Who innovated more for the genre?

...

neither
>destructable enviroments
hello red faction
>progress kept from 2 games prior
hello mass effect

Neither of these games invented anything new

The Witcher 3 is the pinnacle of 30 years of the hobby's evolution, something that probably will never be surpassed.
Breath of the Wild is just another run of the mill open world game.

You tell me.

There is nothing original about witcher 3. The gameplay is laughably generic and the story/lore is ripped straight from the books which are ripped straight from tolkien.

Skyrim

Both are pretty meh.
Witcher has a great story and world, but very meh gameplay.
Zelda is like babby's first open world. Wayyyy too easy. There is literally no tension to anything because you know you will never die.

I'd vote for Horizon Zero Dawn. It's basically Witcher 3 with better combat.

Tolkien ripped straight from European mythology

Witcher 3 had some of the worst rpg mechanics I ever saw.

Someone typed this unironically.

>very meh gameplay
I hate how everyone says this when it's not true at all.

Neither of these games are really innovative.

post an innovative game
and please don't post any jap or weebshit.

...

Obviously Witcher 3. Zelda is just another muh Nintendo children’s game that a blind retard with no hands could beat

>don't post anything from the country that created the genre being discussed
Full retard.

Hmmm

It’s based on European mythology you dumb faggot

not really innovative but they made something with incredible polish and detail

I'm talking about W3 of course

>you know you will never die
Maybe after like 15 hours of playing and getting good. It's incredibly easy to die in BotW especially early on.

Hmmmmmmmmm

*teleports behind you* heh

also nice hitboxes kek

>This is considered one of the top 3 most challenging enemies in BoTW

not sure what you're getting at the fist clearly hit him directly

I don't think anyone likes Witcher 3 for some kind "innovation". Personally the strongest point of it were the side-quests which didn't feel as such. If making side quests interesting and at times meaningful instead of fetch borefests counts as innovation, then perhaps it is innovative, kek.

the art style & detail is nice, but the game isnt innovative. The quest set up is just like something like Red Dead Redemption, the NPC ai routines are as static as animatronic Disney ride. always firing off the same 1 liner every time you walk by. Crafting is awful, skills are dull, full of useless junk trash loot.

>console version

kys

TW3 is the Game of Thrones of vidya. Shit writing but great production.
The DLC were good and the side quests were above average. Probably the single most overrated game of all time though.

it's true. potions last seconds and geralts combat movement speed is about as slow as a turtle. gear and weapons locked behind levels.

I love BotW. If I had the critique it, honestly it would be like a 7/10-- the dungeon shrine content was abysmal, the main story was weirdly repetitive (like, they weren't even trying to make each quest line unique?), and the open world was a lil' bit on the empty side.
But I loved exploring the world, climbing and shield surfing made traversal so much fun, the combat was intriguing and experimental (fun to mess about with AI), comfy atmosphere, etc.
Witcher 3 has a handful of good characters (I don;t like Geralt, but Yen and Ciri were great), the story was a bit run of the mill, nothing too interesting. It world looked good, but really empty and didn't really accommodate for traversal, and the 'witcher vision' quests were a HUGE turn off. There's a handful of good quests, and they do deserve praise, but the rest is really typical game-y fair.

It's complete shit. And Geralt looks like a prancing faggot when he fights/dances.

>2017
>Not realizing that in a RPG the hits and the damage inflicted / received are ruled by stats like Agility, Evasion or Hit rate, not the animations or hitboxes that only exist as reference

I bet you're a Soulscretin

Dragon's dogma combat, botw exploration/diverse land, and dungeons equivalent to grimrock & skyrim mixed together.

TW3
>Uses it's open world as an epic setting to it's fleshed out universe
>main appeal is the depth of the quests you ecounter

BOTW
>main appeal is exploration
>the world is utilized for puzzles and navigation is more engaging

Both are great games but BOTW is better as an open world game. TW3's world is mainly for immersion whereas in BOTW the world is an integral part of the experience

that's a shitty system even if true

too bad they're both just open world games so you get bored long before you reach the end

>2018 - 2 months and a few days
>not realising that The Witcher is an ARPG a genre the focuses more on action elements and avoiding enemy attacks rather than relying on stats to do ao

look at that sweet hitbox though. sure don't have that in tw3

>W3
Not really innovative, but very well done (except the gameplay).

>BotW
Pretty boring after a couple of hours.

Why is innovation even important? It's an overrated concept, if a game is enjoyable it doesn't really matter if it's innovative or not.

Witcher 3

Zelda is a standard open world with limited Gimmik for appeal

If Zelda had modern hardware supporting it, it could have become something incredible but instead limited enemy variety big open nothing while doing the same thing everywhere.

BotW is very overrated

you just have extremely low standards for what constitutes good gameplay that's all

If BotW can be considered innovation, it is the bad kind of innovation. The last thing I want is for every open world game to now have the gimmicky climbing of BotW. BotW actually has one of the worst open worlds of every game, as it's so focused on the movement, it feels more like a playground than an actual world.

they could have at least shown some decency and not let Geralt swim across the ocean. The boat is so useless and pointless.

This. Ocarina of Time was incredibly innovative for its time, but it's pretty boring by today's standards.

>but instead limited enemy variety big open nothing while doing the same thing everywhere.
Gee I sure drowners and 5000 smugglers caches

>thinking innovative GAMEPLAY has anything to do with power
You're only going to get graphics from that bucko which is why W3 comes off as one of the most generic games of this gen.

It matters unless you can somehow manage to enjoy the same thing for all eternity. Innovation is anything that pushes the boundaries.

>gimmicky climbing

It's not even close, BOTW actually has actual mechanics to speak of, it's miles above W3.

W3 is like the greatest amateur game ever made, it looks like it could be great, but there isn't anything fun under the hood. It's all smoke and mirrors and pretense of mechanical depth.

And when you come across a Witcher thread you start to understand why this game is praised. The characters and story are high quality, but nobody talks about the gameplay, the quest design, or any of the mechanics. Because there's really nothing to talk about, there isn't anything there of substance

Oh boy I sure love following Witcher sense trails

BOTW actually had quests you had to literally read a description and figure shit out for yourself. Instead of following a bamham x-ray sense handholding mechanic that is used in 99% of missions

W3 made great outdoor enviroments, cities, faces, clothing etc. but its like theres no new ideas there, just doing things better, in a larger scale and with more attention to detail. Its pushing the boundaries but not really innovating anything noticeable.

Obviously Witcher 3.
It came as a complete game, has a world map with regional differences that actually make sense, and has an actually convincing main story with choices that actually matter. None of that happens in BoTW.
Not to mention the NPC's in BoTW are mostly useless. Especially Kass.

I liked BOTW more because it had a better open world. It was actually interesting to explore and the physics were fun to manipulate. Combat wise BOTW was also better, though the combat could have been improved a lot.

Witcher 3 had a good story and good art but thats really it. Gameplay wise it was really shallow

I thought Witcher 3 was 6/10 and BOTW was 8/10 and BOTW was the only one I continued playing past 6 hours(and beat)

but it was a gimmick

It is indeed very gimmicky, I would rather walk/sprint around a really interesting, immersive world, where mountains serve as natural barriers and obstacles in the landscape, than just climb any surface.

It's funny how BoTW kiddies think it's the first game that had a paraglider.
And there's almost no fucking point in climbing until you get the climbing gear, because so many areas are fucking empty except for a shrine or two.
There are entire fucking regions that have nothing in them.

too bad the whole game part of the game was garbage

>ripped straight from the books which are ripped straight from tolkien.
both of these statements are objectively false you retard

Zelda has more innovative games tools for sure, I compare Zelda to mgsv all the time because the devs were retarded geniuses.
>Let's make all of these really cool mechanics that interact with each other
>But we can't make the game too hard so let's make every dungeon and boss piss fucking easy and also make it so you can't use half of the cool shit in these moments

The Witcher is just a regular good game with good storytelling. It doesn't innovate a whole lot but it does what it sets out to do very well

That's how you get Skyrim "climbing" and people complaining about Horizon's feeling of restriction when played by people who played Zelda. Nintendo is actually cognizant of how people actually play these open world games and added a brilliant feature let players do what they always try to do anyway

INNOVATION DOES NOT MEAN INVENTION
>INNOVATION DOES NOT MEAN INVENTION
INNOVATION DOES NOT MEAN INVENTION
>INNOVATION DOES NOT MEAN INVENTION

Remember to think your post through before you say some absolutely braindead dumbfuck shit like "hurr no dis game did not innovate because other game had (mechanic) first", doing it first does not mean doing it best or doing it in a new context.

spbp

So what, you lot would prefer completely flat surfaces to travel?
No wonder you like the Shitcher.

None of these games are particularily innovative, they are just both extremely well done and fun.

But of course Sup Forums is gonna shit on everything popular, as always.

I haven't played Zelda yet but it at least looks fun.
I played 6 hours of The Witcher 3 and it bored me out of my mind. When does it get good?

The Zelda game gets 98 probably cause its Zelda. Nothing more or less.

Zelda innovated more, The witcher perfected the established conventions

can they even be considered the same genre

>Complete game

It had a ton of dlc you retard

WTF did Zelda innovate? Annoying weapon durability?

>
>incredible polish
nice one

>So what, you lot would prefer completely flat surfaces to travel?

No I would prefer traveling in an immersive world that has adapted to high, impassable mountains by creating trails around/through them or building structures around them. Being able to easily climb anything is unimmersive as fuck. Take Morrowind for instance, a lot of the immersion came from people telling you directions, and you having to navigate around the world and foyadas. It would be boring if you could just climb over all the ridges. By being restricted to the same form of travel as most of the world's citizens, you get a better feeling for how the world is constructed and how the average person has to travel.

>No I would prefer traveling in an immersive world that has adapted to high, impassable mountains by creating trails around/through them or building structures around them.
So Breath of the Wild.

They are called expansions for a reason.
You could play the entire base game of Witcher 3 and get a full game.

>and please don't post any jap or weebshit.
This is the year Jap games once again start dominating the industry, Deal with it

Reform this point and deliver it again, this time without using the word "immersion". It's an empty word that could mean anything and changes from person to person, BOTW's overworld is beautifully designed around its mechanics anyway.

Ultima Online perfected open world every other game is still trying to recapture it

Yeah no, that's called cut content user. After all they literally had individual quests and animations for downloads

Zelda by pushing interactivity with the world.
W3 didn't really innovate at all. They just worked their asses off.

I wonder if we'll get another one of these with Mario in it.

>98

What did OP mean by this?

>spam whatever powers you choose to level up
>abuse the dodge button ad infinitum
>potions up the ass at all times
>hold a button and follow your minimap or ENORMOUS RED SPLOTCHES LEADING YOU STEP BY STEP TO WHEREVER YOU NEED TO GO
Whoa... so THIS is the power of that great gameplay you speak of!

Implying weapons breaking over nothing is a good mechanic.

In any other game it wouldn't be.

Nintendo fans shouldn't be concerned with CD red or their games

Your actual competitor who has innovated open world and development in general arguably better since the turn of the century is dropping a game next year

What's it done for the genre?

WiiU version has less reviews.
Rockstar has put so much focus on GTAO that I'm skeptical about RDR2.

It innovated paid marketing and ruining IP's.
Nintendo is really good at doing that.

>WiiU version has less reviews.
Which is the version OP posted

Neither really innovated, but they gave a pretty well polished casual experience. Stuff like Gothic or Dragon's Dogma easily blows them away, but they are harder for Sup Forums's crowd to get into.

>Rockstar has put so much focus on GTAO
The content they've been putting out must have occupied a couple of dozen people at peak, compared to the hundreds employed overall by the studio its nothing

First off, R* is the devs who are started this trend to move everything to open world and attack a mission and objective anyway you see fit. All the other devs have been playing catch up

Nah that's an age old thing.
Just look at Crash Bandicoot. Of course it wasn't really good to begin with was it.

Shit, you're right.

Dragons Dogma is a numbers game, no skill required. It also has the same problems BoTW had, where you just pause the game and heal as much as your heart desires

Really? I'd say that Rockstar has been dragging open world through the mud starting with GTA4. Filler and shitty easy mission design up the ass, ugly chump protagonists, superfluous minigames, bad shooting mechanics, and they even ruined the police chases, one of the only good things GTA ever had. It's like they turned their back on good design a long time ago, yet they still go over the top with the non-essential qualities. The third person cover shooting in RDR was a total drag, but of course there's a billion little details everywhere else. Bad priorities.
While I think RDR2 might be game of the century (you never know), I wouldn't put my bet on it.

If GTA3 started that trend the credit would go to DMA Design, wouldn't it?
Rockstar tries to achieve that open-ended design but they usually don't even get close to anything exciting. I would say it's because the missions in modern GTA and in RDR are a one-dimensional snooze more often than not. If the game really promoted experimental open-ended approaches, it would of felt totally different.
Why does GTA5 have a car repossessing minigame instead? Because that's Rockstar's vision of an open world, an inert space where you wade through filler as a conversation plays over top.

>Main game takes hours and hours to complete
>Add free cosmetic DLC with some quests as a bo us
>Add 2 expansions with hours of gameplay and really good stories for less than 10$ each
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE CONTENT CUT

So you want MGSV Afghanistan.