TheEndOfItAll
Neo Member
This thread should just be called "why are people's preferences different?" In the end, that's really what it's about.
-
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
Yeah, these two games are comparable in many ways, but the combat is the one area where they are not.
The Witcher 3, while I find it a decent enough game doesn't compared to the sense of adventure that Inquisition has.
In Inquisition you can have a character that is imported all the way from DA1, with your choices. Yes the importing is a bit complicated but you can see the differences, and affects it has on your gameplay.
Beyond that your party, love interests, banter, can vary a lot. The combat has you working a group and playing the character that you want to play. Not just the Witcher.
You can fight dragons, there are dungeons, a base to upgrade etc. Plus a really good story, and loads of side content.
Not to mention the lore and the much deeper fantasy world.
The Witcher 3 on my second playthrough had very little changes in the core structure of the game, I became over-leveled, and bored of all the fetch quests which never bugged me as bad DAI.
The Witcher 3 is a GPS based RPG go here, get this, or kill this, come back to me. The entire game.
DAI atleast tries to me more then that.
In Inquisition you can have a character that is imported all the way from DA1, with your choices. Yes the importing is a bit complicated but you can see the differences, and affects it has on your gameplay.
Beyond that your party, love interests, banter, can vary a lot. The combat has you working a group and playing the character that you want to play. Not just the Witcher.
You can fight dragons, there are dungeons, a base to upgrade etc. Plus a really good story, and loads of side content.
Not to mention the lore and the much deeper fantasy world.
The Witcher 3 on my second playthrough had very little changes in the core structure of the game, I became over-leveled, and bored of all the fetch quests which never bugged me as bad DAI.
The Witcher 3 is a GPS based RPG go here, get this, or kill this, come back to me. The entire game.
DAI atleast tries to me more then that.
Psychoward
Banned
I liked da:i's a ton more. The party system, abilities and dragon fights were tons better than anything in tw3 combat-wise. It's really not even close.
The camera for Dai is fucked though and it still has its fair share of issues.
The camera for Dai is fucked though and it still has its fair share of issues.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
lol nothing ridiculous about it. I've not seen any really convincing comments that explains why it's terrible, that's all. If you want to waste time finding some quotes, that's down to you but it won't change my opinion about the game.
I think The Witcher 3's combat is decent. Is it perfect ? No. Is it terrible ? Far from it. If you or other people dislike it, that's fine, it doesn't stop me enjoying it.
It isn't. TW3's combat is pretty bad, but not as bad as DA:I's. And to be clear, i don't think either of them is unplayable or shit to the point that it hurts the experience, but they could both do a lot better.
You have though, plenty of people have articulated why they think it's bad. Intelligently and in good detail. You should be able to recognise their point of view and understand where they're coming from without agreeing with them. If you can't do that it's a little strange.
This isn't a Vs. situation, no one is trying to tell you you can't enjoy the game aside from those invested in hyperbole who should be ignored anyway.
And your comment is indeed ridiculous because not only are you ignoring these things and seemingly unable to process another's point of view, but you said "huh dur, I reckon anyone saying it's bad is just bad themselves"
Obviously because the combat is considered less than good by many.
They're not saying that because they need the game to be perfect, they're offering critique where critique is due.
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.
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.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs great world building, dialog, writing, player choice, graphics, UI, length, etc. on top of great combat.
It's not better. I thought DAI's combat was absolutely awful, and it was a big reason why I never finished the game. I picked a mage thinking it was going to be fun because magic based classes in games usually are, but you end up sitting behind your squad while they all fight and you're just standing there spamming spells from a distance. It was beyond boring.
As for TW3, I honestly never had much of a problem with the combat and I think the hate for the combat is overblown. I don't deny it has its issues, and I can understand why people don't like it, but I thought the combat felt good. Slicing enemies in half, using signs, potions, etc. It made me actually feel like a witcher and I loved it.
As for TW3, I honestly never had much of a problem with the combat and I think the hate for the combat is overblown. I don't deny it has its issues, and I can understand why people don't like it, but I thought the combat felt good. Slicing enemies in half, using signs, potions, etc. It made me actually feel like a witcher and I loved it.
Its not hard to beat W3's combat. I've played both on the hardest difficulty and DAI was better for me. It can be played as a slow tactical game with decent variety and thought put into it. W3 never stopped feeling mindless, monotonous and repetitive.
Mind you, DAI is incredibly flawed too. A lot of baffling decisions there.
Mind you, DAI is incredibly flawed too. A lot of baffling decisions there.
Lord of Ostia
Member
I really couldn't disagree more with this post. The way you feel about the Witcher 3 is how I feel about Inquisition. To me, Inquisition is the GPS based RPG full of fetch quests, and The Witcher 3 is the adventure through a deep fantasy world.
Witcher 3's combat is just inoffensive. Largely boring, sometimes good, sometimes bad.
DAI's combat has higher pluses (build variety is a huge one) but also more frustrating downsides (party AI). This meant it was more consistently engaging for me but also more often annoying.
FWIW DAI did fix its lax difficulty issue with subsequent patches and DLC.
DAI's combat has higher pluses (build variety is a huge one) but also more frustrating downsides (party AI). This meant it was more consistently engaging for me but also more often annoying.
FWIW DAI did fix its lax difficulty issue with subsequent patches and DLC.
Yautja_Warrior
Member
Well some people do like to over exaggerate about things and some of those people might not be good at the game or give it a chance. I've seen many people say they quit playing because of the combat.
Having played a lot of games over the years, I find Witcher 3's controls and combat to be fine, not best in class but far from bad or terrible. People can disagree with me, just like I disagree with them, it's just opinions at the end of the day, no true right or wrong answer in the case of The Witcher 3, as it's not one of those game that is a broken mess.
I'm really not sure what your point is.
Are you saying we shouldn't critique the parts we think are bad just because the other parts are good?
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.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
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.
General Lee
Member
Inquisition combat shines on the hardest difficulty with the tactical camera and using a controller. Playing it with your main char in real time just activating abilities is indeed worse than Witcher 3 combat. It's the tactical party combat that has the depth that makes it much better than W3 dodge and attack spam. There's tons more depth to it, but by default most people play on normal and don't really have any need to do anything but run around and spam abilities. Of course the tactical mode did have its issues too with the AI and lack of control, and m&kb use was unnecessarily awkward.
Anyone?
It doesn't. I mean ultimately, you're still rolling around the place dodging most attacks, only you occasionally cast your Fire spell, or lay a trap on the ground that does damage, in between rolling and dodging. Most of the abilities don't really change how you approach a fight or what you do during a fight, they just give you a different thing to press in between the dodges.
The mind control ability is quite fun mind you when amped up properly.. ;-)
I wouldn't go that far but yeah, both are mediocre to acceptable at best. DA:I feels like it has a bit more punch to it when attacks connect.
CitizenCope
Member
It's not that I absolutely loved DA:I combat so much it's that I hated Witcher 3's combat.
I played DA:I a lot and have just started with W3. Based on my experience and the discussion in this thread I get the impression, that combat in DA:I has more depth, and therefore can be fun on higher difficulties when strategy matters. It is mostly boring on normal difficulty when all you do is holding R3 and spaming 1-2 abilities.
Combat in W3 feels more engaging even on normal difficulty as it is less focused on abilities and more on movement and timing, but ultimately it does not have a lot of variety or requires much strategy.
Combat in W3 feels more engaging even on normal difficulty as it is less focused on abilities and more on movement and timing, but ultimately it does not have a lot of variety or requires much strategy.
killatopak
Member
I haven't played DAI yet but I am playing Witcher 3 at the moment and all I can say is fuck the haters.
It's not Kingdom Hearts nor Bloodbourne or Devil May Cry but it has its moments and I love every single bit of it.
You can describe it as mediocre depending on you preference but it is not by all means terrible like a lot of you have said.
It's not Kingdom Hearts nor Bloodbourne or Devil May Cry but it has its moments and I love every single bit of it.
You can describe it as mediocre depending on you preference but it is not by all means terrible like a lot of you have said.
Ploid 3.0
Member
I really wish Witcher 3's combat could be as involving as Dragon Age Inquisition. I agree that DAI's strategy and combat are steps down from DAO and DA2 but it's still good if you focus on playing it as if you're in a party with self sufficient AI (sort of like Dragon Dogma Pawns, but I remember hating that I couldn't control the Pawns at all). You still get control of the AI and can just take over if the situation calls for it. Hundreds of hours in Dragon Age Multiplayer snapped me out of wanting to play it like the past Dragon Age games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gweOvZqpk
Random encounter, trials (promoted enemies no heals from potions, etc), the fights are fun to me. You can still get a bit too powerful at the end levels if you craft amazing weapons, armor, and find the right accessories, but getting there is fun. Then you get to do it all over again trying a different class, build, group composition. I do this a lot on Divinity OS too but that games combat speed bores me by the second map. Maybe not the combat speed but after the first map my party seem to do too much of the same stuff for how long things take during combat (I wish there was a fast forward mod for the enemies' actions). I'll probably start a new Divinity OSEE game, or try to get into Baldur's Gate 2 EE again soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6gweOvZqpk
Random encounter, trials (promoted enemies no heals from potions, etc), the fights are fun to me. You can still get a bit too powerful at the end levels if you craft amazing weapons, armor, and find the right accessories, but getting there is fun. Then you get to do it all over again trying a different class, build, group composition. I do this a lot on Divinity OS too but that games combat speed bores me by the second map. Maybe not the combat speed but after the first map my party seem to do too much of the same stuff for how long things take during combat (I wish there was a fast forward mod for the enemies' actions). I'll probably start a new Divinity OSEE game, or try to get into Baldur's Gate 2 EE again soon.
Kssio_Aug
Member
It seems like people expect every 3rd person action RPG to control like Platinum or Souls games. Witcher 3 combat may not be perfect, but it's still very decent, in the slightest.
Psychoward
Banned
Platinum and Souls games control completely different though? They're both praised because they both do 3rd person action combat very well.
"Very decent" isn't exactly high praise.
NullPointer
Member
From what I've played of DA:I, the Witcher 3 combat is a lot less frustrating, and you don't have to stop time to keep your party from acting like fools.
Seems weird to compare those two games though - the moment to moment is very different.
Seems weird to compare those two games though - the moment to moment is very different.
Retrozocker
Member
Kssio_Aug
Member
But I meant Platinum or Souls, as if only these two styles of action 3rd person games are actually good enough.
And yeah, I know "very decent, in the slightest" is not a high praise. It's also nothing to deserve so much hate.
What I mean is that the game plays totally fine. Some battles are actually extremely satisfying, in my opinion. But I almost skipped that game cause of so many bad things I heard about it (and looking at this own thread, it seems I'm not the only one).
sadaiyappan
Member
Witcher 3 combat is hard until you figure how to dodge. Each fight you can just dodge then counter attack then use magic etc. This works against all NPCs but giant boss monster fights are harder.
In DAI the combat gets complex you have group casting spells and attacking at the same time. Too many ways to fight combat in DAI, too many spells. I think I remember programming the attack commands list of each group member in DAO 2 like a stack or something. The combat has more choices, more depth. I think magic spells stack on each other also and the magic effects you cast affects each other attack(like you can freeze then crush etc.).
So I think because of all this the combat is considered better in DAI.
In DAI the combat gets complex you have group casting spells and attacking at the same time. Too many ways to fight combat in DAI, too many spells. I think I remember programming the attack commands list of each group member in DAO 2 like a stack or something. The combat has more choices, more depth. I think magic spells stack on each other also and the magic effects you cast affects each other attack(like you can freeze then crush etc.).
So I think because of all this the combat is considered better in DAI.
Investment in alchemy provides a few notable things, increased bomb damage, hugely increased toxicity pool which allows you to experiment with loads of different decoctions and potions. The decoctions can actually be pretty interesting. Blade oils can apply poison, all potions can heal you when consumed which means far less reliance on something like Quen for damage mitigation which frees up your stamina to be used more aggressively if desired.
There are alternate versions of every sign that does change up gameplay a fair bit, you are free to use both. I haven't progressed super deep into sign builds though so I can't say from memory what else is changed.
Now if you're literally asking if you're still using signs, bombs, swords, of course but that seems needlessly reductive.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
It's not. Not even close.
Hippopuncher12
Member
Neither of them are good in my opinion. The difference though is the combat in DA:I was the best thing about it, and it was the worst thing about Witcher 3. Shows how much better of an actual game W3 is though.
It's Ys, not Y's, and they're likely wrong.
... wait, Y was a variable.
Seriously though, I think it's that DA:I is an OK real time with pause while Witcher III is kind of a janky action RPG. But that shines best when you focus on preparation and using your tools, while skill is more a matter of "try to not completely fuck up."
Shifty1897
Member
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'm dying.
Ploid 3.0
Member
Now this sounds interesting to me. I have only been applying that shield and attack roll, attack rolling in witcher 3. I abused the shield in Witcher 2 as well.
The other magic abilities just didn't seem as useful than a straight up block damage buff. I did try the mind control upgrades in Witcher 3, but it didn't seem to help much in combat vs a shield. Again I didn't make it that far so I probably wasn't understanding things. The purple ground spell didn't seem too effective for ghosts for me as well, because I haven't really payed much attention to what it does, or maybe I did but the time to get them in it didn't seem worth the chase.
I looked it up quickly, apparently it allows you to hit ghosts, though I'm sure I killed some without it. The mission where the old guy that lost his goat starts chanting while you protect the fires for example. That mission pissed me off but the shield spell allowed me to get through that while I had no room for the purple trap spell (I also tried igni to relight the fires). I could barely keep the shield on me. I think I tried this at too low of a level, this guy is easily killing the ghosts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkVTErvoECQ
TheGraykid
Member
I quit the witcher 3 because I hated its combat. It's probably my least favourite sword and Shield fighting experience in a game. DA I is pretty uninspired and sometimes has you babysitting your comrades, but playing as a rogue where your job is to turn invisible, run around and then stab people in the back, that's fun. The witcher 3 never felt fun to me. The disconnect between the cgi trailers where you're a ninja Badass, to the actual game where I have to fight the controls and I'm swinging my sword at a tiny man/parhana thingy which barely budges as I attack it. It just never feels cool or like something that requires a depth in strategy.
From what ive seen, the whole "Witcher 3 has bad combat" is mostly a neogaf specific meme. When the Witcher 3 released, virtually no reviews from the gaming press mentioned combat in a negative light, quite the opposite in fact. Then the 2015 goty period came around, and the witcher 3 started raking in the awards, which strangely enough upset a lot of people here. As far as i can tell, thats when this whole thing really escalated.
I think the reason that a lot of people dont find this rhetoric convincing is that most criticisms never go beyond pure hyperbole, or vacuous drive-by terms such as "clunky" and "unresponsive", even when pressed. Some of the other repeated points are also straight up false, such as the claim that you cant cancel attacks, or that there is a significant amount of lag between the the players input and geralts response (as compared to other games). Another fairly reductive argument is how "you just press attack the attack button until they die". Considering the variety in enemy behaviour, this point rings hollow as well. Nekkers and drowners will punish this tactic every time, and bigger creatures also need a much more careful approach if you dont want to get two-shotted, for example.
I think the reason that a lot of people dont find this rhetoric convincing is that most criticisms never go beyond pure hyperbole, or vacuous drive-by terms such as "clunky" and "unresponsive", even when pressed. Some of the other repeated points are also straight up false, such as the claim that you cant cancel attacks, or that there is a significant amount of lag between the the players input and geralts response (as compared to other games). Another fairly reductive argument is how "you just press attack the attack button until they die". Considering the variety in enemy behaviour, this point rings hollow as well. Nekkers and drowners will punish this tactic every time, and bigger creatures also need a much more careful approach if you dont want to get two-shotted, for example.
emilioasis
Member
Exactly
I strongly recommend maxing out fleet footed in the combat tree if you don't want to use Quen so much. You will be required to spend 10-15 points in the combat tree but it's worth it and not too difficult to do especially if you get the shrines that give you a free upgrade point to use outside of leveling. Fleet footed gives you 100% damage mitigation during a side step/dash so if you're timing those properly you won't need to use Quen nearly as much.
If you invest in the Alchemy tree as I said the talent that allows you to heal 25% of your health (when maxed out) from any potion is very useful. Basically I would use Igni on a lot of enemies with your stamina or you can use it on Rend or Whirl depending on if you invest a bunch of points in the Combat tree. The nice thing about Igni is that if you are fighting a group of enemies and you back dash in a way that funnels all of the enemies in front of you and cast Igni there's a good chance that at least 1 or 2 of them will be ignited, taking additional fire damage and being crowd controlled for a few seconds. During that time you can focus on other enemies or line up heavy attacks on them. It's just a lot more fun and effective than Quen most of the time. It's not very effective on specters though.
The Yrden sign, the trap you lay on the ground, slows specters down and reveals them for the entire duration. Specters will generally fade in and out between planes and when they are greyed out they take significantly reduced damage. So I would use Yrden down when possible and there is also a bomb as well if you throw it at them it prevents them from transforming so they are vulnerable to full damage for a long period of time. I will say though that at higher difficulty levels Specters can be some of the most frustrating enemies to fight. They teleport behind you, sometimes in groups and once they hit you, you are briefly stun locked and take significant damage.
With that said, there is certainly some freedom in how you want to build Geralt and play him. Quen is a bit of a crutch honestly, it definitely has it's uses and I generally always apply it pre-fight once but then I usually ignore it unless I'm dangerously close to dying.
Rei dos Vermes
Member
I don't have a problem with the combat system in The Witcher 3. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but not bad either. It definitely have it's moments on Death March, at least early on when you aren't overpowered.
On the other hand, I couldn't enjoy Dragon Age: Inquisition because how awful the combat system/controls are. I tried playing with mouse & keyboard, a Xbox One gamepad and both felt unplayable to me. it's so bad that I gave up two hours in.
On the other hand, I couldn't enjoy Dragon Age: Inquisition because how awful the combat system/controls are. I tried playing with mouse & keyboard, a Xbox One gamepad and both felt unplayable to me. it's so bad that I gave up two hours in.
Shai-Tan
Banned
yeah I played DA2 immediately before DAI and was surprised at how much worse DAI feels. Even though I was annoyed that DA2 removes proper strategy of DAO it was at least somewhat fun as an action game whereas DAI is really spammy any annoying. felt like no strategy whatsoever, repeating the same three moves over and over