And it certainly didn't feel like controlling a very skilled fighter, like Geralt should be.
And it certainly didn't feel like controlling a very skilled fighter, like Geralt should be.
What would be a bigger problem:
- Players having to approach every game as something new, and adapt to the rules & skill requirements that games devs asks of you?
- Every single game, or even a large portion of them, exactly the same gameplay, just a different theme?
I loved vanilla TW2 combat, took me effing ages to get the hang of it, but talk about satisfaction !
How exactly does that exclude a responsive combat? How do you equate more responsiveness with games playing the same?
@xanetan; no its not, I never stated only two options excluding all others, I merely posed a question about two approaches under discussion here, they are outlooks, attitudes to hold, which raises the bigger problem?
Because people are talking here, just like others have waxed lyrical previously about the wonderful Batman action combat animation & flow - and I thoroughly enjoyed it myself, but i've had no desire to play another game cloned from that system again, not its sequels nor mimics. Its way to easy. All down to repetitive button timing, but even mashing gets you through when it comes down to it. Yeah it look great and makes you feel uber... but you know where it fails right? Yep, you can't fail.
Like others have mentioned, if you are in mid sword swing, you really shouldn't be able to defy gravity.
Because people are talking here, just like others have waxed lyrical previously about the wonderful Batman action combat animation & flow - and I thoroughly enjoyed it myself, but i've had no desire to play another game cloned from that system again, not its sequels nor mimics. Its way to easy. All down to repetitive button timing, but even mashing gets you through when it comes down to it. Yeah it look great and makes you feel uber... but you know where it fails right? Yep, you can't fail.
Like others have mentioned, if you are in mid sword swing, you really shouldn't be able to defy gravity.
Have you played SoM? If you disable those overhead markers, the combat can get difficult, and you can fail. Some enemies you can't block, only dodge, there are missiles, and enemies you can't just button smash to death because they're immune to frontal attacks and so on. It's not the most challenging combat system ever, no, but that doesn't mean you can't make it more challenging -- and easily.
Doing something else mid sword swing is not defying gravity. Swords don't weigh a ton, first of all, and nothing stops you from transitioning into a block or dodging.
I'm also more inclined to the attitude of not allowing to break a motion. A problem with TW2 was, among other things, the length of animations. You attacked and suddenly found yourself performing something that took a bit too long. I think some attacks took 2-3 seconds? Not sure.
CDPR shortened the animations for TW3, I remember them saying so in one of the interviews, as a lesson made from TW2. So that should solve some of the responsiveness issue. If the attacks are swift and short, I think not being able to break them mid-swing won't be a big problem. It may cause the player to approach battles more cautiously, and rushing into the thick of things will be a big risk since you don't have a fool-proof defense.
CDPR shortened the animations for TW3, I remember them saying so in one of the interviews, as a lesson made from TW2. So that should solve some of the responsiveness issue. If the attacks are swift and short, I think not being able to break them mid-swing won't be a big problem. It may cause the player to approach battles more cautiously, and rushing into the thick of things will be a big risk since you don't have a fool-proof defense.
Not being able to stop an attack mid swing makes Geralt seem like an amateur swordsman, not a master. An actual swordsman can transition an attack into a parry and will also feint attacks in order to provoke an opponent into attacking, thus allowing a riposte or counterattack. Being forced to follow through with an animation makes combat awkward and restricts tactics and strategy that are used in an actual fight. Not to mention that Geralt is a mutant and has enhanced reflexes, he'd never follow through with an attack which left him vulnerable to counterattack.
Last edited:
I'm with you, it is a false dichotomy.
Combat needs to be adapted to the kind of gameplay they want. Right now, in the Witcher 2, we have length attacks in an open world you move. It is very easy to get hurt, in this way, and you don't know when the action is finished. These kind of combat is more suited to low pace action RPGs (as for example, Fantasy life, for 3DS), or turn based action RPGs, as FF 12, Xenoblade...
The usual, in action games is to have fast paced action, and responsive. It is the usual standard, and it works.
It doesn't mean that to make the actions you make slower is a mistake, the mistake was not to solve the behaviours asociated to this gameplay direction.
CD Projekt can create new gameplay forms, in happy with it. But mistakes are mistakes, and need to be recogniced by us as CD Projekt itself... and they recogniced them.
"Unresponsiveness" is part of the challenge and tactic, we wouldn't want the combat to be an easy button-mashing-fest like a Batman Arkham game (or worse, a generic over-the-top hack-n'-slash) would we?
It's an RPG, the combat should be based on stats, customization and tactical approach
Last edited:
No we don't... that's why I said I don't think it would fit in TW3: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...he-Witcher-3?p=1424268&viewfull=1#post1424268
What I'm saying is that you can keep combat responsive without sacrificing tactical feel, difficulty and the sense of achievement in mastering it. Some of the fast combo animations from TW2 had unnecessarily long recovery animations after the swing before you can take the next one or dodge. I'm not saying let me animation cancel out of everything, what I'm saying is stop making Geralt take so long to swing a bloody sword that he's supposed to be extremely fast with. There's Batman "animation cancel" combat flow and then there's slower "less responsive". I don't want the extremes, I want a middleground. That middleground wasn't TW2 judging by the complaints regarding how sluggish Geralt felt in combat.
Luckily that doesn't seem the case from what we've seen so far. Geralt moves fast but it doesn't look like you can just button mash and counter out of every situation. It looks like it has struck a nice balance in that aspect.
Last edited:
Yeah, but freakie I think the priority in combat should be what makes a game fun and challenging, rather than what fits the lore \ real-world. I like it when devs aspire to imitate real life, but they can only go so far. If you come up with a mechanic that is similar to a real master swordman's feats, while still remaining challenging, then I'm up for it. Is this the case in the matter of changing an action mid-motion? I'm not sure.
In an actual fight, maybe. In a computer game fight? I'm not sure it restricts tactics and strategy. How?
Allowing me to change whatever I'm doing encourages spontaneity, not planning. I can jump into the middle of a group of enemies, without much preparation, without thinning out the herd, because I know that my survivability is a function of the swiftness of my fingers. I don't need to decide who to attack first, because I know I'll always be able to dodge if I didn't calculate properly the distance of a nearby foe. I can dodge all over the place, without needing to be sure the area I'm jumping to is free of enemies, because I know I'll be able to click a button if I didn't notice an enemy. There's no requirement for me to evaluate the field of battle properly, because as long as I can change whatever I'm doing, then, hypothetically, no decision if mine can be a mistake. My failure is a result of slow reflexes, not a bad call.
It isn't just about reflexes, it's also about actually seeing the attack and responding properly. That is what combat SHOULD be like, and what "real combat" is like. That doesn't mean tactics and strategy are any less important: you just make it suitably hard to block and see attacks from many enemies at the same time. In Shadow of Mordor, you only really need two keys: spacebar and mouse 2, no matter the attack. You only have to determine which to use. But it can be made harder. Take Mount&Blade Warband, for example, with four attack directions. You can cancel attacks almost at any point, yet nobody can claim the combat system isn't challenging and skill-based. You can take on groups, but you need to be good to do so. Why shouldn't the game reward you for being good with its combat system?
I totally agree with this. A combat system in a game should prioritize fun over realism (unless you're talking about a simulator and not a game). And the recommendations I made previously just so happen to fit in with both ideas: it makes the game more fun and engaging while also being closer to realistic combat.
Not being able to adjust mid swing restricts combat just like I previously mentioned: you can't use feints to fool opponents in order to create an opening and you can't adjust mid swing to transition from attack to parry.
Again, refer to my previous example of using feints. This is not spontaneity but a preplanned maneuver. You are intentionally starting an attack with the intent to not follow through, which leads your opponent to counterattack, thus creating an opening for your own counterattack. And the rest of what you wrote is simply way off base. Jumping into a group of enemies would be just as deadly to your character regardless of whether or not you can adjust mid swing. Either way you are giving at least one opponent your back. Making a mistake will still be punished by being struck by an opponent.
I know that the system I described works well in a game because I've played a game that uses such a system: Sui Generis. I'm not just making things up or theorizing, I'm speaking from experience. It is the most fun and engaging combat system I've experienced in the several hundred games I've played in the last 30 years and I believe TW3 would benefit greatly from using a similar system.
Last edited:
To clarify: I didn't mean to suggest that a sword swing could never be redirected half swung, of course some actions can be modified, and yeh Geralt is a special case with some superhuman abilities, but likewise every combat move should have a "point of no return" even if that point is contact. Martial arts are full of moves that start the same and can finish with variety. Likewise, i'm not arguing against perceived "responsiveness" by the player. The discussion is great, but imo calls for Geralt of Gotham are inappropriate, on many levels.
CDPR don't need to clone, everyone in an industry learns from their peers successes & failures, but following anothers path... well its not your own is it? Bats is a hand to hand & shadow fighter, he's also far more than a match for 99.99999% of enemies he meets and 99.99999% of the time he chooses the battlefield, that difference gap isn't a normal part of Geralts day (teenager with pitchfork). I'm pointing out that it makes sense in a batman game for the player to be superduperuber, but not in The Witcher. Gerlat must be able to fail, and fail badly. That means we must too.
bw @eliharel;s last paragraph above is pure gold.
CDPR don't need to clone, everyone in an industry learns from their peers successes & failures, but following anothers path... well its not your own is it? Bats is a hand to hand & shadow fighter, he's also far more than a match for 99.99999% of enemies he meets and 99.99999% of the time he chooses the battlefield, that difference gap isn't a normal part of Geralts day (teenager with pitchfork). I'm pointing out that it makes sense in a batman game for the player to be superduperuber, but not in The Witcher. Gerlat must be able to fail, and fail badly. That means we must too.
bw @eliharel;s last paragraph above is pure gold.
To clarify: I didn't mean to suggest that a sword swing could never be redirected half swung, of course some actions can be modified, and yeh Geralt is a special case with some superhuman abilities, but likewise every combat move should have a "point of no return" even if that point is contact. Martial arts are full of moves that start the same and can finish with variety. Likewise, i'm not arguing against perceived "responsiveness" by the player. The discussion is great, but imo calls for Geralt of Gotham are inappropriate, on many levels.
CDPR don't need to clone, everyone in an industry learns from their peers successes & failures, but following anothers path... well its not your own is it? Bats is a hand to hand & shadow fighter, he's also far more than a match for 99.99999% of enemies he meets and 99.99999% of the time he chooses the battlefield, that difference gap isn't a normal part of Geralts day (teenager with pitchfork). I'm pointing out that it makes sense in a batman game for the player to be superduperuber, but not in The Witcher. Gerlat must be able to fail, and fail badly. That means we must too.
bw @eliharel;s last paragraph above is pure gold.
I don't see anyone asking for an exact clone. Also, I think your Batman and Geralt analogy doesn't work very well. Geralt has at LEAST as big an advantage against "normal thugs" as Batman does -- Batman is just human, Geralt isn't. And again, nobody is advocating for a combat system where you can't fail...
CDPR don't need to clone, everyone in an industry learns from their peers successes & failures, but following anothers path... well its not your own is it? Bats is a hand to hand & shadow fighter, he's also far more than a match for 99.99999% of enemies he meets and 99.99999% of the time he chooses the battlefield, that difference gap isn't a normal part of Geralts day (teenager with pitchfork). I'm pointing out that it makes sense in a batman game for the player to be superduperuber, but not in The Witcher. Gerlat must be able to fail, and fail badly. That means we must too.
bw @eliharel;s last paragraph above is pure gold.
I don't want CDPR to clone any other game's combat system. I want them to create their own. However, if they borrow ideas from other games with good combat (like they did in TW2) and implemented those ideas with their own, then it would only enhance what they currently have. TW2 had many flaws with combat which definitely leave room for improvement. The suggestions I made would allow for more dynamic combat while still remaining tactical and challenging; failure would definitely be possible. Another benefit of more realistic combat is that it would be less immersion-breaking by removing the artificial mechanics currently in place; combat would appear more natural and actually make sense.
And yes, that last paragraph he wrote made me chuckle
The primary problem with TW2's combat was the centre_screen_targeting. This is what messed most people up, when you move against an enemy pixel centre no matter direction or distance of Geralt. Frustration arises because you were just looking around the battlefield and made a move against an enemy you didn't expect or mean to.
This has most definitely been fixed for TW3, we can see it in the video, it appears to be Geralt facing direction = target now. I'm confident we'll see, that will fix most peoples problems. TW2 was before Batman right? TW2's combat, while flawed, was an excellent attempt at challenging combat that relied on more than speedy reflexes, in fact it encouraged well-timed reflexes more than these other games, and that requires application of discipline in the player. Far more interesting - allowing for more options than just run in and press buttons wildly like some other games. I want that system improved, not replaced with some popular over used system.
This has most definitely been fixed for TW3, we can see it in the video, it appears to be Geralt facing direction = target now. I'm confident we'll see, that will fix most peoples problems. TW2 was before Batman right? TW2's combat, while flawed, was an excellent attempt at challenging combat that relied on more than speedy reflexes, in fact it encouraged well-timed reflexes more than these other games, and that requires application of discipline in the player. Far more interesting - allowing for more options than just run in and press buttons wildly like some other games. I want that system improved, not replaced with some popular over used system.
I found the combat in TW2 to be too easy even while playing on Dark mode. Being able to parry attacks that hit your back and also being able to roll spam made it too easy. By no means do I want TW3 to be easy or to be about button mashing. On the contrary, I want it to be even more challenging and more tactical than the combat in TW2. I want them to improve upon the mechanics that made it too easy and predictable. I do not wish for them to clone any other game.
I like the creativity CDPR has shown in their previous games and I'd like for them to continue this trend. They admitted to liking the combat in Demon's Souls and said it influenced the combat in TW2. I don't see why they shouldn't borrow ideas from games they like and modify and improve on those ideas to create their own unique system.
Not sure that was the reaction I was hoping for.And yes, that last paragraph he wrote made me chuckle
:troll:
@freakie1one I've been procrastinating for over an hour (really!) in an attempt to answer your points. But after thinking with myself for a while about different mechanics, and seeing that I'm nowhere closer to phrasing some eloquent reply, I say Screw It. I'll just share with you some general thoughts rather than clear-cut replies:
The moment you mentioned feints as an example of options lost for "locking" movements, I knew your post will lead to Sui Generis
P). The feeling that I can't shake off, however, is that Sui Generis' system is so unique that no lessons can be learned from it about TW - or any other game actually that relies on a predefined pool of animations (which is every one other than SG, I think?). Don't get me wrong - feints and parries the way you describe them are amazing. But I'm struggling to imagine them in TW3 as a "spontaneous" move, rather than an "independent action of itself". A combat "move". Like a light attack is a move, and a heavy attack is a move, the only way I'm seeing feints enter the game is as another "move". Say, "Shift+LMB". So from my perspective, locking you into an animation doesn't disallow feints, because feints aren't a spontaneous move to begin with.
Also, I should rephrase something earlier I wrote. I said I'm unsure how locked animations "restrict" tactics, while I should have said I'm unsure how they "harm" tactics. I agree that they does restrict, only I'm seeing that restriction as something positive. Of course, as long as it's not something exaggerated as some of the long animations in TW2. Locking you in such a movement, especially when it's random, is frustrating. If you're locked in the swift actions of TW3, then it's less of an issue.
I'll just direct it to you, maybe I'm not seeing it: if you aren't locked into an animation, where can the player make mistakes in his combat-routine that aren't a matter of fast clicking? The way I see it, not being locked, always being able to dodge, or block, is a system that always give you an "out", and in such a system, there it much harder to make mistakes if your fingers are quick enough.
I know I may be a bit over-romanticizing the aspect of "planning" ahead. I realize it's not Rainbow Six, I won't be making battle diagrams before engaging a few bandits or monsters. But I also know that in TW2 I was very cautious about some enemies, because I know that if I attack them at the wrong time, and our swords collide, Geralt will stagger and I'll be momentarily very vulnerable. I think that was a cool feature.
Admittedly, what I had in mind when writing that comment was Arkham, where you can block from any direction and dodge in any direction. It seems that way in SoM, too, with Talion skipping over enemies. TW3 seems to limit your maneuverability more than these two games, so yeah, my example may not have been as relevant. Unless you can still parry from any direction, which... makes my example relevant again. Don't know if that's the case.