I enjoyed Batman Arkhan Asulym very much, but I have tried twice to get into City. But I just can't, as you indeed said it's very button mashy. I hate that Batman flies to it's target and I don't even need to move myself in the fights. Smash attack and then tap counter when prompt comes up. In Witcher I'm constantly changing my position with group of enemies and dodging their attacks. When in tough spot I roll to get distance.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What is it about Witcher 3's combat that people didn't like?
- Thread starter JohnnyFootball
- Start date
I enjoyed Batman Arkhan Asulym very much, but I have tried twice to get into City. But I just can't, as you indeed said it's very button mashy. I hate that Batman flies to it's target and I don't even need to move myself in the fights. Smash attack and then tap counter when prompt comes up. In Witcher I'm constantly changing my position with group of enemies and dodging their attacks. When in tough spot I roll to get distance.
Why would you mash buttons and spam Quen if you think it's boring? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Personally i thought the combat became much more fun when i didn't play the button mashing/quen playstyle. I don't think i would have been able to get through the whole game only using that awful playstyle. That would be extremely boring.
What would you recommend instead? I ask this as someone who wants to try this game out, but keeps getting turned off by the combat talk.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Extremely basic and slashes didn't feel like they connect outside of killing blows.
An entire skill tree wasted on potions and oils that don't change how you play at all.
Same with the magic. You still have to always be slashing to get adrenaline back.
An entire skill tree wasted on potions and oils that don't change how you play at all.
Same with the magic. You still have to always be slashing to get adrenaline back.
No one cares if it's like Souls. Souls is just an example of something good, and people want something good.
StrategyFan
Member
i started with this game in 2007 called "the witcher: role playing game"
i was never playing it for the combat
also i didn't want to lower the difficulty and try different things, so i stuck to what worked
i'll probably do other stuff when i replay it, maybe on a lower difficulty
Geralt can't even manage to go up and down stairs without occasionally stumbling and doing an unexpected, yet hilarious forward roll, so add combat on top of the sloppy movement, and it can be a janky experience.
I don't think it's terrible, but coming from games with much tighter combat animations and player movement, it can be...an adjustment. I wish the combat, and more specifically, Geralt's animations, were more precise. Great story, awesome quests and world/character detail and design offset a lot of that for me.
I don't think it's terrible, but coming from games with much tighter combat animations and player movement, it can be...an adjustment. I wish the combat, and more specifically, Geralt's animations, were more precise. Great story, awesome quests and world/character detail and design offset a lot of that for me.
Idk, I played through it entirely on Hard and I could beat it using only Sparrow and Thunderbolt, no Crossbow, no Bombs, and mostly Axii. One think I felt was poor about the combat as it gave you very little incentive to explore the systems if you didn't want to explore them yourself; the bestiary entries were good, but, like, nothing could beat my Axii+Thunderbolt combo.
Also, that character progression system is ATROCIOUS, maybe the worst I've ever seen in a game. After like lvl 40 it completely uses all usefulness, and even when it does work it actively disincentivizes you from creating a diverse range of skills or branching out too far. I just mainlined combat because if you could get your fast attack up all the way it was OP af, and never bothered investing in anything else other than a few Axii upgrades. Would not call it deep, or tactic-changing, at all.
A lot of the complaints always sounded like button mashing to me. Most players are probably personally inelegant and rush-down in mentality, it's the same thing you see in fighting games.
I'm not a very good game player but I felt this was a great game played from a slow, reactionary stance. I played on DM for what it's worth balance-wise. Your first goal is mostly footsies with the enemy. When they open up, jump in for a few strikes then escape. It's not a hack and slash. You don't get to attack whenever you want. Timing and positioning and constantly maintaining that positioning is the name of the game.
My feeling is that people shit on the gameplay because it's not "how they want to play the game". Well, it worked exactly how I wanted to play the game. Accurate, slow, elegant, deliberate. The W3 isn't bad, it's just different from the norm. Unfortunately, the way criticism has gone recently, too many people believe that all games should be X or Y in feeling, rather than allowing them to be all different flavours, and accepting those which taste good to them. This goes back to the whole "every FPS should control like CoD" when that's obviously a horrible idea which kills creativity and further confuses people into thinking games are formulaic software trying to reach a single "end goal" rather than a wide ocean of possibility with no end in sight.
There are lots of games where I don't like the combat, but that doesn't make them bad. I know this is a brain breaking concept for some, but I feel you will open the door to many new experiences if you can just accept 1% of this as true. Rather than conceiving of the things you don't like as bad, consider first and foremost that they are different.
TL; DR - I hate "feeling like a bad ass" and enjoyed this slower, more punishing take on gameplay. I played on DM and loved the combat from A-Z. Didn't invest much in Signs, and put nothing at all into the Crossbow. I am the kind of person who walks in towns, to really make the picture clear.
I'm not a very good game player but I felt this was a great game played from a slow, reactionary stance. I played on DM for what it's worth balance-wise. Your first goal is mostly footsies with the enemy. When they open up, jump in for a few strikes then escape. It's not a hack and slash. You don't get to attack whenever you want. Timing and positioning and constantly maintaining that positioning is the name of the game.
My feeling is that people shit on the gameplay because it's not "how they want to play the game". Well, it worked exactly how I wanted to play the game. Accurate, slow, elegant, deliberate. The W3 isn't bad, it's just different from the norm. Unfortunately, the way criticism has gone recently, too many people believe that all games should be X or Y in feeling, rather than allowing them to be all different flavours, and accepting those which taste good to them. This goes back to the whole "every FPS should control like CoD" when that's obviously a horrible idea which kills creativity and further confuses people into thinking games are formulaic software trying to reach a single "end goal" rather than a wide ocean of possibility with no end in sight.
There are lots of games where I don't like the combat, but that doesn't make them bad. I know this is a brain breaking concept for some, but I feel you will open the door to many new experiences if you can just accept 1% of this as true. Rather than conceiving of the things you don't like as bad, consider first and foremost that they are different.
TL; DR - I hate "feeling like a bad ass" and enjoyed this slower, more punishing take on gameplay. I played on DM and loved the combat from A-Z. Didn't invest much in Signs, and put nothing at all into the Crossbow. I am the kind of person who walks in towns, to really make the picture clear.
JimmyRustler
Member
In Skyrim you could at least play a different combat style (say archer), which made it infinitely more interesting. In Witcher 3 I am forced to play a melee character and that just made me realize how flawed most Open World games are in that regard. I actually never noticed how bad the combat in any TES game was because I always played as stealth archer. Having played Witcher 3 I now understand what most people dislike as TES melee as well.
The combat isn't great, but it's not terrible either. Serviceable enough to enjoy the quest design, stories and world.
What I struggle to understand is why the Witcher 3 got some special amount of heat for this issue, when say another even more popular dev Rockstar has been putting lackluster combat in almost all their games save Max Payne 3, and maybe GTAV in first-person mode (still clunky and floaty to me though).
What I struggle to understand is why the Witcher 3 got some special amount of heat for this issue, when say another even more popular dev Rockstar has been putting lackluster combat in almost all their games save Max Payne 3, and maybe GTAV in first-person mode (still clunky and floaty to me though).
Just started this after recently finishing Witcher 2. I feel like the combat is serviceable, but far below even older Zelda games. There's a lack of direct control without controlling animations, and Geralt automatically leaps towards the enemy he's locked onto. So far I'm using Quen, dodging until there's an opening, then striking with a few hits until I feel the enemy has recovered. It works, but it's on the low level of engaging melee combat. Still better than Skyrim (even less responsiveness) and Witcher 2 (Geralt doesn't feel like wet tissue in 3) at least.
Well, Skyrim is about as bad as gaming can get. W3 is clear above that, but still very mediocre.
Spiritwalker
Member
It feels boring, floaty and inaccurate. With significantly better combat I'd probably finish the game.
I think there still needs to be a general discussion on how western developers never really figured out how to do melee combat the same way Japanese developers do melee combat. God of War got sort of close to the Devil May Cry formula but that's it.
And for the developers making modern AAA RPGs the problem is worse. Companies like BioWare, Bethesda, and CDProjekt come from the tradition of CRPGs, which in terms of design priorities probably sit at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from something like Devil May Cry. Dragon's Dogma was made by people who worked on DMC. Today's big-budget western RPGs are descended from games that were mostly isometric and/or turn-based. The Witcher was originally gonna be totally isometric and control more like Diablo. The equivalent would be asking someone like Shu Takami (Ace Attorney) to develop a first person shooter. You know that's not gonna get the same result as a company like id Software.
But the reason those developers didn't just stick to what they knew is because they made their games in the mainstream console market, which right now basically dictates that big-budget RPGs be single-character real-time action games. Only Bioware has managed to keep its games party-based with the ability to pause during combat. People criticize Dragon Age Inquisition for "hold button to constantly attack" but it's not an action game. It's closer to a turn-based system in that regard.
And for the developers making modern AAA RPGs the problem is worse. Companies like BioWare, Bethesda, and CDProjekt come from the tradition of CRPGs, which in terms of design priorities probably sit at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from something like Devil May Cry. Dragon's Dogma was made by people who worked on DMC. Today's big-budget western RPGs are descended from games that were mostly isometric and/or turn-based. The Witcher was originally gonna be totally isometric and control more like Diablo. The equivalent would be asking someone like Shu Takami (Ace Attorney) to develop a first person shooter. You know that's not gonna get the same result as a company like id Software.
But the reason those developers didn't just stick to what they knew is because they made their games in the mainstream console market, which right now basically dictates that big-budget RPGs be single-character real-time action games. Only Bioware has managed to keep its games party-based with the ability to pause during combat. People criticize Dragon Age Inquisition for "hold button to constantly attack" but it's not an action game. It's closer to a turn-based system in that regard.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
The one thing that drove me batshit crazy was the targetting. I hated fighting a mob and Geralt would sometimes target the guy in the middle of the mob and it would lead to cheap hits.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
This is what I like about the combat.
You have to have a bit of planning for some things, for others you have to think on your feet and play defensively.
Witcher 2 was very similar on the harder settings though, so I'm not sure why the reaction was so loud this time around.
People focus on the action side, but I actually felt it was the RPG aspects of TW3s combat that failed it. Builds and leveling aren't fun, for example. I don't feel a Geralt who levels sword abilities instead of putting points into potions becomes a different fighter. The way the devs handled the lack of level scaling was very poor as well, with arbitrary handicaps for being too underleveled that suddenly disappear and the monster is much easier just by gaining a single level. Too many side quests are high above your level. The beginning of the game is poorly balanced against the player, then the middle feels appropriate, like your skill is coming into play in deciding whether you defeat the enemy. But then soon you're over leveled and it's too easy. And having to pause and reapply oils...ugh.
For what it's worth, TW3 and Bloodborne both suffer from a similar problem: too many enemies are susceptible to the same basic tactics. In Bloodborne most enemies/bosses are easily killed by baiting in the midrange, dodge towards, punish, dodge out. In TW3 its Quen and quick attack spam.
For what it's worth, TW3 and Bloodborne both suffer from a similar problem: too many enemies are susceptible to the same basic tactics. In Bloodborne most enemies/bosses are easily killed by baiting in the midrange, dodge towards, punish, dodge out. In TW3 its Quen and quick attack spam.
Cheesyhobo
Member
The problem with TW3's combat is the enemy variety and design. Practically every enemy (bandits, nekkers, drowners, wolves, banshees...) seems to have no tactic or attack other than charging straight at you, which is what makes the combat extremely repetitive and predictable. You can say that Souls games have the same dodge - attack loop, which is true in a very general sense, but they usually have several attacks in their arsenal and combo variations that keep you on your toes and lend some unpredictability to combat.
Ifrit is the one enemy I can recall in TW3 that actually has a variety of attacks and is exciting to battle.
Ifrit is the one enemy I can recall in TW3 that actually has a variety of attacks and is exciting to battle.
Well, fighting against 10 different enemy types at the same time and using the whole "arsenal" of attacks building combos feels great. Cant say the same about Witcher. Combat was okay.
Callibretto
Member
Sleeping Dog has fun and satisfying melee combat in open world game. And I hear Dragon Dogma also has amazing combat although I haven't had the change to play it.
Anyway, my problem with witcher combat is simply that it's not changing much throughout the game. I never felt like my Geralt is getting stronger too because Witcher 3 had the most baffling character upgrade system ever in RPG. You level your character and spent skill point on abilities but can only activate 4 of them at a time. What kind of rpg does that.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Witcher 3 came out around the time people had experienced Bloodborne's amazing combat, and tried playing it in similar fashion (or expected similar combat risk/reward system).
Instead of a deep combat system, we got "Mash A for Awesome!"
Instead of a deep combat system, we got "Mash A for Awesome!"
This doesn't have anything to do with the combat system, but it is spot on!
On topic I liked the combat, and the variety.
Solaire of Astora
Death by black JPN
For me, it just felt incredibly clunky. I hate to be the billionth person to draw comparisons to souls/bloodborne, but in reality, those games have excellent, responsive combat, and coming hot off the heels of bloodborne, it was hard to look past the witcher's combat.
I get that not every game has to have souls combat, and the witcher's is certainly several steps above the likes of skyrim's terrible weightless combat, but given how often you fight in the witcher, it's hard to look past.
Funnily enough, I think the witcher would indeed benefit from a similar control scheme and responsiveness as souls/bloodborne. Instead of weapon transformation, the same button would switch between Geralt's swords. Locking the view behind Geralt's back when locked on would be nice too. You could still move the camera freely when not locked on.
It doesn't need to be as "hardcore" as bloodborne's combat either. Just a bit more responsive. I don't think that's an unfair criticism, given that GTA games are similarly unresponsive when on foot and they get criticized for that accordingly.
The magic, dismemberments and bombs are all fine, and the witcher does pretty much everything else perfectly outside of combat, but I do find it a bit of a chore to play because of said combat and on foot controls. I still haven't finished it as a result. I can live with the unresponsiveness outside of combat as I find the writing and world building to be incredible, but I only tend to play for a few hours before shelving it for a while. The world pulls me in, the combat pushes me away.
I get that not every game has to have souls combat, and the witcher's is certainly several steps above the likes of skyrim's terrible weightless combat, but given how often you fight in the witcher, it's hard to look past.
Funnily enough, I think the witcher would indeed benefit from a similar control scheme and responsiveness as souls/bloodborne. Instead of weapon transformation, the same button would switch between Geralt's swords. Locking the view behind Geralt's back when locked on would be nice too. You could still move the camera freely when not locked on.
It doesn't need to be as "hardcore" as bloodborne's combat either. Just a bit more responsive. I don't think that's an unfair criticism, given that GTA games are similarly unresponsive when on foot and they get criticized for that accordingly.
The magic, dismemberments and bombs are all fine, and the witcher does pretty much everything else perfectly outside of combat, but I do find it a bit of a chore to play because of said combat and on foot controls. I still haven't finished it as a result. I can live with the unresponsiveness outside of combat as I find the writing and world building to be incredible, but I only tend to play for a few hours before shelving it for a while. The world pulls me in, the combat pushes me away.
gamingPotato7
Member
Its kinda weird. But I played around 40 hours and battles were actually fun most of the time. I was playing on hard. It gives meaning to each fight, you have to either prepare well or use the "spells" effectively. Everyone should play on hard. I really have to get back and continue my playthrough, I even have all the dlcs. Anyway its not Bloodborne, but its fun in its own way. A lot of people compared the two due to the gotys. I thought BB was robbed lol but I can see why TW3 deserved the praise even though I personaly think BB is the greatest work of art ever created
It feels unresponsive. The animations are entirely too long and attacks have no weight to them. The difference between a light attack and a strong attack are merely just longer animations and damage numbers. Sometimes my attacks would miss as well but I think that's because Geralt would do this little twirl almost everytime he went to attack and enemies would dodge out of the way. I know everyone compares it to souls but honestly it should play like Dragon's Dogma. If W3 controlled as well as Dragon's Dogma, the game would be amazing because combat would actually be fun instead of a chore.
I think they are just comparing it to something that is good. I think a better comparison is Dragon's Dogma. DD is how you do open world combat.
I think they are just comparing it to something that is good. I think a better comparison is Dragon's Dogma. DD is how you do open world combat.
XANDER CAGE
Member
I really like The Witcher 3, and for what it's worth I didn't dislike the combat, but it had some annoying quirks. The major one for me is the same problem 2 had: Geralt is just sort of unwieldy and unpredictable. It can be difficult to know which attack animation is going to come out of him sometimes - is he going to pirouette, for example? The group combat's loose Arkham-ish targeting was a bit clunky too. In general Geralt just feels a bit weightless, even outside of fights. FWIW I think the basic walking/running animations are a way bigger problem than the combat, but I guess that's not here nor there. It's serviceable, just not anything to write home about.
Basically it felt like looking cool was prioritized over controlling consistently.
Basically it felt like looking cool was prioritized over controlling consistently.
Ivory Samoan
Member
I'm with you on this, although my enjoyment of the combat was enhanced immensely once I notched the difficulty up to Death March on my first playthrough (restarted too).
Utilising all your resources and the fluidity of the combat is amazing IMO, absolutely love the sign/mutagen/rune/glyph systems as well.
anothertech
Member
If MMO's count, Black Desert and Blade and Soul put it to shame.
If single player only, all the Infamous games.
That said I loved it. The combat was fun and a decent challenge in some areas. Not sure why people complain about it so much. The writing was so god tier the combat was less of a focus than the story and it was refreshing TBH.
Oh what I would do for a game with Black Desert level combat and Witcher 3 level writing. Get chills just thinking about it.
Resident4t.
Member
I loved it, but I played it like Monster Hunter where you learn the different attack patterns of monsters. Then I would try not to get hit once in an encounter and rarely defend.
I understand people not liking the combat, but it isn't objectively bad like some people make it out to be.
It's still the best game of this generation though. (So far)
I understand people not liking the combat, but it isn't objectively bad like some people make it out to be.
It's still the best game of this generation though. (So far)
toastyToast
Member
The main thing is that the attacks are context sensitive and you have no idea what Geralt is about to do. If it was a basic XXX,XYXX, blah blah combo system like God of War and such it'd be a billion times better. That and increase his movement speed while strafing. Also a stinger attack because all action games need a stinger attack.
How the magic and stuff works is solid it's the melee system that lets it down.
How the magic and stuff works is solid it's the melee system that lets it down.
Man, I really want to like this game, because other than the combat I am having a great time.
2 things really did it in for me.
1. The attack animations are random and I didn't really feel like the game gave me any feedback from attacking.
2. The actual level and ability system didn't feel fun either. Allocating the abilities to slots and obvious bad tree choices never felt like a lot of growth or difference in anything.
Man, I hope that Cyberpunk has tighter game mechanics, because the story and atmospheres they create are so good.
2 things really did it in for me.
1. The attack animations are random and I didn't really feel like the game gave me any feedback from attacking.
2. The actual level and ability system didn't feel fun either. Allocating the abilities to slots and obvious bad tree choices never felt like a lot of growth or difference in anything.
Man, I hope that Cyberpunk has tighter game mechanics, because the story and atmospheres they create are so good.
Neoleo2143
Member
Animations overrided button commands in a way that wasn't satisfying. Enemies felt like Sponges a lot of the time.
There's a lot of useless components to combat because the base of combat isn't interesting nor do they flow out of each other well. The aforementioned game feel takes its toll here. Potions and traps add tedium rather than create interesting scenarios. Quen is ridiculously overpowered. Just tone down health Values for both sides in general and up damage values. Open world combat IMO should focus on being swift interludes between navigation, exploration and puzzle solving so keeping it deadly on both sides makes it better paced because it ends quickly.
The Leveling curve of the action RPG is a huge part in why I dislike the genre aside for stuff like Ni-Oh. Leveling has an incredibly bad habit of utterly breaking game balance in ARPGs. It's extremely difficult to balance that system on its own much less in an open world. That's why the game is so easy.
More games ought to try to be like Zelda and have base combat with little to no leveling because most games simply cannot handle the balance needed. Hell, even Breath of the Wild actually has one button melee combat but it's more likely to have overall better combat than Witcher 3 because it's going to feel good, it's going to have more relevant variety and the system is less likely to simply break in two due to leveling mechanics.
There's a lot of useless components to combat because the base of combat isn't interesting nor do they flow out of each other well. The aforementioned game feel takes its toll here. Potions and traps add tedium rather than create interesting scenarios. Quen is ridiculously overpowered. Just tone down health Values for both sides in general and up damage values. Open world combat IMO should focus on being swift interludes between navigation, exploration and puzzle solving so keeping it deadly on both sides makes it better paced because it ends quickly.
The Leveling curve of the action RPG is a huge part in why I dislike the genre aside for stuff like Ni-Oh. Leveling has an incredibly bad habit of utterly breaking game balance in ARPGs. It's extremely difficult to balance that system on its own much less in an open world. That's why the game is so easy.
More games ought to try to be like Zelda and have base combat with little to no leveling because most games simply cannot handle the balance needed. Hell, even Breath of the Wild actually has one button melee combat but it's more likely to have overall better combat than Witcher 3 because it's going to feel good, it's going to have more relevant variety and the system is less likely to simply break in two due to leveling mechanics.
truestatic
Member
Highly breakable, depending on build. Small degree of variation in strategy based on monster variety. One input can result in one of a number of different animations, of two different types depending upon context (they could be a simple attack if in range, or a closer if out of range). Even though there were really only two types of light attacks, there were enough animations for each that people found the controls unpredictable, and felt like the game would do a 'closer' when they wanted to just do a regular attack. Quen took the threat out of almost every situation.
People felt like oils rather than being interesting ways of creating variety, were just dull upkeep that adding nothing mechanically.
People felt like oils rather than being interesting ways of creating variety, were just dull upkeep that adding nothing mechanically.
It's excessively clunky in service to it's animations. Geralt is very plodding and deliberate, and that translates to a character that you really wish was more responsive, especially when you're asked to dodge specific tells in that game. That game's combat also gets real fucking weird when you throw the Axii sign in the mix or have to fight with AI companions.
It's what I imagine it would feel like if Rockstar made a sword fighting game.
It's what I imagine it would feel like if Rockstar made a sword fighting game.
Skyrim's combat got ripped to shreds on gaf, even moreso than Witcher 3 with a lot of comparisons drawn to Dark Souls.
I found it to be very fun myself. I mostly run a magic build spamming Igni and Aard with most points invested in improving them and it was a blast. I also tried a bombs build but it seemed very slow and had to meditate a lot to replenish them. The swords builds didn't seem so fun, but I still haven't tried all the variants to be honest.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Mmm yes, I agree whole heartedly. I enjoyed the methodical nature of combat, it fit the tone of the game really well. You have to come prepared and juggle the resources you have to come out on top. I, opposite of you, invested heavily into Signs and still loved it.
I couldn't get into Witcher 2 because of the clunky controls and and the over-complicated menus, but I'm now 25 hours into 3 and really enjoying it.
The combat isn't particularly strong but it doesn't get in the way, either. Like Skyrim, the game is about soaking in the atmosphere and setting. I feel the combat is at least as strong as Skyrim's, which is only fun if you play stealth archer (which also makes the game way too easy fairly quickly). The skill tree in Skyrim is much better, but also incredibly easy to abuse. All in all, I don't consider the combat to be a dealbreaker given the excellent quest design.
The combat isn't particularly strong but it doesn't get in the way, either. Like Skyrim, the game is about soaking in the atmosphere and setting. I feel the combat is at least as strong as Skyrim's, which is only fun if you play stealth archer (which also makes the game way too easy fairly quickly). The skill tree in Skyrim is much better, but also incredibly easy to abuse. All in all, I don't consider the combat to be a dealbreaker given the excellent quest design.
Never had that problem on PC. Is this a console issue?
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
DM starts difficult but around lvl 8 or so it ends up a cakewalk again because the encounters are just repetitive and pose no challenge. Opponents always give you room to breathe, they hardly have combos or follow up strikes and the rotations are super basic. You can fight every opponent the same way and even monsters way out of your league are only difficult because they are huge damage sponges.
People resort to button mashing because even if you look for a challenge the game doesn't present one.
Already Torn
Banned
It's clunky and shallow. So at best it feels too repetitive and simple to be engaging (the ol' Qwen and dodge works far too well on the hardest difficulty), and then you often get attacked because of poor control rather than a player mistake. These problems were highlighted because it reased soon after Bloodborne, which is the best game ever made.
Ooh, I agree with people saying that the hits had no satisfying impact too. That would have gone a long way if they could have made attacking feel good.
Ooh, I agree with people saying that the hits had no satisfying impact too. That would have gone a long way if they could have made attacking feel good.
The game feel is stiff and sluggish and lacks the satisfying umph n crunch you want from a melee driven combat scheme. The encounter designs are fairly simple minded and rarely mix up their enemy types together until like the expansions. The camera in closed spaces or caves can be cumbersome and becomes more annoying on higher difficulties where enemies can become prolonged borefests.
And then the difficult balance is non existent; you are basically op for most of your quests before you hit novigrad even on death march.
The games presentation and world are stellar; but the gameplay has plenty of smaller and larger drawbacks that could have been addressed.
And then the difficult balance is non existent; you are basically op for most of your quests before you hit novigrad even on death march.
The games presentation and world are stellar; but the gameplay has plenty of smaller and larger drawbacks that could have been addressed.
Similar threads
- Poll