Final Fantasy XV Director Hajime Tabata Explains Why The Witcher 3 Is His Game of the Year for 2015

Often developers are asked to mention a game that particularly impressed them, and it’s rather uncommon to see them point to a direct competitor within the same genre as their own creations. This is the case of Final Fantasy XV Game Director Hajime Tabata, that told 4Gamer that The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is his game of the year for 2015.

Tabata-san mentioned that the game is the first open world RPG that impressed him so much due to the high level of what the development team managed to achieve. Not only in development, but also in marketing the they fully embraced the new generation of high definition games. The budget allocation after launch was also impressive, with the next moves coming immediately after launch. According to Tabata-san, this demonstrated the high level of the entire production.

Interestingly, when asked who drew his attention in 2015, Tabata-san brought up Nintendo, saying that he’s curious to see what kind of competition they’ll bring to the table from now on.

Finally, he mentioned that 2016 is the year in which Final Fantasy XV will finally launch,  hoping that gamers will look forward to the experience that can be found only in a state-of-the-art console game.

Join the Discussion

  • Pop Eye

    If ffxv is based off witcher combat i pass

    • Davis Arend

      THIS^

    • tylerc23

      It’s going to be based off of KH2/KH3 style combat, with the heavier feel of the Witcher 3

      • WEL

        not even close. That was true like 10 years ago when Nomura was still at the helm of the project but not anymore. Just based on the demo the game’s already radically different to Kingdom Heart’s battle system and with many more changes to come.

        Not even close to the crappy battle system of The Witcher 3 either.

    • Eiyuuou

      It’s not.

    • CloudFire

      Anyone – with a braincell – who’s played the duscae demo can tell how very different the 2 are in terms of gameplay…

      • RetroGamer

        Quite so. Quite so, indeed.

    • theodor70941

      He never said it would be based on the witchers combat…………. All he said was that the game impressed him, nothing more

    • Rob_Steinman

      I just hope the FFXV team adds more strategy to the combat.

    • vertical09

      Wut?…

    • Lars Anderson

      The combat is fun. You’re just salty.

    • highsky00

      A comment from a guy who haven’t played the demo .Because who played the demo can clearly know the difference between TW3’s gameplay and FFXV’s gameplay .

  • Eric Davenport

    Bloodborne was a significantly better rpg than Witcher 3. But I do love me some Witcher 3.

    • Alexander Yordanov

      It is also an exclusive game (a flaw) and is a bad RPG (great action game though).

      And less ambitious id say.

      • Eric Davenport

        Bloodborne has better level design, better AI design, better controls, better graphics, better atmosphere, better art, better sound. The rpg elements I would argue are also better since death actually has a consequence and can’t save whenever you want. Bloodborne is a perfectly crafted masterpiece. Witcher 3 is another open world game attempting to profit off of Skyrims success. Again, I do want to say I love Witcher 3, just for different reasons.

        • Shinkei DEI

          I mostly agree with you, where the Witcher tops Bloodborne is in the story delivery front. They both have an excellent rich and complex story, but bloodborne demands way more investment in its lore to understand it, so I can see less hardcore gamers dismissing it because of it. To me, they both are GOTY.

          • Eric Davenport

            I agree with you there. Even after multiple play through I haven’t entirely wrapped my head around Bloodborne’s story. And Witcher 3 has a fantastic story and one of my favorite parts of game. And the voice actor geralt did an amazing job. I never played the other Witcher games but I almost immediately liked Geralt.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            It is a decent story if you never read the books. It is sub par in comparison though.

          • Eric Davenport

            No interest in reading the books thanks you letting me know about them. I didn’t even know that they made books for Witcher. Also it’s significantly easier to write a good storyline in a book than it is to right a good storyline in a game. Since in a game you have to figure out how to tie gameplay into the story.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            The Witcher has been a book several decades before it became a Video Game… and very good ones at that. The first one came out in the 80s…

            The games are an adaptation of them mate…

            I will have to disagree though. It is not really easier, or at least not easier when the difference in quality is that much bigger.

          • Eric Davenport

            Wow I had no clue the game was based off the book.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Now you do.
            I thought everybody knew though. It is advertised as such. Hell when you finish it it even says it ” Based on the prose of Andrzej Sapkowski “.

            The game flaunts it all the time. It is technically a fanmade what if continuation of the books.

            And its storyline is decent, but the books are simply much better. The original work is a classic for a reason. And a classic in literature is still much higher class than one in gaming.

            The story, themes, characters in the books are leagues deeper, more advanced, better thought out. If you are a fan of the Witcher 3 then I strongly suggest you go and read the original work.
            You WILL appreciate the game even more overall.
            With that being said, I will also warn you that it is a cold shower too. Seeing the difference in quality between what gaming’s elite can do… and how much worse it is compared to the original work 🙁

          • Eric Davenport

            I haven’t finished Witcher 3 yet. And I also never played the first two games.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Then finish it. Forget the two games before it. Read the books 🙂

          • Eric Davenport

            Who’s the author?

          • Alexander Yordanov

            I put it in my previous comment 🙂
            Andrzej Sapkowski in English.

          • Eric Davenport

            Oh sorry. Thanks. I’ll give em a try.

        • Alexander Yordanov

          Different level design which is very good for the type of game Bloodborne is.
          Same shite AI as Witcher 3. It is standard affair. If you want AI, go for STALKER. No modern RPG has good AI (be it action or not).

          Art styles are subjective. I found Witcher 3’s art style to be better.

          Music is subjective. The Slavic tunes are more unique and IMHO simply better (not to say Bloodborne has it bad).

          Bloodborne is good for what it is.

          Witcher 3 is nothing like Skyrim… its game design principles are totally different and I expected you to… realize that.

      • Colin Stevens

        Being an exclusive isn’t a “flaw”… many of the greatest games of all time were exclusives (Ocarina of Time, Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, etc…)

        • Alexander Yordanov

          Yes and they are mortal games (if it werent for emulators). That alone is to me an abomination against gaming as an art form.

          So … till PS4 emulators exist (will be a very long way from now BUT it WILL happen), Bloodborne is a mortal game due to being an exclusive. So I can not take it seriously.

          • Travis Moore

            To you its a flaw.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Yes as it makes the game mortal.

          • Travis Moore

            In your eyes

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Not in mine. It genuinely makes the game mortal…

            TILL there is an emulator for its console, it is a mortal game living on borrowed time. Not something people will revere in 200 years (like them bloody books I am making gamers read).
            LESS it is emulatable. Then it is not mortal. Such is life though.

          • Travis Moore

            Still in your eyes, base on what you say. just because a game doesn’t have a emulator doesn’t make it mortal. It’s up to you, the impact it had on you and its what you do with that impact that carries that game on emulator or not. There are still people who go back to the NES,PSone and sega systems to enjoy the game where it came from even bring their youth into what they played at their age. a game, person, book, movie are all immortal only dying when forgotten. so what of it being staple to one console or pc. most of the time its the artist reason behind that, his/her vision of where he or she wants it to be. would you call the artist a flaw? then again it might just be that system. what it can and can not do as to why it stays on one console or two. A FF was to be on the NES but the size of the game was too big for the system cartrige do you still call that a flaw? same with bloodborne and other games like it. its not ways the company that makes a game staple to it sometimes its the hardware. would you call that a flaw? we all die ya thats life but we live on in a picture, a item….memory thats our form of immortality. Nothing dies until you forget about it.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            The NES and PSONE are not 100 years old mate. Nor are they 200…
            I am not thinking short term here. I am not talking about 10 years. Or 20 years. Or 30 years. I am talking about standing the test of time like the other elder art forms have.

            The system is not a part of a developers vision as anything a console can do – a PC can do better and cheaper. Always. Objectively (technology is objective, even if art is not).

            A game dies when it cant be played. Same way a book dies when it cant be read. So less it can be emulated, it is mortal.

          • Travis Moore

            to you thats when a games dies you made that chocie to leave that system or game behind rather its 10, 20, 50 how every many years old it died when your heart and mind forgot it. people into todays age are so fixated on whats new and at 1080p or what runs at 60fps on pc ps4 or Xone. they forget what brought them to love gaming they toss it aside like yesterdays trash then claim its dead. when we made it that way. Then cry out about how gaming isnt what it use to be. And yes some developers visions are sometimes the reason why a game is on one console or staple to pc ask some devs out there that are not tight to any company. its dead to you but lives on to those who love gaming. cherish that system or game like a bible to a holy man enjoying what gaming was not what it has become.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            It does not work like that my friend. It is not about me.

            It is about my children. Grandchildren. Their grandchildren. Not me.

            Actually it is us PC Gamers that think of old games, not console gamers. That is the irony, due to emulators and backwards compatibility we are taugh

            There is no vision here. From were paid. Nothing more mate. Dont paint it as something it was not.

            It is dead when it is dead. So in your opinion games are not an art form?

          • Travis Moore

            no pc gamers arent doing that not alone. its GAMERS people who love games for what they was thats who think of the old games GAMERS not pc not consoles GAMERS real GAMERS

          • Alexander Yordanov

            They are doing that alone. Console gamers want to keep their exclusives and nothing else. They dont care about the art form.

            What is a real Gamer? My definition wont be your definition.

          • Travis Moore

            A real gamer is person who can enjoy a game on anything they are not tight to one system pc or console. they do not call themselves a “master race” they welcome all people not alienated them because of what game system they play on. a real gamer doesn’t bash people for a system or hardware they have or how they play a game. who would spend $1000+ on a system, games, pc because of his or her love for it gaming. gaming is their passion. they enjoy the game for what it is and give opinons on what it can be rather it be addons on a blog post on reddit. yes a few console gamers love their exclusives but most of the time thats our youth or people who say things for attention. same with pc gamers we get so big on what pc can do we look down on console gamers creating a divide in gaming. Real gamers don’t do that we respect where the person is playing and if we are primarly on pc we offer them a chance to try it themselves.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            You have it backwards. Console games are the super rich guys, not PC ones. 1 000 dollar systems are not needed…are overkill and are still cheaper long term than consoles.

            I dont bash you guys, I am telling it as I see it. There is a reason poor Eastern Europe is PC Gaming land. Cheaper if you do the math. We are poorer on average so unlike western people we do the math 🙂

            And your definition of a real gamer is not the same as mine. Add in a person who sees games as an art form, respects modders and older games, who understands gaming history, who KNOWS other art forms like literature and cinema (for example) and is not just a video game player (but someone that matters and has more experience than that).
            An elitist definition, quite… I guess renaissance level. But it is mine.

          • Budz

            console gamer invest their money, so it’s just right if they want exclusivity.
            you pc gamer invest your money on pc, and same thing happen,

            but you’re more egoistic, blaming on console exclusive games not coming on pc because you only invest your money on pc

            console is owned by a company, a company need to satisfy their consument and win their loyalty, so they create exclusive games,

            pc are not, that’s why you rarely get exclusive games on pc these day, only indies and mice keyboard games like moba, game as art form? i kinda tired of this but every game is an art form

          • Alexander Yordanov

            If they want that, then they should leave any pretense of gaming as a serious medium or an art form at the door.

            A PC is not a gaming machine, it is a multi-purpose device that …. has stood the test of time.

            I do not invest in super expensive luxury toy items. They are useless. They are technologically backwards. I wont do it, sorry.

            PC has more exclusives than consoles. By a very wide margin.

          • Budz

            ya, more exclusive, like what? indies? moba?

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Indy is not a genre mate 🙂
            It means independent developer. For example Multi Billion dollar World of Tanks is an Indy game…
            But yeah it has more of those games.

            I dont play MOBAs, but it has more of those too.

            There are very few RTS games on consoles and all of them work badly. So it is pretty much a PC exclusive genre.

            PC Gaming gives more money than either of the two consoles.

            Consoles are not cheaper. Ever wondered why rich Western Countries are console places but poor Eastern Europe is PC Gaming land?
            I do think we (due to being much poorer on average) have done the math quite well :). PC Gaming *IS* cheaper.

            And lastly, no, PC just has both more multi plats and more exclusives. Now more than ever. And due to its full backwards compatibility and emulation (consoles have it partial at best) and modding… the difference in content is huge.

          • Budz

            i know what indie is, i meant there are only small amount of AAA dev works on pc only title

            also, rts are pretty much dead today, i used to loved the genre.
            well now im pretty much understand your situation, pc is the heaven for pirated games, that’s why you call it cheaper, right?

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Except a lot of us still pay for our games on both PC and consoles (the few idiots that bought one that is).
            The games are cheaper on PC both online and in retail form. You need a PC anyway by default (always a cost). We respect older games. We like Strategy and Tycoon games. We like playing our old games. We know the value of mods and emulators. PC long term costs are usually smaller than console long term costs too.

            That is why PC is cheaper.

            Most AAA games are shit, but you are incorrect here too. The AAA drivel is more on PC than on either console. Maybe both combined (2 platforms against one… yey?) can reach the amount of AAA drivel. I meant exclusive content – Mods, Low budget and mid budget games, unique projects… and that is even without the Older Games and emulators PC has…

            And RTS are on a downfall due to the peasants. Though Cossacks 3 is coming out soon 🙂

          • Budz

            ya ya ya i get it, basiclally you love emu, mods, crack and torrent

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Emulators and mods and backwards compatibility. Cracks… not so much, we like Steam and GoG more 🙂

          • Budz

            enjoy your life, pal

          • Budz

            cheaper?
            pc?
            really?

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Yes.
            Have you ever thought why Eastern Europe, which is poorer on average than the west, is PC Gaming land?

            It is cheaper in the long run. That is why generally rich countries are console gaming ones.

          • dmac

            alexander, do you know how many books and plays and movies and songs are lost to time?
            sometimes things fizzle out, it’s shit, but that’s what time does; it decays things

          • Alexander Yordanov

            I do. That is sad.
            But we do find them… slowly. Not all but some.

            And … losing something now, in the 21st century is barbaric 🙂 !

          • TheFatDelinquent

            Not necessarily. Just because its not playable on an emulator, doesnt mean that the game is, as you say it, “mortal” We only need to remember it so if you like it, you`ll remember it and years later, you`ll recommend it to other people to play it, hence, making the game immortal/timeless! Even if you dont like a certain game, the same thing will also happen. Look at E.T for the Atari 2600; its a bad game, people hated it and when its mentioned, people will not recommend you playing it.

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Remember it is not enough. We remember (but have lost) certain epic works… and they are technically dead because of it.
            And I do mean works of literature and cinema, you know, things that are STILL superior to gaming. If even they need be available… why shouldnt a poor game be too?

            Bad games are important too. Always have been. That is how it works, they too are important.

          • Lord Frieza

            ?????????????

          • Alexander Yordanov

            It is explained below.

            The platform it has is mortal. So the game is mortal. Such is life 🙁

          • Lord Frieza

            I’m still lost

          • Alexander Yordanov

            Well then I dont know how to help you in this case 🙁

          • Lord Frieza

            🙁 flip doodles

    • StarTsurugi

      I’ll argue with you on this. Bloodborne is an action game with RPG elements, while Witcher 3 is an actual RPG.
      Basically…which one has dialogue options and choices that matter is the RPG, while the other is an action game where you can level up your stats.

      • Eric Davenport

        Well I guess Bloodborne is more of a JRPG in that regard. Honestly dialogue choices in RPG’s are nice but I’d rather deep and balanced combat and leveling system like most top notch RPG’s are known for. And in some regards, Bloodborne actually lets you create your own character where Witcher 3 you are forced to use Geralt. Though Geralt is one BAMF.

        • Lord Frieza

          You down for dark souls 3

        • Alexander Yordanov

          I see combat as really a low point in RPGs.

          Generally Shooters and Strategy games make RPGs (even one from From Software) look… simple and clunky.

          Compare Bloodborne to Starcraft or Cossacks or Men of War. The strategy games are deeper, more skill based, MUCH harder to master… the difference is gigantic.

          And then also compare it to games like Quake, Unreal or the best approximation to Bloodborne – STALKER.

          A combat system is not an RPG’s strength. Dialogue, story, characters and choices.. .those are.

        • StarTsurugi

          Top notch RPGs are usually more known for their freedom of choice, characters and storylines. Combat is for action games mostly.
          And again, Bloodborne has you playing a nameless hunter who can’t really interact with the world aside from shops and getting a dialogue option for people.
          Witcher has you playing a role of Geralt, so you’re role-playing through it.

          • Eric Davenport

            Bloodborne does have characters. It actually has quite a few and they are all deep and quite interesting. I would also argue that RPG’s also require a lot of learning and strategy. Besides Bloodborne is a JRPG and Witcher 3 is a WRPG. Very different types of games. Look at Final Fantasy.

          • StarTsurugi

            Final Fantasy has a party, so it’s a traditional JRPG. And Bloodborne really has archetypes, rather than characters. That’s kind of part of the allure, nothing is explained, everything is inferred.

          • StarTsurugi

            Yeah, I remember building my party in Bloodborne and then we went to a theme park and I took the Doll out on a date. Bloodborne is best JRPG.
            And no… Bloodborne has character archetypes who you never really learn about. That’s the point. You don’t know much about Eileen other than she’s a hunter of hunters. You don’t know anything about the Pope other than he’s a Pope.
            And

      • oooole

        That’s a lie, Bloodborne is an action RPG while Witcher is more of a narrative RPG… defining a RPG as dialogue options is ridiculous.

        Besides, Bloodborne allows you to choose your fate with your actions (3 endings) and yes it has dialogue options too.

        • Norton S

          “narrative RPG” – what’s this suppose to mean?
          Bloodborn isn’t an RPG. It’s a slasher with RPG elements.

          • oooole

            It’s supposed to mean what it says.

            By the logic you guys are presenting Telltale games are RPGs.

        • StarTsurugi

          I’ve played it and still retain my opinion that it is an action game with RPG elements. It’s combat-combat-combat-some dialogue-combat-combat-combat-choice-ending. While the Witcher has quests which are mostly diplomacy with combat being only one option among many.

          • oooole

            Well, I own and completed both games.

            You assume dialogue heavy RPGs are the only and true brand of RPGs without presenting a reason why. Ironically the genre grew up based on the old dungeon crawler formula.

            Bloodborne, Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls are RPG classics. It might not be your cup of tea but that doesn’t make them less RPGs.

          • StarTsurugi

            I own and have completed both games as well. I also beat Demon’s Souls, but never got into Dark Souls 1 (and I tried beating it like…twice, but lost interest both times, even as i made progress)

            While the origins of the genre may lie in dungeoun crawls, we can’t hold games to that standard.

            My criteria for an RPG is social interaction and freedom of choice. Basically your ability to talk to people, engage in activities with them and play out a certain role in a way of your own choosing. As in JRPGs usually have a party, WRPGs usually have a charisma stat. You are role-playing as a character with a set of traits which you can affect to some degree. This does open up debate on JRPGs usually locking you into a character on a fixed path, but that’s a different debate.
            But you can compare the Witcher 3 to Fallout 4 on a set of RPG parameters such as characters and your ability to interact with them, your ability to solve quests in different styles and shaping up your character to reflect your choices.
            When comparing Witcher 3 and Bloodborne though. Bloodborne barely has any character interaction, most you get is vendors and maybe getting that old lady to give you sedatives. It’s not like you’re choosing between Triss and Yen because that’s the role you’re playing. You’re deciding on building a character for combat and or making that combat encounter easier or harder.
            It does have elements of an RPG, but it’s still very much so a straight-forward action game.

        • BeansEggToast

          Witcher has 16 different endings.

      • Jecht_Sin

        You have got choices, the ones that matter, in Bloodborne. And those are the choices about how you build your character, stat by stat. If it was a matter of dialogues and other choices games like Until Dawn would be the kings of RPGs.

        • StarTsurugi

          I have very important choices on how to customize my loadout in an FPS as well, but that does not make it an RPG.

    • Lars Anderson

      Bloodborne isn’t an RPG and doesn’t even come close to doing all the things TW3 does.

      • Neal Deep

        TW3 doesn’t do anything.

        • Lars Anderson

          Then you know nothing, John Snow. Bloodborne is an action game with barely any dialog, story or branching paths. the world isn’t as big, nor is it even half as long as Witcher 3.

          • Neal Deep

            There is dialogue and deep lore not to mention tons of branching paths. A huge world is worthless if you can’t interact with it besides talking to boring NPCs to get quests and go on hunts.

          • Lars Anderson

            Clearly there is a Japanese bias here, so no point in arguing.

    • Norton S

      Bloodborne is not an RPG. It seems it’s fanboys are just nuts.

      • Eric Davenport

        Learn the definition of fanboy. Or just throw it around like a moron. Whatever floats your boat.

        • Norton S

          Well, that’s easy. Fanboy, among other features, shows up by following – he is one who prescribes unexisting positive qualities to the object of his worship. And that’s definitely you and majority of Bloodborn’s gamers – completely biased, uneducated nutshells without taste.

    • BeansEggToast

      Only gameplay was better

      Story
      Graphics
      Size
      Characters
      World (arguably)
      Content
      All of those have been done a lot better in W3 than in BB.

  • Carlo

    If FF15 has 1/4 of the content / exploration that TW3 had I’d be freaking happy. So happy I’d even forget that a main numbered FF game only has 1 playable character. FF games lately aren’t really that known for side quests / exploration anymore. Sadly the only thing we’ve seen so far (fingers crossed for MORE) are the chocobo thing and fishing

    • Eiyuuou

      If the demo is anything to go by, it will.

    • highsky00

      I’m quite sure the new combat system footage in Jan will be a big bomb .

      • Carlo

        Combat system =/= content which I was talking about :D. Combat system is like the story line its hit or miss depending on whether a person likes it or not. Hence I focused on asking about content because more is always better in that category which SE isn’t really known for

  • TheOneandOnlyGamer

    I feel like the only person who didn’t “love” The Witcher 3. I just couldn’t get into the style of combat and magic usage and didn’t finish it (didn’t go very far either). The open worldness also didn’t draw me in. I have to try to go back to it, however, I felt more at home in Bloodborne.

    As for FFXV, I echo what others are saying…don’t make it anything like The Witcher 3.

    • Leo Liu

      They won’t. They are making the combat for FFXV much more straight forward than TW3.

      Witcher 3’s combat system is actually quite interesting if you are used to it. It is basically a remade Witcher 2 system which sucked imo. In W3 the dodge is much more responsive (not too fast to be unreal, interestingly), the attacks are more fluent, the magics are more useful, etc. It is a very different combat system from any other game that only CDPR had.

    • Eric Davenport

      You are not alone.

    • Sahajpreet

      Me too. I don’t love the Witcher 3 as much as it hurts to say this. I was super pumped after seeing the gameplay but 2-4 hours in I’m really struggling with being intrigued by the game. It’s almost boring IMO.
      But I’m also interested in bloodborne however I haven’t played any dark souls game before and I’m worried that I will get frustrated and quit it. Is it addicting?

      • TheOneandOnlyGamer

        Same thing happened with me with TW3. After those few hours in, I just didn’t captivate me and I didn’t like the combat. I haven’t played many Souls myself but I truly love the challenge of Bloodborne.

        It can get very frustrating in the beginning with some rage inducing moments, but once you die and then begin to upgrade your character and open up short cuts and save points, it starts to feel satisfying. Great game in my opinion, but unless you are an expert of dodging, then you have to make sure you upgrade your clothing, attributes and weapons while also keeping them sharpened/repaired (all of this opened up the more I played in the Hunter’s Dream hub). Also, it is about finding out certain weaknesseses in enemies to make it easier to kill them. – and not letting your guard down as a lowly creature can kill you with a few misteps. There is a rhyme and reason to the hardness of the game, but it makes sense the more you play and upgrade.

  • pro

    Witcher 3 combat is actually awful very similar to the combat in Assasssins.

    • Eric Davenport

      It’s similar but still very distinct. I liked what they were trying to do with Witcher 3’s combat but it ended up being too repetitive.

  • Kelborne

    Witcher 3 is the best game I’ve played this decade. Going right up there with FFVII for my favorite game of all time.

    • PerkyStep

      And Bloodborne too!

      • BeansEggToast

        Shut up with Bloodborne already… Its worse than Dark Souls 2. They messed it up by having very few weapons and almost no PvP or replayiblity

        • PerkyStep

          l’ll disagree Bloodborne has a lot of weapon now thank to DLC and the game is just as great as Dark Souls and its on the level or higher than Demon’s Souls (since that game doesn’t have many weapons either) which make sense because its a spiritual successor to that game. Now the online isn’t that great l’ll admit that however Dark Souls 2 online (when it come to pvp/pve) is far, far, far better than any Souls games has to offer. Bloodborne is #1!

          • BeansEggToast

            I haven’t played the Old Hunters, would you recommend it? Did they improve the PvP element in any way? Thats what I found the most fun in DS, the fact that you could have been invaded anywhere at anytime.

          • PerkyStep

            l wouldn’t know since l don’t have online, but from what l readed online it much more easier to summon player or get summon, matchmaking, and maybe invading. l would recommend it considering you can become a beast now and bosses that offer a challenge that’s on the same level as Dark Souls then there more cooler weapons and arcanes.

        • animebro14 .

          Or you just suck at that game.

    • Was very boring to me. Really repetitive quest. Really boring traveling everywhere for no reason beside extending play time and so looool and uninteresting discussion all the time preventing you from actually playing and adventuring. The game look nice the combat are awesome but that’s was not enough

      • Kelborne

        I found travelling everywhere to be quite immersive, and encouraged me to go off the beaten path and explore. If you just want to fast travel from one story mission to the next and skip all the dialogue, problem’s more with you than with the game.

        • i’m not saying I have problem with traveling in general. It’s sometimes fun to travel, but when travelling is only a way to virtually extend playtime, it is boring. Like making you visit 5 person that are thousands of meter away from each other for a crappy little quest is quite boring… Having some dialogue is essential, but when you can spend HOURS doing only that. running and listening… well you are not really playing at anything you are just watching a very boring movie. And this is what i hate from Witcher. I didn’t liked the story. I’m sure many people love it.

  • Panty Sniffer

    witch 3 is boring like ffxv, bring back the turn based combat system u loosers

    • Jecht_Sin

      Wait for World of Final Fantasy and you’ll get the ATB back.

  • Raggsvettma

    Witcher 3 was one of the biggest dissapointments for me. Together with MGSV.

  • jks

    Twc3 reused too many assets too, interior, building etc…. I hope FFXV won’t be the case, however the side quest and story are really good

  • PerkyStep

    Hopefully XV has alot of gameplay and tons of depth to that gameplay!

  • KnifeAndFork

    Figures

  • Eggyhead85

    Witcher 3 should serve as a role model for both developers and gamers. Its launch and support have demonstrated a level of respect for the player that garners long-term fans.

  • Galen Nycroft

    An open world Final Fantasy will only succeed if you make the game world more interesting than the story/narrative. So far, I don’t see anything to make up a bed over. FFXV is going to need either a great world to explore, or a great story.

    • Sahajpreet

      Yeah I already figured out a bit of the story. The game opens with a peace negotiation between two regions(i can’t remember the names) over the use of the last crystal available in the world which grants people magical abilities. However the 2nd region which need the crystal betrays the 1st region who’s head is Noctis’s father. The 2nd region then establishes a dictatorship rule over the 1st region and steal the crystal from them and place them in the 2nd region.
      Then the head of the 2nd region (the one with creepy smile and the umbrella in the rain) orders the general to terminate all the royal family and any citizens who dare oppose them. Which prompts the head of the 1st region to safely evacuate as many people as possible out of the city starting with his son. He assigns 3 of his most trusted followers, Two of which know his son from the childhood to protect and guide his son to safety.
      They make it out alive but the father is captured in the process. When at a safe distance away, the companions advice to do as they were instructed and go to a remote place and start a new life but Noctis can’t do that as long as his father and the love of his life ( the beautiful girl with the peach dress, big eyes and necklace from the trailers) are imprisoned in the former home.
      The rest is this quest of saving their loved ones and starting a new life together.

      • highsky00

        Two kingdoms : Lucis and Niflheim .Nilfheim has incredibly enormous power ,and subjugated the most of the countries in the world ,Lucis is the only country that fight against Nilfheim .And their conflict is because of the last Crystal in the world .The marriage of Luna and Noct is to end this conflict .But Niflheim had invaded Insomnia before the marriage happened .Luna escaped during Idola Aldercapt’s conquest of Lucis and takes refuge in Altissia ,Accordo’s capital city .They were to be wed in Altissia .The story begins with the situation that the squad drives to Altissia .The story is about a journey of Noct and his retinue ,gathering power and taking back the kingdom , when the journey ends, he gives back to his father that he has grown .But the story’s also about the bond between the father and son ,the bond between Noct and his comrades ,between Noctis and Luna (these are main themes ) .

        • Sahajpreet

          OK thanks for correcting me looks like I was far from the truth. You see up until now I haven’t played any final Fantasy and my whole idea was derived by a 42 min long video consisting of all the trailers released for the FFXV since the last 10 years. I also watched it almost 4 months ago so my memory of what I saw was very blurry.
          Again sorry for the discomfort and frustration anyone would have had reading my story for the game.

          • highsky00

            No problem 🙂

  • Guest

    Witcher 3 earned Game of the Year award, fair and square. No offence, I loved Bloodborne but you guys keep forgetting that an exclusive CAN’T be GOTY. Plus, you over hype it WAAAY too much xD Bloodborne is a good game, but it was pretty much just souls, but with blood and a better evading system along with a different setting. I’ll probably get hate, but don’t expect me to reply to any insults lol

  • StarTsurugi

    Also… I have doubts that XV will actually match the Witcher’s attention to detail and immediate post-launch free DLC support. So Tabata is impressed, but won’t implement that into his game.

    • Jecht_Sin

      Hopefully he won’t. Personally I’d rather have the FF games as much DLC free as possible.

      • StarTsurugi

        I don’t mind DLC as long as the base game is complete.

  • Jbumi

    If they’re going to model FF after someone else’s game, I wish they were looking at Divinity: Original Sin Enhanced Edition instead of Witcher 3.

  • Naho RoPi

    The Witcher impressed me a lot. The story didn’t catch me so much but the world and the way you can interact with it was amazing, I didn’t love the game but it was good…