This one sounds very strange to me as I've seen a lot of people here on GAF and other places saying that, but how? Witcher's combat feels weighty, meaningful and depends from how you move, attack, block, etc., in DA: I you just hold attack button and use active abilites. So I cant understand WHY it is better, or maybe it's just some kind of joke I didn't get. I hope you guys can help me with that important matter!
-
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.
How is Dragon Age: Inquisition combat better than in Witcher 3: Wild Hunt?
- Thread starter Djostikk
- Start date
MasterMenace
Member
If I had a nickel every time I heard "why is X game's combat better than Y's combat" on Gaf I'd be rich AF.
EVA UNIT 01
Member
nelsonroyale
Member
I personally prefered the combat in Witcher 3...it is mainly action orientated with a light smattering of strategy and is pretty clear about that. DA:I veers more towards strategic elements, but felt pretty average as an action rpg and more tactical based combat.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
Well in that sense it's not. The real time control of melee never will.
But on the highest difficulty and with the Trials difficulty options, it's difficult to play DIA that way. You will need to pause the game regularly most likely, and make strong use of counters, positioning, and possibly combos. You'll need to actively backstab enemy shield tanks; regularly pause and try be aware of very high damaging rogues; be sensitive about position and damage because healing is near non-existent. You'll likely also need to make a lot of specific tactical character movement for things like AOE -- both party's defensive AOEs and enemies' offensive AOEs.
It's not really the same type of gameplay as the real time dodging or parrying of Witcher 3. It's like comparing KH to FF XII.
But on the highest difficulty and with the Trials difficulty options, it's difficult to play DIA that way. You will need to pause the game regularly most likely, and make strong use of counters, positioning, and possibly combos. You'll need to actively backstab enemy shield tanks; regularly pause and try be aware of very high damaging rogues; be sensitive about position and damage because healing is near non-existent. You'll likely also need to make a lot of specific tactical character movement for things like AOE -- both party's defensive AOEs and enemies' offensive AOEs.
It's not really the same type of gameplay as the real time dodging or parrying of Witcher 3. It's like comparing KH to FF XII.
That's a pretty hyperbole here.
GankzyMcfly
Member
You must be playing on a super easy difficulty if you can just hold x and pop cooldowns.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Its not better than Witcher 3 but it is better than Final Fantasy XV.
They are very hard to compare. Personally I like the Witcher combat and got super bored by the inquisition combat. Both could be vastly improved though.
Now I am kinda curious how you would describe Skyrim combat
Now I am kinda curious how you would describe Skyrim combat
Now I am kinda curious how you would describe Skyrim combat
Bird shit.
They're both about average in terms of combat quality. Just one tries to be an action brawler where you control the one hero with some spells, and the other is a hybrid between brawler and Infinity Engine combat.
I find Inquisition weaker out of the two because it tries to be two types of games, and the level/encounter design doesn't bring out the strengths of either often enough.
I find Inquisition weaker out of the two because it tries to be two types of games, and the level/encounter design doesn't bring out the strengths of either often enough.
Grim Patron
Member
Monochromaticx
Member
i played DAI on PC on release. I never played a game with just horrendous, unfriendly combat system like that before. it wasn't remotely designed to be played with keyboard and mouse. really pathetic considering its a so called "AAA" game.
Kingpin Rogers
Member
This is really putting me off the Witcher 3. I don't understand how it can be a fantastic game if the combat is terrible. Why would I want to play a game that is going to be boring/frustrating a good amount of the time?
Tony Redgrave
Member
I enjoyed Inquistion's combat in que highest difficulty up until que end, especially in que dlcs. The fact that you can control your party helps.
Witcher's not as bad as most say but unless you fiddle with potions and traps it can become tedious.
Witcher's not as bad as most say but unless you fiddle with potions and traps it can become tedious.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
It's way too automatic and boring in DAI. Personally I dig the combat in Witcher 3 and I don't really get the negativity from here that it gets. Attacking and hitting enemies feels good, feels satisfying and you see enemies reacting to being hit as well. That's something DAI didn't have and because of that and the lack of different combat moves (for warrior) made battles become a chore pretty early on.
It can always be better I guess though. I think a lot of people would mention the Souls games and yes that has great combat but I enjoy it in Witcher 3 too. Can't think of many if any similar RPG with a combat system that is on par or surpassing it.
It can always be better I guess though. I think a lot of people would mention the Souls games and yes that has great combat but I enjoy it in Witcher 3 too. Can't think of many if any similar RPG with a combat system that is on par or surpassing it.
DAI's combat accomplished something I thought would never be possible. It actually made me retroactively think that DA2's combat was not that bad. And that's near the top of my list for the worst RPG combat.
Especially the abortion they called a tactics system! DAI didn't even pretend to pay that lip service
Especially the abortion they called a tactics system! DAI didn't even pretend to pay that lip service
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
The combat isn't terrible. A little clumsy and inconsistent in its animation frames, control response, and hitboxes. But not terrible.
toddhunter
Member
It isn't a real fair comparison.
Combat in TW3 is the worst part about the game so of course people are going to be critical.
Combat in DA:I is by far the best part about that game, so of course people are going to remember it fondly. It is the same way that people love the title screen of Fallout 4.
Which is actually better? The answer is TW3 because it knows it is so bad that it actively discourages you from ever diving into it. It is hence a lot more polite.
Combat in TW3 is the worst part about the game so of course people are going to be critical.
Combat in DA:I is by far the best part about that game, so of course people are going to remember it fondly. It is the same way that people love the title screen of Fallout 4.
Which is actually better? The answer is TW3 because it knows it is so bad that it actively discourages you from ever diving into it. It is hence a lot more polite.
TW3 is fine in general and a much better combat system. They just need to re-think a lot of the elements that don't really work like oils.
scoobs
Member
Having played the shit out of both games, I'd say what Inquisition does better that makes combat superior in general is the talent trees. Witcher has really uninteresting talents and upgrades to spells, whereas in Inquisition you could make really fun and wildly different builds that made combat more engaging and fun.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
The thing about polling opinions on DAI is that the combat of DAI at release on default difficulty versus DAI on the highest difficulty with the new difficulty options the final DLC added are two fairly different experiences.
So if you're planning on playing DAI now or in the future with that added difficulty, a large number of replies won't really be describing the same gameplay experience.
So if you're planning on playing DAI now or in the future with that added difficulty, a large number of replies won't really be describing the same gameplay experience.
Well, that's the point of a forum, to discuss things and opinions.
Cracklox
Member
While I agree with the overall sentiment, I really can't agree with the bolded. And I'm replaying W3 right now...
BouncyFrag
Member
Grenade/signs build in TW3 is fun. I wish the new DA games could bring back the originals combat in some manner. The slower combat made tinkering with tactics more rewarding. The shit is too fast nowadays.
MosquitoSmasher
Member
What exactly do people hate about Witcher 3 combat? Genuinely curious. And can you think of any similar games with better combat that actually feels fun?
Fbh
Member
Both are bad.
But to be fair, on hard and playing as a mage I was doing more than just holding the attack button down on DA:I. Was also managing some buffs, using skills, micromanaging some party members , etc.
In the Witcher, eventually even on the highest difficulty you can get past 90% of encounters just button mashing.
I also think that, while neither game is good at it, Dragon Age had more build variety (at least in terms of combat) in each class than E3 with just one character.
Either way both are terrible. It's a bigger shame in the Witcher though since everything else is so good that at least to me it's the combat that's keeping it form being one of my top 3 games ever.
But to be fair, on hard and playing as a mage I was doing more than just holding the attack button down on DA:I. Was also managing some buffs, using skills, micromanaging some party members , etc.
In the Witcher, eventually even on the highest difficulty you can get past 90% of encounters just button mashing.
I also think that, while neither game is good at it, Dragon Age had more build variety (at least in terms of combat) in each class than E3 with just one character.
Either way both are terrible. It's a bigger shame in the Witcher though since everything else is so good that at least to me it's the combat that's keeping it form being one of my top 3 games ever.
CerebralTiger
Member
While I agree that terrible is an exaggeration, a combat system that employs a random element to player attacks is pretty mediocre imo.
GHG
Member
It's one of those games where you get out what you put into the combat. The skill trees, spells and alchemy in the game allow for lots of interesting combat scenarios but some people decided it was ok to just try and slash and button mash their way through the whole game with a sword. That's not the games fault.
LurkerPrime
Member
It isn't.
DAI's combat is fundamentally broken. There is an invisible radius around the player, and when an NPC party member leaves that radius their AI "breaks" and they leash back into it, removing all commands from the character. It's egregious when fighting against large bosses, like dragons, where you'll end up with party members leashing and running back to the player, in spite of everything. The large environments are not designed for the combat engine.
For example, it is impossible to have a player attacking at max range in front of an enemy, and a party member on the opposite side also attacking from max range; the NPC will leash back and break positioning. Because of this, any kind of advanced tactics are at best unreliable, and at worst impossible.
Comparing a fundamentally broken system to TW3's combat is an insult, regardless of what one thinks of the latter's quality.
DAI's combat is fundamentally broken. There is an invisible radius around the player, and when an NPC party member leaves that radius their AI "breaks" and they leash back into it, removing all commands from the character. It's egregious when fighting against large bosses, like dragons, where you'll end up with party members leashing and running back to the player, in spite of everything. The large environments are not designed for the combat engine.
For example, it is impossible to have a player attacking at max range in front of an enemy, and a party member on the opposite side also attacking from max range; the NPC will leash back and break positioning. Because of this, any kind of advanced tactics are at best unreliable, and at worst impossible.
Comparing a fundamentally broken system to TW3's combat is an insult, regardless of what one thinks of the latter's quality.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I agree, but having come off The Witcher 2, which was far more excessive in its random-character-function-on-attack, The Witcher 3 is more than tolerable in my opinion. I'd even say most of the "randomness" is still contextual based on distance-to-target and largely predictable with a bit of sense and caution. It's an ARPG where strategic use of signs, bombs, and combat skills are applicable and functional.
I hate to say people "just suck", but routinely when I hear people moan about how terrible The Witcher 3's combat is they're almost always demonstrably awful at it and haven't quite learned how to balance encounters in their favour.
Supermanisdead
Member
DA: I's combat was pretty fun on higher difficulty levels. Having a party, the tactical pauses, class combos, setting traps and things. When the game forces you to do these things, it's a lot of fun.
Witcher 3 "combat" made me quit the game.
Witcher 3 "combat" made me quit the game.
CecilRousso
Member
For, there were only two things that sucked about the combat in The Witcher III.
1. The camera when you got caught in combat in close spaces.
2. Geralts animation when you got killed. Don't know how that got into the final product.
Other then that, the combat was fun in the game. It was just about putting some effort into learning the different aspects of it.
1. The camera when you got caught in combat in close spaces.
2. Geralts animation when you got killed. Don't know how that got into the final product.
Other then that, the combat was fun in the game. It was just about putting some effort into learning the different aspects of it.
Cracklox
Member
Yep, I'm doing ng+ atm and running round aard blasting everything with the piercing cold mutation. That sometimes gets glorious insta glibs, and can also knockdown fools for quick finishers. Then I mind control someone of the left overs for maximum trollage. If there's any stronger units around, axi stun and quick finish. Thats mostly for bandits and the like. Got a beefed up igni for anything fleshy or necrophagey.
But in the end, I don't swing my sword around much and its pretty fun. It really only gets used for finishers and executes, and also against some higher hp things. Which is fine by me, because I really don't like the feeling of weight when hitting things. Its often like just a number flys off and there's no feedback at all
They're both pretty uninspired, but I found DAI's combat less boring simply because it's more visually interesting.
Anyway, in both cases, let's say we're pretty far from Dark Souls.
W3 is a much better game overall though of course, although I found DA better than a lot of people. That game seems to get too much hate.
Anyway, in both cases, let's say we're pretty far from Dark Souls.
W3 is a much better game overall though of course, although I found DA better than a lot of people. That game seems to get too much hate.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
I never had a problem with the combat in The Witcher 3 - outside of the first boss in the Hearts of Stone DLC. It's not perfect, but I had a lot of fun with it.
Dragon Age's combat on the other hand... I really dislike it. I tried going back to the game to play the trespasser DLC right before Andromeda came out, but ultimately I ended up uninstalling it because I disliked the combat so much. I actually think Inquisition's combat is step back from the others, at least in some areas. I played Origins on both 360 and PC; one of the smart things about the console version is how it handles active skills. While you could assign some to face buttons, you could also bring up a wheel to select others. This was great for sustained skills. For some reason, Inquisition got rid of this. They give you so many skills, but then limit the amount you can use at once.
I also just never found the combat satisfying. Maybe it's the way I specced, or the gear I had (fuck that crafting UI), but I found battles went on for too long. I felt like I was just holding RT and occasionally pressing a button.
It's a shame, because there were some great moments in Inquisition (like the poker game scene) but when I look back on it I can only think about the poor quest design and bad combat. I really hope BioWare can improve for the sequel.
Dragon Age's combat on the other hand... I really dislike it. I tried going back to the game to play the trespasser DLC right before Andromeda came out, but ultimately I ended up uninstalling it because I disliked the combat so much. I actually think Inquisition's combat is step back from the others, at least in some areas. I played Origins on both 360 and PC; one of the smart things about the console version is how it handles active skills. While you could assign some to face buttons, you could also bring up a wheel to select others. This was great for sustained skills. For some reason, Inquisition got rid of this. They give you so many skills, but then limit the amount you can use at once.
I also just never found the combat satisfying. Maybe it's the way I specced, or the gear I had (fuck that crafting UI), but I found battles went on for too long. I felt like I was just holding RT and occasionally pressing a button.
It's a shame, because there were some great moments in Inquisition (like the poker game scene) but when I look back on it I can only think about the poor quest design and bad combat. I really hope BioWare can improve for the sequel.
Not every game has to be Dark Souls and I don't it would fit Witcher 3. Dark Souls combat is tight and has some interesting tricks to it, though.
Yeah, agreed. It always felt like your sword slashed like a toothpick. Bloodborne's weigthy, W3 felt pretty floaty.
Sure, it wouldn't fit w3, but a little more weight, weapon diffirenciation and variety in movesets would have helped in w3.