Support NeoGAF

[Sanctuary]

The combat isn't terrible. A little clumsy and inconsistent in its animation frames, control response, and hitboxes. But not terrible.

LOL. It's also not good. You forgot to mention how the feedback is poor as well. Feels like you're always impacting with a piece of wood.

For me, the combat feels kind of wonky and unresponsive sometimes, but it's certainly not 'bad'. it's still way better than witcher 1 and 2

I actually preferred both of the previous games to it. It might partially be because they were more narrative driven, and not just "huge map with random shit to do everywhere" which kind of dragged it out unnecessarily. I actually thought the combat in TW2 was somewhat good within the confines of the game world, but didn't feel the same about TW3. Or maybe I just expected them to actually update the combat, and not take two steps sideways and one backwards.

 

[Jacobson]

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.

For me, the combat feels kind of wonky and unresponsive sometimes, but it's certainly not 'bad'. it's still way better than witcher 1 and 2

 

[GHG]

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

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

Can I ask why you quoted me then? What I posted was in context with the post I was replying to. I found it really entertaining, if you didn't that's not my problem.

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.

Just because you can spam certain attacks and get positive results it doesn't mean you should. It's like someone saying Nioh has bad combat because they unlocked slow as soon as possible and then abused it to be able to button mash their way through a game.

You are choosing to play the game like that, the game isn't forcing you to. If you're finding it boring, switch things up, make a hybrid build and make your own fun. Use your imagination.

 

[Zakalwe]

Can I ask why you quoted me then? What I posted was in context to the post I was replying to. I found it really entertaining, if you didn't that's not my problem.

For the same reason you're quoting others... this is an open discussion?

Your comment to me "why is it shit" made no sense in the thread of our exchange at all.

 

[Budi]

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.

TW2 has the worst combat of the series. I really hate it that Geralt flies through the air from enemy to enemy just by mashing a button. And it's too reliant on the roll, also no potions during combat is silly.

Can I ask why you quoted me then? What I posted was in context with the post I was replying to. I found it really entertaining, if you didn't that's not my problem.



Just because you can spam certain attacks and get positive results it doesn't mean you should. It's like someone saying Nioh has bad combat because they unlocked slow as soon as possible and then abused it to be able to button mash their way through a game.

You are choosing to play the game like that, the game isn't forcing you to. If you're finding it boring, switch things up, make a hybrid build and make your own fun. Use your imagination.

I think this is a fair point, even though my own criticism of W3 combat is exactly that it doesn't require you to use most of your toolset. I put the biggest blame on the enemies as they don't really have much interesting, fun or dangerous abilities either that spice up the encounters. I think this was done better in the expansions, especially the bosses. But as someone who is now playing Bayonetta, it's been mostly Y spam with dodging. I don't really play around with the different weapons I got, I have only unlocked dodge while in the air skill, haven't practiced any combos. Still having fun though, playing on normal difficulty. And ofcourse Bayonetta has much better combat than Witcher 3, not trying to imply the opposite. But it's also much flashier and over the top, Witcher 3 is ment to be more grounded. The point is, that even game (rightfully) praised for it's excellent combat can be played with simple button mashing.

 

[Jumeira]

Its fucking awful, many times worse then W3. Geralt slicing people in half is more satisfying than anything that dog shit of a game Inquisition offers.

 

[Fbh]

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?

For the record I don't hate it but I do find it to be mediocre.

It's a mix of clunkiness (in ainimations and physics), hits lacking impact and weight, some serious hit detection issues and low skills threshold (protective spell + button mashing and you are set even on Death March).

It's not really terrible but it stands out as mediocre in a game that does everything else so well. It's like going to a good gourmet restaurant where the food is amazing but then the dessert is some cake they just purchased from the local supermarket.

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.

When you can easily beat most encounters in the hardest difficulty by button mashing then it absolutely is the games fault

 

[obeast]

When you can easily beat most encounters in the hardest difficulty by button mashing then it absolutely is the games fault

Yeah, I think the complaints about TW3's combat are overblown, and I agree that many of them are likely caused by players playing the game "wrong" (typically, this means quen spam with lots of rolling), but it is the game designer's responsibility to ensure that the game steers players towards rewarding systems of play.

TW3 is particularly vulnerable to this problem because quen spam is in many ways the most obvious way to deal with any problematic encounter, and it's slow as hell and not particularly fun. They should have redesigned that ability.

Also, I think the game does a relatively poor job in educating the player about its systems. It took me a long while to realize that in multi-enemy encounters Geralt would generally attack whatever enemy I pointed the camera toward, using distance-dependent animations.

 

[Toni]

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.

Shitting on DA:I's combat system to make another shit-tier combat system look less shit-tier is a broken argument.

The dodging mechanics in TW3 are broken, its got really bad input lag from enemies attacks, extremely restrictive combat system that dont let you even pick up a bow, a greatsword or delve more into magic, aiming with a crossbow or bombs feels like you're aiming a tank, and the animations are pretty terrible.

In DA:I, I put more hours in it because its got a wider repertoire of magic spells, its actually fun being an archer and you can actually be one, you can create your own character and pick a different race, and has lgbt relationships you can develop as oppossed to being forced to sex Witch vaginas all over place because thats how the director wants his game to be about.

I just could not commit to The Witcher 3. And after spending $59.99 dollars on it, Lord have I tried.

Every time I try to download it, some new game comes along and I have to pause and delete the download to make way for something better.

The terrible combat design, the lack of weapon variety, awful animations, broken dodge mechanics, and forced narrative that heavily restricts you of being something else or doing something else because of "lore puposes" are the main reasons DA:I got more playtime from me than TW3.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

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.

Nah, I'm fine thanks.

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.

Maybe don't spam them if it makes it bad for you ? Adapt your play style to make the game more enjoyable instead. I mean, it's easy to spam the lure / stealth kills in Horizon but there's no fun in that, so I don't play that way. It's way more fun to kill enemies in a various of different ways.

For me, the combat feels kind of wonky and unresponsive sometimes, but it's certainly not 'bad'. it's still way better than witcher 1 and 2

Yes definitely a step up over 1 & 2, having proper controller support this time really helps over M&KB too for this type of game, at least for me.

I never found it unresponsive tbh but I'm playing on PC 60fps+ so it feels much better than the 30fps console version. Which version are you playing ?

 

[Gattsu25]

Witcher 3 combat and GAF is always a lively discussion.

I played the game only ever using the signs/oils/bombs mentioned in each creatures glossary entry and pumped up the difficulty. By the time I hit the Skellige Isles I can't think of a single situation where the combat animations surprise me, they really are contextual based on things list distance and momentum (like EatChildren mentioned).

 

[Z3M0G]

They are completely different types of RPG combat.

DA's combat is good for its type of combat. (popular opinion perhaps?)

Witcher 3's combat is not that good for its type of combat. (going by popular opinion, not my own)

That's how I would interpret it.

I don't know if the two should be compared.

I would be more interest in Dragon Age Inquisition compared to Final Fantasy 15.

While both have some similarities, even those don't fit for me. FFXV doesn't use active abilities with cooldowns. That game simply has Attack (with variants) / Dodge / Warp / Jump... it comes off more as pure action. The only thing they have in common is that you hold your primary button down to continue your primary attack combo... and the fact that you have a party of characters, but they are also handled in completely different ways.

DAI compares better against the past DA games which tried different things to make their combat more "involved", auto attack to manual attack, where DAI found a middle point between the two. And it compares well to MMO style combat games with active / global cooldowns.

FFXV might compare well against Witcher, actually (I never played Witcher so I could be wrong). Just becuase you hold a button to continuously attack doesn't mean much when you consider how the rest of the combat system works. FFXV's "hold to dodge with mana bar" is unique as well. I assume Witcher is often compared to Souls games, in regards to attack / parry / roll active combat types.

 

[Bl@de]

DA:I has boring terrible MMO combat and quest design. Worst combat I've played in a singleplayer RPG. Dropped the game after 5 hours. Witcher 3 combat is fun.

 

[Artdayne]

When you can easily beat most encounters in the hardest difficulty by button mashing then it absolutely is the games fault

Button mashing? I wouldn't say that's effective at all. You still have to react to your enemies attacks, look for openings and attack appropriately. Also it's generally going to take you a lot longer to kill things if you aren't utilizing signs, oils, potions, bombs. Now if you were to say you can beat everything by just using light attacks and applying Quen, sure but it's the least fun way to play and also there are loads and loads of games that can be played in a similarly reductive way, like Dark Souls.

 

[Sodding_Gamer]

I found Witcher 3 combat to be perfectly serviceable. Never understood the huge hate about it.

Inquisition on the other hand.... Literally played 90% of the game just holding the R2 button and occassionally pressing a face button for a spell every now and then. The most boring combat I have ever played in a game.

 

[Gattsu25]

They are completely different types of RPG combat.

DA's combat is good for its type of combat.

Witcher 3's combat is not that good for its type of combat.

That's how I would interpret it.

I'd disagree. DA:I is on the weaker side of real-time-with-pause combat games. No where near as bad as DA2 but I'd rank it about par with DAO (maybe colored by me considering the DAO story to be less pedantic).

And then when you compare it with something like The Temple of Elemental Evil and other turn based games? It doesn't even register.

 

[Toni]

They are completely different types of RPG combat.

DA's combat is good for its type of combat.

Witcher 3's combat is not that good for its type of combat.

That's how I would interpret it.

Honestly, this best describes it.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

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?

Have you played it and didn't like the combat or are you avoiding the game because of that?

Cause I avoided it for a long time for this reason till I decide to give it a shot. The combat is not the best, but far from bad in my opinion. I actually enjoy the battles in this game to the point I seek them! I don't understand why some people hate it so much.

 

[obeast]

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?

Please don't let it deter you if you like narrative games. They don't get much better than TW3. Not only is the combat better than a tour through NeoGAF would have you believe, it's *fast* if you have a halfway decent build and level-appropriate gear. Combat is not the main gameplay loop in TW3. Exploration and dialogue are. Anyone plays the game and spends anywhere near as much time fighting as traveling or talking is either seeking out random encounters or dying *a lot.*

The game sets out to tell you a story. It's a damn good story. The combat is part of the story, but it's not the purpose of it, and it's not even close to the biggest part of it.

 

[Ahasverus]

It's not hahaha. TW3 combat is great, for an RPG.

 

[Gattsu25]

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?

GAF has a hate boner for the Witcher 3.

I don't often play armchair psychologist but Witcher 3 and Bloodborne were both in contention for game of the year awards in 2015 and combat is the one area where Bloodborne is universally considered top-of-its-class so Witcher 3 is usually attacked from that angle. I just enjoyed and beat both games 🤷

Edit: edit-box please stop ruining my Emojis

 

[ffvorax]

To me is the congrary.
I put DA on easy for how boring was the combat, and played all TW3 on Death March and loved it....

 

[JOKERACN7]

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.

Haven't played Horizon but I'm in line with you on Andromeda, it's sad how ppl have overlooked that aspect of Andromeda - which is the meat and potato of the gameplay - and have been fixated so much on facial animations smh

 

[Ahasverus]

GAF has a hate boner for the Witcher 3.

I don't often play armchair psychologist but Witcher 3 and Bloodborne were both in contention for game of the year awards in 2015 and combat is the one area where Bloodborne is universally considered top-of-its-class so Witcher 3 is usually attacked from that angle. I just enjoyed and beat both games ��*♂️

I mean, Bloodborne has good combat but Devil May Cry it isn't. I think, just like TW3, Bloodborne's greatness come from the sum of its parts.

 

[Z3M0G]

I'd disagree. DA:I is on the weaker side of real-time-with-pause combat games. No where near as bad as DA2 but I'd rank it about par with DAO (maybe colored by me considering the DAO story to be less pedantic).

And then when you compare it with something like The Temple of Elemental Evil and other turn based games? It doesn't even register.

I don't doubt that, I just assume that's how people think about it and justify it in their minds. I clearly don't get to try enough Tactical RPGs. I did just start playing Divinity II, which is sublime, but that's turn based.

 

[Jack cw]

Why cant every game be Dark Souls, right?

 

[JBwB]

It isn't.

Also TW3's combat is just fine. It's by no means horrible as some here on GAF say.

 

[InsaneTiger]

It's not that important of a matter. The real question is why isn't DA:I not more like Bloodborne? /s

 

[obeast]

GAF has a hate boner for the Witcher 3.

I don't often play armchair psychologist but Witcher 3 and Bloodborne were both in contention for game of the year awards in 2015 and combat is the one area where Bloodborne is universally considered top-of-its-class so Witcher 3 is usually attacked from that angle. I just enjoyed and beat both games 🤷*♂️

My armchair-psychological take on the matter is that TW3 draws strong emotions out of two kinds of gamers: people who love character, narrative, and setting adore it, while people who love tight and/or flexible gameplay systems don't see what the fuss is about, and in fact find the fuss intensely irritating.

It can be really annoying to hear, repeatedly, that a game you didn't much care for is "OMG THE BEST EVER," especially when compared to a game with strengths more in line with your preferences.

 

[Dark_castle]

Why cant every game be Dark Souls, right?

Faster Souls style combat ala Bloodborne and Nioh are the best, for me.

 

[Toni]

Faster Souls style combat ala Bloodborne and Nioh are the best, for me.

Bloodborne has the best combat this generation, period. The animations performing those trick weapons are so, so good.

It didnt help The Witcher 3 at all, that Bloodborne released so close to it.

 

[rackham]

I liked Witcher 3's combat. I liked Witcher 2's combat as well.

 

[Turin Turambar]

Answer: some people are crazy.

DAI combat is pretty bad on its own, without the need to compare it to TW3 or any other game.

As an action game it sucks, it's more like a slightly actiony MMO.
As a tactical game it sucks, it isn't built for that (in camera, ui, controls, action system, abilities, monster design, etc). It isn't precisely Divinity Original Sin.


About TW3 combat detractors, I always had the image they are the intransigent type, people who has an idea of how melee combat should play (be Dark Souls, Bayonetta, or Dragon's Dogma, or whatever else, suspiciously always a Japanese game) and it you don't try to be like that, it's then bad combat.

I can appreciate Mount & Blade combat, Dark Messiah combat, The Witcher 3 combat, Dark Souls combat or Chivalry Medieval Warfare combat, even if the four try different things.

 

[Primethius]

It's not. DA:I combat is unfortunately simplified to a point where it's not just enjoyable to partake in it.

Witcher 3 combat has its share of issues but I'd take that in a heartbeat over Inquistions.

 

[Mr. Phellps]

I enjoyed both, but preferred DA:I because I had more fun with it. Weapon and armor plays a larger role in DA:I's combat, so it's quite fun crafting different gear with different attributes that play into the skills you've learned for Massive Damage™. I usually play as a mage, which easily makes combat a lot more fun in most games, but I had fun playing as a warrior too.

Meanwhile, while I enjoyed TW3, I felt there wasn't a lot affecting the outcome of combat beyond my level. Gear was static, meaning I could only craft gear with the attributes the game gave me instead of choosing my own, which restricted the possibilities for how I wanted to play. Skills were cool, and often they saved my ass, but I realized I was getting more out of combat from passive skills. I played TW3 on the hardest difficulty and, at first, combat was truly a nightmare, specially because it was my first time playing it. But after I reached level 15, it became trivial. I started mowing down enemies just swinging the sword and, although the feeling of power was fun, it made the combat a non-challenge, except for some contracts.

 

[Gattsu25]

My armchair-psychological take on the matter is that TW3 draws strong emotions out of two kinds of gamers: people who love character, narrative, and setting adore it, while people who love tight and/or flexible gameplay systems don't see what the fuss is about, and in fact find the fuss intensely irritating.

It can be really annoying to hear, repeatedly, that a game you didn't much care for is "OMG THE BEST EVER," especially when compared to a game with strengths more in line with your preferences.

Yeah, I can see why people who don't like narrative games or rpgs wouldn't like a narrative rpg.


Also, I'm curious how many of the people that decry the simplicity, or inflexibility, of Witcher 3 tried to min-max their skills in the combat tree.

 

[Dark_castle]

Bloodborne has the best combat this generation, period. The animations performing those trick weapons are so, so good.

It didnt help The Witcher 3 at all, that Bloodborne released so close to it.

Second best, Nioh is even better as far as I'm concerned.

 

[zombieshavebrains]

Didn't play DAI, but it doesn't seem too hard to be better than Witcher 3 combat. It is so bad I couldn't put more then 13 hours into it.

 

[uceenk]

all i know DAI combat are more horibble than DA : origin

i hate the simplicity that they made, although it's still playable to me since i managed to finish it

can't comment about The Witcher 3 though since i didn't play it yet

 

[Peroroncino]

Bloodborne has the best combat this generation, period. The animations performing those trick weapons are so, so good.

It didnt help The Witcher 3 at all, that Bloodborne released so close to it.

Nope, that would be Nioh, as responsive as BB, but with way more mechanical depth.

As for the second part of your post, it really didn't matter looking at the goty awards.

 

[Staf]

I prefer Dragon age: Inquisitions combat, despite Witcher 3 being in my top 3 GOAT.

 

[jacobeid]

Both combat systems are really bad but at least the witcher is a good game overall. Dragon Age: I is such a slogfest throughout.

Both series really need to refine their combat before any new entry.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

This kind of discussion is a result of how every game nowadays has to be everything and everything to all people. Not only does an RPG have to have incredible world building, writing, player choice, length, crafting and customization, UI, etc, it also has to have responsive and deep combat mechanics and control.

Gone are the days where an RPG can just be a great RPG with a few other hooks that put it over the top (i.e. Morrowind or Gothic 2 with player choice, Dragon Age with world building, Witcher with atmosphere and storytelling). They have to be bulletproof in all aspects of the game. If you can swing a sword, it should have game control and mechanics on the level of Devil May Cry or Zelda on top of all of the RPG-centric elements of the game which also have to raise the bar.

 

[Zakalwe]

Nah, I'm fine thanks.

Not if you're standing by the ridiculous statement you're not.

GAF has a hate boner for the Witcher 3.

I don't often play armchair psychologist but Witcher 3 and Bloodborne were both in contention for game of the year awards in 2015 and combat is the one area where Bloodborne is universally considered top-of-its-class so Witcher 3 is usually attacked from that angle. I just enjoyed and beat both games ��

Edit: edit-box please stop ruining my Emojis

Bloodborne having good combat is not the reason why people think TW3 has less than good combat (I don't think it's bad, but it definitely deserves the critiques it gets, hyperbole aside).

TW3 manages that by itself.

This kind of discussion is a result of how every game nowadays has to be everything and everything to all people. Not only does an RPG have to have incredible world building, writing, player choice, length, crafting and customization, UI, etc, it also has to have responsive and deep combat mechanics and control.

Gone are the days where an RPG can just be a great RPG with a few other hooks that put it over the top (i.e. Morrowind or Gothic 2 with player choice, Dragon Age with world building, Witcher with atmosphere and storytelling). They have to be bulletproof in all aspects of the game. If you can swing a sword, it should have game control and mechanics on the level of Devil May Cry or Zelda on top of all of the RPG-centric elements of the game which also have to raise the bar.

Huh?

No one is asking them to be bullet proof. I mean, that's an ultimate wish for /any/ game of course, but nothing is perfect and we know that. People are simply critiquing the aspects they find lesser which is perfectly healthy.

You're statement is really weird.

 

[Stabattack]

I just started the Witcher 3 and really love it, but Jesus Christ, these combat controls are just awful.

 

[Taliban Stan]

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!

I've played every Dragon Age game but I've only played Witcher 2. If Witcher 3 is even remotely like Witcher 2, it's combat engine is an entirely different approach to combat and they only look similar when watching a trailer and seeing someone swing a sword with no UI/HUD or anything that hints to the actual gameplay rather than sword swing animations.

Knocking Dragon Age, because the combat isn't that great in terms of being real-time action is like knocking Witcher because the party system is really weird and caps out at one.

A better take away is that Witcher isn't a party-based RPG so don't judge it like it's a party based RPG. It will obviously fail at every metric that takes party into account because they aren't even attempting to be that type of game.

 

[Weebos]

Neither are particularly good. I prefer Inquisition's, but mainly because you're using a party instead of an individual.

 

[Budi]

I just started the Witcher 3 and really love it, but Jesus Christ, these combat controls are just awful.

Remember to set alternative movement from the options, that might help you a bit if the movement feels too clunky and heavy.

 

[Gunslinger]

Why cant every game be Dark Souls, right?

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.

As for Topic Witcher 3 combat is ok. Not the best not the worst. But it doesn't hurt the overall gameplay. Even on hardest difficulty it's pretty easy and straightforward.

DA:I combat lacks identity Imo. It wants to be a pause and play top down tactical rpg at the same time wants to keep the fans of DA2 happy by making it a hack and slash with cooldown.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Huh?

No one is asking them to be bullet proof. I mean, that's an ultimate wish for /any/ game of course, but nothing is perfect and we know that. People are simply critiquing the aspects they find lesser which is perfectly healthy.

You're statement is really weird.

The majority of discussion of both of these games is the combat game controls and their deficiencies. Pay attention when there is any discussion of these two games, or even a post about either one. It's usually about the combat.