Ok, so Witcher fans love comparing Witcher to Bethesda games and talking about how Witcher shows Bethesda how an RPG game should be done. While I admit there are a lot of similarities in the games (particularly Witcher 3), they still aren't scratching the same itch so to speak. I will admit, I think Witcher 3 is the better done game. Because I think it reaches its goals better than Bethesda games reach their goals rather than I think it's a more fun game to play. And I think there are less flaws with Witcher 3 games. And yet, I still prefer Bethesda games (and no, this isn't an insult to Witcher 3 at all. I just prefer more what Bethesda is doing for playing a game, it's as simple as that. And that's why this post, because they aren't the same game).
Yes, Bethesda games are flawed. Yes, we'd all like to see some one do a Bethesda game and fix why they are flawed (I think Obsidian's take on Fallout was a much better example of this though than Witcher).
But no one does the same type game Bethesda does unfortunately. Nor scratches that same itch. I'd actually argue a turn based RPG is more comparable to what Bethesda attempts than Witcher 3 honestly.
Here's why? Bethesda with their RPGs are pretty much trying to take turn based type RPGs and put it in a live action type game. Yes, they don't do it as well as turn based RPGs (first of all it takes more resources into the development of the game which takes away resources from story/allowing more choice. It's a necessary compromise though I think Obsidian has shown it can be done better). They are trying to approximate IRL RPG games where you have a GM give you the situation and you are left with how your character deals with it. Including what type personality he has and what skills he/she will use to solve the problem. Does your character like to talk his way around things? Does he want to just kill everyone? Does he want to be stealthy and careful and find the best tactical solution?
Witcher is more focused on you playing a certain character with a very defined way he likes to act and very set skills he has to rely on (he's a fighter, pure and simple. Hell, even his crossbow is more a tool to bring flying creatures down so he can wack them with a sword). Story is a strong element of it and trying to get you invested in the character and his story. Even with talking to characters you are supposed to choose what you think is most true to Geralt and no option is given that is too far from his character.
Yes, they do have a stronger story. Easier done when you have one character and you don't have to take into account people are going to act differently and your NPCs need to be more open to reacting to different personalities. Granted, Bethesda could do better (Obsidian is a good example of how). But they aren't story oriented where you are playing some one's story more than create your own story in the world they give you.
Now, I do think a comparison of New Vegas or even Fallout 2 is a good comparison of Bethesda's flaws and why they don't do the aim of their games as well. Their main quest is too railroaded in what you can do (you have to help the enclave, you will fight the big bad dragon). Notice, these are complaints you could say of Witcher but would have absolutely no place in Witcher because you are playing some one's story, not your own character's. But very valid complaints of BEthesda games. Notice how many people point out how in New Vegas you can join whatever faction is a strength of it. Or in 2 where you can be a total asshole or be a hero or somewhere in between.
This is also why there is an uproar about the idea of Fallout not letting you play a certain gender when few care about you having to play Geralt (and it's honestly not a great complaint of Witcher games, that's part of the game). In fact, so much so that you don't get the usual "let the game developers make the game they want" argument against people upset about the idea they wouldn't be able to pick a gender. Because picking who you play is a very important aspect of these games (because reasons stated above).
So in the end, this is why I think you can admit Witcher 3 is a better game, but still prefer Bethesda games and admit they can be more fun (for you). In the end it is a matter of personal preference of what you want most in your RPG. I like pretending I'm in that world and that character. Witcher is piss poor for that.. but it's not trying to do that so I don't hold that against it. It is a great, no awesome, game for what it's trying to be (and it's not trying to be a Bethesda game). And while I'd love a better story and better written characters, that's honestly not the biggest reason I love Bethesda games or what I want most to get out of them when I play them (though I admit I think it's their weakest flaw admist other stuff they could also do better... like allowing more choice especially in the main quest. Imagine me complaining that Witcher should allow me to be the bad guy or join the Wild Hunt... that's a valid complaint I think for a Bethesda game, not so much for Witcher).
And no, Witcher 3 doesn't do everything better than Bethesda games. I think I just pointed out what it doesn't do well (also, I miss containers being containers and not just item dispensers). And it's an essential thing to some people.
TLDR: Bethesda makes games where you play who you want however you want, Witcher is not that game. Witcher does its aim better, Bethesda has a lot of flaws. You can admit Witcher is a better game while enjoying Bethesda games more because you prefer type game Bethesda game is. (also, I should learn how to condense my arguments better
<- yes I know I get too wordy).
Yes, Bethesda games are flawed. Yes, we'd all like to see some one do a Bethesda game and fix why they are flawed (I think Obsidian's take on Fallout was a much better example of this though than Witcher).
But no one does the same type game Bethesda does unfortunately. Nor scratches that same itch. I'd actually argue a turn based RPG is more comparable to what Bethesda attempts than Witcher 3 honestly.
Here's why? Bethesda with their RPGs are pretty much trying to take turn based type RPGs and put it in a live action type game. Yes, they don't do it as well as turn based RPGs (first of all it takes more resources into the development of the game which takes away resources from story/allowing more choice. It's a necessary compromise though I think Obsidian has shown it can be done better). They are trying to approximate IRL RPG games where you have a GM give you the situation and you are left with how your character deals with it. Including what type personality he has and what skills he/she will use to solve the problem. Does your character like to talk his way around things? Does he want to just kill everyone? Does he want to be stealthy and careful and find the best tactical solution?
Witcher is more focused on you playing a certain character with a very defined way he likes to act and very set skills he has to rely on (he's a fighter, pure and simple. Hell, even his crossbow is more a tool to bring flying creatures down so he can wack them with a sword). Story is a strong element of it and trying to get you invested in the character and his story. Even with talking to characters you are supposed to choose what you think is most true to Geralt and no option is given that is too far from his character.
Yes, they do have a stronger story. Easier done when you have one character and you don't have to take into account people are going to act differently and your NPCs need to be more open to reacting to different personalities. Granted, Bethesda could do better (Obsidian is a good example of how). But they aren't story oriented where you are playing some one's story more than create your own story in the world they give you.
Now, I do think a comparison of New Vegas or even Fallout 2 is a good comparison of Bethesda's flaws and why they don't do the aim of their games as well. Their main quest is too railroaded in what you can do (you have to help the enclave, you will fight the big bad dragon). Notice, these are complaints you could say of Witcher but would have absolutely no place in Witcher because you are playing some one's story, not your own character's. But very valid complaints of BEthesda games. Notice how many people point out how in New Vegas you can join whatever faction is a strength of it. Or in 2 where you can be a total asshole or be a hero or somewhere in between.
This is also why there is an uproar about the idea of Fallout not letting you play a certain gender when few care about you having to play Geralt (and it's honestly not a great complaint of Witcher games, that's part of the game). In fact, so much so that you don't get the usual "let the game developers make the game they want" argument against people upset about the idea they wouldn't be able to pick a gender. Because picking who you play is a very important aspect of these games (because reasons stated above).
So in the end, this is why I think you can admit Witcher 3 is a better game, but still prefer Bethesda games and admit they can be more fun (for you). In the end it is a matter of personal preference of what you want most in your RPG. I like pretending I'm in that world and that character. Witcher is piss poor for that.. but it's not trying to do that so I don't hold that against it. It is a great, no awesome, game for what it's trying to be (and it's not trying to be a Bethesda game). And while I'd love a better story and better written characters, that's honestly not the biggest reason I love Bethesda games or what I want most to get out of them when I play them (though I admit I think it's their weakest flaw admist other stuff they could also do better... like allowing more choice especially in the main quest. Imagine me complaining that Witcher should allow me to be the bad guy or join the Wild Hunt... that's a valid complaint I think for a Bethesda game, not so much for Witcher).
And no, Witcher 3 doesn't do everything better than Bethesda games. I think I just pointed out what it doesn't do well (also, I miss containers being containers and not just item dispensers). And it's an essential thing to some people.
TLDR: Bethesda makes games where you play who you want however you want, Witcher is not that game. Witcher does its aim better, Bethesda has a lot of flaws. You can admit Witcher is a better game while enjoying Bethesda games more because you prefer type game Bethesda game is. (also, I should learn how to condense my arguments better
<- yes I know I get too wordy).
). 
. I like playing as myself (or sometimes trying to make up a character). I like trying to decide how I would tackle a situation. Or a character I'd like to play of my own design would.
