Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Both series.

Which is better?

Take into account gameplay and personal enjoyment.

I personally think Dark Souls is up there as one of the best RPG's ever, but I'd like to hear your opinion.

My impression is that they are similar, Witcher while still having a majority of dark elements, it's just as often the humans that are really the monsters. It's not my impression from what I've seen of dark souls 3, that it dwells on that element. In the end though it'll be a matter of personal taste.

I prefer Witcher 3 though I love both. Both are better for different reasons. Dark Souls is the pinnacle of combat and bosses in any video game with Ninja Gaiden being the only real contender. Witcher 3 is bigger, has a better story and more/varied missions. Both are great at world building.

Originally posted by Utrigita
My impression is that they are similar, Witcher while still having a majority of dark elements, it's just as often the humans that are really the monsters. It's not my impression from what I've seen of dark souls 3, that it dwells on that element. In the end though it'll be a matter of personal taste. The bigger bad of 1 (Manus) and the big bad of 2 (Nashandra) were both humans, in their purest form. Granted, in the Dark Souls universe, humans being the real monsters isn't a metaphor, it's literal. Humanity in its purest form is literally a big scary monster.

http://darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com/file/Dark-Souls/Charge_manus.jpg

That's a human. The first human, if you believe that Manus is the Furtive Pygmy.

Anyway, I don't really think of the two series as being similar at all. Both are dark in tone and are set in medieval fantasy universes, but Witcher depicts a world where the struggle is a political one between various real and fantasy races, with the monster hunting aspect ironically serving merely as the framing device of Geralt's story. Dark Souls depicts a bleak world where the spirit of mankind is long dead, with the characters in the setting struggling against horrific, mindless forces to keep civilization from finally collapsing. It's a world constantly on the brink of destruction, at least that we see in the games.

Personally, I prefer Dark Souls. It's partly a matter of atmosphere. Witcher's game world is bustling and lively, with occupied towns and cities. Dark Souls' is very lonely and dreary, with only a few people that aren't mindless hollows in any given level. Furthermore, the combat of Dark Souls is better.

Witcher i preferred.

A better comparison is The Witcher and Skyrim because both games are RPG

Dark Soul's is way more fun. The Witcher felt like a chore after a while.

Originally posted by Nusa105
Witcher i preferred.

A better comparison is The Witcher and Skyrim because both games are RPG

The Witcher has far more in common with Skyrim then it does with Dark Souls. In many ways, Witcher 3 was basically an improved ES game.

I think the Souls have greater consistency in greatness. All of them are incredible games while Witcher 1 had some lacking gameplay and technical aspects. But then, Souls never manages to reach the heights of the Witchers storytelling or characters. Hmm.

They are COMPLETELY different. You really shouldn't compare them. If I had to pick only 1 series though I'd take the Witcher. The story and world are truly amazing, and Witcher 3 is perhaps the greatest rpg of all time.

That being said, I've put FAR more hours into the Souls games because of the pvp. I love both series to death and suggest that if you're a fan of rpgs you should play both.

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
They are COMPLETELY different. You really shouldn't compare them. If I had to pick only 1 series though I'd take the Witcher. The story and world are truly amazing, and Witcher 3 is perhaps the greatest rpg of all time.

That being said, I've put FAR more hours into the Souls games because of the pvp. I love both series to death and suggest that if you're a fan of rpgs you should play both. Then you've never played Chrono Trigger.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Then you've never played Chrono Trigger. I have. My opinion is that Witcher 3 is better. Maybe you like Chrono Trigger better; that's fine. But just because you like it doesn't make it objectively better than Witcher

Also, Witcher 3 is SUPER ENHANCED if you read the books like I did. All the scenes with Ciri and Yennefer are so much more emotional if you read the books. They're still great without reading, but 10x better if you know the lore. Also, I'm more into Western rpgs.

Witcher's no Planescape Torment.

Originally posted by cdtm
Witcher's no Planescape Torment. I agree, they're totally different games. We all have what we consider our favorites...not sure why you guys are trying to convince me that other rpgs are better than W3...it's not going to change my mind.

They're actually quite similar in everything except the world.

The combat is similar, the magic is similar.

Just one is more over the top and epic while the other is more strategic and slow.

I've not played any of the proper Dark Souls games, however I have played Bloodborne so I'll answer based off of my experience with that.

I prefer Witcher 3 overall by a pretty large degree. Just more my style of game.

I think Bloodborne and presumably Dark Souls has it beat on the combat front, though, and the difficulty balancing. In Witcher 3 playing on the hardest difficulty is extremely tough for the first 10 hours or so. I had more trouble with that than I did at any point in Blood Borne, but once you start getting stronger the difficulty wanes and eventually Death March becomes a cake march. Where as Bloodborne the difficulty is consistent throughout. Also things like boss fights are a lot more varied and thoughtful in Blood Borne.

I like the world of Witcher 3 more, feels more like a real place with a lived in atmosphere, which I personally prefer. And I liked the story telling of Witcher 3, and the characters, more so.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
They're actually quite similar in everything except the world.

The combat is similar, the magic is similar.

Just one is more over the top and epic while the other is more strategic and slow.

They're not really similar at all. They are very different games that do very different things.

Originally posted by ares834
They're not really similar at all. They are very different games that do very different things. Taking out the levelling system, which you should think to do iin the first place.

My main focus would be combat.

Open-World Action-RPG.

Both fit this description.

People need to stop confining certain games to so much similarity that its almost impossible to compare it to other games.

The melee combat and such is similar, its just that Witcher is a lot more easy, and much faster, whereas Dark Souls is more about tactics, timing and such.

Any Open World Action RPG thats in third person and has swords, can be compared to each other.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Taking out the levelling system, which you should think to do iin the first place.

My main focus would be combat.

Open-World Action-RPG.

Both fit this description.

People need to stop confining certain games to so much similarity that its almost impossible to compare it to other games.

The melee combat and such is similar, its just that Witcher is a lot more easy, and much faster, whereas Dark Souls is more about tactics, timing and such.

Any Open World Action RPG thats in third person and has swords, can be compared to each other. Dark Souls and Bloodborne are hardly the conventional open world games. Its completely different in that aspect, and linear as hell compared to something like Witcher or Red Dead. The combat is also pretty different with Dark Souls being vastly superior and varied in terms of what you can execute. It has a huge PvP aspect for that reason.

You can compare RPG aspects I guess. Dark Souls is superior here too with much more customization with builds. Everything Witcher is preset, with it being a forced melee centered game. The RPG aspects are shallow compared to Dark Souls which offers endless options and build opportunities.

The reason people say they they cant be compared is that they are both completely different experiences with different focuses. You technically can compare certain small aspects, but not enough to have any great or thoughtful arguments.

Who cares if they are different experiences with different focuses.

If the combat is similar, then they deserve to be compared.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Who cares if they are different experiences with different focuses.

If the combat is similar, then they deserve to be compared. The combat is similar in that you can slash each other with swords. In that case, the combat is similar to Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. Both open world RPGs with swords. :/

Exactly, and?

We should be able to compare any games like that, hell, Dark Souls should be allowed to be compared to Ocarina of time if it wants to.

So this

http://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/articles/link%20between%20worlds%201.jpg

and this

http://www.gamesreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Witcher-3-Wild-Hunt-Gets_690x388.jpg

are comparable to you? You have fun with that.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The bigger bad of 1 (Manus) and the big bad of 2 (Nashandra) were both humans, in their purest form. Granted, in the Dark Souls universe, humans being the real monsters isn't a metaphor, it's literal. Humanity in its purest form is literally a big scary monster.

http://darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com/file/Dark-Souls/Charge_manus.jpg

That's a human. The first human, if you believe that Manus is the Furtive Pygmy.

Anyway, I don't really think of the two series as being similar at all. Both are dark in tone and are set in medieval fantasy universes, but Witcher depicts a world where the struggle is a political one between various real and fantasy races, with the monster hunting aspect ironically serving merely as the framing device of Geralt's story. Dark Souls depicts a bleak world where the spirit of mankind is long dead, with the characters in the setting struggling against horrific, mindless forces to keep civilization from finally collapsing. It's a world constantly on the brink of destruction, at least that we see in the games.

Personally, I prefer Dark Souls. It's partly a matter of atmosphere. Witcher's game world is bustling and lively, with occupied towns and cities. Dark Souls' is very lonely and dreary, with only a few people that aren't mindless hollows in any given level. Furthermore, the combat of Dark Souls is better.

"Both are dark in tone and are set in medieval fantasy universes" That was actually the similarities I was thinking off, which might steam from me not knowing Dark Souls well enough. But agreed on the rest. In the end it'll be a personal preference.