The witcher and tes are very different games, i still have no idea why people are always comparing them. I do think that bethesda has stepped up their writing with fallout 4, and i personally hope they adapt alot of what they've done with it for the next tes. Settlement building, a political main quest, less derpy lines and better dialogue over all. Morrowind and oblivion really didn't have any dialogue, and skyrim made the dragonborn out to be a bland idiot. I'm hoping they add in more reactivity to the world, maybe make the races, guilds, and main quest have an impact on what is going on in the game.

Also i'm still playing fallout 4 fairly reguarly, (thanks to the dlc, radiant quests, and settlement building) i haven't touched the witcher since i beat it, i also don't plan on getting the dlc for it. I think making your game too dependent on story makes it loose replayability. Having content to keep you busy (even if it is just lame radiant quests) is something that the witcher devs could learn from imo

They're both open world rpgs so they can be compared somewhat but they are different games too even in the same genre. Also really disagree with the radiant quest thing. The witcher could easily do go to x location and kill y beast but it doesn't because that's not good content. All radiant quest do is give you boring fetch quest and clutter the game so it's hard to find good quest.

I prefer radiant quests to story driven quests because radiant quests give you something to do that you can build your own stories out of. I don't find them boring at all. I find story driven quests pretty darn boring the second time around.

My favorite Morrowind quests are the beginning mage guild quests where you have to find flowers and mushrooms and the Pilgrimage of the Seven Graces. Those could be considered radiant because they are nothing more than fetch/go there and do that type quests.

I enjoy the radiant quests, as well. You need them from an role play standpoint. I have a thief RP in Skyrim, who has literally done nothing other than the Thieves Guild, and we're having a blast while doing it. You can't treat them as just A-to-B and back to A all the time. It's much more engaging to grab a couple and just get out and explore/adventure/live the RP.

I can usually tell when a quest is radiant. Well written quests should still be there, but with radiant quests to suppliment them. That way you always have something to do. As long as the radiant quests have some different reasons why to kill/fetch x they give you reason to explore imo. I thought fallout 4 did them way better than skyrim. Mainly due to the different sources.

I'm not totally against them just feel like Beth uses them too much in place of actual content. I'd be fine with some radiant quest for the Companions AFTER finishing a rewarding and well told guild questline. The fact that the Companions quest line was both terribly short and used radiant quests as story quest for it is frickin ridiculous. Give me a good questline first then let me decide to do the "[censored]" "Go to X and kill Y" stuff. They could also make more interesting and different types of end game "radiant content". If I'm the leader of a Guild why can't I manage my guild members and make them go do radiant quest for me like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood's contract quest, Dragon Age: Inquisition's war table, or World or Warcraft's garrison system.

I prefer radiant content to be available at any time, both before and after finishing a questline. The reason is many of my characters may not want to finish said questline, particularly when that is going to result in them becoming guildmaster, particularly when that is going to occur before my character has the necessary skills and experience to reasonably be considered for that position.

Having radiant quests available at any time, like what they did with the thieves guild, allows you to play as just another guild member for as long as you want, without forcing you to advance to the leader of the guild.

Saying after was more so to emphasis my desire for a fleshed out guild quest. Being able to do radiant quest from a character after reaching a certain rank in the guild would be totally fine. Just make sure to emphasize it's radiant stuff that some people want to ignore and won't confuse it for actual guild quests.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with separating the two and letting them run in parallel, instead of depending on each other. That's probably better.

i agree......i like radiant quest...it has repeatable value....player can roleplay anything they want

They always try better and improve on their games with every new title they release.

Honestly no. And this is by far the best review of Fallout 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_aJZEUrJME

I disagree with basically every thing he says. Even his complaint about Power Armour is very easily accomplished in-game, with no exploits or problems. But this isn't the Fallout Forums, so i won't go into detail on WHY I disagree with him, simply to say that I do.

Bethesda DOES improve on their games with every title. It may not necessarily be improving what some people want, and it may not necessarily come without a cost to other things, but they aren't pulling a Ubisoft and re-skinning the exact same thing every 6 months to release as a 'New' game.

I have a comment on that video which counter pretty much every single idiotic thing that was said in the video (no offense to the original uploader). Basically, it was a terrible review and more of a rant than anything. Also, this isn't the Fallout discussion forums so I won't go into more details.

I may have misspoke, its not that they dont innovate at all just not hugely and usually regress as-well. You mention Ubisoft and assassins creed and stuff but he'll they created a whole new ship combat system for blackflag.

Well, you want to talk about regressing... Yes they did... and then they promptly took it away. Probably the most fun mechanic in any Assassin's Creed game (maybe in anything Ubisoft has made in the last decade) and they stripped it out entirely. At least Bethesda tried to offload some of what it cuts onto other systems.

I really hope they don't make TES VI anything like Witcher 3. I don't really even consider TW3 an RPG, to be honest. I mean, sure you play a role, but it's a set role, and there's really very little customization you can do with Geralt. Maybe you can make decisions which give you a briefly narrated oh-hey-you-changed-the-world-state screenie, but, meh, I'd prefer a customisable protagonist.

TW3 story side quests were well-written, yes, and they were the only thing I liked about it. Otherwise:

- the monster quests were almost identical to Skyrim's radiant quests, except they were finite.

- The Witcher's world is depressing, homogenous and depressingly homogenous. There's a wide variety of monsters, but I'd prefer a wide variety of people and personalities. Instead you have stereotypes everywhere, they're dark stereotypes, but still stereotypes.

Honestly. I had to force myself to finish TW3, I found it really tedious.

I'd say it's on par and maybe even more so an RPG than Skyrim is. The Witcher forces you to make decisions and your decisions have consequences. That is a major part of being an RPG that is severely lacking in Skyrim and Beth games in general.

I'd highly suggest going back and playing some because they were nothing like skyrims radiant quest. Skyrims radiant quest tell you to go to dungeon X and fight to the end until you get object Y. The Witchers content was all hand made and even though all the quest were go hunt down this monster they all found a way to make the monster and the experience unique.

Yea the world was depressing but that's because it's a more realistic game. Fantasy tends to romance the medieval era a lot and there are elements of that in the witcher as well but it's also a super [censored] time to live. Especially since the area is a cursed boggy land that's been ravaged by war. Even then you can find beautiful greenery, especially on Skellige and towards Novigrad.

Eeeh... That's one part of the wide range of potential elements that constitute an RPG. Many RPGs have had minimal consequence-driven decisions, and instead focus more on character customization and ability.


The problem is, RPGs aren't just one, simple thing that fits neatly in a box. They are a hugely diverse range of approaches and identities that make it difficult to define what constitutes a 'True' RPG. Some of the best have played to one side or the other (Witcher and Dragon Age are light on character customization, heavy on choices, Daggerfall is light on choices, heavy on customization) and some have struck a balance (Baldur's Gate had a character at least as defined as Fallout 4s, and minimal choice-vs-consequence, for instance, and is still highly regarded).


The notion of a true, propper, and even better RPG is something of a Unicorn.

I'd say that too.

Thanks, but I've already finished all the main and secondary quests, plus most of the monster quests. Yes, they're all individually designed and voiced, but they're still formulaic: 1. Monster is threatening village/has killed someone's relative, 2. Go to the scene and track prints/scent to monster lair, 3. Kill monster, collect reward (or not). A few quests had interesting variations but overall that was what you can expect.

Also, when I said it was depressing, I meant the people. The medieval era may have been an awful time to live (by the way, TES is supposed to be a high fantasy series, is it not, as opposed to a medieval fantasy?), but not everyone was an amoral a**hole willing to sacrifice their own children so they can have a few more meals. In TW3 practically everyone was horrible in some way, with few positive qualities. That can't possibly be good writing.

I know there are many fans of the Witcher, Dark Souls, Bloodborne etc, so obviously dark settings resonate with some people, but that's just not what TES is, and I really hope they don't try to change it.

I'd love it if they improved TES with better writing and more fleshed out characters and relationships, but they can do that without going anywhere near the Witcher.

This thread isn't how should TES try to be more like The Witcher as in trying to copy it, it's about whether it can accomplish things on the scale Witcher was able to, and be as good as it, in terms of acclaim and polish.


I love the setting and world of TES more than the Witcher but I think the Witcher is better at building a more cohesive and coherent world. Which even being medieval and drab was still able to be more interesting thsn Skyrim, I thought atleast.

It can be argued that they already have quality as high or higher than that of the Witcher series. They are 2 top notch series with different strengths and weaknesses

Part of the problem is that we do not know what this thread is about. Here is the sum total of what the OP has written so far: "Does Bethesda have the skill to make a game on the same level as The Witcher 3? I believe they can but I doubt they will." Those words are so vague they could mean anything.

I've no idea what half the people on this thread are talking about.

The Witcher 3, in execution of how it was done, was far more impressive than anything Bethesda has ever done or seems to have any ambition of doing. That it's a different style of game in some ways is not a reason a TES game couldn't look as good (The Witcher 3 looks way better than Fallout 4 in almost every way), or be as big (The Witcher 3 is around 6+ times the size of Skyrim), or have the quality of writing (it's way better written than Skyrim or Fallout 4 and you know it).

Sure, The Witcher is a different style of game. It's got a far more focused and narrrowly defined character, both story wise and "ability" stat/gameplay wise. It's far more narratively focused than a TES game, with the main quest and big sidequests being the real "thing" to do. But you're just fooling yourself, to no help to anyone, if you sit there blithely dismiss that it was a super huge, super pretty, super well done game that did a lot of things Bethesda also does, but far better than Bethesda has ever done them.

Developers don't need your worship, Skyrim sold 20 million copies, that's not a record that needs defending. Why not just point out what it was you felt The Witcher did well that is shared with TES, rather than taking a great game as some sort of "attack" on a different series of games?