Witcher 3 overrated. Nowhere near Skyrim

Skyrim sucked, tossed in it the bin at 10 hrs. W3 is definitely overrated and its NOT a game, it's mostly a new school interactive movie. Cut scenes are good but painfully long. PC controls are a clunky button mashing affair, and the third person view blocks most of the screen especially indoors. Lighting is pretty cool, but it's really hard to see I've been 'meditating' to daytime

'

if you're mashing buttons... what difficulty are you playing on? Because mashing buttons will not get you far in a truly challenging combat scenario.

At least you don't get loading screens every time when you enter a house. Skyrim's level system sucks. Enemies scale along with you, which is fine for exploration focused game but not for Story driven and Combat/stats heavy RPG.

Dialogues and quests in Skyrim aren't impressive compared to Witcher series. When it comes to dialogues (apart from few awkward sex scenes), storytelling and quest design, very few modern RPGs come close to Witcher series.

As for graphics, disagree there too. Graphics of Witcher 3 aren't that impressive. They are OK-ish with some great looking moments.

Yeah. I'm not sure about the lower levels of difficulty but I'm playing at the second highest level and at that level the game is a decent challenge. Even simple enemies like Drowners can kill me in maybe 4 or 5 hits at most so laying down traps, using short dodge steps to just barely avoid attacks, stacking up opponents so I can hit them with area attacks, etc. This is what I remember from Witcher games, where combat takes some thought and even common enemies are potentially dangerous. While I would say that the combat is anywhere near a game like Dark Souls, the level of danger combat poses is similar if you take a higher difficulty level.

-Byshop

Stop this nonsense about casuals. Both games can be enjoyed by "casuals". And the combat in the Witcher 3 is garbage mainly due to its poor controls and annoying soft autolock.

I don't get the trouble people have with the controls. After the first few hours I was completly at ease in combat and with general movement. And how is the soft auto-lock a problem? You want to change enemy? You just point the stick towards the enemy and that's it. Unless you are button mashing like crazy.

The soft lock prevents free movement and locks you onto enemies that you don't want to be locked onto. The overall combat feels like a bad mix of Assassin Creed and Batman.

I think you are playing it wrong. You can roll/dodge in any direction, and you can easily change target, be it in soft or hard lock. But I gess it's a matter of taste and how each player adapts to different types of gameplay.

Then roll or run to the enemy you wish to target and hard lock them. It's perfectly workable.

@Pedro A casual gamer would not enjoy the Witcher because the combat demands a fair amount of timing and tactics in order to win fights. You have to fight in order to progress. There are other games that don't require good timing or tactics in order to progress, like Skyrim. You just have to be able to equip better gear and press one or both of your hand buttons. In the Witcher you will definitely lose even if you have good gear without adequate timing and tactics. So, anyone who is not willing to invest the time needed to become proficient at combat in the Witcher (i.e. casual gamers) won't enjoy it.

The controls are not poor in the Witcher. If you press towards the enemy you want to attack and press the light or heavy attack button Geralt attacks that enemy. This is exactly like the Batman games you referenced. It is true that if you don't choose a direction, the auto-lock picks for you. But, that is obviously better than standing there swinging your sword at nothing. Furthermore, you can actually lock onto a specific enemy if you choose. So, you really don't have an excuse anymore. You just need to practice in order to become proficient enough to enjoy the combat.

What everyone doesn't seem to understand is that Geralt actually has somewhat realistic movement. Geralt has to move into position to attack, recover from swings, and close the distance if you pressed the attack button when you were a little too far away from the target. In Batman or Assassin's Creed your character just instantly interrupts whatever animation they are doing and completely reverses their momentum and nearly teleport in the opposite direction like the Flash every time you change your mind. You can't actually do that if you fight in real life. All the Witcher does is make you take into account how long it takes to pivot, swing, recover, and reposition. You have to pay attention to your relative position and which direction you are facing. I understand this makes you less powerful. That is why people don't like it. They just want to tell their character to wreck face and see their character do it. Many people don't want to have to learn a combat system in order to defeat their enemies and progress through story. Again, that is fine. But, that doesn't make the Witcher bad. It just isn't for you.

@iMagUdspEllr: excellent post!

I agree, excellent post.

I disagree, you can get from the majority of the world seamlessly and not only that but you can walk directly in many of the buildings In Novagrad with no load times. The game is amazing in my opinion on so many levels. And I loved skyrim as well.

It OBLITERATES skyrim, better quests, better combat, more items, better story, better characters, as for how big is the map, don't know, haven't finished it yet, but it is massive.

There is a difficulty setting. Adjust, conquer and done. The combat is crappy as hell and I can button mash through every enemy I have encountered even the higher level ones and I am playing on the one difficulty above normal. There really no need for strategy especially in one on one. Attacks stun and you follow that up with another which stuns and you can repeat until they die. You can pummel an enemy for quite some distance. Not the most time efficient method but it is a viable strategy for enemies to which you share the same level.

What screws up the combat is the forced autolock which takes away controls from the player. If I want to attack someone I have to fight against the autolock so that I can head directly to the target I desire. I should be able to disable and enable the lock on system with no compromise. If there are enemies in front of me and I want to attack the ranger to the back I typically have to fight against the auto lock on the enemies before the ranger. This, as far as I am concern is a design flaw. I don't use the lock on feature because its mediocre and does not work on all enemies making it generally useless. The combat has not demonstrated any level of complexity that you have claimed. You can cheese your way through combat and contrary to what you are saying gear makes this significantly easier.

Now, I see you mentioned realism. Lets be realistic here, this game is not realistic and should not aspire to be because realism is boring and not only that when this "realism" is limited in scope it makes the game design illogical. It is true that he doesn't "teleport" attack to the target;to which I am fine with, but he focuses on enemies that I am purposely moving away from in addition to slowing down because of the combat dance. Secondly archers are capable of shooting through solid objects negating environmental cover and breaking immersion. Without archers you can rely on the counter system which is not difficult to execute. But that auto lock on.

Another problem is his general movement. He moves like a vehicle in that he requires space to make a turn. Sometimes interacting with objects are a chore because of this design decision. There is no animation for pickup items so why force the player to be directly facing the object when the game is registering that you can interact. I truly detest the way this game controls. Its not absolutely terrible but its not good.

Honestly every time I've tried to button mash my way, specially against groups of enemies, I tend to die pretty quickly. But maybe it's that button mashing that's making the game so hard to control for you. In combat when I want to change enemy I just push the stick once towards the enemy (if he is at range) and I engage that enemy, or press "sprint" to rush to a more distant enemy.

The arrows passing through solid objects it's true and it sucks, yet it doesn't happens all the time. I many times use that tactic, of covering from the arrows and most of the times it works (although I don't know if it works just by accident). Maybe they can easily tweak that on the next big patch.

And realism doesn't = boring, nor mediocre. I may not be to your taste, but that doesn't make something bad. I personally would prefer fighting mechanics closer to Dark Souls, but still I can easily adapt that style of play to this game. And after being a little lost with the game controls in the first few hours - basically playing like you - I've changed my style and I'm enjoying it a lot. But I can see that you already decided that the controls are mediocre, I just hope that you can still enjoy the game as it is.

Thats not happening for me. He would still try to lock on to the enemy that is nearest and I have died to many times because of this. My new strategy is to run in an out of groups to avoid the auto lock on. Needless to say that I should not need to take such drastic measures.

Realism is boring. The reason you are playing this game is because it not realistic. The realism I am talking about is the semi realism where one aspect is realistic and another isn't creating the conflict in expectations. I have tried many times to play within the normality of the game but when in groups the freaking Auto lock is driving me crazy because Geralt would start to do things he not supposed to do because of this feature. I can deal with everything else but the lock on.

You can't button mash on any level above normal. Sorry, but that is simply impossible. You'll get completely ravaged in even standard encounters with drowners and ghouls.

Yes it is. Drowners, you target one and you button mash and you will keep moving away from the others. The same with ghouls. Its not as reliable with Wraiths because those effers teleport.

The auto-lock isn't a design flaw, it's a strength that can be overcome with both hard-lock and simply pointing the stick in another direction to attack someone else if you desire. You don't have to fight against the auto-lock choosing who's closest to you if you have hard-lock enabled, so this negates your point. Near or far, enemies in between or not, hard-locked foes will remain the priority, quickly shiftable with the right stick. If there's an enemy far in the back (say an archer) and the auto-lock is preventing you from targeting him because others are closer, hold down the sprint button which breaks all auto-locks, run to their proximity, hard-lock them, then fight.

It's a perfectly workable system, and I don't see how the lock on feature is flawed. From what I've seen it works very well and any other type of implementation would be frustrating. What's mediocre about hard-lock, in detail, because it's very binary in nature so I'm not understanding your complaint. Geralt needs to use a combat system that allows him to face his nearest opponents so as to allow him to defend and attack, and this is more than sufficient considering mob management is a necessity. If you just had him running around like a dolt, back turned to everyone, well.....you'd have not much better a combat system than the Witcher 2, which we all know how that turned out.

Auto-lock is needed and (while not perfect) still works wonderfully for the most part, with the added option of hard to prioritize. In fact I'd say it's not even needed, but is more of an option there for camera management than anything else.

No it doesn't negate my point. If I don't want to lock on to something I should not need to lock on to something to not lock on to something else when I want to not lock on in the first place. When I am trying to take out an archer that is not nearby, the process becomes cumbersome sifting through the enemies between myself and the archer. If the archer is too far then the lock cannot reach him but its also has no advantage because I would be trapped in the battle dance even when locked on to the enemy that is at a distance.

The lock on does not work for some enemies. I recall bears and some other creatures. Because of this along with what I mentioned earlier I avoid using the hard lock. I am all for Auto-Lock but this game does a poor job of the feature. I thought Bloodborne lock on was bad but this game took the cake for me.

Sorry, you lost me with your second sentence. :)

It's not cumbersome if you use sprint to close distance to the enemy you wish to engage. Sprint breaks all locks, and it's how you flee. Rolling also does this, so just roll towards them when needs be. You do need to be close to hard-lock but once locked there shouldn't be any issue. Hard-lock sometimes lacks that little yellow icon that comes up signifying its use on some occasions (this looks like a bug to me), but you're still locked on, evidenced because the camera will remain focused on that enemy and always keep them in the center of the screen.

I barely use the hard lock at all because 1) I find it mostly useful for camera management, which in mobs turns into a detriment to situational awareness, and 2) any enemy I wish to attack I can just close distance and auto-lock will do what hard-lock does just as well, sans camera benefits. Much of the time it is frustrating because it's too restrictive, and switching between 6-8 wolves, for example, with the RS when they're all attacking nearly at once is overly difficult and impractical. I'll admit it's not perfect, but is more than adequate.

This isn't a rhetorical question nor meant to be snide, but how would you design the combat? What's lacking?

@Pedro There is a difficulty setting. But, unlike Skyrim, you still need timing and tactics in order to win a fight even on the easiest setting in TW3. A group of level 6 drowners still poses a lethal threat to level 10 characters if you haven't bothered to learn the combat because they will swarm you and interrupt your attacks and you will die.

Give me an example of the "higher level ones" and what you mean by "button mash". Maybe you just aren't brain-dead and you can be bothered to press the dodge or roll button at the right time. Furthermore, the level is irrelevant. A level 10 drowner is still a joke because it is still a basic enemy. It isn't meant to be much of a threat. Even when there is a group they are still not much of a threat to someone who is proficient in the combat system. And, it sounds like you are proficient. Since you played the Batman games this doesn't surprise me. Just so you know. You aren't a casual gamer. You just need to realize that every fight isn't supposed to require a monumental amount of effort.

In my experience if I don't attack at the right time I will eat a hit even if my hit connects. That leads to taking unnecessary damage, repairing my equipment more than I need to, and even opening myself up to be hit again. You can easily defeat wolves, drowners, dogs, bandits, and other basic enemies like that. However, I have simply pressed the light attack button over and over and drowners and wolves will usually dodge and not let you just hack them all the way to zero life (assuming you don't have the necessary damage output to kill them in one or two hits). Have you actually fought a cockatrice or something like that? Guess what? The basic enemies are easy because they are basic enemies. I don't understand why you think every enemy should give you a fight for your life. Some enemies are easy and some are hard. There are more easy enemies than hard enemies. This shouldn't be such a difficult thing for you to understand.

There is literally no forced auto-lock. You have refrained from holding the direction you want to attack so the auto-lock takes over. Your fault, not the game. If you can't figure out how to press the sprint button in order to close the distance with the enemy you want then I can't really help you. I assume since you played the Batman games it shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand how to use the controls in this game. Oh, also, maybe you can't get to the ranger in the back because you can't move through enemies? Maybe they are blocking your path? Otherwise I attribute you problem to not pressing the sprint button. You can disable and enable the lock with no compromise. I don't even understand what you want. The game lets you do everything you want to do. It just seems you don't know what buttons to press in order to make that happen. You can't cheese your way through combat. It is easy to beat basic enemies. It is not so easy to defeat the more dangerous enemies. I have said that three times so I hope you will retain that bit of information. Gear does make it easier. I didn't say it doesn't. I said that if you are incapable of becoming proficient in the combat system you will still lose. It isn't like Skyrim where lower level enemies are a joke and you can just tank hit after hit while you mindlessly tap away.

I don't use the lock on feature either. I know how to press the move button in the direction of the enemy I want to attack. I'm sorry that doesn't work out for you. The hard lock doesn't work on tougher enemies because this game doesn't want to hold your hand the whole time like other games do. You would realize the complexity of the combat if you were able to figure out how to use it. So far you have demonstrated that you don't know how to attack in the direction you want to attack and you don't know how to sprint around enemies. So, I ask you to consider that you might not have a firm enough grasp on the combat in order for you to pass judgement.

This game is not a real life simulator, true. Like most games, compromises have been made. But, how is real life boring? If you were put on a battlefield you would not be bored. Also, it isn't an all or nothing thing. Just because the people who made the game decided to make some unrealistic design decisions doesn't mean they can't make any realistic design decisions. Believe it or not, people can make games how they want and if you don't like them you should not play them. This argument of yours is the only thing that isn't logical. 'But, these things are unrealistic so they can't put anything realistic in the game at all. You can't break the game making rules like that.' There are no rules, but there are time and budget constraints. They chose to produce what they did. But, where they faltered they more than made up for in the major portions of the game (combat and quests).

Well, a tank can rotate on the spot, but I get your meaning. His mobility is limited in order to make combat a little less teleporty and a little more realistic. But, it is not optimized for exploration at all. I dislike how if I fall ten feet (or sometimes on staircases) I will fall and take 1/3 to 1/2 of my life in damage. I have been spoiled by the free-running in Assassin's Creed. I also have problems looting. It gets pretty frustrating at times. But, the reason why I am willing to overlook these faults is because I have a blast fighting and questing in this game. Skyrim bores me to tears in combat but thankfully has good quests. But, I want both and I am willing to accept slightly buggy exploration to be absolutely enthralled by the combat and quests in TW3 (which is the vast majority of the game in an RPG).

Wait. You can't even lock on to a bear? Okay. You don't even know how to use the controls. Thanks for wasting our time.

@iMagUdspEllr: great post

I guess we have to leave it as we have differing opinions on the combat but I know what you are talking about with regards to the yellow icon not always appearing.

I am stickler for responsive controls and being in control of my character as much as possible. I understand the importance of locking on to an enemy and its a feature that is generally needed. If I have to design my own combat system; which I would actually have to do closer to the end of the year, I will set some ground rules.

• By default camera trumps character location. Regardless of the character's location any action taken will be relative to the camera facing direction. I personally use the camera as the main means for controlling the direction of my attacks. Because of this rule, the lock on feature has to be absolutely binary. Its either on or off. No soft or hard or quasi lock on.
• Fast attacks should always be interruptible. It doesn't need to be instant but you should be able to end the chain/combo on light attacks at anytime.
• Stun/staggers cannot be chained. This prevents sequential stun locking
• All physical attacks can be parried but not all parried attacks creates an opening
• Parries are omni-directional
• Blocks create openings for chain attacks
• Dodging should be consistent distant wise regardless of direction
• Horizontal and vertical attacks instead of heavy and light
• Horizontal and vertical attacks execution varies depending on moving direction
• Horizontal attacks will be more AOE while vertical will be more targeted making vertical single target friendly and horizontal multi target friendly
• All of the above will apply to all enemies with the exception of biped specific elements
• Attacks are affected by environment and other weapons so clashing of weapons in mid swing is possible

If you need any clarification on any of those feel free to ask away but that will most likely be the base of my implementation. There are also mechanics for stamina,mana and health but that will be for another time I guess.

Thought I would read this topic while I wait for another Skyrim loading screen when entering a tavern.

sounds to me you either haven't played the game or are just terrible at playing games. Considering you went full troll, people should reply to you as such.

Is this a new thing? Anyone who disagrees or share a different a opinion is a troll. You are speaking out of ignorance with regards to me having played the game. Take you baseless assumptions elsewhere if you are not going to add to the discussion.

no, you are a troll because your post history and dumb posts, next question.

Take it easy, please.

-Byshop

Oh so its common to call people troll when they don't agree with you. Well thats interesting. But how about addressing the issues raised instead of resorting to whatever you are doing.

@colbycadwell: totally agree bro.

I think it might have something to do with the fact I didn't play the first 2 witcher games that I am not getting as immersed in the game/world, as I did in Skyrim.

Even though I didn't play any of the previous Elder Scrolls games, The story in skyrim was much more stand alone and as you say, the 'Side' quests and open exploration to create your own unique experience was why Skyrim was better imo.

The numerous "perfect" reviews this game received a week before release does make me suspicious. All those reviewers were able to get an earlier copy and coincidentally all give it a perfect score? While in the meantime, consumers cannot even get a pre-release demo (or any demo) to judge for themselves before buying? Very suspicious..

Skyrim is a true open world but Witcher 3 obliterates it when it comes to story, to characters, to side-quests, to combat. Witcher 3 is superior in every single way but the huge seamless map.

Well it should, after all Skyrim is like 4 years old.

Due to my own anecdotal evidence that counters this, I'd say I disagree with your assessment that "casuals" can enjoy the game just as much as any "core gamer" would. Maybe there are exceptions, as there always are, but three of my friends who I'd describe as casual in the truest sense (only play a couple of games a year maybe, and only when they have some spare time and literally nothing else to do) bought into The Witcher 3 hype and picked up a copy in spite of the fact that they generally don't play any deep RPGs.

What happened next? All three of them returned/traded the game within a matter of days. One said he found it immensely confusing, and the other two said the combat was too difficult and convoluted to wrap their heads around. None of them were even able to muster up the patience to leave the tutorial area. Now, I didn't ask if they lowered the difficulty level to easy before playing it, but I still feel it's a testament to how truly difficult this game is for a light or "casual" gamer. Saying the combat boils down to simply button mashing is at the very least a misled assumption. Maybe it has worked for you out of constant and sheer luck, but for others which I've spoken with it's ultimately just resulted in quick and constant death. Drowners following and hitting from behind, etc.

The combat isn't the deepest thing in the world, but it definitely requires more thought than Skyrim's brand of fighting.

@Assassin_87: I'm sorry but how is this game difficult? I'm not really a hardcore gamer in terms of being complex with games but I'm doing quite well in the witcher 3. You're friends must have a pretty low IQ.

I don't know why you're sorry. I don't think it's difficult, I was just relaying what I've heard from friends of mine. The game has been fantastic so far in my experience. Astute observation on the IQ bit by the way. I am not sure if they've been tested, but I'll ask for you.

i just started playing witcher 3, and its no doubt much much better then the witcher 2. Right from the start the game is wide open, you can go walk around almost anywhere. I find its combat better then skyrims because you can dodge and such. Its horse movement is damn nice, so much smoother and realistic then skyrim.

But i can just keep the game at 60fps at 1080p on my 970. I don't get it... i've played Skyrim with mods which make that game look 2-3x better then witcher 3 does and even with all those mods i can get way over 100 fps with antialaising cranked with 4k textures and all that. This nvidia hairworks is garbage, i turn that on and my fps drops over 10fps or more and get choppy gameplay everywhere, anyone able to use this without any choppy side effects in gameplay?

Overall its a good game but i only played it briefly a few hrs. Its horrible optimization is disappointing, even if it had mod support it would probably make the game unplayable. The environments are so so. I notice all the trees and grass move a lot which is nice, but they are really awful low res textures. I've played games from 2009 which had superior looking grass and leaves. I remember briefly played COD World at war a few months back and its grass and leaves look a lot better and sharper then this game. COD Black Ops trees are even better. (i hate cod btw, i just appreciated its fine detail on the trees and jungle in black ops).

Some of the environments has a muddy low res look, im gonna try to get a graphic injector working in this game and hopefully sharpen it up more. I have a feeling they did this on purpose to yet again release a HD version like they did for the witcher 2, and charge all over again to buy it. It will happen.

Lastly, one thing i really dislike is how you can't go killing everyone you want. Skyrim allowed you to kill any one except the main people you needed to finish the main storyline. Theres so many annoying people in the witcher 3 i just wish i could kill them all.

Game review sites (the big ones, at least) often get early copies of games prior to their retail release. Witcher 3 had been "gold" (final production copies produced) weeks prior to the retail release and review copies were sent out to a lot of the big sites. IGN's Vince Ingenito put about 100 hours into the game in the weeks leading up to the game's release. They were joking on IGN's Xbox Podcast about how awful Vince looked for basically putting in 15+ hour days to get the review out ahead of the retail release.

This is not strange, nor is it a coincidence. The publisher has complete control over when they release their games and for a lot of these big titles the game is "done" weeks ahead of the date they choose. If a publisher thinks that it will help them, they will release an early copy of their game to game review sites on purpose specifically so that the reviews can be in before their game's release. Similarly, if the game coming out isn't that great a publisher might choose to not release early copies because they -don't- want the reviews to be in prior to the game being made available for sale.

It's easy for a publisher to release an early copy of the game because a pre-release copy is often exactly the same product (or a very close "work in progress") to the final retail product. Consumer demos are less common these days because they cost the company time and money to produce and more often than not releasing a demo doesn't help sales.

-Byshop

Haven't played Witcher 3 yet so can't really judge it, but I vastly preferred Skyrim (and Oblivion) to Witcher 1 and 2. Skyrim especially does what it does well - it's a great open world game. Witcher 1 and 2 were uninspiring - mediocre story/characters, mediocre gameplay, mediocre world.

Will have to see if Witcher 3 can actually improve on the previous two.

Well, the usual fanboys are out in force it seems, hurling insults at the intelligence of anyone and everyone who - quite rightly - believes Witcher 3 has been somewhat overrated

"Ten hours isn't enough to fairly judge the game." What nonsense. Have games really become akin to modern art, where they cant' possibly be appreciated without a ten thousand word explanation justifying their existence? Oh ok then, I guess unless you have listened to every track on every Justin Bieber album ever you are in no position to judge his music huh. Nope, can't say he sucks until you have stuck it through 'til the end. He's the greatest musician alive; you have no right to say otherwise based on a few songs. See how that works? Same, ludicrous logic. Or maybe, just maybe, people "knows what they likes" and just don't like the game, which won't play any differently between ten and however many more hours.

Personally, I wanted to like it, oh so much. But, ha, call me crazy, but I always interpreted "open world" to mean "a world that is open." Maybe I'm guilty of taking things to mean exactly what they mean. Oh well, my shortcoming I suppose!

I haven't been overly impressed with it. It's ok. There, I said it. It's ok. Not the greatest game in the history of everything ever. Not ten out of ten. Maybe seven. It's very beautiful, to it's credit, to a point where I would say that, there are some locations which are exactly like how they should be - standing on the shore of a river feels exactly how it would in real life, which I happen to think is a monumental achievement; I often feel if I could be surrounded by the image it would be like being right there. Gorgeous.

But there feels like a certain level of 'mock depth' to the whole thing. And it has the whole gritty fantasy thing going on. As much as I love Game of Thrones, there is no way in hell I would want to live in Westeros, for example. When I play a fantasy RPG game, part of the immersion for me is thinking how I would like to be there, and how much fun it would be to explore. If I'm honest, I forced myself to play the game simply because I forked out fourty quid fior the PC version, and it looked incredible on my rig.

I truly wanted to njoy it.

I just didn't, all that much. 7/10 being generous, 6.5/10 being honest.

Extra half point for attempting to stand on the balcony at the beginning of the game to marvel and the bloody stunning vista and falling to my death almost immediately which I found highly amusing.

Not suspicious at all. Review sites typically get review copies of games before the actual release.

I know that. Everyone knows that. But that alone is not exactly what I said I was suspicious of. Reading is fundamental.

Whatever, still not suspicious but carry on wearing that tin-foil hat.

the usual fanboys? you only signed up yesterday lol

I think you're a bit missing the point: I will repost:

OP's criticism:

"The quests and dialogue of Skyrim is unmatched, from killing an orphanage headmaster, uncovering mage school plots, thieves guild quests, demon quests, cisero lol, on top of the main storyline, etc."

My response:

"How can a criticism or comparison of TW3's quests be made with only 10 hours? From what I'm hearing, quest choices you make early on affect late game outcomes. They're intertwined. As I said, an opinion that's ill informed. Unless he's finished the game, to which by his own admission it's only been 10 hours, thanks.....I'll take his comparison of Skyrim's quests as opposed to The Witcher 3's with a grain of heavy salt."

My response is a perfectly valid question to that original statement made in criticism (and in relation to only) the quests when held up against Skyrim. You need more than 10 hours invested to see the ramifications for a choices you made in hour 15 to manifest in hour 50+, or further. 10 hours is not enough for this particular aspect of discerning how the quests stack up to Skyrim's as it's a comparison made on uninformed premise. I agree that 10 hours is more than enough to get the feel of combat, the movement, the inventory, how all the basic UI and underlying mechanics comes together and interplay with one another. You've played for that long and it's not for you, fine.

But if someone's going to pull a comparison, they best put in the time before any can be made. How about I play all the way through Wild Hunt and then only 10 hours though Skyrim and then claim, "Skyrim nowhere near Wild Hunt, Skyrim's overrated", and then came out and complain about those saying those 10 hours in Skyrim were more than enough to make a blanket statement to substantiate its inferiority? Maybe this topic should've just been "Wild Hunt's overrated" instead of trying to compare two massive games, one with a lot of time invested, the other not even a dozen hours?

Hmmmm if we're talking about the same Skyrim I remember, that robotic dialogue was in no way better than what I've seen in Witcher 3

Actually I feel the exact same way you do about Witcher as I do Skyrim... it was overrated

I like how you bitch about load times in witcher when their 10x worse in skyrim