The Witcher 3 vs Dark Souls 3

+
Decent RPGs existed long before computers came in every house
Hello, captain obvious.

their main requirement is developer's ability to make balanced and interesting role-playing system
False. Role-playing system just helps the game master (or computer) to formalize mechanics to describe a CHARACTER by numerical values and provide CONFLICT RESOLUTIONS, i.e. you say that you can persuade this person to do your bidding and we, therefore, need a mechanics to find it out. Therefore, role-playing system is a service tool just helping to resolve ROLE-PLAYING situations but doesn't define RPG. Like the gear box in the car helps us to increase or decrease speed of the car smoothly but the gear box by itself is not a car.

Computer RPG is NOT game where you play like someone fixed.
Oh, really? I've never played a game where your character could become a different character in the process of the game. You pick one or a group in the beginning and they are all the same till the end.

Computer RPG is a game where you can customize your character and build to your preferences. So as DS3 have much more character customization it is much more RPG then TW3.
Bullshit. RPG is a ROLE-PLAYING game. What part of ROLE-PLAYING you cannot understand? In DS games you don't play any role, you just check your reflexes. Same shit all the time. This is why DS are the action games with RPG elements (customization of your doll). Protagonist in DS does NOT have a CHARACTER. In TW3 you can customize Geralt into caster, alchemist, swordsman, and anything in between, you can roleplay his involvement in the world. You just cannot change his appearance and a background.
 
Hello, captain obvious.


False. Role-playing system just helps the game master (or computer) to formalize mechanics to describe a CHARACTER by numerical values and provide CONFLICT RESOLUTIONS, i.e. you say that you can persuade this person to do your bidding and we, therefore, need a mechanics to find it out. Therefore, role-playing system is a service tool just helping to resolve ROLE-PLAYING situations but doesn't define RPG. Like the gear box in the car helps us to increase or decrease speed of the car smoothly but the gear box by itself is not a car.


Oh, really? I've never played a game where your character could become a different character in the process of the game. You pick one or a group in the beginning and they are all the same till the end.


Bullshit. RPG is a ROLE-PLAYING game. What part of ROLE-PLAYING you cannot understand? In DS games you don't play any role, you just check your reflexes. Same shit all the time. This is why DS are the action games with RPG elements (customization of your doll). Protagonist in DS does NOT have a CHARACTER. In TW3 you can customize Geralt into caster, alchemist, swordsman, and anything in between, you can roleplay his involvement in the world. You just cannot change his appearance and a background.

Although the tone is fierce, I agree with his point.

You do not role play in dark souls.
In essence, it doesn't even have rpg elements in it's customization, it just has an extensive rewards system, basically.

In the witcher you role play as geralt. You take part and influence the story.

None of either games actually has role playing as it's game mechanic.
 
A game is a ... RPG if it features player-driven development of a persistent character or characters via the making of consequential choices.
This definition doesn't cover such game as Star Control 2, which, btw, is one of the best RPGs ever. It has no character development whatsoever but has a lot of choices that change the state of the universe sector you're allowed to fly in. Instead of character development you have a development of your ship, which you can customize as you want. Instead of NPCs you have races of aliens. And the combat is very much pure action fest.
 
I find Maerds arguments to be weak from start to finish, starting with the weak computers argument. On the contrary, an RPG cannot get any more clasic than being turn based, like Pen and Paper CLASIC RPGs. A turn based game does not need a strong computer at all, that's why we have had so many good RPGs in the 90s and early 2000s. Then we have all the other games that were clasified as Clasic RPGs, like Bladur's Gate, Icewind Dale etc, which were not turn based, but since you could you the pause button to make decisions and you manual, real time actions were not as important they did qualify alot.

Action RPG keep the elements that you play a role, and you "build" your character according to your liking, but the actual combat resembles that of an Action Game, where you manual control of the character plays an important role on wether you will succeed or not. The amount of how big of an impact your stats, your build and your strategic aproach on how to use these against any enemy(RPG elements) have compared to your real time manual control of the character(Action elements), vary from game to game labeled as Action RPG. The first part is far more important on games like Diablo or Morrowind, while the second part is propably more impotant on Dark Souls or The WItcher 2 and 3(as long as you fight enemies appropriate to your level).

So the argument that Dark Souls is an Action game with RPG elements, could be true, but it is not, because the RPG elements of the game(especially on Dark Souls 2 which is the most RPG of them), are very very deep, and the amount of customisation that you can on your character is also very high.

Also you DO assume a role on Dark Souls. You play the role of the Chose Undead, as you play the role of Geralt of Rivia on The Witcher. And you said you can make Geralt a swordman, an alchemist or mage. When you chosen undead can have way way deeper customisation. You can make him a Cleric, a Sorcer, a Dark Socercer, a pyromancer, a Tank, and a ton of melee varations which all play very very differently, one to another.
 
Well i couldnt get over terrible controls in Dark Souls plus anime design is repulsive to me so its not really hard question for me.
 
Last edited:
Hello, captain obvious.
You said that there were no decent RPGs in the past because of the weak computers, so the fact that actually there were lots of them was not obvious for you. Fail.

As for the other points you simply don't understand difference between CRPG role-playing and "interactive movie role-living". According to your logic any game where you play like someone is an RPG. Rawls and Toupoutsou already wrote precisely what is RPG, so both DS3 and TW3 are action-RPGs and can be compared in a) action part, b) role-playing system. A lot of people may think that such comparisons are pointless, but TW3 has GOTY status, and usually games with such status are flawless or almost flawless, so many players are interested how it happened that game with so many flaws received that high score. Answer is obvious - unmatched scale of story and world and in this it may be the best not only in 2015 but also in 2014-2016 setting new reference level just like Mass Effect (story), Skyrim (world) and GTA V (both) did in their years.
But when we start talking about such things like battle and balance TW3 starts to fail - for a GOTY-level game.
 
The first Dark Souls is a masterpiece. No other way to look at it. Sure it had it's problems, and of course it was the worst PC port in the history of gaming, However the atmosphere, the level Design, the WORLD design, paired with the greatest melee combat system in an ARPG to date(surpassed only by the following titles in the series) made it a legendary game that changed gaming forever. And it definetely had a story. It was just that the story/lore was hidden in obsure NPC clues and item description. This new way of story telling was also very interesting at that point.

I feel the same way about The Witcher 2. In my opinion it is a legendary game. It had the greatest visuals/graphics than ANY RPG to date, amazing atmosphere, and a choice and consequence system that was so important that effectively completely changed over 1/3 of the entire game based on your choices, something that to my knowledge had not happened before. Pair that to one of the greatest main quests ever, a very complex political thriller with entirely grey choices, with nothing even remotely semembling a clear good or bad decisions, and you have the materpiece. ALso the combat, despite getting a ton of shit, it was definetely one of the greatest in any WESTERN Action RPG to date, and it was quite hardcore. For me The Witcher 2, in terms of world, quests, dialogues had zero weak spots. The Witcher 3 is one of the greatest games ever created in any genre, but to me personally it will always be inferior to The Witcher 2, because it definetely has weak spots, even in the main quest(some might argue ESPECIALLY in the main quest), and i do not like very much some of it's more mainstream influences.

However, getting back to the original question, even though i think that Dark Souls 2 and Dark Souls 3 are also amazing games, they feel like the same game as the first one, with just improved aspects of the gameplay, and far worse Level/World design and atmosphere, while one cannot praise enough the amount of work that CDPR has put in their sequels. You can see how hard they worked and how many things they changed in their attempt to improve their games from one another(despite if some people including me might prefer an older entry), instead of playing it safe and building entirely upon the previous. In that regard The Witcher 3 to me is vastly superior to Dark Sous 3. The amount of work that has been put on it is not something to be taken lightly.

I conclusion, since you are comparing 2 of my favourite games(series actually) of all time, to me the original Dark Souls, the Witcher 2 and the Wtcher 3 are the best RPGs since Baldur's gate 2.

Witcher games aren't even close to the best rpgs category especially with the weak bland limited gameplay they all suffer. There good games but very overrated imo.
 
Witcher games aren't even close to the best rpgs category especially with the weak bland limited gameplay they all suffer. There good games but very overrated imo.

I agree that from an RPG point of view the Witcher games are far from the best ones but from a general point of view TW3 is the best game ever made in my opinion. Although from an RPG point of view it's beyond impressive how believable the choices in TW3 are without Geralt feeling out of character.
 
Last edited:
The first Dark Souls is a masterpiece. No other way to look at it. Sure it had it's problems, and of course it was the worst PC port in the history of gaming, However the atmosphere, the level Design, the WORLD design, paired with the greatest melee combat system in an ARPG to date(surpassed only by the following titles in the series) made it a legendary game that changed gaming forever. And it definetely had a story. It was just that the story/lore was hidden in obsure NPC clues and item description. This new way of story telling was also very interesting at that point.

I feel the same way about The Witcher 2. In my opinion it is a legendary game. It had the greatest visuals/graphics than ANY RPG to date, amazing atmosphere, and a choice and consequence system that was so important that effectively completely changed over 1/3 of the entire game based on your choices, something that to my knowledge had not happened before. Pair that to one of the greatest main quests ever, a very complex political thriller with entirely grey choices, with nothing even remotely semembling a clear good or bad decisions, and you have the materpiece. ALso the combat, despite getting a ton of shit, it was definetely one of the greatest in any WESTERN Action RPG to date, and it was quite hardcore. For me The Witcher 2, in terms of world, quests, dialogues had zero weak spots. The Witcher 3 is one of the greatest games ever created in any genre, but to me personally it will always be inferior to The Witcher 2, because it definetely has weak spots, even in the main quest(some might argue ESPECIALLY in the main quest), and i do not like very much some of it's more mainstream influences.

However, getting back to the original question, even though i think that Dark Souls 2 and Dark Souls 3 are also amazing games, they feel like the same game as the first one, with just improved aspects of the gameplay, and far worse Level/World design and atmosphere, while one cannot praise enough the amount of work that CDPR has put in their sequels. You can see how hard they worked and how many things they changed in their attempt to improve their games from one another(despite if some people including me might prefer an older entry), instead of playing it safe and building entirely upon the previous. In that regard The Witcher 3 to me is vastly superior to Dark Sous 3. The amount of work that has been put on it is not something to be taken lightly.

I conclusion, since you are comparing 2 of my favourite games(series actually) of all time, to me the original Dark Souls, the Witcher 2 and the Wtcher 3 are the best RPGs since Baldur's gate 2.

DS has the greatest melee combat system in an ARPG, and has change gaming forever!?? What a joke!
You must be young player?
Check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egad_InYl6I
 
Oh yea I've heard about this game. The combat for a 2001 game looks amazing and gore is great but this game was a cult classic not the genre defining hit that changed the industry like Demon Souls/Dark Souls 1.

Combat in BoD is beyond any ARPG. There is nothing even today that is close. I know this very well cause i have played this game many times with all 4 characters.
DS is influenced by this game, but unfortunately not enough. BoD combat is way better.
And since DS is influenced by BoD, your statement make no sense.
 
Dark Souls practically lifted BoD combat and you rarely hear anything about it. It was ahead of it's time. But control wise, and skills/special attacks wise, Dragon's Dogma is still the best imo. The spell effects in DD are beyond epic.
 
essenthy;n3208792 said:
you must have play tested W3, thats why the combat is so bad OP

W3 doesnt even come close to DS3 combat, the slow ass movement and unresponsiveness is crazy, when i die in DS3 i cant blame the game, my character is responsive enough to blame myself for my mistake, in W3 when i die .... wait, no i never die in W3, its too easy, even on hard ( wich consist of higher damage and more health for enemy ), i facerolled my way from start to finish spamming X, maybe one boss forced me to learn his pattern, thats it

also DS3 atmosphere/art direction is way more ballsy than the Disney B&W, The wild hunt had that, at least it tried in the early builds, but we know how the game ended up

its still a great a game

W3 combat is some of the worst third person combat I've played. Comparing to the excellence that is the Souls series is ridiculous. Just watch Bloodborne boss battles and Witchers. Night and day in terms fluidity, control response, hit detection and AI difficulty.

Bloodborne - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYw9Vs9V0Q

W3 - https://youtu.be/ewpPkXj0ymA


Western rpgs don't hold a candle to Japanese combat design.

- http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1137437
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WesleyTomsky;n8383600 said:
W3 combat is some of the worst third person combat I've played. Comparing to the excellence that is the Souls series is ridiculous. Just watch Bloodborne boss battles and Witchers. Night and day in terms fluidity, control response, hit detection and AI difficulty.

Bloodborne and Souls games are meant to have instant responsiveness to any input, which also makes the game look incredibly "unrealistic". There is no blending of animations, no weight to the movement.

Witcher on the other hand is more grounded in reality, while in no means "realistic". Each animation blends together with the last, you cant just instantly start running at full speed.

Both games i like, but the games are different, deal with it...
 
Dark Souls 3 is some empty and boring hack and slay without story and NPC`s, and one dies 59 times per minute even on Level 999.
And the stupid knight is out of stamina every second sword hack, the game mechanics are unbearable slow and annoying and undynamic.
I don´t care about games with THAT difficulty setting only appeasing masochists any longer, no matter how CREEPY and BLOODY they are - the overall gameplay and combat are so empty and so boring.......
 
Triss.Hasengold;n8409540 said:
Dark Souls 3 is some empty and boring hack and slay without story and NPC`s, and one dies 59 times per minute even on Level 999.
And the stupid knight is out of stamina every second sword hack, the game mechanics are unbearable slow and annoying and undynamic.
I don´t care about games with THAT difficulty setting only appeasing masochists any longer, no matter how CREEPY and BLOODY they are - the overall gameplay and combat are so empty and so boring.......

lol, the story is actually very well thought out, more so than most other games.. and as for the gameplay being "hard" well.. its actually really not, Dark Souls 3 is the easiest Souls game and if you are having trouble with it then here is how you can beat the game:

 
Top Bottom