Is witcher 3 has worst combat ever?

[lacktheknack]

I can't imagine the absolute hell that would be wanting to live the most dramatic life possible.

You do realize that something can be underwhelming without having to win records in its underwhemling-ness, right?

I mean, you HAVE played Mirror's Edge, right? And that's my favorite game ever made, and I'll still admit the combat in it is pretty much the worst (hence why I don't use it).

 

[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.

Look at my original comment. 90s and early 2000s. Dark Souls looks like some barely moving low skill game with zero depth compared to those things...

I did not say literature is innately superior. It is not. It also is not inferior. It is just.. currently simply better, more advanced and more developed. You share my opinion. I just think I wont live long enough to see it happen.

Have you played dark souls? Slow moving, sure, but quite complex. Which shooters are you referring to? Because every shooter I've seen from that time period was mediocre at best.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

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.

[HEADING=2]Mod Voice[/HEADING]

Guys, if you don't like the threads or posts a certain user makes, put them on ignore or just don't read them.

This isn't constructive towards anything and accusing people of making troll threads, attacking other users, etc. is against the Code of Conduct.

Thanks.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I understand that English likely isn't your first language, but the phrasing is so nonsensical that I can't even tell what level of hyperbole we're working with here. Are you asking if the combat in The Witcher 3 is the worst in the Witcher series, or worst in any game ever?

 

[wulf3n]

I never played the first two Witcher games because I heard about how awful their combat was, but the combat in Witcher 3 is one of the many reasons it fast became my favorite game of all time. In Death March difficulty, the amount of quick-thinking involved in staying alive was (in my opinion) on par with Dark Souls. Unfortunately, you become pretty OP about halfway through Witcher 3, but before you reach level ~15, combat was very Souls-esque in both execution and urgency.

I think the death march difficulty should have had more of a focus on stamina management though. IIRC the only things that drain stamina are running and signs, with attacking, dodging and rolling merely slowing the regeneration down.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Witcher 3's combat mechanics are really, really good in theory -- you have to know your opponents, learn through questing precisely what you're going to fight ahead of time, prepare to face that specific monster, then engage them in a cat-and-mouse of provoking and exploiting openings.

Then the loose, unresponsive controls and random framerate drops (assuming you're playing on anything but a decent PC) kill it.

 

[The Enquirer]

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

I'd like to thank you for proving my point. If you're going to be like this and not actually discuss things with people why the hell did you open the thread or even respond to me in the first place? (rhetorical question).

It's an entirely subjective matter. About the only thing you can factually point out is simplicity or bugs. You're completely entitled to your own opinion on the matter as you clearly dislike the combat system, and that's fine. But have discussion about it man because the way you're trying to steer the conversation makes it boring as fuck to listen to, and again, completely defeats the purpose of the of said discussion.

I mean the biggest critique I had about the combat system was that it could get a little repetitive. Then again so was Mass Effect and that's one of my favorite games because of how story driven it is.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

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.

Look at my original comment. 90s and early 2000s. Dark Souls looks like some barely moving low skill game with zero depth compared to those things...

I did not say literature is innately superior. It is not. It also is not inferior. It is just.. currently simply better, more advanced and more developed. You share my opinion. I just think I wont live long enough to see it happen.

Have you played dark souls? Slow moving, sure, but quite complex. Which shooters are you referring to? Because every shooter I've seen from that time period was mediocre at best.

Yes I have played it.

Unreal and Quake were what I had in mind.

So twitch/movement based shooters are your thing. That's cool.

It still makes it no less bizarre to claim that a single genre has universally better gameplay then another. It's also kind of bizarre to say something 'looks' low skill, when you played it. Does it just look low skill, but it isn't? If that's the case, who gives a damn about what it looks like, barring Lets Players?

On Topic... I have pretty much the same response I always have to any B-Cell thread: You're wrong, it's just your opinion, what is the point in this, and has there ever been a game that you've played that inspired a response besides outright disgust or orgasmic pleasure.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

No. That title goes to oblivion and skyrim.

No that title goes to Dragon Age 2. Remember bosses not dying even at thier last portion of health? because they have to finish their animation/ability before they can die?

But Skyrim can get boring.

 

[MeatMachine]

Witcher 3 combat is not perfect, but the video provided by OP just shows someone complaining about a system they don't understand. His list of concerns I noticed:

• Randomly switching targeted enemies.
• Parry/Dodge, attack, shield, repeat is a cheap combat tactic.
• Other tactics are gimmicky and/or worthless.

Here are my counterpoints:

• You can lock onto a single enemy, or be in free-target mode. Free-target mode focuses Geralt on the nearest enemy that you are facing towards (which is why pointing at other enemies now focuses on them). This helps in gang-fights, especially when surrounded, to continuously strike and quell enemies in different directions. By continuously changing targets, enemies cannot predict you as well to dodge/block, and Geralt stumbles less when hit while performing sideways/backwards attacks. Only attacking enemies you are currently facing is intentionally designed to make Geralt slower and more predictable. If you want to keep trying, though, at least understand the fact that you can actually lock onto a single enemy and change it manually.
• This tactic works against human/elven/dwarven enemies, but by no means against every monster and creature - and doesn't work well in gang-fights either, where you are prone to getting flanked, critted, and stunned frequently. Against single targets, yes, but there are more effective ways than playing purely defensively.
• Igni and Quen are direct, simple spells. They are powerful, and feel satisfying in almost all encounters. Axii, Yrden, and Aard have more subtle effects, but are equally powerful, especially when upgraded/alt-casted. Additionally, I saw absolutely no use of bombs, potions, 4/5 signs, and character skills. Slowing/stunning enemies helps with controlling them, and can land you some powerful crits and bonus effects. Since the guy in the video complains so much about lazy, shallow combat, maybe he should try something than 1 universal approach to every enemy that is far from foolproof.

 

[MysticSlayer]

The only way that any of the Witcher games can be considered to have the worst combat ever is if:

1. You haven't played any of the Elder Scrolls games besides Skyrim. It's also possible you haven't played any action RPGs outside of The Witcher games.
2. You started gaming after the 90s and haven't gone back to play all the early 3D action games.
3. You're lucky enough to have avoided movie tie-in games.
4. You avoid indie games like the plague.

In short: No, not even close. The Witcher games are bad with combat. But the only reason it stands out so much compared to systems ten times worse than them is that they are otherwise well-loved games that tend to win a lot of awards.

 

[Glongpre]

This isn't constructive towards anything and accusing people of making troll threads, attacking other users, etc. is against the Code of Conduct.

Thanks.

Sorry but there isn't anything redeemable about his threads. I am not accusing him of anything, it is quite obvious that he is creating inflammatory topics.

But I agree with you, it isn't constructive towards anything, my apologies good moderator. I shall heed your advice in the future.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

I never played the first two Witcher games because I heard about how awful their combat was, but the combat in Witcher 3 is one of the many reasons it fast became my favorite game of all time. In Death March difficulty, the amount of quick-thinking involved in staying alive was (in my opinion) on par with Dark Souls. Unfortunately, you become pretty OP about halfway through Witcher 3, but before you reach level ~15, combat was very Souls-esque in both execution 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.

the controlling is also terrible. It apears that they design with controller in mind. gerald of rivendale can barely navigate a ladder.

Yeah, I've only been playing video games since my mom and I spent nights battling for high scores in Pitfall on our Atari 2600 back in 1982. What would a newcomer like me know about combat systems? How could someone like me actually have an informed opinion about my subjective taste in video games and the mechanics I enjoy in each?

I'll leave my opinion up to professionals next time.

---------------------------

FOR REALSIES, I still think Witcher 3 had some of the most enjoyable combat of any game I've ever played. I over-leveled at times because I got sucked into running around killing mobs rather than questing.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

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).

Witcher 2 had magical thing called "automatic targetting" that auto targetted enemy you're looking at. Say you are fighting a mob of drowners. You kill one of them, in Witcher 2 you would proceed to take a swing at the next enemy you are looking at(or miss if you don't have one in sight of camera).
In witcher 3 you sometimes take a swing at the enemy which is in sight, but sometimes you target enemy at the side instead of one in sight. I feel that targetting is little off.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Witcher 1 wasn't bad. It used a combo system that obliterated anything foolish enough to get within swinging distance. I didn't like Witcher 2's combat system, felt sluggish and unresponsive by comparison.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

I never played the first two Witcher games because I heard about how awful their combat was, but the combat in Witcher 3 is one of the many reasons it fast became my favorite game of all time. In Death March difficulty, the amount of quick-thinking involved in staying alive was (in my opinion) on par with Dark Souls. Unfortunately, you become pretty OP about halfway through Witcher 3, but before you reach level ~15, combat was very Souls-esque in both execution and urgency.

I think the death march difficulty should have had more of a focus on stamina management though. IIRC the only things that drain stamina are running and signs, with attacking, dodging and rolling merely slowing the regeneration down.

Death March definitely needed SOMETHING later on. It had this sweet spot from levels 5 to (around) 15 in which fights were tense and strategic, and walking away from a large battle in one piece left you with a real sense of accomplishment. Successfully completing the Bitter Harvest quest on-level, in Death March difficulty, using a light-armor/no-sign build is one of my proudest gaming moments.

After level 18, you could perform feats exactly like that while playing the game with your buttcheeks and simultaneously talking to dead relatives on a Ouija board.

 

[Elfgore]

No, not even close. Actually it is so far away it can't even see the worst. I honestly haven't even played the worst myself, there's like thousands of games. Unless I've played them all, I don't think I can say one is the worst ever. I will say the worst I've played was Remember Me's. God that combat was awful.

 

[meiam]

I don't understand how people can even argue that you need to learn enemy pattern, it's entirely pointless. All you need to do is spam attack, after a few attack the enemy will auto counter, so just make sure you have the shield spell on, the counter will always break the shield (on death march at least) so you'll just have to recast it and then go right back to auto attacking (once in awhile you might have to wait for stamina to recharge). This literally work for every single enemy in the game (group of enemy, you can just charm them so they all slaughter each others, otherwise just get them isolated and start spamming). I don't think I've ever used block in the entire game, entirely useless, dodge is only really useful to cancel your attack spam. You can kill enemy far above your level using this too, it's not any harder than normal enemy since shield will always fully block at least one attack, it's just take longer, yeah they kill you in one hit but shield take care of that.

Most other spell/grenade are useless, on lower difficulty everything die in a few sword hit so no point in using them, on higher they do so little damage and are way riskier (you could and should be casting shield instead) for no reason. I think grenade don't even take out 5% of big monster health, so if you absolutely want to use them you'll have to constantly go back and forth in menu. Other than that potion are only useful at reducing the amount of spam (yay! instead of hitting that enemy 500 time I now only need to do it 450 time, game changing!) similar for oil, other than, again you have to constantly open the menu to re ally them, not to mention there's no thinking involve, just use the oil that correspond to the enemy.