-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
I have never played an rpg - The Witcher 3 or Bloodborne?
- Thread starter Cap'n Cook
- Start date
Zack Zavage
Member
The rational answer here is The Witcher 3.
But I'd still recommend Bloodborne due to how much of an unparalleled and unforgettable experience it is. It's not as hard as people say. It never gets unfair. It's one of those few games that respect the player. You just have to pay attention to what you do and to the things around you. That and a reasonable amount of patience is all what you need to get through this game. And brave. You need to be brave. No matter how bad things look.
But I'd still recommend Bloodborne due to how much of an unparalleled and unforgettable experience it is. It's not as hard as people say. It never gets unfair. It's one of those few games that respect the player. You just have to pay attention to what you do and to the things around you. That and a reasonable amount of patience is all what you need to get through this game. And brave. You need to be brave. No matter how bad things look.
I think it's the same effect you see, when people complain about complaining vegans, without there actually being a vegan in the thread. I think there was a study that suggested it was a reaction to a percieved moral attack. Which I guess can be likened to the whole "Souls games are some of the most difficult but rewarding games out there", and people feel as if their favourite game is being judged.
StrawberryJam
Member
Get both! Two of the best games this year. I don't honestly think Bloodborne is as difficult as people make it out to be, there's more room for error in it than other Souls games just due to how fast and loose you can play it. But for your purposes The Witcher 3 is probably more suitable. Both damn good choices though.
Magic Mushroom
Member
Always thought BB was closer to Ninja Gaiden in that respect, as it isn't about style or fancy combos, but pure survival against very agressive enemies.
Bloodborne, no doubt.
Got bored of Witcher 3 everytime I had to deal with the shitty combat, it was the actual reason I kept going back to Bloodborne.
Two hours into Witcher 3, I would I'd wish I was playing Bloodborne, then boom! next thing you know I'd put anothe 4 hours into Bloodborne regardless of the amount of times I've already finished it
Got bored of Witcher 3 everytime I had to deal with the shitty combat, it was the actual reason I kept going back to Bloodborne.
Two hours into Witcher 3, I would I'd wish I was playing Bloodborne, then boom! next thing you know I'd put anothe 4 hours into Bloodborne regardless of the amount of times I've already finished it
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Bloodborne is incredible, but if you've never played an RPG before, get The Witcher 3. It's more accessible, relatively speaking, and it's more of an RPG if I'm quite honest too.
The thing is the designation of "RPG" is just so broad to begin with, these two games are nothing alike, and there are plenty of other RPGs (true Western CRPGs, Jrpgs, action rpgs, etc) that don't really play like either of these either. I'm not sure I'd recommend either as a 'first' rpg, in so much as I don't consider Bloodborne an RPG at all (or any of the souls games), yeah they've got levelling and stats and shit but you might as well call Call of Duty an RPG at some point, they're action games. On the flipside, the witcher is a dense game with a lot of kind of weird systems and interactions tht might be offputting for a newbie, might not be too, who knows, but I'd probably recommend something like Mass Effect to someone new first.
I just use DMC as a stand-in for a well known character action game. But you make a good point about Bloodborne not being combo heavy.
I just wanted to say that I think both the games I listed as closer to that than P&P RPG, Chrono Trigger or Baldur's Gate. ;-)
ImruÂ’ al-Qays
Banned
I see where people are coming from when they say Witcher 3 is more accessible, but I think it presupposes at least some familiarity with RPGs in general. For someone who literally has never played an RPG, I think Witcher 3 might wind up being less accessible than Bloodborne.
In Bloodborne the RPG mechanics can be boiled down to: pick a weapon you like, upgrade it whenever you can, invest your stat points in vitality. Everything else utterly self-explanatory: wander around and kill things and try to figure out where to go, and then when you figure out where to go try to beat the boss that's blocking the way.
In Witcher you've got a ton of old-school RPG overhead. Like not only does it have an inventory system, it has a HUGE, COMPLICATED inventory system. You'll accumulate a ton of junk and you'll have to figure out what to do with it because if you don't you won't be able to move. From watching my girlfriend trying (and failing) to get into Witcher that was the thing that she hated the most.
Bloodborne is borderline, but the other Souls games are definitely RPGs.
Bloodborne is even less of an RPG compared to other games in the series, seeing as how your build choices feel more restricted than ever before, so I'd have a hard time calling it an RPG, since every game now has skill trees and stats.
Witcher 3 is closer to the traditional idea of an RPG, though it does have some streamlining, when it comes to character customization, and that also doesn't offer a lot of variety in character building.
You do get a lot of branching choices in quests though, which is why I'm more willing to call it an outright RPG.
You can't go wrong with either honestly.
W3 is more accessible and it's cheaper, so get that one first.
Witcher 3 is closer to the traditional idea of an RPG, though it does have some streamlining, when it comes to character customization, and that also doesn't offer a lot of variety in character building.
You do get a lot of branching choices in quests though, which is why I'm more willing to call it an outright RPG.
You can't go wrong with either honestly.
W3 is more accessible and it's cheaper, so get that one first.
Shitty quest design, horrible world building, terrible writing, bad production values, inane combat (yes even compared to the "oh so terrible Witcher 3 combat").
Nah, to avoid Bethesda's game is always a safest bet.
GHG
Member
Well I don't agree with you and think the combat is very good for an RPG game.
You say the Witcher 3's combat is "mediocre" and then recommend Skyrim? Are you joking?
Aye, even as an avid RPG player I just could not get into the game. Bethesda games are probably a niche of games themselves.
Opinions.
Did I say avoid TW3 because its combat is bad?
Skyrim is one of the biggest selling RPGs of all time for a reason. It's really accessible for anyone and it has a ton of content to discover. For someone who is looking for his first RPG to play I think Skyrim is a very good choice.
Skyrim
Well it depends on why you're interested, if it's just to see for yourself or if it's just because you're looking for games with more depth than well... most things.
Witcher 3 is the more conventional RPG experience of the two, in the traditional sense Bloodborne barely qualifies as it's an action game with some RPG mechanics.
In my opinion there is a misconception with Miyazaki games (Demons Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne) in that they actually aren't purposely difficult and determined to spit in the player's face in any aggressive way. They simply don't hold your hand, their difficulty is similar to many games of the eras around Super Nintendo and PSX where they will always give you all the tools you need to win, but it's entirely up to you to figure out how to use them and find them, the Miyazaki games just require some common sense and good timing, that's about it.
Many RPGs have hard limitations where inferior stats on gear and characters can most certainly block you off from adventuring into this cave or that ruin due to your survival being a straight up statistical impossibility. But an action RPG like Dark Souls or Bloodborne, you yourself are the only thing that stands in your way, you can beat the games with starting gear and stats if you're capable enough at making the most of what you have.
In some ways that makes the Miyazaki games easier than a traditional RPG because you can't be permanently defeated by math, only your own skill... which I guess for most people they would rather think what that when they lose, it was impossible to win in general and not simply because they aren't good enough.
But honestly if you have a genuine interest in the genre, try Pillars Of Eternity, it's probably the quickest way to get a "modern" look at what the genre was like when it really exploded on the PC as a video game genre.
Typically, a good RPG will be slow and Methodical with a lot of information to take in at any given time, the point of a good RPG is to spend time building up a world around you and all the intricate details that make it unique. So that when it interacts with your character, it feels alive and almost as if it has always existed and will continue to exist after you stop playing.
Personally if you aren't against 2D games, playing a SNES RPG is also an okay introduction to the genre from a Japanese perspective and in some ways is a little simpler than western RPGs in how they present information about their mechanics and worlds.
The world of RPGs is very deep and unrivaled in video game satisfaction if you have the time and attention span, but it's also not for everyone.
Witcher 3 is the more conventional RPG experience of the two, in the traditional sense Bloodborne barely qualifies as it's an action game with some RPG mechanics.
In my opinion there is a misconception with Miyazaki games (Demons Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne) in that they actually aren't purposely difficult and determined to spit in the player's face in any aggressive way. They simply don't hold your hand, their difficulty is similar to many games of the eras around Super Nintendo and PSX where they will always give you all the tools you need to win, but it's entirely up to you to figure out how to use them and find them, the Miyazaki games just require some common sense and good timing, that's about it.
Many RPGs have hard limitations where inferior stats on gear and characters can most certainly block you off from adventuring into this cave or that ruin due to your survival being a straight up statistical impossibility. But an action RPG like Dark Souls or Bloodborne, you yourself are the only thing that stands in your way, you can beat the games with starting gear and stats if you're capable enough at making the most of what you have.
In some ways that makes the Miyazaki games easier than a traditional RPG because you can't be permanently defeated by math, only your own skill... which I guess for most people they would rather think what that when they lose, it was impossible to win in general and not simply because they aren't good enough.
But honestly if you have a genuine interest in the genre, try Pillars Of Eternity, it's probably the quickest way to get a "modern" look at what the genre was like when it really exploded on the PC as a video game genre.
Typically, a good RPG will be slow and Methodical with a lot of information to take in at any given time, the point of a good RPG is to spend time building up a world around you and all the intricate details that make it unique. So that when it interacts with your character, it feels alive and almost as if it has always existed and will continue to exist after you stop playing.
Personally if you aren't against 2D games, playing a SNES RPG is also an okay introduction to the genre from a Japanese perspective and in some ways is a little simpler than western RPGs in how they present information about their mechanics and worlds.
The world of RPGs is very deep and unrivaled in video game satisfaction if you have the time and attention span, but it's also not for everyone.
Quite frankly TW3 is also fairly light on the rpg side. There's barely any character customisation and weapons are essentially mostly a matter of atk value, as opposed to the variety of BB's. Its combat system is also fairly poor and mostly a button mashing fiesta. It's also a bit of a grindfest and repetitive.
But yeah it's probably a lot more accessible than BB.
But yeah it's probably a lot more accessible than BB.
The game definitely has minimal story in comparison with games like those in The Witcher series for example. The sheer breadth is just not comparable.
Furthermore, I heavily disagree with your assertion that the narrative in Souls-like games is better suited to games in general. The way the story is delivered is good for a game that is all about its combat system: it never interrupts the action. You can go from one combat encounter to the next for pretty much the entire game without having to do anything else. And that's definitely great. I love those games and replayed them a ton.
However, I would not in a million years suggest that this approach is somehow intrinsically better. It doesn't fit every game, and far from it.
I want different experiences. I want games where I can have in-depth conversations with characters, where I end up getting attached to or start loathing those characters, have to make hard choices, decide who to trust, who to be wary of, who to help, who to betray... And then have to face the consequences of those acts, both in game and in my own conscience — you know a game really succeeded at that when you feel like taking some time off to think things over.
What I am getting at is that there is more to gameplay than combat. Interactive dialogues can be just as if not more compelling than fighting enemies and definitely have their place in the medium. Putting the story in the background and minimising the amount of dialogue is not better suited to games, it's just a different (and equally valid) approach.
Finally I want to address two last things at once: your point about quests in Bloodborne and a potential reply to my message saying than in Bloodborne too you get to do all of what I highlighted above.
It's true that there are quests in Bloodborne and that you can converse with characters. However, like everything else that isn't the combat those aspects are minimal. You can count the number of quests on not much more than one hand, you have around 10 characters you can interact with in the entire game and the majority of them have very few lines of dialogue. You only have a couple of meaningful choices to make. Again, that's fine because it suits the game but it only scratches one specific itch. If I feel like playing a game where I can go questing and talking to people then Bloodborne just isn't going to cut it because there's barely any of this there.
DustyVonEric
Member
Bloodborne is GOAT-tier for me, but I think you should try Witcher first.
I loved TW2 and own 3 (haven't had the time to really dig in yet though). But from what you say, TW3 sounds like more the game for you and where you may want to start.
Or better yet, get TW2 if you have a way to play it, then jump into 3 if you like it and not burnt out.
Ah, missed that. Thanks.
I loved TW2 and own 3 (haven't had the time to really dig in yet though). But from what you say, TW3 sounds like more the game for you and where you may want to start.
Or better yet, get TW2 if you have a way to play it, then jump into 3 if you like it and not burnt out.
Ah, missed that. Thanks.
Coreda
Member
While there may be shortcomings in the combat for some there's hardly any traditional grinding in TW3. The largest XP gains come from completing enjoyable quests rather than engaging in grindy combat. The game in general is geared more for story and exploration.
Magic Mushroom
Member
Fair enough, Hypron. I guess one style works best for me, but I can see why others would prefer the other or both.
Psychoward
Banned
Do monsters even give xp?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Isn't the world building in Skyrim similar to Bloodborne? Having to run around and read text and clues through a breadcrumb-puzzle delivery.
I believe in a previous thread it was the main argument for Bllodborne not having a weak story presentation.
Coreda
Member
They do, just not visibly on screen during combat. Checking the Inventory screen displays the XP level, which will increase after encounters.
Post-ending is good example of the difference in the XP gained through quest completion vs standalone combat. Ended the main story in the mid 30s level-wise and took a considerable time to reach level 38 (required for a few weapons I wanted to try).
From what I remember of shooting level 15-ish drowners underwater one time it was around 10-25 XP per kill. Still fairly low. I'd expect larger/tougher monsters giving more.
Yes. Very little though. If I had to guess without checking it's 2 xp per kill so not really worth it.
They can actually give more than that, but it's trivial compared to how much you can get by completing quests.
I don't remember ever grinding in TW3, but I remember farming a few times for certain materials.
I'd figure I'd roughly list some off the top of my head that were okay, all of varying complexity and depth, Witcher and Souls series have both already been mentioned.
Arcanum (A Personal favorite, steampunk, great voice acting, fantastic world and fun magic)
Balder's Gate enhanced editions (Never got into their settings personally as Arcanum's grim fantasy Victorian steampunk theme was far more appealing, but they're popular for a reason)
Vampire Bloodlines - Masquerade (First/3rd person action RPG, it had development issues and was essentially released unfinished but was mostly patched up by fans, runs on Source like Half Life 2, amazing characters and world despite it's rather awkward and still sometimes glitchy presentation)
Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (Fantastic game but awkward combat and characters, the setting is pretty much still truly unique even compared to more recent Elder Scrolls games, most satisfying exploration and tons of lore everywhere you look)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (More generic and watered down world wise, setting isn't nearly as interesting but it's much more approachable than Morrowind, looks okay. Well characters look bad but the world is decent looking even now, exploration is pretty good and freeform but suffers from terrible level scaling problems(Dark Brotherhood and the Shivering Isles are the real only great major questlines)
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Most accessible, not a terrible entry point to RPGs honestly, the way character stats worked previously was completely ripped out and replaced with a perk system that I don't hate but also wish didn't exist in an Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim doesn't really do anything offensive but it doesn't do anything great, I like the setting much more than Oblivion but a lot of it's writing is unimpressive at worst and okay at best, decent exploration, still looks good, fighting dragons is fun)
Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic (Great game, Bioware's take on Dialogue in RPGs has always been different and sometimes interesting, not an overly complicated RPG but it's tons of Starwars RPG fun regardless, many contend KOTOR II is better and it probably is)
Diablo III (Diablo is another old series that is pretty legendary, Diablo and Diablo II were/are beloved and the latter is still played today, but they can be a bit hard to get back into so III is not a bad more "modern" alternative if you're not looking to be bogged down too hard in open world and lore-heavy games, it has it's moments but generally plenty of action)
Mass Effect (Another Bioware game, more of a 3rd person shooter than anything else but has a lot of RPG mechanics and elements in it's world and gameplay, it and Mass Effect 2 are great games, another good entry point if you know shooters but just want to dip your toe into the RPG water a little bit.
Dragon Age Origins (Bioware RPG that is in 3rd person and in "combat" plays alot like an old school RPG in a way like Pillars Of Eternity, Arcanum or BG games, interesting and quirky characters, feels very much like a Soap Opera version of Game Of Thrones which is fun. DA2 I hear is not great and Inquisitions I haven't felt a great need to play)
Final Fantasy Series (There are the old 2D ones like FF 1 to 6 that are beloved and my experience with them is limited, pretty simple to learn, then FF 7 to X on the PSX and PS2 that all have different leveling and stat systems but each all do pretty amazing things in their own ways like the amazing card game Triple Triad and terrible things in others, such as Tidus.)
A lot of these depend on what you can adapt to, some of these games have pretty clunky combat and things that aged terribly but also have other aspects no one has ever successfully recreated or done better. For me, I'm not really fussed with rough combat/visuals if I find the setting/gameplay features or story interesting, but to each their own, but if you have a genuine interest, there you go, they're all worth experiencing for different reasons.
Arcanum (A Personal favorite, steampunk, great voice acting, fantastic world and fun magic)
Balder's Gate enhanced editions (Never got into their settings personally as Arcanum's grim fantasy Victorian steampunk theme was far more appealing, but they're popular for a reason)
Vampire Bloodlines - Masquerade (First/3rd person action RPG, it had development issues and was essentially released unfinished but was mostly patched up by fans, runs on Source like Half Life 2, amazing characters and world despite it's rather awkward and still sometimes glitchy presentation)
Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (Fantastic game but awkward combat and characters, the setting is pretty much still truly unique even compared to more recent Elder Scrolls games, most satisfying exploration and tons of lore everywhere you look)
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (More generic and watered down world wise, setting isn't nearly as interesting but it's much more approachable than Morrowind, looks okay. Well characters look bad but the world is decent looking even now, exploration is pretty good and freeform but suffers from terrible level scaling problems(Dark Brotherhood and the Shivering Isles are the real only great major questlines)
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Most accessible, not a terrible entry point to RPGs honestly, the way character stats worked previously was completely ripped out and replaced with a perk system that I don't hate but also wish didn't exist in an Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim doesn't really do anything offensive but it doesn't do anything great, I like the setting much more than Oblivion but a lot of it's writing is unimpressive at worst and okay at best, decent exploration, still looks good, fighting dragons is fun)
Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic (Great game, Bioware's take on Dialogue in RPGs has always been different and sometimes interesting, not an overly complicated RPG but it's tons of Starwars RPG fun regardless, many contend KOTOR II is better and it probably is)
Diablo III (Diablo is another old series that is pretty legendary, Diablo and Diablo II were/are beloved and the latter is still played today, but they can be a bit hard to get back into so III is not a bad more "modern" alternative if you're not looking to be bogged down too hard in open world and lore-heavy games, it has it's moments but generally plenty of action)
Mass Effect (Another Bioware game, more of a 3rd person shooter than anything else but has a lot of RPG mechanics and elements in it's world and gameplay, it and Mass Effect 2 are great games, another good entry point if you know shooters but just want to dip your toe into the RPG water a little bit.
Dragon Age Origins (Bioware RPG that is in 3rd person and in "combat" plays alot like an old school RPG in a way like Pillars Of Eternity, Arcanum or BG games, interesting and quirky characters, feels very much like a Soap Opera version of Game Of Thrones which is fun. DA2 I hear is not great and Inquisitions I haven't felt a great need to play)
Final Fantasy Series (There are the old 2D ones like FF 1 to 6 that are beloved and my experience with them is limited, pretty simple to learn, then FF 7 to X on the PSX and PS2 that all have different leveling and stat systems but each all do pretty amazing things in their own ways like the amazing card game Triple Triad and terrible things in others, such as Tidus.)
A lot of these depend on what you can adapt to, some of these games have pretty clunky combat and things that aged terribly but also have other aspects no one has ever successfully recreated or done better. For me, I'm not really fussed with rough combat/visuals if I find the setting/gameplay features or story interesting, but to each their own, but if you have a genuine interest, there you go, they're all worth experiencing for different reasons.
Denton
Member
Great post.
Acquiescence
Member
The Witcher 3 was my favourite game of the year until about 50 hours in when I really started to grow weary of it. Bloodborne on the other hand isn't catered to my tastes so much since it's very much a game for the hardcore, but it's far better paced, more streamlined so there's no filler and the combat is deeper and more exhilarating. So I'd go with the latter personally.
Very different games though.
Very different games though.
Canis lupus
Member
The answer is always Bloodborne if the option includes it.
Bloodborne.
Bloodborne.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Bloodborne's gameplay is so good that people have trouble treating it as an rpg but more of a character action game.
Don't let the difficulty put you off on one of the best RPG's in a long time. Plenty of new players jumped on Bloodborne and have loved it. The key is to learn from your mistakes.
Don't let the difficulty put you off on one of the best RPG's in a long time. Plenty of new players jumped on Bloodborne and have loved it. The key is to learn from your mistakes.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
The OP has chosen to go with Wild Hunt, but I hope he/she tries Bloodborne eventually too. Among other RPGs, to highlight the variety found within the genre. I'd also like to hear what the OP is/is not enjoying about Wild Hunt, to get a better of idea of what types of RPGs they might find appealing.
This is the most salient point, if we can figure out what is and isn't doing it for you, another recommendation will come much more easily. At the moment it might as well be "I've never played an action game, recommend one to me!" because of how broad the genre is.
RespectThySole
Member
Exactly.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Neither are particularly strong at being RPGs if you're actually wanting to do the whole 'role-playing' thing to be honest.
AppleSeason
Member
I'd say both as they are far too different and unique to compare themselves. I have it a bit hard trying to class Bloodborne as an RPG, for me it feels like a literal "survival horror". Both in surviving and the horror.
I'm not a RPG fan. The only real RPG's I played before were Morrowind and Skyrim. But Bloodborne is my GOTY, and TW3 follows shortly after that. Both are brilliant, and if you're up to a challenge (as a non-rpg gamer) then you'll find both amazing. Bloodborne is the harder game though, but even I, as someone who never played a From Software game before, finished the game twice. It's just that good.