Poll: Witcher or Oblivion?

[Blackpapa]

This is Oblivion:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HS5jJ-6dtI[/youtube]


This is the Witcher 2:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_ya8hjy8zA[/youtube]


Basically in pros and cons:

Oblivion:
- More content
- Worse quality of content
- Generic as table salt, tasteless like water
- Much more open to explore and much less linear, true sandbox

TW2:
- Fairly short
- More linear
- Considerably better quality of content (better voice acting, graphics, animations)
- Much darker setting
- Very well defined world, characters

My answer would be play both, if you have to choose go with TW2.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

while i do love all the mods for oblivion, i absolutely hate how everyone who judges the game always uses the fallback "BUT there are so many mods!" excuse, that doesn't change the fact of comparison between the vanilla games, in which that's what most people are talking about originally, and if you aren't talking about VANILLA oblivion, then you better mention it in your post.

I think it's a grey area. When you buy Oblivion for PC, part of what you're paying for is unmatched mod support and modding tools. There is a reason most games don't have anywhere near the volume or complexity of mods that Oblivion has. Why limit yourself to discussion of vanilla Oblivion if the topic is "which should I buy?" or "which is more fun?" or "which do you prefer?" Given those topics, what relevance is a comparison of the vanilla games that excludes mods, except perhaps for those who do not use mods for whatever reason? Mods are part of the actual user experience. In the case of Oblivion, I think narrowing the discussion to the vanilla game only is actually quite limiting.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

while i do love all the mods for oblivion, i absolutely hate how everyone who judges the game always uses the fallback "BUT there are so many mods!" excuse, that doesn't change the fact of comparison between the vanilla games, in which that's what most people are talking about originally, and if you aren't talking about VANILLA oblivion, then you better mention it in your post.

I think it's a grey area. When you buy Oblivion for PC, part of what you're paying for is unmatched mod support and modding tools. There is a reason most games don't have anywhere near the volume or complexity of mods that Oblivion has. Why limit yourself to discussion of vanilla Oblivion if the topic is "which should I buy?" or "which is more fun?" or "which do you prefer?" Given those topics, what relevance is a comparison of the vanilla games that excludes mods, except perhaps for those who do not use mods for whatever reason? Mods are part of the actual user experience. In the case of Oblivion, I think narrowing the discussion to the vanilla game only is actually quite limiting.

oh i hear you there, i'm just saying what makes oblivion what it is, IS the mod support, and sometimes it's not even mentioned/applicable in all situations, so when people discuss the game saying how "oblivion blows witcher out of the water!", they fail to mention it's purely based on the limitless mod support and not the actual vanilla game itself.

I just think its a bit unfair to "judge" a games base value KNOWING the mod support is what makes the game, and not the initial game itself, in this case witcher vs oblivion. (but like i said, alls fair and noble to use it in the comments and support sections for why you think what you do)

 

[Broderick]

Almost finished with The Witcher, its pretty awesome. I loved oblivion too, dispite its flaws, but I dont think you can really compare the two games. One of an open world RPG where you can go anywhere and make your own character; The Witcher however is liniar and your forced into the role of Geralt, a Witcher(basicly mutant spellsword). You cant exactly compare the two, as they are 2 different types of RPGs, you might as well be trying to compare oblivion to paper mario(which is awesome!). A better comparison would be Dragon age I think, or perhaps fable.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I've tried a couple of times to get into The Witcher, and failed both times. Geralt is instantly unlikable, and everyone else (at least, in the first few minutes) is instantly forgettable. The bad guy looks kind of silly, which is an odd complaint I know, but it stands out to me. The combat seems simplistic and boring, as do your options for leveling up. The story doesn't really draw me in, possibly because I want to punch Geralt in the face just for looking like a dick. That, and the bad guy doesn't really do anything bad enough to earn my hatred. Then I go to some generic looking town and get attacked by boring looking ghost dogs who kill someone I don't know.

I have a feeling I'm selling myself short. I'll try again one of these days, and hopefully stick with it long enough to get to the good parts, if any.

 

[Merkavar]

i prefer the witcher, better story and combat

but oblivion has more hours of gameplay and different characters to play as.

but it does seem that alot of the value of oblivion comes from the mod community. the witcher has mods, not sure about quality etc. not that into modding.

 

[bob1052]

Oblivion for me. I prefer the way that elves are treated in that game.

..never liked how elves were treated in The Witcher...I felt so sorry for them.

Not sure if serious...

(But for the record, even if I think that the elves are as banal/boring as everything else in Oblivion, they're awesome in Morrowind. Having a bunch of Dunmer calling you "outlander" or worse really adds to the atmosphere of that game.)

I am serious. I'd rather have the Elves be more integrated into society, and at the least, accepted or slightly dominant culturally...than hunted and oppressed like in The Witcher.

Why? I guess I'm confused as to exactly why you decide whether you like a game or not based on how fictional people treat other fictional people.

*shrug* I dunno because I've always liked elves and elven culture. I know they aren't real, but that doesn't mean, I have to like stories where their treated like crap.

You do realize that the mistreatment of the elves, and moreover how you, as Geralt, react is one of the biggest parts of the game.

What you are saying is seriously like saying I don't like To Kill a Mockingbird because it has racism in it. You are kind of missing the point.

On topic: The more open world of Oblivion gives it more longevity but The Witcher is far, far better.

 

[NightlyNews]

I have a love/hate with Dragon Age due to my soft spot for Bioware. Dragon age didn't seem as bad as the Witcher, really in terms of there being at least a glimmer of hope, for the elves in that world, and the Dalish kicked ass.

However may I ask you. Why does it bug you so much that the treatment of elves bothers me in a game?

In my version of dragon's age the dalish were exterminated in exchange for WOLF PEOPLE! Hell yea!

So Dragons Age had a much higher potential of elf abuse than the witcher did

I even like elves, but how could I pass on an army of monsters joining me.

 

[flaming_squirrel]

You just hate The Witcher, don't you?

OT: Oblivion is more accessible, The Witcher 2's story is better.

I clearly didnt make that obvious enough, yeah I hate The Witcher. I brought it and was horribly dissapointed (almost as much as Farcry2, but not quite, that game is the antichrist).
However normally I can understand why a game has a following even if I personally dont enjoy it, but not with the Witcher, it just has no redeeming features.

 

[SpaceBat]

Witcher 1, while having a decent main plot and commendable moral choices (albeit not as good and not as high in numbers as some people claim it is), is downright bad in every other area. Its sidequests are often tedious and repetitive, its characters are very bland and often one-dimensional or just fucking stupid, it's immature especially in the way it handles its sexual themes, the voice-acting is fucking atrocious for nearly every character and the gameplay is often clunky and not nearly as deep and complicated as some people claim it to be.

It's still better than most of the games released this gen by far (Final Fantasy XIII for example), but it's by no means a must-play RPG and not even remotely as good as people claim it is. I seriously heard so much praise for it that I was fucking shocked when I found out it was all complete and utter bullshit.

I haven't played Witcher 2, because unless it somehow improves everything immensely and I mean so much that it feels as if you're playing a completely different game, it's not worth my time. I'll keep to games that do have good story and character development instead of this overrated horse shit, thank you.


So it's your choice. I don't know how good Witcher 2 is, but if you're sure it'll be an incredible game, go ahead and play through the ridiculously bland and childish game that is the first witcher. The first game in itself is not worth playing. Otherwise, go for Oblivion.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I haven't played Witcher 2, because unless it somehow improves everything immensely and I mean so much that it feels as if you're playing a completely different game, it's not worth my time.

It does. It significantly improves on the original (and really, any mainstream ARPG/WRPG to come out in the last few years) in pretty much every way. Think the Assassin's Creed 1 -> Assassin's Creed 2 transition - the first one's solid and does some interesting things but is very YMMV, the second one's amazing.

 

[SpaceBat]

It does. It significantly improves on the original (and really, any mainstream ARPG/WRPG to come out in the last few years) in pretty much every way.

Truly? I mean, I really dislike the first Witcher, but I was also disappointed as I felt it had a lot of lost potential. If the sequel is truly a much, much better game and improves on the things I mentioned in my previous post significantly, I might get interested in the series once more.

I can't help but be skeptical however. I'm going to have to look into it before I decide to give it another chance.


Also, excellent username and avatar you've got there. I love Pulp Fiction.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It does. It significantly improves on the original (and really, any mainstream ARPG/WRPG to come out in the last few years) in pretty much every way.

Truly? I mean, I really dislike the first Witcher, but I was also disappointed as I felt it had a lot of lost potential. If the sequel is truly a much, much better game and improves on the things I mentioned in my previous post significantly, I might get interested in the series once more.

I can't help but be skeptical however. I'm going to have to look into it before I decide to give it another chance.


Also, excellent username and avatar you've got there. I love Pulp Fiction.

Haha thx

It depends - Witcher as a series is definitely YMMV, because they're out to make a very specific kind of game which you may or may not be into. I personally really enjoyed Witcher 2, but of course not everyone agrees with me on that haha.

My advice if you're on the fence would be to watch a let's play (for instance, this one [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TdGdbmCbck&feature=channel_video_title]) and see if it looks like your thing.

 

[A Weakgeek]

I'm just gonna say this. Witcher gets LOADS and LOADS better if you have read the novels, its full of references to them. Oblivion is the "gameplay first" kind of game, that sacrifices any chance of a good story to make it more sandboxish. The witcher is a story driven game, no doubt about it, but i liked the combat aswell so I loved the game.

 

[SpaceBat]

It depends - Witcher as a series is definitely YMMV, because they're out to make a very specific kind of game which you may or may not be into. I personally really enjoyed Witcher 2, but of course not everyone agrees with me on that haha.

I basically enjoy most games with functioning gameplay and good story/characters. If the second game is no longer immature and has improved its characters and voice acting immensely, I'm pretty damn sure I'll like it. I'm not very picky as long as it gets the characters/story right. It's just that certain parts of first witcher never appealed to me.

Spoiler: rant

I did enjoy the main plot, mind you, and the moral choices you had to make regarding the Humans/Elves issue and even the pseudo-grey choices we often get to see were far better than the ones in most current-gen RPG's, but it's just the characters that completely threw me off. I can live with the huge amounts of fetch-quests.

The characters were just so bland. I couldn't care for any of them, aside from Zoltan Chivay. It might have something to do with the voice actors they randomly picked off the street (even for Geralt), but there was nearly no other character that was remotely interesting, realistic or even likable. Nearly all of them have little to no real character, are uninteresting or just fucking stupid and annoying (Triss Merigold with her incredibly limited intelligence and sexist attitude, for example).

And the female NPC's were just there so you could stick your thing into them after having given them something. Nothing more. This part was just so...retarded. I mean, who thought that up? A twelve-year old? Why was sex even in the game? What was the point? It's as if they put it in the game just so they can say that it contains nudity.

 

[Damon Brood]

First off, comparing the two is quite odd, not only because of the fact that they are completely different games, but also the age difference. Second, I never played the Witcher games, and I adored Oblivion and the other TES games.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It depends - Witcher as a series is definitely YMMV, because they're out to make a very specific kind of game which you may or may not be into. I personally really enjoyed Witcher 2, but of course not everyone agrees with me on that haha.

I basically enjoy most games with functioning gameplay and good story/characters. If the second game is no longer immature and has improved its characters and voice acting immensely, I'm pretty damn sure I'll like it. I'm not very picky as long as it gets the characters/story right. It's just that certain parts of first witcher never appealed to me.

Spoiler: rant

I did enjoy the main plot, mind you, and the moral choices you had to make regarding the Humans/Elves issue and even the pseudo-grey choices we often get to see were far better than the ones in most current-gen RPG's, but it's just the characters that completely threw me off. I can live with the huge amounts of fetch-quests.

The characters were just so bland. I couldn't care for any of them, aside from Zoltan Chivay. It might have something to do with the voice actors they randomly picked off the street (even for Geralt), but there was nearly no other character that was remotely interesting, realistic or even likable. Nearly all of them have little to no real character, are uninteresting or just fucking stupid and annoying (Triss Merigold with her incredibly limited intelligence and sexist attitude, for example).

And the female NPC's were just there so you could stick your thing into them after having given them something. Nothing more. This part was just so...retarded. I mean, who thought that up? A twelve-year old? Why was sex even in the game? What was the point? It's as if they put it in the game just so they can say that it contains nudity.

IMO, the characters are much better-written in Witcher 2 - Dandelion in particular feels more like who he is in the short stories, as does Geralt, and (according to various Polish ppl. on GOG) Triss.

And the sex is generally better-handled, although the game does feature gratuitous nudity so it's sort of a "one step forward, one step back" sort of situation. I'd put the handling of sex in Witcher 2 as better than Witcher 1 and Mass Effect 2, but worse than Sands of Time.

 

[SpaceBat]

IMO, the characters are much better-written in Witcher 2 - Dandelion in particular feels more like who he is in the short stories, as does Geralt, and (according to various Polish ppl. on GOG) Triss.

And the sex is generally better-handled, although the game does feature gratuitous nudity so it's sort of a "one step forward, one step back" sort of situation. I'd put the handling of sex in Witcher 2 as better than Witcher 1 and Mass Effect 2, but worse than Sands of Time.

Well that's definitely a step forward. The characters are basically my biggest problem with the first Witcher and any improvement is good.

What a shame. I would rather have them take it out entirely if it has no reason behind it, but I guess I can choose not to talk to female NPC's whenever I get dialogue options. Oh and tbh, while ME2's romances were kind of forced and standard (woo character, have sex with him/her), I still wouldn't put Witcher 1's handling of sex in the same league as ME2's. I've never seen Bioware handle that well, though.

And I am kind of glad to see someone praise Sands of Time on that matter. Anyway, thanks for the information. I might as well look into it sometime.

 

[Kahunaburger]

What a shame. I would rather have them take it out entirely if it has no reason behind it, but I guess I can choose not to talk to female NPC's whenever I get dialogue options.

Fortunately it's nowhere near Witcher 1 level of that stuff - in my playthrough for instance, there was one sex scene in the context of a relationship and another (that I didn't see) that was part of a subplot. Generally speaking sex in general feels a lot less gratuitous in Witcher 2.

And I am kind of glad to see someone praise Sands of Time on that matter.

Seriously. One of the many things that game did right