Without a single doubt Yes.

Hell yes.

The whole serie is better in so many aspects anyway . And W3 adds some impressive level of exploration , so yes .

I think The Witcher 3 is better. The quests are very interesting. The world is rich and beautiful. I love being able to lock on a target (can't do that on Skyrim), I love the romance options, Triss and Yen are so good, I love Ciri too.

So yes, for me is better.

I also hold Bloodborne and The Witcher 3 as the best RPG games of this gear. Love them both.

Why are we even still debating this? Also No, they are two completely different types of experiences and both have pros and cons against each other. I like Skyrim more because it is fully open world, not just hubs like Witcher 3. Withcer 3 has a more lively world and a better story. Skyrim has a better leveling system and it's not a chore to get/build/upgrade weapons and armor.

They're both equally amazing.

Yes, it is better.

I loved Witcher 3. Great storytelling, great combat.
For whatever reason, When playing Skyrim, I can't help but appreciate just how VAST the world is. While there are load times between interiors and exteriors, the world is so deftly polished and beautiful. Skyrim, being an older game, is a grandiose place to explore. The music, the sound effects, there is that magical "thing" that is hard to quantify that works for Skyrim, the same way it does Fallout. The game wishes to instill in the player a grand adventure, and that the journey between two points is just as satisfying as reaching the final destination.

While the witcher games are absolutely outstanding, in nearly every aspect. I never got the feeling like I was truly in control, for whatever reason. Bethesda can learn a thing or two in regards to combat and a tighter narrative structure. The fact that CDPR are a smaller studio, it goes to show just how incredible their games really are. I wouldn't expect them to craft a humongous world like Skyrim on their budget.

Part of the joy with Skyrim comes from the fact that (for me) there is much joy to be had with simply crossing a river, or climbing a mountain. Nothing is going on. No enemies, no pesky environment based death traps. Just you and the wilderness. That's where the beauty of the franchise can be seen and admired.

YES

The lolz, nope. Witcher is a great series, but its not near an Elder Scrolls. The fact that anyone is comparing a 2011 game to a 2015 game speaks volumes to Skyrim, not Witcher.

Witcher has a deep story, but its best parts have been its smaller side quest to add more to the world and lore. Elder Scrolls as a series gets a lot of its amazing experiences from walking off the beaten path and just going your own way. It isn't a set story, you can be any race, player type etc. They are just different games, but in terms of just pure RPG's, Elder Scrolls will always have an edge, they've been around longer, done more games etc.

I knew Witcher 3 would have some issues as its their first open world game, that isn't the case with Elder Scrolls V, TESV is very much progressive development from their other titles as they've perfected the open world experience. I don't think in 1 game, CDPR could just out do Bethesda in something they've done longer in terms of open worlds.

Ie ...just look at the way points in TESV, yet your looking at a map in Witcher. Its just based on one team having a stronger history with the open world rpg concept then the other.

I love and play both series, but I can't do in The Witcher, things I can do in Elder Scrolls.

If Witcher 3 is comparable to Skyrim, it won't hold a candle to TESVI, as Skyrim already does many things better, but again...they are way, way different games with different play styles.

Seems a bit unfair really, comparing a game that is only a few months old next to a game that is several years old!

I loved witcher 3. I can't get into games like fallout or skyrim because the bright colour textures, strong characters and good storyline ain't there. I appreciate fallout was in the witcher 2 era. I just struggle to click with games that have inferior story's and boring characters. Sadly that sums up alot of games. Customisation isn't important as long as devs create a good main character, though a change of armour etc doesn't go amiss.

Loved Skyrim... but the Witcher raises the bar.. Fantastic RPG and world.

Are apples better than oranges?

Witcher3

Not even close.

the story is far better in both delivery and writing.... The worlds though are comparable imo... And obviously Skyrim has a much deeper character class system allowing you to create who you want to be instead of being just Geralt.

With no first person view, no bow and arrow and no total open world feeling, the win goes to Skyrim.

As an old school pencil and paper D&D guy, The Elder Scrolls wins over any RPG that tells me who my character is.

Every game has its own way of delivering story

Skyrim was better than the witcher 3 in term of world and diversity of weather and locations and huge number of dungeons. the best Level up system and skill tree.

but still lack the story very bad

the witcher gave me a balance game with a lovely characters and AN immersive story telling,great great side quest and a Huge number of different creatures.

I believe the witcher 3 is better in some Area and Skyrim is better in the other

For me both of them get 11 out of 10

Ja oui Yebo Si այո Ydy да ναί tak Ee po bəli Bai da jah,... and in case you didnt catch that HELL YES!

The Witcher 3 is a good game, and the combat is most definitely better than what Skyrim offers, even if it's not perfect. I have to admit though, the game still suffers from too many plot holes and missing consequences / dialogue. Too many things from previous games were made irrelevant and characters outright has amnesia about it. It also has the feeling of them dialing back the adult and more towards teen with the game.

They also need to push out the Redkit faster than 2 years later, because people will have moved on by then.

Final note - it's obvious the world structure of Witcher 3 impacted the game, and not in a good way.

Yes. The Witcher 3 is way better than the broken mess that Skyrim was.

Absolutely, witcher 3 take the crown of rpg games

Yep, Witcher 3 got my interested to finish it. I tried playing Skyrim 4 times but it was always not as flushed out.

LoL comparing a last gen Elder Scrolls vs a next gen only Witcher that could do much more due to better technology. Its like comparing a bow and arrow to a sniper rifle.

yes hands down

Give me a game that beats witcher 3 side quest missions n then we will talk.

Not even close

"However, swordplay is nowhere near as slick as games such as Shadow of Mordor or Assassin’s Creed."

You mean scripted?

I haven't enjoyed an RPG on any system more than the Witcher 3 since Fallout 3. Skyrim was fun to explore, customize and enchant, but you quickly became a walking god and it just killed the game. Plus, Skyrim's story was just uninteresting which made the game less fun past the incredible exploration. I found myself ditching pointless quests to find wild artifacts most of the time. Did anyone else feel like the FP sword combat just didn't connect? I never felt like I doing anything more than swinging away until whatever was in front of me turned to loot. Being a mage was a lot more fun in that respect for me at least.

The score was amazing and the atmosphere was incredible, yet Witcher 3 rivals those achievements. Let it not be said Skyrim doesn't look as good as W3 today because of tech limits. Even unmodded, that game on HQ settings on PC is nuts (if not buggy) even today.

I think W3 has a major advantage through strategic combat, great story telling and overall immersion of the world they weaved. A epic sized world which is interesting, fun to explore and get involved with.

IMO morrowind>witcher 3>skyrim. Morrowind fan to the grave xD

The only edge I give Skyrim over Witcher 3 is companions. I took NPC's from escort missions and took them with me for other missions. And conjuring companions also. I had a squad working for me in dungeons. LoL!

No, people are attracted to beautiful graphics, yes witcher 3 is nice and has some cool features but Skyrim is Skyrim.

Personally I think Witcher 3 is better, but this is an opinion

The fact that Witcher 3 is even being compared to last gen Skyrim is a testament to how good Skyrim is, and how much of a let down Witcher 3 is as a next(current) gen RPG.

There are tons of pros and cons for both games, but essentially it boils to one word: fun. Skyrim is way more fun than Witcher 3. Despite Witcher 3 being more cinematc, having better writing, better characters, better storyline,better graphics,meater side quests,better magic and better sword play.

But Skyrim is just more fun as a game in my opinion. There's more variety and customization in Skyrim not to mention more detail goes into the small dynamic things you can interact with. That's what sucks me into the Elder Scrolls world so easily, and why I can play it in spite of it's flaws. W3 on the other hand, despite being more technically polished, is a whole lot more clinical and boring. The combat is cool but it isn't going to make me keep playing the game after experiencing Shadows of Mordor's combat system.

So no, Skyrim is better.

For me absolutely yes Witcher 3 is the better game. But it's also a totally different game for me. I played skyrim twice and both times I ended up modding and exploring and enjoying the world. But the quests, characters and story lines hmhmhm not my cup of tea I guess. In the end I made myself overpowered with enchanting and crafting and created the ultimative sexy ninja dual wielding ass kicking elven super dragon slayer girl and that was it for me. After about 200 hours I have no idea what skyrim is about and I don't care.

The witcher though. It's a masterpiece that made me cry and shiver in awe and thinking, more than once, what a beautiful game - how did they do that? I didn't think it was possible that we get that kind of game! It's simply a piece of art. Just started my deathmarch completionist playthrough and after having played through it already(like 50h) I'm still as pumped to start it up as day one. And that really says something for a guy like me that plays games since almost 20 years. I don't get that feeling all too often.

I've completed Skyrim 100% along with the DLCs and obtained Platinum. I'm also near completing The Witcher 100% as well. Here are my thoughts so far:

Combat is far more personal in Skyrim, with a much bigger variety and options. The Witcher 3 reminds me of combat in Assassin's Creed series, dodge, dodge, attack, counter, attack. There are many "unique" swords, but outside of their names they all feel the same.

Open World wise, Skyrim is bigger, while The Witcher has more "small details" put in the world. Skyrim's cities are few, but have more going on in them, they just feel alive. The Witcher's cities are just nameless (outside of 2 bigger ones), leave no impact, NPCs are comparable to what you could have seen in AC games.

Story and Quests, and other stuff to do - each and every quest in The Witcher 3 is written really well, and it's a nice change of pace to not have to do fetch X items or kill X enemies. Problem is, the intensity of quests and nothing else to do really hurts the game. After the first half I was just skipping the subquest dialogues altogether, it became too tedious. Skyrim had a much bigger diversity when it comes entertaining yourself outside of quests, with smithing, crafting and most importantly exploration...

Exploration - Yeah, Witcher kinda loses here. Outside of generic chest markers on the map, a'la Assassin's Creed Unity, there's a very limited drive to actually explore anything. In the beginning most stuff is out of your level and later quests will bring you there anyway. There are no real secrets, since everything is marked on the map. Skyrim, the first thing I did? Explore the spaghetti out of the world, completely ignoring the quests. It just has that magic to it.

Two different experiences, two different games.

Imo they are different games with different tones to them and different combat. So I cant compare them, personally.

Both great games in their own right, but I found Witcher 3 more compelling in terms of narrative both main and side quests.

Everything felt so natural.

It's a lot more character-driven than Skryim. Witcher is like Game of Thrones while Skyrim is more like Lord of the Rings. One's about the people and the other's more lore/universe-driven. Both are two sides of the same action-fantasy game coin, but I sure do like The Witcher better.

Skyrim was one of, if not THE, best game I have ever played. However The Witcher 3 stands to take that crown for me. But it's hard to tell. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and only time will tell. If I am still playing the Witcher 3 in 3-4 years time like I was with Skyrim after release, then that will be the deciding factor for me.

It will be a triumph of genius proportions if TW3 keeps my interest for as long as Skyrim does. At this stage though I am still unsure. I'll get back to you in two years.

Today's steam stats

Skyrim 39,875
Witcher 3 20,556

So a 4 year going on 5 years is beating Witcher 3 on daily play sessions on Steam...Yeahhh I'de go with Skyrim thank you

Over 50% is PC. RE9 was the same

From this moment henceforth, Xbox hardware shall simply just exist but have no significant bearing from a business standpoint or from a gamer culture standpoint. It will simply be there for the people that want to have it and that's fine if they're selling it at a high price and actually making money off each sale.

But they should never ever again be Xbox fanboys anymore than they should be Lenovo laptop fanboys it's just a piece of hardware that exists to serve a purpose for niche group of people.

I’ll say this. Cyberpunk had a tumultuous start on console. Even if it had sold like crazy, that whole almost unplayable fiasco and being given no questions asked refunds made a lot of people not look back.
When it comes to PC, people are a lot more forgiving of things like that, especially on Steam, because of the return policy. I really think console manufacturers should implement the exact same refund policy. Was it played under X time? Refund it. It makes people take that risk on games a LOT more than on console. Bought this game and it was broken? Refund it. They said they fixed it 3 months later? Buy it again. It’s fixed but just not fun? Refund it. On console you don’t have that luxury. Was it downloaded? GG. No refund. Lord knows my Steam library is full of “I’ll try it” games that I loved and I’m glad I can take a rush on. On console, specifically PlayStation because I’m not buying Xbox games, I take calculated risk. Known developers. Shinobi, Ninja Gaiden ragebound, stuff like that. Obviously big exclusives and games too. I would have never tried Little Bookstore on PlayStation, but on Steam… why not? Hellish Quart? Why not. Buckshot Roulette? Why not.

this is why console sales matter, folks.