I've seen a few conversations on this topic and, now that I'm zipping through games in lockdown like crazy, I'm stuck with this problem: Red Dead Redemption 2 or The Witcher 3?
I'm sure this will sidetrack into which is the better game but I'm hoping I might get a more personal answer so I can decide. I've always had a preference for fantasy but, despite quite enjoying the TV series of The Witcher, I've never quite got the appeal. I played the original game on the PC and gave up at the point that some people claim it got good (going into the swamps beyond the town). I know the combat is better in the later games (thank god) but I got sick of all the features (potions, bah!) and, if it got good, it was too slow in getting there. I just found it tedious which I suppose is odd because I rank storyline highly.
On the other hand, there's Red Dead Redemption 2 and, while I really don't engage with the cowboy theme at all (maybe because I'm British), it just might be a little different in a good way. I've just not seen anything that really sells it to me yet.
As background, I adore Bethesda's ES and Fallout series, love some action-adventure (The Last of Us, Tomb Raider, God of War etc.) and have always enjoyed stealth (the old Thief series and Dishonored). I know both games are pretty awesome graphically but, if I'm going to lose as much time as I did with Fallout 4, this had better be a good choice.
First off, I never played the first two Witcher games but TW3 ended up being one of my favourite games of all time so don't let that put you off. I haven't played the game since finishing it but I imagine graphically it isn't the flashiest game anymore. The combat in the game is fine but definitely not it's strongest point. Potions etc help but aren't going to be what turns a battle in your favour, especially on the regular difficulty so don't worry about that either.
The game still excels in it's cast and storytelling though, and every single quest was written to be fun and interesting so the level of writing throughout is still a high point for games now (although the amount of time spent in "witcher mode" feels like a cop out at times). The two pieces of DLC are also better than many standalone games and Blood and Wine is a great spoof of medieval tropes.
RDR2 is also a masterpiece in my opinion but much more divisive in opinion. The main character, Arthur, is one of gaming's greatest antiheroes and the whole gang make for a brilliant cast. Again, the writing in this game is masterful and his tale of redemption executed perfectly. It also ties into RDR1 perfectly.
One of the most incredible things about the game is that it really feels like a living world. Everything from the people around you, the changes in weather and light, and the surrounding flora and fauna make the whole experience amazing. There is so much going on and almost no restraints on what you can do. It is one of the most immersive experiences out there and you can spend an entire gaming session just fishing and taking in the surroundings.
The big thing people don't like about the game is the pacing. It is a slow game I admit but I think you just have to embrace that and enjoy the whole experience but not everyone can/could do that. There are also plenty of nothingy fetch quests that can get frustrating but on the whole, it is an excellent game.
Overall, I really don't think I can say to definitely pick one over the other. Both are incredible, immersive experiences and it sounds like you'd enjoy both. If money is a factor, TW3 can be picked up with all the DLC for around a tenner in just about every PSN sale. The only other thing is that a lot of the games you mention have more hand to hand combat which would also lean more towards TW3 than the gunslinging of RDR2.
Thank you, Thrillho! That certainly answers some questions and I appreciate the detail of your answer. I'm thinking that some of those details, such as the slow pace of RDR2, is currently putting TW3 at the top for me. I'm still pondering it though so any more points are welcome.
@Ibsen3 I may tell you first what I didn't like in these two games: in TW3 the combat is pretty inconsistent and I felt more like a salesman than like a hero, while in RDR2 the missions felt badly designed since they were very linear and restrictive while the world is huge and full of opportunities.
The pros are similar: great writing and a wonderful world to explore.
I'd prefer RDR2 now since free roaming is way more interesting and the setting, even if realistic, feels more original and new than the fantasy world of TW3.
Given what you've said I'd probably recommend The Outer Worlds instead, it's very much the continuation of and improvement to the likes of Fallout 4 and is basically that game in space but with good writing.
As for the games you mentioned, RDR2 has the best open world in gaming and is a pleasure to explore, also a great story but its missions can be far too linear and it can feel very slow at times, you really need to give this one time. The Witcher 3 gives you the opportunity to really shape the story and it is a very good one, the combat is good but has been far surpassed by the likes of Horizon Zero Dawn (this one is brilliant) but the story and characters are very memorable
It's funny you should mention Horizon Zero Dawn as that game is my wild card: I was planning on playing it if I just didn't want to engage with a huge open-world game. However, I always find space themes somehow claustrophobic as, to me, the beauty of the open world lies in landscapes whereas space just means it's black - always. Strangely, that matters. @andreoni79 - I'm curious how you felt the Witcher combat system was inconsistent as I've really not liked the system used in the original and have played tiny bits of the sequel without connecting with it. Can you elaborate?
@Ibsen3 I played TW3 on Hard and I have breezed through the whole game using just the fire+sword+sword combo, a huge step back from any other action RPG out there.
HZD has an original setting and a great combat system that always offers the right challenge thanks to many different difficulty levels and a fully customizable HUD. Highly recommended! And better than TW3 and RDR2, IMO.
I thought I would bring this thread to a close. After spending a few weeks convinced I was going to buy Horizon Zero Dawn instead, I then chose The Witcher 3, only to start up The Witcher 2 on my PC which made me decide to go for Red Dead Redemption 2 instead.
I'm enjoying it but it's not a favourite by a long shot. I'm actually finding it quite slow and repetitive but I guess this works in lockdown. There are plenty of other irritating features about it and I found myself drifting back to Fallout 4's mod scene and even playing my free copy of the Uncharted series. Nevertheless, I'm still playing and already close to Chapter 4. It's a good distraction before The Last of Us 2...
@Ibsen3 I never got on well with the controls in Red Dead 2 but did get to chapter 4. The world is amazing and the story is great but every time I go back to it I just don't enjoy moving Arthur around in his concrete boots
I totally agree with both of those points. I can see why it's critically acclaimed but not loved by players so much. My other gripes about this game are hunting-related. Why, for instance, do I see the image of a particular animal marked on the map when all I tend to come across is something completely different? I very rarely see the animal that is supposed to be there. I find hunting really tedious in general such as stalking super-fast rodents for hours just to see the camp look a little cooler; it's just not worth the effort.
In Red Dead Online Rockstar greatly improved the walk/running speed of the player character, the shooting is refined and a lot quicker and looting is now instant. I don't know if it's the same for the story mode.
Both RDR2 and The Witcher 3 are two of my favourite games this gen and maybe of all time.
Those tweaks don't seem to have happened in story mode then.
I just got to Chapter 4 myself and, despite loving the open country, the gameplay in the city feels a bit more fun so far. It's growing on me but there's a lot of annoying aspects to it.
What really dragged RDR2 down for me was the linearity of the missions. There wasn't a single interesting mission in there. Just shooting loads and loads of people in the face. If the shooting was fantastic then maybe that could be forgiven but it was waaay too easy (the only difficulty setting was turning down auto aim) and there were zero layers to it. You don't have a squad to command, you don't have to switch weapons or ammotypes depending on enemies, there is absolutely nothing to make it fun other than slow motion which makes it even easier.
TW3 in my opinion stands out exactly because of the missions/quests. The combat was okay in my opinion (played on deathmarch and was still fairly easy besides the occasional swordsponge boss that would instakill me), but the quests were surprising and often had real impact on the world or story.
Personally I would give RDR2 a 6 based on the technological achievement only, and TW3 a near perfect 9
@Flurpsel yeah that really disappointed me, I remember the bank robbery in Valentine which gives you a choice to blow the safes up or crack them open quietly but it makes no difference. Then during the shootout I noticed an opportunity to go to my horse, whilst running up the street the game ordered me back to the bank, as I get back it says to go to my horse. At this point you're near the church with a very quiet path leading out of town so I head this way, only for the game to tell me to turn around and ride straight through the middle of town getting shot at and to a path that essentially goes the same way as I was already heading. The majority of the game is do as you are told and don't bother thinking for yourself
Older than I care to remember but have been gaming since owning a wooden Atari 2600 and played pretty much everything inbetween.
Forums
Topic: Red Dead Redemption 2 or The Witcher 3?
Posts 1 to 16 of 16
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.