MGS 5 or Witcher 3?

ninjablade said:
Can somebody tally up all the votes. I only played witcher 3 and it's one of the best games ever for me so far on ps4, disable all the motion blur and the framerate gets much better. I don't understand why there is so much hate for the combat in witcher 3, It's better then most open world games
Click to expand...
No its not, not by any stretch of the imagination. It's the best out there when it comes to euro jank but that's still not good combat.
 
yeah, I really don't see how open world helps MGSV when the maps are this bad. I'd have been far more happier if the game had like 15 levels like Ground Zeroes rather than the lazy copy pasted thing we got. I'm baffled how people can even praise the maps here.

Big well designed infinitely replayable levels over this open world? any time.
 
Decarb said:
MGSV just to see how open world ruins a perfectly fine linear IP.
Click to expand...
I see evolution, it's clearly where Kojima was trying to go his entire career. Sorry the loss of the overly familiar made you hate this gem of a game so much.


miladesn said:
yeah, I really don't see how open world helps MGSV when the maps are this bad. I'd have been far more happier if the game had like 15 levels like Ground Zeroes rather than the lazy copy pasted thing we got. I'm baffled how people can even praise the maps here.

Big well designed infinitely replayable levels over this open world? any time.
Click to expand...

You're being disingenuous, the levels are very well made, you can continue to do side ops for fun but the main levels are all well crafted as far in the game as I am.
 
miladesn said:
yeah, I really don't see how open world helps MGSV when the maps are this bad. I'd have been far more happier if the game had like 15 levels like Ground Zeroes rather than the lazy copy pasted thing we got. I'm baffled how people can even praise the maps here.

Big well designed infinitely replayable levels over this open world? any time.
Click to expand...

The maps are great in MGS 5. Having open space between camps adds a lot to the atmosphere. It never takes more than 1-2 minutes by horse back to travel to the next camp or poi. Also, there have been a number of times where I was careless running between camps and the soldier patrols with the red antenna alerted all the bases to my presence. This gives important gameplay weight to traveling.

Also, spending a minute or two getting to the camp, then camping behind a rock and using the binoculars to scope out the camp is a great feeling that can't be replicated on a small level.

People also forget that using the chopper or other air drops takes money, money that could be better spent on upgrades.
 
HeelPower said:
He's super mellow and like-able in the game so far or at least he can be through dialogue options.
Click to expand...

The games aren't that faithful to the books, they grasp the world much better than the characters within.

He's likeable in the books too.

And if we go just by the games then Batman is a dude who'd
princess carry his worst enemy over searching for the body of his dead girlfriend
 
Verendus said:
Oh my god.

Don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you should elaborate instead of drive-by posting.

And I mostly agree with you too, so it's not like I'm picking on ya' or even disagreeing with you.

VR_RaidenXOF said:
MGSV offers more freedom of style in gameplay than any game I have ever played, period. The Witcher 3 is great fantasy game but it doesn't compare.


Also, don't listen to the gripes about the story. Most folks just don't understand it yet.
Click to expand...

1439684164026.gif
 
Thabian said:
The maps are great in MGS 5. Having open space between camps adds a lot to the atmosphere. It never takes more than 1-2 minutes by horse back to travel to the next camp or poi. Also, there have been a number of times where I was careless running between camps and the soldier patrols with the red antenna alerted all the bases to my presence. This gives important gameplay weight to traveling.

Also, spending a minute or two getting to the camp, then camping behind a rock and using the binoculars to scope out the camp is a great feeling that can't be replicated on a small level.

People also forget that using the chopper or other air drops takes money, money that could be better spent on upgrades.
Click to expand...

it sure felt great at first but after 10 hours or so you can't be bothered with. It becomes a time waster between you and the objective. This isn't RDR where exploring is actually pleasant. There is not much to see here after a short while.

GZ was very well planned imo, I can tell they spent a lot of time making that, could explain the development of this game lol. You still had to do all the scouting you do here, just less empty space there and more geometry to deal with, surveillance to deal with, it was more interesting to play. I feel all of the open world elements that the game has could have been achieved with big maps like GZ instead, like weather change, helicopter, vehicles and all that and GZ already had most of it.
 
Thabian said:
The maps are great in MGS 5. Having open space between camps adds a lot to the atmosphere. It never takes more than 1-2 minutes by horse back to travel to the next camp or poi. Also, there have been a number of times where I was careless running between camps and the soldier patrols with the red antenna alerted all the bases to my presence. This gives important gameplay weight to traveling.

Also, spending a minute or two getting to the camp, then camping behind a rock and using the binoculars to scope out the camp is a great feeling that can't be replicated on a small level.

People also forget that using the chopper or other air drops takes money, money that could be better spent on upgrades.
Click to expand...

The camps are a bit too shallow though. Just about everything you do is outside. I miss the well thought out interior designed levels from the earlier games.
 
Thabian said:
The maps are great in MGS 5. Having open space between camps adds a lot to the atmosphere. It never takes more than 1-2 minutes by horse back to travel to the next camp or poi. Also, there have been a number of times where I was careless running between camps and the soldier patrols with the red antenna alerted all the bases to my presence. This gives important gameplay weight to traveling.

Also, spending a minute or two getting to the camp, then camping behind a rock and using the binoculars to scope out the camp is a great feeling that can't be replicated on a small level.

People also forget that using the chopper or other air drops takes money, money that could be better spent on upgrades.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your not very far. The camps become pretty much useless, you can spot out enemies but for what purpose? Only thing you can do is abduct people to fill out your motherbase staff thats about it. It is very cool and unique early on, but after going by the same camp about 50 times it wears very thin.

Also the money on upgrades, I don't know that you should ever have a problem with money. Though i'm only on mission 16 but done most of the side ops too. A lot of the upgrades are just extra stuff you don't really need.
 
Kamina777 said:
I see evolution, it's clearly where Kojima was trying to go his entire career. Sorry the loss of the overly familiar made you hate this gem of a game so much.
Click to expand...

Fix The Scientist said:
After MGS4 this is a stunning return to form, the pacing is certainly different but it's still an amazing experience, proper kojima sandbox fun.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it as much as RDR or GTAV. But if there's one thing I could change it would be to go back to MGS3 style level design instead of going full on open world.
 
The Witcher 3 is really good, I don't know about MGS:V but The Witcher 3 is the second best game I have played this year right behind Bloodborne.
 
Kojima's take on Assassin's Creed is very good, but it doesn't touch The Witcher 3. I'll be surprised if anything else this year does.
 
I wasn't fan of MGS or Witcher before going into the latest installments, but Witcher 3 has been more fun than MGS V
 
Haha, ask NeoGAF if you should play MGSV? The answer is always going to be yes.

That said I highly doubt you will be upset for spending your money on either game. They are both great, game of the year contender quality games.

Hell, play them both.
 
Discotheque said:
MGSV has probably some of the worst traversal in an open world game I've seen. I find myself calling a chopper after every mission because who's got time to get to these far apart sideops with a million guard posts in between

A real shame coming off of Arkham knight too which was so damn fun with the moving around the city
Click to expand...


I think MGSV's biggest failure is not properly explaining to the player that this is how they should be approaching the open world. The traversal is bad and the world is barren, but that's intended because you shouldn't be hoofing it 2000m to your next destination anyway. MGSV doesn't have new quests/NPCs/activities every 10 feet, and that's just fine once you stop expecting it's open world to follow the structure that has become standardized. Drop in next to your objective and head back to the chopper when you're done. The open world is for giving the player a sandbox for the missions, not to hide trinkets in.


Also, I know you already bought TW3 but I found it to be horrendous for short play sessions. If you've got an hour a day to play then you won't be out of the prologue until next week. I eventually dropped it after owning it for months and still being in Act 1. All in all I still got my money's worth because I probably spent over 30 hours in the game, but the games strength is the narrative (as you have read many times in this thread) so that time feels wasted given that I never will see the end of the story.
 
If you want a more traditional open world you can truly get lost in, then Witcher 3. MGS is a better game mechanically and has some stellar open world stealth gameplay but sorely lacking in side content/exploration.

The fact you're playing on PS4 means you'll get a much better performing game with MGS5.
 
if you are an mgs fan, there is no question needs to be asked.

if you have not played any mgs games, then also choice is easy, dont bother with mgs games unless you have played its prequals.
 
HeelPower said:
Everyone should keep in mind that TW3 ,flawed as it is, STILL has much better combat than like..all bioware ,ubisoft,and bethesda games.

Its no BloodBorne but don't let anyone convince you that it doesn't play well.

Its really absurd how people simply shun the game's combat like that in this thread.Makes me wonder how many really played the game...
Click to expand...
No. The combat is worse than DAI. It's either parry fest or chain jumpzergs. Spells and ability variety is paltry, in fact I needed 20 levels to unlock whirl which is an autoattack. Lockon that does not lock.

DAI may have been hurt by its RTwP roots and party nature, W3 combat had no such baggage but still is inferior.
 
EatChildren said:
Thing is you can dilute the questing/missions in both games down to bare bones simplicity and levy that as criticism that ultimately amounts to subjectivity as context and reward are something the player has to find themselves. MGSV missions are literally just "go to place, sneak in, kill/extract dude or blow stuff up, repeat". Wild Hunt is "go to objective marker, talk to person, activate detective mode, follow trail, click things". All games can be distilled down to their basic gameplay loop, but I feel what's important is the details that imbue this loop with interesting context.

In Wild Hunt that context is mostly the writing and world building. If you're not invested in the world itself, the stories being told, the people, the monsters, the lore, and the adventure of Geralt, then yes the quests will be boring as shit.

In MGSV it's the game systems, the stealth, the combat, overcoming the AI, implementing your tools and gear, and maximising your strategy for the biggest gameplay gains in a single mission arc. If you're not invested in the game systems then of course it's repetitive and boring.

Ultimately it's very subjective since neither game will cater to all tastes. But I also feel both games enrich their gameplay loop with enough context and depth to be rewarding for those who have a taste for that context or depth.
Click to expand...

Good answer. Both are pretty damn good, so try to get both OP.
 
Renekton said:
No. The combat is worse than DAI. It's either parry fest or chain jumpzergs. Spells and ability variety is paltry, in fact I needed 20 levels to unlock whirl which is an autoattack. Lockon that does not lock.

DAI may have been hurt by its RTwP roots and party nature, W3 combat had no such baggage but still is inferior.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call DAI's combat mechanically superior but the party and the more elaborate speccing makes a difference.

Both games have a huge dropoff in difficulty after a certain point on any difficulty but in Witcher 3 any way you build Geralt you'll end up trivializing the game. If I ever replay the game I'd just not invest skillpoints at all

patapuf said:
Like always, going the "soldier" (in this game the sword tree) is going to result in the least variety possible.

Going signs gives you 5 aditional (strong) abilities and if you don't mind switching stuff in Menus alchemy with bombs does a to of damage in very little time or offers strong debuffs towards monsters.
Click to expand...

Signs tree is very disappointing past tier 2, investing any points into Quen is pointless, Alt Yrden's stagger is broken, Aard is inferior to Igni in pretty much every way.

Alchemist tree is awesome but the concoctions break the game even more, heal on stamina use, % of life damage on heavy attacks, etc. the combat really gets boring once you unlock all that stuff.

Same with DAI and Knight Enchanter, once you unlock that spec nothing can kill you and you can solo anything.
 
Renekton said:
No. The combat is worse than DAI. It's either parry fest or chain jumpzergs. Spells and ability variety is paltry, in fact I needed 20 levels to unlock whirl which is an autoattack. Lockon that does not lock.

DAI may have been hurt by its RTwP roots and party nature, W3 combat had no such baggage but still is inferior.
Click to expand...

Like always, going the "soldier" (in this game the sword tree) is going to result in the least variety possible.

Going signs gives you 5 aditional (strong) abilities and if you don't mind switching stuff in Menus alchemy with bombs does a to of damage in very little time or offers strong debuffs towards monsters.
 
patapuf said:
Like always, going the "soldier" (in this game the sword tree) is going to result in the least variety possible.

Going signs gives you 5 aditional (strong) abilities and if you don't mind switching stuff in Menus alchemy with bombs does a to of damage in very little time or offers strong debuffs towards monsters.
Click to expand...
Why is soldier tree so awful? Even DAI fighter trees give you attacks that cause earthquakes or a Scorpion hook.

Shrug, DAI has bombs too.
 
I haven't played MGS 5 yet, and I'm still playing The Witcher 3. I'm about 50 hours in and just about to start Act 2. I think its got to be a new high in terms of WRPG. The narrative (despite it being a 'fetch quest') is just incredibly engaging. I feel like there's so much to learn about the world all the time and all of it is interesting. I don't find that in a lot of other WRPGs where most of the writing is really rote. People complaining about the combat or quests should understand, that while those complaints are valid, I feel like the developers set out to make first and foremost an engaging narrative with a cohesive world, and I really tip my hat at the vision and direction it took to make the game. It's one of those games that people will remember for a long time because its so much improved from the first two Witchers and also WRPGs in general. It doesn't hurt that the main character has plenty of charm and is a total badass.

Oh and people complaining about markers and mini quests on the map like a typical Ubisoft game, I think there's more than enough here to do without having to do them if you don't like them that much.
 
The first witcher game was the best.

@the guy below the final blizzard potion gives you unlimited signs so long as you stay at full adrenaline making it possible to spam any sign. No matter the investment in any tree
 
I feel you get more out of the Witcher 3's combat if you focus on Signs, and play with an "Insta Sign Casting" mod (R2+X=Quen, R2+O=Axii, etc).
Being able to go quickly from Yrden to dodge to Sword Slash to Aard, all without even opening the radial menu, makes the combat a lot more dynamic and fluid.

Here is an example using Yrden, dodge and then DoT effects to your advantage - http://gfycat.com/FelineShadyGermanshorthairedpointer#
Here is an example of using Yrden to slow down groups, then Aard to knock them down, and then insta kill them with the sword - http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/28/1436281872-and-we-all-fall-drowners.gif

Notice that the stamina recharges really fast if you focussed on Signs, and that means you can cast Signs almost immediately.
 
they're both completely different games, the only thing in common is that they're big time sinks. just pick either one first and you'll have a great time, then get the other one.
 
Witcher 3 has a plot, an ending, uses it's open world well, fills it with content, and every single quest feels like it matters.

Metal Gear Solid V has fun stealth.

Witcher 3 by leaps and bounds. It's not even a fair comparison because MGSV is literally unfinished.
 
Witcher 3.

Better overall package to me. My complaints with MGSV far outweigh Witcher's.

What's funny is that I had never been interested in a Witcher game before playing 3 and MGS happens to be among my favorite gaming franchises of all time.
 
ninjablade said:
Can you name these open world tp games with better combat
Click to expand...
Dragon's Dogma is far better. It's just on a whole other level than Witcher 3, as far as combat goes. And there are other Japanese action RPGs that are way more fun from a combat POV than Witcher 3 (Souls/Bloodborne, Ys, some of the Kingdom Hearts games), though they aren't necessarily open world and don't offer as good of a story as Witcher 3.
 
Both games a superb and critically very well received.

I'm amazed with some of the responses in the thread which seem to imply the lesser being trash.

I'm sure there are preferences but the satisfaction difference in experiencing both, i'd expect should be marginal.

I personally just picked up a Witcher 3 a few weeks ago and completed Ground Zeroes before that. Looking forward to MGS:TPP when the discounts start coming.
 
I know you already made up your mind OP, but just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Witcher 3 is the better game. It certainly has its problems, but so does MGSV.

MGSV is sorely lacking in content, and it's easy to tell it is an unfinished game when you play it. The actual amount of story in it is pretty minimal. Navigating mother base is a pain. The open world doesn't really add anything to the series. Half the game you are just attacking generic looking bases (sometimes even the same bases!) to fulfill a generic objective (capture this generic dude, because he might be connected to cipher a little bit maybe!).
Playing the game makes it seem Afghanistan is populated entirely by soviet soldiers. There are no civilians to be found any where. Similar story to Africa. Just mostly generic outposts and villages populated by soldiers. You neutralise every one, capture the outpost, return to mother base, and hey there they are, occupying the outpost again. It's a sandbox that grows old fast.
Much of the game design is very repetitive.
There are for sure some strong moments in it, but not very many.

I think the Witcher 3's biggest problem is its performance.
MGSV runs at 60fps almost all the time. Witcher 3 struggles to hold 30. If you can get past that, Witcher 3 is the better game in my opinion.
 
I feel like many of the complaints people are lobbying towards one game are almost completely applicable to the other, to a comparable degree.

Especially the stuff about MGSV being repetitive, having a pointlessly large open-world, and featuring a rushed ending... that's pretty much Witcher 3 in a nutshell as well.

And you know what? They're still both great games and you really can't go wrong with either, in spite of these flaws.
 
Famassu said:
It has far bigger problems than just its performance. It's really the least of its problems.
Click to expand...

You think performance is the LEAST of The Witcher's 3 problems? That's a bad opinion right there. Game is phenomenal...performance is clearly one of the few issues. You are 100% likely wrong indeed.
 
GravityMan said:
At the end of the day, the vast majority of gamers play games to actually PLAY them. In other words, they care a lot more about good gameplay and fun-factor and don't really give a shit about story or characters - even if well-written. Simply put, gameplay trumps all for a lot of people. They just want to PLAY and not think too hard about plot or "choice-n-consequence" or stats or whatever. If they wanted a good story, they'd watch a movie or read a book.
Click to expand...

What a shit post.
Did you even read the thread? Looks like it's proving you wrong, it's like 50:50.
 
The Witcher 3

I'm still early in MGS 5 , but this is a clear choice for me, The Witcher 3 is my favorite game of the year and already one of my all time favorites. I don't remember last time a game I spended more than 100 hours and just wanted to keep on playing. I find the world, quests and the characters endlessly fascinating and I'm not even usually a fan of open world games. The whole gameplay just feels fun and meaningful and I actually want to explore every corner, level up my character and find a new gear.
 
I haven't played The Witcher 3 but I'm knee deep in MGS V and would totally recommend it first if you're a true die hard MGS fan no question.

You can't skip the most perfected version of Metal Gear Kojima-san has given the world.

EatChildren said:
Thing is you can dilute the questing/missions in both games down to bare bones simplicity and levy that as criticism that ultimately amounts to subjectivity as context and reward are something the player has to find themselves. MGSV missions are literally just "go to place, sneak in, kill/extract dude or blow stuff up, repeat". Wild Hunt is "go to objective marker, talk to person, activate detective mode, follow trail, click things". All games can be distilled down to their basic gameplay loop, but I feel what's important is the details that imbue this loop with interesting context.

In Wild Hunt that context is mostly the writing and world building. If you're not invested in the world itself, the stories being told, the people, the monsters, the lore, and the adventure of Geralt, then yes the quests will be boring as shit.

In MGSV it's the game systems, the stealth, the combat, overcoming the AI, implementing your tools and gear, and maximising your strategy for the biggest gameplay gains in a single mission arc. If you're not invested in the game systems then of course it's repetitive and boring.

Ultimately it's very subjective since neither game will cater to all tastes. But I also feel both games enrich their gameplay loop with enough context and depth to be rewarding for those who have a taste for that context or depth.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.

I'll be quoting this in the future if you don't mind ;)
 
miladesn said:
it sure felt great at first but after 10 hours or so you can't be bothered with. It becomes a time waster between you and the objective. This isn't RDR where exploring is actually pleasant. There is not much to see here after a short while.

GZ was very well planned imo, I can tell they spent a lot of time making that, could explain the development of this game lol. You still had to do all the scouting you do here, just less empty space there and more geometry to deal with, surveillance to deal with, it was more interesting to play. I feel all of the open world elements that the game has could have been achieved with big maps like GZ instead, like weather change, helicopter, vehicles and all that and GZ already had most of it.
Click to expand...

Agree. After GZ, it's a huge disappointment to see the maps of TPP. Most of the places are just not that well designed or complex. Many of the bases are extremely predictable, there're no cameras and not a lot of geometry to get lost in.

I just can't see the reason for going open world if you're not going to use the great elements of open world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

From Bloodborne to The Witcher 3 to MGSV The Phantom Pain, these games will turn 10 in 2025, believe it or not
Opinion Event 
41
2K
Blank Space Invader replied
  • Poll
BG3 or Witcher 3?
2 3 4 5 6
262
14K
vaibhavpisal replied
The Witcher 4 Map Size Will Be “More Or Less The Same” As The Witcher 3, CDPR Promises “Quality Over Quantity”
News Game Dev Hype 
42
2K
Makoto-Yuki replied
Better late than never! The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
Community 
27
2K
James Sawyer Ford replied
CD Projekt shares The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 sales data (digital/physical split, platform split, regional split)
2 3 4
170
8K
YeulEmeralda replied
Top Bottom