The great debate

The great debate.

Attached: w3vsp5.jpg (1060x702, 131K)

How is this even a contest?

I don't know. The first witcher can't keep me interested long enough to even get to 2 and 3.

I've examined the facts and I think I've solved this for good. 5 is a bigger number than 3.

I beat both multiple times.

As an action game, The Witcher 3 has fight animations that are far too long, and combat that is far too broken, but the game has great atmosphere and story.

Persona 5 becomes great after unlocking multiple S-Rank 10 abilities. Before that, it's inferior to Persona 4 Golden.

Start at 3 dummy

And have no clue about anything thats fucking going on? Thats not how immersive RPGs work.

Idk, both are story driven with poor gameplay. Atleast fatlus game is unique if you never played one of them before contrasted to open world games that have been done to dead

What, how are these games even remotely comparable.
I suppose wither 3 is better but it's a retarded comparison.

>You can't compare two RPGs
Next you'll say, "I was only pretending to be retarded."

Are you same nigger pitting Witcher 3 and Bloodborne?
Promptly kill yourself my man.

Attached: 1457422423256.gif (192x224, 42K)

I played through Persona 5 twice and TW3+DLC once, obviously P5 is better.

W3 and BB compete on mostly the same areas, though.

One is GOTY 2015 and the other is not even the best Persona game.
I'd say P5 has better music and is better stylistically.

Bloodborne

>not even the best Persona game
Yeah, I prefer P2's duology.

Based.

Based and Gameplaypilled

What do you mean?
Both are vastly different games with emphasis on different gameplay philosophies.

Attached: easter in detriot.jpg (500x426, 60K)

>Bloodborne
>Gameplay
What did he mean by this?

P5 probably.
TW3 has its highs and charm, but you'll have to sludge through 2-5 hour grinds to get to them.

P5 is still heavily flawed in many regards, but fundamentally, it is an ok game, plus the style is way too good to overlook, even if it can feel like style over substance.

Tumblr the post

This.

that guy is a fag. you should start at 2 and watch the 5 minute official story recap of 1 that CDPR put out on youtube.

But 1 is better than 2.

The game catches you up and there's a ton of in-game stuff to read about events from previous games. Do you really think all the people who hype up witcher 3 have played the first two? Be real dude

Yes , it requires you to pay attention to the screen and play acordingly . Or are (you) impllying you can play by just fine mashing buttons ?

Witcher 1 was made in 2006, same year as Mass Effect 1.
It was made by a studio that never made a game before and acted like a weird hybrid of an isometric and a proper 3rd person action RPG.
Most of the story was just kind of lifted from the books here and there and boiled down Kind of a staple of the series .
I want to say it isn't that long but my steam account says it took me 60 hours.
I tried to 100% it even though there are no achievements in it.
Like Mass Effect you can transfer over your save from one game to the next and in that way it was kind of the series more people should have been into more than Mass Effect.
>Better story
>Better gameplay
>Better supporting character
>Better choices
>Better sex

Attached: Witcher in one image.png (962x697, 49K)

>the other is not even the best Persona game.
>Only persona game at all to win physical awards
(You)

>by just fine mashing buttons
Yes, O and R1. Bloodborne is good for the atmosphere, not the gameplay.

Persona 5. Both are great games but Persona 5 beats it easily.

lmao there's only one Witcher game and that's The Witcher 3.

Persona 3 is demonstrably better than Persona 5 in every facet.

No, just by being a repetitive as fuck game it its already worse, also ALL the gameplay

>No weapon fusions
>Aren't punished for hitting an enemies strength
>No tactics
>Easier overall

>Better gameplay

Attached: 1549797659188.png (446x435, 74K)

Only good posts ITT

>>No weapon fusions
Transforming personas in weapons was 100 times cooler
>>Aren't punished for hitting an enemies strength
What do you even mean ? it its literally the same shit in that regard
>>No tactics
Yes you have
>>Easier overall
EASY BAD

>EASY BAD
This but unironically.

>game has emphasis on trick weapons and COMBAT
>somehow combat isn't one of its strengths
As simple as the combat appears compared to actual action games, it doesn't discredit the combat.
Simplicity is not inherently a bad thing, and many games display this.
The R1 spam is an actual meme, because even if you distilled every weapon to a spam strat, they play differently, abuse different inputs, and timings.

how can you even compare these two? yeah they're both rpgs but they have virtually nothing in common

>somehow combat isn't one of its strengths
It's not, though. Even mediocre action games possess more depth and breadth in their combat.

simplicity of systems ≠ bad

My first playthrough only clocked 32 hours

The characters in Witcher 3 reference the events of games 1 and 2 so often that it isn't difficult to implicitly figured out what happened. Other than that, videos on youtube summarize the games pretty nicely.

agreed. p5 is a game, the shitcher is a mediocre movie.

>p5 is a game
Debatable.

Attached: 1551810711207.jpg (738x302, 106K)

p5 has cutscenes and gameplay.
the shitcher has cutscenes.

Loved P5. Only played The Witcher a few hours. I think my problem with it was that it felt too videogamey for the subject matter.