Related, I'm playing Witcher 2 right now, and I'm having a lot of difficulty with the combat. Geralt dies in a few hits and gets hit half the time when dodging. Potions and oils help a little, but rarely solve the problem. I'm sort of able to win tough battles more consistently by abusing Quen and running around, but I feel like something isn't clicking with me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Witcher 3 combat gets 100 times better once you unlock Whirl attack (gifs ahoy)
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
Get the rolling perk and the backstab protection perk. Then consider getting whirl maybe, but those definitely.
Corral, line up, create distance, then press light attack. The distanced attack changes your base attack into a meaty homing attack, and you'll likely hurt several enemies at once even without whirl. Rinse and repeat, use quen and axii (good for crowd control), or some aard or igni. Yrden is good for shield guys. Just be careful, because when you press attack, you're committed to an indefinite animation. In general, back off after two attacks or use aard on humanoids to keep your combo (good for a certain boss). Heavy attack is a good follow-up for stunlocked enemies because you can kind of do a janky horizontal slash without losing much control.
joecanada
Member
The saddest thing about whirl attack is yet again it shows geralt prancing around with his flashy showy sword moves and then get constantly hit from all angles , miss enemies entirely and swing his sword 5 times for every hit.
Im surprised he doesn't drop the sword or stab himself
Im surprised he doesn't drop the sword or stab himself
Completely agree.
I'm defending Wild Hunt here because I don't think the combat is as bad as most people do, but Assassins of Kings is easily a better game.
Potions and oils shouldn't help a little, they should be fundamental. Know what you'll be fighting and prepare accordingly. Also, use the correct signs, Wild Hunt may have taught people wrong because Sign Weaknesses in the bestiary don't mean fucking anything, but in Assassins of Kings they're fundamental.
It gets a lot easier later on, though.
I really don't get the apparent general consensus that TW3'sounds combat is trash.
Having played TW2 I thought it was a considerable step up. It's not perfect by any means but I played and finished it without having any problem with it really the combination of swords bombs and the occasional crossbow bolt worked well for the most part.
Maybe it's just cool to hate on it, but before I read it here on GAF I didn't know there was this kind of ire toward it.
Having played TW2 I thought it was a considerable step up. It's not perfect by any means but I played and finished it without having any problem with it really the combination of swords bombs and the occasional crossbow bolt worked well for the most part.
Maybe it's just cool to hate on it, but before I read it here on GAF I didn't know there was this kind of ire toward it.
GravityMan
Member
I don't think there's a single action WRPG out there that actually has good combat. TW3's combat is one of the better ones compared to other WRPGs, but it still isn't good.
LowParry
Member
You should come check out a FFXV thread
But on topic, can't say I'm a big fan of TW3 combat. At least the other aspects of the game are good.
I think the worst might be underwater combat. Seriously, there was a brief time that swimming underwater made me feel tense and vulnerable, and I liked this feeling. Cruising across the open ocean, just to be stranded in the middle of nowhere after a siren attack? That still somehow managed to be kinda badass, but it could have been so much more.
The problem is that being underwater turns the crossbow into a killing machine, and nothing can withstand even a single shot from it. I went from feeling disadvantaged to feeling OP after I figured this out. Generally, I like Witcher 3's combat much more than the average GAFfer seems to, but this is just such a lame solution to underwater combat, and is one of the few conscious gameplay decisions that doesn't fit with the rest of the game at all.
Thanks. I'm enjoying it for the most part, but dying half a dozen times to a pair of wraiths is not fun at all. Those perks should definitely help a lot.
Kaffeemann
Banned
Do you know what makes the game 100 times better as well?
Removing as many HUD elements as possible.
I can't believe people don't disable battle text, control schemes, and active quests.
Removing as many HUD elements as possible.
I can't believe people don't disable battle text, control schemes, and active quests.
Moon_frogger
Member
Lol it's not just on gaf. Also just because you didn't have issues with it doesn't mean it's 'cool' to hate it. Consider that some may just have more discerning taste or perhaps even a better understand of the intracasies of witcher 3's combat system. I don't even say that to be a jerk although it probably sounds that way. It's been discussed to death in excruciating detail with qautifiable examples exactly what makes the combat frustrating and disappointing. It's not like people just pull this stuff out of thin air and many of us still adore the game and consider it one of the best of the generation so it's not as if there some conspiracy against witcher 3. It is what it is.
There are, but they're all turn-based or real-time w/ pause.
You're in the abandoned asylum, huh? That's definitely a hurdle for first-timers. Axii or Yrden for sure.
joecanada
Member
Well personally I found the combat pointless. Ignoring the obvious, that quen literally makes you invincible and the one that knocks people down pretty much does too... The potions are op , enemies barely pursue you , random encounters give you nothing of value and are a waste of time . I can't remember dying after the first hour .
I have videos of my Character standing on a tiny rock and enemies can't figure out what to do. You just throw a potion or crossbow them and they're beaten . The only challenging encounters are where the game forces you into a tiny closed cave . And then quen
Woooord.
Also, points of interest.
Actually running into a bandit camp while taking a shortcut through the forest is a pretty nice event, even if it's super basic and the same as every other bandit camp, but going from one bandit camp to another chasing the waypoints in hope of getting something interesting is just awful.
Did the ability to keybind HUD toggles ever make it to the console versions? Definitely see the appeal in disabling various HUD elements, but sometimes I just want to go from point A to point B.
People not liking it is fine, I just don't understand the widespread acceptance that the combat is objectively awful.
I get what you're trying to say here, but to essentially reply to an opinion with an "maybe you don't understand it well enough to know it's bad" isn't quite the best way to do it.
Just comes down to enjoyment, whichever way ou want to quantifiably prove that it is not a good combat system,I played the game to death and enjoyed most of my time in combat with a few exceptions.
The most challenging encounters are those where the game decides to take your signs and weapons away and you have to fistfight multiple enemies. A goddamn nightmare on NG+ death march - you whittle away maybe 5% hp per hit put some random podunk bandit will kill you dead in 1-2 hits, and that's not even an exaggeration.
Kaffeemann
Banned
If you make combat easy it will automatically be boring.
Play it on the hardest difficulty and you will need to use all of your tools and think about your encounters.
I love Soulsborne, Bayonetta, etc., but I would never go so far as to call TW3 combat "garbage/trash". Although I'm just getting started on Hearts of Stone, the 100-ish hours I put into the main game felt like time extremely well spent, and that includes all the fighting. I did play on PC with some minor mods installed: no encumbrance, no fall damage, and fast travel from anywhere, which to tell you the truth, I saw no reason for any of those *not* to be in the main game, except for the fall damage (perhaps make it more forgiving vs. taking it out completely). But the combat was fine and felt smooth, almost Arkham-like at times... it's not amazing, but complemented the rest of the game nicely. Quite an achievement when you consider how big the game is and how high quality a production it is as a whole.
TW3 has much better combat. It has two forms of dodging attacks, the parry doesn't require you to talent into it to use it, blocking is ridiculously underpowered in the early game of TW2. I'd say the only thing that TW2 does a bit better is that you can do more burst magic damage due to how the vigor system works.
3D action games with good combat systems that are generally well designed and balanced experiences overall are EXTREMELY hard to make. Many people mention that the Souls games and Dragon's Dogma are the gold standard for ARPGs but they overlook who actually made those games. FromSoft and Capcom: two studios with veteran developers that lead these projects who have likely been making action games since the earlier days of 3D games. They KNOW what works and what doesn't and all the intricacies that greatly enhance a game of this genre because they likely have over a decade of experience of making them.
You'll also notice that they're both Japanese dev studios which is important because of the fact that there's vastly more developers that have the skills and experience needed to make action games with good combat in Japan then there is in the West because that's where their origins lie (even more so if you agree with my stance that good 3D action games share similar design philosophies and implementation as the fighting game genre which also has it's roots in japan.)
This is simply a genre that not many western developers have much expertise in because not many western developers made them in the past or make them currently as apposed to say western devs that are highly skilled in making good games in the shooter genre which was a genre that was born in the west.
I think the best way for CD Project Red's developers to improve at making action games is to work and experiment on smaller budget projects that can be made faster so they can constantly try new things and see what works and what doesn't for themselves. However, considering their next game is CyberPunk I think they're the kind of studio that only wants to work on one huge, triple A game with many year long dev cycles (with the addition of maintaining the Gwent card game I guess?) so I don't see their games having superb action game combat any time soon.
You'll also notice that they're both Japanese dev studios which is important because of the fact that there's vastly more developers that have the skills and experience needed to make action games with good combat in Japan then there is in the West because that's where their origins lie (even more so if you agree with my stance that good 3D action games share similar design philosophies and implementation as the fighting game genre which also has it's roots in japan.)
This is simply a genre that not many western developers have much expertise in because not many western developers made them in the past or make them currently as apposed to say western devs that are highly skilled in making good games in the shooter genre which was a genre that was born in the west.
I think the best way for CD Project Red's developers to improve at making action games is to work and experiment on smaller budget projects that can be made faster so they can constantly try new things and see what works and what doesn't for themselves. However, considering their next game is CyberPunk I think they're the kind of studio that only wants to work on one huge, triple A game with many year long dev cycles (with the addition of maintaining the Gwent card game I guess?) so I don't see their games having superb action game combat any time soon.
Bombs were very useful in TW3. Traps were OP in TW2, also the potion system in TW2 was poorly designed because it required you to predict where the important fights were beforehand which often wasn't possible.
It's combat is a lot better, whether it "shits" on it is another question, but it's better. DA:I is a bastardized MMO cooldown based combat system that is not strategic enough to be interesting. DA:O had better combat than DA:I.
TheSaddestSort
Member
TW3's combat is probably its weakest point, but I still consider it to be a great game. Whirl really is a "hold down button and spin to win" ability though, heh.
I've always found the Dragon's Dogma comparisons to TW3 be a bit odd, because you're taking the strongest points of each game and comparing them to their opposite number's weakest. Yes, Dragon's Dogma's combat system feels like it's leagues ahead of anything the Witcher series has to offer. The exact opposite is true in terms of story, where the plot of Dragon's Dogma feels like shlock in comparison to the Witcher's.
I'm not overly concerned with the angst over whether or not TW3 deserves its place in the RPG pantheon; if we're still raving about and playing games like New Vegas (a game with a great story and *ahem* serviceable combat) it'll fit right in.
I've always found the Dragon's Dogma comparisons to TW3 be a bit odd, because you're taking the strongest points of each game and comparing them to their opposite number's weakest. Yes, Dragon's Dogma's combat system feels like it's leagues ahead of anything the Witcher series has to offer. The exact opposite is true in terms of story, where the plot of Dragon's Dogma feels like shlock in comparison to the Witcher's.
I'm not overly concerned with the angst over whether or not TW3 deserves its place in the RPG pantheon; if we're still raving about and playing games like New Vegas (a game with a great story and *ahem* serviceable combat) it'll fit right in.
Conkerkid11
Member
I mean, if you ignore the part where everything but combat in Dragon's Dogma is shit.
Yes, but people are using games like Dragon's Dogma as an example of an open world RPG like The Witcher 3 that's capable of having good combat, and shaming The Witcher 3 for not being able to accomplish the same thing, while not acknowledging that Dragon's Dogma fails in every other area that makes an open world RPG good, whereas The Witcher 3 does astoundingly well in those areas.
Sure, but this thread is about witcher 3 combat and not everything else beside it.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
I enjoy Aard more than Whirl for area-effect haha
https://youtu.be/p6UrUuGRhQU?t=23
That said, I actually don't think either really makes them overall game more fun... I found they get generic fast.... you're just spamming the same thing over and over.
For me, the best 'Witcher' gameplay is still a Toxicity build, tinkering with weapon oils and concoctions for every encounter, matching your tools for the situation and adapting to their strengths and weaknesses.
https://youtu.be/p6UrUuGRhQU?t=23
That said, I actually don't think either really makes them overall game more fun... I found they get generic fast.... you're just spamming the same thing over and over.
For me, the best 'Witcher' gameplay is still a Toxicity build, tinkering with weapon oils and concoctions for every encounter, matching your tools for the situation and adapting to their strengths and weaknesses.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The combat in The Witcher 3 is absolutely awful but let's face it, spin-to-win is fun in almost any game.
Almost certainly, different people are working on combat vs writing/quest design. Dragon's Dogma isn't a very good game overall imo, but with the way its combat is praised, you would think it's one of the best combat games around. It's not. It's just one of the best melee combat systems in the ARPG genre. But I guess what makes a good ARPG is up to the player. For instance, Deus Ex is 1000x the ARPG Dragon's Dogma is, and its combat is comically bad.
Sanctuary
Member
On a forum where the Souls series and Dragon's Dogma (to those that know about it anyway) exist, it's entirely understandable.
No, you're right in that the combat in both is shit, but I just found DA:I to be much less in comparison. But then it loosely resembles the combat in Xenogears Chronicles too, which I found more engaging if for no other reason than having to play whack-a-mole with cooldowns and switching characters. The actual feedback for the attacks was also night and day, which helped a lot too. In TW3 it was just floaty, "mash X" to win that never felt satisfying.
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=215206671&postcount=91
Unles you specifically mean location of the developer, and not the actual style of the game, the Souls games fall under the category of WARPG.
Right, but how much of that was inexperience and how much was because of the budget? While Dragon's Dogma's story was rubbish, and it didn't have any interesting characters aside from the main villain, it's still a proof of concept that open world type games don't need to have combat that's only as good as anything from '95. And while I know everyone is going to have their own reason for playing RPGs, if the combat is uninteresting, it can't hold my attention for long. I don't care how good the story is.
If you play games primarily for gameplay, it is. Also, hyperbole FTW@ Deux Ex. They don't even play similarly. A smarter comparison would be Deus Ex and Mass Effect 2 or 3.
Riposte
Member
Glad Nioh was mentioned. The protagonist looking like Geralt and the stance system, and how easy it is to get stun-locked to death, does remind me of The Witcher.
EDIT: Dragon's Dogma is not shit outside its combat. It has nice music, nice art design, and interesting world and themes (particularly with the back end of the game).
EDIT: Dragon's Dogma is not shit outside its combat. It has nice music, nice art design, and interesting world and themes (particularly with the back end of the game).
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yes.What is this, gif for ants??
(No but I didn't want to clog down the thread with super large gifs, they do the job)
I did enjoy TLoU, I found the gameplay (stealth and combat) to be adequate too. Controls were responsive and it was decently challenging.
Kingdoms of Amalur almost had good combat. It plays well and has lots of cool abilities, but it's too easy, which means all the cool stuff is useless as you can just button mash your way to victory.
No. It has a great soundtrack, lots of depth to the customization and character building, excellent monster design, rewarding exploration and loot, decent dungeon design (not nearly as good as Souls, but still has some highlights), good atmosphere, and a pretty cool ending.
That depends on what's important for you in an open-world RPG. I play them for the exploration/looting and combat and for the questing. DD's quests might be generic, but they are fun, because they typically make me go to a cool dungeon to explore/loot and fun monsters to kill. The non-combat quests are usually annoying (e.g. babysitting that annoying little girl, lol), but that's not a big deal because there's few of them and they aren't too intrusive.
If your open-world RPG has bad combat, at least have a way to consistently avoid it. Fallout: New Vegas does this well. It compensates with having exceptional quest design and myriads of ways to solve quests, and very often without any combat at all. So I don't play it for the looting/combat, but for the quests and how to approach each quest and how they impact the game world. Fallout 3 failed at this, because the quest design was much weaker overall. If F:NV quests were just "follow waypoint, kill monster" couched in nice language/writing, it would still suck for me because the obligatory combat part would be tedious and annoying.
In any case, Sanctuary has a good point; the primary weakness of DD is the writing. It shows that it's very possible to have a large-scale open-world RPG with good combat in it, it's not a limitation of the genre or of tech ("you must have good combat OR good writing, choose one!").
I think Whirl was straight up overpowered -- I ignored it on my second playthrough, I got much more out of the combat the second time through focusing on utilizing all of my abilities, I'm quite fond of the the system now. Although there's some jank related to the movement there for sure.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
it's combat isn't great but i really don't think it's as bad as some people are making it out to be. i still really enjoyed it after having played dark souls.