Interfectum
Member
I don't see how you could like Skyrim's open world but not like Witcher 3's. That makes no sense to me.
MGS 5 or Witcher 3?
- Thread starter sloppyjoe_gamer
- Start date
I don't see how you could like Skyrim's open world but not like Witcher 3's. That makes no sense to me.
plasmawave
Banned
Well, not really Skyrim cuz I haven't finished it yet.
But take Fallout 3. It rewards all kind of play style. Even the copy paste subways and buildings are more complicatedly designed than Witcher's.
A lot of the quests can be completed in multiple ways too.
Mr Wonderstuff
Banned
Witcher 3. MGS is overrated.
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
Well it certainly isn't a good one
As opposed to absolutely nothing save for running from mission to mission.
Yup. I could do with less open world and more bases with the intricate design of the one found in GZ. Most bases in this game are nowhere near as complex.
The guard posts are mostly forgettable and easily avoided if you desire. The best guard posts are those that you're forced to traverse due to the tight geography funnelling you through them.
I don't see any other game beating MGSV this gen in greatness. The game has a lot of content, an entertaining story, superb gameplay and variaty. Bought both games with my PS4 purchase but Metal Gear pulled me in much more then Witcher 3 did. Havent finished Withcer 3 yet but I plan on continuing after I am done with MGSV (79 hours played so far).
That's all there is to these two maps. Kojima was right when said the world in his V would be no match for Rockstar's GTA5.
plasmawave
Banned
Sure. A lot of those are filler in Witcher anyways.
For all the criticism I have for Witcher 3, let's not get crazy here. Bethesda's worlds are far less interesting and the content is even more repetitive, bland & braindead. They don't even have a good story to fall back on like Witcher 3.
Have you played The Witcher 3? The side quests have unique stories, that means it isn't just filler content. A lot of them are really well put together.
Side Ops is filler in every way.
WadiumArcadium
Member
I'd say MGSV for it's core gameplay but I was a lot more invested in the characters and world of the Witcher so I'd probably say the Witcher edges it. I still haven't finished MGSV though.
Having just finished W3 and moving right to MGS- I would say Witcher 3.
But I loved Witchers 3 story and characters. I was hooked immediately.
Metal Gear has "better" gameplay and the game engine is crazy optimized. That said- the story is threadbare and the mission settings repeat themselves quickly.
But I loved Witchers 3 story and characters. I was hooked immediately.
Metal Gear has "better" gameplay and the game engine is crazy optimized. That said- the story is threadbare and the mission settings repeat themselves quickly.
VanCityGamer
Member
Um yeah, those things would be worse if actually true. But they're not. Shitty side content? That's one of the game's biggest strengths. Some of the best side quests ever in gaming. I simply can't fathom your opinion on that. Almost everyone praises the side quests. Combat isn't amazing, but it's decent. Plenty good for an RPG. Quest design is phenomenal. Skill tree is one of my least favorite parts of the game, but that's pretty minor.
And for the record, I don't think the performance is a big deal either. It's just one of the masterpiece's very few blemishes.
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
They are great for stumbling across when you are on your way to something else. Lots of good gear and upgrades can be found in them. Like I said, they are there for you to visit or not, on your whim. This is just the question marks, nevermind all of the other additional stuff like notice boards.
plasmawave
Banned
Yeah I did play it and finished it.
Some of them have interesting stories but most of them boils down to go here and kill this guy/monster. And you can only approach those quests in one way.
So it's nice that they contextualize things but you're just doing the same thing over and over again. The limited gameplay options don't help either.
MoneyLaunderer
Member
If you like stealth action games, MGS V. If you enjoy action RPGs with an immersive story, Witcher 3. Both have a TON of content and will definitely occupy your time for a long while.
shadowstar
Member
What the what? People are saying Witcher 3's side missions and world are uninteresting? Is this bizarro world?
Witcher 3 is my response, but get both.
Witcher 3 is my response, but get both.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
I would argue that you could cut down MGSV's maps considerably and the game would still be as good. The open world isn't good enough to justify it being there for me and a lot of the time is a chore to traverse.
What makes the game as amazing as it is for me is the gameplay, but the open world doesn't hold a candle to Witcher 3's. It doesn't do a good job of feeling important to the world over all. Especially considering how most missions happen in very specific locations.
What makes the game as amazing as it is for me is the gameplay, but the open world doesn't hold a candle to Witcher 3's. It doesn't do a good job of feeling important to the world over all. Especially considering how most missions happen in very specific locations.
Well I'm sorry but that's just wrong. You can come across quests in multiple ways, I have killed certain monsters that were apart of a quest but I completed the quest without even talking to the initial quest giver. So it's not just one way. A lot of quests have multiple ways to complete them as well.
Arguably you're just doing the same things in TPP as well. There's just way less variety.
cantona222
Member
The horse running button is different in each game. My brain cannot handle that 😅
Oxnard Montalvo
Member
I've played both and I would have to say MGS V it is just way better and stays fun for way longer in my experience.
plasmawave
Banned
What? So the difference is you didn't talk to the guy first? But you still had to kill the monster with swords and signs. Would the outcome have been any different if you did talk to the guy first? No.
His Majesty
Banned
Nearly every quest in The Witcher 3 has multiple outcomes?
But you just said there's only one way to approach quests, I just proved you're wrong. And that's just with contracts, other quests have completely different outcomes including contracts for that matter, like not killing the target at all.
It's a RPG.
I think it's relevant to quote Eat Children again:
There are some quests where you heavily influence what happens in TW3 though.
There's even some contracts where you don't necessarily have to kill the hunted monster.
Don't forget one game is an RPG, the other an action/stealth game.
There are some quests where you heavily influence what happens in TW3 though.
There's even some contracts where you don't necessarily have to kill the hunted monster.
Don't forget one game is an RPG, the other an action/stealth game.
Yes, the question marks that the game is filled with are some of the worst filler I've ever experienced. It's the same few enemy types over & over and too few of them offer anything good as a reward. A select few of them do, but most of the time it's just crap that you can't even sell or do anything worthwhile with because of the game's stingy economy.
And the STORIES of the side quests are decent, some even great, but what you actually do during those quests isn't all that special. It's the usual kind of fetch quests, "go to point X & get rid of some generic enemy & then travel back to get your reward" back & forth boredom and whatnot. The detective stuff is overly simplistic and isn't all that fun after the first few times you do it, let alone the 76th time. The Witcher contracts are fun the first time you come up with some new "boss" enemy. They get less interesting when it's your 17th vampire that is no different from the first except it's stronger. And I don't agree that all the stories are so magnificent that it alone destroys any criticism thrown towards Witcher 3. It applies to some quests, but not nearly to all of them. A bit too many of them are just "monster X is terrorizing our village, woe am us, could you kill it for us?" types of ordeals. A few quests throw some nice story twists into them, but at some point even that isn't enough when it's your 30th time doing the exact same thing.
It's not that they are horrible beyond redemption, but I guess the problem is more with the fact that the game never plays around with its systems & ideas. The detective stuff always boils down to *find location x -> find something that will give you a scent/footprints -> follow the red marks on the ground/scent in the air -> find culprit -> kill culprit/bring culprit to justice/whatever*. Or once you've fought one Griffin, you've fought them all. At most the game tricks you into believing you would be fighting against a Griffin and then as a twist it throws Enemy Type 3 #48 at you.
And the combat wouldn't be bad if it actually evolved a lot more & offered more varied challenges, but due to the extremely limited & limiting skill tree and very little variety in enemy designs, it just ends up being extremely boring & repetitive, which is NOT a good thing for a game that can take up 80-100 hours of your time even if you don't aim for 100% completion. Witcher 3's combat is pretty bad when you compare it to something similar yet actually great like Dragon's Dogma.
Interfectum
Member
Thanks for the informed opinion.
Choice in RPGs is an RPG mechanic, which gives a player agency context on top of the narrative context when fulfilling a task. Visual Novels were built on this mechanic exclusively and it's because it can be more engrossing than being told a straight story. Usually choice is handled poorly or dryly or predictably, but Witcher 3 makes this rewarding by being brutal and unpredictable. It elevates the gameplay, but ymmv. Depends on what you're looking for, but I feel people seeking to play RPGs typically value this. Souls sort of changed the ARPG field tho and what people should expect from an RPG.
The combat itself is pretty poor unless you spec in a sign build, I feel, where you're spamming and spacing and laying dots and controlling. It made the last bosses a whole lot of fun and probably tailored my feelings for the game more fondly. It's all still janky tho and sign overuse feels a little ooc.
Similarly, MGS is almost always highly regarded, but it's not like its gameplay, until 5 and maybe 3, has ever been great stealth. It's usually just been slapstick AI abuse. I don't feel that the series at all would have been as highly regarded without its unique narrative context and the game's quirky reactions to your player choices.
The combat itself is pretty poor unless you spec in a sign build, I feel, where you're spamming and spacing and laying dots and controlling. It made the last bosses a whole lot of fun and probably tailored my feelings for the game more fondly. It's all still janky tho and sign overuse feels a little ooc.
Similarly, MGS is almost always highly regarded, but it's not like its gameplay, until 5 and maybe 3, has ever been great stealth. It's usually just been slapstick AI abuse. I don't feel that the series at all would have been as highly regarded without its unique narrative context and the game's quirky reactions to your player choices.
Generalpsyduck
Banned
I love metal gear to death but the witcher 3 is the best open world game ever made so the witcher 3 by a mile
If you're going to be this reductive about one game you can easily be reductive about another.
vpance
Member
For me, it's generally enough to know if I should pick something up or not these days. My attention span isn't what it used to be and for the first time in my life a backlog is a real thing :/
I have to agree with this assessment. MGSV's open world is boring because everything in the world relates to gameplay so there are really no non-hostile NPCs aside from animals or anything that would make it seem like an alive place. There's nothing to find by exploring, plenty of uncrossable mountains in places where they need not be. Whereas W3 is definitely designed as an open world game, in MGSV it seems like they made a collection of missions and then decided that hey, maybe we could give the player the whole map to wander in but never filled in any content we now expect from open world games. Even Mother Base is largely empty.
The saving grace of MGS V is the quirky story and very polished gameplay. It gives the player lots of options and approaches. My only beef with its AI is their ability to alert the whole base in a second and have every soldier swarm towards your location. I know it's kind of the series trademark but it doesn't make sense most of the time when the scale in V is much larger. I wish it had more degrees to its alert system.
Witcher 3 has its flaws, there's some clunkyness in the movement and animation, some quests can be repetitive and you really have to up the difficulty for the combat to become interesting. If it had a bit more Souls/Bloodborne to its combat it would be fantastic as the basis works. That said I was completely hooked and gladly spent 87 hours finishing the game and will buy every extension DLC for it.
My recommendation is to buy both, but for me the game of the year is by far Witcher 3.
Florida_Man_5000
Member
This thread is basically an early GOTY debate. Both games are stellar but for very different reasons. Witcher 3 is like experiencing a beautiful painting. MGS5 is like solving a fun and irreverent engineering problem with a whole bunch of variables.
There's a lot of other factors to consider as well but id give the nod to the Witcher due to being more polished and complete (at this time).
There's a lot of other factors to consider as well but id give the nod to the Witcher due to being more polished and complete (at this time).
plasmawave
Banned
I meant how you approach to complete the quest. Not how you approach the guy to get quests.
When people talk about side content in TW3, they'll usually be talking about the actual side quests, which are actually pretty fleshed out (and numerous).
POIs are only little things you're supposed to stumble upon while exploring, hence why everybody recommends to turn them off on the world map.
And MGS V missions are all "go rescue this prisoner/capture this guy".
See my last post.
plasmawave
Banned
See, but this is what I've been trying to say.
The objectives are repetitive in MGSV, but how you complete them is totally not. The game gives you an insane amount of options for the players to choose.
In the Witcher 3 there's like 2 options max.
In some ways that is to your benefit.
Since you can't seem to be bother to scroll up, I'll quote myself:
MGS V and TW3 are completely different genres, and their quest focus is completely different.
tallbroski
Member
Well here is my opinion, I played the Witcher 3 and it was my 1st in the series and I loved it. Bought MGS:GZ because I really wanted to get into the series in time for MGSV but i hated it, I`m sure its not 100% the same as MGSV but my point is try GZ at least to see if you enjoy the gameplay.
plasmawave
Banned
Fallout 3 is an RPG and that game gives players a lot of options.
1) Not every RPG goes for the same focus on sidequest...?
2) Even then, there are some variations to how you go into combat if you bother to try them (sword/bombs/potions/signs). Though I don't doubt it is nowhere near as close nor as satisfying as MGS V possibilities. There are some pretty influent dialogue choices in quite a lot sidequests and contracts.
3) In anyway, my whole point was to point out that when people say quest are good, they can do so for different reasons; which in the case of this thread definitively is the case.
TW3 quests are all about immersion, atmosphere and story, which is why most here who prefered TW3 said it is the better open world, because that's also a part of the same thing. The fact that the actual gameplay is somewhat redundant doesn't bother so much in this case, because your focus is on story and world.
plasmawave
Banned
Which is why I think Witcher 3 is not really a good open world RPG.
Why?
I was just explaining why it is one, you'll have to try harder then that.
Just roaming through the world, and everywhere literaly stumbling by chance on varied and interesting side-quest, often tied with the region you're currently in, in addition with the very alive world, excellent weather effects and atmosphere, makes for a great immersion, thanks to this open world design. So yeah, I'd rather say it's a great open world RPG.
Edit:it is however not a good sandbox RPG, yes, if that's what you're meaning.
But open world != sandbox.