re: .

quote:

---

I do not have a horse in this race because I haven't played either of these games. I do start BOTW (on wii U) sometime next week so we'll see how that goes. But I am interested in this quote, could you elaborate more? I really am not being a D....just interested.

---

You really want this? I can be long winded. Also, we should be clear, I assume Lacour used "game" as shorthand for "video game" which is different from "game," but that's a bit specific.

I'll respond to taylor's post at the same time:

quote:

---

I just can't see how anyone who spent significant time with both of these games can say this. Zelda is a good game but the story, the characters, the world, alchemy/crafting are so much better in Witcher 3. Not to mention the breakable weapons and the terrible enemy variety that really hinder BOTW. Honestly other than just nostalgia, BOTW is seems inferior in almost every aspect.

---

When you think about books, what book has more choice in how you read: Choose Your Own Adventure or Moby Dick? Which has more choice in how you interpret what you read? Which, eventually, has more staying power and meaning? Just because two things exist in the same medium, doesn't mean they follow the same rules, or have the same outcome. Video games are a medium, not a definite product or genre or product identity. Therefore, they allow for lots of experiences, and not all of them are particularly "games."

There are at least three games I probably say have a better argument to "greatest game ever" than Witcher: Super Mario 64, Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, and that is for a very particular reason: They are actually games.

When you play Super Mario 64 , what are you particularly playing? Do you have a choice in the narrative? Do you get to pick how bad Mario is? Are there more than one ending to simulate the impact of choice? Where is the challenge?

The challenge in Mario doesn't come from stats, numbers, it legitimately comes from "how" you play. Can you time your jump correctly. Can you slide in this particular pattern correctly. How you find that exact route through the world to beat the rabbit. The bosses have patterns, and all involve the way you move through the world. These things are not random, they are particularly put in place to force the player to solve a problem in a subset of ways. Same for SoC, but made more epic. The "game" is how you figure challenges out, and there are many ways to solve them. Essentially, these are interactive puzzles where the rules put the users into definitive problem-solving situations.

Think about Portal, easily one of the most interesting games ever made. It takes the trappings of very old Atari games: Build a set of rules and obstacles, set the user through various fields of play, create ever escalating spatial challenges throughout, all while putting a very interesting narrative around it. Interestingly enough, Portal has more in common with Centipede than it does Witcher. Think about that.

That’s kind of what I mean. Additionally, think about the genesis of the “RPG” which is Witcher’s definitive genre. It’s a “Role-Playing Game,” in that the game is in the role (with significantly less freedom than a real tabletop RPG), therefore the focus is on a very focused, pre-determined story. Think about the tabletop RPG where you often have no control over the outcome of your “roll,” that’s Witcher in a nut shell. Because the game, the random outcome, isn’t the point, the story and the presentation of it is. This means that:

quote:

---

Zelda is a good game but the story, the characters, the world, alchemy/crafting are so much better in Witcher 3.

---

This is actually true for the most part (except for “world,” the “world building” might be better in Witcher and it might look better but “world as interactive obstacle” is WAY better in Zelda than in Witcher). Witcher is a statistical game. The way you beat an enemy is often simply by math, get more damage, get more magic, get more options. The way you beat a stage in Mario is to figure out the puzzle. Figure out how to get to a particular star, how to time your jumps, etc. In Witcher, the “game,” or the experience is in the story. When you beat Witcher, you feel “Great, I’ve finished this narrative, understand the arc, I have a feeling of completeness for Geralt’s story or chapter.” When I beat Mario, it isn’t about finishing the story necessarily (this is why the story is thin), it’s more about feeling your skill overcame a set of puzzles. That’s the rush. That’s the high score. You don’t go back for Witcher for a higher score, you go back to see a different story, or accumulate math in different areas. If I go back to Mario it’s about finding the impossible stars or the ones I didn’t beat. Or to tackle a challenge in a different way.

Therefore:

quote:

---

Not to mention the breakable weapons and the terrible enemy variety that really hinder BOTW.

---

What taylor misses is that these are part of the puzzle. And that’s important. They are part of building a particular set of rules to force the player into corners and to think out of that corner. Same for enemy variety (again, think Centipede – different colors, different speeds, different strengths). That’s a deliberate choice for any games (and has been a Zelda choice for two decades), for a variety of reasons.

At the end of the day, it’s really about preferences, it’s just in these discussions where we come together to say “what’s best,” the language of that discussion is important. I’d be more comfortable calling Witcher what it is “an interactive movie/experience,” rather than a game because RPG’s are vastly different in most cases. Same for multiplayer “games.” I think Team Fortress 2 is one of the greatest video games ever created, but in this discussion, I’m not so sure (that would require another essay, ha). Some people put value on

quote:

---

the story, the characters, the world, alchemy/crafting

---

Which can also mean math, graphics, depth of character, amount of freedom, dialog, etc. And that’s ok, despite taylor’s knee jerk reaction to my post and my Witcher opinion. I think games are more about problem solving, rules, narrative supported by puzzles and obstacles. Rules and limitations are actually important to “a game,” the more freedom you have the less gamelike, to me, it is. What would a real life football game be in a field with no boundaries? Is it football anymore?

Which game is harder, more of a challenge: Battletoads or Witcher?

That’s the point.