Don't own a PS 4 , can't judge Bloodborne ( want to play it badly tho ). Playing The Witcher 3 on PC atm ( its 10 X more improved over TW 2 and enjoying the game very much so far).
Witcher 3 is a game with higher production values. It has a bigger land mass, and more content. The game mechanics on the other hand, are amateurish, with many questionable design decisions, many of which previous games like Dragon Age and Elder Scrolls didn't get wrong
Bloodborne is a game with relatively lower production values. You can tell that it took a smaller crew to make, without the need of hiring much mocap or facial acting. The game mechanics on the other hand....is tried and true, and extremely polished
Witcher 3 can't even get the feel of walking right. Geralt has this wierd semi-jogging speed as his ordinary walking speed, making subtle twitches in displacement extremely difficult. Sometimes I constantly knock around the handrail of a staircase just in order to get on to it. He always overshoots the staircase. Stupid candles around important interactable NPCs and objects making you constantly ignite and extinguish it. I can't know the crafting level requirements of the damn diagrams I'm buying. What?? This is a level 40 sword?? I'm only level 20. Stupid item repair mechanic, whereby 'repair all' includes all the junk you don't need as well. Have they ever played Diablo 2 & 3? Disappearing trader icons on the map etc. etc. etc. Good game with bad mechanics I'd say.
Haven't put the time into Witcher 3 (and doubtful I ever will, sadly).
BB is far and away the best game on PS4, IMO, though I also consider Dark Souls as one of my favorite games ever and I'm unabashedly predisposed toward Soulsian stuff.
I just finished my first play through of Bloodborne. I missed one of the umbilical cords so I am going to play through again so I can defeat the Moon Presence.
I plan on purchasing Witcher 3 but I worry about the clunky controls and combat.
I like both, but The Witcher 3 is a more well rounded game, with great gameplay, deep narrative, fantastic graphics, interesting characters, etc. Bloodborne has great gameplay but is weak in most other areas, and I still think Dark Souls is a better example of that type of game.
Both. I have like 350h in BB and haven't played TW3 yet because i need a new gpu first and im waiting for CDPR to release all the patches/mods improving visuals of the game
@mems_1224: don't make me laugh... you are neither objective or subjective. .. just a bitter lemming who bashes all things related to Sony and has done so for years..lol
BB is great......for one playthrough. Then you start noticing all the imperfections and certain weapons being miles ahead of the others. Don't even get me started on the Chalice Dungeons. They could do with ALOT more variety in layout and architecture.
Having never played a Witcher game before I want to read up on the lore first. So I ordered the first short story compilation (Geralt started off in a Polish sci-fi mag) and the first 3 novels. Hell, I may wait for the inevitable Witcher 3 GOTY edition. I'm patient like that.
Witcher 3, easily. Like, its not even remotely close. Souls games suck
When you say a game which got 92 on Metacritic sucks, you immediately lose credibility. Games are often subjective, but you're not even objective.
when you base your opinions on metacritic scores you immediately lose credibility. i am objective. can't play metacritic scores.
it's called statistics, an average of 90+ reviewers. An objective person would take a step back and admit that he might be in the minority camp, and subsequently refrain from making blanket statements the way you did.
I didn't like The Witcher's controls which is why I didn't get far and also why I skipped The Witcher 2. I'm also not a big fan of third-person games (I like FPS games the most) although I do make exceptions. The Witcher 3 is one of them. I'm finding the game to be quite enjoyable.
Never played any of the Souls games (yet). Maybe I'll put them in my backlog for the PS3.
Witcher 3, easily. Like, its not even remotely close. Souls games suck
When you say a game which got 92 on Metacritic sucks, you immediately lose credibility. Games are often subjective, but you're not even objective.
when you base your opinions on metacritic scores you immediately lose credibility. i am objective. can't play metacritic scores.
truth
game reviewers aren't to be trusted.
no more than we should be trusting you
also true
metascores can carry some credibility, such as a 90+ game might actually be worth trying out, but they're subject to bribery, hype and dev pandering.
In this age of softball game reviewing, 90+ are handed out left and right because nine is the new six. Just because a game gets a nine doesn't mean it's actually that great.
Witcher 3, easily. Like, its not even remotely close. Souls games suck
When you say a game which got 92 on Metacritic sucks, you immediately lose credibility. Games are often subjective, but you're not even objective.
when you base your opinions on metacritic scores you immediately lose credibility. i am objective. can't play metacritic scores.
it's called statistics, an average of 90+ reviewers. An objective person would take a step back and admit that he might be in the minority camp, and subsequently refrain from making blanket statements the way you did.
His statement of "Souls games suck" is obviously an opinion of his on a very subjective topic. What the hell do you mean by "refrain from making blanket statements they way you [he] did."? Are you so dense that he needs to put "in my opinion" after EVERYTHING he says? I mean seriously. He wrote it, it's obviously his opinion. Whether or not anyone else agrees or not is completely irrelevant.
metascores can carry some credibility, such as a 90+ game might actually be worth trying out, but they're subject to bribery, hype and dev pandering.
In this age of softball game reviewing, 90+ are handed out left and right because nine is the new seven. Just because a game gets a nine doesn't mean it's actually that great.
That shortcoming isn't limited to reviewers. It's a limitation of all human beings. Reviewers might be biased due to either bribery, ad money or even website traffic. Ordinary people like us are also highly subjected to fanboyism and corporate loyalty. Cognitive dissonance is high among fanboys, which explains why people like FoxBatAlpha can never see anything inherently bad about Microsoft, nor anything good about Sony. But he makes up maybe 1 out of 10 fanboys. That's why statistics are important, so outliers can be ignored.
Yes, reviewers are subjected to corruption no more than we are subjected to irrational loyalty to a brand or franchise. But if it were so, we can be somewhat assured that not all of those 50+ reviewers took money from corporations
@mems_1224: don't make me laugh... you are neither objective or subjective. .. just a bitter lemming who bashes all things related to Sony and has done so for years..lol
metascores can carry some credibility, such as a 90+ game might actually be worth trying out, but they're subject to bribery, hype and dev pandering.
In this age of softball game reviewing, 90+ are handed out left and right because nine is the new seven. Just because a game gets a nine doesn't mean it's actually that great.
That shortcoming isn't limited to reviewers. It's a limitation of all human beings. Reviewers might be biased due to either bribery, ad money or even website traffic. Ordinary people like us are also highly subjected to fanboyism and corporate loyalty. Cognitive dissonance is high among fanboys, which explains why people like FoxBatAlpha can never see anything inherently bad about Microsoft, nor anything good about Sony. But he makes up maybe 1 out of 10 fanboys. That's why statistics are important, so outliers can be ignored.
Yes, reviewers are subjected to corruption no more than we are subjected to irrational loyalty to a brand or franchise. But if it were so, we can be somewhat assured that not all of those 50+ reviewers took money from corporations
yea, maybe those 50+ reviewers just have shit taste.
@jhcho2: My main point was that 90+ is an indication of a good game, not proof of a good game.
Reviewers don't want to mete out bad scores at the expense of business. So they devised this new "modern scale" so everyone with a halfway decent game can be a winner.
The fact that there is corruption and bias in game journalism was just put there to further discredit them.
@jhcho2: My main point was that 90+ is an indication of a good game, not proof of a good game.
Reviewers don't want to mete out bad scores at the expense of business. So they devised this new "modern scale" so everyone with a halfway decent game can be a winner.
The fact that there is corruption and bias in game journalism was just put there to further discredit them.
Yeah. I can agree that a AAA score is indicative of a good game. That's why when there is sufficient indication around that a certain game might be good, an objective person will be able to identify that perhaps most people don't agree with him. That was the original context of my post.
Im a Fromsoft fanboy... but I've put way more time into Witcher 3. It's a far more substantial game. I swept through Bloodborne in 16 hours and was done with it.
Im a Fromsoft fanboy... but I've put way more time into Witcher 3. It's a far more substantial game. I swept through Bloodborne in 16 hours and was done with it.
Partly because of the cutscenes. I swear that half of the quests in the game have dialog and cutscenes which take more time to watch than actually playing to complete the quest. A simple fetch quest can take 1 minute worth of detective mode but 3 minutes of dialog to obtain the quest and turning it in.
it's called statistics, an average of 90+ reviewers. An objective person would take a step back and admit that he might be in the minority camp, and subsequently refrain from making blanket statements the way you did.
Which still wouldn't make the game quality, argumentum ad populum mate.
Mems is on crack though, the Souls games are terrific. The Witcher games are pretty fucking average when it comes to the gameplay part if not straight garbo like Witcher 1.
it's called statistics, an average of 90+ reviewers. An objective person would take a step back and admit that he might be in the minority camp, and subsequently refrain from making blanket statements the way you did.
Which still wouldn't make the game quality, argumentum ad populum mate.
Mems is on crack though, the Souls games are terrific. The Witcher games are pretty fucking average when it comes to the gameplay part if not straight garbo like Witcher 1.
Good thing we judge games by more then just mechanical feel.
Not trying to be harsh, but I don't understand why you even play games like The Witcher 3. You're very vocal of disliking pretty much all video game stories. Witcher 3 definitely spends more of it's time immersing the player and trying to tell a story. The strengths of The Witcher series has always been its world building and characterization, not the actual combat and RPG mechanics. You have pretty much said that you dislike the story of The Witcher, so do you just skip the story stuff and jump into the game? Seems like you would have a better time spending your gaming hours more on action RPGs that focus on refined player interactivity.
I'm just curious, because to me, it seems pointless to dismiss a game like The Witcher because it doesn't have the best "gameplay." Games like Silent Hill or Journey do not have very strong gameplay, but they are still praised highly for the experience they deliver.
Log in to comment