Combat in the game - general discussion

[fleshbits]

Combat in the game - general discussion

I just got the game tonight, and well.. I am wondering if I should take it back. Is combat always just a matter of click,pause,click,pause,click? There doesn't seem to be any special kinf of control in combat except when you click. I was hoping for something a bit more tactical, like jump, dodge, block, parry, sweep, stab, etc. I see that there is a hit the wsad key twice to dodge, but it really doesn't seem to do much. Is there more to it?Thanks!

 

[watchdog]

Well, you can use signs, you can roll away with the double wsad, you can change styles (actually you need to do that to survive).This game is mainly about the interaction between characters and combat is quick and deadly.You should play it soem more and you will see if you lik it or not. Combat is not the most important part of the game. This is not a hack and slash, this is a full RPG.

 

[tyranith]

Combat's more strategic than twitch-skill based. It's still an RPG at the end of the day, so if you were expecting acrobatics and swordplay then you should have picked up Jedi Knight instead.You can jump over enemies' heads if you dodge towards them when they're next to you, and there's space - I've found that to be invaluable when surrounded. Attacking the right enemies at the right time with the right stance, switching stances during the melee, and changing position to adapt to the changing situations is surprisingly tactical for such a simplistic system, which is one of the reasons I love it so much. Signs, too, add a lot of tactical flexibility when used correctly.I find combat in this game to be far more fun, involving, and complex than any other RPG I've ever played, so I'm not quite sure where your critique is coming from. If you wanted a tactical challenge why aren't you playing an RTS? o.0

 

[quemaqua]

I find it engaging enough. There are a few people who keep saying they wish it was either like KotoR or something where you basically just sit there and watch, or they wish it was more like Diablo where you just click things to death. I fail to see the appeal of either. This is hardly tactical in the strictest sense, but it adds a lot more tactical consideration than many others do and at least engages you on some level. In the end, I don't think it's all that functionally different from any other style of RPG combat. The differences are fairly minor in the grand scheme of things, and I wouldn't have minded it being slightly more complex, like you say with maybe some more considerations from blocking and dodging, etc., but I don't find the combat off-putting. It's better than most RPGs.Too, you shouldn't judge it too harshly just right off the bat. The game ramps up very slowly. It gets more interesting combat-wise as it goes, what with the addition of signs and alchemy.

 

[tyranith]

I challenge anyone to name an RPG with better combat.

 

[rhian]

I like the combat system in The Witcher, its imho the best - it just needs some bug-fixes =) I hate getting stuck in slashing-loop and not being able to do anything else.

 

[WCG]

OK, how about us old farts who still yearn for the turn-based combat of the past? There's no demo of The Witcher, AFAIK, so I don't know if the combat is something I can handle or not.Basically, I'm completely inept at 'real-time' melee combat. I like to think about my strategy, and I'm not much good at crouching over the keyboard, pushing various keys while maneuvering in the middle of a battle (and at my age, I doubt I'll ever get much better). Unfortunately, this means that I end up buying fewer and fewer games these days.I can handle Morrowind or Oblivion, at least at low levels, though I suppose that's mostly because I just sneak around and shoot enemies with my bow before they even see me. One or two shots, and that's it. At melee,... I can manage, but I'm not very good at it. But I can still play the game - it's not THAT difficult.So how about The Witcher? What do you actually have to DO in combat? I hear that you click once, then wait until the sword flashes (or something), then click again. It sounds simple enough, but I suspect there's more to it than that. Care to fill me in?Thanks,Bill

 

[ebipuam]

I challenge anyone to name an RPG with better combat.uhh oblivion (faaar more immersive) blows it out of the water as it is more like real combat: swing you either hit or miss or hit their shield you might get stunned for a second before you can lift your shield to block their attack. or run back and shoot them with arrows but be wary they might have some powerful magic to throw at you. i would have to say the combat options of WOW are even better than the witcher. hell Id even put FF7 over the withcer just because i loved materia so much. the combat system would be better if it werent so freakin buggy. its like they tried to do the thing from vagrant story (if anyone remebers that game) but just didnt quite get it insync with the 3-d graphics. the animations take too much priority over the actual fightings. so when one gets surrounded geralt just keeps reeling back from blows. ive found that the dodge ability can ususally get you out of this situation but it gets old having geralt just freeze up every other fight. very good game but annoying features make it not worth $50 IMO

 

[quemaqua]

To BillG4 - You suspect wrong. Honestly, that's all there is to it. The difference comes in that you can use either STRONG, FAST, or GROUP combat methods, and the animations are different. But it isn't difficult at all to learn the animations. You'll be seeing them a jillion times, and on medium or easy difficulty you're given a little icon that tells you exactly when to click to continue the combo. Like I said earlier, I think it's a nice marriage of doing something and what really boils down to your character doing the combat for you, but it engages you enough that you have to actually pay attention. In some RPGs, I click the enemy, and then just sort of... watch TV or something until the enemy is dead because I don't have to do anything but maybe keep an eye on my health or cast a spell now and again. Here, at least, it keeps you focused, but it isn't really prohibitively difficult. I wouldn't let that deter you from making the purchase if you think you'll like the game. Even if you totally, utterly sucked at it for some reason (which I doubt), it has 3 difficulty settings and that should more than make up for any personal skill deficiencies on the part of any player.I'm an Oblivion fan, but I'd disagree with Ebipaum here entirely. The combat is generally pretty easy, and a potion or two of the right variety, or a spell at the right time will make short work of even the most gigantic mass of enemies.

 

[ebipuam]

to answer the guys post above me...i think you'd like the combat as you can pause and think about what to do hough all you really need to do is switch "stances" say you have a dagger weilding goon you want to use "fast style" if you have a big ol idiot with a club you use "strong style" there are some annoying features like the "geralt getting stuck and doing nothing technique" though you can dodge out of it it is still ultra annoying. oh and there is the "hit the attack button when the sword flases" thing. its neat and it starts his combo but it makes for a fine opportunity for geral to get stuck. other than that its a cool fighting system but if you want real strategy I would actually go for something like Icewind dale. old as hell but it has a cool combination between turnbased and real time. honestly if youre an older gamer ,though, id go for something like europa universalis 3. different type of game all together but you get to utilize all kinds of political and logistic strategy in running any country from the medieval times. not much to look at graphically but think of it as like a "Risk" style board game on steroids.

 

[ebipuam]

i just meant i think oblivion is more immersive and more like real combat. i dont like having to depend on potions all the time for everything. i mean what about being able to not get hit? thats what makes a good fighter in real life anyway. i mean geralt cant even block. and the auto dodges are all , well, auto. the fighting is easy in this game i just get really pissed when he gets stuck and does nothing especially on those tree things . it shows real lack of game design to let something out on the market with such an obvious hurdle to the game. its not that it makes it unplayable but i like to enjoy games for their fluidity especially with the modern games out there. but honestly the loading and saving times are what kills me. there is absolutely no reason for a game like this to take so long.

 

[tyranith]

I wondered when someone would bring up Oblivion - the combat in that's a joke, it's basically a spreadsheet with a highly transparent (but shiny!) front end. I find it hilarious that everyone seems so taken in with Oblivion's bumpmapped bullshit that they don't realise they're pretty much just playing Arena with a few tweaks. WoW's arguable, but the entire game pretty much revolved around fighting, so its combat had to be good.FF7 didn't even have combat to speak of, the materia system was basically the "stats" of FF7, and you just selected what you wanted to do from a list - wow, engaging. In fact, I consider FF7 to be amongst my favourite games of all time but the one thing I'd never laud about it is the combat.BILLG4: The combat system in The Witcher is realtime but works on a turn-based system, like NWN or BG. Basically the code works on a turn based system, but you watch and play the fight in realtime.What you do is click the mouse button on the target and Geralt starts attacking, when his first combo finishes he'll do a flourish with his sword and on easy and medium difficulty the mouse cursor lights up to show you to click again to perform the next combo (the sword trail flashes orange in hard difficulty, a bit more difficult to spot). Basically you have to time it right - It's a little tricky to get right every time but it's not hard to get the hang of it and the window's pretty big (somewhere in the region of half to a second). You can switch targets after each combo, and you can move Geralt around as well as dodge in any direction by double tapping the movement key or double clicking on the ground in isometric view. Signs add the next level to the combat - they have various effects ranging from damage to mezzes, protection, and even a sign which can turn an enemy into your ally.The skill in combat is more tactical in The Witcher - you have to know what your moves will do (knockback/down, blind, pain, stun, etc) to turn the fight to your own advantage, where to position yourself in a fight, which enemies to attack in what order and whether to spend time drinking a potion. Because you can pause during the combat at any time, you can use it as a panic button - if something unexpected happens, whack the spacebar and analyse your situation, devise some tactics, carry them out, and then pause again and repeat.The stances try and add a tactical level but in reality it's a pretty poor "rock-paper-scissors" system, where one stance is nigh unusable against certain foes.The controls are really simple, and it's a far cry from a twitch game, also, the easy mode makes the combat really easy (without altering anything else), if combat's not your cup of tea.You really shouldn't be getting this game for its combat anyway, it's a secondary thought to the main draw of the game - immersion and story.For an action or fighting game the combat in this game would be second rate. For an RPG it's second to none.

 

[WCG]

Thanks for the quick replies. I think I'll give it a try.And yes, I enjoyed Icewind Dale, as well as Baldur's Gate, etc., since you can pause at any time and issue new orders. And I do like the party-based RPG's best. But variety is the spice of life. I have to admit that I still prefer turn-based combat (or the combat in X-COM: UFO Defense). But then, I like to play a game with one hand on the mouse and another holding a cup of coffee. And while I do like strategy games, I just feel like playing an RPG right now. I get bored with them quickly, so I rarely actually finish a game, but they're still fun. I thought about getting Two Worlds, but I didn't think it would hold my attention long at all. Well, I might try that one later.Thanks again,Bill

 

[tyranith]

You should give UFO:Aftershock and Aftermath a try. They're a little strange but I've found the tactical combat in those games to be nothing short of excellent.

 

[quemaqua]

Christ, again with the Oblivion bashing. We all realize we're playing Arena with a few tweaks. That's what we wanted when we bought it - another Elder Scrolls game. If you don't like the series, hooray for you, but can we stop with the trolling? I don't mean to flame, Tyranith, because your post is otherwise trying to be helpful and such... please don't take it personally. I'm not trying to attack anyone specifically, just kind of getting angry with the anti-Oblivion sentiment around here. One is perfectly capable of liking that game and this one too, and while some don't like it, this forum doesn't need to be an endless stream of critiques about why Oblivion is such a bad game in comparison. Honestly, the two aren't even remotely similar and attempt to achieve entirely different things. But even then, I wouldn't say the combat is a joke. I find it moderately engaging. Far from perfect, but so is what we have with the Witcher (though the alchemy system here is way, way, way better and more useful than Oblivion's, and I think I prefer the way signs/spells work here too).Also to Tyranith, I don't think I'd really call the combat turn based? The individual attacks are automatic, and damage is based on stats and numbers just like everything else, but I still wouldn't call it turn based. Given that you can interrupt monster attacks over and over, dodge and recommence attacking, stop in the middle of a combo to move or drink a potion/use a sign, etc., I'd say this is very much action oriented. It just feels not too different from turn based because the animations are of exact length and the fighting isn't overly freeform (and you only have to click once to perform several attacks in succession). Maybe it's just arguing semantics at the end of the day, though, eh? Ebipaum - I'm sure there's a reason for the slow loads and saves, otherwise they wouldn't happen. Hopefully it can be improved, but I'm sure it's a problem because of the way they decided to program it, because of some decision on their part, rather than just pure ineptitude. The system may well be too slow, and we all hope for optimization in the future, but my guess is that it was still a direct result of something they did intentionally for one reason or another that we're just not aware of.And Geralt getting stuck is generally a result of using the wrong kind of combat style. If you try to use strong on something that's fast, it constantly blocks your attacks and interrupts you. Sometimes, those tree things in particular, you can simply get into a bad rhythm where they'll be hitting you and you can't fight, so you have to just dodge and come at them anew from another angle. I really don't see it as a development flaw. From what I can tell, it's part of the game system. I do agree that there should be slightly more feedback for the player about it, though. Some messages seem to pop up now and again with "dodge" or "parry" (I think?), but I always miss them because I'm concentrating on other things. The damage numbers are also very small and hard to read. I'd appreciate it if there were more messages telling me specifically when my attack had been interrupted and such.Bill - I think you could likely play this game one-handed. I've been up late the last week, and just last night had a cup o' joe just about glued to my hand. I think I had about 5 cups over the course of my evening play session? Yikes. Also, the game has two camera setups - one that heavily resembles Baldur's Gate with an isometric kind of view, and another with over-the-shoulder. With the first method, you can move around by clicking (though I don't think you can dodge this way... but it's really only during particularly tough, rare combats that you really need to do this).

 

[coelocanth]

BillG4: one thing to be aware of is that when paused, you can't issue a command for Geralt to carry out when you unpause. What I mean is if you're paused and you think "Oh, I should switch targets and have Geralt attack that guy instead" and then proceed to click on said target while still paused, that command is not stored. Basically, you can use pause to figure your strategy, but you have to perform your actions while the game's running. No queuing up your actions while paused.But if this old fart can do it - and I find the combat in this game is a lot of fun - (I'm 43, btw), then I think anyone can.

 

[coelocanth]

Also to Tyranith, I don't think I'd really call the combat turn based? The individual attacks are automatic, and damage is based on stats and numbers just like everything else, but I still wouldn't call it turn based. Given that you can interrupt monster attacks over and over, dodge and recommence attacking, stop in the middle of a combo to move or drink a potion/use a sign, etc., I'd say this is very much action oriented. It just feels not too different from turn based because the animations are of exact length and the fighting isn't overly freeform (and you only have to click once to perform several attacks in succession). Maybe it's just arguing semantics at the end of the day, though, eh?

Probably it does boil down to semantics, but Tyranith does have a point. The game uses a heavily modified Aurora engine (the same as is used in NWN1 and NWN2), and that engine is based on a turn-based-in-real-time mechanic.

 

[quemaqua]

That's true, but I don't think the combat here is even remotely like anything in NWN (I really don't like those games at all). I don't think they opted to use that particular system. Just because you use an engine doesn't mean you stick to all of its particular details.

 

[coelocanth]

Good point, Quemaqua, and I'll admit the combat is a lot different than NWN combat. The Witcher's is way more involved than NWN's point, click, and wait for the enemy to die. (Note: I'm a fan of both NWN games, but I find TW's combat is much more fun).

 

[tyranith]

I wasn't bashing Oblivion just for the sake of it - I challenged someone to find an RPG with better combat, someone accepted the challenge, made a suggestion, and I argued my case.I think the main reason you'll find people bashing Oblivion in this forum is because people have been looking for a good RPG for years. Oblivion promised that and so much more, but failed to deliver so badly it seriously jaded my view on the video games industry as a whole, and It seems only natural that the forum for the game which restored my faith in CRPGs was the place to rant about the one which destroyed it in the first place.I'm well aware that Oblivion isn't the worst game ever made, and probably not even that bad a game in general. The main reason I have such a problem with it is that I think it could have, and should have, been a game ten times as good as it was, and exactly what I was looking for but it pissed so much potential away to make it an easy-to-swallow blue pill for the console masses and make a bucketload of money.It's the same problem I had with The Transformers movie - a lot of personal interest from myself and many others because of the place it had when we were growing up meant that we'd watch it just because it was a Transformers movie - but the writers and director completely missed the point and failed to deliver, earning it far more criticism than it probably deserved.I already had my rant on Oblivion in this forum a while ago, and was prepared to leave it at that and just take the occasional potshot. So far I haven't ever been the one to bring up Oblivion in the first place, I just reply to it, so you can't exactly say I'm trolling.Back on topic:My point was that the engine is actually turn based, but doesn't really feel it. The devs did a really good job of polishing it so it's not very obvious. You can still see it crop up occasionally though, and you can actually abuse it if you know what to look for. Mechanically it's actually very similar to NWN, but they dressed it up a lot so it's hard to see the resemblance. Basically they made the combat more exciting at the expense of balance - a good decision considering it's a single player game, but in a multiplayer-capable game like NWN, balance is highly important (and remember, it's based on a pen-and-paper RPG).You can dodge in isometric view by the way - you double click the ground in the direction you want, and the WASD keys still work, too.Also, I thought that trying to issue commands whilst paused was actually possible, just extremely unreliable. I find things like attacks work fine but continuing attack chains or casting signs won't work.