Gagan said:Really don't feel like that addresses my point slick. Considering I'm not comparing Bayonetta 1's visual direction to DMC1s, but DMC5. DMC1 is naturally going to stay memorable because direction wise they bothered to make a castle with a library, a plant room, a sewer, that open garden shit, that one atrium, etc. All visually different, but not necessarily always complimenting what the game is good at. DMC5 is honestly a lot of gray n red ass rooms once you get to the Demon tree. Ergo it gets a lot of level design knocks much in the same way FEAR does. Too much dull color, not enough color color. But it's not exactly bad level design, it plays to the strengths of DMC. I aint fucking concerned with "mah experience" as much as I'm about "mah game" ya digg?
Also bitch the energy you spent on reading my shit and coming up with a weak post could have been spent playing Devil May Cry 3. Get your shit together pls, go see where Yakuza got its style shits from, go see how a real game does it. Slob.
It does because you're falsely equating visual direction with level design to ignore his points about level design. His points may be invalid for other reasons, but they can't be invalid because of the art direction lol.
I'm also not sure how Yakuza got its style from Devil May Cry 3 when they were released in the same year. Definitely from Devil May Cry, so with that in mind, there's really no reason to continue with the series! 
Foolz said:It does because you're falsely equating visual direction with level design to ignore his points about level design. His points may be invalid for other reasons, but they can't be invalid because of the art direction lol.
I'm also not sure how Yakuza got its style from Devil May Cry 3 when they were released in the same year. Definitely from Devil May Cry, so with that in mind, there's really no reason to continue with the series!
Sure they can, the look of a level is separate from how it functions as a level is my larger point. Just because you made a library, doesn't actually make it good or interesting level design, that's just a visual thing. If it's completely at odds with the gameplay, it's shit level design. Ergo my point 99.99% of the complaints about DMC5 can be boiled down to how it looks, the actual spaces they have you navigate n fight in are perfectly fine n compliment the gameplay way better than some of the stuff they do in other action games. The lazy comparison people make is with DmC, but even that game is a whole lot of box rooms, the difference is when you make one arena a club with neon lights, and another box room surrounded by demonic soda dispensers, you have a more visually memorable space. I'm not disagreeing with that criticism of DMC5, but its level design being a non factor in gameplay is sort of missing the point. Why would it have enemy placements below or above Dante's positioning? why would it. How would a game like DMC5, a game about score chasing n free style, really benefit from levels you navigate that fold in on themselves with spread out enemies? Doesn't exactly fit its gameplay style.
That's not to say you can't criticize the encounter design in these type of games. Enemy pairings or lack there of, is a valid criticism obviously. It is a fucking crime that Kamiya thought it was okay that The Wonderful 101 didn't need any sort of interesting enemy pairings. Likewise there are complaints to be made about the enemy pairings DMC5 went with, or specifically the lack there of on Dante Must Die mode or how easy Bloody Palace is. Or how not good V is. Or how they missed a big opportunity with Nero's devil breakers not being switchable. Or the lack of reversals. Or the lack of Inertia. Both of which needed to be modded in.
Yakuza has styles sport, as in like different combat styles that you can switch from. You would get what I'm referring to if YOU HAD PLAYED DEVIL MAY CRY THREE ALREADY YOU KIWI SHIT!!
Yakuza 0 at least*
Gagan said:I would argue DMC5's level design not being memorable and 3 being memorable, has more to do with how visually bland DMC5's spaces are. Too much gray when you get into that tree. Only noteworthy spots with Dante are his house (which you don't fight in), the mission thats a trio of circle rooms with those plant brain blob things that you gotta destroy while beating up dudes, and the one part that has ice lol. But Bayonetta alternatively wouldn't have that problem, yet its level design isn't all that different from DMC5 in spirit, namasayin, that has more to do with visual direction. Which again to me just how something looks, it has merit worth discussing, but not one I feel like putting much stock into.
That is where you N I disagree, partially because nowadays I'm not finishing a 100 hour game that plays poorly. I can make it through a Witcher 3 (and even that game I'd argue is closer to average/okay than poor), you couldn't pay me to finish a Bethesda game. I grew up getting video games when mama dukes could afford to buy it, so I grew up replaying my games and have never really stopped replaying games from time to time. As I would go back to any classic in any other art form. Beyond that I don't think replayability is required to be a good game, but the best games, the better games I do value it.
I get that the wave is Bloodborne, 2Make, even Dad of War styled levels. And I certainly don't mind it, but I obviously don't mind how DMC5 does business. Play to your strengths, yada yada.
I get your points, bayonetta does have simplistic design but it does something DMCV didn’t, variety in situations. I know you hate it but I love random crazy shooter levels and random crazy stuff happening. When I speak of level design I do mean level design, DMCV has none cause it needs none. Remove the background of all these games and think of the game space, DMCV is mostly a series of hallways and rooms, the player never needs to think about any of it. Go back to DMC1 and 3, it’s a central location with many paths, the player does need to think about it, that’s a major fundamental difference. Whether you think that’s a good thing for an action game or not is a different argument.
Anyway can we address Witcher versus Bethesda? Why do you think Witcher, the game with worse gameplay, worse RPG elements, less combat options is better than a bethsda game which allows far far far more gameplay freedom. Is it just story? Polish?
Gagan said:Sure they can, the look of a level is separate from how it functions as a level is my larger point. Just because you made a library, doesn't actually make it good or interesting level design, that's just a visual thing. If it's completely at odds with the gameplay, it's shit level design. Ergo my point 99.99% of the complaints about DMC5 can be boiled down to how it looks, the actual spaces they have you navigate n fight in are perfectly fine n compliment the gameplay way better than some of the stuff they do in other action games. The lazy comparison people make is with DmC, but even that game is a whole lot of box rooms, the difference is when you make one arena a club with neon lights, and another box room surrounded by demonic soda dispensers, you have a more visually memorable space. I'm not disagreeing with that criticism of DMC5, but its level design being a non factor in gameplay is sort of missing the point. Why would it have enemy placements below or above Dante's positioning? why would it. How would a game like DMC5, a game about score chasing n free style, really benefit from levels you navigate that fold in on themselves with spread out enemies? Doesn't exactly fit its gameplay style.
That's not to say you can't criticize the encounter design in these type of games. Enemy pairings or lack there of, is a valid criticism obviously. It is a fucking crime that Kamiya thought it was okay that The Wonderful 101 didn't need any sort of interesting enemy pairings. Likewise there are complaints to be made about the enemy pairings DMC5 went with, or specifically the lack there of on Dante Must Die mode or how easy Bloody Palace is. Or how not good V is. Or how they missed a big opportunity with Nero's devil breakers not being switchable. Or the lack of reversals. Or the lack of Inertia. Both of which needed to be modded in.
Yakuza has styles sport, as in like different combat styles that you can switch from. You would get what I'm referring to if YOU HAD PLAYED DEVIL MAY CRY THREE ALREADY YOU KIWI SHIT!!
Okay, then (in theory) we are actually in agreement!
I haven't played Yakuza 0. But it sounds like what you're saying is that I should play Yakuza 0, then Devil May Cry 3?
Dvader said:I get your points, bayonetta does have simplistic design but it does something DMCV didn’t, variety in situations. I know you hate it but I love random crazy shooter levels and random crazy stuff happening. When I speak of level design I do mean level design, DMCV has none cause it needs none. Remove the background of all these games and think of the game space, DMCV is mostly a series of hallways and rooms, the player never needs to think about any of it. Go back to DMC1 and 3, it’s a central location with many paths, the player does need to think about it, that’s a major fundamental difference. Whether you think that’s a good thing for an action game or not is a different argument.
Anyway can we address Witcher versus Bethesda? Why do you think Witcher, the game with worse gameplay, worse RPG elements, less combat options is better than a bethsda game which allows far far far more gameplay freedom. Is it just story? Polish?
*shrugs* It's not that diverging from your core mechanics is a game over for me, you can ask Tomas, I'm a pretty big fan of Bayonetta lol, more so than its sequel. The reality you don't actually have to think about space in 3 either, a lot of it is just going back n forth to find some random puzzle thing (kind of like the nidhogs in 5) or to find upgrade material shit. Which still applies to DMC5, 1 is structured more like a Resi game, But the difference I keep saying is maybe that first playthrough you have to do some basic ass figuring out where you need to go n shit, but you aren't conserving ammo or life in that game, realistically you're not ducking fights as much in DMC1, at least high level play. High level play of Resi, has some moving around enemies n shit. And you at least have reasons to go with the less straight forward path in Resi, on replays you never have any reason to diverge from the path in DMC1. The value to me is this
>the better you get at Resident Evil, the more reasons or fun you can extract from doing different routing in Resi.
>the better you get at DMC1, the more irrelevant that level design gets.
Not that Resi is delivering the same level of complex rewards, but generally that's my line of thinking. I am not going to be all that friendly or praising of something that only works as a parlor trick once. An example I often use is the derelect in Gears 2. The first time you play it, you see a bunch of locusts on screen that you can shoot at on the ground below you, and explosions happening everywhere. The more you replay it tho, the more you realize the explisons n gunfire are just hollow and irrelevant to the player. All you gotta worry about is the enemies that do get on the platform (at which point it's just any other gears level) or the brumack. I'm not saying DMC5 couldn't have more interesting spaces, I just wouldn't look at it as a knock. On the flip side in the grand scheme of things I'm not bothered by action/adventure games trying a bunch of things. By all means, I however, do not accept doing a bunch of things okay.
If your game is going to have a lot of me going somewhere to shoot people in the face: it better actually be good at making me shoot people in the face. No amount of cars, cousins, trucks, airplanes, is going to stop me from thinking its wack at how rigid GTAV is, how the aiming sucks so much with how finnicky it is that it needs an auto lock, how it's just a cover shooter with the same short comings of every other cover shooter, etc, etc. Like your core mechanics shouldn't be poor by any means.
>Witcher v Bethesda
Well for starters what are we calling better RPG mechanics here? Why are we looking at RPG mechanics as a net positive here? Because Todd can tell you Skyrim is a chicken, but it walks like a duck, quacks like a dick, looks like a duck. Yeah you can cook it rotisserie, but that don't make it a chicken, it's a fucking duck. Point being I don't care what they called Skyrim, that shit is not a RPG by any stretch of the imagination. Builds n factions are an irrelevant decision in Skyrim because you can join everything, be friends with everyone, be an expert in all the skills n shit. That's an action/adventure game, that's not role playing. RPG's are literally about the word "role" as in you have a guy, and a gate, and you can do 3 builds
Route A: you made a brute- he's gonna fuck him up
Route B: you made a charismatic chatty kathy - you're gonna gibber jabber your way in
Route C: you made a sneaky thiefish type and found an alternative path.
It's the base premise of Dungeons n Dragons, it's what utlimately gets the rpg crowd to go to bat for shit like Fallout, Fallout New Vegas (and not Bethesda's game by comparison), or things like Arcanum, Vampire, or more recently Divinity. Where in large parties your members have specific roles. The Witcher 3 is certainly a baby rpg much like Bethesda's game and Mass Effect, but I'm not looking at that as a bad thing. For starters, action rpgs with the exception of From Software joints n Nioh (and debatably Kingdom Hearts 2) do not benefit from all the abstractions found in a RPG system being tied to an action game system. But more to it you really can't make a jack of all trades build in Witcher 3 without gimping your geralt. THere is merit to going all mage, all green shit, and all sword shit. You aren't losing the ability to use the other shit, but they become more tertiary parts of your gameplan, less the gameplan itself.
So lets get to the combat. Ahem, The Witcher 3 has everything a good combat system should have. Light attack, strong attack, 2-3 viable defensive options that all cover a specific niche: side step doesn't have as big i-frames but keeps you closer in the fight, roll dodge has more i-frames but takes you away from the enemy but is necessary for shit you simply have to i-frame out of, and a parry to reward more productive counter play, but one the player can't use n abuse on every attack. Furthermore the player gets bonus damage if they can get behind the enemy, so positioning is an actual part of the battle system, as you the player have incentive to work your way behind enemies. Yes you can get through a fight putzing around, but the same can be said about Bayonetta. The more efficient n skillful play is going to be working around your enemies attacks, and punishing them severly once you can get behind them with your two different dodges.
Throw in a fire spell for DPS, a shield for a timely block or healing, a trap spell you have to lay down while you have a good gap between you n the enemies, a stun/mind control thing, and a push blast thing, and you have a decent tool set. In the grand scheme of things that's Dad of War (albeit a reductive framework comparison, but generally the core is siimilar on paper). The difference, and what stops The Witcher 3 from being a good combat system, is that of consistency (albeit dad of war has consistency issues as well, just not as severe). Attacks are too precise to the blade, and because of Geralts dance step shit, you can't reliably tell if you are going to get a fast light swing or a slower one. Furthermore, some of his animations cover more distance than others. In Dad of War, DMC, God of War, Bayonetta, Legend of Zelda, Dark Souls, when you hit the attack button it always covers a specific range, and does exactly that attack animation. His I-frames on his dodge are tied to a stat, so fuck that. It also isn't all that reliable, which considering that's the whole point of the dodge roll lol, that's absurd.
Sometimes your combo just drops, sometimes Geralt straight up swings god knows where. I've already said my displeasure with cooldowns, and while Dad of War has the best cooldowns(tallest midget), The Witcher 3 has the same bad cool downs all games that have cooldowns have.
Bethesda's game what do I have to work with? It controls worse, it's animations are worse, hitboxes n hurtboxes are even less consistent, you don't have to worry about positioning as much, you don't really make any interesting decisions defensively, you fight the same spider in every cave or the same troll guy. What are you left with questing wise? Witcher 3's quests are better written, actually fold in on other quests, the dialogue choices aren't filled with Mass Effect/Walking Dead tier pretentions, yet it still delivers on more satisfying consequences/results than those games, it's different range of enemies have more of a moveset when you crank up the difficulty, etc, etc, etc. I'll give Bethesda props in that their game isn't as directed, but choice for the sake of choice is not my idea of a good game. It's why Warren Spector sucks. Choices is irrelevant without challenges. Different tools in your systems are irrelevant without synergy of said tools. Dante's styles would be irrelevant if style switching on the fly didn't translate into you being able to combine one move with another sytles move with the property of another style in conjunction.
Cool downs for instance, don't have that type of synergy in the action, and that's a lot of Bethesda's gameplay as well. It doesn't offer the rube goldberg shenanigans you would associate with othersandbox titles like Breath of the Wild, The Phantom Pain, or immersive sims like Dishonored n Human Revolution.
Too long; didn't read: CDPR isn't that far from getting it super right. The Witcher 3's combat gets the basics rights, just not the details. Dad of War gets the basics n details, but lacks of advanced n technical play. Bethesda gets nothing right, and the game runs like shit. So no I do not in any context think the Witcher 3 plays worse than Skyrim, and I sure as hell
A: wouldn't actually care if a game was more of a rpg, because what's more important is whether or not the game is good in the first place. And gooder in the first place
B: Skyrim isn't a fucking rpg even in the slightest lol
Foolz said:Okay, then (in theory) we are actually in agreement!
I haven't played Yakuza 0. But it sounds like what you're saying is that I should play Yakuza 0, then Devil May Cry 3?
Bitch I will fucking end you. How dare you play DMC2 and not play DMC3 immediately. That game is smugcast bait as fuck.
Gagan said:Bitch I will fucking end you. How dare you play DMC2 and not play DMC3 immediately. That game is smugcast bait as fuck.
I'm sure it does. We'd have to see if would could organise a time you, I and Aarny'd be able to manage for that, as he's on board for the first 3 games.
You sound like another friend I have that doesnt care about what options a game gives you only look for what gets you the goal quickest. I don't care if Witchers quests are better written if the actual game part is always follow red line, click on some glowy thing, fight the same monster from 100 times before and talk to someone. There is nothing to it, yeah the writing is great but its a one trick pony. I can give you a MASSIVE list of things I can do in a TES game that you cannot do in a witcher game. When I get a quest in Skyrim I have actual options on how to complete it. You say it doesnt have RPG elements of choosing a style of play because it lets you do all of them, uhhh thats on you, I like to be a theif one mission, a terminator the next. What I dont like is endless repetition of one boring gameplay mechanic that has no depth.
Nice analysis of Witcher 3's combat system, they could have had something decent if they actually gave a crap to create good enemies and combat situations. Instead its the same trash mobs, the same few boss types over and over. Every 30 hours you actually advance the story and battle a true story boss where I actually see a semblance of some game design inspiration to create a battle thats not the same thing you have been doing for 100 hours. Yes Skyrim has an overwhelming amount of useless enemies just there to be busy work, but thats an RPG, every RPG has the trash enemies that get in your way its about what else you can do in that game to stay interesting. With TES I have many ways to make it interesting because its a free game that allows me the playe to create moments of my own, Witcher does not allow that.
I dont care which is an RPG or not, I like action adventure games. The game that makes PLAYING it more interesting is what is going to win for me. No amount of story choices (of which there are plenty in TES games), of good dialogue, is going to make up for lack of gameplay options. Witcher is a super strict game that has way more in common with action games than it does open world games. It has the usual combat skill trees found in every action game, it has boring loot and stats that are now seeping into most action games like GoW4 and its only core gameplay mechanic is strict combat with a set combat system as you described. Thats an action game. An open world game would allow emergent gameplay, would allow many ways to approach a combat situation, it will have multiple gameplay systems interacting with each other, thats what TES does. Thats what GTA does. Thats what BOTW does. Those are games that have an open world for a reason. Witcher 3 its just there to make the game feel larger than it really is.
Gagan said:Foolz said:Okay, then (in theory) we are actually in agreement!
I haven't played Yakuza 0. But it sounds like what you're saying is that I should play Yakuza 0, then Devil May Cry 3?
Bitch I will fucking end you. How dare you play DMC2 and not play DMC3 immediately. That game is smugcast bait as fuck.
I am playing DMC 3 now.
Dvader said:You sound like another friend I have that doesnt care about what options a game gives you only look for what gets you the goal quickest.
You know right up until the part where I like games with depth, so I'm all about games that allow me to free style.
Dvader said:I don't care if Witchers quests are better written if the actual game part is always follow red line, click on some glowy thing, fight the same monster from 100 times before and talk to someone.
This would have merit if every open world game, including Elder Snore n Boreout weren't talk to person, go to marker, fight the same ass shit you been fighting ad nauseum, go back to person, get numbers.
Dvader said:You say it doesnt have RPG elements of choosing a style of play because it lets you do all of them, uhhh thats on you, I like to be a theif one mission, a terminator the next. What I dont like is endless repetition of one boring gameplay mechanic that has no depth.
It has no RPG mechanics because it has no punishment for making a jack of all trades. If you try jack of all trades build in Divinity, you gimp your characters ceiling, not the case in Elder Snore. You can max out everything before half time in that game. Beyond that having a bunch of mechanics with no depth isn't actually in my opinion better than a smaller set of systems with no depth. It's the same problem, except now you'll at least get the ADHD crowd I guess.
Dvader said:
Nice analysis of Witcher 3's combat system, they could have had something decent if they actually gave a crap to create good enemies and combat situations. Instead its the same trash mobs, the same few boss types over and over.
Wouldn't even argue the enemies themselves are bad, as much as it makes the same mistake something like The Wonderful 101 does. Where are the enemy pairings? Why am I only ever fighting wyverns with just more wyvern? Why couldn't it be a wyvern n wraith pairing, or what have you. Difference is The Wonderful 101 has a more consistent battle system and more depth, but hey I think the roster for Witcher's enemies is fine, all things considered I'd take it over the ones in Elder Snore, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut when they are all going to be separated instead of leveraged in any interesting way, it's a wasted roster. DMC5 sort of has that problem, weirdly on DMD.
Dvader said:Yes Skyrim has an overwhelming amount of useless enemies just there to be busy work, but thats an RPG, every RPG has the trash enemies that get in your way its about what else you can do in that game to stay interesting.
RPGs especially in video games, to me are a synonym for "this is shit". I don't like too many of them, and a lot of their would be classics I deem to be frauds. As nice as I am to The Witcher 3, I wouldn't hesitate to give it a 6/10, at best I'd call it bare minimum good with a 7. It just so happens to be I'm giving bethesdas shit like a 4.
Dvader said:
I dont care which is an RPG or not, I like action adventure games. The game that makes PLAYING it more interesting is what is going to win for me. No amount of story choices (of which there are plenty in TES games), of good dialogue, is going to make up for lack of gameplay options. Witcher is a super strict game that has way more in common with action games than it does open world games. It has the usual combat skill trees found in every action game, it has boring loot and stats that are now seeping into most action games like GoW4 and its only core gameplay mechanic is strict combat with a set combat system as you described. Thats an action game. An open world game would allow emergent gameplay, would allow many ways to approach a combat situation, it will have multiple gameplay systems interacting with each other, thats what TES does. Thats what GTA does. Thats what BOTW does. Those are games that have an open world for a reason. Witcher 3 its just there to make the game feel larger than it really is.
Me neither, Withcer 3 is less of a RPG than Witcher 1, and I much prefer the 3rd game. I certainly am not of the opinion From Software's admittedly great action RPGs stack up favorably to Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden or even Nioh. Considering how big I am on judging the gameplay I'm telling you what I've played of Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 (beat those btw), and what little I've tolerated Skyrim, I have been thoroughly unimpressed by what I have played. It's bare bones stealth game if you try to sneak, it's a shitty action game if you go that route, and mages are brain dead. And I don't like choice for the sake of choice, I'm not that big on the original Deus Ex, I'd much rather play Human Revolution by comparison.
I care more about the challenges used with the games systems, and what the quests themselves are. And Rockstar's games are a lot of things, emergent isn't one of them. Yeah if you dick around for a bit, but the actual missions? Maypoles are less linear.
Breath of the Wild sure, I like it and The Phantom Pain more than a shit load of open world games for a variety of reasons, but otherwise I think the genre is wack as shit. The Witcher 3 even as some pseudo fusion of Bethesda n Bioware's works, is definitely of the same lineage as what Rockstar, Bethesda, Ubisoft, n the like make, and less what Kojima n Nintendo made when they made open worlds. Albeit Kojima's actual world aesthetically n structurally had massive issues.
aspro said:I am playing DMC 3 now.
I said smugcast Philip, not lets explain what a jump cancel is podcast ;p
You know what help me actually, go more in detail. What exactly is it that you dig about Bethesda's game?
Because for the life of me I don't get it, and I usually am more than capable of getting why people like a game I think is shit. Like I get the appeal of Rockstar, to me liking them over CDPR's game is like whatever, they both share a similar problem and similar strengths. But sure, fine, whatever. But Bethesda over anyone? There is not one game mechanic in their games that those hang their hat on. All of them are janky, feel poor, have bad animations, graphically the games are ugly, the games have bad writing, bad stories, bad music, bad characters, with the added bonus they run like shit. And I'm not against liking a buggy game, I get why people like New Vegas, and that's because Obsidian n Tom Sawyer get what a RPG is (take some notes Bethesda), and I'm big fan of STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. But in the case of SoC you have a far richer n more complex game to get invested in, its jank is more a by product of some genuine ambitions in gameplay. The fucking zombie AI in that game would be the normal enemy AI in every other game, and that's supposed to be the stupid enemies in Stalker. The ballistics have a huge learning curve, but they fundamentally change how you approach encounters versus any other FPS.
Bethesda's shit? It didn't change how your thief handles stealth scenarios beyond giving you little to no interesting tools at all. It didn't change combat, beyond giving you a shit barrel combat system with no weight to the attack animations. They have skated by so much on
-You can putz around
-mods
And I'm like I'd rather play a Doom Wad than ever go through the trouble of finding the mod that adds fun to a bethesda game.
Steel is going to laugh cause I use the same example so many times, its that in a Bethesda game most of the memorable moments are MY moments, crazy situations I create that you cant do in a strict game like Witcher 3. In Oblivion I was once just strolling around and I noticed like some camp in the woods, I go to take some shit and its a giants home and the Giant returned home to see me stealing his stuff. So now this giant who is way more high leveled than me is chasing me and now I am in an epic footchase down a hill, through rivers, and its just chasing me. Then I see a big ass bear, bear meet Giant, now the bear and giant are going at it and I can join in attacking the Giant with my new ally that just came out of nowhere. The whole thing was like 10 minutes but its a moment that is not part of a mission, its not scripted, I made my own action scene and boss battle.
I love creating scenarios where I decide to be a thief for a day and go into the most valuable shop and try to see what I can shoplift, stuff way more high level and expensive than I can get at the moment. If I am successful I feel like a badass, if I get caught I am now a hunted criminal like in GTA (I'll probably cheat and reload). It's a playground and I can do whatever I want. I can invent really chesse tastic ways to kill super high level enemies by using certain spells and traps. Fallout 4 I treated most bases like a MGSV base, try to stealth my way through most of it, or set up some ambush site and lead enemies to it.
Also there is the randomness of it all, on of my favorite moments of FO4 was when I was in a mission and it was like some politician holding a rally, there was a big stage and he was doing speech, there was a crowd and everything. In the distance the AI is having some huge battle with a gunship firing on mutants, you hear and see explosions going off. All of a sudden one of those gunships crash lands onto the stage and then explodes killing half the crowd and the polititian that was supposed to be part of the mission, I couldn't believe it. The chaos was so sudden that I just laughed, a plane literally landed on my target. There were body parts all around, fires I had to get through just to recover the body. That was some odd glitch and it became a memorable moment, MY MOMENT.
All these things happen ON TOP of having 100 hours worth of decent storylines, quests, good memorable NPC characters, and a sense of adventure that very few games ever pull off. The worlds Bethesda makes are second to none, just picking a direction and going leads to so many new oppertunities and sights to see. I don't even get that from GTA, GTA has a fun world to mess around in but you don't really explore it, it's just there.
One thing IMO that CDPR has always struggled with are controls. W1 & W2 were both made for KB/mouse and yet both feel really weird compared to most games. Not terrible, but odd. Then they ported W2 to 360 and clearly had trouble grasping gamepad controls, because it doesn't feel right at all. At least with the KB/mouse, you can compensate for wonkiness with precision. On the gamepad, Geralt just feels like drunken Link. Even in The Witcher 3...the first game built for both PC & console from the get go, while it definitely feels like an improvement, the controls still don't feel as natural on a pad as they should. As someone who prefers playing with a gamepad if I can, that's unfortunate.
That's one reason why I'm glad they're going 1st-person with Cyberpunk, as I think that will help them smooth out the controls. Because in that style of game with a lot of tight environments, a Witcher style 3rd-person cam with their track record could have been really bad.
Another game that needs a semi-remake...The Witcher 1. If that game was updated for next-gen I'd be all over it.
The Elder Scrolls games are definitely more of an open sandbox anything-can-happen experience than the Witcher games, but you could say the same thing for something like Final Fantasy. It's just a different approach.
Well that post was like 3 times larger, & it all got erased. Fantastic.
I had a bunch of shit talking about Elder Scrolls that I don't feel like writing all over again.
Fuck it...bullet points:
- Most here started playing Elder Scrolls & Witcher when they became more streamlined
- Oblivion in 2006 & Witcher 2 on 360 in 2013.
- Morrowind was a better than than Oblivion or Skyrim in every way. The first 3 ES games need to be semi-remade a la Spyro Trilogy...not Skyrim for the 50th time.
- Bethesda was still at least TRYING to polish their games when Morrowind came out, instead of relying on the fans to do it for them.
- Witcher 1 definitely had more RPG mechanics, & more interesting setting than W3.
God that pisses me off....I write a giant post on here for the first time in ages & lose it all.
Gagan, the only ES game I like (and by like I mean love) is Morrowind. It's super fun for the exact reasons you hate ES: the fact that there is no balance to the skills, no consequences for maxing one out by it meaning you can't max out another, allows you to do hilariously ridiculous stuff. As a normal gameplay system, it's completely broken: the only limit is not your skill, but your imagination. It all also takes place in one of the best videogame settings ever. If by story you mean plot and characters, then sure, Morrowind sucks; but, actually, it's meant to be a desolate, plague-destroyed setting, so the fact that it's essentially deserted even by the husks of people who still inhabit it, make it no less engrossing. 
Simply put, the fun in Morrowind is the same fun to be had in GTA 1-San Andreas: unlock all weapons, unlimited ammo cheat mode; doing things like GTA IV and V tried such as more traditional shooting/driving mechanics and mission pacing, just get in the way of you doing something ridiculous that the game (or so it would seem) didn't expect you to do.
Anyway, I can't think of anything weirder than your box-ticking argument for Witcher 3 being better combat, precisely because it is a crushingly mediocre-bad imitation of beat 'em ups. Seriously? Did I miss something?
P.S. The one notable thing about the story in Witcher 3 is its use of Eastern European folklore, but there's only a handful of instances of this. I'll take Morrowind's narrative over mediocre, generic fantasy plots and shitty TV-imitation writing, too. Not to mention how horrifically bad sections of pacing in Witcher 3 were. Jesus.
Witcher 3 is still pretty cool, though.
You know what pisses me off about Witcher 3?
I had beaten the main game back when it first came out. Then recently, I decided I wanted to check out the DLC & finish up the side quests and quessts that I failed because you were supposed to do them before the endgame. So I started up a NEW GAME +, thinking it worked like NG + always works, where you take your super leveled up ass & lay waste to everyone while also being able to hit up the expansions whenever I wanted.
But no! NG+ in W3 literally doubles the difficulty, so even though you're say Level 35, all the enemies and quests are also at least that. Meanwhile, the recommnded level for doing the DLC goes from around 37, to fucking 65! Now unfortunately, I didn't realize this until all my saves were overridden. Which is my fault...I should have made sure I kept an older save. But still, you shouldn't HAVE to. So now I'm fucked...I basically have to start over completely, or just do the DLC in the separate option. But that feels like a cheap way to do it.
edgecrusher said:Fuck it...bullet points:
- Most here started playing Elder Scrolls & Witcher when they became more streamlined
- Oblivion in 2006 & Witcher 2 on 360 in 2013.
- Morrowind was a better than than Oblivion or Skyrim in every way. The first 3 ES games need to be semi-remade a la Spyro Trilogy...not Skyrim for the 50th time.
- Bethesda was still at least TRYING to polish their games when Morrowind came out, instead of relying on the fans to do it for them.
- Witcher 1 definitely had more RPG mechanics, & more interesting setting than W3.
Really don't feel like that addresses my point slick. Considering I'm not comparing Bayonetta 1's visual direction to DMC1s, but DMC5. DMC1 is naturally going to stay memorable because direction wise they bothered to make a castle with a library, a plant room, a sewer, that open garden shit, that one atrium, etc. All visually different, but not necessarily always complimenting what the game is good at. DMC5 is honestly a lot of gray n red ass rooms once you get to the Demon tree. Ergo it gets a lot of level design knocks much in the same way FEAR does. Too much dull color, not enough color color. But it's not exactly bad level design, it plays to the strengths of DMC. I aint fucking concerned with "mah experience" as much as I'm about "mah game" ya digg?
Also bitch the energy you spent on reading my shit and coming up with a weak post could have been spent playing Devil May Cry 3. Get your shit together pls, go see where Yakuza got its style shits from, go see how a real game does it. Slob.