Yes, yes, I know. These topics are a dime a dozen. I don't care, I just want to say my piece and go.

So when I first joined these forums (way back when), I was reading that some gamers felt Skyrim would be better if it was more like The Witcher. I don't have a good PC so I won't play either W1 or 2 on PC yet. So I picked up W2 for the Xbox 360 last night. I am really enjoying it. However, it is nothing like Skyrim and to compare either game to each other is both unfair to both franchises and also plain ridonculous. Yes, I know that's not a word. Rather than rag on Skyrim, here is my take on this whole hardcare vs. casual RPG thing.

IMO, Witcher games are more like Dragon Age, TBH. Forget about debating which game is better or worse, it's a matter of taste and opinion. My opinion is this: Take the writing style of Dragon Age: Origins, the melee combat mechanics of The Witcher 2 for third-person melee combat, the ranged combat and magic combat of Skyrim for both first and third person, the melee combat of Might and Magic: Elements for first-person melee combat, the art direction and huge open world sandbox of Skyrim, the minimal loading screens of Two Worlds and the mounted combat mechanics of Mount & Blade. Then throw some sugar and spice over top of it and make it look pretty and run smoothly by developing it on the ID Tech 5 engine.

I didn't include Dark or Demon Souls because I'm not too fond of that series, but I'm sure others will have differing opinions and I'm looking forward to hearing them. My point is, there's no one A-list RPG that is really better or worse than the others. They all have their successes and failures. I'm having a ton of fun playing both Witcher 2 and Skyrim.

You can't compare the games as a whole but you can compare gameplay elements individually.

For example Skyrim's story just svcks because it is predictable. TW2 on the other hand has interesting twists, good drama, memorable characters and manages to keep it all together.

id tech 5 is plain awful, on PC at least.