Marauder Shields
Member
Don't like the combat in either game tbh. Am actually playing Witcher 2 atm and the combat is not very hard, or fun. Just a lot of rolling around on the ground.
I played it in Dark Mode twice and still found it annoyingly easy overall, except for a couple of occasional difficulty spikes.Never had a problem with witcher 2 and I'm a play on normal only type of guy. Must have just clicked for me.
This dog was broken, man. More so than letho.
I'm glad I pushed past this part in the first game. Comically easy for the most part
Outside one boss fight was I the only person who had no qualms with the Witcher 2's challenge?
And I played it when it first came out.
Weird, I don't remember difficulty being a problem for the Witcher 2.
10 Steps to Success in The Witcher 2
1. Roll
2. Roll
3. Sign
4. Roll
5. Roll
6. Roll
7. Roll
8. Swing sword
9. Roll
10. Roll
I'm playing the game using a controller, since I think fighting and such should be better that way (?).
I would actually advise against that. there are a lot of more useful and more interesting talents to unlock.Upgrade the combat roll ASAP. It's on the left branch IIRC.
I wish you could somehow mod Dark Souls controls into The Witcher 2.
I would actually advise against that. there are a lot of more useful and more interesting talents to unlock.
I unlocked the "enhanced roll" just in *one* of my several playthrough, and just when I was wasting points on nice extras toward the end. I must say never regretted missing it.
Oh, and listed to DocSeuss. Whoever claimed this games plays better with a controller probably didn't grasp too well how it actually works, considering how the direction of your attacks is tied by default to where the camera is looking.
I just edited the previous reply, but let me quote you what I just added in case you missed:Combat roll makes it much, much easier though.
Also, relying on obsessive roll too much to stay alive may even be effective, but it's goddamn boring and it drags the fights too much.
In fact it's like playing an Arkham game relying entirely on the counter; it may work most of the times (except for special enemies) but it just drags fights that you could end in seconds for entire minutes.
Eh, it would be nice if they actually improved this for the third game.Oh you want Witcher 2 to have good combat?
I just edited the previous reply, but let me quote you what I just added in case you missed:
Eh, it would be nice if they actually improved this for the third game.
Massive open world and stunning production value plus good combat would make it something memorable.
Let's be real: I'm not expecting them to match Dark Souls' combat in quality, but even matching... I don't know... Risen? That would be a nice start.
Oh
Yeah.
Fight the way it should be played, with a mouse and keyboard, not the way you think it should be played, because, as it turns out, using a controller is the opposite of how to play this game well.
Also, just fyi, if you're playing and you've got any sort of input lag, the game's harder, in part because animations are locked, so lag + locked animations = problem. They've tweaked it, but it's still challenging.
It was a loooot harder on launch, but other than that opening ballista fight, my only challenge was the Letho one.
I thought Witcher 1 was harder, due to the horrid combat. Witcher 2 had some horrible difficulty spikes during a couple of fights, but was mostly fine i thought.
Can't give an extensive review about it, but I tried it once and my first impression was that I really didn't like how it felt.There was a fan patch of sorts too, is that any good?
I'm still sitting on both Witcher games without having played them, and reading these comments make me wonder...
What's the appeal of these games if its' not the combat (which seems to make up the bulk of the experience)? The story-telling? In that case, is there a difficulty select option in the game where you can reduce the combat difficulty even further if someone just wants to experience the story?
Yeah, like many core RPGs it's mostly about story, interacting with characters and exploring/enjoying the environment.I'm still sitting on both Witcher games without having played them, and reading these comments make me wonder...
What's the appeal of these games if its' not the combat (which seems to make up the bulk of the experience)? The story-telling? In that case, is there a difficulty select option in the game where you can reduce the combat difficulty even further if someone just wants to experience the story?
Because the combat system is terrible.
I played both of them at launch, before patches, rebalances, redesigns, and Enhanced Editions, and I found The Witcher 1 to be the far simpler game to understand from the get-go.Witcher 1 was incredibly obtuse with some of its mechanics. I haven't finished Witcher 2,but from what I've played it was much more approachable.
Not to mention developers are lying scumbags that don't deserve your money, am I rite guys?Because the combat system is terrible.
Not to mention developers are lying scumbags that don't deserve your money, am I rite guys?
I think that's mostly what happens when someone is too emotionally invested in the brand of console he owns.I imagine this is what happens when someone gets hyped for a rpg, only because of the graphics.
Having played the game from start to finish at release date, completing it without using any guide, I couldn't really disagree more even trying.The quest structure in much of act 2 is an absolute mess, it's shockingly bad, at one point I had 3 guides open in a web browser just to untangle the unituitive web. Quests without markers, quests that shouldn't even be active yet, quests that entwine with others in arbitrary ways, it's just a terrible, terrible mess.
I'm not finding the combat difficult as I'm playing on easy, and I don't know if it's just me, but this is one of the most bizzarely unintuitive games I've ever played in terms of quest and level design.
I originally got it ages ago only to quit playing somewhere early chapter 2, and picked it up again recently, with it becoming quickly clear why I dropped it in the first place, despite so much of the game being great.
The quest structure in much of act 2 is an absolute mess, it's shockingly bad, at one point I had 3 guides open in a web browser just to untangle the unituitive web. Quests without markers, quests that shouldn't even be active yet, quests that entwine with others in arbitrary ways, it's just a terrible, terrible mess.
And then there's the level design - you have absolutely beautiful assets jumbled together in some of the most disjointed and non flowing level designs that are just insanely unintuitive to navigate, Loc Muinne in particular, with arbitrary blocked passages requiring needless complex detours.
Then there's quests with absurd solutions, 10 part passwords, etc, not to mention the inventory, just so much about this game is bewlideringly unintuitive.
The games gets so much right, amazing graphics, decently acted dialogue, decent combat system, but the level and quest designs are infuriatingly bad on more than one occasion. It makes the game feel like an amateur effort despite having amazing production values in other respects.
I'll finish it as I've come almost to the end, but I sincerely hope Witcher 3 has far better quest and level designs, because Witcher 2 has some of the least intuitive I've encountered in over 30 years of gaming.
Having played the game from start to finish at release date, completing it without using any guide, I couldn't really disagree more even trying.
It's not just that I disagree, it's also that I have genuinely no clue of what could have made you feel so lost and require "three different guides".
If I have a complain about quests in the game is that frankly they were a bit too simple and focused in looking good rather than feeling good, at times.
Oh, and let me laugh a bit at "no marker" listed almost as if it was a capital crime in design.