-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why Witcher 3 /= Bethesda games and really no other game is
- Thread starter Tigress
- Start date
? Depressing is how I'd put it.
TW3 feels like a story-driven RPG shoe-horned into the open world container, because open world is the genre RPGs do now and that's that.
Skyrim, for having so many stupid problems, has open world down. You go out in the world and do whatever the hell you want, in any order you want, with any weapons you want, with any spells you want, with any allies you want. TW3 tries to tell you this story that but the problem is that that story brings down the open world. To me, they just don't work together.
Sure, they succeed in different things. TW3 has story down much better, but that's because that's it's focus. Problem is, when you remove the story from the game, it's not nearly as compelling as Skyrim or Fallout or Stalker or any other interesting open world game out there.
Skyrim, for having so many stupid problems, has open world down. You go out in the world and do whatever the hell you want, in any order you want, with any weapons you want, with any spells you want, with any allies you want. TW3 tries to tell you this story that but the problem is that that story brings down the open world. To me, they just don't work together.
Sure, they succeed in different things. TW3 has story down much better, but that's because that's it's focus. Problem is, when you remove the story from the game, it's not nearly as compelling as Skyrim or Fallout or Stalker or any other interesting open world game out there.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
*sigh* jilted Morrowind fans, unite
His Majesty
Banned
Remove the story from a story-focused game and it is less compelling. You don't say.
Yeah, I do say. Why make an open world game without compelling open world elements? If you are making a story-driven game, go balls out as a story driven game.
TW2 was much, much better at this, in my opinion. Focused and constantly engaging. Never moments of boredom or bad pacing because "open world" elements are seeping into a story driven narrative.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
Well, I disagree about the shoe-horning. I think they work great together. What I hated the Witcher 2 was how enclosed the world felt (mostly due to the game's limited engine). To say they did open world because it is popular now, I think, is disingenuous. And you can remove a story from any open world game and it will feel less compelling. I find both Bethesda and CdPR great at making a compelling environment. The Witcher 3 does feel slightly flat at where I am in it, but I find it absolutely fantastic for a developer who hadn't done it before.
-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
I was going to say this is so bad it's tag worthy, but he already has a tag.
Those "stories" feel so generic though and ultimately have one (or two if branching) result(s) from each quest just like The Witcher. You're not an actual individual in Skyrim. Every character gets the same story from each quest. Nothing is tailored to your race choice, gender choice, nothing. You're "The Dragonborn" doing the same stuff no matter what class/race/gender you choose. What story is being created? It's about as generic as Borderlands with you as "The Vault Hunter" as far as identifying your individuality of what you created in the character creator and tailoring the story to it.
The thing was there was really no difference between the directions besides damage. You could just check 'use best move' in the menu and be done with it. The problem was there was no tradeoff between say slashing with a spear and stabbing - a slashing move isn't going to give you a greater chance of hitting or hit multiple opponents, but it still did less damage. Armor didn't discriminate between slash or pierce damage either, it was just a single value. There was definitely room to make it better, though the directional power moves with different attributes in Oblivion helped.
IMO they need to make the stamina system more prominent like DkS, currently stamina is important because it determines damage, but most people don't see this (managing stamina this was isn't particularly engaging either) and it makes combat devolve into drawn out click spam
I dunno. I like how TW3 does it. I think they did a great job with it and honestly, I much prefer it to 2 (even though I miss having Iorveth in the game. was kinda hoping he'd make a guest appearance like some other characters but I'm thinking not).
I didn't like how 2 tried to give the illusion of an open world game while not being one. It honestly was worse to me than if it stopped trying and did a more this is a linear game that you play for story. I like how 3 does actually feel open world and less walled paths. Yes, I have some complaints but I do realize Witcher is also trying to ahve a more coherant story so it's not going to be as permissive of stuff (like no killing the NPCs cause Geralt wouldn't do that. No making Geralt something he entirely is not). 2 was a very meh game to me. I liked the story and characters but as for gameplay and immersion, it just didn't really catch me at all.
And I mean I do prefer Bethesda type games but I'm loving Witcher 3. And while I will say I'd think it was great if they tried for a choose your own character and choose that character's strengths next time as they are done with Geralt's story, I'd be happy if they also did a follow a story with Ciri as the main character (plus that would allow them to focus more on her special powers and how they work). I'm fine with playing Bethesda games for what I want out of them, and Witcher games for what they do well. And I think they did great by adding in open world to Witcher while keeping what people liked best about them.
I actually agree that that was the problem with Morrowind's system. It fundamentally controlled the same as Mount & Blade in how you swung in different directions, though, so if they had actually built on it they would've been in about the same place, except with magic.
It's also worth noting that Dragon's Dogma has about the same stamina system(stamina only for power moves) but it made the power moves so good that the stamina bar actually mattered(that and the enemies are better).
Super Stardust
Member
And Xenoblade X, this year is insane.
No... the assassin's guild is going to see you quite differently depending on how you treated them (that was one of the better quests really when the main character abducts you and makes you make a decision. I actually didn't expect them to allow me to kill her but I figured my character would do that so I'd see if they would let me do that. And voila, that was a very valid option).
You do get mercenaries sent after you if you piss some one off (Forget who but it was way after I pissedt hem off that the mercenaries came after me in Skyrim). Fallout even more so (hello Talon company. One day I will get around to killing you all but for now I'm so overpowered you are a convenient armor and weapon delivery device so keep attacking me! But hey, it helped me get in good with the Reiley Rangers).
They should have made the stormcloaks or imperials treat you differently depending on who you joined (That was an area they did badly. Also, the fact that I win for the stormcloaks and they still have stormcloak prisoners being marched around). As I said, Bethesda had flaws that related to what htey were trying to do. Flaws I wouldn't have found in Witcher even though Witcher allows you even less choice (you can't even take the side of the wild hunt).
Also, your dialogue choices take into account less which is the best option and more are you an asshole, are you a total good guy. They weren't perfect but tried to encompass a wide range of people with a few different (but generic enough to fit a wide range) choices)
Also, some of the areas you are right are flaws of Bethesda, flaws Witcher doesn't address. Because Witcher isn't tryingt o be that game. Flaws though that Obsidian's New Vegas addresses better. Or even many turn based games (as I said, Bethesda games are trying to take a lot of turn based games, which in turn are based on paper and dice roleplaying where you are expected to make your own character and come up with your own solutions games, and put live action gameplay to it.). THis is why I feel it is better to even compare a turn based RPG to Bethesda than Witcher. Even though on the outside they look more different. At heart they are more the same game than Witcher is to Bethesda games.
I mean by no means am I claiming Bethesda is perfect or even fully succeeds in what they are attempting. What I am claiming is Witcher and Bethesda games are not the same and are not going to scratch the same itch. FOr some that means they'lll strongly prefer one or the other game or even outright not like the other. For others it means they can enjoy both for what they are cause they like both styles (like me though I do more prefer Bethesda type games but I am really loving Witcher too).
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Witcher 3 is awesome!
eso76
Member
Make fun of this all you want but I saw this working all the time while he was playing. I should have filmed it. Sure it was just wolves and filler enemies and he probably was overleveled, but it was boring to see: I hate it when enemies become an annoyance rather than a threat
I just can't get past the role playing being not very good in Bethesda games since Morrowind.
They've homogenised their games in such a way that it really doesn't matter what race or class you role, what decision you make, interaction with the setting is almost identical.
You can become head of every major organisation regardless of affiliation or skill. You can join the Stormcloaks and win 10 battles with them, then wander into the Imperial HQ in full Stormcloak gear and chat with Genera Tulius and nobody blinks an eye.
You can organise a prison break in Markath that leads to a massacre as you burst out of the underground but the guards just look at you and go "whatever citizen" and keep walking.
And I understand why they do this. If they had all this complex storytelling going on, if your choices had consequences and bite without telegraphing them to the extreme, people would miss out on shit which when you're shooting for the broadest possible audience is likely a bad move.
But it also makes my character feel incidental, and the story of my character feel incidental, and the choices I make feel meaningless, and the worlds response to me fee non-existent. In my mind I can't really separate one play through from another I had of Skyrim.
Again, in an RPG that is ostensibly filled with side content, choices, factions and characters, that it never gets together in a satisfying way like say, New Vegas or the Witcher 3 does, is a big problem for me.
They've homogenised their games in such a way that it really doesn't matter what race or class you role, what decision you make, interaction with the setting is almost identical.
You can become head of every major organisation regardless of affiliation or skill. You can join the Stormcloaks and win 10 battles with them, then wander into the Imperial HQ in full Stormcloak gear and chat with Genera Tulius and nobody blinks an eye.
You can organise a prison break in Markath that leads to a massacre as you burst out of the underground but the guards just look at you and go "whatever citizen" and keep walking.
And I understand why they do this. If they had all this complex storytelling going on, if your choices had consequences and bite without telegraphing them to the extreme, people would miss out on shit which when you're shooting for the broadest possible audience is likely a bad move.
But it also makes my character feel incidental, and the story of my character feel incidental, and the choices I make feel meaningless, and the worlds response to me fee non-existent. In my mind I can't really separate one play through from another I had of Skyrim.
Again, in an RPG that is ostensibly filled with side content, choices, factions and characters, that it never gets together in a satisfying way like say, New Vegas or the Witcher 3 does, is a big problem for me.
SRTtoZ
Member
While I agree that ES has some shitty combat, lets not pretend that TW3 has some sort of amazing souls like combat. Its shit both ways.
Yup, they are unique in the sense that you know you are playing a Bethesda game.
Two things that that I've always found associated with their major open world series: 1) Buggy mess at release 2) Awful character creation technology from the 90s
It is in their DNA.
è£ ç²æªé¬¼ææ£
Banned
It's all shit though. I mean, it sure sounds appealing on paper, but what exactly would you actually want to do in this open world that totally lets you do everything? You can do those badly written and uncompelling main and sidequests in any order you want, amazing. You can enjoy the bad combat in so many ways, and side with people you probably don't give a rat's ass about, that's just grand.
I think people really like the idea of what Bethesda tries to do, but the execution is always so bad. They do these soulless empty worlds that are filled with absolutely nothing worthwhile. Towns, dungeons, combat, quests, characters, writing, choices and consequences, if they could make at least some aspects shine I would totally understand the appeal. But when you advertise total freedom and all of the content radiates the passion of something that might as well be randomly generated I have a really hard time understanding people who are like "yeah well, at least Bethesda lets me roleplay!". Uh huh, and how.
silvermember
Banned
Almost like going mainstream keeps them in business and leads to better sales and profits.That's embarrassing.
We lost so many developers to the mainstream last gen
Well, and in my opinion, Witcher 3, STALKER, Fallout New Vegas are the only modern games which do great things with open-world genre.. but remember, open-world AND sandbox, those are two different things.. none of those mentioned games are sandboxes - GTA, TES games are sandboxes
Fix The Scientist
Member
I prefer the bethesda model myself, their worlds are a lot more engaging to explore. If W3 had good combat this might be a more serious discussion.
NightShift
Member
I just started playing the Witcher 3 last night but I am 100% sure that by time I'm done, Fallout 3 will still be my favourite game of all time. Maybe if the Witcher gave you the whole world to explore from the start and if it wasn't set in generic fantasy land it would be close but Fallout is my jam.
Also from what I have seen so far the Witcher 3 is far more buggy than any Bethesda game and I started playing on version 1.04.
Also from what I have seen so far the Witcher 3 is far more buggy than any Bethesda game and I started playing on version 1.04.
swazzyswess
Member
Witcher 3s combat is so much better than Bethesda games. it's not even a fair comparison.
I hated TW1 and 2, but 3 is one of the best open world games ever. honestly I think the only thing Bethesda does "better" is character customization, but TW3 isn't attempting the same thing anyway.
You create your own story, you don't need people to expo into your face.
I made an Argonian dude, found a fellow slave laborer in the cold winters and took her to our home which I paid for from my monster exploits, then decorated our house bookshelves with books of Tamriel that I found scattered over my journey. One day I accidentally used a magical staff on her and turned her into an angry Nord guard, oops.
It's my story, not story of Geralt.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that. But I would say it's a lot more buggy than some people care to admit. It certainly does like to crash on me. And have random slow downs. And sometimes it occasionally blurs out and refocuses (I have no idea what that is about, it almost feels like it is doing something cinematic cause it does seem to do it at moments it almost seems appropriate?). Oh yeah, and do things like let my horse in the sewer (i just discovered that one today but it wouldn't let me leave with the horse.. this was not Roach as I prefer riding a black horse and have been so obsessive about this I've figured out ways using game reloads to get it back if it despawns. I want to pretend it's the same horse. I wish they would do like Red Dead and let me choose my horse. It's not like Geralt seems to have a preference or even care much about his horse).
The thing that it seems better about is it doesn't seem to get worse as you play it more (or if it does it's a lot slower about getting worse than the Bethesda games and Obsidian game I've played). Where as games under Gamebryo get steadily worse the bigger the save file gets (I played them on PS3. And honestly New Vegas didn't feel better under the xbox, it seemed to crash the xbox entirely more than it crashed on PS3 when on smaller game files so I have no idea if it will run better later in the game where I need it to cause I couldn't finish it later in the game on PS3).
Why is TES a sandbox and Fallout not? And I'd definitely question putting GTA in a sandbox game especially when you claim Fallout is not. Fallout is a helluva lot more a sandbox than GTA and I don't see why it is less a sandbox than TES.
I never played fallout 3.
Just Skyrim PS3 and Witcher 3 PS4
Wow, does witcher blow it out of the water. The fact its the first fantasy setting game I actually enjoyed says numbers about it.
Skyrim PS3 was a fucking slideshow mess, and no where near as interesting.
That fallout 4 trailer didn't do me any favors either.
Just Skyrim PS3 and Witcher 3 PS4
Wow, does witcher blow it out of the water. The fact its the first fantasy setting game I actually enjoyed says numbers about it.
Skyrim PS3 was a fucking slideshow mess, and no where near as interesting.
That fallout 4 trailer didn't do me any favors either.
I loved Skyrim, but I fully agree with this complaint. And I realize it's to allow people to play the whole game, but that's what replays are for.
This is one of those things that I would say I loved Skyrim in spite of. But yes, this did bug me (at the same time it was relaxing knowing I didn't have to choose. But still would have been fun and made much more sense if I did have to choose. I guess I can't have it both ways, heh. But I as a newbie to Elder Scrolls honestly expected that once I joined the Stormcloaks the imperials would hate me and I wouldn't be able to go in their city without being attacked. Part of me held off until I learned that wouldn't happen making it easier to make a choice. Honestly, thinking back it would be fun if it did make that city hostile to me but they allowed me ways of stealthing in (kinda like in New Vegas you could dress up in faction clothes and as long as they were not important characters in the faction they wouldn't notice).
Bethesda really needs to take the faction system from New Vegas and apply it to their games. This would honestly fix a lot of above complaints. And because you could sneak around in faction armor and disguise yourself from at least lower level faction members, you would still not totally be blocked off from areas. In fact it would add dimension to the game that you would have to do that if you wanted to enter some areas without getting in a fight with everyone.
You also missed though the railroaded main quest where you only could go against the dragon (I don't care if it makes no sense that you join him, maybe you're playing an insane character). Or the fact they only gave you an option to join the thieves guild or gave you a shitty option if you wanted to get rid of the Assassin's Guild (can you tell I was playing a good character. It bugged me, it almost felt like they thought I should be playing an evil character as I felt there was more offered to evil characters than good).
This is a super minor, super niche complaint, but I'm kind of very particular about my quest logs in RPGs and it drove me crazy that the game defaults you into the sprawling Thieves Guild questline the moment you enter a particular city and you just can't get rid of it and the only alternative is to walk around on eggshells in that city to not run in Brynholf.
It meant I had this quest I never wanted to do, with this faction I never wanted to be a part of (half because I was RPing as not a thief or morally ambivalent character, half because I had played that faction questline on a previous playthrough and found it to be poor).
And there's no lore reason it should be this way. This is the Thieves Guild after all; they're a super secret society who does tons of illegal shit and shouldn't be recruiting people on the street unsolicited.
Again, minor complaint, I'm very petty, etc, and I get why they did it (they didn't want people to miss all that content they'd bothered to make), but it just got under my skin in a way that's probably a way bigger deal to me than anybody else.
Skyrim and Witcher 3 are my favorite two games of the last 10 years. Hands down.
You really can't compare the two. It's like comparing Minecraft and Lego Batman. Yeah, they both let you break bricks, but two totally different experiences.
I do like Skyrim better, but I'll be the first to admit it's simply a personal preference and neither game is objectively better than the other. The sense of exploration in Skyrim is just unmatched, and I prefer it over the Witcher's much stronger narrative.
Both so damn good though.
You really can't compare the two. It's like comparing Minecraft and Lego Batman. Yeah, they both let you break bricks, but two totally different experiences.
I do like Skyrim better, but I'll be the first to admit it's simply a personal preference and neither game is objectively better than the other. The sense of exploration in Skyrim is just unmatched, and I prefer it over the Witcher's much stronger narrative.
Both so damn good though.
Click here to watch Radiant AI eats Witcher's Potato
Just a script, any game with npcs can do that. Even the Witcher 3.
I think he/she was being sarcastic.....
New vegas is totally a sandbox.
Each to their own. I honestly prefer that. And that would be one change they could do that would make me seriously wonder if I should actually buy the game (and seeing as I bought a PS4 with the assumption fallout would come out for it and that was my main reason for buying it, I don't expect much would ruin Fallout for me).
(No, it doesn't ruin Witcher for me but I don't play Fallout for the same reason I play Witcher. Once again, not the same game).
RageWaffles
Member
I'm really enjoying the story and the quests of Witcher 3, but the exploration isn't very fun. Things are too similar, and the world is missing the details that Bethesda's games have. I thoroughly enjoyed exploring every foot of Fallout 3, Oblivion, and especially Skyrim. So many hidden little stories to be found in Skyrim, that don't have map markers or associated quests.
Also, not being able to create my own character (and/or being forced to play as a guy) would actually make me lose some interest in Fallout 4.
Also, not being able to create my own character (and/or being forced to play as a guy) would actually make me lose some interest in Fallout 4.
I agree with you TC, which is one of the main reasons I'm excited to play The Witcher 3 eventually and think it'll scratch my itch more than the Bethesda games I've tried out (bought it already but am busy with Bloodborne at the moment). As much as I enjoyed my time with Oblivion back when I played it, I couldn't help but think "man, I think the technology just isn't there yet", you know what I mean? The concept of roleplaying however you want, the general sense of freedom and just having a big medieval playground to have fun with is exciting in theory, but then I can't help but feel like in execution it's still too unpolished and rough. Many things I tried doing in Oblivion for example just reminded me of "oh, right, it's just a game, of course the guard would know if I stealed this thing even though there's nobody around to witness it". I haven't played Skyrim yet (I know, I'm like so freaking late, I'll get to it someday) but from what I've read it still has a lot of problems like that, such as being able to steal somebody's clothes while they're still wearing it without them even noticing, or people/guards in general treating you like some commoner even though you're the chosen one and just saved the land from danger. Things like that just really messes with my suspension of disbelief. The AI is also really clunky. When you factor it all in it just doesn't feel enough like a living, breathing place, at least to me.
I guess until an open-world, sandbox game where you can truly do "everything" and your actions have a meaningful impact on the world, characters, quests, story and pretty much everything feels organic and smooth, I'll keep preferring games with more focused experiences in the meantime. I'm just a "polished design/focused experience" > "rough and unfocused/too ambitious for its own sake" kinda guy. That said, I am pretty curious to see if New Vegas really delivers as well as some people have been saying in this thread, because it certainly sounds more like my thing than the TES games.
I guess until an open-world, sandbox game where you can truly do "everything" and your actions have a meaningful impact on the world, characters, quests, story and pretty much everything feels organic and smooth, I'll keep preferring games with more focused experiences in the meantime. I'm just a "polished design/focused experience" > "rough and unfocused/too ambitious for its own sake" kinda guy. That said, I am pretty curious to see if New Vegas really delivers as well as some people have been saying in this thread, because it certainly sounds more like my thing than the TES games.
texhnolyze
Banned
Yep, agreed.
They simply has no competition, they have their own genre, Bethesda RPG.
I enjoyed Witcher 3 more though, as I'm still struggling at finishing Bethesda RPGs. I'm bad at sandbox, too much freedom for me. I always ended up dropping the game before I can actually finish it. I've spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours on Bethesda games, nevertheless.
Are you aware that you can create a story using absolutely nothing but your own head and don't actually need to pay a corporation $50 in order to do so?
I've never understood why this is supposed to be an argument, since it's not like the games actually do anything to facilitate this "emergent storytelling". You couldn't actually marry the lady you moved in with, she has no dialogue beyond "did you want something?" and the decorations you placed will despawn within 30 in-game days if they're not in a designated player home.
Is Skyrim this admired here? On other boards I browse most people aren't that fond of it. It's just too generic and samey. It still weirds me out how there were no fat, extraordinary slim, small, tall, ugly, beautiful, old or young people around in Skyrim and how it uses copy/paste models even for absolute key characters, a game with 50 times the budget of Witcher 1 which offered all this.
Skyrim is, in my opinion, a mediocre game that I really, really enjoyed as long as I was naive enough to believe that there still must be something great in that world waiting for me to find out about and explore it. 100 hours of weird, unwitting fun. Even comparing it to Witcher 3 seems quite a stretch to me.
So true.
Even the 'emergent storytelling' fails, though. Grandmaster of the College of Winterhold? Prepare for no one to give a fraction of a shit, and for you to be invited to join when you walk outside and interact with the NPC's.
Kneel, peons, you know not who you address! Oh who am I kidding, I'll never return here again...
Forgive me if this is incoherant, I've had three hours of sleep and I can't always be coherant about what I'm trying to say when I've had enough sleep
.Yes, you can just imagine stuff without anything else. But having tools makes it easier or sometimes more fun. It's kinda the principle that dice and paper roleplaying games go by. You still ahve to use a lot of imagination, but the dice give rules so that you don't have full control over what happens so more randomness can happen and it can feel more real cause like in real life you don't have full control over everything (or even other people's reactions).
It's why when I played on muds I preferred the one mud that wanted roleplaying but was still a mud rather than a mush. I wanted the game to determine if some things i did was succcesful, not just work on honor code (mushes if you got in a fight you guys were supposed to fully roleplay it and just use honor code on if your character hit or missed).
Skyrim and Fallout (all Fallouts really) provided a structure like a basic story that I had to roleplay around and the tools to allow me to roleplay my character (believe it or not, something as small as allowing me to sit really helped in immersion. Something I sorely miss in Witcher as I try to also make him get enough sleep and eat but it really doesn't feel the same. Witcher feels more like a game to me rather than a roleplaying experience because it doesn't really support it as much and is more aimed at being a game).
Yes, the combat was weak and could be better but I didn't really play it for combat. I was playing it more for a roleplaying experience rather than a combat simulator or game. Combat though did allow that randomness out of my control to happen. Allowing me to move items around my house and decorate it made it easier to pretend it was my house and I was in that situation. It made it feel more real rather than static items in most games that are immovable and act as part of the background rather than items in themselves. Being able to sit to eat made it easier to imagine it was me sitting to eat as well as being able to lie down in beds. Also, the fact I had to find an appropriate bed helped with that. Hardcore more in New Vegas was awesome cause it actually put rules down on needing to eat and sleep, and yes, that does help immersion when you like to roleplay. Having rules to actually enforce it actually does matter.... I think I'm too tired to explain, it just helps for those of us who do like to roleplay our character. I like having outside forces I can't control actually enfore stuff like drink or you'll start to get weak. Rather than just imagining I need to drink.
It makes it feel more like a simulator of the situation and less like just a game (I think simulators are games but they are different and they do work more on you using creativity in the situation as you are trying to simulate the situation so you are trying to put yourself in it).
Sure, some people want the game to be more gamey. But I think the main allure for those games is the roleplay/put yourself in the situation/simulator and I think it would be a mistake for Bethesda to forget that. Yes, they could make it better and keep that, but they need to remember what their games biggest allure is to their very dedicated fanbase (cause as the numbers show, people do like their games as criticized as they are. Hell, I can agree with criticisms and I still love their games and have yet to find any other RPG that does what I love about their games near as well). I think if they forget why their games are so loved despite the flaws and fix the flaws at the expense of what is good about their games they will find a lot of backlash. More so than if they didn't fix the flaws honestly (and I'll say I would much rather they keep the same than fix the flaws at the expense of why their games have such allure. I mean all I really want out of Fallout is more area to explore, more NPCs to talk to even if it's not the best of dialogue, and well, more Fallout. Yes, I would like them to improve stuff and honestly I'd prioritize stuff like adding in factions like Obsidian did and also your choices making more of a difference and less railroaded plot, things that are actually weaknesses in what they do well and would make what htey do well better. Than I'd focus on story/dialogue/writing and then, maybe then I'd say they should focus on a better combat system (as long as it didn't sacrifice their very open ness in how you can play your character). But combat is honestly the last thing I think they should focus on, it's not really why I play the game (and I suspect why a lot of people play the game).