Support NeoGAF

[SZips]

I literally just finished a second playthrough of Dragon Age: Inquisition last night and started The Witcher 3 earlier tonight. Of course, with DAI I used a mouse and keyboard but I just cannot get a good feel for the Witcher 3 combat with anything other than a controller.

They both certainly have their nuances. DAI was run with a rogue artificer build, so there was a lot of movement and ability use. It never really felt too stale to me but there was certainly a repeated order to the abilities I used in each encounter.

The Witcher 3 combat was something that never really clicked perfectly for me, even when I played it on the PS4. It's always felt a slight bit clunky and overly floaty, but it feels far more dynamic than the combat in DAI.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. They're both radically different to each other and both have their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[maomaoIYP]

That's like comparing dog shit to cat shit. They are both terrible.

This man gets it.

 

[texhnolyze]

It's not a Witcher 3 thread without the usual hyperbole posts.

I agree with the sentiment that DA I combat is boring though.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

It's not a Witcher 3 thread without the usual hyperbole posts.

I find the best game ever posts the real hyperbole but to each his own.

 

[Artdayne]

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?

The answer is that saying "Witcher combat is shit" is not objective, it is an opinion. It just so happens that there are a lot of people who do enjoy the combat even while recognizing that it could be better, there are loads of people that love the game. It really depends on the person.

 

[Zakalwe]

I preferred DA:I only because it was more spectacular. Neither system is very good, though.

DA:I would have been pretty decent at higher difficulties if the tactical camera didn't shit the bed.

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.

How do you know this is true exactly? I don't see how you could know this unless you've gotten into detailed conversations with the majority of people who have made the claim and studied their gameplay videos etc.... "Almost always" seems like a big stretch. Especially as this is a pretty common opinion. Sounds like an awful lot of work.

Played on DM, could take out groups of enemies without getting hit etc.., but it always felt like I was fighting against awkward controls and it never actually felt like it flowed well.

Then when you unlock the whirl ability you can just spam that and auto win most standard fights.

Even if you explore the alchemy side it never got that interesting.

It's not terrible imo, but I found it very awkward and not very engaging. I can understand why someone who likes action games might call it terrible and not be terrible.

 

[AEdouard]

I find the best game ever posts the real hyperbole but to each his own.

Blah, people always exaggerate to make their point, not exactly unique to tw3.

 

[Djostikk]

This man gets it.

Yes. This man gets it. This one guy that didn't like the combat much, he understands.

All those people enjoying it right now? They only think they're enjoying it. Little do they know they aren't actually having fun, that they're all really bored because this is a Bad Combat.

If only... If only there was something you could say to help them. Some argument or explanation to convince people that the game they're currently enjoying isn't actually fun and that they should stop playing. You could save them! Save them from this prison of wrong opinions and games with bad combat.

Like this guy.

This guy that gets it.

 

[texhnolyze]

I find the best game ever posts the real hyperbole but to each his own.

You don't find that kind of post often though. Masterpiece, yes. The best ever, not sure I've even seen it on Gaf.

Of course it's to each his own in the end. I for one still couldn't grasp the idea that technical dumpster game like Zelda OoT and framepacing-plagued Bloodborne as masterpiece. I certainly can't enjoy games that run badly. No matter how good the rest of the game is.

 

[Zakalwe]

You don't find that kind of post often though. Masterpiece, yes. The best ever, not sure I've even seen it on Gaf.

Of course it's to each his own in the end. I for one still couldn't grasp the idea that technical dumpster game like Zelda OoT and framepacing-plagued Bloodborne as masterpiece. I certainly can't enjoy games that run badly. No matter how good the rest of the game is.

I've read people call it the GOAT pretty often, and I can understand why. The game is a beautiful achievement, even if it does have some obvious flaws. The things it does well it does /so/ well.

It's a game that really raised the bar.

 

[Artdayne]

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.

Spot on. I've played the game enough to be quite confident what animation Geralt is going to use the vast majority of the time. Proximity to the target is a big factor. You can also cancel out of your animation if needed by side stepping/dashing if its not what you expected. Not to mention you have active abilities like Rend, Whirlwind, all of the signs and their variations which are 100% predictable.

There's not a ton of variety and that's probably its biggest fault but generally the combat plays fine.

As to Dragon Age Inquisition's combat, I didn't really like playing a rogue but on a different playthrough I played a 2 handed Reaver utilizing multiple abilities in different trees and that was a lot of fun actually, DA:I definitely has the advantage of more diverse combat builds. One thing that always turned me off on DA:I though was the weapon sound effects/design. I can't say enough how important good sound design is in making a more believable interesting combat feedback. Inquisition has these weird sound effects that don't make sense and not to mention some of the weapon designs don't make any sense either, some of that turned me off.

 

[MosquitoSmasher]

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.

Exactly man!

 

[Zakalwe]

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.

Disagree. Even if you delve it's not that deep. Of course you'll always get more if you do delve, but TW3 is not the most rewarding system by a long shot.

 

[Striek]

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.

Nah.

Even on the hardest difficulty theres no challenge. You can explore any of the trees, but you don't need to. You can't create interesting scenarios because no matter what you do its trivial. TW3 was a step back from TW2 even.

 

[Peroroncino]

It's not.

Can you dismember in multiple ways almost every enemy in DA:I? No you can't, case closed.

 

[Caboose]

No Dragon Age game has good combat.

 

[GHG]

Disagree. Even if you delve it's not that deep. Of course you'll always get more if you do delve, but TW3 is not the most rewarding system by a long shot.

So because it's not the most rewarding system out there we have to relegate it to being "shit"? It's deep enough in that you can create some really entertaining and fun combat encounters out of the system which are much better than the button mash route that "it's shit" players have most likely taken. You're a fucking Witcher, not a 19th century sword swinger.

Nah.

Even on the hardest difficulty theres no challenge. You can explore any of the trees, but you don't need to. You can't create interesting scenarios because no matter what you do its trivial. TW3 was a step back from TW2 even.

"I didn't enjoy the game because I didn't need to". The combat isn't necessarily designed around being challenging. The character you play is portrayed as being powerful. But just because it's not challenging it doesn't mean you can't have fun with it.

And why would you not explore the skill trees and options at your disposal? Or did you decide it's better to just rush through the game instead?

 

[Alo0oy]

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?

Andromeda and Horizon just released, they're great examples of WRPGs with great combat. Say what you want about Andromeda's writing/animations, but the combat is A+ in that game.

 

[His Majesty]

TW3 was a step back from TW2 even.

ooh boy, I really disagree with this. TW3 is a major upgrade over TW2 in almost every aspect, from potion management to no more roll spam.

I had a great time with TW3 combat on Death March difficulty, using various builds. Favourite one is an alchemy build but you need a good mod for that one to work properly.

 

[Zakalwe]

So because it's not the most rewarding system out there we have to relegate it to being "shit"? It's deep enough in that you can create some really entertaining and fun combat encounters out of the system which are much better than the button mash route that "it's shit" players have most likely taken. You're a fucking Witcher, not a 19th century sword swinger.

Why did you quote me? When did I call it shit?

And I disagree, it's not deep enough to create anything "really entertaining".

 

[Canadian]

I felt that playing Inquistion on normal difficulty took away a lot of the fun and interesting mechanics of combat. On normal you can get away with just mashing A and is why many people probably found that combat boring.

On nightmare the game plays much better as you are required to properly tank and position your team. As well you'll need to pay more attention to what skills to unlock and who to use on your team.

Also it made exploring worthwhile because you had to look for the best armor and weapons to stay competitive.

I really enjoyed the combat in Inquisition because it felt challenging and engaging. Witcher 3 combat was fun but I felt more engaged in what skills I wanted to unlock and weapons I needed playing Inquisition.

 

[NotUS]

I actually really like W3 combat, I find the negativity greatly exaggerated.

Is there room for improvement, absolutely, but its got some great systems, and you can have a lot of fun with it and improvise.

There are few open world RPGs with combat better combat systems.

 

[napata]

Andromeda and Horizon just released, they're great examples of WRPGs with great combat. Say what you want about Andromeda's writing/animations, but the combat is A+ in that game.

Both are practically shooters, which I don't consider similar at all. I think it's much easier to pull off good shooter combat than real time melee.

 

[Striek]

So because it's not the most rewarding system out there we have to relegate it to being "shit"? It's deep enough in that you can create some really entertaining and fun combat encounters out of the system which are much better than the button mash route that "it's shit" players have most likely taken. You're a fucking Witcher, not a 19th century sword swinger.



"I didn't enjoy the game because I didn't need to". The combat isn't necessarily designed around being challenging. The character you play is portrayed as being powerful. But just because it's not challenging it doesn't mean you can't have fun with it.

And why would you not explore the skill trees and options at your disposal? Or did you decide it's better to just rush through the game instead?

You are awful at paraphrasing.

You can't create interesting combat just by having options. Using decoctions and potions to trivialise combat isn't more fun than spamming igni which is no better than simply mowing shit down with swords. There's no strategy involved, no moment to moment decision making. Powerful can absolutely mean boring.

I used respec potions to try everything, so don't make stupid assumptions.

 

[Peroroncino]

Andromeda and Horizon just released, they're great examples of WRPGs with great combat. Say what you want about Andromeda's writing/animations, but the combat is A+ in that game.

Neither is focused on melee combat.

Oh, and Horizon isn't really an RPG, I'm still confused about people branding it as such.

 

[Elandyll]

Neither is focused on melee combat.

Oh, and Horizon isn't really an RPG, I'm still confused about people branding it as such.

Because it is.
The devs say so, its mechanics are from Rpgs, and it's just an action Rpg, that's all.

 

[geordiemp]

Andromeda and Horizon just released, they're great examples of WRPGs with great combat. Say what you want about Andromeda's writing/animations, but the combat is A+ in that game.

So true, most RPG's have terrible combat, from pressing a button and watching set animations play out to clunky and crap melee.

These 2 games you listed are about the only 'RPG' type games that have combat that is memorable, I would go far as to say Andromeda on Hardcore had my most intense and fun combats to date in any RPG (but but some facials and funny walks out of the 1000 conversations.....)

As such, I just ignore now so many reviews as most RPG's have awful combat, maybe its just me but I want that 30 secs of halo or destiny or Gaiden feel to combat i intense battles...we can have it all.

 

[Dark_castle]

I like Witcher 3's combat more personally, I thought Witcher 3's combat isn't bad, just mediocre. DA:I's combat is different but it's like a crappy middle of road between turn-based and action and I don't like it.

 

[Peroroncino]

Because it is.
The devs say so, its mechanics are from Rpgs, and it's just an action Rpg, that's all.

It's as much of an rpg as far cry is.

 

[Carlius]

lol w3 just shits on dai in every single way.

 

[Elandyll]

It's as much of an rpg as far cry is.

Some people have been saying that. Wrongly, but they have.

 

[Maledict]

Because it is.
The devs say so, its mechanics are from Rpgs, and it's just an action Rpg, that's all.

Every game in existence now uses those mechanics. Call of Duty uses 'rpg mechanics'. I think when it comes to RPGs (not jrpgs) you need to have some element of *choice* for it to count. Otherwise every game made in the last 5+ years is an rpg. Drive Club is an rpg.

And re combat I've said it before but whilst I think the Witcher 3 is a better game, I think it's combat system is pretty dreadful. You can just roll your way to victory, the abilities are very lack lustre, and combat feels the same from level 1 to level 30. Plus as you only play one hero you're fairly limited in tactical options.

Whereas Inquisition has multiple party members you can swap between at any time, wildly different skills and specialisations, spells that have weight and impact, and a huge variety of different abilities that are cool and interesting. Its flawed in that the AI is bloody dumb and needs a lot of managing at the higher difficulties, but as an overall experience I much preferred combat in Inquisition.

Also, in terms of cool big fights, Inqusitions dragon fights absolutely rock and are probably the best dragon fight I've had in a single player game.

 

[Cracklox]

Oh, and Horizon isn't really an RPG, I'm still confused about people branding it as such.

Not to derail, but I kinda agree, just didn't really wanna announce it out loud and think I was the only one lol.

The base combat and options you get are excellent and the combat is better then W3 in nearly every way, however there's not a lot of room for customization within those weapons and skills. You can unlock every skill easily, and the how to modify weapons boiled down to more x damage or more y damage

And yeah the devs have stated its an 'rpg' but its different ways to build Aloy build are pretty slim, even more so then witcher 3.

Or DA:I, to try keep it on topic

 

[Ploid 3.0]

All difficulty trials on, nightmare, and pandemonium (not required) makes DAI combat very fun to me. Outside of Trespasser DLC trial difficulty toggles feature it DAI combat is still more interesting to me because of party dynamic, and crafting synergy. Needing the party, having nice abilities and magic, support, damage, it is just no comparison on Witcher 3's side. One character, limited magic, a lot of sword dancing.

I also like DA2 combat, and party synergy crafting. The tactics menu in DA2 was better than DA1's. The world wasn't as good with map recycling but I don't mind that because I play these games for challenging fighting with loot and progression these days.

Another thing Witcher 3's loot was boring for me at the point I made it to (around after the second Ciri control flashback).

 

[Alo0oy]

Both are practically shooters, which I don't consider similar at all. I think it's much easier to pull off good shooter combat than real time melee.

Dark Souls and Bloodborne are melee focused.

----

To the other responses. Not interested in a semantics argument of what is and isn't an RPG (no offense). It's been done to death.

 

[Cracklox]

Also, in terms of cool big fights, Inqusitions dragon fights absolutely rock and are probably the best dragon fight I've had in a single player game.

Yeah, they were pretty good actually. There's a few I didn't fight but the ones did were pretty great.

Having said that, go play Dragon Dogma, specifically Dark Arisen if you want awesome dragon fights

 

[xealo]

It's not.

The Witcher 3 is a far better arpg because it isn't trying to combine real time combat with a RTwP mode, harming both sides of it while doing so. It just isn't up to par with more combat focused rpgs like the souls series, and neither is it as good as more classical cRPGs as a tactical game.

Bioware would do themselves a favour for DA4 either dumping the action side of it, or the RTwP one, and doubling down on the one they do pick hard.

 

[obeast]

I don't think either game has exceptional combat, but they succeed at different things.

DA:I is indisputably deeper - you have much more varied and consequential talent trees, greater character variety, player control of multiple classes, etc. I had a fair bit of fun playing around with various builds (i.e., breaking the game in one way or another). That said, its "tactical" combat was an atrocity (if there's a way to make the NPCs consistently obey orders, I never found it). Thankfully, even at its hardest difficulty you can cruise through the game letting your party do as they will, with only minimal intervention on your part, and the game plays reasonably well from that approach.

TW3's combat is far simpler, but it's also more immediate, in the sense that encounters are shorter and more "realistic" - less flash and fewer "gamey" systems like ability combos, tactical pauses, and the like. That feel serves the game well, because the rest of it is so immersive - when you move from dialogue to combat, you don't feel like you've entered a minigame, particularly. Also, unless you actively seek things like monster nests and bandit camps, the combat typically serves some narrative purpose.

At gunpoint, I'd take TW3's combat, simply because in narrative RPGs I like my combat to serve the story and not the other way around. I see a lot of complaints about TW3's combat, but it really is a pretty small part of the game - you wander and talk for ~20 minutes, then fight for ~2 minutes, then repeat. I found it reasonably enjoyable, but I would think that even if I'd hated it I would still have loved the game. DA:I has a lot more combat, and a lot longer combat (if you didn't get sick of pumping damage into dragons, you are a better man than I), with a lot less narrative significance.

 

[Renekton]

ELI10 how does deep investment into Alchemy or Sign trees improve W3's combat mechanically? How does it change the standard block-swing-roll-sign?

(Remember that most RPGs have spells, buff potions and bombs too)

 

[Omotesando]

I think the combat in Witcher 3 is servicable, but the RPG elements behind it are complete monkey shit.

The boss fights especially were fun at the start of the game, but in the end it came down to Quen, Ignis wankery on Death march.

 

[family_guy]

It's more flashy and you have a party so that helps it seem like more than what it is. I never thought either were bad though. If you liked playing Fallout or Elder Scrolls games, then these two games should make you happy since they play much better.

 

[Dark_castle]

Witcher 3 with Nioh's combat would have been so glorious. And William looks so much like Geralt too!

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

I always find it funny when these Witcher 3 combat threads appear, I never see people give a really good reason to why it's bad, apart from saying it's bad (which it really isn't) I'm sure these people are just mashing the attack button and then calling it crap when they lose.

I find the combat to be pretty good overall, not Souls good of course but still perfectly fine. Learning enemy weaknesses, using the right bombs, potions and Signs for the situation, spending upgrade points on the sword combat tree, giving access to more / better moves. It can be more in depth than it first appears, especially on the harder difficulties.

 

[horkrux]

I always find it funny when these Witcher 3 combat threads appear, I never see people give a really good reason to why it's bad, apart from saying it's bad (which it really isn't) I'm sure these people are just mashing the attack button and then calling it crap when they lose.

I find the combat to be pretty good overall, not Souls good of course but still perfectly fine. Learning enemy weaknesses, using the right bombs, potions and Signs for the situation, spending upgrade points on the sword combat tree, giving access to more / better moves. It can be more in depth than it first appears, especially on the harder difficulties.

Just from the top of my head, but iirc spamming Quen and the roll button was way more effective than it had any right to be. That already makes it pretty bad.

 

[spekkeh]

DAI gives you more freedom in the kind of fighting style you want to specialize in, the combat is faster paced and the visual effects are nicer. That's why I preferred DAIs combat over Witcher 3. It's one eyed versus the blind though. I found the major gameplay loop of both to be just about passable, and switched both to easy after a couple of hours.

 

[Maledict]

Yeah, they were pretty good actually. There's a few I didn't fight but the ones did were pretty great.

Having said that, go play Dragon Dogma, specifically Dark Arisen if you want awesome dragon fights

I've played both extensively. I just appear to have a complete mental block about them (although saying that I thought the Grigori fight wasn't that good in DD). I always forget those games!

 

[MikeBison]

Put 250 hours into Witcher 3 and it's DLC's. Played through the base game on death march for the plat, and the DLC's on a step down in difficulty.

Thoroughly enjoyed my time with the combat throughout. There are areas it could be improved, but that's true of any game.

Never even considered people would hate it as much as they did until I saw endless threads about it on GAF. Nobody I know who played the witcher (of which there were a lot) disliked it.

It's not particularly weighty combat, but has a really cool dance-like vibe to it. Nice rhythm and pirouettes. Satisfying ender animations too. Basically, it's completely serviceable to the main meat of the game, spending 80+ hours exploring and talking to people and playing Gwent.

Fwiw I've played every souls game since Demon's, most of the character action games like DMC and Bayonetta. So I know the generally accepted 'good' combat. (some people just say that if you like W3's combat, it's because you haven't experienced the good stuff).


Tldr; Witcher 3 is a majestic game and has fun combat. But apparently my opinion is wrong judging by the number of threads we get on this.

 

[ILoveMcChickens]

I always find it funny when these Witcher 3 combat threads appear, I never see people give a really good reason to why it's bad, apart from saying it's bad (which it really isn't) I'm sure these people are just mashing the attack button and then calling it crap when they lose.

I find the combat to be pretty good overall, not Souls good of course but still perfectly fine. Learning enemy weaknesses, using the right bombs, potions and Signs for the situation, spending upgrade points on the sword combat tree, giving access to more / better moves. It can be more in depth than it first appears, especially on the harder difficulties.

Yeah, exactly. I had a blast with the combat in Witcher 3. Tougher enemies and bosses required planning and forethought before diving into the fray - with, as you mentioned, knowing their weaknesses and being prepared with the proper bombs, potions, oils, etc...

For what it's worth - I dislike the Souls games and their combat, so that probably has something to do with why I disagree with so many others.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Inquisition is responsive at least.

But both are garbage, really.

 

[Zakalwe]

I always find it funny when these Witcher 3 combat threads appear, I never see people give a really good reason to why it's bad, apart from saying it's bad (which it really isn't) I'm sure these people are just mashing the attack button and then calling it crap when they lose.

Perhaps actually read the threads then, because there are a lot of very good explanations here and there usually are in the threads on the topic.

I'll quote for you if you need the aid.