TES nonlinearity isn't really nonlinearity in the way which would matter. The quests and questlines are as linear as they get, and freedom of doing them in any order which doesn't make any difference anywhere, doesn't really count much for nonlinearity as you're still running in the same tube as when you're doing them in a different order. The Witcher 2 is actually less linear than TES, because what you do in that game, makes a difference. There are crossroad in the gameplayroad of TW2, whereas TES has none but the one road it gives is wider.

Except you don't have to do any of those quests in an ES game like Skyrim, TW2 though your going to if you want to advance the game forward unless you feel like walking around and doing nothing because you've accomplished everything that you could do. For Skyrim and the other Elder Scrolls you won't need to advance the game forward that is the players choice.

Huh? I haven't completed Witcher 2 yet, but in Witcher 1, there is quite a number of side quests. Plus, no, you don't HAVE to complete the main quest in a TES game, but that will either break the credibility in the game (as it does in Oblivion: There's an invasion going on and no one does anything about it and still the land doesn't get overrun) or at the least make you have spent plenty of money on something you don't actually use....

Seems to be more than several votes.

What is pagan metal?

The can't really be compared, while they are both RPG's, The Witcher 2 is more linear and does not have as much exploration, side-quests, and freedom.

The Witcher wasn't as linear as I thought it would be. Its multiple plots and paths completely alter the way the game is played. That being said, it spreads itself extremely thin by doing so.

A game that could have easily been 50+ hours is now roughly 30 because of the broad spectrum of choices.

If any game was to do this really, it'd allow for multiple play throughs with recycled content and portions of new pieces. I'd prefer to just play the game as a giant whole.

Thats why I prefer games like Skyrim.

It's not a roleplaying game? Sorry, but that's highly amusing. You're playing a role, a "real" person, with a reputation, strengths, weaknesses, likes and dislikes, which directly affect the game. But it's not a roleplaying game?



You can ignore the main quest in Oblivion if you indeed don't care whether anything you do makes any sense at all. But that's hardly roleplaying. And the fact that you can be pretty much anything and do whatever you want also doesn't make it roleplaying. First, because in all regularity, it has no impact on the game whatsoever, so rather than roleplaying, it''s storytelling in your head. Second, an actual person in an actual world can NOT do whatever he/she wants. There are expectations society puts towards them, roles they are expected to fulfill and powers they have to tread lightly around. The Witcher DID pull that off.

Another RPG, Planescape:Torment also gave you a premade character, but left it up to you to go from there. You could turn him into anything from a sadistic torturer into a guilt-ridden lost soul seeking redemption for actions he doesn't even remember committing. You had real choices and they had an effect on the game. And all the time, the game demanded that you consider the philosophical aspects: Is a person responsible for crimes he doesn't remember? Can he truly be someone else than he used to be? Or, as the game put it "What can change the nature of a man?" The answer was up to you. But it had an impact on the story and how people treated you.

In Oblivion, you hardly ever were part of anything. You were the errant boy for Martin Septim. You could stand and watch as he defeated the final foe. You could be Champion of Cyrodiil, but did it give you any privileges except for a nice suit of armour? Hardly. And when you got to be Archmage, you got to be archmage of a mages' guild that had almost ceased to exist. Great job! Heck, even when Sheogorath got you to take over for him, you got his staff and the power to summon Golden Saints etc, but lo, only on the Shivering Isles. Let's not get testy, this guy isn't REALLY part of the club... In essence, you're maneuvering a drone through a world it doesn't belong in.

You do, if you want the game to progress. Ignoring quests (and doing whatever else) is not non-linearity if it has no impact on the game. It's just ignoring quests (and you can do that in The Witcher 2 too for aslong as you please).

That by itself does not make it an RPG at all. :shrug: ~but if it did... Pool of Radiance was the same way; You could go anywhere in the city, and adventure in the outskirts around it; hire a boat; hire mercenaries ; and wander into and out of any town you wished ~But you could not call it a better RPG than the Witcher.
*Realms of Arkania was largely the same; as was Fallout.

I would call Witcher the better RPG [IMO], because it has a clear and defined character role, and the game offers up some interesting situations to enact that role; and have it respond. The game changes the main quest based on Geralt's decisions.

Wither 2 is terrible, just a complete failure imo. It ranges from combat to story telling to the "free"-ness of the game world.

I wish they had not tinkered with the combat mechanics (or Geralt's face).

The QTEs are annoying; they are not terrible, but they are annoying to me, and distracting (as you spend your attention looking for a button icon to flash, instead of what's occurring in the game).

The Witcher and the ES series are two very different games. One is story driven and the other is a sandbox game. The Witcher is less linear in its quests than the ES games, but both are pretty linear. In terms of role playing I find both games adequate at what they do - sure, Morrowind or Oblivion are not really that strong in role playing terms compared to other classics, but that's not the strong point of the series. The strong point is exploration, combat and loot, including learning about the world's history and lore. In TW, the focus is on the story and choices and consequences.

Asking which is better is a useless comparison. I can't speak for Skyrim because it's not out yet (most things indicate that I will enjoy the game, but like with Oblivion I don't want to hype myself up only to find out I was wrong),I just hope it's a good game in its own right. So I'm voting for both poll options, just to see the results.

Also, asking this question on an official forum of one of the games is a very silly thing to do. Isn't it obvious that Skyrim will win? I've seen comparisons of Oblivion with TW1 on the CD Projekt forums, TW1 always beats Oblivion by a looooot of votes, just like here, but vice versa.

Pff seriously? Skyrim of course. Then again I have never played The Witcher.