Witcher 3: The Skyrim debate, the game on PS4, nuggets of clarification and a whiff of multiplayer
EuroGamer: "The open world RPG yardstick is Skyrim. That's the game, the series, the success that The Witcher 3 has in its sights. And to listen to CD Projekt Red, you'd believe the Polish studio could better it."
(PC, PS4, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
You really can't compare Witcher 2 directly with Skyrim. They are 2 completely different approaches to game making. When Witcher 3 is released, then you can compare. Witcher 2 was designed along the same lines as Dragon Age. The closes WRPG to Elder Scrolls games in 2 worlds.
Skyrim has people that do to work, frequent bars, sleep, etc., and is fully open to the point where you could do what you want when you want. Total freedom.
With Witcher 2, once you accomplished certain task, you are whisked to the next scene. No going back and exploration was limited. This is exactly why 3 is now being compared to Skyrim, even by CD Projekt Red.
I am excited to see what they do in a open world. But, I am not ready to push them in the same league as Bethesda's open RPG's just yet.
I have faith that CD Projekt will nail this one. I've been a fan since they released the first Witcher game, and they are by far one of my favorite new developers.
Skyrim was less than mediocre and it says lot about the industry and it's journalists for the most part. The combat was like swining an empty garbage bag at a stockpile of dry twigs. The enemies and AI moved around like two legged crabs. Lipsyncing was among the worst this generation, and 90's of the world was empty. I spent most of my time walkin long distances hoping for a horse, and horse travel wasn't much better. It was a world where you could do almost everything, unfortunately almost everythin in that world was boring to do, and the story... forget it. If a game is crap atleast make it a small bag a crap, so maybe the small entertaining parts aren't so sepereated by trash, but Skyrim was a big bag of crap, a HUGE ball of crap.
How in the world did they make this game, game of the year, and give Kingdoms of Amalur low 80's range scores, That game was waaaayyyy better than skyrim, and so is the Witcher.
170°
30°
150°
60°
Ad 
700°
10°
0°
0°
10°
20°
the Witcher 2 is my RPG yardstick, much better in story/characters and a deeper combat/progress mechanic.
from the interview W3 will be bigger than Skyrim and still have the better story/quests of W2
Skyrim has people that do to work, frequent bars, sleep, etc., and is fully open to the point where you could do what you want when you want. Total freedom.
With Witcher 2, once you accomplished certain task, you are whisked to the next scene. No going back and exploration was limited. This is exactly why 3 is now being compared to Skyrim, even by CD Projekt Red.
I am excited to see what they do in a open world. But, I am not ready to push them in the same league as Bethesda's open RPG's just yet.
and it says lot about the industry and it's journalists for the most part. The combat was like swining an empty garbage bag at a stockpile of dry twigs. The enemies and AI moved around like two legged crabs. Lipsyncing was among the worst this generation, and 90's of the world was empty. I spent most of my time walkin long distances hoping for a horse, and horse travel wasn't much better. It was a world where you could do almost everything, unfortunately almost everythin in that world was boring to do, and the story... forget it. If a game is crap atleast make it a small bag a crap, so maybe the small entertaining parts aren't so sepereated by trash, but Skyrim was a big bag of crap, a HUGE ball of crap.
How in the world did they make this game, game of the year, and give Kingdoms of Amalur low 80's range scores, That game was waaaayyyy better than skyrim, and so is the Witcher.