Witcher 3 Skyrim vs Witcher 3

Ok, I created the thread to help move the discussion away from inappropriate places.

I'll give it another shot, even if I believe I've already been extremely clear about this. Please do me the favor and set any dislike of Skyrim aside and focus on the points being made, instead of the emotional baggage.

If this is simply about not being able to handle differing opinions and trying to make people who enjoy Skyrim "wrong" somehow, then keep it to yourself. If you're really deluded enough to think people prefer Skyrim for exploration as some kind of illusion and they never really actually enjoyed the game MORE than W3 when it comes to exploration - then you really need a course in human psychology.

People like different things for different reasons, and no one is wrong to enjoy one game over the other.

AFAIK, this is about how Skyrim is a better game when it comes to freeform exploration and non-story locations - according to SOME people. As in, it's NOT about the actual story locations being more interesting. This is about how much fun you can expect to have when you go off the beaten track.

I don't have a clue how anyone can dispute that, even if you hate Skyrim.

To my mind, Witcher 3 is a great game in a lot of ways. I just don't think it's very interesting when you go exploring in a freeroaming manner.

You either have the PoI markers ON - in which case you'll be hunting question marks, almost ALL of which are located above ground, and the only exploration involved in ~95% of the cases is the clicking on chests or dead bodies that are obviously marked on the minimap and I believe some glowing effect above them. At least, that's my experience based on 100 hours of playing the game and exploring quite a bit.

You can also turn the markers OFF, in which case you have to be in close proximity to any given marker for it to show itself on the map, and I suppose that's interesting to some.

Personally, I think Skyrim's way of handling it was much better. As in, it didn't show exploration locations on the map by default - but they were reasonably easy to find when exploring, because they would pop up at a reasonable distance. This made for a more natural experience when walking the wild, as you didn't have to comb the map to find something cool - but you also had to actually go out and explore to expect to find something, unlike Witcher 3 with the markers ON.

Now, for the actual exploration AFTER finding a location or marker - Skyrim wins once again (IMO).

Why? Well, most obviously because Skyrim is full of a variety of dungeons and I love dungeons. I REALLY missed them in Witcher 3 - and I'm not talking about hollow monster caves.

Also, because while Skyrim doesn't have an infinite amount of textures to make dungeons all feel and look unique, pretty much every single dungeon has a unique layout, and unique notes/books/NPCs to find.

Now, I understand that some people boil that down to "just another samey cave with another book". I guess that would be like saying System Shock 2 is full of samey rooms with yet another audio log. That's fine, but that's not how I see it.

To me, it's about what those notes/books/NPCs say. In Skyrim, most dungeons have stuff that relates to the location you're exploring, which means you get a sense of why it's there and what people were doing there. That's the kind of thing I find very interesting and it makes a location worth exploring.

Beyond that, and this is key, Skyrim has loot that's actually worth finding. As in, you'll be happy to find an Ebony bow if you have a Steel Bow - and you'll be happy to find a magical Daedric Bow if you have a Glass Bow. There's always the potential for significant upgrades, even if the loot is randomised in vanilla Skyrim.

In Witcher 3, again based on my 100 hours, the VAST majority of loot is COMPLETE crap and utterly inferior to the Witcher gear. Witcher gear is found by using a treasure map, meaning there's really no exploration involved.

It wouldn't be so bad if the crafting components were hard to find, but they're not. I never had a single issue crafting even the best stuff, because you can buy whatever you don't happen to already have. That's bullshit.

That's a huge problem when it comes to satisfying exploration, at least to me.

YET another reason is that, unlike Witcher 3, Skyrim will reward you for defeating enemies and doing combat. That means that even if you don't find an upgrade when exploring a dungeon, you'll be progressing your character. That makes exploration a lot more satisfying, because it won't feel like a waste of time.

Witcher 3 exploration almost always feels like a waste of time, because combat XP is absolutely minimal. You do get a little XP for resolving certain things at the markers - but the amount is trivial and ridiculous compared to the quests. It's like they didn't want you to enjoy exploration at all.

Beyond that, the Witcher 3 character system ended up being extremely underwhelming - and you quickly stop looking forward to new powers, because they don't seem to matter enough. Maybe that was just me, though - as I defeated 9 out of 10 enemies using the Igni sign - and after level ~18-20, it was so powerful that I really didn't need much else.

Skyrim has perks and dragon shouts - and they keep being cool for potentially hundreds of hours. That means you have something to look forward to, and you have a reason to go out and earn XP through freeform exploration.

Not so in Witcher 3, where I eventually learned that only the quests felt rewarding.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

Well, I disagree on a few points…as always.
First, you're looking it, at it as if it were a free form sandbox game…when it's a focused, story driven game. Experience coming from quests is a completely sound decision and Skyrim's levelling up also involved an incredible amount of tedium…taking blows for hours from mudcrabs and then using healing spells( Don't deny you didn't do it ), god knows how many hours spent on raising your crafting skills with mindless clicking, spamming Iron skin spells million times, going back and forth between merchants… hours after hours of real time…Witcher is simply far more enjoyable and respects your time, on that account.
And in Witcher, at least your gear, consistently needed to be upgraded through the game…in Skyrim, you could become a master blacksmith or enchanter extremely quickly…completely negating any need for finding loot at all. Even majority of Daedric artifacts were underwhelming in comparison. And, aside from dragon scales, you can buy practically anything you need for crafting…since economy is completely broken, loot becomes pointless.
Your argument, about passive improvements is even more true in Skyrim…how many perks did actually have active, strong impact on game play? And in Skyrim you become uber powerfull a lot more quickly than with Witcher.
Also the whole point of discovery is precisely discovery…this works very well in Witcher when disabling markers in the UI options…in Skyrim, everything was in plain sight.
Skyrim was very poor at sensible environmental design with it's unsustainable settlements… if you'd look around Whiterun, I'd guess the bandits have closed in around it and are planning to lay siege on the place …they were even closer to city than the guard watchtower.
In Witcher world feels much more dynamic, connected, it's characters and creatures integrated into ecosystem. Clearing abandoned settlements of bandits/monsters to be repopulated, gives you a sense of impact of the world, that changes with your actions. Skyrim… let's not even go there.
It's "lack" of dungeons makes sense, just as it's lack of "colored" people…the design behind this game is completely focused on realism. What it did have, are tombs, caves, mausoleum's, lighthouses…they were a lot less grand in scope next to Skyrim's dungeons, however they felt like natural extension of the world and completely integrated into it, rather than "gamey" zone, disconnected from everything and dropped from the engine to make the world seem "full".
It is also far better than Skyrim at creating atmosphere through the environment…cannibal camps, broken battlements, etc…Skyrim did a very poor, if any, at reinforcing either the civil war or the main story with that. Level of world characterization are not even comparable between these two games.
Skyrim did have a lot of "notes"…however, while fewer in content, in Witcher you discover more unique quests or stories as you travel, that further reinforce themes and atmosphere of the world…so it's a matter of quantity vs. quality.

I don't see the opening post, just it's title.
Any attempt of comparing no story sandbox grinder bug-o-rama with a storydriven patchpolished epic RPG is IMO tragic.

BoboTheMighty said:

Well, I disagree on a few points…as always.
First, you're looking it, at it as if it were a free form sandbox game…when it's a focused, story driven game.

Click to expand...

No, I look at it as a game. CDPR advertised it as an open world RPG, though.

But, even if it was a completely linear story game - it still doesn't have great exploration. That's the point.

The point isn't that it SHOULD have it, though I would definitely have liked it.

If you start out by admitting that the game doesn't have great exploration because it's not an exploration game - then why go on?

Experience coming from quests is a completely sound decision and Skyrim's levelling up also involved an incredible amount of tedium…taking blows for hours from mudcrabs and then using healing spells( Don't deny you didn't do it ), god knows how many hours spent on raising your crafting skills with mindless clicking, spamming Iron skin spells million times, going back and forth between merchants… hours after hours of real time…Witcher is simply far more enjoyable and respects your time, on that account.

Click to expand...

I didn't find Skyrim tedious to level up in, and I never had to click anything for hours. That sounds like a very unnatural way to play it - like you're trying to exploit it.

That said, I don't find Skyrim's system ideal in any way - just much better than W3 when it comes to progression through exploration.

And in Witcher, at least your gear, consistently needed to be upgraded through the game…in Skyrim, you could become a master blacksmith or enchanter extremely quickly…completely negating any need for finding loot at all. Even majority of Daedric artifacts were underwhelming in comparison. And, aside from dragon scales, you can buy practically anything you need for crafting…since economy is completely broken, loot becomes pointless.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really matter here, as I'm talking about finding upgrades through exploration.

Whether you like it or not, you will find upgrades much more regularly in Skyrim than in W3.

It's true that you can game the system and exploit the weaknesses with crafting and enchanting, but you'll still find upgrades in the world - due to the material system.

In W3, you could exploit nothing at all and still not expect to find upgrades regularly. In fact, it's extremely rare because the loot generation system is so haphazard and sloppy.

I'm not saying Skyrim's crafting system was great - as it wasn't.

Your argument, about passive improvements is even more true in Skyrim…how many perks did actually have active, strong impact on game play? And in Skyrim you become uber powerfull a lot more quickly than with Witcher.
Also the whole point of discovery is precisely discovery…this works very well in Witcher when disabling markers in the UI options…in Skyrim, everything was in plain sight.

Click to expand...

I think we need to establish what level of difficulty we're talking about here.

I'd say Witcher 3 on Death March is a more tight and challenging game than Skyrim on any vanilla setting. Witcher 3 on normal was way, way too easy from the beginning - where Skyrim on Master was actually challenging for a while.

But I'm talking about feeling a sense of progression, where perks and shouts are much more FUN in terms of feeling the difference.

Both games stop being challenging long before the end, so they're both bad in that way.

The problem with Witcher 3 powers is that they're mostly boring and minor, so you don't feel the progression to the extent I find is necessary to keep having fun throughout.

Skyrim was very poor at sensible environmental design with it's unsustainable settlements… if you'd look around Whiterun, I'd guess the bandits have closed in around it and are planning to lay siege on the place anytime now…they were even closer to city than the guard watchtower.

Click to expand...

Ehm, what? What has that got to do with satisfying exploration?

In Witcher world feels much more dynamic, connected, it's characters and creatures integrated into ecosystem. Clearing abandoned settlements of bandits/monsters to be repopulated, gives you a sense of impact of the world, that changes with your actions…Skyrim, let's not even go there.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a bit of a joke to me. Are you seriously talking about populating a location with a handful of NPCs and a single merchant as some kind of natural and dynamic eco system? The exact same thing was repeated for every single marker - with the only exception being the type of merchant.

Even the rather boring civil war in Skyrim felt much more impactful and dynamic than that.

It's "lack" of dungeons makes sense, just as it's lack of "colored" people…the design behind this game is completely focused on realism. What it did have, are tombs, caves, mausoleum's, lighthouses…they were a lot less grand in scope next to

Skyrim's dungeons, however everything felt much more natural and completely integrated into the world, rather than bloated with so many draughr mounds that were simply dropped from the game engine, to make the world feel "full".
It is also far better than Skyrim at creating atmosphere through the environment…cannibal camps, broken battlements, etc…Skyrim did a very poor, if any, at reinforcing either the civil war or the main story with that. Level of world characterization are not even comparable between these two games.
Skyrim did have a lot of "notes"…however, while fewer in content, in Witcher you discover more unique quests or stories as you travel, that further reinforce themes and atmosphere of the world…so it's a matter of quantity vs. quality.

Click to expand...

You could really do yourself and others a favor by dividing things into paragraphs.

Sorry, but these walls of text are painful to read.

Anyway, I'm afraid I don't care in the least about how "realistic" Witcher 3 is when it comes to having so few interesting locations to explore.

My problem is that I actually want interesting locations to explore, and whether the amount of them is "realistic" or not - is a very remote detail to me in terms of importance.

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?

DArtagnan said:

You either have the PoI markers ON - in which case you'll be hunting question marks, almost ALL of which are located above ground, and the only exploration involved in ~95% of the cases is the clicking on chests or dead bodies that are obviously marked on the minimap and I believe some glowing effect above them. At least, that's my experience based on 100 hours of playing the game and exploring quite a bit.

You can also turn the markers OFF, in which case you have to be in close proximity to any given marker for it to show itself on the map, and I suppose that's interesting to some.

Personally, I think Skyrim's way of handling it was much better. As in, it didn't show exploration locations on the map by default - but they were reasonably easy to find when exploring, because they would pop up at a reasonable distance. This made for a more natural experience when walking the wild, as you didn't have to comb the map to find something cool - but you also had to actually go out and explore to expect to find something, unlike Witcher 3 with the markers ON.

Click to expand...

To avoid overlong posts I will try replying one point at the time: so how, in Goddess name, is Skyrim way of handling exploration [/b]much[/b] better than TW3 with markers OFF? Because of the default settings?
Besides, Skyrim compass will show POI that are MILES away from your current location. In TW3 with markers off you have to approach much closer than that.

zahratustra said:

To avoid overlong posts I will try replying one point at the time: so how, in Goddess name, is Skyrim way of handling exploration [/b]much[/b] better than TW3 with markers OFF? Because of the default settings?
Besides, Skyrim compass will show POI that are MILES away from your current location. In TW3 with markers off you have to approach much closer than that.

Click to expand...

Since you can't read:

Personally, I think Skyrim's way of handling it was much better. As in, it didn't show exploration locations on the map by default - but they were reasonably easy to find when exploring, because they would pop up at a reasonable distance. This made for a more natural experience when walking the wild, as you didn't have to comb the map to find something cool - but you also had to actually go out and explore to expect to find something, unlike Witcher 3 with the markers ON.

As for Skyrim showing things MILES away - I'm afraid I can't partake in that illusion. Perhaps a few hundred feet - which, as I said, was a comfortable balance between playability and natural exploration.

Of course, I'd prefer absolutely no markers AND interesting locations - but that would mean 95% of the content would never be seen by players, and I can't expect developers to be that irresponsible with their development budget.

You dance around the point. So let me ask once again: what prevented you from turning markers off? You were unaware of that option?

zahratustra said:

You dance around the point. So let me ask once again: what prevented you from turning markers off? You were unaware of that option?

Click to expand...

No, I specifically quoted you the reason why turning them off is worse than the Skyrim system.

This will be the last time I'll repeat something because you can't read:

Turning markers OFF in Witcher 3 means you have to comb the map for anything to find. That's because they don't "pop up" at a reasonable distance AND because it's all but impossible to tell yet another empty ruin from a ruin that might have yet another bunch of NPCs in close proximity. Monster nests are just lumps of dirt on the ground, so they're hard to find as well, and so on.

It MIGHT have worked if you could actually find something interesting at these marker-locations, but the main problem is that you can't - so why even bother?

The game was CLEARLY designed with the PoI markers ON - as it's impractical to comb every inch of the map for these trivial events.

Quite simply, I think CDPR overreached when they tried turning a Witcher game into a huge open world with freeform exploration.

They failed to provide enough of an incentive for players to spend hours roaming the world for cool loot or stories.

The game is best enjoyed when you're focused on the quests and I think most of the freeroaming is a waste of time. It certainly felt that way to me.

A missed opportunity, really.

I'm not convinced they should try and correct this for a future game. Instead, I think they should focus on what they're best at - which is story, C&C and things of that nature.

Wow! I totally agree with DArt. Skyrim is much, much better at exploration and giving a player the feeling of getting more powerful. However, the quest design in W3 is way, way better. I felt Skyrim's main quest of slay the big evil dragon was much more interesting than tracking down a wayward foster daughter, but the foster daughter story was told better and she was way cuter than Numinex

Modding is what makes Skyrim stand head and shoulders above Witcher 3 though. Already, the number of players on Steam playing W3 is a trickle compared to the thousands STILL playing Skyrim. W3 is already dead to all intents and purposes. Now that there is a mod-kit for W3, we'll see if the game rallies in the months ahead.

DArtagnan said:

Quite simply, I think CDPR overreached when they tried turning a Witcher game into a huge open world with freeform exploration.

They failed to provide enough of an incentive for players to spend hours roaming the world for cool loot or stories.

The game is best enjoyed when you're focused on the quests and I think most of the freeroaming is a waste of time. It certainly felt that way to me.

A missed opportunity, really.

I'm not convinced they should try and correct this for a future game. Instead, I think they should focus on what they're best at - which is story, C&C and things of that nature.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I feel about most open world games once they reach a certain size. It seems impossible to maintain the focus, and I don't consider either Skyrim or TW3 an exception. Both loot and locations become "more of the same" to point where individual locations and items are nearly indistinguishable from each other.

The worst offender, by far, is Skyrim's habit of handing out random quests that lead back to some place I had already cleared out. That certainly broke my immersion with a proper bang.

Morrowind, FO3 and FNV managed to keep me interested, as did M&M6 and 7, but Skyrim, Oblivion and TW3 all reached a point where it felt pointless and repetitive.

crpgnut said:

Wow! I totally agree with DArt. Skyrim is much, much better at exploration and giving a player the feeling of getting more powerful.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that exactly. It's very easy to cap a character both in terms of skills and gear within the first 30 hours or so, after which it's impossible to gain power. Craft the heavy dragonbone stuff, enchant it with -% mana cost and that's it. No item you ever find will rival that.

That being said, TW3 isn't exactly fantastic at that either. The improvements are too small and iterative.

I never had a problem finding stuff in TW3 with the map markers off, and I thought things popped up at a reasonable distance, but I'm the type that enjoys looking for places and things rather than have a compass point them out to me.

DArtagnan said:

No, I specifically quoted you the reason why turning them off is worse than the Skyrim system.

This will be the last time I'll repeat something because you can't read:

Turning markers OFF in Witcher 3 means you have to comb the map for anything to find. That's because they don't "pop up" at a reasonable distance AND because it's all but impossible to tell yet another empty ruin from a ruin that might have yet another bunch of NPCs in close proximity.

Click to expand...

Yes, some POI are hard to find but most of them aren't. And you don't have to comb the map either. You just examine it and apply a bit of brainpower. A road leading to nowhere? A clearing in the forest? Village? A lonely house? Ruins? Let's explore! You see a battlefield? There is a likelihood that ghoul's nests are nearby. A bunch of nekkers? Possibility of a nest!

If you listen to village NPCs, you will hear about places of interest in the neighbourhood. In some places you will find letters and notes leading you to other places. And then there are things not marked even with markers on. Where is this ladder leading? Can I climb this roof? Have you found secret treasures in Crows Perch?
And if, sometimes, you will not find anything? So what? That's what exploration is all about. Sometimes it's a hit and sometimes a miss.

DArtagnan said:

Quite simply, I think CDPR overreached when they tried turning a Witcher game into a huge open world with freeform exploration.

They failed to provide enough of an incentive for players to spend hours roaming the world for cool loot or stories.

The game is best enjoyed when you're focused on the quests and I think most of the freeroaming is a waste of time. It certainly felt that way to me.

A missed opportunity, really.

I'm not convinced they should try and correct this for a future game. Instead, I think they should focus on what they're best at - which is story, C&C and things of that nature.

Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. Apart from looking at nice scenery (which there are some awesome looking vistas in W3) there is not much point to exploring in W3. I also felt that the huge open world was distracting to the main story. The only real thing I found by randomly wondering was some quests but I wish they added more things to discover.

Having said that I don't really see Skyrim as great example for exploration either. Gothic and Risen 1 are definitely much better for this than Skyrim.

The problem I had with Skyrim isn't really the copy paste dungeons but rather there were too may of them and most of them felt like they had had monsters waiting for you to kill them. Unlike you, I didn't find much reason for many of the dungeons or any lore related stuff you can see etc. Also the loot was boring as hell in Skyrim just like Witcher 3 due to level scaling. Yes you can find the ebony blade, Umbra sword etc but these are only a handful and given the ratio of dungeons to loot, these unique loots are hardly anything. So my point is Skyrim is bad example of exploration done right in open world game. To me the best example are Gothic games even though they are smaller in comparison to Skyrim.

zahratustra said:

Yes, some POI are hard to find but most of them aren't. And you don't have to comb the map either. You just examine it and apply a bit of brainpower. A road leading to nowhere? A clearing in the forest? Village? A lonely house? Ruins? Let's explore! You see a battlefield? There is a likelihood that ghoul's nests are nearby. A bunch of nekkers? Possibility of a nest!

Click to expand...

As I said, I might have bothered to go through the effort if I could expect to find something of value.

As noted, I would have preferred not to have the markers in Skyrim - because exploration and locations were actually both interesting and worthwhile.

To me, that is. Clearly, some people didn't find it worthwhile or interesting to explore dungeons and find the notes/books/NPCs and loot upgrades.

I don't mind exploring and searching for things, but I absolutely demand that there's going to be something worth finding every once in a while.

If you listen to village NPCs, you will hear about places of interest in the neighbourhood. In some places you will find letters and notes leading you to other places. And then there are things not marked even with markers on. Where is this ladder leading? Can I climb this roof? Have you found secret treasures in Crows Perch?
And if, sometimes, you will not find anything? So what? That's what exploration is all about. Sometimes it's a hit and sometimes a miss.

Click to expand...

Almost everything is noted on the map once you pick something up or hear something - and the game was impractical to play without the map.

Again, the treasures aren't worth finding - so why go look for them?

It's the combination of either having markers that takes away exploration or the lack of them that makes exploration too difficult compared to the worthless loot you can expect to find.

Essentially, exploration is boring with or without the markers. It would have been less of a job without the markers on by default - but appearing within a reasonable distance, like Skyrim. At least then you could tell yourself you were exploring a little - even without much of a reward.

JDR13 said:

I never had a problem finding stuff in TW3 with the map markers off, and I thought things popped up at a reasonable distance, but I'm the type that enjoys looking for places and things rather than have a compass point them out to me.

Click to expand...

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.

Not sure what you mean by that exactly. It's very easy to cap a character both in terms of skills and gear within the first 30 hours or so, after which it's impossible to gain power. Craft the heavy dragonbone stuff, enchant it with -% mana cost and that's it. No item you ever find will rival that.

Click to expand...

Was that obvious immediately on your first playthrough?

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.

I've since played countless hours with mods and what not and I STILL find things when exploring that are both interesting and that I've never seen before.

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.

DArtagnan said:

W3 has crap loot and almost no dungeons - so I'd rather have what little is there be easy to find.

Click to expand...

lol as opposed to Skyrim with meaningful loot? And YES TW3 has no dungeons. It's a Witcher game not D&D. Get over it.

Having said that I don't really see Skyrim as great example for exploration either. Gothic and Risen 1 are definitely much better for this than Skyrim.

Click to expand...

In terms of exploring the wild, Gothic and Risen are both much better than Skyrim.

But in terms of dungeon exploration, Skyrim is king. Not only because there are many, many more - but also because of the variety.

Gothic and Risen have very few dungeons in comparison, and they all look the same, really.

But I completely agree that Skyrim has too many dungeons - and I would MUCH rather reduce the amount by a factor of 10 - and increase the depth and fidelity of the remaining dungeons by a factor of 10.

I'd also prefer no markers and I'd like dungeons to be "plausible" in terms of placement and finding the opening shouldn't be a matter of recognising the same type of teleporting door you've seen dozens of times before.

But even as it's easy to criticise Skyrim here, it's pretty important to remember that there are zero (as in 0) games that can compare when it comes to dungeons and variety of dungeons. Meaning every other game will pale in comparison when it comes to exploring dungeons and the ability to keep doing so.

Obviously a game like Ultima Underworld or Eye of the Beholder will win when it comes to the BEST dungeon, as the entire game is just that one dungeon. I think some people forget that when criticising Skyrim "repetition".

zahratustra said:

lol as opposed to Skyrim with meaningful loot? And YES TW3 has no dungeons. It's a Witcher game not D&D. Get over it.

Click to expand...

Emotional again? It didn't take you long to go down that path. Take a deep breath and try not to take my opinion personally as if it was an attack on you or your pet game.

I like dungeons and they're great for exploration. I don't know why Witcher 3 can't have dungeons - but I also don't care. It simply doesn't have them (enough of them, anyway), and that hurts exploration.

Exploration is what we're talking about.

Compared to W3, most games have meaningful loot. Skyrim doesn't have what I would consider great loot - but it's MUCH better than W3, because you'll find upgrades regularly when exploring.