What makes The Witcher 3 combat bad?

What makes The Witcher 3 combat bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=A1ZmTEtLs8A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Don't even bother. Most of the people who think its bad probably never played the game.

It's repetitive

Its not bad, its just not anything special.

Every combat system is repetitive if your game is as long as The Witcher

I played it on normal and the game was challenging till I hit lvl 15, after that everything was a cakewalk, by the time I got the master bear set nothing could touch me

nothing

Geralts abilities and moves are good, it's just the enemies that don't really do that much.

It's still pretty good getting the parry > knockdown >finisher kinds of combos, makes the game satisfying.

its AssCreed but more "complex"

its to easy
>Huur PRAY ON DEATH MARCH
that doesn't fix the fact that every fight goes like this
sidestep/attack/attack/wait/sidestep repeat

The floaty ballerina shit.

If he didn't fight like a fucking Jedi it would be fine twirling around and shit.

>that doesn't fix the fact that every fight goes like this
>sidestep/attack/attack/wait/sidestep repeat
actually it's more like
>quen/sidestep/attack/sidestep/attack/sidestep/attack/get hit/quen/sidestep/attack/...

If your game is as long as TW3, maybe you should make an attempt to spice things up?

That's how he fights in the books

the thing i find annoying about it is switching targets is so fiddly

nothing more annoying than having 3 ghouls and lunging past two of them exposing your back because the target selection is fucked

oh and also dodge is a bit too powerful

It's bad because of the softlock

Use the disable softlock mod and it becomes fucking incredible

You get to control the movement of Geralt entirely, you get to control how he swings his sword, and you never get killed or hit the wrong enemy by accident

2 sword gimmick
mindless lmb mashing
all the different options to dodge or deal with an attack that all pretty much do the same shit

Books aren't an interactive medium heavily relying on gameplay mechanics, though.

Theres not really much they could have done with Human enemies.

Geralt by this point is pretty much unbeatable in a melee weapon fight and the only reason you can even fuck up and die against humans is because gameplay.

Literally Ass Creed tear of repetitive, bland fighting, except it's against attack sponges for enemies. Doesn't help that the rest of the game is long and meh as well.

>attacks come out too slow because the devs want cinematic animations
>potions are boring and don't have a big effect on combat besides enemies dying faster
>no i-frames on dodges is great in fights against smaller enemies, but makes fighting big guys a pain
>the movesets that large beasts have are boring because they're designed around no i-frames
>magic is boring
Everything besides combat, copy paste batman vision solutions to every quest, and the crafting system about the game is 10/10 though

Not responsive enough. Playing on PS4 btw.

I mean, there's the potions and signs you can try and combo with. Heavy and light attacks, rolls and sidesteps that both need to be used. It's not perfect, but there's content there.

Soft lock-on is fucked. It is inconsistent and tends to flip flop between enemies for no fucking reason. Hard lock-on restricts the camera too much.

Enemy AI is atrocious even on Death March.

Roll Dodge has no proper I-frames and the game isn't designed with said lack in-mind because the monster/enemy attacks are sometimes too fast to properly dodge ahead of time(all of which is rendered moot a bit if you upgraded quenn or whatever the shield magic was called)

many combat skills regarding sword attacks is worthless because spamming light attack and dodge is enough to carry you through the whole game.

the gap closing attacks Geralt can do in Witcher 2 are gone, making the whole combat feel slower and sluggish.

At least it's vastly better than TW1 and TW2.

>I mean, there's the potions and signs you can try and combo with.

But there's no need to.

nothing

but that's the problem.
It's like a typical turn based JRPG with an attack defend and magic combat list.

There is absolutely nothing special about it.
You might say the potons and debuffs are something, but that's all they are just basic bitch debuffs.

It's so basic, like what I would expect on a checklist of action RPGs, a dodge, a block, a heavy hit, a light hit. And then it has the signs *which were cool, but they were cool for 2 games now* and that's it...
I honestly can't say anything nice about it, and that's a problem.

Also it feels fairly janky.

it's like a 5-6/10 for combat.

>Enemies don't have the slightest chance of fucking with Geralt, especially humans
>reused enemies aka Howler, Fiend, Chort etc or Basilisk, Cockatrice, Wyvern and Forktail
>dodging Fiend/Howler/Chort is as simple as going left because of how small their attack variation and amount of unique attacks are
>every single enemy in the game has a "get out of melee" attack, like how you can't hit some enemies twice in a row but hit->dodge back->hit repeat is an endless cycle of being able to be untouched by an enemy
>Drowners for example always do a jump back->leap forward attack to punish repeat attacks
>gameplay at the beginning is roughly the same at the end, you don't feel much stronger because enemies don't get more challenging/difficult
>different specializations don't drastically change how you play, limitation of being Geralt

Game about a professional monster slayer does a poor job of having unique and special monster encounters.

Stop playing on easy.

As bad as it is it's still better than most other AAA western action RPGs like Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age. This is pretty feint praise though. The whole genre has pretty poor gameplay

>At least it's vastly better than TW1 and TW2.
was it?
I feel like the only problem TW2 had was multiple enemies. but tw3 solves that by giving everything a huge sweep to the blasts *nulifying bombs*.

Personally I had some fond memories of TW2, felt like they were working within their scope and it ended on a nice note where you were at the god like level in the skill tree and had to fight an entire army.

That fucking sphere or whatever of slow down time was amazing at the last bit.

>zero weapon/moveset variety
>severe reduction in range on motion when entering "combat mode" limiting your fighting styles further
>extremely magnetised attacks doing all the work for you
>simple enemies that don't pose a threat (even on death march)
>atrocious hitboxes
>qte style parry system with too wide of a window
>attack spam is encouraged on all but the few enemies that are critically weak to certain elements
>never penalised for attack spamming like you are for using magic

It's trying to be a mixture of Dark Souls and Bamham but sucks at doing what both of them did.

>But there's no need to.
It's also an RPG, wherin you can grind till enemies are trivial, or try and test your skills against higher level enemies. If you never tried stepping up, then you'd never need to use the extra abilities.

>It's not perfect, but there's content there.

That should have been the tag line.

>the combat is bad but is better than these other two games with terrible combat

Why people do this?

Witcher 3 = Cinematic combat = shit.

Soulsborne = Arcadelike combat = godtier.

I pity gamer that wastes time on that interactive movie piece of shit shitter 3.

the problem is that this same logic can apply to DMC: devil may cry.

which it was a decent game in comparison to other western action games, but to the older games it was mediocre.

Actually DMC experimented more and added more than the witcher, infact it tried harder to be fun than the witcher, like they had an exact goal they wanted and they achieved it with aerial combat.

I feel like there isn't enough difference between light attack and heavy attack without investing heavily into making your heavy attack better, but honestly what's the point when you can invest in the light attack and get similar damage more consistently? The perk system doesn't actually change what you can do it pretty much just changes damage. You get no feeling of progression in what you're capable of. I like the game ok but it's no 9/10 game. (the monster animations are straight garbage for the most part)

>Game about a professional monster slayer does a poor job of having unique and special monster encounters.
This so much, and the fact that damage output is tied so close to your level, everytime you come into a town, all the monster bounties are 10 levels above you, so theres no point in even going unless you want to spend 10 minutes chipping away at a ghoul only to die in one hit because of a missed dodge. The problem is that i'll come back at level 20 and I'll have the exact same fight that I would have had at level 10 except the fucker dies faster.

Witchercucks are like skyrimfags of old. They don't play many video games so they don't really have a wide frame of reference.

The Witcher 3 has adequately fun but unremarkable combat, but in a game that is absolutely stellar in every other regard it stands out for the shitposters

>But there's no need to.
Every game got this, its not something unique to bad game mechanics, there will always be a superior strat.

Combat is the only string to DMC's bow though while the Witcher tried to do many different things besides. Arcade-like games in general have superior gameplay to open world games that try to do everything at once since they're much more focused on doing one thing incredibly well.

I honestly just picked up quests and never even bothered looking at them.
in fact I did this so often that 1 out 4 named npcs were a quest member and I would accidently start the encounter.

it goes against everything witchers do. geralt is literally a sword dancer not this hit roll hit dodge whittling away stuff. there's already plenty of good games that do that and do it in much better and fun way.

A game should force YOU to use you abilities, you shouldn't have to force the GAME to make you use your abilities.

So the witcher tried to do everything and only succeeded on something unrelated to game play?

I know I'm blowing it out of proportions but I just think that's funny.

>games where you have to not only manage your inventory but the inventory of shopkeepers as well

>modern western games think this is ok

That's how you fight when you don't have 30 extra lives and a quicksave.

Cause as the bar lowers, so does how high the highs have to go.

When faced with a shit choice and a meh choice you dont go "I WANT A BEST CHOICE!" at an empty wall, you either don't pick either or pick the least worst.

for most games the optimal strategy isn't "mash light attack until everything dies"

>Theres not really much they could have done with Human enemies.

dudes who do combo in one direction forcing you to backstab
dudes who do combo in several direction, forcing you to slide in/slide out to the right position at the right time
spearmen, pikemen, halbedier who arent retarded and try charging at you
armored dude that resist most of his magics
dude that hit n run with range weapons or grenades...
dude that dodge a lot and always work in group to circle you...
The reason why human enemies are so lacking and basic in modern games is because devs want the casual audiences or are cheapass nigga.

That's not the fucking point though you dog(also most games nowadays it is).

Thank god for Dark Souls, eh?

The combat in the Witcher 3 would be better if the Alchemy tree wasn't such a boring waste of space. Most of the abilities you spend points on are passive, doing shit like making it harder to OD on potions or giving bombs more damage.

The combat itself isn't necessarily the problem in the Witcher 3. The problem lies in the fact that you've basically seen all the combat has to offer the second you're given control of Geralt in Velen.

There's no excitement to the combat because at best, you get a nifty looking sword-twirling move in the combat tree, and different Sign abilities in the magic tree, but it's not enough in the grand scheme of things.

They could have done so much with Alchemy to give the combat more layers, but to this day I refuse to make an alchemy build, not because it's ineffective, but because it's a boring as shit build.

Somehow during W3 development I think they just sort of forgot Geralt HAD heavy attacks.

they easily could've
>made more armored foes requiring heavy attacks to hurt
>made heavy attacks case a secondary status ie heavy bleeding, knockdowns and dazes
>comboing light attacks into a heavy blow generates extra adrenaline and unlocks special moves just like in my musou games

You got some good ideas there, but the unfortunate reality is that they made Geralt only fight normal humans, and most of them are dumbass thugs or criminals or zealots with no real combat discipline. If the game had more professional enemies to fight outside of a few specific instances they could have made them more dangerous and still have it make sense.

They cared too much about making it make sense for human enemies to be fun.

The only challenging fight in the game for me even on Death march against Humans is when you assassinate Radovid because its a bunch of armored bodyguards with crossbowmen in support.

Yeah I agree. TW3 combat sucks.

thanks for mentioning this farn, the combat actually feels like it takes skill now

It just gets old, there's only so much intriguing gameplay you can have in a 150+ hour game.
There should have been better monster variety, and more rewarding gameplay for exploiting weaknesses, rather than making literal light attack spam a viable option compared to everything else.

>inb4 hurr Death March

This. Alchemy (and most skills) had too much to do with numbers, rather than adding any tactical elements to combat.

It does. I spam it all the fucking time. You should do it too

I just wish it was more viable to not use signs.

So many monsters are specifically designed to have you use signs against them,

and bombs are just fucking HORRIBLE.

>special effect happens
>enemy is stunned/burned/frozen etc
>don't even fucking notice because they're already dead because of my glorious light attack spam
That's one thing that could've been improved on

They're still salty

How did FO4 get 36? It was fucking terrible.

I'm a little mad that blood borne didn't make it, but something tells me the only reason it even made the list was the hype that darksouls for being so "PREPARE TO DIE" had.

this
jesus fuck fallout 4 was actually broken and unplayable for a long period of time.
In fact a lot of games are having this happen, what the fuck is going on in the industry.

youtube.com/watch?v=A1ZmTEtLs8A

this is kind of relaxing.

Did they turn off the music?

It had the three cardinal sins
>simple
>repetitive
>lack of depth

lmao

I don't like how inconsistent the controls are, but it's probably just me being retarded

I dodge away just fine the first time, but when I dodge away the exact same way the second time the ghoul things just lunge over to me and take a good portion of my health away

It's piss easy once you get it down, regardless of difficulty.

The main issue I hate with Witcher 3 is the lack of control over Geralt's movement, targeting, and attacking.
The softlock system is unnecessary especially for PC and do more harm than good.
Geralt's movement is automatically reduced to shuffling walk in combat mode, while you can't jump anymore and have to sprint to actually move at a decent speed (which takes up vigor resource).
You are pretty much never in control of your movement throughout the game, especially how much delay the animations add up.
And I can't believe how long it took for them to actually implement manual weapon sheathing and unsheathing.

In addition you have barely any control over what types attacks that Geralt will perform, its all auto based on distance, direction, etc. Which means the time it takes for Geralt to attack is inconsistent especially when he decides to overswing with all the fancy spinning. Meaning you can't use any form of anticipation strikes to either clip the enemy or to timing your attacks in a way to hit the enemy at the final point of your attack so you have far more time to transition to your next move.

They also forget that Geralt have various combat stances in the Witcher 1, and the fact he can vault over enemies with the dodge command.

1 and 3 are the same.

maybe they could have tried making heavy stun (but not long enough for another heavy) and light attacks parry causing larger damage if you follow up.

but yeah, I bet they added heavy just for the perception of depth.

Because it's utterly fucking average and you can tell by playing it for less than 5 minutes. It does what every other half competent combat system does except with little finesse and polish. Your dodges can be hit and miss just like your sword strikes and there is literally no depth or extra mechanics on top of dodge or parry and swipe one of two swords. There is some depth from potions but that doesn't actually change the way you fight enemies you just pop them and the variables change behind the scenes.

Not only that but the enemies are utterly fucking retarded I mean half of them will just stand there as you stunlock them or switch between heavy and light attacks and get relentlessly cut into pieces, plus they have a habit of just glitching through you and the enviro sometimes making the combat even worse, I mean it's somewhat competent but it's average and has no preciseness, it has no depth, it has no care as fighting a mudslime kappa feels the same as fighting a giant tree, the more I remember it the shittier it feels. at least the skills and spells are somewhat good.

USE THE DISABLE SOFTLOCK MOD


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Combat is okay for me. The game is not even hard in DM, it's just that all boss enemies:

>are damage sponge
>hit like a freight train
>but only have 2-3 moves, mostly

The boss fights always get repetitive and tedious fast, so I tend to get more reckless to finish it a.s.a.p., which may result in me getting hit. But then, I've never been bothered to use bombs and oils and decoctions in the first place.

Anyway, CDPR really needs to give more moves to the boss monsters to make the fights engaging.

>attacks come out too slow because the devs want cinematic animations
You're supposed to be moving around the battlefield so slow swings sort of force you to not stand still
>potions are boring and don't have a big effect on combat besides enemies dying faster
Most potions are utility to keep you going for longer, they're not supposed to effect anything but yourself, although I'd like black blood to have a small stun chance on it's targets.
>no i-frames on dodges is great in fights against smaller enemies, but makes fighting big guys a pain
You side step small enemies, and dodge roll big enemies to give yourself space, most people forget there is anything but the sidestep
>the movesets that large beasts have are boring because they're designed around no i-frames
I agree, enemies could do with more variety between species, if only to make them distinct.
>magic is boring
It's canonically "magic-lite" so it has to be boring

So GOG just gave me goty edition of Witcher 3. Is there any differences between that and the base game with all DLC?

Enemies have 1 attack pattern.

It's a single download, other than that, no.

good combat

Heres a question I Have to ask.

I bought the fucking season pass for witcher, but I hear all the DLC is free.

what does that mean.

>abusing game limits

Your point being?

That's not really the combat's fault, it's the fault of the agro system. You're standing just outside of their max agro distance, so you can lure them but they just stand there stupidly.

Also stop being a faggot and head shot them, it's an instant kill regardless of health.

it felt really clunky

It means the DLCs are free.
You may be young and never heard of Expansion Packs, but that's what you get to pay for in Witcher3.
Shit like armor skins, horses or haircuts are free, but if you want that extra 20-30 hours of gameplay you pay with the season pass.

the combat in w3 is shit but what you are doing can be done in most any action rpgs

I'd assert there's nothing wrong with the combat (aside from softlock and having to sprint to get anywhere when you're in combat)

but enemy design. By and large you don't have to change up your strategy, tactics, or even timing with most enemies.

personally I would have loved to see stances play into it or make your footing and the angle of your swing meaningful or maybe even make it a Lei-Fei situation where each move might put you in a different stance and each stance has different options but in a game that's 100+ hours long I can kinda see why the wanted to dumb it down.

this right here. Game is asscreed just a little bit better bbut it's still boring as shit

oh so the actual expansions aren't free, good.

>that guy with a huge cigar in his mouth

STOP BREAKING CHARACTER DAVE.

I think that's just confetti or something and the perspective is weird

Playing as a signs specialist has been really fun.

>baiting enemies into healing you with their attacks
>having enemies fight for you
>the constant spray of fire
>100% knockdown with aard (hated this sign before)
>casting a huge yrden and trying to keep your enemies inside of it

It's pretty fun. Maybe you don't have to play that way to win, which is what it seems like people are complaining about, but using the block button to quickly switch signs and having signs use your AP to cast keeps things super fresh. After you get your first few hits in you can constantly cast signs until the end of the fight. My friend had hundreds of hours in the game and didn't ever know about using adrenaline for signs. Maybe some of the people complaining haven't tried it.

Loved the witcher series, but I was able to beat 3 on death match and I'm shit at all games

Bitches and whiners say it's bad. It's just mediocre. It's pretty plain, has nothing special going for it, is overall repetitive, etc. But it's not bad because the majority of RPGs have mediocre combat, and some have combat that is way worse.