Two of the vastest open worlds go head-to-head in this comparison. Two will enter, but only one can leave as the definitive open world experience.
Damn now this is a hard one. I'd say The Witcher 3 right now especially with it's amazing DLC BUT I haven't scratched the surface of RDR2 SO that could change
I have put about 6-8 hours in RDR2 and I feel like I haven't done much yet. I have probably completed a total of 20 quests in general and maybe have maybe 1/15th of the map open. The game is massive. Witcher 3 is also massive and that was a 6 month game to fully absorb. I'll have to report back way down the road on this one.
I've done 20+ hrs in RDR 2 and about 30+ in Witcher 3 (haven't finished it) so far I prefer the more fantasy oriented world/story of W3. Acting and general world interactivity is a no brainer really, RDR 2 is in a league of its own. Visuals, its RDR2 but that's expected from a 2018, 8 years in the making, unlimited resources developed game. Controls/combat both are... interesting, as in they could be better (some times alot better tbh) but ok once you get used to them.
For horse physics and riding experience... RDR2 hands down. But in regards to taking down a dragon or trying to heist a train... I'm on the fence with that one. Both can be quite satisfying.
I'm in the same boat. I'm more a fan of the fantasy setting so like Witcher 3 more. However RDR 2 is definitely a close second.
I think it's Witcher too and I didn't love the game. I think it made WAY better use of their maps. Remember how littered the maps were eventually? Yeah there's awesome, interesting and creepy things to discover in RD2, but Witcher was just covered in ghost hunts, investigations and whatnot.
lol this is not even a question, if the Witcher 3 and RD2 were released the same day, it would be Witcher 3 the instant winner for day one buy. RDR2 looks great but in the end is just a Cowboy game.
This logic is so flawed on so many levels
Masterfox discarded logic ages ago.
RDR is far better it's not even funny
And the Witcher is just a fantasy game. Apples to oranges really
i love rpg games and witcher 3 is probably most boring and shit rpg i played i last 10 years.
Sounds like you actually don't play a lot of RPGs or you just have poor taste.
I'm not a big Witcher 3 fan either. But that's because I can't stand the combat system. But I can't say it's boring and I'm not sure how anyone can. In the end it's an open world game. It's as exciting or boring as you make it lol.
You have two types of rpg fans: People who like choices and world impact, and people who like making their own characters and just interacting with the world and exploring in their own " unique" way (I.e. Bethesda games). Those who prefer the latter usually find the former to be boring. In laymans terms, some people just like hitting stuff with cool legendary weapons.
Your opinion isn't wrong; it's just bad.
Yeah......and the Witcher 3 is just a fantasy game, right? Do you think about things before saying them? Because that logic is ridiculous.
In the end Super Mario is just a game about a plumber that's been friendzoned by a princess with a peanut brain who gets kidnapped endlessly by a giant Alligator Snapping Turtle
In the end Halo is just a game about a guy with armor who hates aliens
In the end Spiderman is just a game about a guy who has spider powers
Couldnt the same be said about the witcher? It's just a medieval fantasy game. This logic is a lack of logic. Simply put.
No it's not. RDR2 will slaughter the witcher in sales.
The only thing Witcher exceeds over RDR2 is the controls.
Don't make me choose between 2 of my favorite open world games ever
Well I mean the question is simple. Do you like cowboy games or fantasy RPGs? That is really all they are asking.
How does the guy above me have 9 agrees while I have all disagrees when we are saying the same thing? The only difference between the two is setting and gameplay preferences.
Lol butthurt 😂
Both are of the highest quality so it would be hard to choose
Hard one but With Witcher 3 i fell in love with the characters and story , with RED DEAD 2 i am loving the world i feel R* is wizards when it comes to Sand box games. They do excellent stuff from Characters to npc quest including random events to online and CDPR is very close to that..
Haven't finished rdr2 yet, and I'm enjoying it, but it didn't suck me in like Witcher 3 did.
Nothing beats Rockstar in the Open world department so RDR2 beats it right there. Story ans lore goes to W3 because it’s fantasy Gameplay is serviceable at best in both games. So in gameplay they are pretty tied So I’ll say 50/50. Hard to decide
Personally, I felt CDPR did, once they released Witcher 3. In about a decade, they went from making a low-ish budget, niche rpg, to releasing, again, personal view, the best open world RPG to be had today.
As much as I enjoy RDR2 I gotta go with the Witcher 3. Not only is Witcher 3 my favorite RPG it's probably my favourite game of all time. Since it's release I logged in about 360+ hours so far.
Witcher 3! I have 326h in this Game and love the Characters / Story. - Witcher 3 (my) 10/10 - RDR 2 (my) 8/10
Pc fans will automatically say Witcher 3 as I've noticed there is an extreme fetish revolving around geralt with no cloths on etc. On top of the fact they can't play RDR I'd say there both different games but rdr is the much bigger game
But bigger doesn't make it better?
were you not dead?
Totally different games. Fantasy vs real life with cowboys ?? Come one guys. both games are good in every aspect. Different but amazing.
Actually its exact opposite, both are open world, great acting, alot of side stuff, combat is closest to realism, and alot of indepth story. So they are very alike, just one is cowboys, and other is fantasy
For me it's rdr but I'm not as prone to fantasy games as I am rockstars open world games. They are not really comparable
Difficult to choose only one. As it stand right now, I would choose Witcher 3. But I am just about 4 hours in with RDR2, so things could change. RDR2 is the first open world game in a while that make me want to explore every inch of its world.
Only 4 hrs in but kept defending it to me as if you played 20 to 30 hrs of it..LMAO!!..WOW!! Smh.
Well, I don’t need to play a game for millions of hours to know that it is great, Elda. Unlike you, I’m tend to find more positive in games and gaming rather than being a fanboy. And unlike you, if I don’t like something, then I won’t buy it just to sh*t on it.
If you haven't put at least 8 to 12 hrs or more in the game then you don't know jack to say it's great just only from reviews & hearsay not from experience..lol!!So basically I should lie about my first 4 hrs experience of playing RDR2 by saying only positive things just to satisfy you & others that think like you? You've got to be joking..LOL! You better know there is always going to be folks on this site that doesn't like what you like & vice verse.It's best that you get over that fact & just go on about life instead of trying to knock someone down because their not praising a game that you praise including sharing that thought among others that think otherwise.
I might be in the minority here, but I think it has a lot more in common with Horizon than the witcher
dont even compare some crappy game vs rdr2, common. i played witcher for 50h was bored like hell and not even finished it and open world is very average there.
Counterpoint: Don't compare some crappy game vs The Witcher 3 ;)
Witcher 3's open world and presentation is better than every single open world rog to come before it.
I don't like the game so you don't have the right to compare them, classy logic.
RDR2 is Bigger but the Witcher 3 is a way better game :-)
Is it bigger?
I feel like a badass gunslinger in rdr2, in witcher i felt like a ballerina.
The Witcher 3 CD Projekt Red understood that The Witcher 3 was still a video game and while they went to amazing lengths to create a breathing, living world that was believable, they still gave quality of life additions that allowed players to play at a reasonable pace without unnecessary "realities" creeping their way in and claiming to be gameplay. While I understand there are those people that will take the weapon cleaning, limited travel, shaving, etc... to be immersive aspects that they couldn't do without, they're still a reality based tedium that I feel most gamers would be just as happy to see done away with or made completely optional.
This right here :D Don't get me wrong, having the options to do all that is cool and all, I just don't want to be weighed down by it.
What are you talking about? Witcher 3 has a weapon maintance system and shaving too. It also has limited travel, perhaps not as limited as RDR 2, but it is more limited than most other open world games out there. Your whole argument falls flat. Both are great games, mainly for the same reason. They try to not compromise their vision to fulfill some trend. Now whether each game will float your nancy or not is another thing entirely. And would be 100% subjective.
The objective only objective argument would be a comparison of systems that directly relate to the open world aspects of each game. I am not 100% I have a good enough grasp of RDR 2's systems yet, but so far it seems miles ahead of Witcher 3 in that aspect. The amount of variety and design in it's emergent encounters, wildlife, weather, is superiour to that of Witcher 3. Which did some good things in that regard, but was an rpg first and open world game second.
Exactly, I wish more people would realize this.
"reasonable pace without unnecessary "realities" creeping their way in and claiming to be gameplay. " Unnecessary according to whom ? It's completely subjective, and varies from person to person. While you are criticizing RDR 2 for it's pacing and realism and detail, several others are enjoying it and praising it for those same reasons. Games can have varying levels of pacing and downtime. Not all of them have to be 'fun' (read : instant gratification), all the time. You can make this same argument about so many different games, for example COD, BF, Squad, ARMA, Metro series. They all have varying pacing, and value different things. COD values constant fun, but is a bit shallow because of it. BF is more in the hardcore direction. ARMA is full on sim, where you may spend most of your time not in a firefight, but it makes a successful operation 100x more rewarding. Lots of people would call ARMA a boring game. Many others would call it a really enjoyable game. I have a friend who doesn't want to play the Witcher 3 because it looks really boring to him. He just wants to shoot stuff.
I'd say RDR 2 is a step above, but considering the game released 3 or so years later, i'd put them both on the even level of quality.
I'd say The Witcher 3, hands down :) RDR2 is brilliant, but there's too much wasted time in the game, just doing menial stuff (Like spending more time getting to a destination, than you do actually being there etc.). The World is more alive in RDR2 though, so that's a plus.
Exactly RDR2 missions like forcing low speed and forcing usless 10 mins chit chat and then arriving to the destinations for 2 mins action. Great game but not as nailed as The Witcher 3.
both the same. rdr2 got the better graphics, but witcher the way better setting.
Similarities, but not the same.
Narrative/Questing.wise = Witcher 3 Everything else pretty much = RDR 2 Gameplay, sillyness, a lot more fun, world (subjective) I think RDR 2 does that all better. Of course it looks better, but it better be ... being fresh and not 2 years old. If the combat didn't bore me in Witcher 3 .. the world exploration/build up is close to that of RDR 2. Then we have soon RDR 2 online ... all that sillyness fun stuff to the maximum.
Since the witcher 3 is a snoozefest, i'd have to give the win to rdr2.
I can’t front RDR2 is sort of boring so far. TW3 grabbed my attention earlier on from what I can recall. The mission structure and even side missions were far more interesting and the monsters innthe open world presented challenges along the way.
The world itself seems better designed in RDR2, at least on the surface. However, once you dwelve deeper, the world of The Witcher 3 has alot more stuff to check out and have fun with. To put it shortly, they've filled the world with more stuff worthy of my attention, which is a huge plus. So, while the mountains and forests and whatnot look better in RDR2, they're more enjoyable to traverse in The Witcher 3. There's no way I could ride my horse for 5-10 minutes whitout finding anything interesting in TW3, but that seems to happen alot in RDR2. That might just be the perk of it being a fantasy world though. As an open-world game, RDR2 wins in term of graphics but TW3 is the overall winner, imo.
Red Dead. I'm like only on chapter 3 but I'm so cought up in the world of RD that I don't really care to move the story along, it's one of those games you wish can go on forever. Mr Morgan is such a great gaming personality. Man GOW, Spiderman now Red Dead. Assassin's is another one,2018 is one of the better years in gaming.
Spiderman is definitely on my radar. I haven’t played it yet, but i will once I finish most of my backlogs.
Witcher 3 is definitely one of the greatest and most celebrated games ever made. Depends on whether or not you feel that RDR2 lives up to that. There is no doubt that ten years from now, Witcher 3 is still going to be on almost anyone's top 100 games list.
so far i like rdr2 alot more but breathe of the wild is the definitive open world experience imo