Which game redefined Open World more?

...

both didn't do anything new

Skyrim

...

>Zelda had better world interaction than most rpgs before (except for Gothic, which had different kind of good world interaction)
>Witcher had pretty graphics and more pussy interaction (might as well play honey select)

tough decision

Already forgotten user.

fpbp

Both did shit to redefine open world games. At least witcherfags aren't as rabid as zeldafags.

Witcher redefined nothing, it had the same bland, lifeless open world 90% of other western open world games have. Little/no environmental interaction, it served as a pretty backdrop and container for enemies and loot.

Zelda didn't do much that was new either but its open world wasn't bland and lifeless, it has all these little systems and mechanics that work together to create varied experiences. This is what is missing from most open-world games, actual gameplay and thought put into how the player will interact with the world.

Witcher is nothing but presentation and story, Zelda focused on gameplay. Big difference and its quite apparent when playing the two games side by side. Witcher looks nice, that's its strong point.

>Zelda focused on gameplay.

And it was still shit. "Still better than other 3D Zeldas!" means shit when 3D Zelda always played horribly.

Objectively Zelda. Those who cant observe the simple subtleties and just claim HURF DURF UBISOFT TOWERS MGSV ALL OVER AGAIN dont know shit about video games and only want every game released to be an ebin tortanic blunder because they derive no joy from the medium, and seeing others suffer because they themselves are failures is the only thing that brings joy to their empty hearts.

> but its open world wasn't bland and lifeless

Vast majority of the world are empty fields,ect. with the occasional enemy camp. It's about as living and breathing as an Elder Scrolls game, which is to say not at all.

>it has all these little systems and mechanics that work together to create varied experiences.
At the cost of major things being neglected. Who cares if the core gameplay is crap, or that there's no meaningful interactions in the world, as long as I can set grass on fire!

God, stop overrating the game.

Witcher's open world isn't all that great, but it has some nice quests to flesh out the world.

Zelda's open world is amazing, and the way you can interact with it from a gameplay perspective is great. However the's not many quests that flesh it out.

I'd say Zelda is better overall

Witcher is a game that prides itself for being in playboy

That should be all you need to know about where Witcher's priorities lie.

Just like zelda

neither of them "redefined" anything. BotW, however, perfected the 'open-world' archetype and nothing can ever top it.

>Vast majority of the world are empty fields

Damn...just like real life then? Where was this complaint with RDR when it released though? I never once saw it, and its map is more barren than Zeldas, with fewer ways to get around as well.

RDR world wasn't lifeless

BotW took the open world archetype and reinvigorated it with a shitload of interactivity

Witcher 3 showed that just because you have open world doesn't mean have to half-ass the quest writing.

they both did good things

One of these games focuses on gameplay, the other on story. If I even need to tell you which one was better designed, then you really don't belong here.

The one that everyone has been saying that redefined open world games for the last 2 years.
I'm sorry that triggers that one guy, but Witcher 3 is the standard not only of open world games but of RPGs.

Zelda redefined the genre, but it will not be followed by other developers simply because it doesn't bode well with their philosophy, they want their games to be as handholding as possible, Witcher included. I'd say Zelda is more revolutionary, while The Witcher will be the one that's copied.

What genre? because is not a RPG

morrowind

And you are basing that in what?

Open-world genre.

I disagree with your opinion.

That's not a genre.

Neither. TW3 nearly perfected the open world yet narrative driven style that Morrowind cultivated. BOTW stripped the layers of useless and bombastic crap away from open world action games and "redefined" them by actually making the game fucking open and fun to explore and not littered with markers.

Both are great and hopefully set the bar high enough that other devs have to actually try or we stop getting 13 open world games a year that all play exactly the fucking same.

/thread


Both also have mediocre combat, yet reviewers ignore this and gave both games glowing reviews. Even though combat is a big part to both games.

Witcher has better
Graphics
Writing
Characters
Gear
World
Combat (yes both suck)
Actual choices that can change the game
What does BOTW do better than Witcher 3?...
Been asking this for several weeks now, still haven't gotten a legit answer.

Witcher 3 redefined the audience's expectations from developers. After Witcher 3 suddenly people realize the same old shit from bioware and bethesda just doesn't cut it anymore. They want good animations, they want cities that are more than 3 straw-roofed huts with good propaganda (SO THIS IS THE BIGGEST MOST AMAZING CITY IN ALL OF SKYRIM, WOOOOOOW!)

Nobody owns a Nintendo so Zelda can't really influence anything. Hear it's basically a mostly empty game with a few kinds of fun minigames scattered around the sandbox and also a fucking godawful durability mechanic - guess it's what you'd expect from a Nintendo game, actually, a mix of fun ideas and insufferable bullshit ideas.

It was incredibly lifeless. Go back and try to do the hunting challenges. Cougars and Bears take forever to spawn.

Yes it is.

You can get the Witcher experience reading a book, but you can't do the same for the Zelda experience.

Then why do Nier fans bring up stories all the time?

I'm probably one of the only people in this thread who've beat both. I can say without a doubt that Witcher 3's world is more refined, but BOTW's world is probably ten more times fun to fuck around in. Witcher 3 had interesting side-quests, and locations, but I found myself a lot more compelled to keep playing BOTW. This led me to not remember a single fucking aspect of Witcher 3's story. In fact I feel like I can recall more of 2 and 1's story than three.

Witcher is just Skyrim if it had been put together and presented competently, the gameplay is just as awful and shallow.

I'd argue Skyrim is better anyway simply because it has more room to role-play and more replay value. Witcher is barely an RPG.

That's like saying MGSV "redefined" open world.
They're just riding on the freshest meme. If this was 2006 they'd have third person behind cover and QTE

You need characters with personality for a book. Something Zelda lacks.

>has more room to role-play and more replay value.
lol good one leaf.

Witcher 3 set new standards for multi layered storytelling in WRPGs. The open world was just a bonus and a good part of it was just empty wilderness.

Zelda set new standards for nonlinear sandbox games. But let's be honest, Zelda's lore and art design are extremely simplistic and with narrow appeal compared to Witcher.

Both are good but no cigar. Both deserve updated sequels.

gta5

>it has all these little systems and mechanics that work together to create varied experiences
This is the key difference. The world isn't just a pretty backdrop, like Witcher's, you can actually interact with it in meaningful ways that can change how you approach any given situation.

>Who cares if the core gameplay is crap
Then why all the love for Witcher? Some of the worst gameplay in any action/adventure game I've played in years, and all these retards gush about is the fucking story. Who cares about the fucking story when the gameplay is awful?

>repentant wife beater: fantasy edition

That stuff was straight out of a really shitty episode of Law and Order, it's not Shakespeare.

It's comparing apples to oranges, one clearly sets out to "accomplish" more in those aspects whereas the other doesn't

Where's Witcher 3's exploration? All shown on the map.
Where's Witcher 3's physics interactivity and weather mechanics?
Mountain climbing and flying, horse taming? You don't have to do any of this because they just copped out and gave you magic trails and a magically reappearing horse.
It's not very open either, you more so go from mission to mission like a Rockstar game

Witcher 3 had the best girl in any video game though

Witcher is just a garbage open-world game, but made with a lot of effort. Zelda tries to do some things differently.

It does.

I don't understand why games like FO4 (which is also a horrible RPG before you try to argue I liked it) will get all kinds of shit for having a voiced protagonist, but Witcher gets a pass. It severely limits your role-playing options. You're always Geralt with the same backstory and the same personality.
>B-b-but you're a Witcher! You'e role-playing as Geralt!
Then Mario 64 is role-playing game, by this logic.

What roles and I choosing for Geralt? Dialogue isn't that varied most of the time and his combat roles are few and shallow. Its an action/adventure game, I don't know why people pretend its the best RPG when its barely an RPG in the first place. Skill trees and dialogue don't make an RPG.

none of you have even played BotW

You need good mechanics for a game, something the witcher has always lacked

Elder Scrolls in general, every open world fantasy game will be forever in its shadow.
You can't deny that.

>Witcher 3 set new standards for multi layered storytelling in WRPGs
And Michael Bay sets new standards for visual effects in films.

>TW3 nearly perfected the open world
it has completely randomized leveled loot scaling. It's unironically worse than Oblivion

no he doesn't, actually. Bad comparison.

Personality and character in Witcher?
Geralt is "Nothing Personal the Edgy anime monster hunter" the charactet

>but you can't do the same for the Zelda experience.
"The hero scavenged for literal golden poop for years and got nothing in return, such is life"

>Where's Witcher 3's exploration? All shown on the map.
Nigga wat? Don't tell me you do that. Don't tell me some players that do that. Don't tell me some player actually have the box "show landmark on map" ticked in the option menu. What the fuck is wrong with people? Jeebus, the option is RIGHT THERE. What are they? Skyrim audience? There's an open world right there, explore it at your own pace goddammit.

The Witcher universe has dozens of different human societies. Some more advanced than others. Geralt lives in the culturally backwards wife beater countries, true. But you should know he himself is very progressive and loves powerful women.

Most WRPG devs try to infuse their stories with a strong sense of interactivity, player control. Witcher 3 did that better than most others. In that one regard, it deserves unconditioned respect.

It's ticked by default

One of the robots in Transformers 2 melted several machines at ILM because it took so long and was so intense to render.

Point being they are both among the least important parts of their respective medium. No one pretends movies that are nothing but fluff (visual effects) and no substance are any good, why isn't it true for games? Story is not where the substance comes from in a game, just as the pretty effects are not where the substance comes from in a film. That isn't to say you can't have both, but games that prioritize visuals and story are often just poor games, again, for many of the same reasons films that focus on effects aren't good film.

>people praising Zelda's exploration
oh wow another Korok seed

gotta put the rocks in the right formation for 142th time, it's fun.

>Most WRPG devs try to infuse their stories with a strong sense of interactivity, player control
I disagree that Witcher did this well. Interactivity comes from gameplay, not story. Games can do more than present the player with a story.

The Witcher didn't do anything particularly new or different so by your question and with those options one can only answer Zelda.

If we're talking about which is the better game then that's a different matter entirely.

>Skyrim audience?
But skyrim doesn't show landmarks on the map until you discover them or someone tells you about it.

>Then Mario 64 is role-playing game, by this logic.
It's not, and you know it. There isn't ONE thing to have for a game to be an RPG. There multuple element that can characterize a RPG. You can have some of them but not all of them and still be regarded as a RPG.

Here, you play as Geralt. You make choices during dialogue that will influence quest and story line. People's fate will be changed according to your decision. That is one element of role play. You also shape your character fighting style as you wish. Other point that are common (but not specially mandatory) in RPG. There's character progression. Again a system that is RPG-like.

Mario have fuck none of that.

Still Zelda

>
>Witcher has better
>Graphics
absolutely
>Writing
yes
>Characters
along with writing
>Gear
Nope, gear is way more varied and fun to use in zelda
>World
No, the lore is better, but the world itself and how you travel and interact with it is way better in Zelda
>Combat (yes both suck)
Zelda is better on this regard too, having different weapons and adapting to the situation is way more fun, plus fighting with the environment is cool as fuck
>Actual choices that can change the game
Yes, Witcher is way better than Zelda at this

Both are great games honestly

TW3 sucked. TW2 was better.

>Discussing exploring
>Bring up collectables as if it's the same thing
???

shit taste

maybe you have some mods or something but skyrim definitely shows undiscovered landmarks in the vanilla version

good exploration is dependent on what you can actually find

Then its just a bad RPG, but I'm still calling in an action/adventure game with some RPG elements. Adventure games have dialogue and choices to make, too.

>You also shape your character fighting style as you wish. Other point that are common (but not specially mandatory) in RPG

This is just as important, and the fact that you dismiss it so easily is what I have a problem with. Play some tabletop RPGs. This is gameplay, and too many modern RPGs focus on the presentation and story and forget about this part, like Witcher. Games can do more than tell a story, let me MAKE the story by playing.

Gameplay is interactive by definition. Witcher 3's story doesn't feel stiff and noninteractive, which is good. It could have more branches, but it overall feels like Geralt experiences the story you make for him. This is also due to the side quests, which could be more numerous but most of them contain their own multilayered mini stories as well. Most people who gave Witcher 3 a good playthrough can reminisce together for hours on what they did to that Temerian smuggler in White Orchard, let Niellen have his way or kill him, battle that Skelligan swordswoman you can romance afterwards, made a pact with the old Leshen, spare the Succubi, etc. It's pretty grand. I've never seen this in a fantasy RPG before.

So then, by this logic, Witcher has god-awful exploration and the open-world actually hurt the game. Easily worse than Zelda.

IIRC its major towns/settlements and anything you get a quest for

I found new monsters, more shrines, different animals and minerals, a fucking dragon, a jungle, a dry spot when it was raining, empty ruins, a good spot to look out at where to go next, and yes, different puzzles for koroks along the way

This thread again?
Witcher didn't change the formula at all, it just does a great job executing established open-world gameplay
BotW actually tried some different things. Weapons that break like butter, lack of crafting mechanics or EXP, the ability to climb anywhere and get bodied by enemies too strong for you. I mean I haven't played enough open world games to claim it reinvented the wheel but it's certainly not stagnant.

It shows the big cities and stuff like that, which is reasonable. The rest you have to discover yourself by exploring the world or talking to people so that they mark shit on your map.

>a dry spot when it was raining
whoa...

Yes, its presentation was great. Not arguing that.
I'm arguing that just having a story doesn't make the game good, you need gameplay.

Pressing the volume up button on my remote is interactive too, but it wouldn't make for good gameplay. Witcher focused on looking nice and telling a story, I don't think that's where games should place their priorities. People may like to occasionally talk about the choices they made, but unlike something like SMB or Tetris, I don't think this is a game people will actually want to replay over and over again for years. That kind of staying power comes from gameplay, not visuals or story.

T. Didn't play the damn game

>witcher 3 has better comba-

Zelda didn't reinvent anything it just refined it and pushed it forward in areas that have been stagnating

I've played the game
it's good but TW3 is better

Don't post that they might post the webm of a Bokoblin with a bow not attacking you well up close

Almost like he had a ranged weapon and was the weakest enemy type in the game

Witcher 3's gameplay is consistent and competent for the most part. Some balance mods and you're set. The few issues it has don't bother me enough.

Who you didn't get to fuck. 0/10

What these games refined is the terrain/landscape creation of the open world genre. They both have that beautiful, handcrafted feel, distinctive of each other.

Now if someone would refine the Interactive part of open world games and combine that with these open worlds, we'd be golden

BOTW has the best fish in any video game

But you also don't get to fuck it

TW3 is the skyrim formula just better. BotW is a new amazing formula but it just came out so you can't say it redefined it.
Basically no one has copied TW3 and no one has had the chance to copy BotW so neither.

>Sup Forums will defend this

I love how easely you can break weapon in both of this games

And the webm nitpicking begins.

This looks like a single player MMO

>BotW is a new amazing formula
???

There's a rune that makes weapons unbreakable. Or a mod if that strikes your fancy.

>???

???????????????

That's a better way of describing it
I gotta ask if any other game has been as willing to let you eat shit though, because I don't think any other open world game lets you climb over everything and get mauled by late-game enemies as soon as you leave the starting area.

Are you confused about something?