Witcher 3 Skyrim vs Witcher 3

[Vahid]

I don't see the point why should I freeroam a world with inferior visuals, kill some bad guys, find some items (which are going to empower me more than before while the game still is not challenging enough), find and read some note (which I've read some of them in previous TESs) and do it over and over aimlessly while the game doesn't have a really interesting story to say? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not going to say these things are worthless (I love CRPGs!), I want to say that all of these are worth your while only when you have a proper goal, which denotes, only when you're given a task, a story-tied quest. I see it surprising that some may call TW3 unrewarding since killing the creatures in a causeless manner has no reward. I think one of the best things about TW3 is that the game makes you play your role most fruitful, meaning you should help people by killing monsters and destroying their nests, save them from threats, do other helpful jobs or play a political role in the world etc all by finishing multiple quests, and broadly you should affect the world in an effective and positive way to gain XP.
On the contrary, In Skyrim, you just wander the deserts with no storywise reason, discover some dungeons, do all usual traditional things with no hard (because of level-scaling) and the game rewards you with a ton of XP not only for these but also for drinking a glass of water midway and people keep calling it rewarding.
May be the word "rewarding" is somehow vague here and is something that should be argued more about.

 

[DArtagnan]

I don't see the point why should I freeroam a world with inferior visuals, kill some bad guys, find some items (which are going to empower me more than before while the game still is not challenging enough), find and read some note (which I've read some of them in previous TESs) and do it over and over aimlessly while the game doesn't have a really interesting story to say? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not going to say these things are worthless (I love CRPGs!), I want to say that all of these are worth your while only when you have a proper goal, which denotes, only when you're given a task, a story-tied quest. I see it surprising that some may call TW3 unrewarding since killing the creatures in a in a causeless manner has no reward. I think one of the best things about TW3 is that the game makes you play your role most fruitful, meaning you should help people by killing monsters and destroying their nests, save them from threats, do other helpful jobs or play a political role in the world etc all by finishing multiple quests, and broadly you should affect the world in an effective and positive way to gain XP.
On the contrary, In Skyrim, you just wander the deserts with no storywise reason, discover some dungeons, do all usual traditional things with no hard (because of level-scaling) and the game rewards you with a ton of XP not only for these but also for drinking a glass of water midway and people keep calling it rewarding.
May be the word "rewarding" is somehow vague here and is something that should be argued about more.

I think it has to do with how people approach games in general.

Personally, I much prefer to create my own character - and I tend to absolutely disregard the main storyline in open world games. As in, I will eventually complete it to get closure, but my main enjoyment is 95% oriented around freeroaming and doing my own thing on my own terms.

Since most dungeons in Skyrim are separate with their own little story and reason for being there, it makes playing my own character that much more fun and easy - since I don't have to concentrate on a main story that I don't really care that much about. I can just focus on what's going on in this dungeon that I'm exploring because I feel like it.

That's where TES games shine and that's the entire design philosophy.

I can't deny that W3 is masterful when it comes to story delivery and characters. Well, masterful compared to other games, but it's simply not what I love about games.

I've always loved exploration and immersion more than anything else, essentially. Witcher 3 is immersive, definitely, but since I'm playing another character and I can't watch the world in first person perspective, it's not up there with the best of them.

So, I'm sure the entire debate has its roots in how we each approach games and what we love the most.

Again, for stuff like story and C&C - Witcher 3 destroys Skyrim utterly, no contest. I just don't care as much about that as I do about freedom, exploration and immersion.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

I have no idea what equipment upgrades are you talking about…everything you could craft made loot obsolete, and everything you needed to craft was available from merchants. You could even use trainers to level up, then pickpocket money back…and so on.
If you're saying that player should avoid "gaming the system" to have some sort of enjoyable experience, then same applies to W3 with Witcher gear and it's HUD.
As for what you describe as FUN, it is completely subjective…I find Witcher more enjoyable as you have to devote to specific character development…with Skyrim you simply grind in order to become the best at EVERYTHING.
|I didn't find Skyrim tedious to level up in, and I never had to click anything for hours.|
How exactly did you level up alchemy, smithing, or enchanting then? Or "speech", if not by endlessly clicking on merchant's inventory?
|Ehm, what? What has that got to do with satisfying exploration?|
Because it creates an immersion of sustainable, believable world that you EXPLORE, rather than Draughr Dungeon--->walk ten meters--->Bandit camp--->walk 15 meters--->Draughr Dungeon. The two are very closely related to one another.
|The problem with Witcher 3 powers is that they're mostly boring and minor| That's completely biased…even on the magic side, I personally found W3 more enjoyable as it flows well with sword fighting than spamming fireballs and moving backwards all the time.
|Even the rather boring civil war in Skyrim felt much more impactful and dynamic than that|
Civil War was a quest line and poor one at that. The content I mentioned is more comparable to Skyrim's repetitive encounters, and they are still far more meaningful and better executed.
|As for your "cannibal camps" - I assume you mean the bandit camps that had "cannibal level X" instead of "bandit level X" on top of the human enemies, or did I miss something more profound?|
You missed "messages" in the environment, like that women that killed herself rather than allow herself to be captured, or on the body of that Nilfgaardian soldier, or even a bed that Yennefer throws out of Kaer Morhen etc…Witcher was filled with a mountain of these, while Skyrim felt very lacking in that aspect.

Listen, we could go back and forth like this for days…while I think that you do raise some good points with Witcher's exploration in general, you are very much overlooking a lot of positive aspects of it, while ignoring a lot of issues in Skyrim.

Witcher 3 exploration:
+More immersive, better designed and realistic world with a sense of "space" and a much stronger atmosphere
+Better horse riding and inclusion of boat travelling
+More unique and story driven content to discover, that has a stronger impact at "drawing" out the world and it's characters
+Better executed "show, don't tell" design
-Less rewarding exploration in terms of both experience and loot
Skyrim Exploration:
+More intuitive and immersive game play mechanics (you level up what you do)
+Far better dungeon crawler and variety of dungeon design
+Far greater variety of loot and items
+Extra features…First person view, companion npc's etc…
-Ton of filler content and amount of grinding

 

[Lev]

Skyrim is great. It could be even greater if it only had characters like Blood Baron

 

[DArtagnan]

I have no idea what equipment upgrades are you talking about…everything you could craft made loot obsolete, and everything you needed to craft was available from merchants. You could even use trainers to level up, then pickpocket money back…and so on.

That's not true. First of all, you had to focus on crafting as it wasn't available to everyone - and you couldn't craft the best items until you had invested a lot in the smithing line.

If you're saying that player should avoid "gaming the system" to have some sort of enjoyable experience, then same applies to W3 with Witcher gear and it's HUD.

I'm afraid playing with the default HUD isn't gaming the system, and even without it - exploration is boring in W3. Gaming the system would be letting yourself get hit for hours by a mudcrab.

As for what you describe as FUN, it is completely subjective…I find Witcher more enjoyable as you have to devote to specific character development…with Skyrim you simply grind in order to become the best at EVERYTHING.

Is that supposed to be a surprise? I understand that you prefer Witcher 3 and that's ok. I'm explaining why I think Skyrim is superior in terms of exploration.

There's nothing in Skyrim that motivates grinding to get good at everything - as it's pointless. If you enjoy that, do it - if not, it's not necessary at all.

How exactly did you level up alchemy, smithing, or enchanting then? Or "speech", if not by endlessly clicking on merchant's inventory?

By making potions, crafting and so on. I just didn't exploit the system - and I enjoyed a slow and natural progression. It wasn't a race for me.

Because it creates an immersion of sustainable, believable world that you EXPLORE, rather than Draughr Dungeon--->walk ten meters--->Bandit camp--->walk 15 meters--->Draughr Dungeon. The two are very closely related to one another.

Why are you exaggerating like this? If that's necessary, then your point is weakened.

If you think Witcher 3 is believable when there are endless treasure chests lying around in plain sight - even right outside populated towns and right below bridges that dozens of people cross every day, that's cool.

If you think having enemies respawn 2 minutes after just having cleared them out is believable, that's cool.

I can't agree at all, however.

Both games are full of that kind of immersion breaking stuff, you just chose to ignore it in Witcher 3.

That's completely biased…even on the magic side, I personally found W3 more enjoyable as it flows well with sword fighting than spamming fireballs and moving backwards all the time.

I'm not talking about the combat system, but about power progression. All spells are available from the beginning, and it doesn't take much to unlock the second tier. But I agree magic was the best part about W3 progression. Just too bad there was so little of it.

Civil War was a quest line and poor one at that. The content I mentioned is more comparable to Skyrim's repetitive encounters, and they are still far more meaningful and better executed.

Again, you talked about a dynamic eco system and you brought up those repetitive NPC spawns as an example.

I guess that means I can safely ignore your claims of a dynamic eco system.

You missed "messages" in the environment, like that women that killed herself rather than allow herself to be captured, or on the body of that Nilfgaardian soldier, or even a bed that Yennefer throws out of Kaer Morhen etc…Witcher was filled with a mountain of these, while Skyrim felt very lacking in that aspect.

No, I read the notes and I enjoyed them. But you were talking about how these camps were much better than anything in Skyrim, and it seems it's all about the very same kind of notes that I like to find in Skyrim.

Too bad W3 didn't bother to do more in that way - especially in dungeons.

Listen, we could go back and forth like this for days…while I think that you do raise some good points with Witcher's exploration in general, you are very much overlooking a lot of positive aspects of it, while ignoring a lot of issues in Skyrim.

I think you're ignoring or downplaying pretty much every single good point I've mentioned about Skyrim, so I guess that leaves us partially even

Witcher 3 exploration:
+More immersive, better designed and realistic world with a sense of "space" and a much stronger atmosphere
+Better horse riding and inclusion of boat travelling
+More unique and story driven content to discover, that has a stronger impact at "drawing" out the world and it's characters
+Better executed "show, don't tell" design
-Less rewarding exploration in terms of both experience and loot
Skyrim Exploration:
+More intuitive and immersive game play mechanics (you level up what you do)
+Far better dungeon crawler and variety of dungeon design
+Far greater variety of loot and items
+Extra features…First person view, companion npc's etc…
-Ton of filler content and amount of grinding

While I don't fully agree here, especially in terms of "grinding" - I think it's a reasonable compromise and a good way to stop going in circles.

It seems you DO agree with some of my points more than it seemed, so that's something

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

 

[DArtagnan]

Skyrim is great. It could be even greater if it only had characters like Blood Baron

I'd agree with that

 

[Thaurin]

So, is anybody making a The Witcher 3 total conversion for Skyrim yet?

 

[zahratustra]

You cannot get a quart into a pint pot

 

[JDR13]

I definitely prefer looking for things myself, but not if I'm not going to find anything of interest. W3 has crap loot and almost no dungeons - so I'd rather have what little is there be easy to find.

I agree that TW3 has a crap loot system, and I was one of the first to criticize it around here. I mentioned that I didn't like TW3's loot system not long after I started playing it. Ironically, you were one of the people who defended it back then.

Skyrim has crap loot as well. In fact, I'd say all of Bethesda's game do, and that's coming from someone who likes their games a lot. Far too much useless junk and crap weapons, along with too little variety in armors.

You exaggerate about the dungeons, but I do agree that Skyrim obviously has more. Thing is, I appreciate the more realistic way the POI are spread out in TW3. Bethesda seems to sprinkle POI everywhere, and it's absurd to think that there would be that many dungeons in such close proximity to each other in any semi-realistic world.. especially of the underground variety. All with untouched loot no less!

However, I get that more realistic doesn't always equal more fun for a lot of gamers.

 

[DArtagnan]

I agree that TW3 has a crap loot system, and I was one of the first to criticize it around here. I mentioned that I didn't like TW3's loot system not long after I started playing it. Ironically, you were one of the people who defended it back then.

Yes, I originally thought it would be better - as I expected a lot more "Witcher Gear" and I didn't realise treasure maps would be so easily available.

I was probably also caught up in the hype a bit, and I didn't want to feel the game was going to blow when it comes to exploration.

Unlike Maylander and yourself, I didn't play at length until later on.

Skyrim has crap loot as well. In fact, I'd say all of Bethesda's game do, and that's coming from someone who likes their games a lot. Far too much useless junk and crap weapons, along with too little variety in armors.

I think crap loot is a little harsh, but it's definitely not great loot. For an open world game, it's not that bad. I'm not sure how many huge open world games are that much better. Gothic and Risen, perhaps, but they're tiny in comparison - and though the loot is hand-placed, it's still pretty dull and straightforward to me.

BG has great loot, but it's also tiny in comparison to Skyrim.

In any case, I'm talking about regular upgrades when you're exploring.

Do you agree that you can expect to find gear upgrades regularly when you go exploring random dungeons in Skyrim? No, I'm not talking end-game when you're maxed out.

If you haven't played Skyrim much, then any TES game would do. Morrowind?

You exaggerate about the dungeons, but I do agree that Skyrim obviously has more. Thing is, I appreciate the more realistic way the POI are spread out in TW3. Bethesda seems to sprinkle POI everywhere, and it's absurd to think that there would be that many dungeons in such close proximity to each other in any semi-realistic world.. especially of the underground variety. All with untouched loot no less!

Do you think having chests full of loot right out in the open, and next to populated towns and just below bridges located a few feet away from populated towns is that much more realistic?

Also, even if the PoIs are placed in a more realistic way, did you actually enjoy freeform exploration more in Witcher 3 than you did in Skyrim because of PoI placement?

However, I get that more realistic doesn't always equal more fun for a lot of gamers.

Fun? Not directly, no. I appreciate realism in certain games, as they feel more immersive in that way.

But, I find it somewhat ludicrous to talk about either Skyrim or Witcher 3 as realistic in this way - as they're both full of incredibly gamey crap. I don't think I have to get into "Detective Mode" here

Also, I find the amount of seriously nasty enemies roaming the land - and the respawn rate of said enemies - pretty ridiculous in Witcher 3. I didn't mind it much, but then again, it's because I didn't expect a realistic medieval type game. The story is a lot more plausible, though.

Still, I guess if realistic placement of PoIs is very important to you, I can see why Skyrim wouldn't be fun in that way.

I find it a little strange to care so much about that sort of thing in a fantasy RPG, but whatever floats your boat

 

[CelticFrost]

I have about the same amount of time into both games around the 150 hour mark.

They are both enjoyable games depending on what you are looking for out of a game or what you are in the mood for.

I don't see anything about the games that are the same or anything that can be compared about them.

One is an open world were you explore with no real reason besides the fun of it all.
The other is open linear world very driven by a story and a reason.

So depending on if you want to explore around at your own pace with no real direction or story or be involved in a very deep story. You have two good choices in games to play.

Myself I prefer the Witcher because I like the linear driven story part of them. Also I don't have any attachment to building my own character as others do. I don't see how it really changes anything about or in the games.

 

[JDR13]

I think crap loot is a little harsh, but it's definitely not great loot. For an open world game, it's not that bad. I'm not sure how many huge open world games are that much better. Gothic and Risen, perhaps, but they're tiny in comparison - and though the loot is hand-placed, it's still pretty dull and straightforward to me.

BG has great loot, but it's also tiny in comparison to Skyrim.

In any case, I'm talking about regular upgrades when you're exploring.

Do you agree that you can expect to find gear upgrades regularly when you go exploring random dungeons in Skyrim? No, I'm not talking end-game when you're maxed out.

I'm not talking a about upgrades specifically, just interesting things in general. In other words, stuff that's not obviously randomized or procedurally generated.

I don't buy that Skyrim is so huge that the devs couldn't have included more interesting hand-placed loot. Or at least that's the excuse that I keep seeing get thrown around. With the manpower and resources Bethesda had at their disposal, the loot distribution was lazy at best.

Also, I find the amount of seriously nasty enemies roaming the land - and the respawn rate of said enemies - pretty ridiculous in Witcher 3. I didn't mind it much, but then again, it's because I didn't expect a realistic medieval type game. The story is a lot more plausible, though.

Still, I guess if realistic placement of PoIs is very important to you, I can see why Skyrim wouldn't be fun in that way.

I find it a little strange to care so much about that sort of thing in a fantasy RPG, but whatever floats your boat

That's interesting, because I'd actually say enemies in TW3 were pretty sparse most of the time, especially compared to other open-world RPGs. Groups of monsters were almost always a significant distance from each other, and you could often explore for some time without fighting anything.

I also liked how a lot of the monsters in TW3 had nests or lairs of some kind. It makes a lot more sense than the aimlessly wandering monsters in most games, and I wish Bethesda would do that as well.

POI placement doesn't have to be completely realistic. I just tend to roll my eyes a bit when I emerge from a dungeon in a game and walk over a hill to discover another dungeon a minute later.

And I never said that Skyrim wasn't fun. I'm a big fan of Bethesda even if I find their titles lacking out of the box. I'd definitely take TW3 over any of their games if I couldn't mod them.

 

[JDR13]

I have about the same amount of time into both games around the 150 hour mark.

They are both enjoyable games depending on what you are looking for out of a game or what you are in the mood for.

I don't see anything about the games that are the same or anything that can be compared about them.

One is an open world were you explore with no real reason besides the fun of it all.
The other is open linear world very driven by a story and a reason.

So depending on if you want to explore around at your own pace with no real direction or story or be involved in a very deep story. You have two good choices in games to play.

Myself I prefer the Witcher because I like the linear driven story part of them. Also I don't have any attachment to building my own character as others do. I don't see how it really changes anything about or in the games.

I agree that they're very different, and I don't get why some people feel the need to attempt a direct comparison. I assume it's because there are so few open-world RPGs to begin with.

To me, TW3 is a open-world action-RPG with a heavier emphasis on storytelling.

Skyrim (or Bethesda's games in general) has more of a simulation feel to it. They're a lot looser and have much less of a narrative drive. Definitely more of a sandbox.

I enjoy both styles. Whether I prefer one more than the other simply boils down to what I'm in the mood for.

 

[CelticFrost]

I am not sure TW3 is an open world or a linear game without boarders.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Well, RDR is my second favorite game I've played, so I'm very pleased that Wild Hunt has it's influence all over the place.
Horses are definitely more crazy in this game, though.
https://gfycat.com/FloweryEminentAfricanbushviper

 

[DArtagnan]

I have about the same amount of time into both games around the 150 hour mark.

They are both enjoyable games depending on what you are looking for out of a game or what you are in the mood for.

I don't see anything about the games that are the same or anything that can be compared about them.

One is an open world were you explore with no real reason besides the fun of it all.
The other is open linear world very driven by a story and a reason.

Oh, I think there are many things that can be compared about them, including the combat system, the stories, the NPCs, the world building, and so on.

All very appropriate for comparison, in my opinion.

This is a forum dedicated to talking about games, and I don't see this level of confusion when people are comparing other RPGs of similar feature sets.

I completely agree that Witcher 3 and Skyrim are very different in certain ways, but they're also very similar in other ways.

They're certainly both open world RPGs full of things to find and large worlds to explore.

I guess I don't see how anyone can be confused about why people are comparing them on this forum.

Not that we have to compare them.

I was quite content to simply give my two cents about W3 exploration - and the reason I brought up Skyrim is simply that it's the best open world RPG I can think of for exploration. I guess I could have mentioned Fallout 3 or Gothic, as they both have great exploration too.

They're all open world RPGs with a lot of similar activities.

A debate wasn't really necessary or my intention, but then people had to belittle Skyrim and my opinion. So, it was a natural consequence.

Then it was laid to rest, and someone else dared mention W3 wasn't that great for exploration, and the very same people started to belittle that opinion again.

So, I thought it was best to create a separate thread to get it out of our systems.

Does that make sense?

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm not talking a about upgrades specifically, just interesting things in general. In other words, stuff that's not obviously randomized or procedurally generated.

I know, but the upgrade part is what makes Skyrim more interesting when it comes to exploration and loot. Well, I also happen to think the enchants and the variety of weapons and armor is much more satisfying than Witcher 3.

Well, unless you don't actually enjoy getting upgrades. In that case, I can see why you wouldn't agree with me.

I don't buy that Skyrim is so huge that the devs couldn't have included more interesting hand-placed loot. Or at least that's the excuse that I keep seeing get thrown around. With the manpower and resources Bethesda had at their disposal, the loot distribution was lazy at best.

I don't know that people mean it as an excuse.

I see it as a natural consequence of giving players complete freedom in a huge open world.

Witcher 3 tried something similar, they just failed miserably when it comes to proper upgrades.

To hand-place interesting and cool loot would mean breaking the experience for players who found something too powerful too soon. It would mean there'd be no reason to keep looking for a cool weapon, because one of the first dungeons had an overpowered one.

PB games can get away with it because they don't allow you to roam free without consequence - and the good loot requires a powerful character. So, it's an entirely different design approach. Their games are also much smaller for the most part.

I do agree it could be handled better, but I think it's much harder to do in such a huge game than you seem to think. They should focus on it more, true, but I think calling it lazy is a bit of a stretch. Witcher 3 loot system, though, that's not necessarily lazy - it's just incompetent.

That said, I've never seen an ideal take on it. BG is one of the best, but that's not a game with complete freedom - as your level directly controls where you can go and what you can expect to find.

Skyrim is almost completely free-roaming and I'd love to hear how people would make it ideal in terms of loot if it was to keep the freedom aspect.

That's interesting, because I'd actually say enemies in TW3 were pretty sparse most of the time, especially compared to other open-world RPGs. Groups of monsters were almost always a significant distance from each other, and you could often explore for some time without fighting anything.

I guess we had a different experience here, and that's fine. I found enemies everywhere - and I never felt like I could roam around and explore in peace if that's what I wanted to do. I think my primary issue with that part is that I found encounters annoying because I knew there'd be no XP reward and no interesting loot. I also knew they'd be back 2 minutes later if I happened to cross the same path.

I found that quite painful toward the end, and anything but realistic.

I also liked how a lot of the monsters in TW3 had nests or lairs of some kind. It makes a lot more sense than the aimlessly wandering monsters in most games, and I wish Bethesda would do that as well.

In my experience, the vast majority had spawn points that would never go away. I also don't think wandering monsters is a bad thing, as I find it much less realistic to have drakes and harpies staying put within such a small area. It would make a lot more sense if they went hunting for food or whatever.

For instance, in reality, wolves roam within huge areas that can cover miles - they don't stick to a small circle hoping for the food to arrive.

The whole W3 system felt more like an MMO setup than a natural one.

I guess we have different views of realism here, and that's cool

POI placement doesn't have to be completely realistic. I just tend to roll my eyes a bit when I emerge from a dungeon in a game and walk over a hill to discover another dungeon a minute later.

I've played too many TES games to really mind that. I do see your point, I just think it's minor.

And I never said that Skyrim wasn't fun. I'm a big fan of Bethesda even if I find their titles lacking out of the box. I'd definitely take TW3 over any of their games if I couldn't mod them.

I'm specifically talking about vanilla, though. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but you've always seemed extremely negative when it comes to Skyrim and Fallout 3 unmodded.

Anyway, we just disagree about what makes these games fun I guess.

Not a problem, and thanks for the discussion

 

[Maylander]

Was that obvious immediately on your first playthrough?

More or less. I started crafting early and rarely found items better than what I crafted. I remember using the Archmage robe and some helmet from one of those undead mages for quite a while though, but that's about it.

Not everyone is looking for the fastest way to power - and I spent a good 60-70 hours on my first vanilla expert playthrough (never actually completed it, though) without feeling like I'd reached anywhere near the maximum potential. Didn't need to, though, as the game was already quite easy.

Oh, come on. You've played enough Elder Scrolls to know how it works. Get your primary combat skill to 100 and you're essentially done. That doesn't take 70 hours. You can certainly swap styles after that and level something else (change from spells to melee for example), but you won't actually get more powerful. Just different. Even items are just flavor at that point.

You really think W3 is on par in terms of exploration? How strange.

It's especially strange that you found FO3 able to keep your attention, as it was done by the exact same team only with fewer people focusing on dungeons.

I love FO3 just as much as Skyrim for exploration - and I really don't think there's that much of a difference between them when it comes to exploration and power progression.

I never said I preferred TW3 to Skyrim. I said I lost interest in exploration in both games, and the only reason I prefer FO3 over both Skyrim and TW3 is because it's smaller, so it kept me interested until it was over.

There are only so many variations of quests and locations a game can have before the content becomes very similar, and FO3 is pretty much at the limit. If it had a dozen more vaults to explore, there's a good chance I'd feel the same as I did in Skyrim and TW3.

 

[DArtagnan]

More or less. I started crafting early and rarely found items better than what I crafted. I remember using the Archmage robe and some helmet from one of those undead mages for quite a while though, but that's about it.

Fair enough, I didn't really want to craft my weapons until the later game.

I did craft something, but I remember having to invest in the smithing tree - and I spent many hours exploring before I found the needed materials for Dragonbone stuff and what not.

Then again, I do have a very different approach to gaming than you do - which we've established before.

Also, since I was a bow user - I found regular arrow upgrades, and I don't believe you could craft them in vanilla.

Oh, come on. You've played enough Elder Scrolls to know how it works. Get your primary combat skill to 100 and you're essentially done. That doesn't take 70 hours. You can certainly swap styles after that and level something else (change from spells to melee for example), but you won't actually get more powerful. Just different. Even items are just flavor at that point.

That's just not true.

You're simplifying things.

To an extent, that was how it used to work, yes. But in Skyrim, they introduced the Perk system - which meant you had multiple avenues of toys.

There was also the dragon shouts - some of which were extremely powerful.

You do indeed get more powerful by investing in multiple trees, and you need something like Marksman + Stealth + Light Armor to reach anywhere near maximum potential for a stealth archer. That's without shouts and alchemy/enchanting and smithing, which you've said yourself you needed for the best items.

Getting to 100 or even 70 in three trees, playing naturally, takes a LONG time. Sure, you can game the system and let yourself get hit for a few hours while eating lunch, or by "autowalking" into a wall near enemies for stealth, but that's not how I play these games. I play them to explore and immerse myself - not to race to power.

As I said, the balance was broken - so you didn't actually NEED the power. But it was certainly more fun - and I enjoy being overpowered after having worked towards it.

For a tight game with strong mechanics, I'd stay far away from TES games. Even modded, they're way too easy to break.

I never said I preferred TW3 to Skyrim. I said I lost interest in exploration in both games, and the only reason I prefer FO3 over both Skyrim and TW3 is because it's smaller, so it kept me interested until it was over.

I'm asking which game you think has the best exploration - not which game you prefer.

Is it that hard to answer such a simple question?

There are only so many variations of quests and locations a game can have before the content becomes very similar, and FO3 is pretty much at the limit. If it had a dozen more vaults to explore, there's a good chance I'd feel the same as I did in Skyrim and TW3.

You said FO3 kept your attention. For how long?

You said Skyrim took 30 hours to reach maximum potential, so I assume there's a difference here, since FO3 "kept" your attention.

 

[JDR13]

I know, but the upgrade part is what makes Skyrim more interesting when it comes to exploration and loot. Well, I also happen to think the enchants and the variety of weapons and armor is much more satisfying than Witcher 3.

Interesting. It seemed to me that TW3 had more variety, especially when it came to armors. I can't agree that Skyrim is more interesting in that way, but that's fine.

I don't know that people mean it as an excuse.

I see it as a natural consequence of giving players complete freedom in a huge open world.

Witcher 3 tried something similar, they just failed miserably when it comes to proper upgrades.

To hand-place interesting and cool loot would mean breaking the experience for players who found something too powerful too soon. It would mean there'd be no reason to keep looking for a cool weapon, because one of the first dungeons had an overpowered one.

PB games can get away with it because they don't allow you to roam free without consequence - and the good loot requires a powerful character. So, it's an entirely different design approach. Their games are also much smaller for the most part.

I do agree it could be handled better, but I think it's much harder to do in such a huge game than you seem to think. They should focus on it more, true, but I think calling it lazy is a bit of a stretch. Witcher 3 loot system, though, that's not necessarily lazy - it's just incompetent.

That said, I've never seen an ideal take on it. BG is one of the best, but that's not a game with complete freedom - as your level directly controls where you can go and what you can expect to find.

Skyrim is almost completely free-roaming and I'd love to hear how people would make it ideal in terms of loot if it was to keep the freedom aspect.

I don't think TW3 failed miserably or that it was incompetent when it came to upgrades. I wouldn't say it was very good either though. I also don't buy that Skyrim is too huge to improve loot placement significantly.

It could be done just using common sense. Worried about players finding too powerful a weapon in one of the first dungeons? Don't put one there. If Bethesda would relax further on the level scaling, they could place items according to how difficult the area or dungeon is.

Of course then some players would complain that it's not sandboxy enough because they couldn't go to X dungeon with a level 3 character without dying. Bethesda doesn't want to introduce that kind of consequence because it probably wouldn't sit well with the mainstream.

I guess we had a different experience here, and that's fine. I found enemies everywhere - and I never felt like I could roam around and explore in peace if that's what I wanted to do. I think my primary issue with that part is that I found encounters annoying because I knew there'd be no XP reward and no interesting loot. I also knew they'd be back 2 minutes later if I happened to cross the same path.

I found that quite painful toward the end, and anything but realistic.

I agree we had a different experience. I definitely didn't find enemies everywhere.

The whole W3 system felt more like an MMO setup than a natural one.

I guess we have different views of realism here, and that's cool.

Very different indeed. TW3 felt far more natural than anything Bethesda has done in terms of realism, especially with the towns and NPCs. I thought monsters felt more naturally placed as well.

I'm specifically talking about vanilla, though. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but you've always seemed extremely negative when it comes to Skyrim and Fallout 3 unmodded.

"Extremely" would be a stretch, but yeah, like many, I don't think Fallout 3 is a very good game out of the box. I'm not as negative about Skyrim, but I'll still be using a significant amount of mods the next time I play it.