I"m a great fan of Bethesda's SKYRIM. I have played it 4-5 times. I had heard of the Witcher series but really started to get into it today. My question ....can any compare the two games so I can better understand what the Witcher series offers.
ATM I'm thinking of playing the original enhanced Witcher......then Assuming i'll like it....get the 2nd and 3rd games. Any help would be appreciated.
Unlike TW3, the first two weren't open-world games, so if this is vitally important to you, they may not give an accurate impression of what TW3 will be like. But they're non-linear, with plenty of opportunities to explore.
The games have standard RPG mechanics such as levelling up, planning your build, crafting and so on, but you play as a fixed character so there's no character creation.
All three games are/will be very much story-driven. They make you care about what's happening, about the decisions you make. There are no right/wrong choices, but what you choose does have consequences. You may not find out what those consequences are until much later.
Witcher 1 and 2 have nothing in common with Skyrim. And I am pretty sure that The 3rd except for the open world wil be the same. Witcher is story driven. Skyrim is a make your own story. Witcher has deeper gameplay and is more demanding than a elders Scrolls. In Witcher 1 and 2 you are less free but it benefits to the story. Don't buy Witcher thinking it's like a Elder Scroll that's my advice. You will be disappointed otherwise. Doesn't mean it s less good. It's different. I am a Skyrim fan too but I play The Witcher for totally different reasons.
Greetings, fellow strigas, bruxas Witcher fans I'm new to the forums and this seems like a good place to start. I am a huge fan of The Witcher series (books & games) and also put in a lot of time with Skyrim. To me Skyrim was a playground with no rules and deserves the praise it received. In the end though I think the fact it felt that way to me was ultimately what led me to fall in love with The Witcher.
I found myself losing interest in Skyrim's story and began doing side quest after side quest and when that grew tiring I finished up the story. The world that was created was a sight to behold and while I enjoyed the majority of my time within the virtual space I just couldn't help but feel frustrated. I felt the game could've been something so much more had more emphasis been placed on the story.
I played The Witcher 2 prior to the first one and immediately fell in love early on in the game. The exact moment I knew I would enjoy it was when
Geralt replies to Roche after escaping the dungeon "you left me a key to my manacles, not an invisibility cloak."
The branching storyline had me do multiple playthroughs before going back and playing the first game. They are truly a testament of love to the source material and The Witcher 3 looks to continue that trend.
And reasons ... Skyrims is not bad game, but if I compare it to witcher...
It hasn't that beuatiful story as I know from witcher. Maybe it's just me, but it does not appeal to me as witcher stories. I also missed some atmosphere. Everything was just about graphic and different weather, but nothing else. When I came with witcher to Kaer Morhen or to outskirts of Vizima, to Vizima quarters, to swampland or any other place, there was strong and unique atmosphere. Even without great graphic it was much more bautiful fo me. Witcher 2 is nearly the same. Flotsam, battlefields, caves, LaVallete's castle, Loc Muine dungeons and other locations have their beautiful atmosphere. But I didn't find anything like that in Skyrim ... landscape or underground, hills or lowlands - everything was the same ... just lighting and weather were different. I just go somewhere, beacuse I needed upgrade of my character, some weapon or other stuff, but I didn't meet there someone like wraith, which was guarding Grey banner or ghost from field hospital..
When I am talking about other characters ... I can't even remember some friends from Skyrim - just some sherpa and few important characters (important for game, not for me). On the other hand, I have true friends with strong realtionship to them in Witcher. They are very interesting, they have their own mind or goals. Also other characters are very interesting and their stories are not just another quests for me (like two sisters and lover, verewolf, his human side and his love, inspection about striga or about succubus).
This is just my opinion, since you liked Skyrim, I don't want to convince you it was bad, I just expect you can like Witcher even more.
My understanding is that the OP is looking for factual information.
Can we avoid "Reasons why I don't like Skyrim" in future answers please? The intention should be to provide useful advice.
The first game is very different from the second, and even more different than the third. Even liking TW2 is no guarantee to liking TW1 because of the very different mechanics.
The franchise has some general differences, outside the particular mechanics of each game. You play an existing character, Geralt of Rivia. He's a human who underwent mutations at an early age, of which very few survive, to become a witcher - a profession of monster hunters that's almost extinct nowadays. They wander from village to village in search of contracts and tend to be greeted with suspicion and distrust, not hugs and kisses. You don't play a hero in these games. Geralt is a bit of an unusual protagonist. He's fiendishly skilled, one of the best swordsmen out there, but he doesn't have any authority and he's not championing any crusade. Most of the time leaders are trying to use him instead of him trying to lead people. The games are based on series of books, but they take several years after them and introduce Geralt with amnesia (how convenient), so newcomers can learn the world slowly without needing to read the books (though they certainly boost the experience).
The tone is different than TES, as are the gameplay options. Geralt is first and foremost a swordsman. The games try to offer different routes of leveling-up. They're a bit less distinct in TW1, a bit more in TW2. You have Swordsmanship, Signs and Alchemy. Signs are rudimentary magic that witchers know. Alchemy is more advanced in this franchise than in others. Thing is, at the end of the day it still comes down to slashing things with your sword. If you feel like playing a mage, or a rogue, or a healer, this game isn't for you. You can play a Sign-heavy Geralt, but, again, they're meant to complement the sword fighting, not replace it. You can't summon familiars, cast ice storms and other wizardly stuff of the sort.
So customization options are more limited than other RPGs. Since the games are very story-heavy and with a fixed character, there are other limitations according to the lore. For example, you can't buy houses or pick up a trading profession (a smith, a carpenter, etc).
TW is probably credited most for its writing, story and atmosphere. The franchise is Polish and incorporates a lot of Eastern European mythology, and it gives it a very unique flavor. Most situations don't have a clear good or bad solution, and you are required to make important decisions throughout the games. These tend to have noticeable consequences. The second game is famous for changing the second chapter based on a decision of yours (there are 3 chapters in total), placing you on a different side of the barricade, literally, with different characters and quests.
They're not open-world games, but hub based. You progress from chapter to chapter and you can't go back. Each chapter is its own open area, but they're each too small to be considered intuitively open-world as most gamers grasp that term. TW3 is a multi-region open world of a very generous size, from what we can tell so far. Significantly bigger than the previous game and apparently noticeably bigger than Skyrim too, but it's hard to measure that so take it with a grain of salt.
The second game's combat relies a lot on player reflex skill and quickness, while the first is... not sure how to describe it. Slower, more traditional RPG'y? It has a strange system of clicking in the right time to enter the next stage of your combo, and if you click at the wrong time you need to start the combo all over again, so it's rhythm-based. It has its charm, I enjoyed it, but many don't. A friend of mine just started TW1 lately and he's not enjoying the combat, but he's content on lowering the difficulty to Low to enjoy the story instead.
Personally, I think that to get the most of these games, you really need to invest the time to read every journal entry, talk with every character and read every in-game book. Cruising from one quest to the other is a shame because the game has such interesting characters, a complex political situation and a very cool (short-term) history. Its lore isn't as vast as TES or LotR - it doesn't cover thousands of years or huge geographical locations - but what it does cover, it does with amazing quality. So depth over breadth.
Hope this helps. Not sure if I covered what you wanted to know. If you're wondering about anything else, feel free to ask.
"Walk behind me if you want a shake." And can't forget the "My doppleganger killed him. I have three of them". This might be my favorite quote in any game, partly due to its context - not too smart to piss off the person you're trying to convince to let you go, Geralt.
Just kidding. I love Bethesda's games. TW3 will have some things in common, but the biggest differences are:
- it's multi region, not one seamless map. This has been CDPR's approach from the beginning.
- non linear story that reacts to your decisions.
- TP view with more challenging combat.
- Lesbomancy. This is important.
- it's multi region, not one seamless map. This has been CDPR's approach from the beginning.
- non linear story that reacts to your decisions.
- TP view with more challenging combat.
- Lesbomancy. This is important.
- No monster level scaling, which means you actually do get a sense of having become stronger
- Interesting characters that will emotionally affect you: laugh, cry, rage, etc.
- No automatic generated dungeons that all look the same
- Your actions actually matter and there are real consequences here. (Yeah other games spout the same thing, but so far The witcher series delivers on it)
- The world/NPCs reacts to you, but simultaniously they live their own life. The world also moves on offscreen.
- Your main character is fixed, meaning he can not be custom made. He has his own backstory and you'll play his story.
- The world is hand crafted.
It's not fair to truly compare a game from 2011 to a 2015. Skyrim was a game that brought a lot of interesting things to the world of RPGs. It was a good sandbox experience where you could do whatever you wanted and people didn't give a shit.
Thank you all for the time you took to share your thoughts. I've jumped in to "THE WITCHER" and am really enjoying it. I started my game playing with RPG's long ago, and moved to mmog's in recent years. Given the dearth of mmog titles I like ...I've broadened my search to RPG's. Luckily I discovered THE WITCHER series.
The only thing both games (e.i. Skyrim/Witcher 3) have in common is the open world experience. Other than that, they're two completely different games. Also, you have to take into consideration the Witcher 1's gameplay can be monotonous, less so in the Witcher 2. I'm addressing this so that you're aware, for one, & also so that your experience with the first game wouldn't predetermine the others (e.i. the W2 & perhaps W3).
Thanks for the information and advice. I'm working away on W1. It can be challenging given the small restricted world. I'm making progress....albeit slowly.
