The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt vs The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

not completely unheard of

(but I get what you mean)

No, but we did see her ass

If you think BotW and W3 are as uncomparable as Tetris and Uncharted

*shrug*

Okay then

There is a point to be made this is not a 1:1 comparison- which, no shit, literally no two games ever will be, unless it's like FIFA and PES or something. But it's not outlandish a comparison as you seem to think it is, either.

Not nearly enough of it

At least we can all agree they both have better combat than Ninja Gaiden Black.

What is the point of comparing Witcher 3 to BotW when they are vastly different? I'm exaggerating with Tetris and Uncharted obviously but seriously, I can't fathom the meaning of this thread. Comparing Final Fantasy series to Bioware RPGs make sense because they're both party-based RPGs and make for some meaningful discussion.

@lordlors: Both are open world fantasy action RPGs, which are considered to have revolutionized open world games.

Not a hard comparison

I agree with this

According to who? People who don't play open world games? Just admit you made this thread because you have a huge hard on for both games.

I'm going by common critical reception. Hard to actually deny it.

That said, when have I ever pretended I don't 'have a huge hard on' for both these games? You're saying that like I'm furtive about it or something, lol

It's the majority opinion, actually.

No, that makes no sense

I think he is talking about the older, party, command based Bioware RPGs, not nu-Bioware fare.

It's the WRPG vs JRPG trope people used to always discuss in the past.

I think they can hardly be compared just like when people tried to compare Skyrim to W3. At least with Skyrim and W3, both strive to achieve realistic graphics while Zelda's graphical style is completely different which you can't compare.

@lordlors: Just because the graphical styles are different doesn't mean that the games can't be compared...

W3 and Skyrim is, again, not exactly an unfounded comparison.

That also doesn't make any sense.

Visuals have nothing to do with whether or not two games are comparable. Not much anyway.

Look, I agree that Witcher 3 and BotW aren't really comparable, because they're both very different in what they set out to do. But I still think they're a lot more comparable than you're saying.

A great game and revolutionary are two different things. Not all great games are revolutionary. TW3 didn't revolutionize anything. BOTW is too early to tell but if anything its the product of Dark Souls, Skyrim and Ubisoft games. You know, the biggest and most influential open world RPGs/Action games of the last decade.

I get that you have issues with The Witcher 3, but come on. Give credit where it's due.

Its a great game. What did it revolutionize?

Strong story and good quest design even in an open world game were TW3's major contributions to the genre. The fact that games like Horizon and Assassin's Creed have openly cited Witcher 3 as an influence, and that Horizon literally even rips off Witcher 3's UI, shows how influential it was.

You know a game has revolutionized a genre when it is seen as the benchmark for all future similar titles.

To add to this, a revolutionary title doesn't have to be original- it can borrow from other games, synthesize disparate elements, and make a new mix that manages to influence future games. Ubisoft open world games definitely did this. Dark Souls definitely did this. Witcher 3 definitely did this. Breath of the Wild will probably do this (though of course, it's too early to call that right now)

@khoofia_pika: strong story? It's not the only video game that people claim has a strong story and it's quest design is trash. You might be right though, it did popularize the awful mission design of "use your detective vision and follow this line and now do it 1000 more times"

We're now disagreeing on something as simple as whether or not the story or quest design were good, but let's not get into that. That boils down to preference. That's not the point. The point is, as I said in my last post, you know a game has revolutionized a genre when it is seen as the benchmark for all future similar titles. Whether or not the things it did are to your or my liking is irrelevant.

@mems_1224: better story than botw amirite

Ok im done i promise...

I promise you I will ban you

what story

The one with Zelda's ass

Oh right.

GOTG.

@charizard1605: ːZE3_GameOverː

@khoofia_pika: point taken

The Legend of Zelda: Ass in the Wild

wild ass appeared

link used silent princess

its super effective

K E K

So you're arguing that TW3 revolutionized something that you already admit is completely subjective and I already conceded that its bad quest design has permeated other games. So you're right, TW3 is already ruining other open world games.

Looks like CEMU has a long way to go.

@mems_1224: If The Witcher 3 has bad quest designs compared to other open world RPG's can you give examples of some good ones? I'm confused.

@MirkoS77: I think it runs somewhat better now after the more recent updates, but my brother hasn't played BotW in months.

New Vegas.

witcher 3 sucks

zelda doesn't

Hmm, well one is a good RPG; with a lot of choice and consequences, A varied set of quests, and a well fleshed out world, with characters, it has sub par combat and requires specific builds to be really effective.

The Other is BotW.

Granted this was not a question of which were the better RPG, that would have been more simple to answer, but if I were to pick the differences, I would say that BotW has really well crafted dungeons, the gameplay is rock solid, it is not amazing, but it sets out exactly what it aims to do (That weapon degeneration though). Placed in an open world, bringing back the feeling of exploration as the first LoZ gave me back when I were 8. To be honest I think that BotW is the first LoZ game I really liked since a Link to the past

So It comes down to what the to games were trying to do, and in that area I think TW3 did more of its goals better. Yeah combat sucks, or rather it is not tight enough, all the options and code is in there, but it is too loose for its own good. The rest I can not really find fault with. It feels like an RPG, a real rpg is hard as hell to make. (and no just because a game has stats, does not make it an rpg, that is the choice and consequence bits that does).

BotW is more of an open world game, the LoZ series has never struck me as attempting to be an RPG, although rpg elements has been in there since the second game. I consider it more of an open world game, more akin to Saints row in a sense, and it does this really well. There is a few shortcomings that grinds my gears, the speed of weapon degradation is inexcusable, it is well and good to have good and fluid combat but have weapons that breaks like twigs putting a halt on combat. Great exploration with just the right hint of puzzle solving, I find it less well made in BotW then in previous games, but it is still well above average. But outside of those things, I can not think of much that BotW did that was exceptional.

So my choice comes down to my preference for RPGS over Open world games, I imagine that is what it comes down to for many..

I gave them both 10s, and they're both among my favorite games of the decade, but I've got to give this one to Zelda. It handled exploration so much better than TW3. The world is designed in a way that it can be easily navigated without a minimap thanks to visual landmarks and pinning. In Zelda you can usually see way off into the distance to orient yourself, in TW3 there are usually things in the way. Getting around in the Witcher with the hud turned off is a pain and you'll find yourself pulling up the full map much more frequently than in Zelda. TW3's endless question marks on the map are another issue, and yes they can be turned off, but so can Skyrim's quest markers. The game really isn't designed with doing that in mind. Organic methods of navigation, like Morrowind's extensive signposts and NPC directions, make for a much more enjoyable open world exploration experience than quest markers.

Cinematic driven quests in an open world RPG.

Wrong. BOTW is actually a product of the original Zelda meeting immersive sim game design pioneered by Ultima Underworld and System Shock. Skyrim is also part of this Ultima Underworld influence as well. BOTW is defined by what Skyrim and Ubi Soft games don't do, actually.

wrong, you just don't get it.

Really good point about being able to see distance better by scaling mountains, etc. That was really cool, but it's still too bad that breath of the wild is such an empty world.

BOTW is not an empty world.

And really, its more dynamic than any other open world game. Other open world games look like plastic compared to BOTW.

LOL. Excellent joke post!

The only joke is your understanding.

BOTW's open world runs on systems, not checklists and objective markers. BOTW's world responds to your actions better than any other open world game.

Yes, it responds to your actions by being mostly empty. I get that the hardware really can't handle much, but they should have made the world smaller and filled it some more.

Excellent joke post again!

Its not empty however, the world of BOTW is stuffed with things to explore. It goes to show you have not actually played it.

What it isn't is filled with quest markers and checkboxes, if the lack of these is what you define as "empty" than I am glad BOTW is "empty".

Really BOTW makes every other open world game since Morrowind (except for maybe New Vegas) shitty open world games.

Question for those who claim BotW's world is empty: What in the living **** do you compare it with?

Nothing, probably, since they most certainly haven't actually played the damn game