MGS 5 or Witcher 3?
- Thread starter sloppyjoe_gamer
- Start date
Excellent story gets old real fast without things to hold it together.
The moment to moment in TW3 is awful, awful, awful. The only redeeming part of that game is the story and quest design (and not the actual quest mechanics, more just the writing). It's a boring game if the story doesn't grab you, and the combat is so bad it feels like a chore to make it to your next story moment. I had to quit after about 20 hours because your realize each quest is basically the same, mechanically. Use witcher sense and find the doohickey, then kill some monsters. And it's not like the gameplay ever evolves. You don't get new skills or anything. Use same 6 signs over and over again and the exact same sword combat. Woo.
MGSV doesn't have an engrossing story, and it has its share of issues (travel, for one), but it's the far superior game. It's highs are way higher, although you could probably say it's lows are lower, too.
As far as I'm really loving missions, that a real crescendo, and even MB management, I can't really unsterstand what "open world" people talk about MGSV stands for.
When the game shines, it's open in the Crysis meaning, and that is a great thing.
But when it comes the idea of "world" is one the most uninteresting, boring and repetitive stuff of this kind I ever played.
Talking about Afghanistan: picking up plants, meeting occasionally animals with very basic routines [and strickly one species at time, with no 'sandboxy' mixes], taking over and over the same outposts, as the dumbest Ubi title, and no way to create my 'personal routes' outside the boundaries. Not even when it seems physically possibile or achievable by the control's logic that game teached me.
I'm at Mission 12 and I strongly hope that things in the 'OW' will receive some important shakes, because this side of the game is becoming really dragging.
When the game shines, it's open in the Crysis meaning, and that is a great thing.
But when it comes the idea of "world" is one the most uninteresting, boring and repetitive stuff of this kind I ever played.
Talking about Afghanistan: picking up plants, meeting occasionally animals with very basic routines [and strickly one species at time, with no 'sandboxy' mixes], taking over and over the same outposts, as the dumbest Ubi title, and no way to create my 'personal routes' outside the boundaries. Not even when it seems physically possibile or achievable by the control's logic that game teached me.
I'm at Mission 12 and I strongly hope that things in the 'OW' will receive some important shakes, because this side of the game is becoming really dragging.
Nice one!
SneakyStephan
Banned
This it not true.
DD has a lot more going for it than just the combat:
-absolutely fantastic atmosphere (the pitch black nights, memorable encounters like the drake in the woods , the wind/weather, the amazing magic spells)
And the dark night is actually meaningful unlike witcher's 'it's always really windy'
-the greatest sense of adventure in an rpg in a very long time.
The bluemoon tower quest for example is an epic journey that stays with you for years.
Nights are scary, there is real tension to make it home or to your destination before night falls, minibosses in the world (e.g your first drake encounter (same example to limit spoilers) in the woods and the 20 minute fight that follows if you take it on) make exploration exciting and rewarding
-lots of effort went into the post game and the newgame+ has speedrun options n shit
-the class system lets you swap classes at will and combine class bonusses.
Each class is so different gameplay wise that it's almost like playing a different game and they are all so well thought out, and best of all the game lets you play them all in a single playthrough.
Most rpgs handle this very poorly and this game does it so elegantly.
-some of the best and most memorable music in an rpg since ff7
Even now hearing a DD song still gives me goosebumps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp2fkcxlDgw (only non spoiler song I want to link)
edit: and the main menu theme as it's not a spoiler either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQkkVTsayko&index=2&list=RDmp2fkcxlDgw
-the story is actually pretty unique with a satisfying conclusion
-really great loot system
-the pawn system is unique and really cool, yes the AI may initially be hard to get a grip on but once you figure it out it's a meaningful and worthwhile feature of the game.
You could shit on the notice board or escort quests (which you have no reason to even dignify in the game, they are as optional as can be) or the (inconsequential easter egg) romance system but that is nitpicking so frigging hard.
There are LTTP threads for DD every few months and the entire threads are always overwhelmingly positive, and it's for a good reason.
A pc port is not coming.
Dragon's dogma dark arisen (the GOTY edition with a MASSIVE expansion that is like a dark souls game and really good) improves the performance a lot from the base game.
It still drops into unacceptable levels at a few points in the game (particularly one fight at a fortress with many giant golems) but overall it's no worse than the average xbox 360 console game and holds to 30 fps most of the time unless you use magic AND have multiple magic pawns (no reason to do this)
I'm a stickler for performance and god do I wish there was a pc version I would get it in a heartbeat, but this is one of those very rare games that is so good that it's worth dealing with console performance/image quality in absence of a proper pc version.
It's similar to how people put up with the bullshit demon souls/dark souls performance on consoles (and dark arisen is not as bad as dark souls performance wise)
This is actually one of the few games that is worthy of a 'remaster' on new gen consoles. It was doing so much (the weather, the insane spell effects and physics, the day and night cycle) all in an open world and it was too ambitious for the pityful last gen console hardware. A remaster on the new consoles would be useful.
Not if gameplay is why you play games.
Ryu bogard
Member
Witcher 3.
The side quests in witcher3 are much better. Mgs5 side ops there is no real story and you doing the same thing over and over again. Witcher's every side quest was interesting. And I can't stand mgs5's free to play style unlocking of weapons.
The side quests in witcher3 are much better. Mgs5 side ops there is no real story and you doing the same thing over and over again. Witcher's every side quest was interesting. And I can't stand mgs5's free to play style unlocking of weapons.
Witcher 3 is the best open-world game ever made as far as I'm concerned, and that's coming from someone who couldn't get into the first two games of the series. The amount of work that went into even the side-quests, which in most RPGs are dog-shit, are actual stories with consequences in TW3. The biggest issue with the game is there is almost TOO much game.
As for MGSV well... it really shouldn't have been what we got. I don't feel like I'm having a Metal Gear experience playing MGSV, I loved the design of the older games and I really wish KojiPro kept to that.
As for MGSV well... it really shouldn't have been what we got. I don't feel like I'm having a Metal Gear experience playing MGSV, I loved the design of the older games and I really wish KojiPro kept to that.
Magic Mushroom
Member
My man. The true GotY.
MGSV totally doesn't have a big marker on your screen. Nope.
It is a military game...what do you expect? There are zone and area assigned for mission.
There are intel and gps markers for spec ops.
All within the realm of real world training and intelligence collecting.
It makes zero sense if there aren't markers for zone of conflict or predicted movement and location of enemies in a military game.
TW3 is a dark fantasy, there shouldn't be such an advanced GPS and map system in place.
RevolverRoden
Member
Half assed? lol wtf am I reading? Mgsv was in development forever and it shows. Game is polished AF. And how is it repetitive? You're sneaking just like any other MGS game. It's like mgs3 without loading screens.
VanCityGamer
Member
It's super repetitive from what I've seen so far. Done 10 missions and every single one since the prologue has been about infiltrating outposts with very little context. Game is very fun, but repetition is starting to ware me out already.
iCodec
Member
Did you say... "nerd"?
OrlanisWorks
Banned
The Wild Hunt. Wise choice, op. Possibly the best video game I've played yet.
Krappadizzle
Member
It's there in W3 for player convenience. And let's not pretend it makes more sense in MGSV. You can mark a seemingly infinite number of places and things, and see your enemies through walls. Does Boss have robot eyes? It makes zero sense, it's there for player convenience and it's optional in both games anyways.
Repeatedly going into the same areas over and over again to accomplish the same objectives over and over. There's not a lot of variety in what you do. It does what it does very well, but yeah, it gets repetitive.
The way the story is presented feels disjointed, like the game ran into issues during development. I can't pinpoint exactly what it is, but it feels off and half assed. Just my opinion. Sorry you don't agree. Doesn't mean it's a bad game, but Witcher 3 blows MGSV out of the water in nearly every conceivable way for me.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Witcher 3 has the most engrossing and immersing open world I've ever played, the atmosphere continuously rich and distinct, a combined force of beautiful aesthetics, audio, and characterisation. In play it's serviceable and rewards investment, and structured around an arguably unmatched density of visual plus writing detail in quests and objectives. Every objective and task, right down to the most banal goal (like blowing up a montser nest), is integrated into the world with believable purpose if just its visual representation and location. It's the most "lived in" and authentic open world I've played, and offers a simply unfathomable amount of hand crafted content.
Metal Gear Solid V struggles in narrative, and the open world isn't particularly interesting to explore, but going in with the expectations that the open world is the same as other open world titles does it a disservice. Rather than played to be explored, MGSV utilises its open world as a large sandbox of interactive play space that comes to life when structured around objectives, of which are plentiful when delegating yourself side ops or sticking to main objectives. The moment-to-moment play mechanics are among the best of the year, a wonderfully polished gameplay feedback loop that rewards investing in the deep mechanics, tools, and challenges that present themselves. As an insurgency-like military sim, the stealth, tactical planning, and deployment of equipment is the heart of the fun to be had and does it better than not only any other entry in the series, but also any other game in recent memory. It's a cleverly balanced network of consistent, reliable game systems of which you're empowered to explore and implement.
Ultimately they're both extremely different games, despite being 'open world'. Thematically, aesthetically, narratively they're worlds apart, both in the content and how that content is presented. In game systems they're nothing like each other, one a melee and magic combat RPG, the other a military stealth shooter. Even the open worlds themselves, each utilising two, and are integrated completely differently into the game flow and quest/mission structure. The experience and rewards you'll get from one you wont get from the other. Apples and oranges, and not interchangeable in the slightest.
And that's my 2c.
Metal Gear Solid V struggles in narrative, and the open world isn't particularly interesting to explore, but going in with the expectations that the open world is the same as other open world titles does it a disservice. Rather than played to be explored, MGSV utilises its open world as a large sandbox of interactive play space that comes to life when structured around objectives, of which are plentiful when delegating yourself side ops or sticking to main objectives. The moment-to-moment play mechanics are among the best of the year, a wonderfully polished gameplay feedback loop that rewards investing in the deep mechanics, tools, and challenges that present themselves. As an insurgency-like military sim, the stealth, tactical planning, and deployment of equipment is the heart of the fun to be had and does it better than not only any other entry in the series, but also any other game in recent memory. It's a cleverly balanced network of consistent, reliable game systems of which you're empowered to explore and implement.
Ultimately they're both extremely different games, despite being 'open world'. Thematically, aesthetically, narratively they're worlds apart, both in the content and how that content is presented. In game systems they're nothing like each other, one a melee and magic combat RPG, the other a military stealth shooter. Even the open worlds themselves, each utilising two, and are integrated completely differently into the game flow and quest/mission structure. The experience and rewards you'll get from one you wont get from the other. Apples and oranges, and not interchangeable in the slightest.
And that's my 2c.
RevolverRoden
Member
I guess but infiltrating outposts is pretty much what you've done in every MGS game the only difference is this time it's in the format of missions instead one whole go.
MGSV and Witcher's open worlds aren't even close to being the same type of open world. Mgsv isn't trying to be a Skyrim or Witcher type of open world.
EDIT: Yeah EatChildren nailed it tbh
This this this
Let the objective be to blow up some shit or guard a convoy from attack, race against another PF to accomplish a contract, get in between two already competing PFs
but nope none of that just kill and extract
Black_Wolf
Neo Member
I think this is the best way I can describe it from my experiences thus far.
If you're in it purely for the gameplay, then MGSV is your game. It's combat mechanics are deeper than Witcher 3's, and it's easier to jump in and out of for quick bursts of fun, assuming you don't get stuck wandering around the desert for too long as you try to find your way around a seemingly endless mountain.
If you're in it for the story, Witcher 3 is your game. I've never seen a game nail side quests like Witcher 3 does, and most of the main characters get sagas of their own to further their development. There is tons of engaging dialogue in this game, and the choices you get to make branch out and give you different results. The world design is also excellent, as you won't find yourself wandering aimlessly through empty terrain. You will often bump into points-of-interest, and very few times will you actually feel that there isn't something for you to do. It's easily the best open-world design I've ever encountered (if not my favorite game of all time), and something for future RPGs to take note of.
I personally preferred Witcher 3 because the only thing MGSV did better was combat mechanics, and that is nowhere near enough to outweigh every other category Witcher 3 beat it in. Obviously, opinions and preferences vary, and thus YMMV.
If you're in it purely for the gameplay, then MGSV is your game. It's combat mechanics are deeper than Witcher 3's, and it's easier to jump in and out of for quick bursts of fun, assuming you don't get stuck wandering around the desert for too long as you try to find your way around a seemingly endless mountain.
If you're in it for the story, Witcher 3 is your game. I've never seen a game nail side quests like Witcher 3 does, and most of the main characters get sagas of their own to further their development. There is tons of engaging dialogue in this game, and the choices you get to make branch out and give you different results. The world design is also excellent, as you won't find yourself wandering aimlessly through empty terrain. You will often bump into points-of-interest, and very few times will you actually feel that there isn't something for you to do. It's easily the best open-world design I've ever encountered (if not my favorite game of all time), and something for future RPGs to take note of.
I personally preferred Witcher 3 because the only thing MGSV did better was combat mechanics, and that is nowhere near enough to outweigh every other category Witcher 3 beat it in. Obviously, opinions and preferences vary, and thus YMMV.
GravityMan
Member
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.
I personally think that The Witcher 3 is a phenomenal game (it's my GOTY frontrunner, with Bloodborne being the runner-up), but even I'd concede that Metal Gear Solid V has better gameplay. (It also helps that story-wise MGSV doesn't take itself too seriously.) That is why MGSV will still be a popular game one year from now, while The Witcher 3 will largely be forgotten by then. Mad Max, Batman: Arkham Knight and Dying Light will also maintain their popularity due to their gameplay. I suspect the same will hold true for Fallout 4 and Just Cause 3...they both have that "just wanna mess around" vibe going for them that's appealing to a LOT of people, even taking Fallout 4's probable clunkiness into account. It's not surprising that a lot of people find TW3 boring...the way it's designed and its points of focus just aren't very enticing for the average Joe gamer.
The Witcher 3 is a game that many people will play through once for the experience and that's it.
I personally think that The Witcher 3 is a phenomenal game (it's my GOTY frontrunner, with Bloodborne being the runner-up), but even I'd concede that Metal Gear Solid V has better gameplay. (It also helps that story-wise MGSV doesn't take itself too seriously.) That is why MGSV will still be a popular game one year from now, while The Witcher 3 will largely be forgotten by then. Mad Max, Batman: Arkham Knight and Dying Light will also maintain their popularity due to their gameplay. I suspect the same will hold true for Fallout 4 and Just Cause 3...they both have that "just wanna mess around" vibe going for them that's appealing to a LOT of people, even taking Fallout 4's probable clunkiness into account. It's not surprising that a lot of people find TW3 boring...the way it's designed and its points of focus just aren't very enticing for the average Joe gamer.
The Witcher 3 is a game that many people will play through once for the experience and that's it.
Admiral Woofington
Member
This doesn't say anything other than you drop games once the next big thing comes out.
Someone didn't play MGS5.
To get the location in the 1st place, you can scout with bino, interrogate soldiers, hide in plain sight in cardbox box to catch a glimpse, or get Quiet/DD to check it out, etc.
You can pre-empt the target from even reaching a designated marker spot by littering the road and watch his vehicle skid. Decently organic.
RevolverRoden
Member
I see your point but for MGSV i feel like it's more about how you do a mission than what the end result of the mission is.
plasmawave
Banned
Yeah, most of the quests in Witcher 3 you can only complete them in one way. Now that's repetitiveness but with a different coat of painting.
Especially the point of interest stuff.
poodaddy
Member
In my opinion the answer to this question is dependent on platform choice. Beefy pc; Witcher 3 would be my choice. But you said PS4, so I'd say MGS5 as the Witcher just doesn't perform near as well on consoles as MGS does. But then I'm a whore for frame rates so.....take that for what it's worth.
Dantejerry
Member
Truly the great battle of our time.
This.
So yes, there are missions that make you do the same mission at a higher difficulty, but its still fun. Because it has so many ways to plan and tackle missions.
It might be boring and repetitive to people who just normally infiltrate by sneaking or rambo'ing. But theres so much more ways. It really depends on the gamers creativity.
Like the trailer which the horse shits on the road and the jeep slips and snake fultons the jeep with the soldiers in it, which is only scratching the surface of how you can do stuff.
I read in the MGS forums where someone puts a bear inside a base which they had to infiltrate creating havoc, then evac not by a chopper but hopping on to a crate and fultoning it. There are so many possibilities.
So when comparing Witcher 3 and MGSV both games does better at what the other does worse.
To me, its really hard to choose.
These two posts also reflect how I feel about MGS V.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Geralt actually is a nerd considering his profession, he's 100 years old so it makes senses for him to pick up on a lot of stuff.
He's very existential and likes to talk philosophy and to whine whenever he feels slighted.
I thought he is more like Batman. He works alone as a middle-aged hypercompetent detective, and women of questionable moral compass want to have sex with him.
Common technology.
Heat sensor, and sonar detection and refraction to create mapping of an object.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
As it so happens I bought both games a few days ago. I prefer MGSV over Witcher 3 . So fun to play.
Krappadizzle
Member
Uhm...I know, I've worked closely with IR and Optics through my whole career. Point is, he doesn't have those built into his eyes. And yet he can see through walls and markers that he's placed. It called player convenience. I don't know why you'd try to argue it's "realism".
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
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.
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.
It's been a long time since I have connected with someone else's thoughts on how simple game design can be when we look at it for what it really is. I agree with everything you said, but I do hope some developer reinvents this loop so it isn't so simple and revolutionizes the way we view large sandbox type games.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
This is a really weird question. I don't think the games are that comparable and they excel in different things and in many ways, MGS excels in areas where The Witcher 3 went wrong and vice versa.
I mean, as an example I think Witcher 3 does open world much better than MGSV in terms of actual content and making it feel lived in. Problem is that the gameplay doesn't really take advantage of this freedom in the same way that MGSV does. It's the ultimate sandbox stealth game as far as I'm concerned, it just doesn't have as well realised a world as The Witcher 3 does.
Very tough choice for me, but I'm not far enough into MGSV to make a definitive choice just yet.
I mean, as an example I think Witcher 3 does open world much better than MGSV in terms of actual content and making it feel lived in. Problem is that the gameplay doesn't really take advantage of this freedom in the same way that MGSV does. It's the ultimate sandbox stealth game as far as I'm concerned, it just doesn't have as well realised a world as The Witcher 3 does.
Very tough choice for me, but I'm not far enough into MGSV to make a definitive choice just yet.
Damerman
Member
seriously... this is a forum about discussion... freaking childish.
Moon_frogger
Member
I have serious problems with witcher 3 as an open world game. I honestly do not get how people say its an interesting open world. Particularly the question marks, those pissed me off royally. There are important, missable crafting diagrams and so forth that are hidden in them. Yet 99.99999 percent of them are absolutely worthless trinkets. And those question marks are EVERYWHERE. And they all contain the exact same types of encounters over and over and over. At least metal gear steers you toward good stuff with it's side ops and doesn't overload the world with 3 billion worthless dots to search to find something essential once in a blue moon and useless garbage the rest of the time.
Both games have horrible traversal, getting stuck on bumps or tiny slopes but witcher was a bit worse in this regard.
And most of all that horse. God I wanted to murder the horse. Seriously, D horse is about a billion times better. Even if d horse isn't that great, at least you have other traversal options in metal gear. I've never had a problem with the open world traversal in metal gear. I don't get people whining about fast travel. there are a multitude of fast travel options, everything is so close together and I've never had to travel for more than a couple min to get somewhere. witcher often abandons you in the middle of nowhere and your only option is that shitty horse or sometimes the simply mediocre boats.
certainly, it may have more to do, more trinkets to collect, ubisoft style areas to liberate, etc but the joy of exploration I get from elder scrolls, fallout or other classic open world games is nowhere near the same in witcher after 10 or 15 hours.
Both games have horrible traversal, getting stuck on bumps or tiny slopes but witcher was a bit worse in this regard.
And most of all that horse. God I wanted to murder the horse. Seriously, D horse is about a billion times better. Even if d horse isn't that great, at least you have other traversal options in metal gear. I've never had a problem with the open world traversal in metal gear. I don't get people whining about fast travel. there are a multitude of fast travel options, everything is so close together and I've never had to travel for more than a couple min to get somewhere. witcher often abandons you in the middle of nowhere and your only option is that shitty horse or sometimes the simply mediocre boats.
certainly, it may have more to do, more trinkets to collect, ubisoft style areas to liberate, etc but the joy of exploration I get from elder scrolls, fallout or other classic open world games is nowhere near the same in witcher after 10 or 15 hours.
paragonpro
Banned
Both are very different games and both are well worth your time. They are neck and neck for my goty