The Open World of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

well, I know what you mean, after all skyrim was a huge succes and they are freely criticizing it like they have already made something better ;]

but I think they are right in what they said about skyrim tbh

@vmqlsze true that dude BUT! i think you would enjoy this game have a look => goo.gl3QqUGP

So I can't have my own opinion about something? :/

stop insulting skyrim!

Then again, the whole point of Skyrim is the adventure and exploration, not the characters. And Skyrim compared to other Elder Scroll games (and many others for that matter) give ever NPC for the most part, some sort of personality.

To add to this, IMO at least: Delphine, Esbern, Arngier, Ulfric, Tullius, Brynjolf, Astrid, and i could go on for a long time. The point is there ARE plenty of memorable characters in Skyrim, and the other TES games, though I do agree the majority of them lack depth, you can't say there aren't many memorable characters, or characters with personality.

Their point they're making is that when you make characters really comprehensive, it helps alot with the immersion. Skyrim had that immersion due to their awesome atmospheric open world wich made you WANT to explore. The Witcher 2 had that immersion due to the fact that every character you met would either lose, or benefit from your choices.

Either way, the comparison isn't really fair: The Witcher 2 had a budget of 8 million dollars, Skyrim… 85 million… An amazing job by CD Projekt RED.

i think they need to move away from a lock on combat. i hated AC 2 and 3. i want freedom of movement i feel i am restrained when i TRIED to play witcher 2. make it closer to skyrim and you have a buyer who will buy your dlcs as will.

Played both Skyrim and TW 1 and 2, I gotta say, no character in Skyrim are interesting enough for me to do extensive research on. I just remember them as badasses who help save the world. Characters in TW, on other hand, are much more interesting. Especially their past and the way how the characters are related to each other, even if the character is from a side quest. TW series definitely have much better NPCs.

You may not like it as much as others, but you'll have to admit it had an huge, positive effect over the gaming industry, and also, over The Witcher development

no question, but is just a GOOD game, not a 10/10 "Legendary" !!

Not everybody like open world games .. they can be too overwhelming. I like a focused experience for example, not every RPG has to be Skyrim..
With that said everything they said sounded awesome.

Yea… weakness of Bethesda is making cool rich worlds with poor characters and weak main story…

skyrim had a lot of weaknesses and bugs. but the utter freedom and general lack of constraints make it compelling for a lot of people. the lore is deep,  there are few cutscenes, no locking on, and no time limits. the combat can be clunky, but it's always up to you how you take out the baddies. I've never played a witcher game but I'm interested to see how it will measure up..

bethesda does make everything generic 

CD Projekt RED continues to pleasantly surprise me. This is exactly the right approach. Sure, it's cool to have a big open world, but if all the side quests are boring, generic and just the same thing over and over, it doesn't really make sense. I have no doubt that Witcher 3 will have great story telling (Like the first and second game) but it's important that they nail the open world aspect – And by the looks of it, they absolutely will.

Skyrim's storyline is a fuckin joke, The Witcher is a mmillion times better

Everyone needs to stop comparing the witcher 3 to skyrim, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Skyrim is an rpg for casuals, the witcher series actually has balls and doesn't treat you like an idiot.

I really cannot wait for Cyberpunk!

1:32 OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH this nigga is laying it hard

Just bought The Witcher 3 GOTY edition… I've never played a Witcher game before, and while I think it's a good game, it's also vastly overrated. The game mechanics are very clunky (jumping is horrible, Roach can't even properly jump) and the open world in and of itself, is empty and boring. There's nothing to do, nor are there any ways to interact with this world. Sure, there are a ton of well developed side quests, but I am not talking about missions. I am talking about the world in and of itself. If it weren't for the question marks on the map, there'd be no reason to explore any of it. Look at Red Dead Redemption, that game truly feels alive. You can always be sure to just wander off and expect something cool to happen or to find something. Or you can always just hunt wildlife, and while "hunting" is possible in the Witcher 3, it barely works because again, the mechanics just aren't there to support it. Everything outside of missions feels extremely static and uninteresting. The world itself is also not diverse. Everything just looks the same. Again, look at Red Dead… Every town or village feels distinct. All the districts are unique. Heck, even Mexico is vastly different from the US border, and it's supported by different music, animals, people, etc. The Witcher 3 feels the same everywhere. And outside of the side-quests (which I know is the best part of the Witcher 3), the game has NOTHING to offer. In Red Dead you can do all sorts of things and random events present itself to you at any time. The map is also far more open, while the Witcher 3 is so dense, it almost feels claustrophobic, as if they don't want you to wander off the given path. If it weren't for the markers on the map, I wouldn't have come across any of the side quests. While in Red Dead, I never even had to look on the map at all, I just randomly came across all of these "stranger" missions on my own (despite them being vaguely marked on the map as well). This feeling of "randomness" is completely absent from the Witcher 3. The only times I've experienced it, is during side-quests when one led to another and so forth. But you don't need an open world for that… It's like MGS5, while a great game mechanically, there's just no reason for the open world to exist. It's boring and while the missions in and of itself are great, they don't justify the open world. The sense of freedom is completely absent. I've also never liked the "Different fast travel maps"-thing either. Imo, either you have one seamless open world, or you have none at all. That's what I never liked about the Assassin's Creed games, outside of Origins.

I am not far into the game, so maybe I just haven't come across the good stuff… but then again, the game is apparently 250 hours, so exactly when am I going to experience the good stuff? Again, the side-quests are detailed, varied and well put together. But I'd rather have 20 great side-quests with an awesome storyline and a TRUE open world in all of its glory, with good gameplay than hundreds of good sidequests, an okay storyline and a poor open world with clunky gameplay.

The Witcher 3 is deep… very deep… maybe even too deep for new players, but I reckon that's a good thing. But, as someone who loves the feeling of true open world games, I must admit I was sorely disappointed with the Witcher 3's world and its distinct lack of promotion to freely explore and do random, stupid shit… which is always so much fun to do.
The Witcher fanbase treats this game as the best game of the decade, so maybe I was just expecting too much and had unreasonable expectations. But I'm sorry, I don't consider a clunky game with a boring open world and an okay story to be the best game of all time simply because it has a shit ton of well developed side-quests.

3:39 ''you saw dat mountain distance with clowns around them'' This guy clearly know what he's talking about man.