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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Witcher 3 vs Fallout 4 - Gameplaywise

 

Which game has the better gameplay?

Fallout 4 67 29.39%
 
The Witcher 3 160 70.18%
 
Total:227
pokoko on 19 November 2015
HoloDust said:


Yeah, well give someone in real life minigun with similiar in-game physique as in 'Small frame' (as in FO1/2/NV trait) that is weak (like my character with STR 3), and see how they do.

As for chess analogy, it's actually great one, pieces indeed theoretically can move wherever you like them, but if you do not play by very set rules, you're not playing chess. If you play chess against software, it won't allow you illegal moves, but you won't make any, since you're playing...you now, chess.

Now if you want to wield minigun, you should have requirements and rules that govern that, not your self-restrain mechanism on. Of course, it seems you're fine with them removing strength restriction, but what I'm reading from that is that you don't really want Fallout RPG, but Fallout FPS with RPG elements...like Far Cry and similar games.



Around the Network
pokoko on 19 November 2015
Mummelmann said:


How does it break immersion that a character with low strength isn't able to wield a ridiculously large gun? For me, it's the other way around; my immersion is broken when I can wield that gun with low strength. I guess we just like different things.

It seems that some of the things that you love about this game are the very same that I dislike, and there's nothing wrong with that. But I honestly don't understand how certain restrictions in the game world breaks immersion.

SvennoJ: I played AD&D, Rolemaster, Battletech, VTM and a few custom made RPG's when I grew up and even though rules were negotiable in some cases, there were still stats, skills, classes, thac0, AC and other factors that were firmly set in the game's mechanics.
In later additions (v.3), a wizard could wield a sword but would never get very good with it, in rolemaster, you could wear chainmail as a spellcaster but it had a chance to interfere with the magic etc.

There was never anything like pokoko is describing here in tabletop RPG's; there were restrictions and the choices you made when you created your character stuck with you for better or for worse and no one character could master everything. That would have removed the whole point of those games since it's all about building an adventuring group with different skills and abilities to best make it unscathed through dungeons and quests.
Having 3-5 overpowered ultra characters basically without restrictions would have completely ruined the whole concept, even my custom RPG's had classes with skill systems and certain restriction, so for me, this is a hugely important part of RPG's.
Not everyone may agree, sure, but I don't see that tabletop RPG's have much in common with Fallout 4 when it comes to restrictions and rules, and I surely don't see that this ever made it any less fun.
For me, it was the opposite; the most exciting parts were when your group faced challenges they weren't well equipped to handle and had to think and use strategy rather than just pounce and smash (this is especially true for Rolemaster, where combat is deadly).

It breaks immersion for me because, with one point in strength, I go from not even being able to equip a gun, to using it effectively.  I'm strong enough to be an expert shot with a .44 magnum but when I stumble across a 5.56mm pistol, I can't even fire it?  I was really annoyed by this mechanic and I'm glad it's gone.  I was always sacrificing for gear that gave me +str--but then'd I'd need to switch gear and I couldn't use a favorite weapon.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying, really.  It's not that I like one kind of game, it's that I can enjoy different kinds.  I love all kinds of RPGs.  I would say, though, that I like restrictive class systems more when I have multiple party members.  Single-player games where I keep getting loot that I can't even use can get annoying.



Mummelmann on 19 November 2015
SvennoJ said:

@Mummelmann But you chose to strictly adhere to those mechanics. We used the rules as a guideline and played it more as a choose your path adventure, decisions determined by dice. Combat was of minor importance, never resulted in death, a shortcut or flee and find another way situation. Nor did we ever find items we couldn't use because of stat restrictions, and since we were a complimentary group of characters, we could use all abilities. It was all about finding solutions, well mostly about having a good laugh though.

That's how I play F4 nowadays, fun first. I had fun trying out the fat boy, minigun, power armor, glad I didn't have to wait for some arbitrary stat point or even make a whole new character. Yet after that I continued role playing without.


Then you played differently than us, that's for sure. I wouldn't see any meaning in even owning the rule books if we were just going to bend and stretch the entire concept. If you had fun; good for you! But that's not how I like to play RPG's at all and would feel meaningless.

pokoko; that's nice but is she moving around with it? Is she hitting any targets and carrying several thousand bullets in addition to a bunch of other gear? Is that minigun anywhere near the size of the one in F4?
I can lift a 50 pound sword easily enough, that doesn't mean I would be able to fight with it properly.

I think we just need to conclude that we see things differently, pure and simple. I enjoy systems and mechanics that offer challenge and replayability for me and logical restrictions that keep me from getting overpowered and too multi-talented, clearly you don't, and that's fine.

Edit; saw your post above. I also enjoy different things, but these things in Fallout 4, Skyrim, Diablo 3 and Mass Effect 2 and 3 really bother me and they make the experience lesser than it could be.



SvennoJ on 19 November 2015
Mummelmann said:


Then you played differently than us, that's for sure. I wouldn't see any meaning in even owning the rule books if we were just going to bend and stretch the entire concept. If you had fun; good for you! But that's not how I like to play RPG's at all and would feel meaningless.

pokoko; that's nice but is she moving around with it? Is she hitting any targets and carrying several thousand bullets in addition to a bunch of other gear? Is that minigun anywhere near the size of the one in F4?
I can lift a 50 pound sword easily enough, that doesn't mean I would be able to fight with it properly.

I think we just need to conclude that we see things differently, pure and simple. I enjoy systems and mechanics that offer challenge and replayability for me and logical restrictions that keep me from getting overpowered and too multi-talented, clearly you don't, and that's fine.

Edit; saw your post above. I also enjoy different things, but these things in Fallout 4, Skyrim, Diablo 3 and Mass Effect 2 and 3 really bother me and they make the experience lesser than it could be.

True, the scenarios were more important to us than the rule books. The character sheets were still useful to determine who was best suited to do what and how to play the role. However nobody cared about levelling up, it was considered more as a chore lol.

Arguing that she can't carry all the gear reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8dhMF3IqbY
That's only a few guns, in TW3 and F4 you carry a decent size U-Haul on your back.

I guess I'm in the camp of pushing against the rules. I have no problem with using glitches to my advantage or simply to ignore certain less fun mechanics. Hence when TW3 forces me to do things a certain way it lessens my enjoyment. Although I still had fun killing infinite respawning enemies with Ciri while trying to find gaps in the invisible fences. I did get through the invisible fence yet was still on the big rock with only death below unfortunately.
Picking up stuff that you can't use is always annoying. Do you carry it around for maybe when you get to use it and have it just sit there taking space. Or sell it and regret it later. It's also why I didn't like the crafting in TW3. I make something I worked hard for, can't use it yet. By the time I can use it, I've found something better. Bleh.



HoloDust on 19 November 2015
pokoko said:

It breaks immersion for me because, with one point in strength, I go from not even being able to equip a gun, to using it effectively.  I'm strong enough to be an expert shot with a .44 magnum but when I stumble across a 5.56mm pistol, I can't even fire it?  I was really annoyed by this mechanic and I'm glad it's gone.  I was always sacrificing for gear that gave me +str--but then'd I'd need to switch gear and I couldn't use a favorite weapon.


They should've solved the problem differently, with penalties, not removing STR requirement completely - why leaving hacking requirements then, for example? System now feels very arbitrary.

I'm well aware what they're doing with IP, they're moving further away from original GURPS base, but if they're trying to make it more FPS-RPG then there is proper ways to do that - if you have STR 3 (by the way, that is STR req. for 10mm pistol in FO1/2, so that's almost child-like) and want to wield mini-gun...sure, no problem, you'll just loose your stamina exceptionaly fast, and when you're firing it will jump around a lot.

Now we have situations where there are remnants of RPG system of original, with FPS gameplay of FO4...so when I want to snipe raider at long distance with my recon scope sniper rifle, I get into VATS and it's showing me max 10% hit chance...which is fine, if I don't have skill, I shouldn't be able to hit him...but then I exit the VATS, and I headshot him with first bullet...and then another raider and another, because when I 'breathe', my skills as character are completely irrelevant.

Silly thing is, Bethesda had fairly good system before...I remember in Mororowind, I started with character with low athletics...well sorry mate, you won't be able to jump much...but that's fine, I'm an old wizard who doesn't need to jump because I have this mean spells. But now, they're just afraid of what the average CoD player will think of their game, so let's not bother much with all that RPG nonsense.



Around the Network
Mystro-Sama on 20 November 2015

What I really like is that both games are so close that there is no clear answer.



bananaking21 on 21 November 2015
Mystro-Sama said:
What I really like is that both games are so close that there is no clear answer.


once you play the witcher 3 you will realize that its one of the best games ever made. and what you just posted is simply not true

 

(this is coming from someone who hasnt played fallout 4, and fell in love with TW3 and considers it one of the best games EVER)



SvennoJ on 21 November 2015

Fallout 4 keeps going strong, still surprising me while TW3 had already fallen into a familiar routine. Granted, I'm going very slow as I keep distracting myself with building stuff. Without the settlement building it might have fallen into routine too.



Skullwaker on 21 November 2015
John2290 said:

There us a clear answer, fallout 4 isn't even close to the quality of The witCher 3.

Opinions are a thing.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

S.T.A.G.E. on 21 November 2015

I am waiting to find out what Fallout is like, myself. I have All three games that you've mentioned in my library right now and MGS5 and Fallout are on backlog until I finish Tomb Raider 1 & 2. The Witcher is f'n amazing though and I am holding back on my second playthrough to play new game plus with the two expansions in January (yes, Indeed, I am crazy).