By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Witcher 3 is the best RPG in the last decade.

bugrimmar said:
Mummelmann said:


Gothic 3 is very varied without coming off as silly, having different civilizations across such a relatively small map could have been a disaster but the towns and characters emote enough of an atmosphere to make it work. The voice-acting is often off key though.

I think a large part of the reason I enjoy The Witcher 3 more than Gothic is that I really, really enjoy the mythology, world and overall setting, this is also why I choose to forgive the cardinal sin of too much exposition dialogue in the book(s); I simply like it.

Skyrim is a really good game but I've never gotten past the 50-55 hour mark, the world is just too similar, that's also one of my main gripes with Fallout 3; locations are extremely similar to one another and you find the same enemies, loot and items absolutely everywhere. This is an area where I find a game like Kingdoms of Amalur to be superior to most open-world RPG's (even though it's not truly a completely open world).
My main running issue with the Elder Scrolls games is the tendency to become grossly overpowered almost regardless of the choices you make, you reach a point where the challenge stops and it never comes back, Skyrim manages to be even worse than Oblivion in this regard.
This is another thing I love about The Witcher 3; the level progression is slow and the challenge is present all the time, even at 55 hours in, I'm still getting my ass kicked rather often either by making mistakes or by simply running into monsters with a higher level.

Like I said; I understand people's complaints, I really do, but the setting, music, voice-acting, combat, crafting, visuals and almost everything in The Witcher 3 sits really well with me and I've yet to find something that annoys me as much as Mass Effect's side quests, Skyrim's insane overpowering early on and Fallout 3's large world severely lacking in variation (and challenge, the off-putting AI is also a big minus for me).

As far as mainstreaming goes though, I'm not above enjoying titles that are mainstream, heck; I love FIFA 15 (despite hating EA), but the vast majority of mainstream RPG's take it either too far or not far enough, especially where writing, difficulty and immersion are concerned.
A lot of customers seem to want button mashing and slick, shallow dialogue, but those are not my idea of a good RPG.
Skyrim would be a good example of a very mainstream title that I did enjoy.


I don't really understand the whole "mainstream" argument. What does it mean?

W3 isn't an easy game, yknow, if that's what people are saying. It's freaking difficult and that's what's great about it. Maybe that's why people hate it? That it's hard and takes awhile to figure out the combat system?

That's very probably the case for many, in terms of challenge and progression, The Witcher 3 is more suited for fans of the Souls games than fans of Skyrim or Mass Effect.

The Gothic games were also really hard, unforgiving even, especially if you stepped into a part of the world with monsters far exceeding your level and capability to kill, which happened frequently as you explored.

I don't consider TW3 to be a very mainstream title, it has a very different spell system, the combat is hard and requires mobility and tactics, as well as preparation and it relies a lot more on the human element in narration rather than fantastic things like destiny, chosen ones and dragons and other cliches.



Around the Network
Mummelmann said:

That's very probably the case for many, in terms of challenge and progression, The Witcher 3 is more suited for fans of the Souls games than fans of Skyrim or Mass Effect.

The Gothic games were also really hard, unforgiving even, especially if you stepped into a part of the world with monsters far exceeding your level and capability to kill, which happened frequently as you explored.

I don't consider TW3 to be a very mainstream title, it has a very different spell system, the combat is hard and requires mobility and tactics, as well as preparation and it relies a lot more on the human element in narration rather than fantastic things like destiny, chosen ones and dragons and other cliches.

 

So why is everyone posting on this thread dismissing W3 as mainstream? I don't get it. It's not hard "enough" for them?



Mummelmann said:
HoloDust said:

Yeah, it definitely not as mainstreamed as those games, perhaps that's why some people find it difficult to get into - IMO, it happens often when (what are usually more of a niche) genres get into mainstream and have as much hype as W3 had.

On the other side, as a fellow Gothic fan, I'm sure you can see how much it pales in certain design desicions compared to Gothics, land design vs quests for me being worst offender - honestly, even Skellige, that is way better designed than Velen, has its fair share of problems - I feel like they've really tried to make big world just for the sake of it and went too horizontal. But even compared to Witcher 2, specially Flotsam, a lot of places in W3 tend to be dull.

But, you're right, finding flaws in W3 and then pitting it against Skyrim as example of excellent open-world WRPG is quite silly, given how much latter was mutilated compared to Morrowind in order to catter to mainstream.


Gothic 3 is very varied without coming off as silly, having different civilizations across such a relatively small map could have been a disaster but the towns and characters emote enough of an atmosphere to make it work. The voice-acting is often off key though.

I think a large part of the reason I enjoy The Witcher 3 more than Gothic is that I really, really enjoy the mythology, world and overall setting, this is also why I choose to forgive the cardinal sin of too much exposition dialogue in the book(s); I simply like it.

Gothic 3 has its fair share of problems, but what I value the most in open-world RPGs is how good is exploration vs quest design and no hand holding. Witcher 3 lost me fairly early on in that regard, Velen is too horizontal and too overgrown and playing with POIs is such a poor way to experience it, but without them game often turns into waste of time.

True, initial Baron story is probably best questline in the whole game, but, for me, whole exploration part of the game is nowhere near as good as Gothic games. Honestly, Skellige is what brought me back to game, it almost felt at first like it was designed by some other people and I've enjoyed it quite a bit more (without POIs of course).

I do however understand why you like Witcher more, but, for me, the balance of all things and all the options you have is simply way better in Gothics. Not to mention that, if you like to, you can kill every last NPC in game and still finish the story, one of the things I really score high in these type of games. But, and I said in other threads, Witcher is not designed to have that sort of character freedom, I appreciate and understand that, but I also think that it would be better game if it was more linear like W2, plus they wouldn't loose so much from W2 (again, nothing in W3 compares to how alive Flotsam in W2 feels).

Mummelmann said:

Skyrim is a really good game but I've never gotten past the 50-55 hour mark, the world is just too similar, that's also one of my main gripes with Fallout 3; locations are extremely similar to one another and you find the same enemies, loot and items absolutely everywhere. This is an area where I find a game like Kingdoms of Amalur to be superior to most open-world RPG's (even though it's not truly a completely open world).

Honestly, I was never big TES fan, Daggerfall was decent, Morrowind I liked a lot, but they've started losing me somewhat again with Oblivion. Skyrim was for me nice looking apple with not such a great taste, tbh.

As for Fallout, for some reason I've enjoyed it more than Skyrim, even though I'm huge fan of original Fallouts, even though F3 is but a ghost of F1/2 in all regards and even though I can say a lot, and I mean a LOT of shit about F3. But yeah, locations in F3 are very similar and tend to be dull - so different than variety of F1/2.

In the end, I do find W3 quite satisfying experience and I would recommend it easily to every WRPG fan, specially if open-world solo character variety is their thing, given how rare actually those games are.



bugrimmar said:
Mummelmann said:

That's very probably the case for many, in terms of challenge and progression, The Witcher 3 is more suited for fans of the Souls games than fans of Skyrim or Mass Effect.

The Gothic games were also really hard, unforgiving even, especially if you stepped into a part of the world with monsters far exceeding your level and capability to kill, which happened frequently as you explored.

I don't consider TW3 to be a very mainstream title, it has a very different spell system, the combat is hard and requires mobility and tactics, as well as preparation and it relies a lot more on the human element in narration rather than fantastic things like destiny, chosen ones and dragons and other cliches.

So why is everyone posting on this thread dismissing W3 as mainstream? I don't get it. It's not hard "enough" for them?


It's not really mainstream, it's more of a mainstreamed in comparison of what it could've been. And it's not really only about how hard combat is (though, compared to Gothic it is quite easy), but for example how devs are almost affraid to make convoluted caves/dungeons, something that was always pretty much staple of all more 'core' c/W/RPGs.



Mummelmann said:
HoloDust said:
Mummelmann said:
Seems like a really dividing topic. I can see how a lot of people would be put off by it, it's not like Skyrim or Fallout, certainly not Mass Effect.
I disagree with the notion that it is so heavily mainstream though, certainly more so than the first two but still miles behind ME, Skyrim and Dragon Age, with Gothic being the main influence, this should be clear, one would be hard-pressed to call Gothic the series mainstream (as mentioned, Gothic 3 is my second favorite open world RPG).
I'm surprised that quite a few found such gaping flaws and issues in TW3 and then use games Skyrim and Fallout 3 as examples of better productions; these two titles (and others) certainly have their fair share of gaping flaws.

 

Yeah, it definitely not as mainstreamed as those games, perhaps that's why some people find it difficult to get into - IMO, it happens often when (what are usually more of a niche) genres get into mainstream and have as much hype as W3 had.

On the other side, as a fellow Gothic fan, I'm sure you can see how much it pales in certain design desicions compared to Gothics, land design vs quests for me being worst offender - honestly, even Skellige, that is way better designed than Velen, has its fair share of problems - I feel like they've really tried to make big world just for the sake of it and went too horizontal. But even compared to Witcher 2, specially Flotsam, a lot of places in W3 tend to be dull.

But, you're right, finding flaws in W3 and then pitting it against Skyrim as example of excellent open-world WRPG is quite silly, given how much latter was mutilated compared to Morrowind in order to catter to mainstream.


Gothic 3 is very varied without coming off as silly, having different civilizations across such a relatively small map could have been a disaster but the towns and characters emote enough of an atmosphere to make it work. The voice-acting is often off key though.

I think a large part of the reason I enjoy The Witcher 3 more than Gothic is that I really, really enjoy the mythology, world and overall setting, this is also why I choose to forgive the cardinal sin of too much exposition dialogue in the book(s); I simply like it.

Skyrim is a really good game but I've never gotten past the 50-55 hour mark, the world is just too similar, that's also one of my main gripes with Fallout 3; locations are extremely similar to one another and you find the same enemies, loot and items absolutely everywhere. This is an area where I find a game like Kingdoms of Amalur to be superior to most open-world RPG's (even though it's not truly a completely open world).
My main running issue with the Elder Scrolls games is the tendency to become grossly overpowered almost regardless of the choices you make, you reach a point where the challenge stops and it never comes back, Skyrim manages to be even worse than Oblivion in this regard.
This is another thing I love about The Witcher 3; the level progression is slow and the challenge is present all the time, even at 55 hours in, I'm still getting my ass kicked rather often either by making mistakes or by simply running into monsters with a higher level.

Like I said; I understand people's complaints, I really do, but the setting, music, voice-acting, combat, crafting, visuals and almost everything in The Witcher 3 sits really well with me and I've yet to find something that annoys me as much as Mass Effect's side quests, Skyrim's insane overpowering early on and Fallout 3's large world severely lacking in variation (and challenge, the off-putting AI is also a big minus for me).

As far as mainstreaming goes though, I'm not above enjoying titles that are mainstream, heck; I love FIFA 15 (despite hating EA), but the vast majority of mainstream RPG's take it either too far or not far enough, especially where writing, difficulty and immersion are concerned.
A lot of customers seem to want button mashing and slick, shallow dialogue, but those are not my idea of a good RPG.
Skyrim would be a good example of a very mainstream title that I did enjoy.


OK, it won't be perfect, but I'd say what I read is more than enough to confirm TW3 in my wishlist.
About Gothic, just a few things I don't like:
- although I like the attack control scheme, not having shields I'd have preferred a one-button control to parry;
with the mouse button + direction key attack scheme, circling and attacking with melee weapons makes only possible to do attacks with sideways slashes, as you need to hold a side direction button to circle the enemy facing it, this also makes impossible to circle and strafe the enemies with ranged weapons, as they require the forward key to attack , and unlike melee weapons, they require to prepare the bow first with the mouse button, THEN shot with forward direction key, so you cannot start an attack with them while still moving, not a terrible flaw, though, as circle and attack is only really almost necessary with trolls and they are immune to arrows;
- another little flaw is that non-human and non-humanoid enemy attacks can only be dodged, not parried, and if you don't time your dodging move well, they have a 100% chance to hit you, while you don't get that even with 100% weapon proficiency, and dodging isn' perfect in another way, at least with orcs, skeletons, snappers, dragon snappers and fire lizards, unlike what would be logical, stepping back gives a greater chance to dodge the attack than stepping sideways (actually maybe that's true also with other enemies, but when you have the longest reach and most powerful one and two-handed swords and axes, you can disrupt their attacks and quicly kill them attacking first, a thing impossible with the strongest enemies, as they have longer reach and they are still alive and able to quickly strike back even after receiving the strongest blows).
Naturally I don't complain having enemies still challenging even after becoming very strong, neither I complain about complex controls, I just complain about a few design choices that make dodging less realistic and some attacks or defences more difficult or impossible, wasting a little of the potential the game has with its combat where stats only influence the damage dealt, but once reached master proficiency with a weapon class, it's the player's skill that really decides success against the strongest enemies;
- another flaw is that, at least in Gothic II, the latest unofficial patch, while fixing all the worst bugs remaining, broke some sidequests, or in some cases, just some steps of them;
- final flaw for me, I'd have liked GII world to be larger, when you're still weak it looks larger, but when you're strong, and you can take shortcuts without being killed by the strongest enemies, you realise the world is quite small, and if you have played Gothic I before, in the Valley of Mines you'll see they cut away quite large parts of it, you can still reach them climbing over mountains, but they are totally empty and deserted, what a waste!



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf said:


OK, it won't be perfect, but I'd say what I read is more than enough to confirm TW3 in my wishlist.
About Gothic, just a few things I don't like:
- although I like the attack control scheme, not having shields I'd have preferred a one-button control to parry;
with the mouse button + direction key attack scheme, circling and attacking with melee weapons makes only possible to do attacks with sideways slashes, as you need to hold a side direction button to circle the enemy facing it, this also makes impossible to circle and strafe the enemies with ranged weapons, as they require the forward key to attack , and unlike melee weapons, they require to prepare the bow first with the mouse button, THEN shot with forward direction key, so you cannot start an attack with them while still moving, not a terrible flaw, though, as circle and attack is only really almost necessary with trolls and they are immune to arrows;
- another little flaw is that non-human and non-humanoid enemy attacks can only be dodged, not parried, and if you don't time your dodging move well, they have a 100% chance to hit you, while you don't get that even with 100% weapon proficiency, and dodging isn' perfect in another way, at least with orcs, skeletons, snappers, dragon snappers and fire lizards, unlike what would be logical, stepping back gives a greater chance to dodge the attack than stepping sideways (actually maybe that's true also with other enemies, but when you have the longest reach and most powerful one and two-handed swords and axes, you can disrupt their attacks and quicly kill them attacking first, a thing impossible with the strongest enemies, as they have longer reach and they are still alive and able to quickly strike back even after receiving the strongest blows).
Naturally I don't complain having enemies still challenging even after becoming very strong, neither I complain about complex controls, I just complain about a few design choices that make dodging less realistic and some attacks or defences more difficult or impossible, wasting a little of the potential the game has with its combat where stats only influence the damage dealt, but once reached master proficiency with a weapon class, it's the player's skill that really decides success against the strongest enemies;
- another flaw is that, at least in Gothic II, the latest unofficial patch, while fixing all the worst bugs remaining, broke some sidequests, or in some cases, just some steps of them;
- final flaw for me, I'd have liked GII world to be larger, when you're still weak it looks larger, but when you're strong, and you can take shortcuts without being killed by the strongest enemies, you realise the world is quite small, and if you have played Gothic I before, in the Valley of Mines you'll see they cut away quite large parts of it, you can still reach them climbing over mountains, but they are totally empty and deserted, what a waste!


The combat in the Gothic series takes a lot of getting used to and I dare say that most mainstream gamers of today who are used to more modern and "streamlined" combat mechanics (or no combat system at all, the "press button to mindlessly whack" recipe has become the biggest thing now) would not approve. In Gothic 1 and 2, it was very easy to side-step incoming strikes and charges from beasts, making it a circular dance with strikes to the enemy flank until they died, by my 3rd playthrough, I had the timing down so I could easily kill an Orc Scout a few levels higher than me using only a branch and no armor and this technique.

In Gothic 3, you are punished badly for missing the stride or distance and when a foe manages to land a strike, you are often staggered and open to several strikes in rapid succession. Enemies are also vulnerable to this though, which made almost every single arena fight, except the very hardest ones against the Hashishin, a breeze, beasts are a lot more challenging in G3 though, compared to G1 and G2.

In The Witcher 3, you can move faster and further than in Gothic and movements make more sense and are a lot more responsive. People who complain about the controls must be having trouble on the user end of things, I haven't had any issues with it. Combat is difficult and often frustrating but all the more rewarding when you down a challenging foe, whereas in TES games and even the Gothic series, murdering almost everything in your path becomes too easy at some point.
I enjoy the sense of peril, but I can see how some would not. The V.A.T.S system in the Fallout games also bothered me a great deal; it was way overpowered and enabled massive critical damage with poor weapons against rather tough foes, ammo is too plentiful and the healing is too simplified as well, I never got the sense that I was in mortal danger when I carried 150 stimpacks that could insta-heal any and all injury while the game was paused in the inventory.
Not unlike regenerating health in shooters, I find that it takes something away from the game, confrontations becomes nuisance or routine rather than a task that offers challenge and required thought and tactic.

This is the problem with developers who want their RPG's to attain a larger audience; they make these large scale, grand and expensive productions with plenty of mechanics and possibilities but then add a bunch off hand-holding, deus ex machina spells, gear or plot twists and decide that most gamers are either too stupid or too timid to accept a proper challenge.
Yes, there are higher difficulty modes in most of these games, but that doesn't change the fact that the game was designed from the core to appeal to a segment of gamers who would not want to play it on a higher setting, which makes the jumps in difficulty unfitting and unnatural in many cases, and they often rely on cheap tricks and downright cheats or exploits to make things harder.
I've never had this feeling in The Witcher 3, instead I see a game brimming with mechanics that were clearly intended for presenting the audience with a proper challenge, and the consequences from quest decisions and choices are also a lot more tangible and real than in any other title in the same genre I ever played, which only adds to this tension.
Mass Effect had the right idea in those instances where you were more or less forced to choose who dies, but it was also quite arbitrary at times and often didn't make a whole lot of sense on the whole, and the Paragon system was extremely black & white, which is among on of Bioware's biggest faults in game and character design, they seem to have forgotten that they ever made two of the best RPG's in history (Baldur's gate I and II).

Geralt of Rivia is not an evil character or a good character and there's really nothing you can do in the game to make him clearly either; instead he is presented as a gray character who is more unpredictable and not locked in a system where choices and consequences are always crystal clear, the same goes for a lot of other characters in the game; very rarely have I come across people I could classify in a sense of good or bad, or good or evil if you will.
This is not the case at all in Skyrim, Mass Effect or Fallout, but to a greater extent in Gothic (yes, I find the Gothic series to be superior to TES).

Again; I understand the complaints people have but I still find many of them hollow and even somewhat surreal when reading the alternatives and suggestions or opinions on titles that supposedly did certain aspects better. From any objective standpoint, The Witcher 3 should be admired and praised for what it is; a great open-world RPG from a studio that is going against norm and convention, whether or not someone likes it. I'm not a huge fan of the Gears of War games, but I still recognize their value and the deserved praise for what they are; great 3rd person shooters.
CDProjekt are in some ways the Piranha Bytes of Poland and we should be glad that not only the same old RPG's franchises from the same developers manage to sell decent numbers, breadth and variation is the key to a healthy industry and CDProjekt have even proven that you don't need a 50-100 million dollar budget to create something grand with high production values (yes, Polish salaries are obviously lower than American or English ones, but not nearly that much lower, there is clearly something fishy in the development process of some major developers).

PS: If anyone wants to use glitches and bugs as an argument as to why TW3 is below Skyrim or Gothic 3 or similar games; please don't. TES games are notorious for bugs, huge ones at that, Fallout is almost worse and Gothic 3 was literally unplayable until the second major patch came out.



I still have to play it...I have no doubts on acknowledging it is a massive well made game. Witcher 1 and 2 were good but a bit tedious imo. But I hardly think that Witcher 3 can surpass Ni no Kuni, Mass Effect or even Dragon Age Inquisition at least as a personal favourite.



yes, sir



Mummelmann said:

The combat in the Gothic series takes a lot of getting used to and I dare say that most mainstream gamers of today who are used to more modern and "streamlined" combat mechanics (or no combat system at all, the "press button to mindlessly whack" recipe has become the biggest thing now) would not approve. In Gothic 1 and 2, it was very easy to side-step incoming strikes and charges from beasts, making it a circular dance with strikes to the enemy flank until they died, by my 3rd playthrough, I had the timing down so I could easily kill an Orc Scout a few levels higher than me using only a branch and no armor and this technique.

In Gothic 3, you are punished badly for missing the stride or distance and when a foe manages to land a strike, you are often staggered and open to several strikes in rapid succession. Enemies are also vulnerable to this though, which made almost every single arena fight, except the very hardest ones against the Hashishin, a breeze, beasts are a lot more challenging in G3 though, compared to G1 and G2.

In The Witcher 3, you can move faster and further than in Gothic and movements make more sense and are a lot more responsive. People who complain about the controls must be having trouble on the user end of things, I haven't had any issues with it. Combat is difficult and often frustrating but all the more rewarding when you down a challenging foe, whereas in TES games and even the Gothic series, murdering almost everything in your path becomes too easy at some point.
I enjoy the sense of peril, but I can see how some would not. The V.A.T.S system in the Fallout games also bothered me a great deal; it was way overpowered and enabled massive critical damage with poor weapons against rather tough foes, ammo is too plentiful and the healing is too simplified as well, I never got the sense that I was in mortal danger when I carried 150 stimpacks that could insta-heal any and all injury while the game was paused in the inventory.
Not unlike regenerating health in shooters, I find that it takes something away from the game, confrontations becomes nuisance or routine rather than a task that offers challenge and required thought and tactic.

This is the problem with developers who want their RPG's to attain a larger audience; they make these large scale, grand and expensive productions with plenty of mechanics and possibilities but then add a bunch off hand-holding, deus ex machina spells, gear or plot twists and decide that most gamers are either too stupid or too timid to accept a proper challenge.
Yes, there are higher difficulty modes in most of these games, but that doesn't change the fact that the game was designed from the core to appeal to a segment of gamers who would not want to play it on a higher setting, which makes the jumps in difficulty unfitting and unnatural in many cases, and they often rely on cheap tricks and downright cheats or exploits to make things harder.
I've never had this feeling in The Witcher 3, instead I see a game brimming with mechanics that were clearly intended for presenting the audience with a proper challenge, and the consequences from quest decisions and choices are also a lot more tangible and real than in any other title in the same genre I ever played, which only adds to this tension.
Mass Effect had the right idea in those instances where you were more or less forced to choose who dies, but it was also quite arbitrary at times and often didn't make a whole lot of sense on the whole, and the Paragon system was extremely black & white, which is among on of Bioware's biggest faults in game and character design, they seem to have forgotten that they ever made two of the best RPG's in history (Baldur's gate I and II).

Geralt of Rivia is not an evil character or a good character and there's really nothing you can do in the game to make him clearly either; instead he is presented as a gray character who is more unpredictable and not locked in a system where choices and consequences are always crystal clear, the same goes for a lot of other characters in the game; very rarely have I come across people I could classify in a sense of good or bad, or good or evil if you will.
This is not the case at all in Skyrim, Mass Effect or Fallout, but to a greater extent in Gothic (yes, I find the Gothic series to be superior to TES).

Again; I understand the complaints people have but I still find many of them hollow and even somewhat surreal when reading the alternatives and suggestions or opinions on titles that supposedly did certain aspects better. From any objective standpoint, The Witcher 3 should be admired and praised for what it is; a great open-world RPG from a studio that is going against norm and convention, whether or not someone likes it. I'm not a huge fan of the Gears of War games, but I still recognize their value and the deserved praise for what they are; great 3rd person shooters.
CDProjekt are in some ways the Piranha Bytes of Poland and we should be glad that not only the same old RPG's franchises from the same developers manage to sell decent numbers, breadth and variation is the key to a healthy industry and CDProjekt have even proven that you don't need a 50-100 million dollar budget to create something grand with high production values (yes, Polish salaries are obviously lower than American or English ones, but not nearly that much lower, there is clearly something fishy in the development process of some major developers).

PS: If anyone wants to use glitches and bugs as an argument as to why TW3 is below Skyrim or Gothic 3 or similar games; please don't. TES games are notorious for bugs, huge ones at that, Fallout is almost worse and Gothic 3 was literally unplayable until the second major patch came out.


Fair points about overpowering, in Gothics you can really become overpowered later in game when you're good at magic (Summon Demon spell in G3 is specially ludicrous). On other hand, Roach with Nekkers Warrior decoction is present quite early in the W3, so you can take on enemies that are a lot, and I mean a LOT stronger than you - not really something that you will find in Gothics.

I do also see CDPR as sort of new PB, just, due to having GOG, being able to put a lot more money into their games. To be honest, I would still take PB over CDPR any time, but given how rare good open-world WPRGs are, I'm looking forward to their future games - I'm just hoping that they will not go the way of Bethesda and TES, and allow themselves to do something like Skyrim after gem that Morrowind was.

On the side note, I would really love to see folks stop comparing W3 with anything but other open-world WRPGs games - IMO, some of the games mentioned in this thread alone are quite silly, given vastly different nature.



Best RPG in general is a bit of a lot. Maybe best single player open world medieval fantasy RPG.

As for best RPG in general, I don't know if it beats out Mass Effect 2, Xenoblade Chronicles or Dark Souls. But those are older and get a bit of added credit for having survived the test of time imo. We'll have to wait n see how Witcher 3 is regarded in a few years. Skyrim, for example, seemed to lose a bit of the acclaim over time. (although is still a brilliant game)