyrim, on the other hand, even after five years of modding by the largest modding community around is still a shit game.

Why do people praise FEARs AI when its not really any better than, well, most other FPS?

Its down to presentation, mostly. If you want to look at the bare essentials theres not much between most RPGs in the case of quests: go here, talk to/kill/collect a thing, return for reward, etc.

But The Witcher presents it much more naturally and pieces it all together with a certain degree of intrigue.

Dumb peasants dont know what certain monsters are, for example, so theres a need for Geralt to work it out before hunting it down. With Skyrim it seems even the smallest village knows everything and just points the player to the exact spot and tells them how to best kill.

Similarly theres more moralistic choices for Geralt which helps alleviate the feeling of just going through the motions to do a quest that Skyrim very rarely, if ever, provides. You can argue that its merely an illusion of choice, but I would say thats better than nothing.

While Skyrim is the better sandbox (especially with mods in mind), Witcher is definitely a better standalone game. They may hold similar hands in essence, its just one knows how to play it.

Did you copy-pasted that some somewhere?

...

...

Witcher 3 did Polish culture better than Skyrim did Vikings. I have to admit at very least that. And not only in environments, but in quests and lore too.

Especially the third one, with all the medieval folklore stuff and great portrayal of village lives and fairy tales.

MY RIBS!

This is a christian board, satan. Take your stale memes and go back

That's because the Witcher was actually made by Poles, while Skyrim was written by some spic that Todd keeps around because he sucks his dick.

Hello OP. We have these things called IDs here, and I think you should go back.

I liked the witcher 3's sidequests because I couldn't walk across a field without finding some 3 paragraph letter detailing the location to hidden treasure.