Which game is a better ,Deliverance or The Witcher 3?

#1

Why I choose this specific? Because i would like to buy from scdkey , for finest Role-Playing Game.I checked out some instruduce about individuals two games.

Both video games can be incredibly stunning, both offer hours regarding gameplay in a ancient playground, and the perception of “discovery” in the two games set them separate from other current RPG titles.

Kingdom Come: down and dirty gameplay, immersive medieval sim, Performance isn’t the finest if could be.

Witcher 3: lax RPG aspects, stunning world and history, runs nice, gameplay will take a back seat to be able to story.
Do you have got worthwhile recommendations?

Edit: no ad here plz

#2

Why not buy both?

1 Like
#3

Depends on what you like
Low fantasy and one of the best stories and gameplay on the market the Witcher
Relative medieval realism and a pretty good story and options then KCD

So with those in mind, even as an early backer (alpha) of KCD, I’d still recomment witcher.
KCD in my mind was always best for those who are so deep into medieval stuff that its a no brainer.
Witcher is just a much more versatile game for the market,
Think rondel dagger vs spyderco folder

#4

@Burcezed: Is this supposed to be a serious question? I mean, you ARE asking on the official KCD/WH forum, so what kind of answer do you expect? IMHO, KCD is better, I like its’ realism. W3 was fun but a bit too easy. And I didn’t like the way they used cutscenes to tell the story. It was also a bit too linear, despite its’ open world.

#5

Both games are excellent in their own way. If you want magic and fantasy go with Witcher, if you want to stich yo :realism" go with KCD. I have played both and both are fun games. If money is an issue wait until they are on sale .

#6

Both games are great, just the gameplay is different and also the setting.
W3 is great adult “medieval” fantasy VS.authentic down-to-earth medieval in KCD.
W3 is definitely more polished, runs great (KCD sometimes doesn’t) and it still looks stunning. Both games are masterpieces in their own way. I totally recommend to play both.

#7

Everyone else here has already said a majority of what can be said, but I’ll still add my two cents.

Both games are amazing in their own way. If you’re for story, neither lacks for it, however it comes down to specifics. The Witcher 3 is low fantasy and heavily medieval, and if you haven’t read the books it’s still enjoyable (though the books by Andrej Sapowski add to it as he is the creator of the Witcher before CD Projekt Red made it into a trilogy of games)

If you’re HEAVY into the Medieval Period, then Kingdom Come is for you. No magic, and there are various ways to solve problems (you can talk your way out of most situations, or just kill everybody, you bloodthirsty bastard)

#8

I was very into Witcher 1 and 2 but 3 is kind of disappointing but the story is good part of it. I hope someone would convince me to play on Witcher 3.

1 Like
#9

@savvym: If you haven’t tried W3 then I would suggest that you do. It is a good game and a well written story, but I do dislike how CDPR overly relied on cutscenes to tell the story, that they could have done differently/better (like KCD, by actively engaging the player instead of making them watch a movie). The dialogue options are a bit linear as well. On the other hand, it is truly open world and I do think you might enjoy the game if you play on a difficulty harder than normal. I found normal to be way too easy. Geralt’'s role as a witcher does naturally mean that magic will be a large part of your arsenal. I grew up in an era where games like Ultima, Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Final Fantasy played big roles in my gaming experience. So I’m not opposed to magic (I’m a practicing meditationer/occultist IRL). But KCD shouldnt have it, it just doesnt fit. Alchemy is fine, maybe some hinting at magic, but nothing more. Overall I would agree that W1/W2 are better than W3, with W2 being my favorite of the 3.

1 Like
#10

I played it but stopped because I don’t like combat as much.

#11

The combat mechanics are not the strong suit in Witcher 3. I have only played Witcher 2 and 3, I found 3 to be more story rich.

#12

The atmosphere, the world, the graphics I like more in KCD. It is also more pleasant to be in KCD, the world is more real and looks like reality. The combat mechanics and the deviation towards realism are also more like in KCD. Each game is good in its own way, but if I choose between two games, then I choose KCD. (Google translate)

2 Likes
#13

Deliverance

I was never fascinated by Witcher 3. The gameplay is very boring. Witcher 1 & 2 are better. It is a good game, but far away from a masterpiece.
Deliverance isn’t a masterpiece too, but quite close to one.

There’s only one true masterpiece in the RPG genre and this is Gothic (1 & 2).

#14

I can not talk about playing Deliverance in a pc. In a console: may of 2019 and there are still so many bugs with Deliverance that the question is not even a valid one… The witcher is better in everything (apart from the history, since it is a matter of taste). Not slightly better, like a Lot better.
This does not mean that Deliverance is bad.
But you’re asking to compare a Ferrari with a Fiat… The number of copys selled, the number of awards, the reviews, all this support what I’m saying… Still, some people may actually like more of Deliverance…

Again, my experience is only based in the console…
And, realy? In the official forum of the game your’re asking this? you should do the same on a witcher 3 forum… lol.

#15

Yes I also heard, that the console version is not in a good shape.
But PC is different story, they made a big progress in polishing the game, I had no problems at all in my latest playthrough (if I’m not counting some minor graphical glitches).
So if you have a chance to play it on PC, go for it.

#16

Witcher 3 is Fiat. Weak, but more units sold. Deliverance is Ferrari. Better, but less units sold.

Witcher 3 have bugs too. Many. And I don’t look as much on bugs. Important is how great the storytelling is (Witcher 3 has boring cutscenes), how good the immersion is and how deep the atmosphere and the gameplay. Gothic 3 was also bugged as hell at launch and still one of the finest RPGs ever made. Even when it’s no longer the quality of Gothic 1 & 2.

2 Likes
#17

I see now I have a bit different view than most people here, so I’ll try sharing my experience. The question is, what’s important to you:

A. Polished cinematic set up and experience.
Then W3 is deffinently the winner. It is much more polished, scenes set up is like in movies, combat is pretty blockbusterrish. In KCD it feels like you’re seeing amateur theatre most of the time. However, the cutscenes are sometimes pretty decent and dramatic.

B. Pick your own decision.
You probably lose with both games. In both the main character has it’s character already - and you mostly choose between minor shades.
However I felt like in Witcher 3 you may take a bit more heavy decisions on consequences. You choose who you support and what’s entire country fate would be. In KCD freedom is only for how you achieve your character goals. Sometime I was pissed off that I have to choose options that are idiotic to me, because there are no others.

C. Fun action gameplay.
To me, Witcher 3 is much-much more tactile fun. Despite all critique to it’s gameplay, I actually love it’s combat one of the most in games. I like that you can dodge (and I mean dodge, not just roll out) pretty much any atack, and constantly dancing between dodging and putting hits in right moment. I don’t find it too easy as well. Unless you fight underlevelled enemies OR have mastered the gameplay, quests do give you some challenge (on normal difficulty). And afterwards you just set it to max difficult and almost every foe kills you in two successive hits, so you better make it perfect.
With KCD this aspect isn’t a thing at all. You don’t feel cool while making combat. However, there are good parts. It’s more skillable - you really have to master everything before it works. So I guess the accomplishment feeling afterwards is MUCH higher.

D. “Choose your path” gameplay.
Limited in both games. In W3 you are first of all a monster slayer. Your main tool is a sword. Fencing is the key. I don’t think you build a proper tank either. However you add magic to it - it’s pretty powerful and does change tactics. And potions, of course, put some variety to gameplay. Anyway, you won’t build a ranger, a thief, a pure mage or anything else.
With KCD it’s same and different in the same time. Speaking combat, you use melee. There is a bow, which you can win some battles with - but there are no skills for it and it’s very hard to use. But most of the time you can really avoid direct combat. You can use stealth to nock down enemies, poison their food and so on. You can use dialog skills to pick paths that don’t lead to combat. You can’t avoid combat entirely though, but at least it’s one of the least combat-forced RPG game I’ve ever played. Which I personally love.

E. Immersion.
For some reason one of important parts of an RPG for me personally is ability to live inside the game world. That means I want to be able - and to actually need to - sleep, eat food, return home to get some rest from quests and travels and so on.
And I must say KCD is one of the best game ever for those rutines. You have energy and hunger, which punishes you if you don’t pay attention to them. You have to do lots of things which aren’t adventurous - like constantly repairing your clothes, washing yourself, following recipe manually when brewing potions and lots more. Even saving is connected to actual in-game actions, like drinking shnappes or sleeping in a safe place. I love those little things, but for others it might be a chore.
W3 doesn’t do that almost at all. What you’re left with is eating to gain health regen (which I appreciate, though), meditating to recover or to wait for some exact time and… is that all? Even brewing potions doesn’t have usual amount of small manual steps - you only make each type of potion once and then it autorefill when meditating unless you need to upgrade the potion to a new level. It only keeps the fun parts, but for me personally that decrease immersion.

Not sure, I’ve covered all the aspects I can think of… Probably will continue later if I come up with something else.

2 Likes
#18

Fair analysis of both games. I may not agree with everything you said but you articulated what you like and at the end of the day that is what truly is important., to enjoy the game and not ask yourself why?

2 Likes
#19

That is the strongest game part, as for me. Realism but variety. Feel yourself not very strong or well armed or whatever - just do not engage into open fight (tricky part is, if we speak about cleaning bandit camps, you still have to learn stealth somewhere, and get bane poison to actually get work done, which is not so cheap on hardcore, and learning alchemy is a challenge on it’s own) and you may succeed other way. I definitely liked, how stealth works in that game. Sure, after Skyrim it was hard to get used to the fact that crouching doesn’t actually makes you well-hidden on it’s own, so being seen and killed because of doing this during daylight was well deserved, but when you start using logic of real world, things start work - and that gives a great feel, actually.

1 Like
#20

“Fun action gameplay” is not a good thing. I don’t want a game that is fun and action. I want something serious.

1 Like