Undertale was 97, just recently someone had the guts to lower it to 94 by going against the bandwagon. So you see, it all depends on how the reviewers perceive the stuff. They might give 100 to 1985 graphics or 85 to 2012 graphics. Novelty is very highly rated and open-world RPGs lost some novelty while stuff like Undertale can come across as very novel with their gameplay premise, story and writing even if it's terrible as a game. (and I mean terrible when I couldn't even finish the demo even if I really wanted to experience it a bit)

Yes quite handily even

Strange thing to worry about.

I liked the Witchter 3
I hope I like Fallout 4

That's all the matters. Unless Fallout 4 is such a commercial failure that Bethesda is ruined and unable to make any more games. But that seems highly unlikely.

They are very different games:

• Post-apocalyptic vs Fantasy
• Fixed protagonist vs character created

The review scoring will be interesting because many review sites do not consider 10 to mean 'perfect', they consider that to mean 'essential'.

Metal Gear Solid deserves a '10' much more as an 'essential' game. Describing it as 'perfect' would be foolishness.

At a wider level, game review scores have a real problem (and the review sites have a huge problem too) that of differentiating very different things and that of maintaining consistency in their review scores, when 9 is wonderful and 7 can be crap.

Just look over time how narrow the differentiation in scores has been between Bethesda games and the leading crop of games each year: (preferring Xbox metacritic for last gen, PS4 for this gen, and referencing GOTY blog).

2008

• Grand Theft Auto IV - 98
• Fallout 3 - 96 (consensus GOTY)
• Metal Gear Solid 4 - 94

2009

• Uncharted 2 - 96 (consensus GOTY)
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - 94
• Batman: Arkham Asylum - 92

2010

• Super Mario Galaxy 2 - 97
• Mass Effect 2 - 96
• Red Dead Redemption - 95 (consensus GOTY)

2011

• Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 96 (consensus GOTY)
• Portal 2 - 95
• Batman: Arkham City - 94

2012

• The Walking Dead - 92 (consensus GOTY)
• Journey - 92
• Far Cry 3 - 91

2013

• Grand Theft Auto 5 - 97
• The Last of Us - 95 (consensus GOTY)
• Bioshock Infinite - 93

2014

• Super Smash Bros. - 92
• Dragon Age: Inquisition - 89 (consensus GOTY)
• Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor - 84

2015

• Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain - 93
• The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - 92

In my opinion, 2015 is about The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4.
(MGS' flawed masterpiece is still flawed)

The Witcher 3 has made its case, Fallout 4 has yet to.

Whatever the answer is, I think it will be a very close call.

From what I've seen so far (official info, leaks etc.) TW3 looks like the better game to me.

What FO4 will do a better job with will be exploring I think. I was hoping for a big step up in writing quality but I'm less and less hopeful.

Depends on the indicators we take into account. For Fallout fans, probably yes. For Witcher fans, probably not. To evaluate on a larger scale it's all about sales, scores and awards.

In sales most definitely Fallout 4 will surpass Witcher 3 regardless of the quality. Bigger studio, bigger and older franchise with larger fanbase.

In review scores it's probably a close fight, both will score 90+ so one point plus or minus isn't a big deal. Where Fallout will lose is user score especially on pc, no way can Fallout 4 score a 92 on Metacritic because many haters of the new Fallout will downscore with 0/10's just because they can.

Most of the awards usually try to please everyone (ie give Witcher the "rpg of the year" and Fallout "game of the year" or viceversa). So I think this fight won't have a clear winner and both games will get a "game of the year" edition with a cover full of exalted quotes and lists of awards.

The witcher games are very good and an excellent portrayal of how a game should be made. The developer always puts the fans first and they really are a fairy tale studio with humble beginnings to huge success in three games. Plus they publish their own games so don't have to work to the timetable of huge mega corporation's like EA. I have high hopes for FO4, will it surpass witcher 3, who knows who cares just release already!

Same as Bethesda and every other big developer when they were still small?

Well, CDPR is not actually a small developer. They are a big company in Poland and it is a public company which has to report their profit earnings in public, not to mention they are also publishers and it's my understanding that throughout the development of TW3, CDPR hired about 1000 people - not working at the same time of course.

The situation with CDPR is that they aren't mainstream like Bethesda, EA, Crytek, Ubisoft, etc. But finally, TW3 has put CDPR solidly on the map. But indeed only time will tell if they remain faithful to their roots now that they are part of the pack of alpha wolves.

They can be be compared in that both are rpgs, open ended, and take a long time to finish

Without mods it will be interesting on which had
More depth
More fun
Omg moments

W3 breaks tons of ground in fantasy role-playing and i expect will gave impact on other studio games including TES

It will be interesting to wait and see if there are fans of both which game gets priority over the other. W3 has a big dlc and beth games have so many sidequests

I only have so many hours in a week so im waiting on both as i dont want to start w3 knowing i might not finish

TBH I don't think Bethesda will copy things from Witcher in the next TES game, or from any other game. For Fallout it was impossible anyway, being in development a long time already. But for the next one, I can bet Todd Howard has the entire game planned already and everyone in the team will follow, he doesn't seem to be willing to take suggestions from anyone. Not from fans of spears, skills, spells, choices and consequences, rich roleplay options in dialogue, RPG stats anyway. Obsidian made a spin-off of his own game, do you think he will "import" fan favorites like hardcoe mode or branching quests? I don't think so, he's clearly on a one way railroad and only he knows where is headed.

Well, CDPR learned a lot from TES and other games; they learned the weaknesses and strengths of Skyrim. There is no question that Beth will also learn from the weaknesses and strengths of TW3. If Bethesda/Todd Howard decides not to learn from other developers, he'll be his own naive worst enemy.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-cQPyDMH_uY/maxresdefault.jpg

Completely different kinds of games.. Apples to Oranges.

Plus there are people who will buy this game simply because Bethesda made it.

A tiny minority create good games and actually have publishing rights themselves and besides Bethesda hasn't always published its own games...

Never liked The Witcher so Hmm?No clue. I Don't have high hopes for F4 anymore.

WHAT?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

there is nothing new or ground breaking on the W3.

Thier crafting system isnt new, the rune system is a copy of gems from WoW or any enchantment u can put on gear on other games, Combat is horrible implement and is base on fluid combat from AK, Horse combat is similar to Skyrim where u get a Buff from attacking while galloping.

Ok i give u a good Dialogue, but that isnt something u can copie that is a good team of writer.

There is 0 character customization only hair, and everything that isnt default feel wierd on Geralt.

The animation isnt something crazy bc i have see more emotion on the animations of a game like The last of us.

SO yeah i really wish ppl tell me what is sooooo ground breaking about the Witcher 3.

I don't thing Fallout or TES could copy much from them:

Itemisation in Witcher 3 is horrible. you find an epic named sword, 2 fights later you find a "velen longsword" with much better stats on a bandit.

Story is fantastic in TW3, but it stems from having a fully fleshed out main character. he's not a wise old mage, or a new thief recruit, or a hotheaded barbarian, he's Geralt of Rivia, serious, gravely voice, trained by Vesimir, copulates with women... um.. people... um... anythign that moves...

If they copy the combat style and\or movement controls from TW3 into a TES\Fallout game... I'm quitting gaming altogether, and picking up golf or something. damn those controls are awful. I stomached them until the end credits and then alt-F4\uninstall. true story. What a chore.

They are very different in almost every way but the open world Medieval RPG genre.

Edit: Paragraph spacing

Well, lets try:

- Art direction is just perfect, you could take screenshots of every place from every angle and they will always look amazing;

- The quests are very well written and with huge details, way above anything done before;

- The NPCs are complex characters, with flaws and qualitiies, its a advlt world;

- The gameplay is very polished, maybe not ground reaking, but its very good (mater of opinion);

- Cities are alive, full of busy people. I cant think of any game that does this so well;

- Exploring is as good as Skyrim, without being so unrealistic (skyrim you have bandits next to rebels next to wolfs next to ...)

- Romance and six is done better than ever before (way better than Mass Effect);

- For such complex and beatful game, it runs really smothly in older systems (like my laptop). For sure theres many ground breaking tech advances in the programming and optimization.

Its not the perfect game, theres little replayability, but its a awesome game.

While I enjoyed playing Witcher 3, I would have to disagree with most of that.

-Art direction is just that 1 direction, not every game need to look the same. Plus there is ALOT of issue when u star looking close to things.

-Quest arent nothing ground breaking most quest involve speaking with someone, tracking, and killing a monster, or fallowing someone around. I guess we play 2 different game.

-The game play have alot of issue, starting with the poor loot system they have, crafting is bad, combat is a bad combo between batman and AC,

-the NPC arent nothing ground breaking, i have more affecting from Eli on the Last of Us that from Geralt or Triss, plus the whole story is poorly done if u fallow the other 2 games.+

-Cities use a same mechanic of GTA cities where ppl wake up and do stuff. And react to what the player do.

-Exploring isnt realistic since i have saw farm with farming tending the fiels while packs of wolf run around or cities close to Drover nest bc since a "cliff" is close they dont interact.

-Romance isnt done well, if u didnt read the book, there is 0 chance to understand why Geralt is obsess with Yeniffer, over Triss that u actually romance on bother other games.

-It runs smoothly after they fix it bc it didnt when the game come out.

Look im a fan of Witcher 3 i have play it and all, but im tired of ppl telling this game is sooooooo good, when it take alot of things from other game and most of the time dont improve over it.

Well, lets disagree then.

I played all major series of RPGs since around 1995, from baldur's gate to elder scrolls. I have to say that Witcher 3 is in my top 5 easily. It is, at least, a great refinement of all things that made a game a good rpg.

As I wrote before, my guess is that Witcher 3 will win most GOTY awards this year because Fallout 4 will be released with many bugs (as most bethesda games). But, given some months, Fallout 4 will be the better game of the two.

Don't waste your time with dranlord. The boy couldn't even figure out how to defend himself underwater while playing Witcher 3, claiming combat is thus terrible, no game mechanic for underwater fights, claiming you are totally defenseless underwater. Crossbows, how do they work?

NO WAY! LOL .. I WISH ...but no way... Witcher 3 has superb graphic and charcter animation compared to Fallout 4 .....

do bc it make sense to shoot a bolt under what and no draw your sword or use a glyph, Right, shooting arrows under water make alot of sense.

Plus im not the only want that have that opinion about the Witcher 3 game.

Again, im not saying is a bad game but isnt the marvelous most reviews want me to believe.