Poll: Witcher 3 or Bloodborne?

[zelda2fanboy]

I've been having this debate with myself for quite some time and I can't figure it out. Both Witcher 3 and Bloodborne seem like massive games and time investments and I probably don't have time for either of them, let alone both. However, I do like open world RPGs and hard games with weird rules. I tend to prefer horror over fantasy, but I prefer Western styled open world games to weird Japanese styled ones. I think I might want Bloodborne more, but the combat does look like it could be repetitive and the story could be uninteresting. However, The Witcher 3 seems similar to the type of gameplay I'd get in a Bethesda game like Skyrim or Fallout (and I definitely playing Fallout in favor of any time on the Witcher). I haven't played any previous Witcher games, but I also haven't played any Souls games. Do I go for a game type I've never seen before at all and hope I like it? Or do I go with a big huge somewhat familiar RPG in a setting that may or may not interest me? Are all of my impressions of these two games wrong?

 

[Skin]

Witcher combat is much more repetitive than Bloodborne.

Still, I would probably go with the Witcher, for the overall package, and pick yourself up a cheap copy of Demon's Souls or Dark Souls somewhere down the line to get a taste of whether BB might be your thing (in alot of ways, BB felt like DkS-lite). You might find yourself frustrated with Souls games, but that probably won't be the case for the Witcher.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I've played both so...

Bloodborne is a Souls game basically, which doesn't have as you've never played them. You basically have EVERYTHING at the start. You won't get new combos/skills/abilities/weapons much at all throughout the game. You basically pick a weapon and level it and your stats that correspond to it like leveling strength for a strength weapon or skill (basically dex) for a skill weapon. You will occasionally come across and get say a magic ability but if you don't level arcane, you won't be able to use it anyways. The Souls games are weird in the sense you actually level and get worse as at the start, you can really use any weapon effectively with base stats against the opening level enemies. Then, as you level, you level your weapon and weapon scaling stat (like strength) to stay the same (kill enemies in the same number of hits basically) while giving up your options of using other types of weapons (since you didn't level those weapons or those stats). You level to stay on par with enemies and give up other combat options, you don't really get better. And, there's no respec option in these games either, makes no sense. The combat is very solid; however, you will be using pretty much the same strategy vs just about every enemy. The Souls games are only hard if you can't play cautious or patient as pretty much every standard enemy is really easy to kill if you play it safe, meaning trying to only fight one enemy at a time and not trying to do cool shit in combat as you have to survive from lamp post to lamp post without dying to make progress. Any environmental traps are pretty easy to avoid by paying attention (I played through Dark Souls' trap filled dungeon without getting caught in one trap for example). It's not a hard game, it's more of playing in the proper mental state than acquiring badass combat skills. The only challenges the game really throws at you are the boss fights, which really aren't too hard (there's always a few challenging ones in there). The reason I have played Dark Souls and Bloodborne to completion is the level design and atmosphere, I just love exploring the levels in these games. If I played just for combat, I would've quit after 5 hours or so because it really doesn't change. Bloodborne is probably the hardest Souls game just because it doesn't let you play as cheap as the other Souls games like you can't hide behind a shield or be cheap with magic and the game does play at a faster pace. Bloodborne definitely has decent length but it's really not much of a time sink like other RPGs. Lastly, the story, the little there is, is of very little importance.

Firstly, I haven't finished Witcher 3 but I've really poured quite a bit of time into it so I can't really comment on how well the story is as I haven't finished it. Also, it is the 1st Witcher I've played. I will say the Witcher 3 starts really really slow. You start out as Geralt, a witcher is his prime, with just base skills for some reason. Thus, it takes awhile for the combat to get interesting as it wasn't until like level 10 that I started digging the combat. The action-based combat is a lot better than a Skyrim or Fallout. You have to "slot" every skill you get so at the start of the game, you only have one slot so you can only have one skill active thus it takes some leveling to open slots to use a few skills. The game does allow you to be rather cheap in combat as you can spam the shield power to basically lose no health when hit or spam the mind power to stun enemies over and over again. Plus, the early quests are really basic and uninteresting for the most part. There's a quest to find a frying pan, I realize the early quests are to teach you the mechanics but you could make the quest more interesting. After X amount of time played, I really did start digging the game a lot from the quests to the characters to the combat. There's lots of dialogue in Witcher 3. The boss fights, the few there have been (I'm at least at the halfway point), were very disappointing as the way to defeat the boss is extremely simple and the boss usually has a way to get health back, which only prolongs the boring fight. I say the boss fights are worse than Deus Ex HR boss fights. With that all said, I do feel Witcher 3 is a very solid open world RPG.

I really don't know what to recommend as they are very different games, but I do feel Witcher 3 is the better experience after a horribly slow start.

 

[The Madman]

However, The Witcher 3 seems similar to the type of gameplay I'd get in a Bethesda game like Skyrim or Fallout (and I definitely playing Fallout in favor of any time on the Witcher).

Sorta... but not really. Witcher 3 is ultimately more of a story-driven experience than Bethesda's games which tend to be more about creating your own story. Whether it's following the main plot or one of the dozens of excellently written side-quests Witcher 3 is all about telling a story and sometimes forcing the player to make difficult decisions, there's far less of the random antics of Skyrim involved. You also play as Geralt, an established character with his own personal tastes and convictions, and while you can certainly make a number of important decisions in his shoes nothing you do will ever be able to go against who he is as a character. You can't murder random civilians for fun and piles their bodies in your basement for example like you could in a Bethesda game, because A: Geralt would never do that and B: He doesn't even own a house. Nor can you become a wizard or try to start a business, Geralt is a Witcher and hunting monsters is what he does.

As for not playing any of the previous games that's alright. You'll get more out of Witcher 3's main story especially if you're familiar with the books, but even for someone not familiar with them there are dozens of completely story-independent side-quests and characters out there to enjoy. Playing the previous games or reading the books makes the game better but it's also far from mandatory.

Beyond clearing that up however I can't really say which to buy. I love Witcher 3 and think it's a brilliant game totally worth owning, but I also haven't played Bloodborne so can't really compare the two. From what I've heard it sounds like you can't go wrong with either option however.

 

[stroopwafel]

Both are fantastic games, but if you own a PS4 you'd be doing yourself a disservice not getting Bloodborne. Also both scratch a completely different itch so to say. Bloodborne is more an action game with the tactical pace of a Souls title(ramped up to 11), with immaculate level-design and a Gothic/Victorian atmosphere that draws you in like nothing else. Also nothing really comes close to this game's combat. Bloodborne in general is just of a pristine quality. However, it's not necessarily that long, espescially compared to Witcher 3.

Speaking of which, that game is also incredibly good. Quest design is the best in any RPG I've ever played with various storylines tying into eachother full of meaningful choices that often made me sit back and contemplate for a while. The game is freakin huge but the entire experience seems handcrafted with little to no filler. Combat is simple yet fun, exploration is rewarding, world is beautiful and intriguing and the music really sets the mood.

I'd say Bloodborne is one of the best action-RPGs I've ever played and Witcher 3 is one of the best traditional RPGs. Can't really go wrong with either though.

 

[Ishal]

They're both entirely different games trying to accomplish entirely different things.

Though in terms of time investment, if you're short on time, I'd recommend Bloodborne. TW3 is positively labarythine in terms of time investment, especially if you do the sidequests and explore. I'm still not finished with my first playthrough and I'm not even doing all the sidequests and contracts.

Basically, ask yourself what you want.

TW3 gives you a spoonfed story that takes up the majority of the game, with characters that are fleshed out and (for the most part) presented reasonably well. It has one of the better open worlds I've seen in a while, and the quests and attention to detail are pretty great. The combat is pretty bad, though. A clunky character who trips and rolls over twigs at times, and a consolified radial wheel menu that you have to access to use signs (magic) and other things during combat. The game really frustrates me with the way Geralt moves. And god forbid you have to navigate a tightly closed space like a house in Novigrad. Jesus Christ.

Bloodborne is out to immerse you in it's world through some the most well crafted metroidvania style level design you'r ever going to find. Period. It's combat is fast, and punishing. I say punishing because there are very few cheap moments in Souls style games. They aren't perfect, but generally if you die it's going to be your fault. But death in a souls game isn't like death in other games. It's an actual mechanic. You lose your currency upon death, but if you're careful enough to return to where you died and pick it up, you've lost nothing. In this game the currency is used for buying items and leveling your character. In Bloodborne the story is told through item descriptions and vague statements by characters. You have to figure it out and interpret it yourself. Bloodborne understands the strength of the interactivity of videogames, and isn't trying to be cinematic or tell a story. It has no desire to lower itself to that. It also tends to respect the player by the situations it places them in. Gameplay in BB and other souls style games doesn't gate it's boss encounters by tired tropes. Usually if you see a boss power itself up or start to heal itself, you can knock them out of it. Or at least sneak in a few hits while they leave themselves vulnerable. There is no nonsense where the boss will jump out of the level and summon adds, or protect themselves with an impenetrable shield while they summon help. I was very displeased when TW3 did this to pad out an already tepid boss encounter. Bloodborne does have it's shortfalls. It lacks weapon variety and can be a bit obtuse in how it presents upgrades and various things needed to progress your character. This can be frustrating for players unfamiliar to souls games, since in BB the avenues for character progression are less than in any other souls game. Grinding for Bloodviles (your healing potion) can become tedious if you run up against a boss that you use all your banked vials on. Hit detections can be spotty in some areas, and some monsters are better fought without the lock on feature. This is problem in all Souls games. However it's even more of a pain in Bloodbornse since you're fighting large monsters, and thus sometimes not hitting them when you should be. Also the camera might get you killed if you don't pan it correctly around some of the larger monsters.

I recommend Bloodborne as your first purchase. However as another poster said, both are exceptionally well crafted games. They're just trying to accomplish different things. Once you have the time and the money, you should pick up both.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I've been having this debate with myself for quite some time and I can't figure it out. Both Witcher 3 and Bloodborne seem like massive games and time investments and I probably don't have time for either of them, let alone both. However, I do like open world RPGs and hard games with weird rules. I tend to prefer horror over fantasy, but I prefer Western styled open world games to weird Japanese styled ones. I think I might want Bloodborne more, but the combat does look like it could be repetitive and the story could be uninteresting. However, The Witcher 3 seems similar to the type of gameplay I'd get in a Bethesda game like Skyrim or Fallout (and I definitely playing Fallout in favor of any time on the Witcher). I haven't played any previous Witcher games, but I also haven't played any Souls games. Do I go for a game type I've never seen before at all and hope I like it? Or do I go with a big huge somewhat familiar RPG in a setting that may or may not interest me? Are all of my impressions of these two games wrong?

I've only played Dark Souls, but the closest comparable I could come up with for the game was a single player MMO. Huge focus on world building over traditional storytelling. Tactically beefy combat. No perma-death, but no reloading from saves, either, and death has consequences. Extraordinarily combat heavy, there is virtually no game play of any consequence that isn't combat. Said combat puts a higher premium on timing and precision than your standard MMO, but there is a large "tend to your stats/builds" component that will be familiar to any long time player of that genre. There are some who will praise Dark Souls for its "story" but what they are actually praising is its incredible atmosphere, at least some of which derives from its difficulty. In that respect, I was often put in mind of the original Everquest.

Witcher 3 is most readily comparable to Bioware style RPGs (not Bethesda), with a super high priority put on rich characterization and storytelling, reams of dialogue, and a largely linear narrative structure. Unlike Bioware's more recent offerings though, it's extremely well delivered. The production values are off the chart, the amount of content on offer is staggering, and the game has all the hallmarks of being a labor of love for the studio. It will appeal less than a Souls game to people whose interest is entirely mechanics based, or to those who feel polarizing disgust at the thought of playing a fixed character with an existing voice/personality/history. The play mechanics are best described as "solid but unspectacular". The combat won't make anyone forget Mount and Blade, but it's a far sight better than Bethesda's weightless flailing or Bioware's increasingly and inexplicably rickety offerings.

I've not played Bloodborne, but Witcher 3 is quite easily the best classic story-driven CRPG I've ever played, going back to the early 80's, and including venerated classics like Planescape, Ultima and Baldur's Gate.

 

[Casual Shinji]

In a nutshell... Bloodborne is heavily gameplay (combat) focused, and The Witcher 3 is heavily story focused. Each excels in its respective field, and both dabble in exploration.

Because Bloodborne is all about the combat, the enemy designs and Bosses are fenomonal. And since The Witcher 3 is all about story, the characters are some of the best you'll ever see.

So pick your poison. It's highly unlikely you'll be disappointed by either one.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Guppy, did you finally read the Witcher boooks ?

I cant remember whether my elitist ass asked you about that.

The girlfriend has read them.

I've been audiobook only for a few years now, and there is difficulty on that front in both the "Have to find non-polish versions" and "buying 6 audiobooks in a whack" categories. Also, the GF frantically spoiled a good 40% of the plot points for me, as she is wont to do, all the while insisting "I haven't said anything that constitutes a spoiler".

 

[ForumSafari]

...and a consolified radial wheel menu that you have to access to use signs (magic) and other things during combat.

You probably already know this but whilst what you say is true for your ranged weapons you actually have your sign selection bound to the mouse wheel. Then again seeing as I tend to use Yrden exclusively for wraiths and everything else gets the 'when in doubt: Quen' option I never found this too useful.

 

[Ishal]

...and a consolified radial wheel menu that you have to access to use signs (magic) and other things during combat.

You probably already know this but whilst what you say is true for your ranged weapons you actually have your sign selection bound to the mouse wheel. Then again seeing as I tend to use Yrden exclusively for wraiths and everything else gets the 'when in doubt: Quen' option I never found this too useful.

Well, I play with a PS3 gamepad. So I don't use the mouse wheel.

I've tried to use keyboard + mouse with third person RPGS and other games before, and it's never been to my liking. Though I have heard CDPR did a reasonably good job for TW3. I just prefer the gamepad. Mostly though I only use Yrden and Quen anyway. The last Quen upgrade gives it that ticking damage bolt if an enemy comes near it.

 

[Arshaq13]

When I bought The Witcher 3 I had yet to finish Bloodborne. So TW3 collected dust for a week before I finally started playing it.

After I finshed Bloodborne I had a level of satisfaction that I get when I finish most great games but the Witcher 3 on the other hand, after I was done with it, I just felt empty.

By empty I mean, I just realized that I was done with the story and there's nothing more I could do(until the expansions come out). The world was so fantastic, each and every contract or sidequest felt like it meant something, all the random occurrences were believable and the game really did make me want to explore its world as much as possible. Sure, combat got pretty easy by the time you're level 12 (I played on Blood and Broken Bones) but I haven't been so insanely hooked into a game world since Morrowind or maybe DS1.

It has its flaws surely(like Roach's refusal to cooperate with you and how piss easy the last fight really was, the ending tapestry cutscenes felt rushed too but that's just me) but the feeling I got while playing TW3 was not just that's its a fantastic game but a very very important one. It's set new standards for the WRPG genre and that's a great thing.

Also, Skellige is incredibly beautiful. Just too beautiful.

 

[Johnny Impact]

I haven't played either one, so I voted Buttons.

Bloodborne is Dark Souls Lite: intense, punishing combat in a nightmare world. The Witcher is supposed to have the biggest, richest, prettiest open world any game ever had, and an amazing stable of critters. Comes down to which of those two things you'd prefer, I guess.

I'll get to both of these games eventually, assuming BB makes it to PC.

 

[EternallyBored]

By the sounds of it, you might like or dislike either game depending on how strong your preferences are, if you really like the character freedom and open worlds of Bethesda, you might find Witcher 3 a bit limiting, the story is pretty fantastic, but the open world elements are mostly just there to be pretty and scatter mostly useless junk and oddly balanced monster encounters around. You aren't going to make different character or class builds, you're a sword-wielding monster hunter with some very basic magic and alchemic abilities, your personality and responses are going to be mostly set, although you can still make some choices that effects how the game turns out. The game is graphically very beautiful and the open-world displays this quite well, it is unfortunate that it wastes a lot of the open world's potential by making most of the points of interest basically a treasure chest surrounded by monsters, and often the later areas of the game contain monsters much lower level than you for no real reason, making it more of a chore to try and beat them for their treasure.

There are other issues with the crafting and inventory system, but those are being addressed in an upcoming patch, so I won't mention them besides saying to probably wait for the major patch before getting too far into the game as the changes look like they will make the inventory and crafting systems much easier to use.

If you get the combat system down, the game is kind of on the easy side, depending on how you level up its also easy to totally break the games difficulty curve and make every fight in the game almost pathetically easy even on the hardest difficulty setting. I strongly recommend knocking up the difficulty to either the highest level or the one above normal, the game's combat system will be challenging in the beginning, but after about 5-10 hours your skills from leveling up can make you stupidly powerful, and once you get to the high 20's you shouldn't be dying in combat ever.


The story is the highlight, the sidequests and main plot are mostly very well written, Geralt's defined character may give you less freedom, but it lets the story be much more tightly written since you don't have to account for wildly different personality traits getting in the way of the plotline.

In the end, how much you like Witcher 3 will depend on how much you like the defined character, the story can mostly be taken on its own, but you will run into characters that are from the books and previous games, so it might annoy you not knowing about the prior relationships these characters have had as the game assumes you at least know who they are, and Geralt will reference events that happened before this game, especially Triss and Yennefer, I would recommend watching some story recaps on Youtube if you want to get the context for these characters.

The game is closer to a Bioware title than Bethesda as Bethesda tends to hinge on character freedom and open world where Bioware tends to focus more on defined characters and dialogue choices, the game is probably most comparable to Dragon Age: inquisition, although with a more restricted character, but much better overall story and sidequests.

This has already become a wall of text so I'll cover my thoughts on Bloodborne in another post.

 

[EternallyBored]

Now on to Bloodborne, whether you like this game or not is going to come down to its gameplay and atmosphere. Bloodborne is a game focused around dodging, timing, and counter-attacks, your stats and build can change your playstyle, but this isn't really a game where level can compensate for a lack of reaction time. You can grind to a limited extent and that will make encounters easier if you are having trouble, but its the kind of game where you can pretty much never get hit if you are good enough. The game is like the Souls games in that it can be unforgiving, and miles harder than anything in the Witcher 3, so if you want a pure gameplay challenge, you are likely to get more out of Bloodborne.

The game also has an online component, with being able to summon co-op partners to help for a limited time, seeing messages from other players on the ground, being able to see ghosts of other players appear briefly from time to time, and being invaded by other players for PvP. That last part is something that people usually love or hate, the difference in Bloodborne compared to other Souls games is that PvP can be more controlled in this game, so you'll rarely get invaded unless you go looking for it or are in a few specific areas.

Atmosphere wise, it's very Victorian horror with Lovecraftian elements mixed it, the story is not told through cutscenes and dialogue, a lot of the story has to be pieced together through intuition and reading item and environments descriptions. Some people love this kind of world building and say it makes the game world feel oppressive and ominous, with the player character never really knowing more than what the player themselves can piece together. Other people say that it makes for a poor substitute to a properly told story and that the story itself is weaker for the lack of explanation. The maker of the series apparently draws inspiration from trying to understand Western fiction as a child without being able to understand all of the English language, so he would muddle through what he could and fill the rest with his imagination.

The game is much more action and combat focused than anything in the Witcher 3, but it is also shorter, it's a decent sized game, but you can beat it a lot faster than the Witcher 3. Exploring all the side areas takes a lot of time, but you can speed run all the essential story bosses in a couple hours if you know where everything is. The game also has a new game plus mode that lets you go through again with higher level enemies and keeping all your upgraded gear and items, as well as random chalice side dungeons that can be done for extra items and unique bosses and challenges.

Bloodborne is a very different beast from Witcher 3, whether you like one over the other is going to depend on what qualities you are looking for, if you prefer open world Western RPGs over more focused action combat RPGs. Whether you want a tight well-told story in a fairly standard medieval fantasy world or a gory action-horror romp through a Lovecraftian nightmare that drips atmosphere, but doesn't do much in the way of direct story-telling or character development.

Both are worth owning, so if you decide to pick up one, I would recommend buying the other somewhere down the line just to play it, especially since good PS4 exclusives are worth playing if you've already got the system.

 

[KenAri]

Voted for Bloodborne because I actually finished it. Witcher 3 got so stale, so quickly. The problem with open-world games is that the fights are totally meaningless and trivial; it's like an MMO world without the competition. I prefer the progress-based fighting of Bloodborne. It's by no means a great game- especially compared to Dark Souls- but Witcher had a shitload of content that just didn't have enough substance for me.

Captcha: Have fun