The op didn't open a discussion, it basically said that Bethesda could do a game at the same level as Witcher but won't, whatever that means, it's left to our interpretation.

Most folks on this board probably like Elder scroll style games, so that comment isn't going to bring forth any kind of interesting discussion. It's not about worship, it's about not wanting them to turn into a witcher game. I think it's great if folks who love Witcher got a game they really love, it won awards so it will probably have another in it's series. I just don't see what that has to do with the Elder scroll games regardless of which one sold lots or more or whatever.

Now the person above me mentioned graphics. So you feel that Elder scrolls graphics could be better. I'm not sure you need to mention another game to just say that. However if there is something specific in witcher graphics that you want to see in an Elder scrolls game that is something that could be discussed. You should assume being on this board that your audience may not of played the game, so it needs to be specific. I have not played it, nor will I. I'm quiet older and between job, family, and house I don't have time to play a ton of games. Not a poke at Witcher, I'm just not interested in trying it.

3.5x, actually. Including landmass size only, not interior cells. Since Skyrim makes extensive use of interior cells, whereas Wild Hunt renders most in the overworked, the actual 'Size' difference is likely less.




Already talked about story and writing issues. Bethesdas not that good at writing, to be sure, but the game style they use makes story telling a totally different thing.


For what it's worth, I don't think Wild Hunt had a particularly great story. It was good, for a video game, but it wasn't even remotely on the level of something like The Last of Us or Heavy Rain (a game I personally don't like, but I respect for its story telling).


Graphics are something else entirely. We KNOW that Bethesda's engine can do way more than they put into their games. Which means they're cutting back for preformance reasons, or they're just bad at it... But it is an area they need to work on.

Plus, isn't the Witcher 3 divided into three "maps?" From what I hear (I haven't played it), its game world is not a contiguous open-world landmass like the Elder Scrolls game worlds.

Yeah, in the same way that TES expansions typicallly have seperwte world spaces.


In practice, it's not nearly as bad as I had initially expected, since with the exception of White Orchard all the maps are huge, beyond the fact that there's so dreadfully little to do on any of the maps. And the crappy Fast Travel mechanic means you have to endure the same barren hills over and over and over.


Whichay have, admittedly, made the game FEEL bigger than it actually was... But in the same way that the last 50 yards of a full marathon feels like a mile.

There are 2 main areas (really big ones, each of them is probably bigger than Skyrim), and several small, story related locations. It's more like TES landmasses, like Cyrodiil + Shivering Isles or Skyrim + Solstheim. And then there are no loading screens, unless you load, fast travel, or a story/cutscene location switch.

There's plenty to do all over the map, It's literally covered with points of interest, probably one of my minor complaints about the game. You still have neat places to explore, and plenty of random monster interactions.

Never really though about it but i guess dungeons really do add a lot of space to skyrim that they aren't given credit for in these discussions. Although I will still say they need to go a lot bigger for their overworld.

Also I really liked the Witcher fast travel system of only using fencepost. It still allowed fast travel but also made you work a little bit too and plan out more how you were going to travel. I need to fast to travel to X but the closest post is Y, I might as well go to Z on the way. I found that more interesting than I need to go to X, Fast travel straight to X.

Some might have thought it was tedious, but I preferred Morrowind's fast travel system. The Silt Striders, ships, guild guides, and spells made traveling around part of the adventure!

I agree they should implement this style of fast travel more. They had a horse cart outside the major city to bring you to the others but that was about it. Be nice you the next game had it's own version of that but it could also bring you small towns and other notable landmarks as well as they were on a road. Along with that expand the variety and useful of mounts so they are better and more fun to use. The "Mages" guild could have teleporters that could bring you to any of their locations for free if you are a guild member or charge a fee if not. Also bring back Teleportation spells like you said then maybe even other travel spells like conjuration or mysticism also have a Open portal to X spell.

I'm sure they can make TES at the same level as Witcher. All they'd need to do is to sabotage TES down to that level.

Funny seeing how The Witcher 3 is the most Awarded game ever and I would say almost unanimously considered the better game development wise. The only reason Beth games are so popular is because modders make them that way. Vanilla Beth games are usually pretty poor quality.

Although it's no doubt a well-received game, it's just plain false to act like Witcher 3 has reached a previously unheard of level of acclaim that Bethesda can never hope to match. Oblivion and Skyrim also won multiple awards when they were released, and actually still have slightly higher Metacritic scores.

With the passage of time and thus the advance of technology, there's obviously been some absolute improvements in things like graphics, AI, and world size that favor Witcher 3 since it's the newest. Everything else is largely a matter of preference between different games that succeeded at what they aimed to do.

The Witcher was mostly awarded for its execution and writing and not just for being the shiny new rpg. Also going to point out Fallout 4 came out after Witcher and wasnt even close to on par with it execution wise. Does this make The Witcher some perfect game every other game or rpg should try and copy? No, it has its own flaws and does things its own way and other games should do theirs. But there is a lot other open world rpgs and games and generally can and should learn from it, and people definitely shouldn't be trying to say it would be a downgrade for bethesda to develop a game on a similar level to it when it's shown to be superior in many ways to anything they've put out in a while.

Because the last thing they put out was quite a while ago, over 4 years to be precise. Skyrim. Which held strong against Witcher 2, that came out its same year as well. And I'll point out that a lot of Fallout 4's problems stem from how Bethesda was trying to not make it like their usual style of game. Fallout 4 introduced a more fixed protagonist in an attempt to better flesh out the story and character interactions -- the voiced protagonist, the more prominent and "emotional" main story, the "cinematic camera", and other malarkey -- which games like the Witcher are known for doing well. Fallout 4 is Bethesda's attempt to make a more Witcher-like experience. Would you say it was an upgrade compared to Skyrim? Or does Bethesda have to keep compromising more of what makes their games unique to really catch the Witcher hype, and play second fiddle to CDPR's offerings?

One thing that's interesting about this. The "open world" craze really took off with the success of Skyrim. Once Skyrim proved to be a huge hit, almost every AAA game tried to then market itself as open world, regardless of whether it was appropriate for the game or not. Including the Witcher series. During Witcher 2's development, while Skyrim was also still in development, I remember CDPR talking down about open world game design, citing how it would mess with the flow of the story and progression of the game. And it turned out to be one of the weaker aspects of the game, which still doesn't hold up to Fallout 4's open world. CDPR tries to be more open world with Witcher 3 like TES, and the open world doesn't work to its benefit, and Bethesda tries to be more character and story driven with Fallout 4 like The Witcher, and it doesn't work to its benefit. Funny how that works out.

About the only thing they have in common is the title "RPG", a genre in which you can ask 10 different people and get 12 different answers about what that actually is. There is always room for improvement, always, no one's denying that. But if the idea for improvement is "be like that other guy", don't expect to pass that other guy and continue improving. You can't follow someone's lead if they're not ahead of you, especially if you're not even supposed to be on the same track.

witcher 3 combat is bad. i like skyrim combat. auto move while attack is dumb... what if u fight near a cliff? i hate that system. next part i will talk about action combat.

Witcher 3 the indoor combat is awfull! That [censored] camera jesus! Also I agree with huleed 100% but I dont mind what they did with fallout 4 as long as they dont do it with tes.

(voiced protagonist)

The last TES game was over 4 years ago yea, but Fallout 4 was a few months ago and is just as good of an example of their development abilities. Some of their choices to be "more like the witcher" failed but I would argue it was just as much if not morre about their poor execution as it was concept. Voiced protagonist is a terrible for a BETH series and was a failure as a concept, but the cinematic dialogue camera I actually liked a lot the problem was it was janky and would often break and look weird, the concept is good but the execution was poor. The problem with the story is they tried to make it good by making it around a fix character which again is something I agree TES shouldn't do but that doesn't mean they can't still do a better story and character interactions. Character interactions are probably one thing they did get better at though however and it wasn't even because they used a fixed protagonist as it was they "copied" Bioware and how they do companions. So while I'll agree the voice PC is malarkey and a terrible concept for TES but cinematic camera and a heartfelt story failed do to execution rather than concept.

They may have talked down open world for TW2 because the game and it's story wasn't built around that where as TW3's was. Also really hope you don't mean that TW3 world can't stand up to FO4 because that's bullocks. FO4 was even smaller than there previous games which only had 1 major city that was disappointingly small, lacked any real diversity in environment all being destroyed wasteland even though it's been like 200 years. Also don't know why it's only been here and that one forbes article I've seen that dragged the Witcher 3 down. As someone who's played a little of 1&2 the open world is what got me into the Witcher 3 and I loved it as did a vast majority of people. You only way I see it being a weakpoint is because everything else in the game was so amazing that the open world although being great was considered a weak point. Fallout 4 failed to be a good character and story driven game because they compromised the benefits of the series and be who you want to be for it instead of building it around that. Also them making a set character is something they've done with FO3, unlike NV or the TES games they made your background for you instead of letting you create your own.

It may not be you're cup of tea but it's a lot more involved than Skyrim's hack and slash combat. Being able to Parry, Dodge, and Roll along with blocking allowed for a much more interactive experience. Throw in the use of Signs, Grenades, and Potions and the fight was it's even more so. If you fight near a cliff you can either decide not to jump or roll around unless done with precision, hell if you're good enough you can even roll or step being them and gain the advantage of having them with their back to the cliff the melee them closer or aard them over the edge. The camera and the locking on could be a little wonky sometimes but it was perfectly fine 95% of the time for me at-least. Also not saying they should just copy paste TW3 combat into TES but add more strategy to it like being able to Parry/dodge/Roll and have a smoother integration of magic with combat.

And background story bleeding into the Mainquest. Don't forget that. Can't even ignore it because everywhere you go your character reminds you of it.

Mayor McDonough: "So what brings you to Diamond City?"

PC: well let's see, I just stopped by to sell some goods, maybe pick up a quest or two "Who do I talk to about a missing person?"


Doh!