HoloDust said:
Yeah, I woudn't even know how to rate TW3 - for me it goes from 6.5-9.5 depending of the element in question. But overall, I was not very happy with it in the end - and while I enjoyed it, it really underdelivered for what I was expecting. But maybe I'll try it again in a few years, with no expectations and see how I feel then. As for Fallout, I don't think we'll agree - FO1/2 are one of my all time favorite games, so FO3, while decent as non-FO game, was a huge dissapointment for me as FO game. But FO4, again for me, was not very good game no matter how I look at it, I don't even consider it to be RPG and it was really horrible FO. Someday, someone will maybe make (though I doubt it would be AAA dev) proper open world action RPG again - something that mixes best parts of Gothic, Morrowind and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, augmented by good combat system - now that would be an actual revolution in action RPG design. |
Like I said, I just need to emphasize how good it feels to have at least someone on the same page. And it's not part of a mission to hate on Witcher 3, no. It's just to feel that there's somebody out there who "understands", and who shares the same basis or worldview in how to analyze of games (for lack of better words).
Interesting score to Witcher 3 you have! That spread. To me personally, Witcher 3 is a weaker version of Red Dead Redemption (which I loved to death), but hard to give an overall representative score. I would spread it out like that too, depending on element.
As for Fallout 4 I just want to clarify that I don't really consider it an RPG either, I hope I was clear on that. But I disagree with you in the overall analysis. A huge disappointment, yes, but I think Fallout 4 has some great qualities and is overall "a great" game, because the gunplay is very smooth, the funfactor is high and the world is interesting and feels alive and the game offers so much, it really feels like a world ( the game has a high world simulation factor). The negatives are the same as has been stated a million times by others - the dumbed down RPG-elements and especially the story, characters, dialogue and morality system are weak compared with the predecessors and the competition. I am happy Fallout 4 got so much criticism though because it will almost guaranteed mean that Bethesda will improve on those areas next time for sure. And this is one reason for my big frustration with Witcher 3's enormous universal praise, that obviously people don't agree with me, so the kind of elements I am worried about, nothing says those will change in the future. No, the more people praise it as "the new standard for RPG", the bigger the risk that those elements (or lack of elements) will be implemented in other games.
I feel really sad about this, and I can't even articulate and communicate properly Witcher 3's weaknesses in simple terms and in what way I think Skyrim/Oblivion are so superior to Witcher 3 despite their weaknesses. People will only see it as... that I'm a stupid and biased Bethesda fanboy really. It's frustrating as hell, and here I am with a wall of text again.
As a note, I had never played a Fallout game before Fallout 3, that's probably why I loved that game so much (on the other hand I had played a lot of Morrowind for years before Oblivion and that game immediately became my best games of all time).
Yeah, "proper open world action RPGs" and the future. The full blown RPG, that's what we will miss. I love Dark Souls but to me it's not 100% RPG, and it's definitely not proper open world.
What about Red Dead Redemption 2? Not an RPG obviously, but do you think it will be a fantastic open world game? And Mount & Blade: Bannerlord looks fabulous (is genre-wise more a strategy/simulation than "open world RPG" though).