I haven't been able to queue up a re-target, drink a potion, move to a different spot, dodge away, or anything while paused.*edit* Actually, I think I'm able to switch swords and sword styles, but that's about it.Tyranith said:
so i guess what we've all learned is that we all have opinions and to try and argue these opinions is futile. FF7 did very much have a combat system yes the materia set the stats but depending on what you had equipped would gauge your sucess at defeating the monster. Oblivion again is more like real combat no fancy spins and leaps. it does get old after abit which is why magic and other aspects of the game keep it interesting. yes WoW had to have a good combat system. i also thenk the witcher has a very combat system as well yet the stuck bugs make it quite annoying as ive mentioned. i understand that stances are crucial in this game but is geralt so much a puppet that if he (I) initiates the wrong stance he (i) just buckles under pressure and stands there. id prefer he just curl up in a ball sucking his thumb. anyway i gotta go
I agree sometimes you can't hit the oponent. I bet you are using the strategic view because I never get stuck with the over the shoulder view, you just need to double hit one movement key to escape this problem. Not at all a problem with this view and even adds more diversity to fights but still a bug to fix.Rhian said:
Quite easy, Gothic 2+NOTR sword fight system. Very sample but incredible depth and fun and it requires time and experimenting to really discover it. You can add Gothic 1 because in fact it's the Gothic 1 system control choice which is the best in Gothic 2. Gothic 3 didn't succeed fully the mutation and result in something too difficult or too complex.Tyranith said:
The strategy comes in when picking the right style and sword, along with alchemy and signs. Do I need a silver sword or a steel one? Is this guy dodging my strong attacks? Maybe I should switch to fast. I'm getting surrounded, maybe I should use group style or dodge out of the way. Maybe I should use a sign for some crowd control. Am I going to be running into undead, ghosts, humans? I bet there's an oil for that. Do they use poison, acid, bleeding attacks? I bet there's a potion for that.
I don't want to brag but I'm almost 100% sure that nobody in this topic played Gothic 1 or 2. Believe me it really worth it and not only for its sword fight system. My advice would be to start with Gothic 2 merged with its addon Nigth Of The Raven because that addon makes a deeper world even deeper and rise the difficulty to the right level so the game will force you learn and discover the great sword fight system. But Gothic 1 is another good choice to start with. I doubt Gothic 3 is a good starting point, impressive stuff, less deep than the 1&2 but much much bigger. Alas probably a fight system too difficult.Tyranith said:I haven't played any of the Gothic series actually, I might give it a go
Totally agree with you but it's strategic level, not tactic level. It's before action or general decision during action eventually during a pause to get think time. Tactics decisions during action is much more reduced.The group style is over powerful and destroy any more tactical approach against groups. Also the long series of chained hit that make hits harder and harder push you to concentrate on chaining click only and not break it by a move or magic use. It's too bad because the game has a strong potential to be more tactical. And in fact I feel that in some cases it's more efficient to be more tactical by mixing much more hits with moves, jumps, magic and even some runs to replace. Also switching the opponents you hit during a hit sequence is very fun in the "over the shoulder view" because of the original design choice of a free camera even when you are hitting. Alas I rarely found useful to use this fun design feature.There's also some potions that change a little the tactics, for example slow motion can really be used for something different, or the potion that rise mana restore really change how often you can use magic and this can change the tactics of a fight. Also the intoxication system is a nice one that limits number of potions you use and during few fights going bad this can change the pace of the fight. Later you also have a powerful hit at your disposal, takes time to trigger but do much more damages, this can adds a bit more tactics in fights. Thanks there's still some fights where apply more tactical fighting prove to be useful by mixing much more hits with movements, jumps, runs and magic. Also there's few groups you'll fights for which the group style won't work. And against 2 opponents this group style doesn't work and isn't that easy to make it works against 3 opponents because the 3 have to be close to you. Also some fights will goes not that well and then you can pause to think what to do, use some potion, change he magic selected for a different tactic, perhaps take a pause to think if you need change the fighting style. Finally there's also the boss fights that force you more to think and search different strategy or even tactics. Alas to few fights require such more fun tactic approach.But if this fight system has a lot of potential it is a little screw up by some design choices. Plus movements are disabled during few actions, this is unpleasant and broke fluidity when this happen. It's for example when you switch weapon, you can be stuck during a short time. Anyway, despite the flaws, I found the fights quite fun. I don't find Oblivion better and The Witcher system has more potential than Oblivion system. There's only Gothic1&2 sword fight system I found much better (Gothic 3 system has something wrong or is too difficult).Dragonsblood said:
Gothic 3s combat is just a click fest. It's not difficult at all once you out level the wolves. You are right about one of the posters in this topic regarding Gothic 1 and 2. I haven't played either of those yet.
Ok I forgot the MAJOR error in the fight design of Gothic 3, a stupid click fest action is so efficient that you can give up learn anything more interesting in the fights. So in fact Gothic 3 has more than that in its fight system and try more is much more fun... but there's something wrong anyway in the system. Gothic 1&2 won't allow that but use 2 hand weapons if you want the most tactic fights in those.Dragonsblood said:
I'm with you on this one.The combat is better than a lot of RPGs without a doubt, but the devs raved on and on about the motion-capture and innovative combat mode within the game. A bit of a disappointment I feel... - It's either difficult or too easy. When you've learned a new move you're not sure when the flaming sword icon will appear and your clicks won't be spot on, but once you've fought a few times you become used to the rhythm and it's far too easy to take multiple opponent without getting hit once. Geralt is supposed to be hard, but is the game supposed to be easy? - I get the feeling they wasted a lot of time and effort (not to mention money) on the motion capture swordplay that you never get to see because you're too busy watching the sword icon, waiting for it to have flames around it... Come on!People will flame me for this, but I thought Oblivion had a brilliantly-designed combat-system. It's just as tactical as The Witcher but much more long-lasting. You don't get bored as quickly as you do with "click.........click...click again...click again" in a sequence you know off by heart. It's a brilliant game, but the combat... arrgh! Just a couple of small changes could have made all the difference.
[size=10pt][size=10pt]People will flame me for this, but I thought Oblivion had a brilliantly-designed combat-system. It's just as tactical as The Witcher but much more long-lasting. You don't get bored as quickly as you do with "click.........click...click again...click again" in a sequence you know off by heart. It's a brilliant game, but the combat... arrgh! Just a couple of small changes could have made all the difference[/size][/size]Thank you. for some reason many ppl seem to think that oblivion is a hack and slash click fest...which it is to some degree, but you cant just keep swinging with no regard to the enemies stance. i constantly find myself dodging, wiat till theyre open or blocking/parrying to get the enemy open for the strike. the combat system in TW is a n awesome idea kind of like legend of dragoon, vagrant story etc... but the animations take too much priority over the game play, and yes you cant even watch them though i guess if the player is good enough they can go off of sound cues. . im sure they will fix this issue in later patches, also ive heard they are going to fix the save/load issue which would make for a much better gaming experience imo.
Playing Morrowind was not playing Areana with a few tweaks. Oblibion was garbage. I have been playing cRPGs since 8 bit graphics. Text adventures before that. Oblivion was a step backwards for a gamer and one giant leap backwards for gamerkind.It was a console piece of garbage poorly ported to the PCGo look at game forum discussions about Fallout 3. nearly everone expects it to be the same Garbage that oblivion is.Quemaqua said: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?
I wanted to join this discussion, if you don't mind.The combat in The Witcher is hard to describe I think. Sure, you can adequately describe the commands you have to give or can give, but that's not exactly enough to describe it. I actually love the combat system here, others don't. What I like about it is it's simplicity in controls but it still manages to give you tactical possibilities as soon as signs (spells) and potions come into the mix. Together with the simple attack controls and the rather responsive movement compared to some other RPGs where you character moves visually, but still does get hit by enemies visually far away, The Witcher has managed to deliver a rather innovative, yet enjoyable combat system. Also, I found that the combat system was forgiving enough and didn't require the player to be extremely fast or anything like that.Btw because of the thing that enemies don't hit you if you're visually far away indicates a not strictly turn-based rule-set for the combat. At least that's what I think. Take a look at common MMORPGs to see what I mean:You can move during combat there, but if you were close to the enemy when it was his turn to attack it doesn't matter how far away from him you moved in that "turn", his attack will always be rolled. The Witcher behaves differently in that matter.
I've played all three Gothics. Gothic 1 and 2 had pretty much the best melee combat system I ever encountered in a cRPG, if you're into real-time swordplay. Killing the first few orcs truely is an experience in those games, simply because you actually have to consider when and how to strike, how to move and block and so on. Of course it gets less involving as soon as the enemies are considerably weaker than your character, but that doesn't really spoil the fun. One reason for that is that the enemies' AI actually worked, as opposed to Gothic 3. I'm sorry, but a RPG where a simple boar can kill lots of orcs because the boar attacks pretty much at light-speed and the orcs are too stupid to gang up on it, is just ridiculous. That said: Yes, you can do some pretty cool moves with the combat system. But, what's the point if you're better off clicking your enemies to death stupidly?Add to that the most serious balance issues I've ever seen, a few bugs and a story that was as thin as the air on Mt Everest and you get a really fancy-looking piece of crap. Gothic 3 is only half-way enjoyable if you want to wander through some of the most beautiful forests any game ever had to offer.My advice: Play Gothic 1 and 2, both fantastic cRPGs, and skip Gothic 3.Serdinq said:
Playing Morrowind was not playing Areana with a few tweaks. Oblibion was garbage. I have been playing cRPGs since 8 bit graphics. Text adventures before that. Oblivion was a step backwards for a gamer and one giant leap backwards for gamerkind.ohhhh you must be like a game sage huh? i guess you must be the expert on what is good and what is garbage? i have a feeling if the game doesnt match what you imagine it to be in your mind before actual play , you call it garbage. LOL youre no better than a movie critic.
go pick an easy fight. Swing once and close your eyes.KaanTheWise said:
combat is not everything, most good rpgs have annoying combat but good stories or vice versa.In theWitcher the combat is repetetive but it's awesome and pure fun. you can play around enough and experiment but in the end I just enjoy the animations.and I'm glad they put so much time in it. it looks awesome. as I read complaints that the combat timing distracts from the animations I must say that I now(after medium) play the game on hard and swordfights did become easier and harder the same time.no more flaming sword icon ! so now you have to concentrate on Geralt+Sound 100%. each combo ends with a sword "flurry" with a slightly different colored sword streak.that's the same as the flaming sword icon. additionally the sword slash sound gets high pitched. that way I REALLY have to watch/hear the whole animation and now I already know the combos for fast by heart. (working on strong and group now), fighting a few drowners I tried closing my eyes and klicking thru sound, i managed to hit 2 combos in 5 tries.my neighbors think I'm crazy for sure. always those funny "uuuuuaaaaaaargggghhhhhh....swish...swish....swish....woooooooo.....uuuuuargghhh...swish" soundscoming from the other appartement....
I've never been a fan of single character RPG's, action or otherwise, because usually there isn't enough strategy to work with. It's impossible to work out a satisfying plan of action, when you can't coordinate your fighting between multiple characters with overlapping skillsets. Even small party rpg's, like KOTOR approach boredom as the 3-character group is more limited in it's tactical options then the 6+ party i favor. Single character or small party RPG's sometimes try to relieve the situation by interjecting action elements - Oblivion, Morrowind, i'm looking at you. But in those cases both the action element and the tactical element have fallen victim to the same lobotomy. Mindlessness is not a sin in of itself, mindless games can be a blast, as long as the 'fun' isn't cut out as well. Fun is a subjective thing of course, whose chances of appearing increase exponentially as intelligent design decisions are made. Intelligent design decisions can even conquer bugs, though sometimes just barely (STALKER, take a bow) Bethsoft seems to be getting better and better at one thing, and that's making head-scratchingly bad design decisions that excise the fun from every aught and angle of their design documents. It took mods to save oblivion's day, and while a modder's work is a joy to see, a game that begs for mods while appearing superficially functional and attractive is kind of pathetic, like a slobbering drunk who's maintaining a glossy facade.No one can accuse the witcher's combat system of being overly complicated. But its the first single-character RPG that for me, has managed to marry RPG and action in a successful and fun way. The combat requires just the right amount of involvement - and offers just the right amount of tactical consideration and positioning to stay interesting. The hitches don't kill it for me. The only complaint i have, is that I wish Geralt was more vulnerable while he's delivering a coup'de grace. Too often i stun and enemy in the middle of a pack, and activate a lengthy kill sequence, only to wonder why the enemies at G's rear don't stab him in the back. Making the coup de grace an unattractive option while surrounded, would inject another simple tactical consideration into the mix, which would be welcome.
I agree with the general idea of JeffersonJones's post here, though I obviously have to stress his comment that "fun is a subjective thing". I'm just as old-school and well rounded and PC-oriented as the rest of you, and I thoroughly enjoyed Oblivion, as did many of my friends. I own hundreds upon hundreds of games, and I know a good one from a bad one. Just because it does not meet one particular person's taste does not make it a failure, and I must in general say that anyone who claims so is an unreasonable egomaniac. Sadly, I feel many here fall into that category.But again, I agree with the general tone of the above post. Bethsoft needs to seriously improve upon several areas where they are deficient, and should take special note of the Witcher's excellent alchemy system (Oblivion's was, I thought, too meandering and unfocused... bloated, even) and how a meaningful story can be crafted around relevant choices. Oblivion's joy comes from mass quantities of exploration, at least for me, and the ability to do nearly anything at any given time, but the formula certainly needs work in other areas if it's going to ever compare to more emotional, poignant, story-driven experiences. Too, I agree that the Witcher's combat married a good, action-oriented system with more traditional design elements, and it feels fresh as a result. It could be slightly deeper, and it could drop a few quirks, but on the whole I think it does exactly what they wanted it to do. I'm a fan of single-character RPGs in general, but even from this perspective I think what the game has done can be appreciated. It works very well and feels natural with the rest of the design.