MGS 5 or Witcher 3?
- Thread starter sloppyjoe_gamer
- Start date
HueyFreeman
Banned
it is stunning to read people recommending one game over another based on framerate alone. I love that MGSV has such great performance, and I think the game looks fantastic, but Witcher 3 is a phenomenal accomplishment which is pushing a lot more effects and geometry around, and mainly struggles in a single area of the map.
I would reiterate to anyone trying to artificially put these games against each other: they are different genres, and for the most part different gameplay styles. Even just using their critical response as metrics, the choice between them will largely come down to preference, but shouldn't just be as narrow as performance.
I would reiterate to anyone trying to artificially put these games against each other: they are different genres, and for the most part different gameplay styles. Even just using their critical response as metrics, the choice between them will largely come down to preference, but shouldn't just be as narrow as performance.
LurkerPrime
Member
You made the right choice, OP. They're both good, but the Witcher 3 is far better overall.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
The combat it Witcher 3's really terrible. Given a huge amount of the quests in the game involve combat this is a pretty huge issue in the game. You mention repetition in MGS but every battle in Witcher feels the same and it's never fun.
Krappadizzle
Member
I think performance is a valid critique in my opinion. It doesn't stop the W3 from being a great game as it's the same content regardless of platform, but I won't pretend that I prefer to have a solid framerate and all the benefits that come with it. If I had to choose between the two on a console, I would probably pick MGSV. But if you can play on PC where performance is no issue, I'd easily pick W3 all day.
To each their own. I really liked the combat in W3. It's awesome smoothly dancing between enemy strikes or rolling away as a griffon swoops down on you or using that swirl/spinning attack to strike 4 people that have surrounded you, or beheading and enemy, or cutting their leg off and watching them fall over. But Witcher 3, to me is more than just combat, I loved the sense of discovery and how immersed I felt traversing the world and organically coming up on a new quest. It feels like a believable world. My point was, that if you take the overall package of everything in W3 and MGSV I'd bet that most people would say that W3 is the better game.
This. It annoyed the shit out of me at the lack of "cracks" to climb. It seemed like those should have been distributed out a lot more to avoid having to circle a goddamn small mountain just to get to your objective.
Black_Wolf
Neo Member
Witcher 3 without a doubt.
Don't get me wrong, MGSV is amazing, but there is a lot of recycling going on in this game. Most of the side-ops missions involve revisiting the same base and doing an identical task, only this time, the objective (or prisoner) is differently named. MGSV also has a lot of artificial mission lengthening due to the annoying placement of mountains, often doubling the travel distance just to get to a certain point.
I haven't beaten the game yet, so my opinion is obviously subject to change, but so far MGSV feels like Far Cry 4 (from a 3rd person perspective) as far as taking bases down. It's deeper due to better AI and the implementation of stealth mechanics, but the similarities are there. Traveling the MGSV open-world isn't as fun as it is in FC4 either since there is far less wild-life.
Don't get me wrong, MGSV is amazing, but there is a lot of recycling going on in this game. Most of the side-ops missions involve revisiting the same base and doing an identical task, only this time, the objective (or prisoner) is differently named. MGSV also has a lot of artificial mission lengthening due to the annoying placement of mountains, often doubling the travel distance just to get to a certain point.
I haven't beaten the game yet, so my opinion is obviously subject to change, but so far MGSV feels like Far Cry 4 (from a 3rd person perspective) as far as taking bases down. It's deeper due to better AI and the implementation of stealth mechanics, but the similarities are there. Traveling the MGSV open-world isn't as fun as it is in FC4 either since there is far less wild-life.
RedAssedApe
Banned
err snake has his hair in a ponytail in mgs5 lol
Word, thanks. I'm knee deep in MGSV, and it's the best stealth I've ever played...and I've played a lot. I agree about the open world overall. I'd like the next Splinter Cell to use this open level concept without the big traversal. The tapes are the same as codec to me. Both, if we're being honest, force you to stop the game, effectively, if you wanna get anything out of it. The tapes just make you realize it that much more because you are actually given the option to proceed. It's not elegant, but I do enjoy them.
I'm enjoying doing missions repeatedly as well, as I'm just the type to want to try it out a bunch of ways, and things can play out so differently. No weapons, S rank type of nutty, I am. I just enjoy the mechanics so much. You're right, though. Actual MGS, it isn't it's a weird hybrid and I fully get the knocks against it.
Witcher 3 is a better overall package. It looks incredible, the combat is fun if not exactly challenging (though it's decent if you play on Death March) and best of all it has excellent writing and characters. It has the one thing that MGSV lacks which is narrative context for everything that you're doing, which makes it easier to get lost and immersed in the world.
MGSV's gameplay is exceptional. I've played for 45 hours since Tuesday which is a lot for me. The minute to minute gameplay still leaves me constantly surprised at the different ways I can pull things off and the new abilities I can continually develop. The mother base stuff is also addicting. I love going out free roaming and just collecting all the best soldiers for my base. It's sorely lacking in the story department though, and 90% of the time you're doing missions with no story behind it at all, maybe a few lines of dialogue over the radio if you're lucky.
Honestly, you can't go wrong with either choice but for me I like to have more story in my experiences.
MGSV's gameplay is exceptional. I've played for 45 hours since Tuesday which is a lot for me. The minute to minute gameplay still leaves me constantly surprised at the different ways I can pull things off and the new abilities I can continually develop. The mother base stuff is also addicting. I love going out free roaming and just collecting all the best soldiers for my base. It's sorely lacking in the story department though, and 90% of the time you're doing missions with no story behind it at all, maybe a few lines of dialogue over the radio if you're lucky.
Honestly, you can't go wrong with either choice but for me I like to have more story in my experiences.
castaction
Member
This
Magic Mushroom
Member
I'm glad about that actually. I like that the open world is fairly empty besides the camps and the odd animal, plant and diamond. I've never been to Afghanistan, but I can imagine it's quite a bit like that.
I really can't stand the noisy Ubisoft open world filled with pointless tat and the need to shove something in your fave every inch of the fucking map. I'm glad MGS dares to be empty, I find that oddly relaxing.
Super Stardust
Member
The coolest thing about both games is they give you choice. Witcher 3 gives you choices you have to make in almost every quest that change outcomes, stories and whether people live or die. MGSV gives you choices in gameplay where you can tackle missions in a ton of different ways. Both are the top two GOTY contenders easily.
texhnolyze
Banned
You made a wise decision, OP.
Both are clearly GOTY material but Witcher still tops MGS V.
Both are clearly GOTY material but Witcher still tops MGS V.
Black_Wolf
Neo Member
Fair enough, but realism doesn't necessarily equate something being fun (to me, at least).
MGSV, in my opinion, suffers from being open-world. It feels open-world just for the sake of being open-world rather than actually doing something with it. It would have benefited (IMO) from having a smaller, more [developer] controlled world to avoid points-of-interest being 15 minutes of empty desert trudging apart.
It's not a bad game, but so far, I enjoyed MGS4 more.
Matrix XII
Member
Witcher 3
Except that the open world doesn't need to be filled with pointless tat, it can be partially filled with interesting things. People keep bringing up Ubisoft as a negative but at least Far Cry had some persistence in the open world. It had patrols that wandered the wilderness and gave you some reasons to explore those.
There is too much rote nonsense in Ubisoft games, but the same accusation can be levelled at a lot of the side ops.
Chuck Norris
Banned
MGS definitely fits the bill better as a game you can jump in and out of
I find with Witcher 3 I need to reserve a lot of time to get through it
I find with Witcher 3 I need to reserve a lot of time to get through it
TimorousPanda
Member
I jumped into each series with these entries and I couldn't get into the Witcher. I'm absolutely addicted to MGSV. Holy cow, what a game.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
The same applies to Witcher 3 though, it's open world for the sake of it.
The openness actively clashes with the main story, which wants to convey a lot of urgency while the open world lets you be errant boy for everyone.
I have to find
Ciri but first let me fight this troll for the bemusement of the audience and then invest into the fightclub. I'll have to wait a couple days but then I can get my ROI. Who was Ciri again?
Black_Wolf
Neo Member
Of course. I enjoyed the Witcher 2 "controlled" mini open world style more.
But Witcher 3 uses its open world far better than MGSV. Witcher 3 has a plethora of side quests and points of interest littered across the map (with the weakest at doing this being Skellige), and they're never literal repeats of one another.
Story urgency is another story. I was mainly addressing gameplay. You never walk around Witcher 3 for too long without finding something new to do. The same can't be said for MGSV, unless we're referring to redoing the same base infiltration for the third time.
To each his own, but that's how I felt.
Koutsoubas
Member
I think i'll have to go with Witcher 3. It's a bigger game with deeper mechanics(according to my own tastes). MGS 5 has a huge background and you need to have played all of the games to appreciate the story.
Also, i find RPG's more immersive and im investing easier time
Also, i find RPG's more immersive and im investing easier time
Krappadizzle
Member
I loved the open-world of W3 and would not want to go back. Though, I'd say you have a fair criticism. The story puts on this sense of urgency, and yet Geralt himself doesn't really reflect that when going to do side missions. But, to be fair you could just ignore the side stuff and focus only on the story if you wanted. But that would leave you overleveled if you wanted to go back and do the side-quests and that sucks. It's pacing is odd, but the story itself is great. What I did was play through W3 on hard the first time, focusing entirely on the story as best I could, and then replayed it on Death March and doing the side-quests as they came up. But again, you have a very fair criticism.
If you think about it as a TV show where there is an arc threading individual vignettes, that is the way the W3 is structured and that is the way to do open world games. There is no way one could do exploration the way that is offered in the W3 without having some large world.
Not saying think twice. I mean do you. But what do you mean by the bolded?
Magic Mushroom
Member
But on the other hand, you have countless ways of approaching and executing said infiltration. It's a true sandbox in that regard (which I find way more important than the open world, cause it's systemic and emergent), the best of its kind since Hitman Blood Money. Speaking of which, I have high hopes for the new Hitman.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
that's true but I wasn't that smitten with what you find either. There were a couple standout experiences but for the most part exploring into the wild randomly without the context of the quest that was supposed to bring you there was underwhelming.
Geralt would just randomly know who ordered the hit on a monster, know who a random item he picked up from a bandit camp belonged to, etc.
The side quests itself were quality stuff, they felt repetitive in execution but each gave you lots of context. So going from hub to hub picking up quests and doing them makes for a much better experience than picking a direction and just exploring.
I burned out on it and the game ultimately but that took a lot of time, I don't think the main story was all that good but it was more than serviceable. Witcher 3 is a great game and all around offered a lot, I have to emphasize just how much and how the quality holds up, of well written content but judged individually nothing particularly stood out.
Interesting to see people feel MGSV falls down towards the end. I actually felt Witcher 3 dragged a lot in Novigrad and in the last act. I see you've made your choice OP, but do consider MGSV if only to experience the best stealth action gameplay ever made. And that's coming from someone who is a newcomer to Metal Gear that has only ever played Ground Zeroes
RespectThySole
Member
Pretty much sums it up.
Depends on how invested you'll be getting.
The witcher is a game that you'll have to be fully committed too. 100% concentration and effort all the time.
Mgs5 you can have fun with. Read up on the back stories but you can pick up this game, play for 20 minutes and feel like you've achieved something.
The witcher is a game that you'll have to be fully committed too. 100% concentration and effort all the time.
Mgs5 you can have fun with. Read up on the back stories but you can pick up this game, play for 20 minutes and feel like you've achieved something.
Not everybody wants to repeat the same content ad infinitum. If I completely stealth my way through one entrance, going in through a different door isn't vastly different.
As great as the options are in MSGV the experience isn't vastly different regardless of the options you take. It is at its most interesting and reactive as a stealth game. Any other way is just a standard shooter.
This. It is vastly better that FC in most areas. But FC has it beat in terms of effect in the world. Places you infiltrate are static. they don't change in context of world state. I do like the way troop equipment changes, but in the end these changes didn't meaningfully force me to change tactics.
I started a new game and messed around in White Orchard and it seemed good, but maybe later areas still aren't great
SneakyStephan
Banned
I feel like some of you should play dragon's dogma.
Witcher may seem to have servicable combat compared to crap like skyrim but after playing DD it's verrrrrrry hard to go back to something like the witcher.
Good action combat games have really realigned my expectations for action combat rpgs, I used to be okay with poor combat as well in my rpgs but now I want more from them.
I put 130 hours into DD and thorougly enjoyed every second of it, and every time I pick up W3 all I can think is 'I could go back to DD right now and enjoy myself more than playing this'
Just like RE4 might have put some people off of old Resident Evil tank controls for good, so has DD put me off of witcher games and especially garbage combat systems like skyrim.
In a perfect world CDPR would use that witcher 3 money to collaborate with capcom, team ninja or platinum to combine their world building, art and dialogue with some high class gameplay to make a truely game of the generation worthy RPG.
I also want to second the offtopic rocket league recommendation earlier on the page, what an amazingly fun game
Witcher may seem to have servicable combat compared to crap like skyrim but after playing DD it's verrrrrrry hard to go back to something like the witcher.
Good action combat games have really realigned my expectations for action combat rpgs, I used to be okay with poor combat as well in my rpgs but now I want more from them.
I put 130 hours into DD and thorougly enjoyed every second of it, and every time I pick up W3 all I can think is 'I could go back to DD right now and enjoy myself more than playing this'
Just like RE4 might have put some people off of old Resident Evil tank controls for good, so has DD put me off of witcher games and especially garbage combat systems like skyrim.
In a perfect world CDPR would use that witcher 3 money to collaborate with capcom, team ninja or platinum to combine their world building, art and dialogue with some high class gameplay to make a truely game of the generation worthy RPG.
I also want to second the offtopic rocket league recommendation earlier on the page, what an amazingly fun game
Black_Wolf
Neo Member
This is true, but I feel like they could have accomplished this with a more controlled, and dare I say it, a slightly more "linear" world. I love taking down bases in different ways, I just don't like spending excessive amounts of time trudging through vast amounts of empty space, only to bump into a mountain and then wall-hug until the mountain ends to find my objective.
Mechanics-wise, MGSV is amazing. I just feel that the setting hinders the game considerably more than it should.
I play DD and see amazing combat, and dull everything else I expect out of an RPG.
Krappadizzle
Member
I feel like some of you should play dragon's dogma.
Witcher may seem to have servicable combat compared to crap like skyrim but after playing DD it's verrrrrrry hard to go back to something like the witcher.
Good action combat games have really realigned my expectations for action combat rpgs, I used to be okay with poor combat as well in my rpgs but now I want more from them.
I put 130 hours into DD and thorougly enjoyed every second of it, and every time I pick up W3 all I can think is 'I could go back to DD right now and enjoy myself more than playing this'
Just like RE4 might have put some people off of old Resident Evil tank controls for good, so has DD put me off of witcher games and especially garbage combat systems like skyrim.
I also want to second the offtopic rocket league recommendation earlier on the page, what an amazingly fun game
I would have loved to play this game, but I don't think it had a PC release and from the videos I've seen, the performance is a little uneven, which I just can't stand anymore nowadays. And I've heard that the world is pretty bad and a slog to get through. I have heard that the combat is fantastic, and from what I've seen it looks like it's a lot of fun. I love how you can grapple onto and enemy, that's really cool. I wonder if that MMO release that is coming still shares those elements from that game.
I'll take a good rpg over a game that's only noted for its combat and being shallow as fuck every where else. Hell at that point I rather play a Ys game over DD, at least I'll get a complete package, and not some shitty world with technical issues at every corner.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
If it helps, you can't really die anymore past lvl 10 or so, even on the highest difficulty.
Performance was appalling in places. People that praise DD cannot single out W3 in this aspect.
MGSV, flaws and all.
Look, I like the Witcher. But I was bored out of my mind with its combat well before the end. I breathed a sigh of relief everytime a long cutscene happened.
Meanwhile, I'm disappointed in the lack of cutscenes in MGSV slightly...but most of the moment to moment gameplay (except for traversal) is a league above anything else out there and never stops being exciting.
Both worth playing for sure...but I'll take MGSV any day.
Look, I like the Witcher. But I was bored out of my mind with its combat well before the end. I breathed a sigh of relief everytime a long cutscene happened.
Meanwhile, I'm disappointed in the lack of cutscenes in MGSV slightly...but most of the moment to moment gameplay (except for traversal) is a league above anything else out there and never stops being exciting.
Both worth playing for sure...but I'll take MGSV any day.
Krappadizzle
Member
Did you not put it on an SSD? Loads take all of 10 seconds or so.
Even on HDD it was really quick, not much longer than that.
I really feel western and Japanese devs should collab.
With some people giving DD as an example for having good combat, MGS also has really good gameplay mechanics. MGS is full of eater eggs game play wise that it really adds so much diversity in to game play that no other game has.
But yeah, like other people are pointing out, game is just not about combat.
So I really felt I want to see a collab each using their own strength.
With some people giving DD as an example for having good combat, MGS also has really good gameplay mechanics. MGS is full of eater eggs game play wise that it really adds so much diversity in to game play that no other game has.
But yeah, like other people are pointing out, game is just not about combat.
So I really felt I want to see a collab each using their own strength.
