Why is everyone at the moment comparing Fallout 4 to Witcher 3?!

In my own opinion this is rubbish, just because the game is open world and the graphics are great doesn't mean anyone should compare in to Fallout 4, yes Witcher may have been a big selling open world game, but that game was heavily story driven, you could only play as one character, but it had some aspects of a RPG, where as Fallout, little story driven gameplay, freedom in a whole, post apocalyptic RPG, if I'm honest the only game Witcher in the last few years could compare itself too is Skyrim, because there in the same genre-ish.

I think you answered your own question by comparing them immediately.

I don't understand why one has to be pitted against the other in any capacity. I think they're both phenomenal games.

I tend to do that frequently, that's what I meant, there both great games but there both so different that they shouldn't be compared < what I was trying to get at

bethesda has been at it since oblivion so if anything witcher is imitating them. I dont think i finished witcher and i know I didn't finish dragon age. I may not finish this one for similar reasons. in both dragon age and witcher i just got to the point where i went back to town after wandering and just didn't want to sort out all the crap I was carrying. Sick of deciding what to keep or what to sell after every dungeon. Most of its useless and i end up with tens of thousands of dollars and nothing worth buying anyway.

The only thing good about the witcher 3 was the story everything else was heavily scripted or just bad.

This game is heavily story driven as well, directly and indirectly... Have you even played past the first couple of hours of Fallout 4? Some of the side quest in this game has the same level of detail and quality as The Witcher 3. The Cutscenes when speaking to NPC's are similar, the voice acting in both games are great, the writing is good in both games as well.

As a matter of fact, I have put many hours into the Witcher 3 and I was dead set on it having the most immersive and intimate story of the year. I would have never thought that Bethesda would reach that level, at least not in this game based off of their past games. Boy was I wrong...

The lines are starting to get blurred for me the more I play Fallout 4 its harder to see which game is better. Usually I choose story over all, but Fallout 4 is actually competing in the story department. The indirect Environmental storys told in Fallout 4 are superb.

If Fallout 4 keeps on like this(as I continue to play) I'm just going to have to say that the only edge the witcher 3 has is graphics.

In my opinion, while the story of Fallout 4 is definitely an improvement over Fallout 3 (not New Vegas however), it still doesn't come even close to the one set up in the Witcher mythos (and its books and 20+ years worth of lore). There's a reason why it won Golden Joystick GOTY and Best writing and Quest awards. The Bloody Baron questline seems to be widely recognized as the highlight of its quests as well (or at least if I go by the word of mouth on various forums or my friends).

Hell wasn't Bethesda even saying somewhere that their main focus is sandbox and not writing when it came to F4? I may be paraphrasing here.

However, I agree that apart from Open World, there's really not much to compare. It would have made more sense to compare it to Skyrim or Dragon Age: Inquisition.

You mean arena? They been doing there thing since like the 80's

Oh really? I would like to know your thoughts on the next main questline after the bloody baron quest. The painfully annoying and overly long "Find Dandelion" quest, that took a big chunk of time I might add...

Sure, the Dandelion quests were kinda tedious but they did end on a very high and emotional note. I felt like it was worth it in the end.

I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the Dimension traveling quests, the Kaer Morhen time spent with other witchers or the Kaer Morhen defense. Or perhaps the string of Viking/Celtic related quests and feats on Skellige islands where the game really picks up. Or how the Father/Daughter dynamic actually contributed to the main quest. How about that?

However, I do admit that its only weak point was definitely the main villain who felt very lacking and one-dimensional if the player hasn't read up on him in the novels (which, to my knowledge, are still not translated). Oh, and the save import choices. I know that's beside the MQ but those svcked too. Very few had a meaningful impact.

But I'd rather if we moved this to a Witcher 3 thread in off topic instead of cluttering this one becuase it's definitely not something that can be generalized or summarized in just two sentences. If you really are serious about this discussion, I mean.

This ^^^

They are both indeed incredible games in their own ways. Best two games of 2015 and probably ranking in my personal top five ( haven't played enough Fallout 4 yet)

This post will useless, on the fallout 4 forums ... people seem blind... 2 totally different games but peoples comments about witcher 3 here are lol... fallout fan boys ? lol at the hoarding remark ... and lol at saying everything in witcher 3 is bad execpt story...

I am enjoying Fallout 4 do not get me wrong, but in some areas it can not compete with witcher 3 production values (besides it will be infront of fallout for goty imo).

Both games are good as previously stated.

Hey no one is knocking The Witcher 3's powerful storytelling, I was just giving a mighty big example on how everything is not perfect. Honestly, Fallout 4 is on par with the witcher 3's storytelling when you start getting into tthe sidequest and further into the main story.

The real differences isthe setting(universe) honestly.

Do both games have some emotional and gripping moments? Yes.

Do both have great voice acting to add to the immersion? Yes.

Do both have intimate moments(not sixual) where it focuses on character building? Yes.

Do both give crucial and meaningful choices that will change the outcome of future content? Yes, although witcher 3 does this on a grand scale.

Do both run the gambit of all emotions from serious, terrifying, sad, funny? Yes.

I think the problem here is that people put over 100 hours into TW3 and only 20 or less in Fallout 4 and they jump to conclusions...

There can only be one.

I think the problem is [censored].

Fallout 4 is a great game. So is the Witcher.

But they have to dive in and reafirm their devotion.

I'll spend as much time in Fallout as I did in TW3, although most of the time here will be building stuff and pulling things apart.

Fun is fun.

Why would one of them need to be better?

Because one is a pretty good, critically-acclaimed view at a first-wave current gen game and the other isn't quite? Has nothing to do with what type of game you prefer or what you feel caters to you, personally. The Witcher 3 set out to be exactly what it is and did a great job of it. It is, by most standards, a great showcase for larger budget games to come in the near future. It's not fair to judge Fallout 4 based only on visuals and engine capability, sure...but when visuals are the strength of your company? Then people are going to expect more.

Thing is, TW3 came out and it wow'ed people. Those same people have been waiting seven years for FO4 and it feels simplified, neutered, obviously striving for that "Current Console" feel and audience...but just not quite delivering.

Yeah, I guess one of the reasons why there's this infamous comparison is because people when talking about who's deserving of GOTY for example people begin to defend their favorite game thus opening the floodgates filled with snarky criticism and hyperbolic praise or hate towards whatever game.

I think TW3 would have upset their fan base had they botched what makes TW series what it is: story. But they didn't. CDPR did not disappoint in almost all fronts. Sure, there were game play mechanics and even UI issues but CDPR did(and still doing)their best to please their fans by creating big patches to address the bugs and aesthetic issues. They almost had, however, a seemingly small "fiasco" immediately after launch when some people started noticing a downgrade of graphics which was a bit different from that of the trailers/presentation. But that disappointment turned out to be ephemeral since I never heard of graphics complaints afterwards. The visuals are simply beautiful even with any downgraded graphics.

One is a medieval dark ages fantasy game with a very realistic and gritty setting. The other one a post apocalyptic shooter with wacky elements and an unhealthy relationship with violence, alcohol and drugs. It is pretty much the same game if you ask me.

The comparison lies in the open world and side-quests though, which are two elements that can be compared. I will say that Fallout 4 has the world building down and it makes sense compared to setting, same can be said for TW3 though.

Besides obvious similarities the games are different in many aspects and have tottaly different purposes and BTW you are also wrong stating you can compare it to SKYRIM because they are in the same genre... nope.

Witcher series have always been about the story, many people didnt wanted them to make them open world but they still did it and while they did an amazing job with that game it seriously underwhelming to explore, there is literally no incentive or purpose to do it, when you play TW3 you are there to conclude Geralts story and thats it, the side quest are also amazing because they are also story driven so like i say you are there for the story for the writing, not to explore something hidden etc because the incentive is minimal, the map for starters points to you every damn place where you can find loot, like... WTF???? that alone eliminates all the purpose of exploring, now the second problem is most of the time you only find [censored] that serves no purpose specially when you start crafting your own equipment...

You are there as Geralt a Monster Hunter that has a purpose, has a story already, has everything already you can just change minor things but not the overal picture and the game focuses HEAVILY on that aspect.

Skyrim and Fallout are more about freedom and exploring and of course the mods, Skyrim did a poor job on the loot though because eveybody knows how OP is to craft your stuff in that game, so again that hurts the overal incentive to explore, something that is fixed in FO4 with the elite mobs, also no Bethesda game marks you in the map where is the loot you need to explore and find stuff yourself, Skyrim main story was weak and just there because... it was not really that important and you can just ignore completely i dont know how better the story is in FO4 since im not far into the game because i have like 8 hours played and most of that time was exploring and messing with the settler stuff and finding stuff to improve my settlement, something i didnt feel like doing in TW3 because there is really no point.

TW3 graphics are better period (even after the downgrade), but FO4 graphics are not bad or terrible as some people like to say, game looks good and thats it.

Complete diferent games like there is no point in even try to compare gameplay because their purposes are different.

Only OFFENSE Bethesda did was the TERRIBLE controls and UI for PC, like easily the worst of the year and probably one of the worst ports ever in that aspect, so they better get their [censored] together and fix that soon.

the witcher 3 is far more gritty in its graphical portayl.

its going for super realism.

which is great, but wouldnt necessarily fit the stylised world of fallout.

this game to me has more depth to it.

in its rpg mechanics. the added base building. choices you make.

crafting.

i find witcher 3 pretty.... but also pretty shallow.

story is great in witcher 3 though.

You can't compare them in all aspects (like combat) but in some you definitely can. Like writing or characters for example, Witcher blows it out of the water in this regard. In other aspects such as open world exploration Bethesda are still kings IMO,.

Right now my biggest issue with FO4 is the dialog system. It is a massive step backward from ever other Fallout. Only having 4 dialog options most of the time and absence of the ability to go back and ask for more info completely ruins it. Fallout should be a game where you can have NPCs talk your ear off if you want to take the time to listen to them. This hinders the game immensely writing wise as well because it's difficult to care when you can barely talk to NPCs and get to know them.

Im not sure, but I bought witcher 3 a while back and got bored after about 20 hours honestly and did not like the game. I prefer sandbox and open world any day over a themepark type of game. Fallout however is completely different since I have put that much time in it the last 3 days as opposed to two weeks with witcher lol. Everyone has their own tastes and both are completely different games. Comparing them is apples to oranges I agree.

I don't get why people complain about the UI on PC for Fallout, when no one says anything about the Witcher 3 UI...

all the menus were far more complicated... you had to look at tiny pictures of your inventory stuff and mouse over them, to know what that item was

the combat system was terrible with mouse and keyboard :/ not to mention how complicated it was to change from aard to yrden a.s.o. during combat

it was a nightmare compared to what we have right now in Fallout

I actually don't think that Witcher aimed for realism ^^

it has a very colourful lighting... the saturation seems to be really really high

I guess they wanted to make the game get a 'fantasy' look

http://i.imgur.com/UQBkUxy.jpg

it has way too many colours to be realistic... it will even look 'happy' when it rains

If I'd look for games that had a realistic lighting, it would be something like this:
http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1425/14251903/2455483-7494280079-16142.jpg

neither Witcher, nor Fallout aim for realism ^^ they both have an own style in the graphics

A really devoted fan passive agressive snowflake...