Support NeoGAF

[StoppedInTracks]

I liked the combat in 2 and 3, but just found the fighting in 1 to be bizarre. I didn't think it was terrible, but I didn't really enjoy it either.

It's so random. Lile I get wrecked by this Ghoul five times in a row, I reload for the sixth time and he barely even scratches me because I am a COMBO GOD this time.

Can't stand the randomness of it.

Must have reloaded 20+ times on the bridge before Wyzina.

 

[vocab]

Is there an easy setting to remove some of the monotony / frustration with the combat?

I've been wanting to play both prequels before tackling W3. It seems I tend to be less picky/hyperbolic about these kinds of annoyances than a lot of people who go to the effort to post about it. But I think I'd rather just play the first two games for the story and not bang my head against the wall because of old school mechanics. I wanna cruise thru both and get to W3 where I'll take my time.

cruise through witcher 1.

It's so random. Lile I get wrecked by this Ghoul five times in a row, I reload for the sixth time and he barely even scratches me because I am a COMBO GOD this time.

Can't stand the randomness of it.

Must have reloaded 20+ times on the bridge before Wyzina.

You are playing hard, and expected to use signs and alchemy constantly. Dude, you are gonna get fucked up by the chapter 1 boss so hard.

 

[Sophia]

I'd like to know what traditional RPGs you're playing that have combat similar to Witcher 1.

I said more like a traditional RPG. It's slower paced than The Witcher 2 or 3, and at times feels designed around the isometric view. Obviously it's still an action RPG.

I still love the isometric view and the fact that you can play the game entirely with the mouse too. That's a godsend for when my hand is hurting.

 

[Creamium]

I've been wanting to play both prequels before tackling W3. Is there an easy setting to remove some of the monotony / frustration with the combat?

It seems I tend to be less picky/hyperbolic about these kinds of annoyances than a lot of people who go to the effort to post about it. But in this case I l think I'd rather just play the first two games for the story and not bang my head against the wall because of old school mechanics. I wanna cruise thru both and get to W3 where I'll take my time.

They both have an easy diff. setting. If you want to 'cruise' through Witcher 1, better play it on easy then, because that's not gonna happen on normal

 

[Memorabilia]

cruise through witcher 1.

LOL Ok I guess that sort of kills the dream....

 

[Psychoward]

I said more like a traditional RPG. It's slower paced than The Witcher 2 or 3, and at times feels designed around the isometric view. Obviously it's still an action RPG.

Yeah I know but it just never felt traditional to me. If anything 2 and 3 felt sorta RTwP at times moreso than 1.

I forgot about isometric view though, I'll give you that

 

[StoppedInTracks]

cruise through witcher 1.
You are playing hard, and expected to use signs and alchemy constantly.

Tru dat. Had to use alchemy on the bridge and in the tutorial mage fight.

That does not make the combat any better, though.

 

[Daingurse]

I said more like a traditional RPG. It's slower paced than The Witcher 2 or 3, and at times feels designed around the isometric view. Obviously it's still an action RPG.

Yeah, the Isometric view was what I settled with. Felt the most playable and did give the game more of a classic CRPG feel.

 

[PumpkinPie]

I much prefer Witcher 1 combat to the sequels, it's more like a rhythm game.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

I think if I ever give TW3 another chance I'll try it on the easiest difficulty and just play it for the story.

I don't have high hopes for Cyberpunk 2077's combat being good :|

The clumsy mechanics are one of the main reasons TW3 is not for me. The setting is another, I'm not big on fantasy (it's why I prefer Bloodborne's cosmic horror to the dark fantasy of the Souls series as well).

Cyberpunk will no doubt fix the latter, as I love the cyberpunk setting. It might fix the former too as I'm sure melee combat will not be the main focus. There will probably be a lot of firearms and gadgets, similar to Deus Ex.

So I have high(er) hopes for that.

 

[RespectThySole]

I'd rank them 3>1>2. The Witcher 1 is really rough early on, but gets better as you progress. Potions are essential in TW1.

 

[ElTorro]

cruise through witcher 1.

I actually wanted to do the same. Is the game too hard, even on easy, to cruise through it?

 

[Northeastmonk]

The original Witcher was very rough in that regard. It came out when PC games were sorta climbing the ladder and graphics weren't at all what they were in say the Witcher 2. The Witcher 2 is a big step up in terms of game play and graphics.

Witcher 1 has an automatic response that has more motions to it than the player is really inputting (if you ask me). It feels like it is somehow simulating the fight and the outcome is more of less based on how powerful you are and how well you can use magic. It didn't necessarily get good until they focused on action based combat period and a weapon for either creature or human.

I wouldn't hold a lot against the original Witcher except that you have to hold in there. Combat isn't impossible and it gets better when you use his signs. I had to level up quite a bit during my playthrough and I got over how sluggish the beginning felt.

They went from the base model to the Enhanced Edition too. I let someone play it who played the D&D cRPG's and they didn't like it. They didn't even like Dragon Age Origins and that's a step up from the 90's cRPGs.

I think it's a bit of a give and take and what you're seeing is actually a step up in some ways. I mess around in NVN and I have a difficult time progressing because of the hit detection and overall strength of the characters. I don't believe The Witcher 1 suffers from that problem. I think it relies more on utilizing the stances, utilizing magic, and making sure that the string you are producing does damage.

The Witcher 2 and 3 are a huge step up in terms of hit detection and inputs. I felt like it made the player feel like he was swinging this sword instead of deciding and watching a string of sword swipes hit or miss.

I played the Enhanced Edition with the Director's Cut patch that unlocked the content taken out of the NA version. I remember I saw someone playing the vanilla version. I think it got better with the Enhanced Edition, but it still has that RPG feeling to it, which should be respected in some regard. Unless of course you just want an action game period. Go play Dragon's Dogma or Witcher 3.

 

[phaze]

I'd rank them 3>1>2. The Witcher 1 is really rough early on, but gets better as you progress. Potions are essential in TW1.

Think that would be my ranking too.

I actually wanted to do the same. Is the game too hard, even on easy, to cruise through it?

The game is outside of few spots fairly easy and becomes trite after act 3. He probably meant the length of the game which is considerable.

The waves of hate for the combat of W1 always amuse me cause I found it fairly enjoyable and relaxing.. Though it should have had some more variety in combos, maybe added some options for defence, kept the difficulty level steady and improved the signs. I'd actually like that sort of combat to be introduced in games like Dragon Age instead of the click and forget

 

[Psychoward]

I actually wanted to do the same. Is the game too hard, even on easy, to cruise through it?

No but it's pretty fucking long

 

[Sophia]

There's also the Full Combat Rebalance mod for Witcher 1 too. Revamped talent trees, faster and more brutal combat, and many UI changes. Might be worth looking into if someone is starting out and doesn't like the base combat.

 

[impact]

All three games have really bad combat.

Truth

Put Dragons Dogma combat in The Witcher 3 and you have a possible GOAT that could actually rival Souls games and even top them. As it is, it feels like some AssCreed tier garbage with magic attacks.

 

[Kaname]

Meh, really don't understand all the hate. It's not brilliant but I don't think it's top tier shit or traumatizing like most of you are painting it out :/
And the only I didn't like was 2 because it felt too heavy and clunky, figures.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Skelter]

Well, it's a WRPG

Still haven't played a JRPG with better combat than ToEE.

 

[Ryoku]

Movement controls and combat are the reasons I haven't been able to play through Witcher 3. It's that bad.

 

[Haunted]

They were still green, experimenting, being slaves to the description of Geralt's combat style in the books without really knowing how to transfer this to a game, along with an ill-advised stance system.

They had their hearts in the right place, but the craft and skill simply wasn't there yet. They've made huge strides every game since then. The transformation from CDProjekt from Witcher 1 to Witcher 3 has been incredible to follow.

I was going to make a thread asking if the first Witcher was still worth playing today. This thread may make such a thread redundant.

I think there's an argument to be made for playing Witcher 2, even if you've already played Witcher 3, but honestly, you're better off skipping Witcher 1 entirely. It's made completely obsolete by the sequels.

 

[Fbh]

Why do people hate the combat in 2 and 3 so much? Thought the combat in 2 was decent (with an overemphasis on rolling), and 3 feels more satisfying (mainly due to the increased gore).

Didn't play a lot of 2 but 3 just feels janky.

Weird animations, your attaks lack a sense of weight and impact and have some weird feedback issues, it has issues with hit detection, etc. Not to mention that later on it becomes really easy to win most fight by just button mashing, even on harder difficulties

It's not absolutely terrible but it could be way better. And it's a shame because it feels like all the right ideas are there but they are just handled badly

 

[Gattsu25]

I think if I ever give TW3 another chance I'll try it on the easiest difficulty and just play it for the story.

I don't have high hopes for Cyberpunk 2077's combat being good :|

I enjoy the combat at Blood and Broken Bones difficulty. I'd likely have to bump up the difficulty when next I play it (Dragon's Dogma is messing with my speech patterns haha)

 

[Grief.exe]

I thought it was passable

 

[Rodney McKay]

Why do people hate the combat in 2 and 3 so much? Thought the combat in 2 was decent (with an overemphasis on rolling), and 3 feels more satisfying (mainly due to the increased gore).

Because the combat just feels like a worse version of Assassin's Creed, which is saying something, and it just never feels good on its own for me. I've gotten accustom to a LOT of different melee combat systems in games and this is one of the few that even after dozens of hours it still feels clunky.

Single combat is OK, but group combat is just miserable in 3 with you either blocking 90% of the fight waiting for the one opportunity to attack when you aren't getting juggled between 5 wolves or drowners. Parrying doesn't feel great either because the animation priority is too strong IMO, and rolling/dodging doesn't feel great either.

Once I started upgrading the magic a bit more the combat got a lot better (the level 2 trap spell helps with group combat, and the mind control one too) but the level 2 spells take a little too long to cast so they aren't very viable once you are in the thick of combat so I end up just spamming the fire blast a lot.

 

[Carl7]

Go igni.

 

[usp84]

It is absolutely terrible.

Thankfully while Witcher's 3 combat is not the best it's so much better than 1.Otherwise the game would be unplayable

 

[Pantaghana]

Witcher 1 combat is most certainly what is sometimes referred to as "eurojank." It's functional with some hidden depths, but most of the time you wonder just how drunk the person that made it was during production.

 

[Grief.exe]

I'll never know why they didn't do some form of turn based combat similar to Neverwinter or KOTOR which be synonymous with the engine choice anyways.

 

[teokrazia]

Single combat is OK, but group combat is just miserable in 3 with you either blocking 90% of the fight waiting for the one opportunity to attack when you aren't getting juggled between 5 wolves or drowners.

I feel the opposite: group combat is where TW2/TW3 show the real fun.

 

[Upinsmoke]

Haha its so terrible. Even Witcher 2 is, I mean how many shortcuts do I need to perform actions.

 

[Zakalwe]

TW1'a combat is decent. Janky as hell (like most of the game) but once you get the rhythm down and understand stances you can cut through mobs/groups easily.

Worth playing, the latter part of the game is really good (ending included).

2's was okay, uneven learning curve (starts a bit too weak, soon gets op). Too easy to exploit with rolls and Quen.

3's is a lot better. You really need to play on Death March though, and invest in all Geralt's abilities and tools, make use of all your signs, read the bestiary to discover weaknesses to exploit.

While it's basic, being able to clear a large group without taking a hit once you have a system worked out is pretty satisfying. Making use of big dodges properly, timing counter attacks, etc... I rarely see people making use of the full array of options.

My friend put it on normal and just hacked his way through the game mostly using Igni. He seemed to enjoy it, but he definitely missed out imo.

 

[Wagram]

The combat didn't bother me so much as the KB/M.

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

so how did it win so many goty awards if the combat is "D-tier"?

combat truly is one of the most important aspects of any great game

methinks it's a bit overrated game.

Bloodborne >>>>>>>>> Witcher 3

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

The Witcher 1's combat was shit, but it wasn't bad enough to get me to stop playing. I mean, I did stop after eight hours, but it had nothing to do with the combat.

It's a testament to the game's writing that I finished the first act.

so how did it win so many goty awards if the combat is "D-tier"?

combat truly is one of the most important aspects of any great game

methinks it's a bit overrated game.

Bloodborne >>>>>>>>> Witcher 3

Not every game is played for the combat. The Witcher series is lauded for the writing and roleplaying, not the gameplay.

 

[Koobion]

I enjoyed it more than Witcher 2's combat. I enjoyed timing the hits.

This was my experience entirely. I despised the change in combat. The upgrades in Witcher 1 are way more rewarding.

 

[Zakalwe]

Because the combat just feels like a worse version of Assassin's Creed, which is saying something, and it just never feels good on its own for me. I've gotten accustom to a LOT of different melee combat systems in games and this is one of the few that even after dozens of hours it still feels clunky.

Single combat is OK, but group combat is just miserable in 3 with you either blocking 90% of the fight waiting for the one opportunity to attack when you aren't getting juggled between 5 wolves or drowners. Parrying doesn't feel great either because the animation priority is too strong IMO, and rolling/dodging doesn't feel great either.

Once I started upgrading the magic a bit more the combat got a lot better (the level 2 trap spell helps with group combat, and the mind control one too) but the level 2 spells take a little too long to cast so they aren't very viable once you are in the thick of combat so I end up just spamming the fire blast a lot.

Are you talking about 3?

 

[Rad-]

Yep TW1's combat killed the whole game for me. Really bad.

 

[Linkyn]

I was going to make a thread asking if the first Witcher was still worth playing today. This thread may make such a thread redundant.

It's not very beginner-friendly and can take some time getting used to, but it does a lot of things very well, and it's incredibly satisfying once you get over the initial hurdle. If you ever have a bit of time to spare to familiarize yourself with the systems and the world, you should absolutely go for it.

I actually wanted to do the same. Is the game too hard, even on easy, to cruise through it?

The combat is pretty much a breeze on easy and doesn't require you to properly use oils, potions, crafting, signs, etc. You'll still probably want to get a sense of when to use what sword / style, if only because it makes the fights much shorter (and cutting through a dozen enemies within seconds using group style is really fun). I actually think most of the initial difficulty comes from figuring out how to properly interact with NPCs and get about the world. Much of what makes the first game so enjoyable is figuring out how to play it properly, and realising that there are tons of things you'd probably miss if you didn't.

 

[DRock]

Because the combat just feels like a worse version of Assassin's Creed, which is saying something, and it just never feels good on its own for me. I've gotten accustom to a LOT of different melee combat systems in games and this is one of the few that even after dozens of hours it still feels clunky.

Single combat is OK, but group combat is just miserable in 3 with you either blocking 90% of the fight waiting for the one opportunity to attack when you aren't getting juggled between 5 wolves or drowners. Parrying doesn't feel great either because the animation priority is too strong IMO, and rolling/dodging doesn't feel great either.

Once I started upgrading the magic a bit more the combat got a lot better (the level 2 trap spell helps with group combat, and the mind control one too) but the level 2 spells take a little too long to cast so they aren't very viable once you are in the thick of combat so I end up just spamming the fire blast a lot.

Sounds like you are not very good. Fights don't play out like that for me at all. It's all about positioning when fighting groups.

 

[Hero Prinny]

I didnt play W1 but W3's combat is wayyy better than W2

 

[Daingurse]

so how did it win so many goty awards if the combat is "D-tier"?

combat truly is one of the most important aspects of any great game

methinks it's a bit overrated game.

Bloodborne >>>>>>>>> Witcher 3

Not true, games can stand on other aspects. Planescape: Torment is a great example. I actually didn't enjoy the combat in that game, and set the difficulty to the lowest level to make it easier to deal with. Combat frankly felt like filler in the game. It's still one of the best RPGs I've ever played, and that's on the back of fantastic dialogue options and great writing. Witcher 1 had combat that I genuinely found strange, but it is also a very memorable role-playing game experience. Witcher 1 has one of the best climaxes to a game that I've ever seen. There can be more to a game than combat. Not everything has to have the same focus.

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

The Witcher 1's combat was shit, but it wasn't bad enough to get me to stop playing. I mean, I did stop after eight hours, but it had nothing to do with the combat.

It's a testament to the game's writing that I finished the first act.



Not every game is played for the combat. The Witcher series is lauded for the writing and roleplaying, not the gameplay.

well isnt that kinda looked down upon here on gaf?

i mean you look at some games like the order, until dawn, twd series and other "light gameplay" titles (for lack of a better term) and those games get shat upon by some.

and i know witcher 3 is open world with lots of stuff to do but for a game with mediocre combat it shouldn't get a free pass

 

[Pantaghana]

so how did it win so many goty awards if the combat is "D-tier"?

combat truly is one of the most important aspects of any great game

methinks it's a bit overrated game.

Bloodborne >>>>>>>>> Witcher 3

As someone that truly loves great combat in games. Fuck no.

Haven't yet played W3 so won't comment on it, but W1 & 2 are great despite the combat, not because of it.

 

[Bl@de]

Witcher 2 with Full Combat Rebalance is the best combat in the series. But damn it's hard.

 

[Mivey]

And I think I actually enjoyed the combat in the first Witcher game more than its sequels.

I did too, but I also actualy read up on a lot of it on the manuals and went into basically every fight with help of Alchemy potions. The easiest fights are incidentally against groups, since the group style is super unbalanced, especially later on in the game.
The timing based attacks didn't phase me at all, so while the OP is right that the game doesn't indicate beyond the animation who you are attacking, I never found to be a problem, since you had to keep track of their attack circle anyway. It was not a problem for me.
It was a nice improvement from games like Gothic were combat was basically a mouse click spam fest and nicely balanced if the player was informed on what to do. The Witcher 2, in that respect was way worse: Act 1 was hard as sin, Act 2 was a lot easier, and by the third Act the game basically played itself. I am seeing the same progression in Witcher 3, actually, just more drawn out, since the leveling is slower.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

well isnt that kinda looked down upon here on gaf?

i mean you look at some games like the order, until dawn, twd series and other "light gameplay" titles (for lack of a better term) and those games get shat upon by some.

and i know witcher 3 is open world with lots of stuff to do but for a game with mediocre combat it shouldn't get a free pass

For starters, everyone's got different opinions. Secondly, The Order 1886's writing is not nearly good enough to make up for the lacking elsewhere in the game. Third, The Walking Dead's choice system is fairly shallow compared to many highly-lauded RPGs, though I and many others love it nonetheless.

I did too, but I also actualy read up on a lot of it on the manuals and went into basically every fight with help of Alchemy potions.

The alchemy reliance is part of the reason I stopped playing. I made the mistake of playing on Normal instead of Easy despite being the kind of person who loathes even looking at a crafting menu in any game, and the game doesn't allow to change difficulties without mods.

I'll revisit the game when I have the time, though.

 

[water_wendi]

The first games combat is very different than the other games. Its almost a rhythm clicker. i prefer it to the second games combat but maybe its because i did a TW1 playthrough right before diving into TW2 and the experience was very jarring.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I've always liked The Witcher 1's combat. The rhythm mechanics are pretty unique, and it always felt like it worked exactly the way it should. I actually prefer it to The Witcher 2's combat.

 

[Rainer70]

I enjoyed it more than Witcher 2's combat. I enjoyed timing the hits.

Same here. Timing the hits and the accompanying animations really sold the combat system of Witcher 1 for me. I even like it more than Witcher 3's combat.