Do You Hate The Witcher 3 But Love Red Dead Redemption 2?

Playing through Red Dead Redemption 2 I have been thinking about a similar enough game to compare it to: The Witcher 3. This was even more apparent after I heard Jeff say something I had been thinking: that Geralt's movement, and how much people raged about it, is nowhere near as terrible as Arthur's in RDR2. I have been thinking of some people, not even at this site, who hated W3 and frequently talked about how the combat, the side content, the movement, etc were all annoying to deal with...but now I am seeing many of those same people praise RDR2.

This got me wondering...of course its a matter of preference, as with anything like this...but I'm curious if the reason RDR2 is getting more of a "pass" when it comes to the massive list of issues the game has is because the game is just dense with stuff. I equate it to being a kid and walking into a game room. There might not be anything in there that's actually fun or engaging but if its just full of stuff you might be entertained even if you're not having fun.

For example: I think that RDR2's combat is terrible, the movement is annoying, anything that requires precision is bad, and the locomotion can be annoying (this is exacerbated with me because I am working nights this month at 50-60 hours a week so my game time is, at most, an hour a day so that means I am getting nothing done in RDR2)...BUT, boy it is really neat that I can look at my pocket watch in first person. Boy, its really neat that, clumsily, shoot my gun into the air to threaten someone when they are running away. Boy, it really is neat [insert neat thing here]. That's the best thing I can say about the game...its neat...not amazing, not great, not even fun most of the time...just neat. Yeah, it is super cool I can tell the temperament of a horse by its ears...by what about making duels and shooting fun/good?

Some of this might be frustration in thinking people didn't understand the combat of The Witcher 3 but I also remember the near endless anger from some people even in the industry, over the "frustrations" of the game...including the load times. I am seeing many of those same things in RDR2 but seemingly people ignore all those. Is it because people have been craving a western game? Is it because people just love Rockstar games? I am totally curious. From my end I am finding RDR2 neat but only when its me walking around the open world and finding...neat things. Once I get into a mission, once I get into a city, once I have to start fighting I'm just constantly cursing the game.

As clarification, this is literally me asking, "Do you hate the Witcher 3 but love Red Dead Redemption 2?" This isn't to complain about reviews, reviewers, etc. At most, in relation to what its not, maybe it is also a discussion on how reviewers look at games. For example, I have seen many reviewers say Assassins Creed: Odyssey doesn't respect the player's time but they still want to rate it high because of how full of stuff it is. Do people in the game industry largely weigh detail over good gameplay? How do you feel about the depth vs game play in anything?

Yep! It's really weird. I can go on a huge bitching fit about The Witcher 3 but RDR 2, which has a lot of the same problems, I'm loving despite itself. This is where concepts like 'objectivity' get weird for me when talk about entertainment like video games. Because, though they are very different playing games, their similarities are clear as is the overall flow and feel of the games. But, for some reason (maybe taste) I really liked RDR 2 and forced my way through W3. It totally doesn't make sense, but there it is.

Witcher 3 is infallible. Repent, fools!

In all seriousness, yeah, Geralt gets a little wonky when exploring, but everything else that game does is so spectacular that it bugs me for maybe 10 seconds for every 2-3 hours of loving every other aspect of that game.

I’ll play Red Dead 2 after this Witcher playthrough, I think...

I think everyone is different when it comes to what they are looking for in certain games. For some people gameplay is absolutely paramount in almost every game. I would put Jeff in this category. There are rare exceptions like maybe Nier Automata or Gone Home or something where it is clear gameplay is not what won him over, but by and large if there is a big new release out and he doesn't like how it plays it is very difficult for him to overcome that.

I think for RDR2 and TW3, gameplay was important to me, but not as important as the story and world. Specifically in RDR2 depth was pretty much the single biggest thing I was interested in. As a result I loved both games immensely and even enjoyed the gameplay in both, though maybe not as much as a Titanfall 2.

Another thing with both of these titles is I totally get how people think they controlled weird just moving around. I felt that for the first hour or two in both games. Then before I know it I never think about it again and end up having zero issues with it. Maybe I am fortunate to just adjust easily or something? I'm not sure.

I also notice people complaining about bumping into people in town and starting a ton of shit mistakenly in RDR2. That happened to me maybe one or two times in 60+ hours. I think once I realized how the game worked, I subconsciously was controlling to avoid those things from happening. I never felt like I had to focus on it or anything. It came very natural to me to avoid running people over on my horse, pulling my gun on them, or just bumping them in general.

I see how people who are used to running around at 30mph in AC games bumping into anything and everything and auto looting a dozen items at once, would be very put off by RDR2. To me there is nothing else like this in games and the slow, deliberate pace and controls were a breath of fresh air.

@sirpsychosexy: I have that problem all the time and I'm probably in my 10th or 12th hour of RDR2. I feel the bounty/wanted system is two steps away from broken to me. I don't even use a horse in heavily populated areas anymore because people walk in front of you all the time and you can easily be wanted for a crime without ever trying. I've rage quit the game several times over stuff like that.

I love the Witcher 3 and really like Red Dead Redemption 2. I played most of the Witcher 3 walking around from location to location. I only really fast travelled to/from Skellige.

I just think people lack patience.

Raging over realistic "heavy" movement is just....I don't know.

The Witcher 3 has one thing that was sorely lacking from RDR2(&1) and thats meaningful progression. Upgrading your health/stamina/dead eye doesnt really matter, tonics deal with what is already an easy game. Satchels increase your already generous inventory so who cares. Money is also trivial past a certain point early on so there goes any incentive to rob people.

I didnt love the movement or the combat in The Witcher 3 (I actually thought it was worse than 2) but it didnt require any precise aiming and Rockstars solution for shoddy controls is just adding a ridiculous auto aim system that makes the game feel like i'm playing Syphon Filter, which was great when it came out but 20 odd years later feels more than alittle dated.

The world seems to be the biggest selling point of these two games and personally I just dont see it, they're both visual feasts but they're also barren. I know it isnt realistic to have these Bethesda style open worlds where theres something interesting around every corner but theres just so much empty space and going from A-B feels tedious. (thats part of the reason I prefer the Witcher 2, there were more interesting things to do packed in each area) I'm happy that there are people who enjoy riding on their horse for several minutes soaking in the atmosphere but that should be a choice. I realise theres fast travel in both games but they're both poorly implemented. (almost as if the devs dont want you to do it)

One thing I think both games do great though is dialog and characterization. I like all the characters in these games, even the shitty ones because they're well written. And thats something you dont see often in games, especially ones as large as these. I just wish everything else was done better.

I dont hate or love either. I like them both quite a bit. I just dont think they're deserving of the cult like praise they seem to get. But who am I to say what is.

Playing RDR2 has made me want to go finish the Witcher DLC.

I love both games, but RDR is making me miss The Witcher quite a bit.

I love them both, but Red Dead feels like a personal GOAT where Witcher 3 was just really, really damn good. They've got a good symbiotic relationship going on that I appreciate; there's a lot of Red Dead 1 in Witcher, and there's a lot of Witcher in Red Dead 2.

The only thing I really dislike about The Witcher 3 is the combat. I guess I could make it a non-issue by playing the game on the easier than easy difficulty, but I don’t think I want a game to be a breeze, while it would still take me dozens and dozens of hours to complete.

If I had any issues with RDR 2’s controls, I’ve gotten used to them by now. Witcher 3’s movement and especially the combat just never clicked with me.

Maybe that’s one of the bigger reasons for why I’m glad that Cyperbunk is going first-person.

I think they boy play terribly in different ways tbh. RDR2 plays significantly worse than Tw3 though.

@frostyryan: Good point...Realistic, heavy movement is somethibg I dig. I think the Killzone series is mediocre with the kinda-exception of Killzone 3 (it was fine enough), and proper-exception of Killzone 2.

I loved the heft of your character in Killzone 2. Mayve that’s why Witcher doesn’t bug me.

I think when control is king, you sometimes fly too close to this-character-feels-like-a-camera-with-a-gun-taped-to-it territory. Heft, momentum, and ramping up speed are nice ways to give your avatar a sense of belonging in a world.

I didnt play the Witcher 3, but I find a lot of similarities (& the same issues) in Breath of the Wild and RDR2, & funny enough, I really disliked BOTW but I am enjoying RDR2 alot

I think Witcher 3 is easily the best game of this console generation and one of the greatest games of all-time. I also really like Red Dead Redemption 2. I never had a problem with the movement or controls in Witcher and while there’s been some annoyances for sure, I don’t mind it all that much in Red Dead either. I guess this kind of stuff just doesn’t really matter much to me in games. I don’t need the game to feel completely smooth or flow perfectly. I’m much more concerned about atmosphere and storytelling and I’m willing to forgive if a game doesn’t have pitch perfect controls.

@frostyryan: Heavy/slow movement is fine with me if implemented properly. My biggest gripe is how poorly executed the contextual button prompts are and that gets exacerbated by the slow movement. I'm standing over the chest to loot it, so let me fucking loot it. Instead I have to awkwardly shift my weight left and right 5 times in a painfully slow manner to get the button prompt to trigger. And then I have to hold that button prompt before the actual action occurs.

Slow/weighty movements and bad controls are entirely two different things.

I love both RDR2 and the Witcher 3, but I immerse myself in games and often only play one game for a long stretch of time, sometimes for months.

If you're used to the fast paced movement in for example COD or Assassin's Creed this will feel slow, especially going back and forth between the games. So I understand that some have a problem with this, like Jeff talks about in the latest Giant Bombcast. But I think it's a matter of taste, not quality. I love the realistic approach to movement and world design so these games are right up my alley.

I was playing TW3 right before this game came out. I never beat it when it first came out and this year I finally finished the book series and decided to try and beat it again. I'm at the point where you are gathering people to help you fight at Kaerh Morhen, to give you an idea how far into it I got before putting it on pause for this game.

Here is my main thought on why this game is getting love from people that TW3 did not get. The world of RDR2 feels more alive than any open world game before it and it has you interact with it on terms that most video games do not give you. The world of W3 is impressive in it's scale, but when I first played it and when I went back to it, it felt like a fantasy RPG world that you interacted with in the way that fantasy RPGs let you. I like combat in W3 but I think Geralt's movement is bad the rest of the time, there's no logic to it and it's finicky.

Arthur's movement follows an animation and physics logic, so while controversial, it feels intentional. Couple that with a world teeming with wild life and curated content - that is on large and small scales - and you got something special for a lot of people. I think RDR2's setting actually really helped the devs with making a world feel alive. So much life of that world comes from the wildlife and small clusters of humanity in it. It is far easier to make a believable wilderness than a modern day city. And then having the contrast of wilderness makes the cities and towns feel that much more alive. The smaller nature of the towns - compared to a GTA or Novigrad - also allows R to put in a level of detail to the setting that you do not get anywhere else; I'm sure the 8 year development, the knowledge gained from GTA V, and the man hours were the main factors that brought us all the small world details though.

Also RDR 2 has much better writing and performances than Witcher 3. I know this is sacrilege but Witcher 3 has mostly average cliche video game writing. The best parts are usually the concepts behind situations and missions, but then you get down to dialogue and characterization and it is good to god awful; I can think of maybe two times I would call it great. I may be judging it extra hard because my most recent play through came off the heels of the books, but man most of it is straight up video game cheese with some decent narrative arcs - not counting the main plot arc.

The RDR2 Controls feel even slower IMO good example is the double barrel shotgun you literally have to wait 2 seconds, else you totally miss fire the thing, how many times i put a extra shell in a dead body is ridicules, so pro tip if you use the thing wait a good full second before pulling the trigger again.

Both are great. I try not to think too much about the finer details and just enjoy the game.

The movement in both games is bad (they fixed Witcher 3, to be fair), but it never bothered me too much in either case. I think the forced walking in Red Dead is a bit annoying because I don't get much time to play games, so I don't want to spend a lifetime walking across the camp.

The combat in Red Dead is the same at GTAV. Never had an issue with it, still don't. Witcher 3's combat is good, not perfect.

My personal answer to your question is no. Both games are the absolute peak of modern open worlds. They both have minor problems that don't really bother me too much.

Just a disclaimer, I'm not a MASSIVE fan of either game. They're both very solid, but I lost interest in The Witcher 3 before I finished it, and I am 100% sure that will happen with Red Dead.

This is a hard question at the moment because i am only, lets say half way, through RDR2 at this point. But in general i am the opposite, i think TW3 is one of my favorite games in the last decade, where as im not sure if i like RDR2 quite yet. As far as heavy movement goes, i would still give Witcher the edge because of click to object movement, which allowed Geralt to maneuver himself where you want to go, whereas in RDR2 you need to pick up each object individually and doing so in 3rd person is real real bad.

However the biggest pain point for me so far is what was mentioned by BoOzak earlier, is the lack of progression. It makes sense in the world that there are guns, and those are the guns, and the food. But now having anything to work towards as far as character progression from the early point in the game is a real bummer.

Also where for me, not all parts of TW3 story hit to hard, some hit really hard for me (some early on some later), but I have yet to really enjoy the story beats in RDR2 but will need to see if it really ramps up from where I am.

I like both games a lot, but felt like Witcher 3 got overrated... I actually like Witcher 2 more than 3. It has a better villain, story, and other things. I like the gameplay in Red Dead 2 and Witcher 3. I don't get some people hating on their gameplay.