Witcher 3 vs Skyrim more realistic npcs?

Two very different approaches. Most NPCs in Witcher 3 are basically moving decorations, but the named cast of characters is far more interesting and fully developed. Bethesda games tend to avoid (more or less, except for things like guards) nameless background characters, but the development of individual interesting characters suffers.

I guess playing as Geralt doesn't interest me too much. I prefer creating a character or using something like "The Nameless Hero".

I will say this. The premise of hunting monsters and rare beasts in a world like the Witcher's is very cool. I can see myself really digging the game just for that element.

So I'll get back to you in awhile when I've played it and say yup, Celtic was right about it. But that probably won't be for awhile yet.

[QUOTE=Fluent;1061334128]I guess playing as Geralt doesn't interest me too much. I prefer creating a character or using something like "The Nameless Hero".
[QUOTE]

Never mind, if it comes down to that as it makes zero sense to me. You have played lots of games that you don't get to create character. Also played lots of games were you get to create one that zero impact on the choices they make.

I rather have a character that I create or don't create that choices I make have impact in the game. One of the biggest problems I had with POE is it really didn't matter what I did in the game the out come was going to be the same.

Plus once I got playing it I really didn't care that much about my characters that much as they got boring after time. Gerart has a personality, a history with people, and things you do in the game make you really care that you are doing them.

Like abandoned towns that you go in and cleaner out, the people come back to them and start their lifes again. If you don't do that the area stays the way it is.

There are so many examples of just little things like that. Some of the choices I made in the game I wish I hadn't, it really made me feel bad that I didn't follow out one quest a different way. Others no matter what choice you make there is no right or wrong answer.

So what is better a game you can make your own character, really what are your choices Human, elf, etc with some stats or Geralt. There is a lot a different ways you can play his character and grow him with the stats tree in this game and choices in the world.

I like Fast sword, Igni and Quen others may not. Lots of different crafting, oils etc….
Every time you learn something new about a monster or charter their profile is up dated. I found myself reading up on monsters all the time before going into a fight.

I could go on but a lot of people didn't think they could pull it off with this game. Not only did they deliver but did even a better job then I thought they would do.

Is it perfect, no there are things that could have been done different.

Is it perfect, it is the closest game I have played since ultima 4 that was. When I comes to a game that changes the way a game can be played. By this with real world choices that have an impact, while ultima 4 was just ground breaking as nothing like that had ever been made.

From ultima 3 when I started playing games to BG to Gothic now TW3, I guess I have always been happy playing at the time what trying to push what can be done in a game not what has been done to death.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the game, Celtic. But I'm a lost cause. I doubt I'm going to play this one anytime soon.

Let me get back to you in 2020.

The AI packages in Gamebryo games really eat up CPU cycles, suspiciously too much in my opinion.

Whether or not the AI is more fleshed out in Skyrim is only half the argument; if you try to place any high number of NPCs with an AI package that has them do more than just stand there and attack, the engine croaks and your FPS plummets.

I am playing both but and like the Skyrim NPC's a bit more. I think the ones in W3 fit in very well for the atmopshere and since you are don't interact with them as often it isn't a problem. If I played 2293 hours of the Witcher 3, however, I bet I would notice just how bad they can be. Just like the Skyrim ones can be repetitive. But overall I find the Skyrim ones have a bit more life than the basic ones in W3.

Don't think it matters too much though as W3 is a different game. More of an action RPG with a more linear story and a set character. Good for one play through in great depth to fully enjoy the wonderful story and writing and characters … but I can tell already I probably won't play it a second time. Why bother? It will still be Geralt, the same movie. I much prefer being able to make my own characters in a game. I can enjoy a set character but it limits game play. If the game is really good I might do a second play through only faster and focuses on the main story to see what different choices do. But besides choices no real reason to play more than once.

I also suspect the more you played the more you uncover some NPC issues, just like in any other game. At least in Skyrim, which was made for modding, I can add and alter NPC's in the game (which I do with a few great mods) to keep things fresh and different.

From what I heard W3 can be modded but not really the way TES games can. That combined with only being able to play Geralt is a big limit to me. But just for me of course - I have my own play style and while I love both games for what they are I prefer more open sandbox games.

But there is no real difference between playing as Redguard, Nord or any other race in Skyrim, when it comes to replayability. No different quests, dialogue, backstory, even the skill bonuses matter little…simply cosmetics.
Troika games, like Arcanum and Bloodlines, are a good contrast to Witcher… less emotional, personal and engaging storyline, but a greater degree of defining your character and offering more different playstyles. Skyrim offers the players so many things, the only problem is that it's equally shallow at everything.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
Skyrim offers the players so many things, the only problem is that it's equally shallow at everything.

But wolf is one of the screenshoters crowd. Which means he likes to play with character creation sliders, clothes, hair styles, lights etc. They are using Skyrim not as a game but as a kind of inexpensive Poser (no offence meant) and TW3, even with RedKit 2, is not this sort of game.

To be honest, I really don't think they're comparable. Skyrim has more named NPCs, but the overall number is quite small compared to TW3.

I prefer the way it's done in TW3. There are enough random characters to make the locations seem real. I don't care that most of the background NPCs aren't named because I wouldn't want to try to converse with that many people anyways. I also like it because you don't waste as much time talking to random NPCs that have nothing of importance to say.

Also, the NPCs in Skyrim seem so plastic to me. Plus the random comments are more repetitive than W3.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I also like it because you don't waste as much time talking to random NPCs that have nothing of importance to say.

I was just thinking that… How do you pick a NPC you are looking for in a named crowd? I mean if there are just 5 or 6 of them it's less of a problem but when you have 30? Give them a great MMO exclamation mark above their heads?

Besides what do I care what NPCs are doing when I'm not looking at them?

It always felt too damn weird being around npc's in TES games…almost like the game expects you to play as some kind of creepy stalker/voyeaur( too lazy to google it). Imagine in real life, if anyone you come across immediately started babbling about his personal life as soon as you were in something like five meter radius, even to a complete stranger. Fallout 3 was at least better for the nerves, even if they did nothing or only walked around mindlessly all day along.
The only thing I really liked about Skyrim npc's is the classical run around when you enter a shop and sprint on the second floor, robbing them blind as you watch the shopkeepers that helplessly try to keep up with you. Gothic kleptomania works as well.

Simply put you could replay Skyrim main quest and be done without mods and be done in what 8 hours and the story would be still the same weak story with you standing on a mountain shouting at a dragon.

TW3 main story I would guess would be 25-30 hours on a replay and you could make all sorts of choices to change your story.

BTW I had a lot of fun with Skyrim, just not with the main quest.

I did too but I have played around with mods more than I have played the game.

Originally Posted by CelticFrost
Simply put you could replay Skyrim main quest and be done without mods and be done in what 8 hours and the story would be still the same weak story with you standing on a mountain shouting at a dragon.

TW3 main story I would guess would be 25-30 hours on a replay and you could make all sorts of choices to change your story.

BTW I had a lot of fun with Skyrim, just not with the main quest.

Ooh, the main quest isn't my bag with Skyrim either. It's forgettable. The writing in general is much, much better in W3. Story/writing is very low on my personal "what makes a crpg fun" meter.

W3 has no stealth, ranged combat worth a damn, very little magic and very few skills and skills/tree. These are much more important to me than story. Not everyone is like this, naturally. I still like the game I have always hated melee combat with jumping and rolling around like crazy. I never play melee in Skyrim.

I play a signs heavy witcher and am still dodging around a lot. Seems unavoidable with mobs. Although against single targets I can keep an enemy burning and incapacitated sometimes without dodging. It's even easier sometimes with the alternate Yrden bug zapper.

W3 has no stealth, ranged combat worth a damn, very little magic and very few skills and skills/tree. These are much more important to me than story. Not everyone is like this, naturally. I still like the game I have always hated melee combat with jumping and rolling around like crazy. I never play melee in Skyrim.

I liked the way the skills tree worked this time in TW3 and rarely roll around. As for Skyrim's skills tree yes it was well done but you couldn't combined any of them. I am really looking for the new skills tree in Enderal.

They totally have rebuilt where skills can be combined together. It looks very impressive in the one trailer they released showing. I was hoping they would be releasing it sometime this month but still no release date.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I play a signs heavy witcher and am still dodging around a lot. Seems unavoidable with mobs. Although against single targets I can keep an enemy burning and incapacitated sometimes without dodging. It's even easier sometimes with the alternate Yrden bug zapper.

I use signs and bombs a lot in the game and yes Dodging not rolling around. Not only do you look silly rolling around but you don't recover your stamina when you are doing it.

Yeah, I don't think I've rolled more than once. Dodged many times though. However, dodging stops stamina regeneration, though, while rolling uses it (I believe).

Pro's and Con's of Dodge and Roll, here's a little list… all evaluated IMHO of course.

Dodge:
+ doesn't affect stamina regen.
+ better keep the "flow of combat" than rolling, by letting you attack rather fast immediately after, and even doesn't put you out of range of doing a strong attack.
- Don't be deceived by its initially apparent efficiency: some attacks have a surprisingly long reach and as such can't be dodged as easily as you'd initially think, and those generally hurt a lot.
- Less efficient than a well aimed roll when you try and get behind an enemy. Dodge strength is in sidestepping instead.

+ definitely better working with basic Yrden than Rolling, since you risk less of getting out of your "control circle". (related to my personal combat style)

Rolling:
- Takes more time than dodge to get back on your feet and strike back obviously, but…
+ on the other hand, it's more efficient than dodge to reposition yourself, especially when cornered.
- interrupt stamina regen (and cost a little bit of it).
+ Avoid longer reach attacks that dodge doesn't let you to, some AoE too I think.

+ Rolling is almost a de facto follow up move just after putting an advanced Yrden trap (a damaging one), since those are painfully slow to set up. (again, the way I play, at least - I love Yrden).

Dodge
+ more realistic

Regardless of the in-game pros/cons of the two I dislike the roll simply because it's ludicrous in terms of immersion (although maybe that texas cop who attacked african american kids is a fan) yet you still end up using it. If they would let me change dodge to the space bar and keep space as jump too I would be very happy. As it is I have to rely on double-tap which can be tricky.