I think it has way more to do with how the overall package functions.
But for the points you made: Morrowind existed on Xbox. So it was a multiplat. Oblivion garnered equal praise and critique, most of it valid. It was a more pretty World, artistic view functioned better with the gameplay (but!)
Oblivion however suffered from a broken skill progression, which at times made no sense to the games logic, it was on average worse in quest design and dialogue (likely a bi-effect of having to have everything voiced, so harder to make in depth conversations) The World while prettier, was also more bland, and quests had taken a hit Down from Morrowind, you find console mainly gamers making the same complaint between Oblivion to Skyrim. Which Again is also true, they fixed most of the broken systems from Oblivion, but man the quests and questlines were ass.
Ironically you Bring up The Witcher 2, Most of the time I hear people say that the first Witcher game were the better one, with better story, better setting, and a closer connection to the World around you. The combat ystem in TW 1 caught flak, for being a rythm based system (people calling it mindless clicking either did not play it, or completely missed the point, since every stance had a specific timer that needed to go Down for the NeXT click of the mouse, to proceed to better attacks, and the rythem and frequency became more elaborate as Geralt became more procifient.
The reason many Hype TW 3 is A) it looks prettier, this is likely also many of those stating that TW 2 was better). B) from what weve heard and seen, the game is more Akin to TW 1 then 2 8instead of going from litteral battlefield to battlefield) we are back to villages, mysteries and personal judgements as to what were human and what were monster (a major theme in the first witcher, and one that were missing in the second for the most part).
overall though TW have allways had subpar combat. both 1 and 2 were pleagued by the combat.
Log in to comment