The Witcher is regarded extermely highly by its fans and not that highly by others it seems.
Oblivion has a bit of a broader appeal in my experience.
Oblivion has a bit of a broader appeal in my experience.
Poll: Witcher or Oblivion?
- Thread starter The Big Boss
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can see where this who thing is gonna go where the Witcher fanboys are gonna have a all out war with TES fanboys. All I have to say is have fun with you're little war and I am reserving judgement till I get to play Witcher.
Depends, are we counting multiple games in the series? Because if so my list would probably go something like this:
Oblivion < The Witcher < Morrowind < The Witcher 2
Oblivion I found a disappointment after Morrowind, hell, I was so excited that I bought and still own the collectors edition of Oblivion from the day it was released. But the world, the overarching story, just everything about the game and its setting just felt so... bland. Where was the unique and dangerous world of Morrowind? The quirky steampunk influences? The grand tales of conflict? The ancient ruins and civilizations? The massive backstory and veritable library of optional dialogue and books that came with it?
I didn't get any of that, instead I felt everything was just so damned generic and repetitive, something I not once for all its flaws experienced while exploring Morrowinds amazing world.
So yeah, The first Witcher is better than Oblivion by far. Still the Witcher itself also had and still has flaws aplenty. It's a bit of an odd complaint but the games just too damned long, and this comes from a guy who's done multiple 100+ hour playthrough of Baldur's Gate. But The Witcher just feels stretched out with long, tedious and entirely un-entertaining bits that greatly diminished the otherwise fantastic story and themes present throughout the game. Dialogue and cinematics were also handled extremely clumsily in places, even with the Enhanced Edition, leading to a couple places of head-scratching confusion and stupidity.
That said the way the game takes your actions into consideration and how even seemingly tiny decisions made hours earlier can end up having a massive impact on the plot is amazingly well done, plus the themes and setting are fantastic. But then I also had read and own the first Witcher book translated into English so I had a much better idea of what was going on than I imagine someone who hasn't read the book might have.
Still I'd rate Morrowind higher than The Witcher. Witcher 2 on the other hand, yeah, pretty much none of my complaints up there count for that game (Not that it's perfect, far from). It's pretty damned impressive really and shows that the developers honestly listened to their community and feedback and took that into account towards creating something better than their previous efforts.
Oblivion < The Witcher < Morrowind < The Witcher 2
Oblivion < The Witcher < Morrowind < The Witcher 2
Oblivion I found a disappointment after Morrowind, hell, I was so excited that I bought and still own the collectors edition of Oblivion from the day it was released. But the world, the overarching story, just everything about the game and its setting just felt so... bland. Where was the unique and dangerous world of Morrowind? The quirky steampunk influences? The grand tales of conflict? The ancient ruins and civilizations? The massive backstory and veritable library of optional dialogue and books that came with it?
I didn't get any of that, instead I felt everything was just so damned generic and repetitive, something I not once for all its flaws experienced while exploring Morrowinds amazing world.
So yeah, The first Witcher is better than Oblivion by far. Still the Witcher itself also had and still has flaws aplenty. It's a bit of an odd complaint but the games just too damned long, and this comes from a guy who's done multiple 100+ hour playthrough of Baldur's Gate. But The Witcher just feels stretched out with long, tedious and entirely un-entertaining bits that greatly diminished the otherwise fantastic story and themes present throughout the game. Dialogue and cinematics were also handled extremely clumsily in places, even with the Enhanced Edition, leading to a couple places of head-scratching confusion and stupidity.
That said the way the game takes your actions into consideration and how even seemingly tiny decisions made hours earlier can end up having a massive impact on the plot is amazingly well done, plus the themes and setting are fantastic. But then I also had read and own the first Witcher book translated into English so I had a much better idea of what was going on than I imagine someone who hasn't read the book might have.
Still I'd rate Morrowind higher than The Witcher. Witcher 2 on the other hand, yeah, pretty much none of my complaints up there count for that game (Not that it's perfect, far from). It's pretty damned impressive really and shows that the developers honestly listened to their community and feedback and took that into account towards creating something better than their previous efforts.
Oblivion < The Witcher < Morrowind < The Witcher 2
Yes, I'd tend to agree with that, even though I didn't like Oblivion that much to begin with. Don't worry though, Skyrim 'should' *cough*, be a match for the Witcher 2, if it isn't, it'll be ashame, but Oblivion had a very MMO feel to it, which I didn't like.The Big Boss said:
gonna have to say oblivion, i really wanted to like the wither but everything about the gameplay was so unintuitive i gave up on it after an hour
I chose The Witcher, because, despite all it's shortcomings, it's the better game.
If you'd had asked The Witcher VS. Morrowind, the result woul've been the same, but I'd had to ponder it before clicking.
Having said that, Oblivion is by no means a bad game. It's a bland one, but still fun.
What surprises me though is the harsh negative reaction towards The Witcher, but then it dawned on me: It's like in the music business: Oblivion is the huge star with perfect production value. But it aims at a general public, thus it's made NOT to alienate anyone. As a result, it's pleasant, most people enjoy or at least tolerate it. But it is bland and doesn't really spark any passion about it.
The Witcher, on the other hand, is the quirky record of an experimental band. The production quality is bad, and it sounds unique and controversial. Now this uniqueness alienates a huge part of the mainstream audience, while other love it to bits.
Now of course the majority will think Oblivion to be the better game, but to us few, The Witcher can't be bested by it.
And another comparison:
While in Oblivion, you're at first awed by the shere size of it, it quickly becomes apparent that everything you can do feels somewhat hollow and superficial. All culminating in a huge bossfight between mountain tall gods... you're merely watching.
The Witcher is the other way round: the prologue and first chapter in The Witcher are a huge drag and the game would've been better off if it had severely shortened those parts. But it picks up, and as you're more and more sucked into the setting, the more compelling it gets.
If you'd had asked The Witcher VS. Morrowind, the result woul've been the same, but I'd had to ponder it before clicking.
Having said that, Oblivion is by no means a bad game. It's a bland one, but still fun.
What surprises me though is the harsh negative reaction towards The Witcher, but then it dawned on me: It's like in the music business: Oblivion is the huge star with perfect production value. But it aims at a general public, thus it's made NOT to alienate anyone. As a result, it's pleasant, most people enjoy or at least tolerate it. But it is bland and doesn't really spark any passion about it.
The Witcher, on the other hand, is the quirky record of an experimental band. The production quality is bad, and it sounds unique and controversial. Now this uniqueness alienates a huge part of the mainstream audience, while other love it to bits.
Now of course the majority will think Oblivion to be the better game, but to us few, The Witcher can't be bested by it.
And another comparison:
While in Oblivion, you're at first awed by the shere size of it, it quickly becomes apparent that everything you can do feels somewhat hollow and superficial. All culminating in a huge bossfight between mountain tall gods... you're merely watching.
The Witcher is the other way round: the prologue and first chapter in The Witcher are a huge drag and the game would've been better off if it had severely shortened those parts. But it picks up, and as you're more and more sucked into the setting, the more compelling it gets.
Oblivion, I find that is more immersive to be able to create your own character than just having some random guy wich I can't relate too.
I still liked the witcher the graphics were amazing and I liked how each NPC in the game looked different from another NPC.
I still liked the witcher the graphics were amazing and I liked how each NPC in the game looked different from another NPC.
That actually sounds amazing. Might I ask for your opinion of the first Witcher game, so I know what you're comparing it to?lithium.jelly said:
Ah well, as long as the story and characterization doesn't suffer because of it, I don't mind games a bit on the short side. The reason most other RPG's are longer is because of artificial lengthening anyway, so as long as these 30+ hours are filled with great main- and side-quests, I'm completely ok with it.lithium.jelly said:
Ah well, they're prostitutes. I don't really mind.lithium.jelly said:
Wait a minute...main love interest? For the love of all that's good, please don't tell me that I'm stuck with Triss Merigold as the only main love interest. Or at least tell me that if she really is the main LI, I have the possibility to just ignore the romance.
More The Witcher 2 spoilers:SmashLovesTitanQuest said:Witcher 2 spoilers ahead
You went with Roche first too? *brofist* Finally, someone who didnt follow that elven pig!Did you slay Henselt? One more question, it looks like you have played through and followed Iorveth, I havent yet, is there enough difference? Im going to do it either way but I have this really bad feeling I will end up lifting that fucking curse from that damned battlefield again.
Iorveth's path is better in my opinion. I chose Roche first time too because he it felt like a good idea at the time. But Saskia is such a sweet girl...I mean dragon, and choosing Iorveth is definitely the lesser evil, maybe even the actual good choice. The differences are HUGE! And you can actually save the dragon (Saskia) if you go with Iorveth.
In the end, you can compare any games you want. You can even compare Oblivion with Modern Warfare. The only real factor involved is how much fun you had with those games. And I had more fun with The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2 than Oblivion. Morrowind is a different story though. It's the best of all 4.
I really enjoyed the open world of Oblivion and the sheer amount of stuff you could find out in it. But I can't stand how generic it is. I mean, say you have a High Elf - it means nothing. They just walk about and act exactly like a human, are treated exactly like a human, and so on. In the end, they're just people with pointy ears.
If a fantasy story is going to include another race, or take the quest to a different nation, I think there should actually be a reason, or uniqueness, rather than 'now the people have pointy ears' or 'now we're in a jungle, just because'. And everything was like this; magic was shiny stuff with no real meaning of its own, the Church was a generic good-guy-Church-of-the-Light Church, and so on.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't all bad by any means. Shivering Isles flags everything I just said as bullshit, and I remember getting dismissed as pond scum as an Argonian.
Still, I think the game most of the time just seems lifted straight from the most bland-and-bog-standard-fantasy sections of RPGs made when that kind of thing was still new and interesting.
If a fantasy story is going to include another race, or take the quest to a different nation, I think there should actually be a reason, or uniqueness, rather than 'now the people have pointy ears' or 'now we're in a jungle, just because'. And everything was like this; magic was shiny stuff with no real meaning of its own, the Church was a generic good-guy-Church-of-the-Light Church, and so on.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't all bad by any means. Shivering Isles flags everything I just said as bullshit, and I remember getting dismissed as pond scum as an Argonian.
Still, I think the game most of the time just seems lifted straight from the most bland-and-bog-standard-fantasy sections of RPGs made when that kind of thing was still new and interesting.
It's called discussion value. People are meant to discuss their thoughts on question raised by the OP.Saviordd1 said:
Exactly. I liked Oblivion but it's story and world just seemed bland and un-engaging after having experienced The WitcherConza said: