Alcoholikaust
Member
As a longtime Metal Gear and Witcher fan- could not agree more. Both are great for different reasons.
MGS 5 or Witcher 3?
- Thread starter sloppyjoe_gamer
- Start date
Personal preference, but after spending around 115 hours in witcher 3 and 10 hours in MGS V, I like the witcher 3 more. I just love going on an adventure in a big, amazing world filled with interesting stories and characters. The witcher 3 excels on that front, I would almost call it best in class. Sure, the gameplay is pretty mediocre at times(but not bad! The combat for example isn't nearly as bad as Skyrim), but it is just so amazing to ride around in the world of The witcher 3 and do (side)quests filled with interesting twist and turns.
The core gameplay is better in MGSV, but the story and characters are barely there, and the world is not interesting to explore. It is defiantly a very good game, but The witcher 3 is just more my kind of game.
The core gameplay is better in MGSV, but the story and characters are barely there, and the world is not interesting to explore. It is defiantly a very good game, but The witcher 3 is just more my kind of game.
MGSV is the one that really doesn't justify being open world. It could have been a series of GZ styled arenas and not have come out any worse for it.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
If PS4, I'd stay clear of The Witcher 3. Game still runs like absolute garbage.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Plenty of people on gaf complained that they got bored of the sidequests and points of interest in witcher 3 (in witcher threads not this one) and that it has a ton of filler that didn't need to be there.
A lot of people on gaf have said they never finished the game and gave up some percentage in.
As a big fan of witcher 1 (for all the things it did so well back then) and as someone who was dissapointed in witcher 2, I think witcher 3 did not do nearly enough to improve the combat of the series and that the open world is a step down for the pacing of the game.
It's difficult to go from action games like Metal gear rising or dragon's dogma to a game like witcher 3 and not wish they put more thought into combat and gameplay. The combat just isn't good.
Gameplay is important in games.
Does more than witcher.
Guard patrols and reinforcements between camps keeping you on your toes, troop movements on day and night transitions (change of the guard), 360 degree access to most bases changing up the gameplay.
RealityCheque
Banned
And that's essentially what it is. You move from mission to mission inside the world instead of through menus and loading screens and you can do some fun side missions inbetween.
Open world is probably the wrong category for it.
The Witcher 3's combat is a lot of fun.Geralt controls really well and has a lot of fun options to tinker with.
Some downsides to the combat are its a bit easy, some hitbox issues here and there and sometimes enemies skip animations.
So in addition to the greatest gameworld there is and amazing characters/NPCs,Its FUN to fight in TW3.
Some downsides to the combat are its a bit easy, some hitbox issues here and there and sometimes enemies skip animations.
So in addition to the greatest gameworld there is and amazing characters/NPCs,Its FUN to fight in TW3.
After 45 hours in MGSV i'm at 23% and mission 19. I've never felt so immersed in a game before, and it feels as though as it just keeps giving and giving. TW3 is a fantastic game and has a great story, however after putting in so many hours into both i've had much more enjoyment with MGSV so my vote goes to that 
Ok, so no real sustained evidence that "odds are you'll be disappointed" in this extremely well-regarded game (aside from your own anecdotal observations on NeoGAF)? Got it. After all, the open world and side-quests seem to be the game's most popular and successful elements.
Also, it's difficult to go from arcade to simulation racers too, which is why it would be silly to carry those expectations over and not acknowledge what each does well. Sounds like you're hung up on more of a personal preference thing rather than an objective flaw.
Exploration, Talking to NPCs isn't gameplay? Surely these are important facets in an RPG?
Your impression of GAF's opinion of the game appears to be confirmation bias.
MGSV is the first open world game where I felt like I got something out of the open world approach, in contrast to apparently what everyone else playing the game thinks.
What I mean by this isn't that there x number of hubs to visit with people to talk to, or unique happenings/sidequests all over the place- it's more that the stealth action genre actually makes the point at which you enter a mission area meaningful. That you can draw guards to one area, then double around the outside of a base and get in easily. That you can jump a convoy along a road and ride it into a fortified area. That you can let that target you need to get pass the zone you were ostensibly supposed to pick them off at so that they run into a trap you've set outside the town.
There's no question to it when it comes to other metrics- the Witcher has way more one-off written moments, characters, and density to its open world. It has a much better story. It also has more content just in general. But I never felt like the open world mattered when tackling a hunt or doing side quests. It's a place they've filled with stuff, not a sandbox where the actual world itself is a tool to be used.
Furthermore, the actual gameplay in MGSV is leagues beyond the Witcher. At the end of the day, W3 just isn't particularly interesting or fun to play, while MGSV is the exact opposite- regardless of how uninterested I am in the story, I'm sticking with because I just love playing this thing moment to moment. I don't even feel W3 is a particularly good game at the end of day just because of how poor it is from a mechanics perspective.
It should also be noted that I'm not even a big MG fan- I think the gameplay in prior entries is overrated. MGSIV's first two acts were the only times I ever thought the series proper had decent play prior to V. But V just really is that remarkable. It's right up there with Chaos Theory and Mark of the Ninja for me as one of the best stealth games of all time.
So, yeah, I guess it goes without saying, but I'd pick MGSV any day.
What I mean by this isn't that there x number of hubs to visit with people to talk to, or unique happenings/sidequests all over the place- it's more that the stealth action genre actually makes the point at which you enter a mission area meaningful. That you can draw guards to one area, then double around the outside of a base and get in easily. That you can jump a convoy along a road and ride it into a fortified area. That you can let that target you need to get pass the zone you were ostensibly supposed to pick them off at so that they run into a trap you've set outside the town.
There's no question to it when it comes to other metrics- the Witcher has way more one-off written moments, characters, and density to its open world. It has a much better story. It also has more content just in general. But I never felt like the open world mattered when tackling a hunt or doing side quests. It's a place they've filled with stuff, not a sandbox where the actual world itself is a tool to be used.
Furthermore, the actual gameplay in MGSV is leagues beyond the Witcher. At the end of the day, W3 just isn't particularly interesting or fun to play, while MGSV is the exact opposite- regardless of how uninterested I am in the story, I'm sticking with because I just love playing this thing moment to moment. I don't even feel W3 is a particularly good game at the end of day just because of how poor it is from a mechanics perspective.
It should also be noted that I'm not even a big MG fan- I think the gameplay in prior entries is overrated. MGSIV's first two acts were the only times I ever thought the series proper had decent play prior to V. But V just really is that remarkable. It's right up there with Chaos Theory and Mark of the Ninja for me as one of the best stealth games of all time.
So, yeah, I guess it goes without saying, but I'd pick MGSV any day.
Yes you can move between missions in the world, but because there isn't anything between those missions was there really a need for all that space. I got tired of the "world" and just went to ACC and then helicoptered to the next mission.
Bolivar687
Banned
I think OP made a good choice. I'm still not sure which I like better but Witcher has more variety as far as hanging around in town, playing Gwent, and quests that focus much more on role playing rather than pure combat.
From what I have played so far (first 15 missions or so) this is 100% true. The game doesn't even really feel open world to me at all with the way the map is structured. The open world doesn't really hurt it either though, it kind of just is.
They are two completely different games so it really depends on what you are in the mood for. The Witcher 3 is one of the best games I've ever played so my vote would probably go to that although I don't really know how well it performs on PS4. I know MGS is 60 fps which is always a plus on consoles.
Chill Penguin
Member
MGS V gameplay puts other open world games to shame. Easily the best game of the year so far.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Maybe I am biased, the impression among my friends has been negative as well for witcher 3.
There is no defending the combat though, it's objectively poor.
And sorry but witcher 3's going from point to point talking to npcs did not feel any more natural than your average MMO quest hub outside of the main story thread. The scale of the world is very off so in the end it doesn't feel any more of a grand voyage or adventure than in the linear witcher games.
The atmosphere is good (all art and graphics) but a game like dragon's dogma had a 10x stronger sense of adventure and exploration when it comes to open world. I'll never forget the journey to bluemoon tower, didn't have such moments in witcher 3.
What would it have lost if it was a series of large GZ like areas?
There is very little interaction between bases across the map at large, there are no missions requiring the use of multiple locations around the world or even across maps.
Yup. It would have been better if they done it GZ style.
MGSV's open world leads to some really interesting mission design, since you can approach any mission from any direction with any set of gear. I found it very interesting to deal with, and the main mission design is fantastic, with the long list of optional objectives and rating system.
Less good than others but subjectively I had plenty of fun with it, as did many others.
I mean Skyrim is well loved but that was even worse in terms of combat. Plenty of people like large world RPGs, "good" combat is just icing on the cake.
ChiefofCitadelSecurity
Member
All of this especially the bolded. I love the game, but the immediate gameplay for W3 isn't really much. It's high points are everything outside of it. This ain't really a problem for me, but I can definitely see it for others though.
One could easily say the opposite. Open world design and story gets old when the gameplay is average to poor. I would say that W3's gameplay and movement are average to poor.
All those things happened in GZ.
Nothing really, but I'd still consider that open world. I did a mission yesterday where 3 soldiers were to meet at a single base from 3 other locations, so if we consider the space encapsulating all 4 bases that one "level", it's still a big enough space for me to have a hard time calling it anything other than open world.
GZ is open world. It's just a small world.
But I can't really recall anything like what you are saying in the Witcher either- there's no mission where I chase someone from the Orchard to Skellige or even from something like the Baron's castle up to Novigrad. You might get a mission in one place, finish something there, then need to go to another area to do another quest, but those are only connected narratively, so it's a pretty arbitrary distinction. I might as well do one MGSV mission in one place, then pick another one elsewhere.
curiouscharles
Member
I haven't finished TW3 ,but the Baron's quest alone spans over the massive expanses of Velen including Oxenfurt and the Crookback Bog.
It goes far beyond just the Crow's Perch.
EDIT : Finding Ciri in and of itself entails searching over the entire world.
What? I clearly remember missions where I started at one point of the map and had to make my way to another base because a prisoner/commander/whatever had moved to another location. There are missions where you have to destroy vehicles who constantly move between bases. It's not uncommon at all.
Besides, the game already is essentially a series of large GZ like area who happens to be interconnected to each other and you can freely roam when doing side-ops.
The Witcher 3 and it's not even close.
MGS is favourite series ever, I've been playing them since the beginning, but I had nothing to complain about when it came to The Witcher 3. It has a better open world, with much more life and a lot of variety in the environments. MGSV feels empty in comparison and there's not a lot of variety. The Witcher 3 has a satisfying story with unique handcrafted side quests that all have their own stories. MGSV has repetitive side quests which mostly feel like padding and unfortunately it suffers from cut content which leads to a very unsatisfying conclusion. MGSV also has the worst story of the all the MGS games imo, maybe Peace Walker is slightly worse, I don't know.
With that all said the actual gameplay of MGSV is really good and the game runs really well on the PS4.
ed: I think The Witcher 3 has ruined open world games for me, it's almost too good.
Sorry Kojima.
This pretty much.
As a huge MGS fanboy since MGS1, Witcher 3 is a damn good game. Easily my GOTY2015. The missions, the story, gameplay - it's amazing.
There are quests that span the whole world. It is arbitrary, but it justifies the world at large being there. You meet a guy in a bar and he says he needs something that is only available in location x because that is where it grows.
In this way you have a world that has an ecosystem, a local culture and this justifies travelling far. Otherwise you lose a lot in having potatoland scaling in an attempt to fit everything you need within arms reach.
I don't think MGSV suffers from a lack of this scale but they could have easily added side ops or main missions that had objectives in the world at large instead of small regions. There really isn't anything to do between the base areas. Nothing to explore, nothing to find (beyond animals). You can't stumble upon events occurring in the world at large.
MGS has clockwork bases, but not a clockwork world.
MiguelItUp
Member
It's really a matter of opinion. Personally I'd say MGS V by a landslide. Witcher 3 is a solid game and worth checking out. But something about the flow just turned me off so much. I honestly have no idea what it was. I played it for a few weeks and just stopped caring, it began to feel like a chore. Whereas MGS V I want to just keep playing more and more.
LordBaztion
Member
Even though in MGSV D-horse can poop on command, I have to choose The Witcher, that world CDPR created never ceases to amaze me, the are delightful vistas at every corner, main and side quests feel meaningful, it has an insane amount of content and every bit hugely detailed. MGSV has better gameplay by far but The Witcher is a unique experience.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Yeah
edit I guess I'll spoiler this: mission 6 honey bee:
early in the game the honey bee mission puts you like 2 miles away from your objective.
You fight/stealth yourself across a huge multi level bridge chokepoint area where you spot the prisoner you're supposed to save. He is driven off to a giant rock formation base with caves and a big outside courtyard that you can enter from two different sides.
There he is carried off by 3 soldiers into the (heavily guarded) caves and you have to follow them in.
Once you extract him you discover the location of a new missile weapon you are after, once you find it a cutscene starts , hell breaks loose and there's a bossfight.
You can get to the prisoner at any time during the way into the cave and I assume you can catch him at the bridge as well (I was too slow and careful and just watched it)
The longer you take to take out his guards the deeper into the enemy nest he gets and the harder it becomes to get to him. If you take too long he dies so it's advantageous to catch him early so you can take your time with the rest of the mission.
This whole sequence is me picking the southern spawn point...
You can spawn from the north and never see the bridge (and there's a gunship helicopter in the northern part) and have first half of the mission be completely different.
I don't know what happens if you approach from the northern road, I will try it when I replay the mission later and am looking forward to it, such replay value.
The level design for an open world game is impressive, you can tell they put a lot of thought into where they placed everything and how they designed the missions, there is linear game quality level design in an open world game, how often do you see that? never
You fight/stealth yourself across a huge multi level bridge chokepoint area where you spot the prisoner you're supposed to save. He is driven off to a giant rock formation base with caves and a big outside courtyard that you can enter from two different sides.
There he is carried off by 3 soldiers into the (heavily guarded) caves and you have to follow them in.
Once you extract him you discover the location of a new missile weapon you are after, once you find it a cutscene starts , hell breaks loose and there's a bossfight.
You can get to the prisoner at any time during the way into the cave and I assume you can catch him at the bridge as well (I was too slow and careful and just watched it)
The longer you take to take out his guards the deeper into the enemy nest he gets and the harder it becomes to get to him. If you take too long he dies so it's advantageous to catch him early so you can take your time with the rest of the mission.
This whole sequence is me picking the southern spawn point...
You can spawn from the north and never see the bridge (and there's a gunship helicopter in the northern part) and have first half of the mission be completely different.
I don't know what happens if you approach from the northern road, I will try it when I replay the mission later and am looking forward to it, such replay value.
The level design for an open world game is impressive, you can tell they put a lot of thought into where they placed everything and how they designed the missions, there is linear game quality level design in an open world game, how often do you see that? never
edit: people complaining about side ops: they serve a meaningful purpose, they are a risk/pressure free pure sandbox mode that lets you experiment without having to worry about mission ranks or anything.
The story missions are about the stealth, the suspense, the risk reward of your actions and the strategy as well as the constant time pressure of the day and night cycle. It's where you tryhard and put your learned skills to use while finding a solution to the gameplay puzzle.
Side ops are where I go to try out new toys or try out new approaches and hone new skills in a stress free environment, it allows you to make yourself comfortable with the constant stream of gameplay mechanics and tools that the game throws at you over the course of the game.
You know how in most mgs or action games you would save your rockets and mines and be reluctant to try your new toys because you might need them later? Side ops let you dick around with them at will, it's great.
How can you tout Witcher 3 gameplay? The combat is extremely dull.
I love MGSV but its already feeling too long. im 40 hours in and in chapter 1. the open world is dull, side ops get repetitive, it has plenty issues.
The Witcher 3, overall, has less issues. MGSV is a sublime game in a small, gameplay driven capsule. As a whole tho? WItcher 3 is still the best game released this year and its gonna be near impossible to beat.
The Witcher 3, overall, has less issues. MGSV is a sublime game in a small, gameplay driven capsule. As a whole tho? WItcher 3 is still the best game released this year and its gonna be near impossible to beat.
There is more to the the Witcher 3 than combat. There is more to MGSV than combat. One is better than the other in these other aspects.
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
I mean the person is referencing Venom, obviously.
mmm but there fight system suck....
I can't speak for MGS because I haven't played it, but I can throw out a recommendation for TW3.
TW3 is the most impressive game I've ever played, and one of the best I've ever played too. And that's not hyperbole. It's seriously incredible, and I'm only around 35 hours in.
People seem to complain about the combat a lot, but I think it's just fine. Using different spells/oils for different enemy types, parrying attacks, dodging and rolling... it all feels pretty satisfying to me on higher difficulties. It's certainly a massive step up from TW2's combat.
TW3 is the most impressive game I've ever played, and one of the best I've ever played too. And that's not hyperbole. It's seriously incredible, and I'm only around 35 hours in.
People seem to complain about the combat a lot, but I think it's just fine. Using different spells/oils for different enemy types, parrying attacks, dodging and rolling... it all feels pretty satisfying to me on higher difficulties. It's certainly a massive step up from TW2's combat.
Thanks to the worlds in mgsv being moderately small in comparison to other open worlds, and thanks to the number of options at my disposal, I find that mgsv makes use of its space in better ways than most games. One of my favorite things to do is to deploy quiet at a far away side op location and then do the side op where I currently am, fultoning high level soldiers and what not. Then I take an enemy vehicle to the other side op location and quiet already has the place scoped out. Then I do that mission however I want approaching it from whatever side I want. Then maybe a patrol truck comes by and I hitch a ride somewhere else. Or maybe it came by and honked, waking up sleeping soldiers forcing me to adapt my strategy. But hey, I'm lucky, a sandstorm is coming in. That gives me a lot more options. Then I finish that and start a story mission. I remove quiet and bring in D-horse. Then I order a supply drop at a certain point in the distance and then me and d-horse get to the supply drop right as it lands. Then I get to the mission start point and that mission requires me to tail a person who goes between multiple locations in order to meet with another person. Good thing I brought in d-horse for movement and stealth. But then I play the mission and who knows what could happen between the start and the finish.
So yeah. Because the space isn't that huge and the options are plentiful, I enjoy having everything in one space with multiple locations to move between.
So yeah. Because the space isn't that huge and the options are plentiful, I enjoy having everything in one space with multiple locations to move between.
Permanently A
Junior Member
Wow I'm surprised so many people saying Witcher 3 is better than MGSV. I'm totally having a blast with MGSV so after I finish it I should pick up Witcher 3!
Yeah, this is one of the reasons I'm loving this game so much. It's probably the first "open world" game that truly feels like a sandbox, as in you can approach pretty much anything however you like. If you think "can I do that?", you probably can. A lot of soldiers on the water and an electric post nearby? If you knock the electric post into the water, it'll shock all enemies on the water, knocking them out for you and possibly killing them if its raining. Enemy just caught you by surprise? Good thing I had planted a C4 on their communications system beforehand just in case, now I'll detonate it and they won't be able to call in supports.
The amount of freedom you have is only limited by your creativity and weapons/devices/partners at hand. The attention to detail is unreal.