Support NeoGAF

[Sanctuary]

Eh dark souls combat is not very good. It's very clunky, slow and unresponsive (I played them on PS4). Nioh is where it's at. Dark souls 4 combat should strive to be like nioh.

Not really. It's as though the combat in Nioh never existed or something prior to that game. It did. Team Ninja had other games out before it you know? I like both styles, and both can coexist too. The one thing they have in common though is that they are both fun to control, unlike Geralt.

 

[Zakalwe]

Look at the two of the most popular RPGs of the past few years, which are being discussed here: Open world. Fully voiced dialog. Item crafing. Long as hell. Player choice driving the storytelling.

That's not even the end of it- there are a lot of high expectations that players are putting on these games, and that list is growing. Now it's combat- people are expecting Zelda or DMC tier combat now that Dragon's Dogma has done it. How do you make a game that meets all of these expectations? A great RPG should be able to have mediocre or even bad combat and not have that be a thing. But if you look at what drives discussion of these two games, it's combat. Sometimes graphics, but mostly combat. The game needs to be perfect.

I don't even think most people see it, they just want bigger and better when it's already over the top how incredible these games are. We want more games and better work conditions for developers but we still hold RPG developers to this ridiculous standard where not only does it need to have all of these huge features but it needs to meet exacting standards even on elements of the game that aren't usually key features of RPGs. All of that and no bugs either.

Nothing you wrote justifies the idea that we shouldn't be able to criticise the combat.

I guess the point is that when game has something worthy of criticizing, it doesn't mean the game is trash. But people say that W3 shouldn't be chosen to be anyone's GOTY because they don't like the combat personally. People don't consider what it does well, but only focus on the negative when talking about the game's overall quality.

And, again, those people should not be considered at all because their hyperbole is useless.

Plenty of people are calling the combat terrible while acknowledging the rest of the game is great.

 

[Doc_Drop]

Witcher 3 just seems to prioritize animations over input. Makes it feel floaty and unresponsive. Not to mention it's very unbalanced and just about every skill tree leads to being overpowered.

DA:I doesn't have as many option in terms of builds or even combat actions but it does feel nice and responsive. It's hardest difficulty is actually hard too.

DAI absolutely has more builds, I don't even understand how you can say otherwise

Several different versions of each class, then adding on the crafting variety on top of that adds many different approaches.

Witcher 3 is very limited in what you can spec towards in comparison, which is fine given you are playing a character rather than creating a character - just not nearly as varied as DAI

 

[Mr. Phellps]

^Exactly. And towards the end of the game, you can acquire Tier 3 materials for armor that essentially lifts class restrictions, which expands the possibilities even more.
The overall crafting and skills system of Dragon Age: Inquisition is still something that has some room from improvement, but I think it's pretty well done as it is.

 

[xviper]

Dragon Age Inquisition combat was like an MMO games, it's bad, really bad, probably one of the worst of all time

Witcher 3 combat is awesome

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

Both aren't good.

Witcher's feels floaty and Geralt dances around like a primaballerina.

Inquisition is a very strange mix between action and tactical combat that fails to be good in any regard.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Nothing you wrote justifies the idea that we shouldn't be able to criticise the combat.

I'm criticizing your criticism.

I simply pointed out the absurdity of focusing on the combat game control in an RPG, a genre that isn't really about combat game control. That's on top of our expectation that it has features like open world, full voiced dialog with face motion capture synced up perfectly, 50 hours long, player choice driven storytelling, etc.

It has to be a perfect game, essentially. Now, it would be reasonable to play something like Witcher 3 and feel that the combat game control does what it needs to do for a large scale open world RPG that has fully voiced dialog and all the other RPG features under the sun, yet it executes combat well enough to give the player enough options to be creative in taking down enemies- parry, sign, potion, dodge, etc. and it all works.

 

[Mr. Phellps]

I'm criticizing your criticism.

I simply pointed out the absurdity of focusing on the combat game control in an RPG, a genre that isn't really about combat game control. That's on top of our expectation that it has features like open world, full voiced dialog with face motion capture synced up perfectly, 50 hours long, player choice driven storytelling, etc.

It has to be a perfect game, essentially. Now, it would be reasonable to play something like Witcher 3 and feel that the combat game control does what it needs to do for a large scale open world RPG that has fully voiced dialog and all the other RPG features under the sun, yet it executes combat well enough to give the player enough options to be creative in taking down enemies- parry, sign, potion, dodge, etc. and it all works.

They're Action RPGs, though. For as long as combat happens in real time, combat control is important.
Nobody is shitting on TW3 as a whole just because its combat is not the best, people are just... saying its combat is not the best. Criticizing parts of the game does not mean one dislikes it as a whole.
God knows combat controls have been shit in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but these games still get praise, specially the latter.

 

[kmag]

With the increased difficulty levels via the DLC, DA:I gets pretty close to some of the tactical options of DA:O, although the companion AI remains absolutely fucked if they wander more than two foot from you. The camera is still sub-optimal.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

They're Action RPGs, though. For as long as combat happens in real time, combat control is important.
Nobody is shitting on TW3 as a whole just because its combat is not the best, people are just... saying its combat is not the best. Criticizing parts of the game does not mean one dislikes it as a whole.
God knows combat controls have been shit in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but these games still get praise, specially the latter.

I'm not finding fault with saying it's not the best combat in a game ever.

If you look back, and pay attention going forward, much of the discussion of TW3 is about the combat. Even more than the graphics, which still isn't even the most noteworthy or interesting aspect of TW3.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I'm not finding fault with saying it's not the best combat in a game ever.

If you look back, and pay attention going forward, much of the discussion of TW3 is about the combat. Even more than the graphics, which still isn't even the most noteworthy or interesting aspect of TW3.

I just think for a lot of gameplay/combat first people they may look at the praise the game gets and get a bit frustrated as it doesn't prioritise the aspects of games they like the most.

I'm with you mostly, what I got with W3 and DAI was the sort of game I'm generally impressed by (not that there aren't aspects to criticise) and match my tastes. Dragon's Dogma is a good game to keep in mind as, as much as the combat is lauded, there are many aspects of the game that are left very wanting in comparison to DAI/W3

 

[xVodevil]

Witcher combat could have been perfect, had it not been for that dumb soft lock... Especially on top difficulty, the first 10 or so hours became damn frustrating rather than genuinely challenging :|
DAI was fine for my sorcerer, simple point and shot / spam skills combat.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

I remember disliking both games combat mechanics.

 

[Kalentan]

DA:I has build variety and weapon choice that allows it to be pretty fun. While it's not great, It was still enjoyable.

Witcher 3 combat feels like an poor man's version of the Arkham Combat.

It never feels good. One of the reasons why I haven't been able to get much into it.

Which sucks since I loved Witcher 2.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I just think for a lot of gameplay/combat first people they may look at the praise the game gets and get a bit frustrated as it doesn't prioritise the aspects of games they like the most.

I'm with you mostly, what I got with W3 and DAI was the sort of game I'm generally impressed by (not that there aren't aspects to criticise) and match my tastes. Dragon's Dogma is a good game to keep in mind as, as much as the combat is lauded, there are many aspects of the game that are left very wanting in comparison to DAI/W3

I think it's related to the overall popularity of RPGs nowadays, when maybe 10+ years ago, WRPGs were still a bit niche or more catered to enthusiasts. This changed with Bethesda and BioWare games, now there's a huge mainstream audience for RPGs. So before, something like Gothic 2 or Morrowind would come out and while the combat was janky, it was mostly about the RPG features. The jank was pretty much accepted by players, because of course the RPG parts of the game were the focus.

Now, players expect not only the cutting edge RPG features, presentation, design and overall depth and length, they will not overlook any jank or awkward game control for the combat. BioWare, CDPR, Bethesda et al now have to chase the perfect game. Mass Effect Andromeda is a good example of how difficult it is to get right. The first Mass Effect game had relatively poor combat game control, but is still lauded for all of the RPG elements it got right and innovated on. It's been a struggle for BioWare to focus on not only all of the RPG features but make it a good action game as well. Nintendo doesn't have to worry about which character can be romanced or how they handle interspecies sex when they make an actual ARPG.

 

[RedAssedApe]

both stink. neither game's strengths are in the combat...although i'm not quite sure what DA:I strengths are lol

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

I think it's related to the overall popularity of RPGs nowadays, when maybe 10+ years ago, WRPGs were still a bit niche or more catered to enthusiasts. This changed with Bethesda and BioWare games, now there's a huge mainstream audience for RPGs. So before, something like Gothic 2 or Morrowind would come out and while the combat was janky, it was mostly about the RPG features. The jank was pretty much accepted by players, because of course the RPG parts of the game were the focus.

Now, players expect not only the cutting edge RPG features, presentation, design and overall depth and length, they will not overlook any jank or awkward game control for the combat. BioWare, CDPR, Bethesda et al now have to chase the perfect game. Mass Effect Andromeda is a good example of how difficult it is to get right. The first Mass Effect game had relatively poor combat game control, but is still lauded for all of the RPG elements it got right and innovated on. It's been a struggle for BioWare to focus on not only all of the RPG features but make it a good action game as well. Nintendo doesn't have to worry about which character can be romanced or how they handle interspecies sex when they make an actual ARPG.

WRPG had good combat systems back in the day. It all went downhill when the developers decided to do action-focused combat instead of tactical/turn-based.

Also, combat is a focus in most WRPGs. Even in Witcher, Bethesda, Bioware RPG. You spend lots of time in combat so players can expect a good combat-system.

 

[Shai-Tan]

I mean I prefer strategy/pause combat but there can be good action based combat. I think with DAI they tried to split the difference and missed a lot of basics that make either one good. As others mentioned it plays like an MMO, but a bad one, not a good one like WoW where positioning, timing, etc matter.