Is Hogwarts Legacy better than The Witcher 3?

[󠁳]

Is Hogwarts Legacy better than The Witcher 3? or do you prefer both? Just Asking..

[Oppaikun]

Anyone saying that Hogwarts is better than the Witcher 3 is a fanboy/girl. There is so much more depth in the Witcher 3 than in Hogwarts.

Checking the play time of anyone who has completed both games should be a tell-tale sign. Hogwarts is fun in its own rights, but objectively does not even come close.

[Aeon]

Originally posted by Racecar Johnny:

Originally posted by Aeon:

This isn't exactly a good argument either. 12 hours into the Witcher and you're barely delving into the vastness of Velen, 12 hours into Hogwarts Legacy and it still feels like you're in the tutorial.

That's not a glowing recommendation. There are plenty of games where I don't have to wait 20 hours for it to "get good". That's just 20 hours where the game ISN'T good.

How is saying "20 hours in and you've barely scratched the surface" a bad thing?

If you think the 'highlight and click' mechanic of HL is good combat, then don't bring it up, because that's probably a skill limitation. Just stay away from Kingdom Come Deliverance, because the combat in that game will eat you alive.

Graphics? Entirely idiotic argument. We've always had the ability to create outstanding visuals, we were limited by hardware. Even then, Skyrim modders were making graphics that can blow Hogwarts Legacy out of the water, and they were doing it 4 years ago.

Story/lore? Let's not go there.

[thufirhawat333]

Doesn't even come close.

[NinjaPewPew]

yes

[Wizard]

i have had fun playing both the witcher is by far better for story and exploration/emotional investment. but also this game itself is still quite fun i wouldn't really want to compare them since if you wanna go by first releases the witcher 1 sucked i never had fun playing it. although just for comparison on story alone the witcher is better.

[Hobbes]

This is a fun game. But no. It lacks the depth of The Witcher 3.

[-RaYdR-]

no, there are worlds between :)
But Hogwarts was funny.

[Ellamin]

No.

[Racecar Johnny]

Originally posted by Aeon:

Originally posted by Racecar Johnny:

That's not a glowing recommendation. There are plenty of games where I don't have to wait 20 hours for it to "get good". That's just 20 hours where the game ISN'T good.

How is saying "20 hours in and you've barely scratched the surface" a bad thing?

If you think the 'highlight and click' mechanic of HL is good combat, then don't bring it up, because that's probably a skill limitation. Just stay away from Kingdom Come Deliverance, because the combat in that game will eat you alive.

Graphics? Entirely idiotic argument. We've always had the ability to create outstanding, we were limited by hardware. Even then, Skyrim modders were making graphics that can blow Hogwarts Legacy out of the water, and they were doing it 4 years ago.

Story/lore? Let's not go there.

What the hell are you even on about? Kingdom Come Deliverance teaches you most of it's core mechanics within the first couple hours. HL doesn't and it's worse off for it. KCD has so much more going on gameplay wise and it's plot that this isn't even an issue.

Secondly, I never mentioned graphics.

Third, KCD is far more interesting in it's first hour than HL is in it's entire run time.

Fourth, go ♥♥♥♥ yourself you sanctimonious prick, your presumptions about who I am and what I pay can eat ♥♥♥♥ along with your garbage take. If you have to wait 12 hours for the game to be fun, then the game is wasting your time. KCD is fun way before that, therefore the comparison is an invalid one.

[Aeon]

Originally posted by Oppaikun:

Anyone saying that Hogwarts is better than the Witcher 3 is a fanboy/girl. There is so much more depth in the Witcher 3 than in Hogwarts.

Checking the play time of anyone who has completed both games should be a tell-tale sign. Hogwarts is fun in its own rights, but objectively does not even come close.

In all honesty, excluding graphics and map size, I think the Blood and Wine DLC is comparable to Hogwarts Legacy.

[Mashi]

Originally posted by Mr Grim:

i have had fun playing both the witcher is by far better for story and exploration/emotional investment. but also this game itself is still quite fun i wouldn't really want to compare them since if you wanna go by first releases the witcher 1 sucked i never had fun playing it. although just for comparison on story alone the witcher is better.

The biggest problems with the Witcher 1 is first the engine, it uses the same one as the original Neverwinter Nights released wayyyyyy back in 2002, using a modified version of the combat system. It's seriously shows it's age today, and if that was the problem you had with it? Especially if it was too easy, well I understand that.

And if you felt it was too easy, then something like Full Combat Rebalance will give you a really good challenge. There's also a bunch of quest fedexing which has declined in popularity since normies have gotten into games. That's just easy to cheat through using a save editor, since those quests are only there to build experience. The last problem is 'mob clutter' like in the swamp(last chapter). Where sneezing spawns so many you wish it would end.

On the upside, CDPR is remaking it to be like the Witcher 3.

[Mars]

Originally posted by Racecar Johnny:

Originally posted by Aeon:

How is saying "20 hours in and you've barely scratched the surface" a bad thing?

If you think the 'highlight and click' mechanic of HL is good combat, then don't bring it up, because that's probably a skill limitation. Just stay away from Kingdom Come Deliverance, because the combat in that game will eat you alive.

Graphics? Entirely idiotic argument. We've always had the ability to create outstanding, we were limited by hardware. Even then, Skyrim modders were making graphics that can blow Hogwarts Legacy out of the water, and they were doing it 4 years ago.

Story/lore? Let's not go there.

What the hell are you even on about? Kingdom Come Deliverance teaches you most of it's core mechanics within the first couple hours. HL doesn't and it's worse off for it. KCD has so much more going on gameplay wise and it's plot that this isn't even an issue.

Secondly, I never mentioned graphics.

Third, KCD is far more interesting in it's first hour than HL is in it's entire run time.

Fourth, go ♥♥♥♥ yourself you sanctimonious prick, your presumptions about who I am and what I pay can eat ♥♥♥♥ along with your garbage take. If you have to wait 12 hours for the game to be fun, then the game is wasting your time. KCD is fun way before that, therefore the comparison is an invalid one.

You're on the same page about the Kingdom Come: Deliverance argument. How did you misread that so badly you resorted to petty insults?

[𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓚𝓱𝓪𝓷]

absoloutly not! Withcer3 better than all games for me

[Racecar Johnny]

Originally posted by Mars:

Originally posted by Racecar Johnny:

What the hell are you even on about? Kingdom Come Deliverance teaches you most of it's core mechanics within the first couple hours. HL doesn't and it's worse off for it. KCD has so much more going on gameplay wise and it's plot that this isn't even an issue.

Secondly, I never mentioned graphics.

Third, KCD is far more interesting in it's first hour than HL is in it's entire run time.

Fourth, go ♥♥♥♥ yourself you sanctimonious prick, your presumptions about who I am and what I pay can eat ♥♥♥♥ along with your garbage take. If you have to wait 12 hours for the game to be fun, then the game is wasting your time. KCD is fun way before that, therefore the comparison is an invalid one.

You're on the same page about the Kingdom Come: Deliverance argument. How did you misread that so badly you resorted to petty insults?

Relook at the comment chain. The argument isn't about KCD, but the idea "it gets good 12 hours in".

Secondly, I'm not going to take being told I have an "idiotic argument" over a point I never brought up, let alone being told a game would "eat me alive"

[that is so raven]

Witcher was fun to watch streamed but nothing interesting to play, so HL is better imo