Elder Scrolls VI - What to Learn from Witcher 3

I prefer neither game learn from the other.

they're both different experiences and I’d like to experience each separately.

TW3 is a cinematic narrative experience while skyrim is a lite on narrative highly moddable sandbox experience.

I’d rather they both continue to improve upon what they do best.

I think you're selling both games short with those descriptions, but I agree with the rest of what you said.

The bat-vision “I should check to see if I can follow the path of XYZ” (says Geralt to himself) makes it into a Batman kind of game. Ever play Arkham City? Great game. Very much like W3.

Batman gets upgrades, chooses combat styles, etc just like Geralt. I’m not making that up.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I think you're selling both games short with those descriptions, but I agree with the rest of what you said.

It wasn’t intended, just quick short descriptions.

On a side note, sorry I lost my cool awhile back. That’s not typically who I am.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
The bat-vision “I should check to see if I can follow the path of XYZ” (says Geralt to himself) makes it into a Batman kind of game. Ever play Arkham City? Great game. Very much like W3.

Batman gets upgrades, chooses combat styles, etc just like Geralt. I’m not making that up.

TW3 also has a card game called Gwent. Might and Magic VII had a card game called Arcomage that worked similarly within the game world. Because of that, I think TW3 is very much like M&M VII.

See, it's kind of like math.

Arcomage was awesome. So was Witcher 3. Elder Scrolls recently…not so much. So I guess they could stand to learn something from Witcher 3. Or Arcomage.

I like the Witcher 3. I like Elder Scrolls (not online). I like Fallout (1&2). I like Bethesda's Fallout.

Imho, there's a simple truth… Those games are not the same game. In many cases not even the same type of game (ok, Bethesda games are, just in different settings). So I don't complain that Fallout 42 is not the "more of the same" of Fallout 1. It's a wildly different game and I enjoy other things about it. Yes, Fallout 3 was a totally different game, even if you ignore the engine, than Fallout 1. It changed to tone, etc. Still, it's good for me. I'm simply not a purist who demands that everything stays the same.

And of course it's totally ok to not like any of these games. But accepting reality includes accepting the fact that Bethesda has a cash cow there, which implies many people like their games. Of course you can now believe that your opinion is the only valid one or simply accept the fact that people have different tastes. Otherwise you sound like your grumpy granddad who cannot believe "what music those young people today listen to". Yeah, it's different from your favorite music, but honestly, no one cares. And enough people also enjoy your kind of music. Or even… *gasp* …both.

Originally Posted by Irian
I like the Witcher 3. I like Elder Scrolls (not online). I like Fallout (1&2). I like Bethesda's Fallout.

Imho, there's a simple truth… Those games are not the same game. In many cases not even the same type of game (ok, Bethesda games are, just in different settings). So I don't complain that Fallout 42 is not the "more of the same" of Fallout 1. It's a wildly different game and I enjoy other things about it. Yes, Fallout 3 was a totally different game, even if you ignore the engine, than Fallout 1. It changed to tone, etc. Still, it's good for me. I'm simply not a purist who demands that everything stays the same.

And of course it's totally ok to not like any of these games. But accepting reality includes accepting the fact that Bethesda has a cash cow there, which implies many people like their games. Of course you can now believe that your opinion is the only valid one or simply accept the fact that people have different tastes. Otherwise you sound like your grumpy granddad who cannot believe "what music those young people today listen to". Yeah, it's different from your favorite music, but honestly, no one cares. And enough people also enjoy your kind of music. Or even… *gasp* …both.

On the one hand, I wish more people were reasonable - like you

On the other hand, what would we talk about here - if we didn't have extremely narrow views of what other people like that we don't, personally, like?

While I largely prefer modern TES/FO games to Witcher 3 - I still think Witcher 3 is a great game, with a fantastic narrative.

Why some people can't - or won't - see the great things about TES/FO - I will never know.

I have to assume they really believe they don't have those strengths. I don't think people intentionally dismiss things like that. It's more a matter of being emotionally invested against them - which can blind even the most reasonable people.

But, what's the point of holding a grudge against strangers making games that you don't like? I just don't understand what advantage can come from embracing such a negative and unproductive position.

I like TW3 a lot. And despite "completing" FO4 and Skyrim I like them a lot less.
I don't have a grudge against Bethesda and I can see the great things in their games.

But still I wish their immense budget would go into games being closer to TW3. However Bethesda most likely won't do this and I totally understand them.

Originally Posted by Morrandir
I like TW3 a lot. And despite "completing" FO4 and Skyrim I like them a lot less.
I don't have a grudge against Bethesda and I can see the great things in their games.

But still I wish their immense budget would go into games being closer to TW3. However Bethesda most likely won't do this and I totally understand them.

I wouldn't want to see either developer become too much like the other because I like that we have contrasting gameplay styles to choose from, and I enjoy both styles.

I would like to see Bethesda try to push the envelope a little more in terms of production values though, if that's what you meant. That's something they haven't done in a long time.

I enjoy ES games and Witcher games for different reasons and I don't really want one to mimic the other etc.

However I do have issues with ES which are nothing do with Witcher games but to do with previous ES games themselves. I think most of the "hate" around here for ES games are due to similar reasons. People(myself included) like Morrowind a lot and feel that the changes Bethesda made to the sequels are not always for the better and over all they have diminished the ES series.

I will admit that I am seeing Morrowind from rose tainted glasses. Its the first real open world RPG I have played and believe me the experience was glorious like any other. I was poor student back then and had to share the PC with my brother and we both fought each other for Morrowind time! All I know is that I enjoyed Oblivion far less than Morrowind. Skyrim was better than Oblivion but still not up there with Morrowind. The thing about Withcer games is that i enjoyed them all equally (more or less).

Originally Posted by lostforever
I enjoy ES games and Witcher games for different reasons and I don't really want one to mimic the other etc.

However I do have issues with ES which are nothing do with Witcher games but to do with previous ES games themselves. I think most of the "hate" around here for ES games are due to similar reasons. People(myself included) like Morrowind a lot and feel that the changes Bethesda made to the sequels are not always for the better and over all they have diminished the ES series.

I will admit that I am seeing Morrowind from rose tainted glasses. Its the first real open world RPG I have played and believe me the experience was glorious like any other. I was poor student back then and had to share the PC with my brother and we both fought each other for Morrowind time! All I know is that I enjoyed Oblivion far less than Morrowind. Skyrim was better than Oblivion but still not up there with Morrowind. The thing about Withcer games is that i enjoyed them all equally (more or less).

Yeah, I do think many fans consider Morrowind the best game Bethsoft did, overall.

Personally, I think Morrowind and Oblivion are more or less equal - but for vastly different reasons. Morrowind was probably the last arguably non-mainstream game - even if it's full of mainstream concessions, like the terrible one-click combat system and simplified character creation from Daggerfall.

Oblivion was clearly full of compromises - but I, personally, appreciated the technical improvements - and I prefer voiced quests, even if the game suffered heavily from a limited number of actors.

But, to me, Skyrim is far superior to both - even if it's also very flawed.

Then again, I consider most games flawed. I don't think perfection is a thing we could ever reach, regardless.

My favorite experience with the series was Shivering Isles.

I tell you what both games could learn from. Having a more interesting and larger monster catalog like D&D. Still trying to figure out why Skyrim took out goblins.

Originally Posted by Hastar
I tell you what both games could learn from. Having a more interesting and larger monster catalog like D&D. Still trying to figure out why Skyrim took out goblins.

Both? As in Witcher 3, too?

Because I have to say that the bestiary in the Witcher games is one of the richest in gaming history, to my mind. Very impressive variety and detail went into creating the relatively large variety of enemies.

There is also rich variety in terms of tactics and behavior - even if, sadly, Witcher 3 is way too easy - more or less making these things redundant.

More is better, I suppose - but the bestiary is definitely among the last things I would criticize in Witcher 3.

As for Skyrim, that's another matter. It's not terrible or anything - but we could use more advanced behavior and more variety.

Morrowind seemed like a big step back from Daggerfall when it came to enemy variety, but I think TES has steadily improved since then.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
Yeah, I do think many fans consider Morrowind the best game Bethsoft did, overall.

Personally, I think Morrowind and Oblivion are more or less equal - but for vastly different reasons. Morrowind was probably the last arguably non-mainstream game - even if it's full of mainstream concessions, like the terrible one-click combat system and simplified character creation from Daggerfall.

Oblivion was clearly full of compromises - but I, personally, appreciated the technical improvements - and I prefer voiced quests, even if the game suffered heavily from a limited number of actors.

But, to me, Skyrim is far superior to both - even if it's also very flawed.

Then again, I consider most games flawed. I don't think perfection is a thing we could ever reach, regardless.

Like you say both Oblivion and Skyrim are technical improvements over Morrowind. I also like fully voiced acted NPC as well these days so all of these are positive. I don't have any issues in this regards.

My main issues, mostly with Oblivion and to some extent with Skyrim too but lot less, they felt "life less". The world didn't evoke a sense of wonder. After while, I was not curious whats around that corner. When I go into most, caves, towers, towns etc, I knew what to expect. I spotted the formula very easily. Part of the problem was level scaling and loot progression and another part was dumped down character progression.

I felt that texted based NPC in Morrowind at that time had more "character" and "soul" than the voiced acted NPCs in both Oblivion and Skyrim during their time. By the time Skyrim came out, other games (mostly Bioware) have set the bar high in terms of voice acting and NPC character depth, so things felt bit meh.

Looking back, I think Morrowind was a "messy" game but Oblivion and Skyrim "were well ordered" or by the book games! I guess it was the messiness which made Morrowind great for me!

I don't know if Bethesda is treating ESO as canon, but they have increased the monster variety in it compared to any ES games. They had to as ESO is MMO and you do lot of killing! Anyway if they treat ESO as canon, then I would guess monster will go up in next ES game.

Originally Posted by lostforever
Like you say both Oblivion and Skyrim are technical improvements over Morrowind. I also like fully voiced acted NPC as well these days so all of these are positive. I don't have any issues in this regards.

My main issues, mostly with Oblivion and to some extent with Skyrim too but lot less, they felt "life less". The world didn't evoke a sense of wonder. After while, I was not curious whats around that corner. When I go into most, caves, towers, towns etc, I knew what to expect. I spotted the formula very easily. Part of the problem was level scaling and loot progression and another part was dumped down character progression.

I felt that texted based NPC in Morrowind at that time had more "character" and "soul" than the voiced acted NPCs in both Oblivion and Skyrim during their time. By the time Skyrim came out, other games (mostly Bioware) have set the bar high in terms of voice acting and NPC character depth, so things felt bit meh.

Looking back, I think Morrowind was a "messy" game but Oblivion and Skyrim "were well ordered" or by the book games! I guess it was the messiness which made Morrowind great for me!

That's fair enough

Personally, I always found Morrowind very static. I don't remember who it was around the Watch who said it felt like walking around in a painting - but that was a very fitting description for me.

Was it that Remy-something guy? The scandinavian guy with red hair that left years ago.

To me, Oblivion - and especially Skyrim - felt much more alive. Oblivion was the first of them to use Speedtree - which really made the forests come into their own, from my point of view.

Of course, it didn't help that I didn't like the actual terrain and art style of Morrowind. It felt very… brown and grey, to me. I'm much more into lush forests and lakes, that kind of thing.

I also think Oblivion improved the visceral nature of combat quite a lot, and it wasn't enough to just spam the left mouse button anymore.

Of course, being a huge fan of stealth and archery that was also a big thing in favor of Oblivion. I don't think anyone would argue there's much of a comparison between Morrowind and the later games when it comes to those aspects.

Oblivion also implemented physics for the first time, which is a big reason archery felt so much better.

But, on the other hand, I found Oblivion had lost some of the old-school charm and appeal of the older games. I found the interface a huge step back, as well.

So, subjectively - I think Oblivion is significantly better than Morrowind. But, if I try to look at it objectively - I can see why some would prefer Morrowind.

That said, I really do think our young age at the time the first games came out makes a difference in our perception.

But it's the sort of thing you really shouldn't mention - because it can never be proven, and people will never admit it anyway

Morrowind felt the most lifeless to me. Most NPCs were static, and the few that moved around had very basic scripts.

In Oblivion and Skyrim, NPCs have complex schedules and will engage in different activities on certain dates and times. In Oblivion, some NPCs were even scripted to travel by foot to different cities on specific dates and live there for a period of time.