Fair warning: I will not use spoiler brackets. So beware, even though I am currently "only" at the end of "Gangs of Novigrad" level (character is level 15).


Now, just lay down the torches and pitchforks for a second, as I am about to explain why (for me) Dragon Age Inquisition is better than Witcher 3 (i can virtually hear the shocked gasps and teeth gnashing from my monitor).

Disclaimer: I am about 40hours in the game right now, so probably a ways to go still, but I think I have now a good handle on what The Witcher 3 is and isn't for me.

But first, let me put this as a preamble:

Witcher 3 is a masterpiece of game writing, open world design and top notch graphics (when considering the vastness of the game). There's not really any arguing that. I have had tons of fun playing it so far, and see no reason this would stop.

-Also- I am well aware that DA:I had its share of problems, what with innocuous/ boring fetch quests, mind numbing collection quests, and a fair share of empty areas.

Now, here is where I have some problems with Witcher 3 and where I think that DAI actually excels at, and makes it the (overall) superior game (again, for my taste).

DA:I is an actual RPG, not a Geralt Simulator
And by RPG, I mean that you get to create a character from the ground up, with its own backstory. You also get a group of secondary characters to play with, each with (mostly) interesting backstories, their own (at times annoying) personalities and side quests.
That to me makes DAI already more interesting as a true core RPG. Geralt isn't un-interesting mind you. Not at all. But he is also a sort of caricature of a medieval Humphrey Bogart, low key on emotions, sarcastic anti hero type.
There is also a significant lack of party/ grouping, which makes it a one man show really (cf below for people already raising their hands to talk about Ciri).

Witcher 3 instills a sense of urgency, to betray it at every turn
Now to be fair, DA:I did this to some extent as well, but they were ultimately left to the choice of the player. In Witcher 3, you do mundane investigating and chating almost by design. Repeatedly.
The thing is, from the get go, Witcher 3 is about finding Yen as fast as possible, as you are right behind her after all these years. Slow down a minute, and you might lose her tracks. Oh wait ... helping you with this wraith problem ? Sure. What's that? Bandit stole your stuff? Let me get that right back for you.
Then ... more of that. Gotta find Ciri as quickly as possible, as the Wild hunt is after her. But wait ... let me do all that Horse racing, hand fighting, contract monster hunting, visit brothels, play Gwent and collect cards (love the game btw) etc. etc.
At least, in DAI, there were some lull moments, as you were waging a war with its own cycles of battles and more "quiet" moments when you were not sure hat the ennemy was up to.
But here? You shouldn't do -anything- but the main quest if you were true to the story being told, and even then that same story pushes you at times into doing side things to gain favors.
The flow of the story then becomes irregular at best, and comically absurd at worst, but there is worse concerning said "Story flow". Much worse, actually, in my opinion...

The Ciri sequences are the worst thing in the game's flow (beside Ciri herself being a great character)
The designers chose to tell Ciri's flashbacks through limited gameplay sequences where the player controls Ciri. That might have sounded great on paper, but in reality, at least to me, these appear like the worst thing so far in the game.
Why is that, you may ask?
Simply put, it is only halfway done, with a slimmer of Geralt's or the normal game's available functions (some as basic as inventory), which transform said sequences into arcade on-rail runs, with a pre-determined ending (remember, it's only a flashback).
Oh Ciri is badass indeed, she can insta - dash faster than Quicksiver, regenerates faster than Wolverine and can dispatch any type of ennemy with only 1 sword (while amazingly Geralt has to switch between two)... Also, no exploring, no no. It's just a "corridor gameplay experience".
In essence, those sequences appear to me to be there so that the devs can't be accused of putting in too many Cutscenes, so they decided "let's make said cutscenes playable, with a bare minimum of gameplay!".
what happens in the end is that something which could have been said in two to three sentences in a dialogue with Geralt ends up being a 5-10 minutes pointless arcadey romp. The pointless part being the main problem to me, really.

DA:I is Epic Heroic Fantasy by nature. Witcher 3 is a Trudge through the swamps of the Dark Ages.
So far in Witcher 3, the most epic thing I've done is taking down a lowly Griffin (oh, and a small Wyvern I guess).
At times, I have had to fight a werewolf (annoying regen btw, which just makes it a chore), some wraiths (love the Yrden mechanic there as opposed to the Werewolf regen) and a few Undeads... But by en large its all about bandits, beggars, and banal boogaroos such as drowners again and again (there's an entire field of lowly monster nests in Northeast Velen and around - about 25 of them total to collect across the entire W3 world to get the achievement I read). The goat fetch quest has often been (justfully) deriled in DAI, but there is the -exact- same quest in Witcher 3, just less visible as part of a longer quest chain.
Even the main quest so far has been rather boring (some side quests like the Bloody Baron have been highlights though), and a far cry from the high stakes of Witcher 2. It's all very personal to Geralt this time, yes indeed. But in a world where the whole continent is aflame because of wars and conspiracies, the main activities of our hero seem rather trite and oblivious to the bigger picture.
In essence, the game's MC has given up on trying to change things (if he ever tried to) for the better. It's all about him and his friends, and hopefully getting out of dodge before getting caught up in something bigger.
In contrast, DAI puts an average person (you) in extraordinary circumstances (after having been in the wrong place at the wrong time) with an epic role to play to try to make the worlrd a better place... Or at least save what you can in the process. On the way, you'll get to affect your friends as well as strangers in much more intimate ways as well (and some side quests are very well written, such as Dorian's, but just much shorter), although the main story is far far bigger in scope, which to me makes it more engrossing and sweeping in the end.

I have felt no thrill yet in the Witcher 3, and exploring its vast expenses appeal to me more than continuing the main story (right now)
Maybe a capital offense, maybe just a detail... we'll see when it's all said & done and the conclusion of the game is behind me, but as of right now I am looking forward more to finishing the game to be free to explore its scenery, rather than playing through the story.
On the other hand, before the 40h mark, I had several thrills while playing DA:I.
The trip to the future was amazing (and seeing a "turned for the worse" Leliana killing an innocent Felix while saying "Give me the World back!" will forever send a chill through my spine.
The first Dragon you fight (generally the Hinterlands one) gives a sense of awe, and the first fight vs Corypheus followed by the trip to Skyhold was a pretty darn epic moment for the ages I think.
Now the end "boss fight" may have been quite bad (far too easy), and the emptiness of the high level zones made for a disappointing trip at some times, but the ending itself (and the hook for a sequel) was really good I thought. It remains to be seen (for me) how Witcher 3 will hold in its end game, but the "trudge through the sludge" right now does not make me hold much hope for epic and sweeping moments.
This being said, I really look forward to the "sand box" game after going through that though...
I'm not sure if it's a good thing though, as it relates to the overall quality of the game (main storyline), but I think I will really enjoy it nonetheless, as I have already enjoyed my excursions a lot (but with the feeling I was betraying the supposed urgency of the main quest, as already touched upon). At least then, after the ending rolls, I won't think like I'm "ditching school and betraying my parent's trust" anymore

This is the end of my little essay.
Feel free to agree or disagree (I'm sure there'll be plenty of that), without screaming too much if possible

Many of the points you raise are fair, but DAI has such boring quest design and narrative, and such shitty combat that frankly I think even Witcher 1 outclasses it easily.

Free to your own opinion.

I actually like that much of the story in The Witcher 3 is trudging through life as a mercenary in a medieval backwater rather than the epic save the world quest of Inquisition.

I think they're fundamentally different games, and despite the flaws of TW3, overall it's a so much better experience that respects your time a lot more and is generally more interesting. The fact that TW3 has flaws doesn't make DAI better.

All those points are about two games doing different things, rather than one game doing things better than the other.

Jb said:

Many of the points you raise are fair, but DAI has such boring quest design and narrative, and such shitty combat that frankly I think even Witcher 1 outclasses it easily.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Also, to add to that, sans maybe Iron Bull, I didn't find any of the party all that interesting.

dragon age feels like a committee made aaa game

witcher 3 has a soul, the world alone is 100x better

I like both games a lot. The issue in comparing them directly is that the best parts of DAI are things Witcher 3 doesn't even attempt, which gets them removed from the discussion, while Witcher's strengths are DA's weaknesses so the comparisons seem more stark.

I finished DA:I and currently playing TW3 and so far, I can say that I have more action per square feet in TW3 than DAI.

In DAI, I would run and run and run and run before encountering "something". In TW3, I walk less and encounter more.

In DAI, I would always return in the same town, in TW3, there are lots of "smaller" towns where I can do my main stuff (sell, make, repair)

I was tired of the combat in DAI. TW3's combat is different, not better.

In DAI, I had lots of subquests without any soul. In TW3, I get at least some voice-overs in almost all the subquests.

About reading the lore, the one in DAI was interesting but was more about the past. There's as much reading in TW3 but more about the current situation (the war) and its consequences.

I expected more of DAI even though it's a good RPG but TW3 (for me) covers it all... about Geralt's story

I think both The Witcher 2 and Dragon Age: Inquisition have better main quests than The Witcher 3; however, the latter slaughters them both in terms of side quests.

Your opinion is probably going to encounter some steep resistance, but I'm appreciative of it. The Witcher 3, for all of its strengths, doesn't have a good sense of momentum when it comes to the main storyline.

I just wish I could replace Geralt with my bad ass Inquisitor. And maybe to have a horse that doesn't come to a complete stop after getting tripped up on pebbles.

Remachinate said:

All those points are about two games doing different things, rather than one game doing things better than the other.

Click to expand...

Yeah, one being focused on a specific character over focusing on a created character isn't "better." Neither is "Epic fantasy" vs. The Witcher 3's story.

DA:I was a slog to play. There's nothing Epic about requisition quests and all of the other bullshit you had to trudge through.

Witcher just has a much better atmosphere, IMO. It feels handcrafted and each quest feels unique as opposed to DA:I, where every quest felt cookie cutter and generic.

Well, the only thing I could say is that Dragon Age does better role play by nature of the player having more character creation control, but Witcher 3 has better story in terms of choice and consequences.

DAI has better role play mechanics.
Witcher 3 has better role play.

And since you haven't finished the game, you wouldn't know the extent of this yet.

I think DA:I looks a whole lot better and the fiction / political side of the story is a bit less up its own ass but thats about it.


The party combat in Inquisition didnt click with me like it did with past Bioware games though.

I think giant bomb said it best for me.

I'm relieved to play an RPG that ISN'T save the entire world for this cataclysm.

DA:I is Epic Heroic Fantasy by nature. Witcher 3 is a Trudge through the swamps of the Dark Ages.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a strong argument in TW3's favour to me.

Durante said:

That sounds like a strong argument in TW3's favour to me.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as an argument in favor of either game, personally.

In any case, parts of the OP stand out to me as highlighting why there should be room for both games. There are several core design decisions that anchor one game that the other doesn't even attempt.

Remachinate said:

All those points are about two games doing different things, rather than one game doing things better than the other.

Click to expand...

People have trouble with this.

I like it = it's better

I have to disagree with your first point, OP. Yes, you don't get design your character from the ground up in W3. But it is still an RPG as you are "role playing" as Geralt.

He is an outsider that people turn to in time of need, then immeadiately cast him aside as soon as they don't need him. The decisions you make as Geralt carry a TON of weight when it comes to NPCs who need your assistance. See the differing resolutions to the Bloody Baron quest lines...

I complete DA:I and loved it. But W3 has absolutely blown that game out of the water with its world and atmosphere.

You make valid points but even so I still rank Witcher 3 higher than DAI. The dragon fights in DAI are definitely the highlights, but after that, there's really nothing else too memorable, except maybe that moment where everybody started singing.

DA:I is an actual RPG, not a Geralt Simulator
A RPG is playing a role...You are playing a role of Geralt with moral decision that based on your personal choices on what you want how Geralt to response.

A sense of urgency.
Every single open world game in existence has this problem.
Batman, you only have a few hours to live! Naw Alfred, I got shit to do first.


The Ciri sequences are the worst thing in the game's flow.
This is true. Sometime I wish it would be a cutscene so I can enjoy the story after finishing a quest.


DA:I is Epic Heroic Fantasy by nature.
I don't understand this subject at hands. Every RPG has a different setting and story.
So why are we comparing apple and orange?

I have felt no thrill yet in the Witcher 3, and exploring its vast expenses appeal to me more than continuing the main story (right now)
This is subjective. I could say the same thing about DA.
There was no thrill.
The moment that the game forced you back to the war table, you wanted to turn off the game.

One game bored me to tears and one game took over my life.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I've loved Witcher 3 and haven't been interested in DA:I at all. But all of your points ring true based on my experience with the game so far (30 or so hours).

Not really sure on the Geralt simulator part. Just because you can't create your own character doesn't make the Witcher any less of a role playing game. Even without character creation you still get to develop Geralt as a character through various skills/paths and narrative choices. .

He's also supposed to be low key as he's a Witcher which means that he's reserved, and the game throws that idea numerous times at the player. It makes sense to me as these guys hunt monsters for a living, you'd expect them to be generally cool-headed and not emotional.

I'm 70 hours in and I haven't found Ciri yet, she can wait. I'm too busy burning beehives and playing Gwent.

I don't even know where to begin with this other than saying lol

SomewhatGroovy said:

Why...I mean, I just do not get why people make a straight line from one game to an entirelty different one.

I could understand the narrative on how W3 compares to the previous games of the same series but why does it need to go head to head with an entirely different RPG with a different vision in mind? Makes zero sense why people do this.

Click to expand...

They are both big AAA open world RPGs and have released within a year of each other. How can you NOT see why they are being compared.

no thrills? I don't know, I find the game ever thrilling at any corner. The atmosphere is so good it doesn't need to rely on set piece based cheap thrills but it actually does have those too on top. The game doesn't need to stop you and show you a cutscene to be thrilling, it does that as you play, that's a lot better to me than what DAI does. The way the game is built it allows for so called emergent moments that are unique to your experience too. DAI is a very rigid game in structure and everything is calculated and by the numbers yet it doesn't have the hand crafted feel and lacks the emergent elements.

Both games differ on on a lot of aspects but the main difference is in ambition imo. Inquisition gives you the capital of Orlais...one lousy courtyard with a few NPC's and shops. The Witcher gives you Novigrad, a bustling city with hundreds of houses and NPC's. Inquisition gives you zones filled with collectibles and fetch quests, in The Witcher they are filled with handcrafted and engaging side quests. I could go on but I think it's clear that one RPG tries to stay on the safe side of the genre while the other attemps to raise the bar in nearly every single way.

Of course you are free to prefer Inquisition but it's hard not to admire what CDProjekt has done with this game.

Coming from the biggest Bioware rpg fan ever, DA:I made me question whether I had outgrown crpgs playing it.

Witcher 3 brought me back.

I like how different they are, same with skyrim and bloodborne. Variety is good.

I bought DA:I on release and I have only have 7 hours logged on that game, it didn't hold my attention. The generic side quests and poor combat really spoiled the game for me.

I didn't like Witcher 2 that much depsite loving the first game so I was sceptical about the third installment. Upon seeing the initial feedback and positive reviews I had to try it. I'm hooked, 35+ hours in and I still can't put it down.

The game isn't without its flaws of course, but in my opinion DA:I doesn't even come close

Some good points. I'm a huge DA fan and loved my time with DAI, but I think at the end of the day The Witcher 3 is the better game overall, but DAI probably is the better RPG as you say. They are very different games though so direct comparisons are really hard to do. DAI excels in certain areas and in ways that W3 doesn't and vice versa, but CDPR really hit it out of the park. I look forward to seeing what BioWare can do with what they've learned and without the shackles of last gen hardware. I'm not sure if I had to choose between one or the other which I would pick because they both offer such different experiences and gameplay.

In my opinion, both are fantastic RPGs, it boils down to personal taste regarding scale, do you prefer grand scale epic RPGs which are the regular formula that Bioware employes? Or a more personally focused RPG? Similar to Baldur's Gate vs Planescape Torment, the former is epic the latter is more personal.

Both succeed in what they strive to achieve, I'm more partial towards the Witcher 3, due to the more fleshed out side quests which feel important and not filler.

I thought most of the story missions in DA:I were boring and uninspired, while some of the side quests were really really good.

Haven't played Witcher 3 yet, but if it has good enough side quests, that's all I need. In these games the side missions are usually what's keeps me interested

Wrong thread.

DA:I is good. The Witcher 3 is one of the finest crafted games ever made and arguably the best open world game I have ever played by a western dev.

I played 20 hours of DAI and realized the game was shit and wanted nothing more to do with it. The utterly boring sidequests and poor narrative and storytelling was just not compelling me to continue wandering around an ambient, but not substantive game world. And the characters and writing were fanfic quality.

Put in 20 hours of Witcher 3 now and I don't see myself stopping anytime soon. Combat is much more engaging than "push A to win" of DAI and the stories and game world are alive in ways that DAI could barely delve into.

As for subject of ambition, I think it's not realistic to expect something of this level of detail from Bioware, making games is a lot more expensive in North America than it is in Poland, the only other studios that can put out something at this level of craftsmanship I feel is Rockstar, and they spend a fortune on every game. EA is never going to give Bioware 5 years on a game, man power and the budget to make something like that. Bioware did pretty good with DAI actually, it's very competitive and does present Bioware style of role playing in a good level with multiple choices in character creation all voice acted now, it has far better production values than their previous games. They don't sell that many to justify investment like that. I feel people expect too much from them. Witcher franchise is like the high achievement of a country in comparison.

I bet my every nickle that somebody is going to come here and proclaim that both games are very different in nature and outright comparisons are going to be difficult to make.

It's an argument we've heard time and time again.

To be quite frank, it comes down to the type of fantasy you find most enjoyable.

Dragon Age Inquisition: Lord Of The Rings

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt: A Song Of Ice & Fire

I prefer the latter, mainly because of the excellent dialogue we get to hear the characters mutter.

One of this games was bland and boring as fuck, I had to force myself to finish it.
The other one is probably the best game I've ever played.
Guess which is which

I was dumb and bought DA:I for $30 like a couple weeks before The Witcher came out. I can hardly find time for The Witcher, I'll probably never even play DA:I.

The word is ludonarrative dissonance, but it's still up to players if they want to sidetrack from main quests. Horse riding? Help slay some wraith? Gwent? The game doesn't force them on you at all. Don't do them if you think they break the flow. Also do finding Ciri isn't THAT urgent IMO except a few moment later in Skellige. Geralt barely has leads most of the time. It's a marathon, not a Sprint.

DA:I does have the advantage of party along with party banter, more skills and stuff for combat, but even if I liked DA:I, Witcher 3 felt even tight in combat. And everything else, Witcher 3 is just way superior. Okay maybe the environment design is debatable. TBH DA:I is actually quite horrendous looking back at the quest design and how short and weak the story is.

I'm tired of messiah complex save the world event.
had enough with Mass Effect

Krappadizzle said:

Wrong thread.

Click to expand...

There can be no wrong "opinion", but you are entitled to yours

I don't agree, OP; I've found the Witcher 3 to be the antithesis of Dragon Age: Inquisition - entirely to its benefit. Beyond the case of gameplay and game design, of which TW3 trounces DAI, the writing and storytelling are vastly superior. The core problem with the story is that the Witcher knows you're a witcher, whereas Inquisition only pretends that the player is Inquisitor.

Look at it this way: in one you're hunting monsters, looting everything, crafting stuff, and solving problems for locals; in the other, you're hunting monsters, looting everything, crafting stuff, and solving problems for the locals. The difference is entirely in the preamble, with DAI pretending everything is of world-ending importance, with the Inq leading an army of people, while in the Witcher, Geralt is there, solitary, doing what he's always done - getting stuff done. In Inquisition, the Inquisitor has zero agency; situations that could be solved or completed with his army or resources instead rely entirely on his own power. In the Witcher, by contrast, Geralt is the only one capable of solving or resolving the tasks given to him - he's a monster slayer and warrior of high renown, and this is not changing throughout the game; many of the decisions he faces are unique to him, due to his own situation.

Basically, at its core, Inquisition differs little from the war table it mockingly contains; show the world, but change little. The Witcher, however, resembles its metagame Gwent in that there's a surprisingly vast and intricate world out there and - though you won't win every round - everything is there for the taking... provided you can find it.

Remachinate said:

All those points are about two games doing different things, rather than one game doing things better than the other.

Click to expand...

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, here are the A, B, C's of his argument:

• Dragon Age is Awesome; incredible fights and world-changing decisions abound at every turn. Witcher, by comparison, is completely mundane and trivial in its affairs.
• Dragon Age has a better gameflow, tying everything into the main quest. Witcher, by comparison, lets players decide their priorities.
• Dragon Age has customization; be it your party or your character, you, the player, decide how it works. Witcher, by comparison, forces you into the role of Geralt (and he's not much of a hero).
  

So, in summary, Dragon Age: Inquisition is better than Witcher 3 because it's Dragon Age and not the Witcher.

Basically, it's this:

instead of this

So far, I think DA:I has the best story and characters thus far. I'll throw in Art direction as well as some of the places in W3 are getting a bit repetitive. Apart from that, W3 exceeds in everything else, Combat, RPG Gameplay, Boss Battles, Side Quest (thou they are repetitive, the mini narrative within makes it interesting), Alchemy and Craftting (I have more making potions and crafting armor in W3 than DA:I by a long mile).

Meh, I just got tired of Bioware's emo writing and playing the messiah.

Jb said:

Many of the points you raise are fair, but DAI has such boring quest design and narrative, and such shitty combat that frankly I think even Witcher 1 outclasses it easily.

Click to expand...

DA:I combat is a hell of alot better than Witcher 3. Witcher 3's combat system is probably the worst I've ever played in an rpg.

Kurt Angle said:

dragon age feels like a committee made aaa game

witcher 3 has a soul, the world alone is 100x better

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

It hurts me to think that people actually think DA:I is a better game. It's game design and world are just shit. It feels just like a EA or Ubisoft made fantasy game would feel.

Combat is boring. Quests are garbage.

And that urgency thing that op mentioned is way worse in DA and in every other modern Bioware game.

The Witcher world feels lived in. The game is filled with atmosphere. There's just so much more going on in the Witcher 3 that DA:I doesn't even come close do doing or doing well.

DA:I feels like a game made by a group of EA execs who sat down with a group of 13 year olds who have only played an Assassins Creed game or something.

Witcher 3 isn't bogged down by a horrible plot, stale characters, or meaningless fetch quests. Witcher 3 doesn't feel like a chore for me to try and complete. Also, Gwent > DAI