Is witcher 3 has worst combat ever?

[Amaror]

No obviously not. In fact I personally find it to be very enjoyable. It's not very complicated, but just engaging enough to be a good time throughout the whole, very long, witcher 3 experience.
As others have said if you truly think that the witcher 3's combat is "The Worst Combat ever" you can't have played more then a couple of games in your life.
If you want to know which combat I personally consider done much much worse just look at Dragon Age Inquisition. In the Witcher 3 you at least have to dodge, in Inquisition you stand still clicking the same 1 - 4 buttons over and over again until your enemies fall down.
Still I can see why some people would dislike the Witcher 3's combat and some people would like Inquisitions combat.
I also watched you video and it comes across a bit strange. I do agree on the point that the difficulty scaling isn't exactly the best, which is exactly one point they severly improved in the expansion for this very reason, so I do give him that point.
His two earlier criticism of the controls, however, are pretty pathetic. You look with the camera to the enemy that you want geralt to focuss on. It's not rocket science and he makes it out to be some criptic thing that the player doesn't have any control over. Additionally he criticises that Geralt would attack a far away enemy when focussed on said enemy and, of course, neglets to mention that you just press the movement keys into the direction of the enemy you want to attack in order for geralt to attack said enemy. It's not that hard to get.
But hey, if you don't like the game for it's combat, just don't play it maybe. Other people disagree with you and like the game very much. Accept it, not everyone has to share your opinion

 

[Yopaz]

No RPGs really have good combat. Even Dank Souls is blatantly inferior to many 90s/early 2000s FPS games, let alone compare it to the Strategy genre elite.

Witcher 3 has good for an ARPG combat. Serviceable, good. It did not stop other parts of the game from being really good.

And no, it is not overrated. Gaming as a medium is (and the Witcher games are inferior to the books) but that is another topic.

I agree that most RPG has terrible gameplay. they are praised because of RPG elements, story, universe but not because of gameplay.
old school FPS games shits all over RPGs when it comes to gameplay.

Sooo this is basically ANOTHER thread created to praise old school FPS. We get it. You like old school FPS. Also, you should really check your thread title for grammar mistakes before you post.

I understand english isn't everyone's first language, but this thread title is rustling my jimmies more than anything else today; you do realise you can edit it, right? I am just gonna try and drink away the memory of reading this thread. The more brain cell deaths, the better.

You and me both.

OT: No, there are plenty of games with worse combat. We got quick time events, we got broken and buggy combat, we have combat that is treated as an afterthought in story driven games we got turn based combat with a lot of waiting in-between to make the attacks look powerful and cool (which they do the first two times you see them, but not when you see them 30 times during one boss fight) and laggy combat in free crappy online games.

 

[laggyteabag]

I agree that most RPG has terrible gameplay. they are praised because of RPG elements, story, universe but not because of gameplay. old school FPS games shits all over RPGs when it comes to gameplay.

Apples to oranges. A game like The Witcher 3 and a game like Doom are nothing alike, so you can only really compare the game's combat in a way that you find to be more "fun", not which combat system is objectively better or not. If you were to compare something like The Witcher 3 to something like Skyrim, it would be a better comparison (TW3 would win in that instance, by the way), or something like Doom vs Battlefield, but comparing The Witcher to Doom is like saying that the gameplay in Call of Duty is better than the combat in Mortal Kombat. It just doesn't work like that.

OT: No, it isn't. There are way worse example of third person melee combat in games, and compared to most, The Witcher 3 is way better than a lot of them. Just because the combat isn't great in a game, doesn't mean that it is literally the worst combat in anything ever. Personally, The Witcher's combat is a lot better than a game like the previously mentioned Skyrim, or Assassin's Creed, for example, because at least the game's combat requires a little more attention than Block+Counter or attack, attack, attack, and has a lot more depth to boot, even if it isn't as deep as a lot of other experiences.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well no, since The Witcher 2's combat was 10 times worse.

The Witcher 3 let's you kill your enemies with direct attacks, dodges and parries. Nothing more, nothing less. This is more than I can say for The Witcher 2. Which by the way, have I mentioned yet how much that game's combat sucks? Because it does. A lot.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Yeah I watched this guy's other videos, and he seems like a complete asshole. Pass.

 

[RedDeadFred]

No. Pretty sure that goes to Road Redemption.

Witcher 3 combat IMO is adequate or maybe even good. Sword combat actually feels pretty fluid now, and signs are like a Swiss army knife in that some work better on certain creatures than others. Alchemy can turn you into an unkillable monster if you use the right decoctions.

The only real knock of I have against the combat is that it's too easy. I'm not really sure why you made thi.... oh. It's another one. Never mind.

 

[Ryallen]

That's an inherently false statement, as not only is it impossible for something to be the worst at something ever, but there have been so many other worse games with so much worse combat taking up even more of the spotlight in the game. Witcher 1, for example, is worse in my eyes because it's just mash the attack button until everything falls down. No nuance, no strategy, just put on your big boy pants and tank and spank. And, again, that statement isn't true because it's simply not possible. Nothing can be objectively the worst because people are not objective things and details such as quality are not objective in nature.

 

[The Enquirer]

Finally got around to playing it at a friend's house not too long ago. I found the combat to be good. It wasn't revolutionary but then again neither was Mass Effect. Or KOTOR. Hell, most military shooters nowadays rely on the most basic mechanics. With RPG's it's usually about crafting your play style and crafting the story. Combat in these types of games needs to be functional and have as very few bugs as possible. The Witcher does all that pretty well.

On a side note it's statements like this that make me think you didn't really want to have a discussion, just put people down who disagree with you.

come on my dear friend, it seem like you have not played much games if you think witcher 3 combat is any good. even those who give it GOTY think its combat suck but they love story, presentation stuff.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Finally got around to playing it at a friend's house not too long ago. I found the combat to be good. It wasn't revolutionary but then again neither was Mass Effect. Or KOTOR. Hell, most military shooters nowadays rely on the most basic mechanics. With RPG's it's usually about crafting your play style and crafting the story. Combat in these types of games needs to be functional and have as very few bugs as possible. The Witcher does all that pretty well.

On a side note it's statements like this that make me think you didn't really want to have a discussion, just put people down who disagree with you.

and urgency.come on my dear friend, it seem like you have not played much games if you think witcher 3 combat is any good. even those who give it GOTY think its combat suck but they love story, presentation stuff.

I respect your opinion my friend but its factually correct that witcher 3 combat is not very good.

 

[DarklordKyo]

As for 3rd one... I just don't understand. 2nd one(director's cut or whatever version with combat improvement mod on it) had slightly better combat... How did it got worse?

That mod has to be added in, it's not in by default. Secondly, how can Witcher 2 have better combat if it doesn't have a hard lock? (seriously, most games with hack and slash combat pretty much need a hard lock, especially one that increases damage when attacked from behind).

 

[DementedSheep]

No where near the worst combat ever. It's not brilliant but I don't find it particularly clunky. It responds when you tell it to, it just has a wind up animation time you need to compensate for and that is perfectly fine. I found it kinda rhythmic once you get into it. The biggest problems were the target flicking (but to be fair that's a problem I've had with many many games and is largely my fault) and that it gets easy and repetitive.

 

[Souplex]

lol another troll thread?

Come back next week folks, for B-Cells next "worst ever and totally not hyperbole", thread.

Now there's a subject for "Worst ever" debate.

 

[laggyteabag]

I respect your opinion my friend but its factually correct that witcher 3 combat is not very good.

Factually? No, not even close. Your feelings on the combat in The Witcher 3 are subjective, nothing more. It may be a widely held opinion that the combat in The Witcher 3 isn't 10/10 amazing, but by no means does that make it factual in any way, shape, or form.

 

[RJ 17]

B-Cell, I've come to notice that there are a number of issues with the majority of the topics that you make. Firstly: most of them are "Is (x) the worst thing ever?" No. It never is. It never has been, and it never will be. I'll elaborate on this more in a moment. Now, if you don't like it then that's fine, you're not obligated to enjoy everything that comes out, but just because you don't like something doesn't objectively mean that it's terrible. You'll find just as many people that disagree with you on this matter - which cannot be objectively proven one way or the other - as you will that agree with you.

But this brings up the next issue: almost all of your topics ask the question "Is (x) the worst thing ever?" Then when people answer that question by saying "No, it isn't, I think this game did it worse", you immediately say something like this:

I respect your opinion my friend but its factually correct that witcher 3 combat is not very good.

Why do you bother even asking if you're so certain that you're correct? You clearly don't care about the opinions of others despite saying that you respect them, so why bother saying such a placation when it's clearly not true? A sensible person would ask "Is The Withcher 3's Combat The Worst Combat Ever?" to see if anyone can point out any merits to the combat that you haven't thought of, thus granting the person asking the question a new perspective to view the material in a different light. But that's not what you do with any of your topics. You tell anyone that disagrees with your perception that they're factually wrong. Evidently you're someone that's simply obsessed with having people agree with your own subjective opinion.

Which leads into yet another issue: all the questions you ask are entirely subjective. "Worst Combat Ever" is not something that can be factually determined. Due to personal tastes and biases, any given combat system - using this topic as an example - can have plenty of people who thoroughly enjoy it. They're not wrong for liking the combat, just as you're not wrong for disliking it. I haven't even played The Witcher 3, but I can tell you that there isn't a chance in hell that I could find its combat system to be worse than, say, FF13's combat system. Or how about The Division with it's generic cover-based shooter mechanics against cloned bullet sponges?

In short: almost every topic you make boils down to "I hate this thing and if you don't hate it too you're wrong." And that's stupid. Just plain-old, ignorant stupidity. But this is the internet, after all, and so there's plenty of people just like you out there. I write this in hopes that you might take this into consideration and become more diplomatic when you want to discuss the pros and cons of a game. But what do I know? I'm just some random jackass on the internet as well.

......oh, and from what I've heard from people around the forum, your lack of consistency when it comes to punctuation, grammar, and capitalization combined with your habit of saying "my friend" tend to get annoying.

Have a pleasant day.

 

[Fox12]

No RPGs really have good combat. Even Dank Souls is blatantly inferior to many 90s/early 2000s FPS games, let alone compare it to the Strategy genre elite.

Witcher 3 has good for an ARPG combat. Serviceable, good. It did not stop other parts of the game from being really good.

And no, it is not overrated. Gaming as a medium is (and the Witcher games are inferior to the books) but that is another topic.

...

I can't decide if you're being serious or not. Well done.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Trolling trolling trolling, every day you're trolling, soon there's no one left here to troll! The site is all, but shut down, your last site is a ghost town, and now you're at the end of your line.

Lala

are you from GT my friend?

 

[F-I-D-O]

Below Death March, the combat is a way to progress through the story (since people can like games for more than the stabby bits).
It's simple, and has a clear dominant strategy in on-level fights: Quen and dodge. When fighting enemies higher level on higher difficutly, you have to learn new ways of using your skills. Granted, I build light armor, so that could be me.

And the simplistic nature makes hunting monsters interesting, as they all have weaknesses and strengths, meaning tactics adjust slightly based off of the enemy, playing in to the whole "master monster hunting" fantasy.
But the combat itself isn't the interesting fact of encounters, imo (Granted, tossing a bomb into twelve people and seeing them all explode is fun). The preparation and balance of potions and decoctions through fights was really satisfied once I bothered to look at what I'd been crafting. I had a great 45-minute duel with an archgriffen 5 levels higher than me on an abandoned island in Skellige that I still bring up to people when mentioning W3. Yeah, clicking LMB and RMB wasn't really the best. But the fight itself turned into am missive event, as I balanced my limited resources and weakness against a huge enemy.
The surrounding atmosphere, environment, and sound design of battles are just as interesting as every other part of the combat system, and can make shallow systems incredible to play. Looking at something in a visual medium through mechanical isolation doesn't do it justice.

I respect your opinion my friend but its factually correct that witcher 3 combat is not very good.

Fact (/fakt/) noun: a thing that is indisputably the case
opinion (/e'pinyen/) noun: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

Those are two different words, B-Cell. Please stop using them interchangeably.

 

[Fox12]

No RPGs really have good combat. Even Dank Souls is blatantly inferior to many 90s/early 2000s FPS games, let alone compare it to the Strategy genre elite.

Witcher 3 has good for an ARPG combat. Serviceable, good. It did not stop other parts of the game from being really good.

And no, it is not overrated. Gaming as a medium is (and the Witcher games are inferior to the books) but that is another topic.

...

I can't decide if you're being serious or not. Well done.

I am serious. RPGs are a great genre... but that ain't due to their combat. Strategy games and some shooters though... yeah.

Yes Witcher 3 combat is good for the genre. The actual game is incredible.

And yes, the Witcher books (and literature as a whole) are superior to the Witcher games (... and gaming as a whole).

As a massive strategy fan, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. I thought the gameplay in the Soul's games was incredibly nuanced. By comparison most shooters seem really bare bones to me. The only one that stands out is ghost recon.

I don't think literature is innately superior to gaming, but it's been around longer, so the quantity of good work is much larger. It helps that literature is more accessible then film or game development. One could argue, for instance, that literature is better then film because there are more classics in the medium. However, in terms of quality, film has already proven itself equal to literature. In time games will do likewise.