The Witcher or Fallout 3?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.succulent_toes
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
[QUOTE="succulent_toes"]I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.smerlus
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting.
Well I REALLY like what I've seen so far from Fallout 3, but I've heard a lot of people say that The Witcher was one of the best RPG's they've ever played. So yeah I'm pretty split between them. I'll probably make my final choice once I finish Far Cry 2.chesterocks7
the Witcher was one of the better RPG's that had come out in a while. However the combat is one of the worst aspects of the game second only to the voice acting (they said that was fixed up in the EE version) the thing is does the best is that the decisions you make aren't the typical good/evil choices. you're often presented with a problem that seems rather evenly two sided but which ever side you pick has far reaching consequences that are hard to predict and often happen so far later in the game that it's too difficult to just reload and try another route.
Then depending on what difficulty you put it on, the alchemy portion is either useless or key to survival. Most of the quests involve killing a certain number of creatures, finding certain plants and junk like that.
Fallout 3 suffers from something totally different. You have people that hated Oblivion and fans of Fallout 1 and 2 saying the game was crap since it was announced a few years back. Now that the game has turned out fine in many people's eyes and is actually a better RPG than even Morrowind, these naysayer's egos won't let them say anything good about the game and often times you'll get posts like the one above saying the combat sucks.
I'm sorry about choosing between a silver sword or another weapon and 3 of the same combat styles for each then clicking on a character to a timed pattern is not better than scavenging for items to repair your many types of guns, explosives and melee weapons and fighting in real time or VATS. Many reviews both professional and user say The Witcher's combat is dull and tedious.
combat in fallout 3 is definatly less good than the witcher. Feel like a half-baked fps and the vats is really annoying to use since it lag and the camera is horrible at showing you your kill. Witcher is probably more interesting story-wise also.
"Fallout 3 suffers from something totally different"
I lol'ed at that. I dunno how a grey/brownish open-ended rpg game with gun is totally different than what I've seen before. The problem with fallout 3 is that it try to be too many things at the same time.
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="succulent_toes"]I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.succulent_toes
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting.
The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.
Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million "get me X number of this animal parts" quests.
Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.
Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.
Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.
Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.
[QUOTE="succulent_toes"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="succulent_toes"]I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.smerlus
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting.
The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.
Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million "get me X number of this animal parts" quests.
Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.
Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.
Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.
Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.
Wow, look at all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise.
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="succulent_toes"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="succulent_toes"]I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.succulent_toes
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting.
The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.
Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million "get me X number of this animal parts" quests.
Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.
Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.
Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.
Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.
Wow, look at all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise.
Well I'm actually the one looking for suggestions.
Well I'm actually the one looking for suggestions.
chesterocks7
I understand that, and he's of course welcome to suggest away. But he's responding to me, and I'm telling him to stop responding to me, since I won't be reading his **** anyway. Next time he wants to give suggestions to you, I think it would go over much more smoothly if he simply responded to your post, instead of mine. Otherwise, it's going to get catty. :D
I hope you find his comments helpful in deciding which game to get. :) If you haven't tried Mass Effect, I suggest that one over the two you're looking at. :P
all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise. succulent_toes
And my experience tells me that someone's who has played 2 hours of a 40 plus hour game has an opinion that is next to useless.Just like I wouldn't listen to someone that watched 10 minutes of The Godfather and said it was boring. I'm glad you're willing to share your so limited amount of experience on the topic with us so we can readily dismiss your claims. Thank you for not wasting anymore of our time.
I'll equally be looking for your 30 minute mark Dragon Age review in fact I think you're onto something here. You should start a website where you review demo portions of games. You'd have the only website that does that and you'd be the first with many reviews
Witcher: Enhanced Edition, easily. despite its flaws, it's quite an impressive rpg that rounds up an intriguing plot with interesting characters. you'd be making moral choices that really bind you with the world around you. as you fight foes that could have been friends and forging alliance with demons you've sworn to destroy, you would be burdened with REAL emotional weight you'd rarely find in other rpg games. now, with Enhanced Edition, you'd be getting even more bang outta the buck. as for Fallout 3, i've played quite a bit of it, and while it's a solid title that stands out from the horrible Elder Scroll games, it isn't quite the engrossing rpg like The Witcher.
Ok so here's my situation. I'm about to finish Far Cry 2 and want to pick up a new RPG. I can't figure out if I should get the Witcher or Fallout 3. I'm kinda leaning towards The Witcher, cause it's cheaper and one of my housemates just bought Fallout 3 for his 360, although I eventually want to get Fallout 3 for PC. Which do you guys suggest and why?chesterocks7
I just ordered Fallout 3, and I haven't played it yet. I can say that The Witcher is a top-notch rpg...the depth of storyline will not disappoint you. In fact, the story line is great. The side games of gambling, fighting and sexual conquests are fun; while not absolutely necessary to move the main story lines along, they add another layer of depth and reality to the world. This game also forces you to eventually choose sides, which in turn change the outcome of the game...so, the decisions you make really help to raise the level of interest in the game as they make a considerable difference.
I'd say, buy The Witcher and play it first...you can play Fallout 3 on your friend's 360 for now. Maybe in a couple of months, there will be a price reduction, and you can buy Fallout 3 for yourself. My 3 cents.
edit, oops. too late. I see you've made a good decision.
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="succulent_toes"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="succulent_toes"]I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.succulent_toes
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
I don't think the shooting/melee combat in Fallout 3 is decent at all. And I don't think clicking on a target over and over again has to be boring. Diablo II is one of my favorite games, because I found the combat and character customization to be very exciting.
The addictiveness in Diablo's combat came from the skills and the fact the game is mostly killing and trying to collect rare loot.
Most of The Witcher's skills either combine with the magic, are automatic and not nearly as flashy as Diablo's and there's no good loot to collect. Just animal parts for potions or the million "get me X number of this animal parts" quests.
Fallout 3's combat fixes a lot of the issues with the original Fallout's combat. No longer do i have to wait through a long drawn on turn based system when my level 15 guy with a rocket launcher comes across a bunch of Raiders with 10mm handguns.
Now if I want to stick to melee weapons, I can actually stalk and lure people over to me so I can cut them in half with the ripper, knock them to bits with the super sledge or punch thier faces off with the power fist.
Fact is you said you played 2 hours of Fallout and the combat is going to suck. Your guy sin't that skilled with anything and you probably don't have things repaired to high levels. When you're using a scoped .44 magnum almost fully repaired so the damage it does is in the high 30's, you have the Bloody Mess perk, 95 in hand guns and you're sneaking up on a Super Mutant Master, getting them in your scope and taking their heads off clean with one shot, the game is amazing.
Even if you're spotted and you're chased after, when you switch to a combat shotgun, go to VATS and unload 3 shells point blank into a guys face of legs and watch in slow mo as the spread rips off the guys face or arms... that's more than decent and a lot better than just pointing and clicking.
Wow, look at all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise.
Well I don't really want to get dragged into this argument, but I will say this... if a game doesn't draw you in within the first 2 hours of playing it, either that game simply isn't for you, or the game is just plain bad. I would never say "Well you only played 2 hours! You can't form an opinion based on that!" I expect a game to get me interested from the get go. If it fails to do that, I'm not going to keep playing it. End of story.
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="succulent_toes"]all this text that I won't be reading. I form my opinions based on what I play. If the game doesn't convince me after two hours of playing (which neither of them did), I won't be playing it much thereafter, but I will give it a try every now and then in hopes of experiencing something that will convince me otherwise. I don't care about your opinion on the game or your generalization regarding people who don't like Fallout 3 or the opinions of professional reviewers that you seem to like quoting. I just care about the experience I get out of games and discussing them with people whose opinions I respect. You are not one of those people, so write away all you want, but they're falling on deaf ears. And it's not because I'm stubborn; it's because my experience tells me otherwise. succulent_toes
And my experience tells me that someone's who has played 2 hours of a 40 plus hour game has an opinion that is next to useless.Just like I wouldn't listen to someone that watched 10 minutes of The Godfather and said it was boring. I'm glad you're willing to share your so limited amount of experience on the topic with us so we can readily dismiss your claims. Thank you for not wasting anymore of our time.
I'll equally be looking for your 30 minute mark Dragon Age review in fact I think you're onto something here. You should start a website where you review demo portions of games. You'd have the only website that does that and you'd be the first with many reviews
Again, more text I won't be reading. You 'WIN' this argument!!! :lol:
I'll say what I said again: It shouldn't take a game over 2 hours to get you INTERESTED. If it starts off boring, I'm not going to really care if 20 hours later it might get more interesting. The game has to start off on the right foot. Not saying Fallout 3 is a bad game, I'm just saying it's not for everybody, and you can't say that someone who's only played a game for 2 hours can't have formed a good opinion. I don't know about you, but I don't spend hours playing a game hoping that it will start to be fun at some point. I have better things to do with my time.
I'll say what I said again: It shouldn't take a game over 2 hours to get you INTERESTED. If it starts off boring, I'm not going to really care if 20 hours later it might get more interesting. The game has to start off on the right foot. Not saying Fallout 3 is a bad game, I'm just saying it's not for everybody, and you can't say that someone who's only played a game for 2 hours can't have formed a good opinion. I don't know about you, but I don't spend hours playing a game hoping that it will start to be fun at some point. I have better things to do with my time.
zomglolcats
I'm not saying he can't have a useless opinion. Everyone is entitled to useless opinions. However if someone makes a topic of which one is better, and someone only had a minute experience with both things is their opinion a good one?
If I only saw 10 minutes of Goodfellas and The Godfather and you asked me which one is better, I reply that they both bored me but I'll go with Goodfellas because Ray Liota is in it, would you think that's a credible source of information?
I own both, and I say Fallout 3...the witcher is just too serious, I prefer Fallout 3 not taking itself too seriously
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
smerlus
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
fallout 3 all the way,
The witcher boring!, and omg combat is so simple, click click click, whats so woow abt that, and fallout 3 combat is alright vats makes it loads fun. also witcher has a **** beginning, and it has freaking lag problems too,
i can run crysis on med-high, fallout 3 on ultra high and freaking witcher on like medium with lag, lol, btw its the enhanced version i played. so ya go for fallout 3, btw im not picking sides i have played both for over 5 hours.....:)
[QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
HummaKavula
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
[QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
smerlus
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
Moira.
[QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
smerlus
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
nope...this is totally false.
[QUOTE="succulent_toes"]I've only played like two hours on each, and so far, I have to say that The Witcher is a thousand times better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has ass combat and terrible writing and fugly graphics; it does give you many meaningful choices to make, but I don't think that's enough to make it a good role-playing game. After all, choices don't make a GOOD role-playing game; they just make it a role-playing game. If the writing sucks, there's not much that can save it from being terrible except the combat, and, as I mentioned, the combat in Fallout 3 is terrible. The Witcher, on the other hand, seems to have at least better combat, and I hear that the writing has been polished for the enhanced version (though I can't attest to this personally). I'd definitely go with The Witcher, though I'm sure many people will disagree with my opinions on Fallout 3.smerlus
Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
Did u just say the Witcher is simple Fetch quests? Did you play it or just like talking out of your butt, many side quests branch off in multiple paths with multiple ways to complete them, with each way having its own set of consequence. The voice overs have been fixed (EEE edition), you have no clue what you are talking about. combat is just clicking? You can sue signs, do flips, use potions as well, Fallout 3 at the end of the day is just clicking as well last i checked. The Combat is unique for an RPG, many enjoyed it. Also, some of the best RPG's ever are just point and click. The Withcer is easily one of the best RPG's of the last few years.
[QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
smerlus
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
LOL, wow, fanboy much? Totally false, bethesda always has had bad voice acting, oblivion and FO3 are full of it along with average dialog. Geralts Voice was perfect for teh character. They recycled many of the same voice overs from oblivion.
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
Baranga
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
Moira.
fact is if you don't want to hear Moira's voice, you don't have to talk to her. How can I get over Geralt's terrible voice when he's the lead character?
[QUOTE="Baranga"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
smerlus
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
Moira.
fact is if you don't want to hear Moira's voice, you don't have to talk to her. How can I get over Geralt's terrible voice when he's the lead character?
Desperate for an argument when all you can complain about is the leads voice. Taht os personal preference, most like geralts voice over. Don't play it then, but The Witcher is a rgeat game, if your saying it isn't because of geralts voice then it just you have no valid points to make and are looking for any excuse to hate on the game.
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
doyousmellthat
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
LOL, wow, fanboy much? Totally false, bethesda always has had bad voice acting, oblivion and FO3 are full of it along with average dialog. Geralts Voice was perfect for teh character. They recycled many of the same voice overs from oblivion.
I'd take average dialogue over bad voice acting and GTA dialogue in a fantasy setting. Is it really that cool to have this much swearing in a sword and sorcery setting? All the F bombs and other curse words feel about as authentic as a contact in GTA IV saying "Thou art worthy of this AK, Now go forth and unleash your hellish fury upon the beasts of the land my child"
[QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Baranga"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
doyousmellthat
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
Moira.
fact is if you don't want to hear Moira's voice, you don't have to talk to her. How can I get over Geralt's terrible voice when he's the lead character?
Desperate for an argument when all you can complain about is the leads voice. Taht os personal preference, most like geralts voice over. Don't play it then, but The Witcher is a rgeat game, if your saying it isn't because of geralts voice then it just you have no valid points to make and are looking for any excuse to hate on the game.
LOL it isn't personal preference it's a known fact that the voice actor sucks. It's documented in hundred of reviews so I'm not alone in thinking that his voice over is shoddy work. If it's not crappy why did they choose to rework it in the EE? One of the major points of the EE was to fix bugs and dialogue so you guys acting like everything is fine and calling me a fanboy are hypocrites. Even the devs realized it was a low point of the game but here you guys are making posts about how terrific it is and how crazy i am.
so here's where the line is drawn.
Devs know that they put out a game with crappy dialogue, reviews say the game has crappy dialogue, I played the game and witnessed crappy dialogue VS you guys that say it's me just being picky and I'm the fanboy
You need to get some perspective on this whole situation
[QUOTE="doyousmellthat"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="Baranga"][QUOTE="smerlus"][QUOTE="HummaKavula"][QUOTE="smerlus"]Did you just say clicking on a target over and over again is better combat than a decent shooter/melee game?
The Witcher has sorry voice overs, is loaded with simple fetch quests...the best thing about the game is the decisions have consequences no one can predict and often occur much later in the game.
smerlus
Hate to break it to ya but Fallout 3's voice acting isn't exactly great either.
I'd go with Fallout 3, though.
Geralt's voice and dialogue alone is worse than any 20 characters you say have bad acting in fallout 3.
Moira.
fact is if you don't want to hear Moira's voice, you don't have to talk to her. How can I get over Geralt's terrible voice when he's the lead character?
Desperate for an argument when all you can complain about is the leads voice. Taht os personal preference, most like geralts voice over. Don't play it then, but The Witcher is a rgeat game, if your saying it isn't because of geralts voice then it just you have no valid points to make and are looking for any excuse to hate on the game.
LOL it isn't personal preference it's a known fact that the voice actor sucks. It's documented in hundred of reviews so I'm not alone in thinking that his voice over is shoddy work. If it's not crappy why did they choose to rework it in the EE? One of the major points of the EE was to fix bugs and dialogue so you guys acting like everything is fine and calling me a fanboy are hypocrites. Even the devs realized it was a low point of the game but here you guys are making posts about how terrific it is and how crazy i am.
so here's where the line is drawn.
Devs know that they put out a game with crappy dialogue, reviews say the game has crappy dialogue, I played the game and witnessed crappy dialogue VS you guys that say it's me just being picky and I'm the fanboy
You need to get some perspective on this whole situation
really? Post one link to a review that says this is the case? You are the one who needs perspective, you are jamming your biased opinion down peopels throats, but the poll says it all, msot say the Witcher, and the witcher won RPG of the year by USER VOTES. What gamers think matters more then reviews att he end of the day. The dialog was great, what game did yuo play, reviews say how good it si, the only issue was the poor english translation, which has been fixed in EE. Educate yuorself beofre posting. tell me how you know what the devs think? Dialog in The Witcher is better then mosr RPG's around. Certainly better then anything Bethesda has made.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment