Who innovated more?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-06-05-how-will-the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-change-the-open-world-paradigm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_(video_game)
youtube.com/watch?v=kMRuDTP3qsc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Neither of them did at all. Why do you keep making this thread?

this
Sage

gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-06-05-how-will-the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-change-the-open-world-paradigm
>Damien Monnier, senior designer on The Witcher 3 at CD Projekt RED and now lead designer at fellow Polish studio Techland, emphasised the independence Nintendo fosters in the game's players. "Breath of the Wild has managed to bring classic open world mechanics together while not relying on them to guide the player through its world," said Monnier. "You go and explore it because you wonder what's out there, not because a loot icon tells you to."

edgy insecure faglord who hates Nintendo because he's in his hot topic phase.

You'll see a lot of those in this board.

BOTW.
Seriously user TW3 is a fucking great game, maybe better than BOTW, but we never seen something like BOTW before.

Witcher 3 didn't really innovate at all. It was just a great character driven RPG.

So the nintendo bonus/nostalgia/freepass is a real fucking thing huh

Even witcher devs praised BotW ya dingus

TW3 did everything great( maybe the combat is lòittle bit meh), but it didn't nothing new, BOTW did a lot of things good, a lot of things bad, but honestly BOTW is fun as hell because you can do a lot of new things.

>BOTW is fun as hell because you can do a lot of new things.
Okay real question didn't have to play the game yet, is it just because of the "climb everywhere thing", or does the game bring other never seen before stuff ?

What a cucks.
I fucking hate witcher 3 now.

Why can't devs join us on the good fight of killing Nintendo?

read this

You're oversimplifying the "climb everything" thing.

Adding the vertical dimension to an open world game makes it way more deep in terms of gameplay and exploration.

The map is really well designed and you can tackle obstacles in different ways depending on your gear/skill. It really does the open worldness very neatly because of that exploration freedom.

Okay so it's more like "here's the world, jump in, we won't hold your hand and explore it the way you want to " ?

fpbp

None of them did, but the did expand on some aspects

Neither of them. They're both fantastic games, but they're not exactly innovative, just very well done.

Zelda.

I love TW3, but it really doesn't do anything new, it just does its thing extremely well.

Zelda's hands-off approach was a breath of fresh air. Hopefully devs can learn to trust their players instead of lead them around with quest markers.

Is not the "climb everywhere thing", but pretty much the surprise factor on every corner.

Hell, I´m 300 hours and playing since the release and still find fucking koroks, places where I never put a foot or new chests.

>Breath of fresh air
You could say it's a Breath of the Wild

No, BOTW did have markers, but it didn't have exact markers, or floating ones. The game is also not designed around those markers unlike in Skyrim. That is a huge difference I hope devs follow

>RPG
lolno

Yeah pretty much. You only receive specific orientation on the "tutorial phase" which is about 20 minutes long.

And even that can be tackled in creative and diverse ways depending on how creative are you and your exploration instincts.

To give you an idea, there's a mini dungeon that you need to go, and it's in a frozen zone... You can either gather ingredients to cook meals that gives you temporal cold resistance or you can make a "micro-quest" figuring out a recipe and a npc gives you a cold resistance jacket.

I didn't even noticed the micro-quest thing until my wife played the game and used a different route.

I don't care how much it triggers you. W3 is a character driven RPG.

>TW3 did everything great
Except for, you know, gameplay, the most important part of a video game.

What's wrong with it?

TW3 is a perfected machine. Zelda is a gamechanger, not only because the whole climb thing, but also for add real physics and stupid little interaction with the world like rain, cut every tree or stuff like this.

>I didn't even noticed the micro-quest thing until my wife played the game and used a different route.
Ok now this i completely get and this is fucking cool, the whole game's like that ?

What roles am I playing?

Geralt is always the same. Same personality, same backstory, same goals. There's no party to manage, no jobs or classes to choose, little difference in the "builds" the games offers, little variety in equipment or weapons, so what roles am I playing and choosing in this game?

It's a character-driven action game with some RPG elements. Dialogue choices don't make a game an RPG, adventure games have dialogue choices. By your logic, virtually any game is an RPG.

>Transformers is an effects-driven film! This makes any/all criticism null and void!
This is how people who defend bad gameplay because they liked the story sound. Story and presentation are not where the substance in a game comes from, just as effects are not where the substance in a film comes from. Its surface-level, superficial. You need to play some more RPGs if you think dialogue choices are all that make or break them.

>What roles are you playing
The role of a Witcher you literal autistic.

Very shallow, you play largely the same way from hour 2 until hour 200. The skill trees offer little depth or variation, they don't really change up how you play. Just added boosts to your existing skills, maybe an extra twirl. Combat is very repetitive and again the "builds" the game offers do little/nothing to change this up.

Yeah!!

Me and some friends have been playing since launch and made a WhatsApp group chat to share experiences and tips about the game. It was great to compare how different we played it, the order of the "dungeons", what gear and equipment we used, etc.

After all these months we are still discovering new stuff.

Innovation?
BotW easily

Witcher is a shitty boring ip, no one eve cared about it until witcher 3

Different user, most of the game is like that. NPCs often give you riddles to lead you to hard-to-find quests or loot, there's also a journalist's diary in half the stables with hints about secrets and other things, many you wouldn't figure out on your own. Then there's also the meme character Kass who gives you riddles to solve in order to reveal shrines, and some of those can be done in several ways too.

>I'm playing the role of Mario!
>I'm playing the role of DOOMGUY!
>I'm playing the role of [insert any character here]!

If its an RPG, its just a bad RPG. RPGs aren't exclusively about the fucking story, play a tabletop game sometime.

>is it just because of the "climb everywhere thing", or does the game bring other never seen before stuff ?

It's not the fact you can climb stuff that's important, it's what that mechanic means in terms of 'Game Design'.

Most devs would utterly shit their pants if they had to try and design and code a gameplay style which offered the player the amount of freedom BotW does. They'd be too scared the player would break the game.

Most devs rely on the "You can climb here, and ONLY here - in this little fenced off area, where we can predict exactly what you'll do."

BotW frees players from the traditonal shackles of exploration and not only makes traversing the landscape fun but also ENGAGING.

The world is built upon interlocked systems of physics, weather, climate and environmental interaction. So the player constantly has to change and adapt how they play and the sheer amount of options available allow the player to fashion their own solutions to navigating the world.

People who don't get it just don't understand Game Design.

I hope nintendo will release the inevitable switch upgraded model, think i'm gonna get myself some octopath and zelda when that happens

Not an argument

>this thread again

BotW innovated more. It's arguable if Witcher 3 is better overall, I prefer BotW personally.

So is the Final Fantasy series not an RPG series? I'll go and tell Square Enix that, I'm sure they'll have a laugh at your autistic ass.

>while not relying on them to guide the player through its world," said Monnier. "You go and explore it because you wonder what's out there, not because a loot icon tells you to."
literally markers on the map

And the only things you find are pointless korok seeds and copypasted shitfests nintenkiddies want to pretend are proper "dungeons"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_(video_game)
> action role-playing
At least we both agree it's just a bad RPG

FF games generally feature a party of characters the player can manage and choose roles for, lots of classes/jobs, equipment and weapons, and the combat requires some level of planning, party management and critical thinking skills. They're not deep RPGs but they're certainly RPGs.

>RPGs aren't exclusively about the fucking story

If you really can't tell the difference in terms of "function" on how Zelda used the markers versus other devs... You either:
A. Did not play the game
B. Are actually retarded

The only markers are like 5 in the main quest, and even those are vague and only direct you towards a village rather than to a dungeon. All other markers are placed manually by the player.
There's plenty of riddles, sidequests, shrines, and shrinequests. We could debate the quality of those but it's a pointless endeavour since you're a buttmad shitposter that made up his mind 6 months ago.

Witcher 3 is more like a Zelda than botw is. There's items like the magic lamp and the eye of nahelani that Zelda used to have. It has lots of unique boss fights instead of phantom ganon #500

Are you retarded son? Witcher is a RPG series with skills, stats, item management, branching story, multiple paths, choices and endings.

>We could debate the quality of those

In other words, they're shit and you know it.

>s-shrines!
Lol, a BOTW thread definately feels more complete when Sonygros retreat to their battle cry criticisms

But you play as a single, main defined character. Which according to you, makes Witcher 3 no longer an RPG. You literally came into this thread to cry about someone calling an RPG an RPG. Fuck outta here already.

Dark Souls pioonered this first, nintendogs just copy sony

>Dark Souls pioneered this first
Dark souls is a series of interlinked corridors wtf are you smoking

Witcher is a PC series keep crying

>If its an RPG, its just a bad RPG
I'm sick of story-driven games getting free passes for shitty gameplay. "Effects-driven" films don't get passes for lacking in the areas that actually matter, why do we do it for games?

Who are you talking to?

Nintendo surely innovated on jewishness of dlc practices, while CDPR took a big step back :^)

>But you play as a single, main defined character. Which according to you, makes Witcher 3 no longer an RPG.
lolno

I said the presence of dialogue choices doesn't make a game an RPG. Try to actually argue the points I'm making instead of your bullshit strawmen.

Zelda ofc. TW3 trash without gameplay

I really love the witcher 3, but the combat is a lot worse than meh. The controls are garbage and there's no depth to the combat at all, hopefully if cyberpunk ever gets released cdpr will be better at making shooters than melee games

not the same user but the one thing that bothered me about tw3 was how you could never get away from geralts established character beyond a very small range.
You really are not "roleplaying", its far closer to a chose your own ending book due to limited options, which is fine with me as its still a very good game and im sure botw suffers the same fate a bit

> witcher 3

>Your bullshit strawmen
The irony. I already told you to fuck off kid, I don't give a fuck how triggered you're getting that an RPG is called an RPG.

Wow this is really making witcherfags angry

> Wozmak 3

A shitty player doesn't make the game shitty.

I love both Witcher 3 and BotW you guys are having a retarded argument and you can immediately tell who haven't played both games.

Fucking fanboys.

BotW. TW3 is open world but there's nothing to do in the open world besides fight monsters; no physics, no environmental destruction, it's just a means to represent scale as you travel from place to place. BotW looks like shit on Wii U/Switch and runs horribly, but I'll commend them for adding environmental shit like fires that spread, trees that can be chopped down to make makeshift bridges, being able to climb basically anywhere, and using the environment to your advantage. BotW is how I thought next generation games would be when I was still playing fucking Half Life 2 with the Gravity Gun. Only games to really take advantage of the open world in a meaningful way are GTA and the new Zelda game, and both GTA IV and V are missing things that the other should have.

Only fanboys and cucks who can't afford a Nintendo console.

>maybe the combat is lòittle bit meh
it was honestly the worst thing about the game and brought down the entire experience

In pretty much every Zelda you just lock on to an enemy, dodge and hit em with your sword. It's the same in witcher 3. Combat isn't anything special but it gets the job done.

> A shitty player
> Dat hitboxes
> Dat one-button-for-all combat
> A shitty player

>619k
>20k
whyte bois btfo

...

>20 zeldas later
>still shit compared to gothic

>Shitter 3
>Breath of the Nintendo Cock
>innovation

witcher 3 innovated us by showing us you can have an amazing open world and still an amazing story as well

> B-b-b-ut witcher!

The best thing about BOTW was the marker system, because (generally speaking) YOU place them, and manage them with stamps and whatever else. In an open world, it's far too easy to get lost without markers, but when the game is doing all the dropping, most of the world becomes superfluous. When the player sees a curious thing, drops a pin on it, and goes about his business, the marker system aids the exploration rather than diluting it.

Most open world games have a way to drop one or more custom map pins, but in BOTW they're an integral part of the resource management game. You have 5 map markers, placeable via the binoculars and visible in the world, and the rest are less-obvious stickers. You have to juggle all of the things you've seen and want to check out, and the limitations of the map system incentivize routinely going back to check things out that caught your eye rather than leaving them for later.

I would argue that the reason BOTW's exploration has been so highly praised is simply because of how well the map marker system guides the player to doing it. There's as little to see in its world as in, say, Skyrim, but the map system guides a new player's experience in an exploratory way rather than a linear way.

>In pretty much every Zelda you just lock on to an enemy, dodge and hit em with your sword
that darksouls as well, but all three of them are on completely different levels
tw3s combat is so bad i had to take long breaks on the game despite being absorbed with every other element

...

>botw
>can chop trees for firewood
>witcher
>cant chop trees
GEE, I WONDER

Yo fuck that golem. I found that island by accident and got stuck there, and I was underleveled with a cat/bleed build.

Shit took forever.

Writing, character and world design are more important than gameplay in rpgs. That's why there's even a niche for old school crpgs like Tyranny and Divinity.

Witcher 3 has a shitload of great sidequests while Zelda has seed collecting. Enjoy slowly climbing that mountain for 1/4 of a health boost or a seed.

BotW only innovated as far as the Zelda series itself is concerned (which isn't hard considering how same-ish the series is), otherwise it did nothing worthy of notice, and neither did W3. Both are good games but neither are truly innovative.

...

TW3 is a garbage snoozefest story game like Telltale shit except in a big empty world with nothing to interact with. It's literally a conversation simulator with shit gameplay.

Zelda actually put effort into their world, literally everything is interactable, the towns are far more alive and the world is actually fun to explore while also having a deep combat system.

Nintendo did the job Todd has been promising for 20 years with "le u see it u can go there!11" after 1 fucking attempt.

I say all this as primarily a Sony fan.

...

But this image doesn't make any sense, because the best version of BOTW is only on PC.

That quest looks boring as fuck

Sure buddy.

> because the best version of BOTW is only on PC
Do you have handheld PC? If not, then best version on switch

Definitely Breath of the Wild.

It's overrated but it's a new approach to open world gameplay that relies on the systems rather than the world.

Skyrim was the peak for world-based exploration and everyone else has lived in its shadow, including TW3.

Why does saying you like witcher 3 Always trigger Sup Forums so much

I guess there is too much social interaction in the game so aspies get triggered

No problem mate.
youtube.com/watch?v=kMRuDTP3qsc

Yeah, I got an Nvidia Shield.
So the best version is still on PC.

> Why does saying you like witcher 3 Always trigger Sup Forums so much
Cause it is boring, overrated, shiti and ugly game, no?

Bait or not, this thread is a good reminder that Sup Forums's taste in games is absolute garbage.