How can Zelda even compete?

How can Zelda even compete?

How can For Honor even compete?

by making a world that isnt a bunch of generic trees and mountains

It can't. Zelda looks like a 2003 non-AAA open world game. You know, like the ones NOT made by Rockstar.

It can't

Witcher 3 is and always will be the greatest open world rpg ever made

Until the next CDPR title

Hey user let me tell you a secret. They are not competing and you can play and enjoy both games!

By not having shit combat and shit controls

and replacing with generic fog

See those mountains?

You can climb those.

Is Witcher 3 Complete edition worth 30 bucks if I've already beat the main campaign on medium difficulty (but didn't really explore every nook and cranny of the world)?

I feel like there isn't as much meaningful exploration as Skyrim

It can't. I tdoesn't even have casual sex.

By not having Link die canonically to some yokel wielding a pitchfork.

Simplicity
Thats always been Zelda's key to success, thats also what made people hate SS, it was trying to be too complex.

I have never played Witcher. Is getting 3 okay?

>the witcher series
>good

Can't even jump.
Shitty combat.
Load screens everywhere.
Physics from 2001
No dynamic weather

What a scam.

You literally can jump, you haven't even played this game retard

if anyone tries to respond to this seriously, I will fucking find you and murder you

by having an interesting gameplay

...

...

>'simplicity'
>have to manage gear that always loses durability and gets deleted
>huge world with nothing to do in it

This will be Zelda's downfall.

>implying zelda combat is ever actually good.

So its basically games for children?

lol you didn't play witcher 3

>literally witcher for little kids
>interesting

lmaoing at ur lyfe m9

>Implying TW combat isn't worse

it's fucking god tier when facing anything put out by nintendo ever.
Not like that's some huge bar to vault over.

What the fuck is wrong with you anyway, OP?
This is like pitting a UFC belt holder against a preschooler.

I loved TW3 and I'm going to love Zelda: BOTW

Sup Forums memed me into buying this game.

Never again will I make the mistake.

I played it coming off of Dark Souls II of all games and fucking hell the combat in the Witcher III was such garbage.

The story was so boring. I have no idea how I was supposed to give a shit about it. The armor looks retarded. Even Gwent is overhyped -- it's easy as shit to destroy everyone in the game. The gameboy color Yu-Gi-Oh! game provides more of a challenge.

The Witcher also uses that terrible minimap-based gameplay. The game is 3D but you can accomplish everything by looking at the minimap. The land is littered with grainy shrubs everywhere and it clutters your vision. It really isn't pretty to look at unless you're high up on a rock face.

The magic is also lame as hell. Quest 64 had more visually impressive magic than this game.

>how can Zelda even compete

They aren't even the same genre OP. But how can the Witcher compete? See those trees? Can't chop them. Those weapons? Can't wield them. That grass? Can't burn it. That mountain? Can't climb it? That cutscene? Can't skip it. That mini map? Can't hide it. That gap? Can't glide it. That Dungeon? Neither do I... Those bosses? Neither do I... Varied combat? Neither do I... Difficult enemies? Neither do I... Secrets? Neither do I...

I'm literally going to preorder a Switch and Zelda on Amazon right now just to spite you faggots. The Witcher III made Dark Souls II look like a masterpiece in comparison. And the story is shit. You retards need to try reading some books so you can have an idea of what actually makes a compelling story.

P.S. The more story, the worse off the game is.

It's not trying to. You're comparing apples to oranges. They don't compete for the same audiences.

>I'm literally going to preorder a Switch and Zelda on Amazon right now just to spite you faggots
oh shit man don't do that, im already starting feeling triggered

I love the Witcher but I wouldnt call it replayble

I played witcher 3 user, it's generic mountains and trees everywhere. Also, these are two completely different categories of games. RPG =/ Action Adventure

w3 wasn't a good "game". a great world and story but not a good game.

No, W3's combat is no where near as good as Bayo2 or W101.

I'm going to join the bandwagon and shit on completely unrelated game, but yes, Witcher is pretty damn replayable.

By letting you climb that mountain

SO FUCKING UGLY.

you fucking faggot, there is more options in witcher 3 SIDE QUESTS than all of zelda

try playing the game

Does it have the same tree copied and pasted over and over a blank puke-green field?

You can select to play the DLC content from the main menu, no replaying the main game required if you would rather not.

WW and TP had superior combat. Easy as can be, but the core mechanics were stronger

it's not even spectacular considering the downgrade

t. idort

I replayed the whole trilogy three times by now, not even going to count how many times I played the first on its own.
I'm heavily biased, because I'm a slav and especially first game really hit close to the home somehow, so I'm probably not your average fan though.

Loved the game, but Witcher 3 really isn't that replayable. Main quest is very linear and not much changes based on your choices. Compare it to Witcher 2 which was very replayable thanks to Chapter II and to a more limited extent III being entirely different based on your choices.

Geralt is the best fantasy character ever. Especially if you read the books.