Top
320°

What's Better: 'The Witcher 3' Or Metal Gear Solid 5?

Dave Thier:

"The past two months have seen two of the most open world remarkable games in recent years: Metal Gear Solid 5, Hideo Kojiima’s absurd swan song, and The Witcher 3, CD Projekt Red’s sprawling medieval fantasy epic. Both these games are true accomplishments, and more than worth your time. Comparing them might seem like a pointless exercise in the abstract, but we’re not living in the abstract. For the gamer that only has enough money/time to commit to one of two of these games: it’s an important decision. Not everyone has 40-50 hours to commit to a big game like one of these, and even fewer have 80-100 hours to commit to both. So we assume for a second that we know you want to play a gruff man exploring a broad open world that dances between fantastical and grounded. So who’s it gonna be: The Witcher 3′s Geralt or Metal Gear Solid 5‘s Big Boss?"

The story is too old to be commented.
ArchangelMike858d ago (Edited 858d ago )

Yeah that's a difficult one. I've been going back and forth between the two games. But playing the Bloody Baron mission again, and seeing a completely different outcome than the one I first chose (so sad), I have to go with The Withcer 3 - but only by like 0.5 of a point. The gameplay in MGSV I would argue is much better than the Witcher 3, but the open world in Witccer 3 is much more vibrant and living, and so is the story imo.

But this is a debate that is going to rage long and hard... at least until Fallout 4 comes out!

LOL_WUT858d ago

The Witcher 3 hands down. It has so much content compared to mgsv some games are better off just being linear instead of trying to be something its not.

Also i get this cheap tv drama vibe after each mission. What were they thinking when they added the credits at the beginning and end of each EPISODE? ;)

Savsky858d ago

I couldn't get behind the simplistic combat system in the Witcher, so Metal Gear's gameplay automatically trumps the Witcher's.

WellyUK858d ago

MGS is as simplistic as it gets. It's a third person shooter and nothing unique or amazing about it.

Stardust260858d ago

@Wellyuk I'm pretty sure you're trolling but if you aren't, I'm not sure what makes you think that way. It's a campy stealth series. It's oddly compelling, despite how humorous and ridiculous it often is

coolman229858d ago

LOL_WUT you finally say something that's true. You're probably trolling but I agree with it being stupid TV show drama.

Grap858d ago

The witcher 3 hands down. MGSV worlds seems like really ghost town.

Abby1942858d ago

Just skip the credits...only have to hit a button

opooqo858d ago

The credits are Kojimas last "fuck you" to Konami. They removed his name from the cover, he put it in at the start and end of every mission. Epic trollin.

madmonkey01858d ago (Edited 858d ago )

but MGS has probably the most simplistic combat mechanics of any recent combat based AAA game,

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 858d ago
-Foxtrot858d ago

Well as much as MGSV is a good game it's world is empty outside the outposts. I don't understand why he picked two of the most bland locations. Travelling gets more boring because the world is lifeless most of the time.

I think he really should have just picked one of the locations and made sure the map was full of life and things to do. Perhaps he would have been better off choosing a location which could offer jungles and snowy mountain range

AquarianKing858d ago

Maybe Kojima didn't have enough time because of what happen with Konami

-Foxtrot858d ago (Edited 858d ago )

Doubtful. He continued to work their until he finished it

Oh and the disagrees.....please tell me how MGSVs world is not empty outside of the outposts with the exception of a few animals running around

ThanatosDMC858d ago (Edited 858d ago )

Probably because the game is also for PS3 and 360. They had to fit the game on those last gen consoles too.

Azzanation858d ago

They say Kojima overspent making MGS5 which is one of the reasons he was sacked at Konami. MGS5 had a budget of over 80m. Just rumours.

PCGamingNoobs858d ago

It's really confusing me to be honest how people are calling the world's bland and lifeless. Because war stricken Afghanistan / Africa are going to have cities full off people. It is a pretty accurate representation of what that place would be like given the circumstances.

I am not feeling this problem as from the get go I haven't really thought of it as an open world like I will be when I go into fallout say. I'm playing it as we have played every other metal gear except I can approach a large area however I want. Think of it like lots of large maps rather that an open world to explore. Then it feels a lot more like linear mgs rather than a dead open world.

-Foxtrot858d ago

Then the question is why pick those locations.

They could have thought of something to make long trips interesting and do something more to make you interact with the world but they didn't

esemce858d ago

Yeah Im loving MGSV but it would of been nice to see some roaming traders, bandits or civilians now and then.

-Foxtrot858d ago

Maybe some random events like save the civilian, buy unique stuff from the trader, help some hostages etc

scark92858d ago

Still a good open world for Kojima Productions first.

Becuzisaid858d ago (Edited 858d ago )

The purpose of MGSV open world is to serve the individual missions, not to create a highly populated space to make exploration a joy. I agree that it's boring to travel between outposts, but it's purpose is not to encourage exploring every inch. It's to spend time doing missions.

What the game desperately needs is the ability to extract by helicopter and seamlessly be dropped off at the next drop zone to do back-to-back side ops without going to load screen.

Edit: @foxtrot I do like your idea of random events though. That could have been interesting.

JamesBroski858d ago

MGS V is not that kind of open world. It wasn't made to play golf between to missions.

858d ago
+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 858d ago
annoyedgamer858d ago

Neither. Different kinds of games, only similarity is both are open world and in that regard The Witcher wins.

the_dark_one858d ago

Good question, but for more that i love MGS i have to say the witcher. To me this new mgs doesnt feel to much like a mgs game, the codec talks not there, the less straight forward story telling( yes i know you can play just the main missions, but the side ops are just as important as the main) its like they change the game to suit bigger audience, still a great game but in this case the witcher.

But thats just my opinion, and everyone has a different one :-)

ThanatosDMC858d ago

You have to press L1 for the codec. What i hated the most is Big Boss not talking much. It's like they canned him after realizing Keifer sucked ass after paying the guy or he was expensive per dialogue. Everyone else delivered their line pretty spot on except for Big Boss.

the_dark_one858d ago

Yeah i know about the l1 codec talk, but is not that one im talking about, is the one where you selected a caracther like, para medic or major zero or octacon and listen to them talking

ThanatosDMC858d ago

They didnt have it on Peace Walker either.

ufo8mycat858d ago (Edited 858d ago )

The Witcher 3

Don't get me wrong, MGSV Is great, but outside of its main missions, the game is average. Repetitive side missions, with a bland and empty open world. I am enjoying the stealth aspects.

The Witcher 3 on the other hand. Excellent main quest and side quests, with a living open world with lots of activity.

If there was one thing I prefer in MGSV is the combat/stealth over The Witcher 3's combat, but still, overall The Witcher 3

Bassmint858d ago (Edited 858d ago )

Yeahh i agree. I wouldn't say MGSV is anywhere near average but at the same time is nowhere near The Witcher 3 imo.