In defense of this game's combat

[minicrom]

Totally reduce Dark Souls to its difficulty is a non sense that show even critics often don't know what they're talking about... Although I would compare TW 3 and Dark Souls only for some gameplay mechanics that's all like invincibility frame that can be vital while dodging and some aspects of the endurance management. Not sur if beyond that they can be compared though. True The Witcher 3 lack different strategies against different ennemies but the experiences are really different by essence. Dark Souls have perfect combat because they are an essential part of the game. In the Witcher 3 combat seem to me like a tool to advance the story. I think if CDPR had spend more time on combat the rest of the game wouldn't had been this huge or well developped in term of story. You can not possibly approche the quality of other games in their speciality if you don't make it your own specialty as well.

In the end I just want to ask why Dark Souls and The Witcher 3 are called Hack and slash here? A few years back Hack and Slash, beat them all and A-Rpg were pretty well defined. To me Dark Souls and Witcher 3 are not Hack and slash at all. Diablo is. To me Hack and Slash is associated to a specific point of view (from above). Dark Souls and Witcher 3 are closer to A-Rpgs. At least to me.

 

[arkhenon]

@minicrom Whoa whoa whoa, nobody called Witcher 3 a hack'n'slash! It's a "role-playing game" through and though (or to be exact, action RPG). You role-play as Geralt, further his story, make choices for him, etc. But I can never call the Souls series (again, which I LOVE) "role-playing" games. They are simply action games with stats and gear progression. Combat and killing stuff is a huge part of the game, hence "hack'n'slash". You can't "role-play" in DS games. There is no choice other than killing/not-killing certain NPCs, no dialogues that you can lead in place of the player character and so on. Like I said, it has EXACTLY the amount of RPG elements as Diablo has (minus being able to kill NPCs), which I also can never call RPGs. Hack'n'slash is not defined by a point-of-view btw, but if it bothers you we can call Souls games just "action" games I suppose (Last Assassin's Creed games also had stats and gear progression, for example). I'm just really focusing on the "role-play" part of the definition, which doesn't have anything to do with levels, gear, stats, etc.

Or maybe we can call it JRPG, as those games usually don't let you "role-play" and are quite static in terms of narrative as well?.. I don't know.

 

[essenthy]

@minicrom Whoa whoa whoa, nobody called Witcher 3 a hack'n'slash! It's a "role-playing game" through and though (or to be exact, action RPG). You role-play as Geralt, further his story, make choices for him, etc. But I can never call the Souls series (again, which I LOVE) "role-playing" games. They are simply action games with stats and gear progression. Combat and killing stuff is a huge part of the game, hence "hack'n'slash". You can't "role-play" in DS games. There is no choice other than killing/not-killing certain NPCs, no dialogues that you can lead in place of the player character and so on. Like I said, it has EXACTLY the amount of RPG elements as Diablo has (minus being able to kill NPCs), which I also can never call RPGs. Hack'n'slash is not defined by a point-of-view btw, but if it bothers you we can call Souls games just "action" games I suppose (Last Assassin's Creed games also had stats and gear progression, for example). I'm just really focusing on the "role-play" part of the definition, which doesn't have anything to do with levels, gear, stats, etc.

Or maybe we can call it JRPG, as those games usually don't let you "role-play" and are quite static in terms of narrative as well?.. I don't know.

well thats how you play dark souls, just go around and slash stuff, but ther's way more into it than that, not because you dont perceive it or dont want to experience it mean its not there, maybe ther's no quest choices with quests, but there are definitely choices to make by killing or not some NPC, going to certain secrets places or not ect , choices in DS are how they are on their own, not because its not like the W3 choices or any Mass effect choices mean they are not choices ... and i could go on, again reducing the game to just KILL AND DIE is wrong

thats basically would be me saying " Wicther 3 combat is not deep ! its sucks ! because i dont like it/want to experience it ! " wich would be stupid, maybe i dont enjoy it, but i would never deny the fact that its deep

if anything combat in DS is probably the most static thing in the series, it did evolve but not that much, in comparison Witcher combat since W1 have completely changed for example, but the level design the art direction and the lore in DS have all reached their peak in 3 showing how important these sides of the game are for the peoples making it

its an RPG, an ARPG or an AJRP, but certainly not a looter/hack&slash like diablo

 

[arkhenon]

@essenthy I don't want to pursue the DS vs. TW here (as it's off-topic) but I'll try to speak my mind one last time. I never reduced Souls games to just "slash your way around". And in my previous posts I said that I love the story-telling in Souls games (albeit a little less so than good writing - because I'm a book person), I mentioned the decision about NPC killing and not killing in my previous post, and that I LOVE (all caps once more) these games. Yeah, I love the level design in them, the combat, the atmosphere, music, and so on. What I'm "just" trying to say is, they are not "role-playing" games. Because you cannot "role-play" in them. I'm not saying this as a bad thing. I'm just stating it as it is. It's not bad to be a hack'n'slash game (it's in no way a derogatory term). And Souls games are leaps and bounds ahead of "just" looter hack'n'slash games like Diablo, I also agree with that. But, and if you listen to me calmly here because I'm not trying to say a negative thing, they still do not let you "role-play". This doesn't have anything to do with how good their combat is, how excellent their progression systems are, how magnificent their level design or soundtrack is, and so on. It just simply does not provide opportunities to role-play. Simple as that

Also, mechanics-wise, yes, I believe their main aspect is combat. If you watch several videos that analyze the aspects of Souls games in YouTube, they all say that even their impeccable level design is set around its combat mechanics. Again, I'm not using this as a derogatory. I think it's awesome that there is an unmerciful game with a combat focus out-there (and yes, repeating myself, with good music, atmosphere, level design, story, etc.). But in my book, it simply is not a "role-playing" game, as I can't role-play as anyone.

Edit: I think there is just a communication error between us, so I invite you to read the post clearly, please. For example, when I said "static narrative", I'm not saying that there is no improvement, or it's "bad". What I'm saying is you mostly do not have any effect on the story progression itself.

 

[minicrom]

Role play does'nt imply making choices just saying^^ You can roleplay in Dark Souls of course. I do it all the time. I invent a personality to my undead. That is one forme of role play among others. But yeah it's off topic. So I'll stop there to.

My point of view on why The Witcher 3 combat are really good can be sum up like this in the end. The Witcher 3 is not combat oriented the combat system manage to be deep enough to not bore me after 350 hours of gameplay. And that my fellow forum members is quite impressive I think^^

 

[SigilFey]

It's one of the upcoming features they've revealed for Blood and Wine.

Hm. I missed that little detail.

Horray!

 

[Nolenthar]

Role play does'nt imply making choices just saying^^ You can roleplay in Dark Souls of course. I do it all the time. I invent a personality to my undead. That is one forme of role play among others. But yeah it's off topic. So I'll stop there to.

I did role play a pilot in Need for Speed, I did roleplay a demon hunter in Diablo, I roleplayed a survivor in Far Cry 3 [....]. You can call RPG basically any game around, hell, I even roleplayed a commander in XCOM. If it pleases you to consider DS3 a full blown RPG, just like TW3, then it's pretty useless to argue this with you. You made your opinion, and for some reason it seems to make DS3 a "grander" game if you can call it a RPG. I believe it's just as good a game if you call it a Hack N Slash, or an Action game. But arguably, this generation tends to call RPG any game where you have stats and gear.

In the end, I simply believe CDPR spent much more time building stories, quests, world than they did creating & balancing their combat system (which is pretty good if poorly balanced). DS3 developers clearly spent much more time creating & balancing their combat system than they did build quests, or stories for that matter. But that's fine. As a player, I bought TW3 for its story, and DS3 for its combat, and both game deserves to be played and enjoyed

 

[SigilFey]

Role play does'nt imply making choices just saying^^ You can roleplay in Dark Souls of course. I do it all the time. I invent a personality to my undead. That is one forme of role play among others. But yeah it's off topic. So I'll stop there to.

My point of view on why The Witcher 3 combat are really good can be sum up like this in the end. The Witcher 3 is not combat oriented the combat system manage to be deep enough to not bore me after 350 hours of gameplay. And that my fellow forum members is quite impressive I think^^

While it's not the definition I choose to apply, "Role-Playing Game" in the modern gaming market basically means:

"A game in which the player can alter the development of a playable character by upgrading skills and abilities by selecting from a list of options that will augment the game's mechanics."

All aspects of guiding a story, having a gameworld react meaningfully to decisions, or being able to create a vision for a character and then fulfill it are kind of on-the-shelf. These are things that designers may choose to include or set aside in their RPGs. I would call most "RPGs" in the modern market Action, Adventure, or Strategy games with Role-Playing aspects.

 

[arkhenon]

@SigilFey Sadly true. But I refuse to call Destiny or Division RPGs

Sure, you can "role-play" in any game. But I believe the games we call RPGs should have in-game mechanics that adds value to the "role-play" elements. Long story short, I think games that allow you to "role-play" via their own mechanics (rather than your own volition as a player) are RPG games. That's where I'm coming from when I'm saying that I don't think Souls games are RPGs. Of course, it might be a different definition for some other people. But my idea is this, at least.

In the end, I simply believe CDPR spent much more time building stories, quests, world than they did creating & balancing their combat system (which is pretty good if poorly balanced). DS3 developers clearly spent much more time creating & balancing their combat system than they did build quests, or stories for that matter. But that's fine. As a player, I bought TW3 for its story, and DS3 for its combat, and both game deserves to be played and enjoyed

Yeah, I think this is the crux of it, and explains what I have been trying to say quite well

 

[minicrom]

I did role play a pilot in Need for Speed, I did roleplay a demon hunter in Diablo, I roleplayed a survivor in Far Cry 3 [....]. You can call RPG basically any game around, hell, I even roleplayed a commander in XCOM. If it pleases you to consider DS3 a full blown RPG, just like TW3, then it's pretty useless to argue this with you. You made your opinion, and for some reason it seems to make DS3 a "grander" game if you can call it a RPG. I believe it's just as good a game if you call it a Hack N Slash, or an Action game. But arguably, this generation tends to call RPG any game where you have stats and gear.

In the end, I simply believe CDPR spent much more time building stories, quests, world than they did creating & balancing their combat system (which is pretty good if poorly balanced). DS3 developers clearly spent much more time creating & balancing their combat system than they did build quests, or stories for that matter. But that's fine. As a player, I bought TW3 for its story, and DS3 for its combat, and both game deserves to be played and enjoyed

I wasn't arguing about wether Dark Souls can be called a RPG or not I was talking about an attitude while gaming. There is no roleplay when there is no choice is not true to me. Never. Dark Souls 3 is a huge game to role play and emotes are there to prove that's all I am saying.

But I'll answer to you anyway.
It's not this generation. It always has been the case. Games are not like movies ! There are no narrative code within a genre. What define a genre in video game is gameplay elements but those things change. 15 years ago a game wasn't a RPG if it was not turned base combat. No one spoke of the story or choices as a vital element to say "This is a Rpg" And it had nothing to do with combat. And Dark Souls and The Witcher share the same progression mechanics. You level up the same, you make character build all the same and all this depends of the experience you get. That's what an RPG is 15 years ago. Choices and the story just don't matter in the definition of an RPG according of a lot of conception of the genre. And because The Witcher has a better story and choices doesn't give him more rights to be called RPG than Dark Souls I think (Besides Dark Souls has choices too).

So when you say "But arguably, this generation tends to call RPG any game where you have stats and gear." I answer yes. And it's normal that most people think that because games are identified thanks to gameplay codes (that Dark Souls and The Witcher 3 share i say it again). But trying to classify a game within a genre is today useless. The thing is that today games are multi-genre. Games share elements of various genre and lots of game have RPG conponents. No game belong to one genre. This notion isn't pertinent anymore which make this debate just as sterile as Yen by the way.

---------- Updated at 07:30 PM ----------

@SigilFey Sadly true. But I refuse to call Destiny or Division RPGs

Sure, you can "role-play" in any game. But I believe the games we call RPGs should have in-game mechanics that adds value to the "role-play" elements. Long story short, I think games that allow you to "role-play" via their own mechanics (rather than your own volition as a player) are RPG games. That's where I'm coming from when I'm saying that I don't think Souls games are RPGs. Of course, it might be a different definition for some other people. But my idea is this, at least.



Yeah, I think this is the crux of it, and explains what I have been trying to say quite well

Unfortunatly I can't agree there because games that allow you to roleplay via their own mechanics existed way long before the first called RPG games. Plus lots of RPGs don't have such mechanics like Final Fantasy VIII. So they are not RPGs? It's important to understand that today defining genre is pointless because genres no longer exists. Each game is a set influences. And it's a sign of the maturity that video game are reaching. They are now able just as all other arts to look behind them and play with their own codes. If you re really interested in the matter I suggest you to read the These of Dominic Arsenault. Easy to find on the web.

 

[Nolenthar]

I wasn't arguing about wether Dark Souls can be called a RPG or not I was talking about an attitude while gaming. There is no roleplay when there is no choice is not true to me. Never. Dark Souls 3 is a huge game to role play and emotes are there to prove that's all I am saying.

But I'll answer to you anyway.
It's not this generation. It always has been the case. Games are not like movies ! There are no narrative code within a genre. What define a genre in video game is gameplay elements but those things change. 15 years ago a game wasn't a RPG if it was not turned base combat. No one spoke of the story or choices as a vital element to say "This is a Rpg" And it had nothing to do with combat. And Dark Souls and The Witcher share the same progression mechanics. You level up the same, you make character build all the same and all this depends of the experience you get. That's what an RPG is 15 years ago. Choices and the story just don't matter in the definition of an RPG according of a lot of conception of the genre. And because The Witcher has a better story and choices doesn't give him more rights to be called RPG than Dark Souls I think (Besides Dark Souls has choices too).

So when you say "But arguably, this generation tends to call RPG any game where you have stats and gear." I answer yes. And it's normal that most people think that because games are identified thanks to gameplay codes (that Dark Souls and The Witcher 3 share i say it again). But trying to classify a game within a genre is today useless. The thing is that today games are multi-genre. Games share elements of various genre and lots of game have RPG conponents. No game belong to one genre. This notion isn't pertinent anymore which make this debate just as sterile as Yen by the way.

---------- Updated at 07:30 PM ----------



Unfortunatly I can't agree there because games that allow you to roleplay via their own mechanics existed way long before the first called RPG games. Plus lots of RPGs don't have such mechanics like Final Fantasy VIII. So they are not RPGs? It's important to understand that today defining genre is pointless because genres no longer exists. Each game is a set influences. And it's a sign of the maturity that video game are reaching. They are now able just as all other arts to look behind them and play with their own codes. If you re really interested in the matter I suggest you to read the These of Dominic Arsenault. Easy to find on the web.

As I said, if calling Dark Souls 3 a RPG make it "grander" for you, I surely will not argue. After all, who knows, maybe people buys DS3 for its stellar story telling, its richness in your choices, its huge emphasis on their consequences, and maybe DS3 is closer to TW3 and Skyrim than it is to Diablo 3 or Lords of the Fallen. Who knows.

In any case, I've lost myself, and will not comment anymore on the subject. I can't wait for the changes b&w will add to TW3 combat and ennemies AI.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Moderator: And, on that note, let's all head back to the topic, please. Thank you.

 

[essenthy]

Edit: I think there is just a communication error between us, so I invite you to read the post clearly, please. For example, when I said "static narrative", I'm not saying that there is no improvement, or it's "bad". What I'm saying is you mostly do not have any effect on the story progression itself.

i dont agree at all, with this logic then W3 is less an RPG than DS , you're playing a specific character with specific choices withing his own pre conceived story, where in DS you create you're own from scratch, from the character himself to the choices you make, see ? both are RPG, they dont need to use the exact same tools to be an RPG, otherwise you would throw most of JRPG on your way

obviously W3 has a bigger scope ( and budget ) and is more story driven than combat driven than DS, but again as i said we can still compare individual mechanics out of their context, as long as they serve the same purpose

 

[minicrom]

As I said, if calling Dark Souls 3 a RPG make it "grander" for you, I surely will not argue. After all, who knows, maybe people buys DS3 for its stellar story telling, its richness in your choices, its huge emphasis on their consequences, and maybe DS3 is closer to TW3 and Skyrim than it is to Diablo 3 or Lords of the Fallen. Who knows.

In any case, I've lost myself, and will not comment anymore on the subject. I can't wait for the changes b&w will add to TW3 combat and ennemies AI.

It has nothing to with "grander" or anything like it. I don't understang why you absolutly want to think that we put some kind of greatness behind the term of RPG but whatever.

Does Bood and Wine will implemented new gameplay mechanics like HoS did?

 

[Yasakani]

You can't really expect to make blind comments like this without explanation and assume people will take you seriously. Endure and Suffer ? seriously ? What is there to Endure or Suffer in TW3 combat system ? As I pointed out, TW3 combat system may have grounds for improvement / balancing, but suffering through it ain't exactly ever happening. At the very least, it's becoming too easy by level 10, meaning that basically, no suffering will occur because unless you're extremely bad at it (in which case, the first level of difficulty should fix it), you will encounter close to no difficulty, even in Death Marsh.

Suffering and Enduring would have been to have to go through a Dark Souls kind of combat system in order to explore the story (Dark souls main selling point is to be a hard game. Anything else around would be absolutely mediocre without it). Nothing of this happened. Anyone playing TW3 can quite easily enjoy its story, with little bother regarding the difficulty.

Haha. LOL.

You're right, I just came here to vent my frustration on the gameplay without any explanation, because everyone already explained it. If you go to any forums or news sites about the game, there will always be someone who cannot even start playing the game because of how horrible the gameplay is. Even the critics, not just the players. It's very objective that the gameplay is bad, while other games like, DS, have good gameplay elements. I haven't played DS or care for it, but I can see why people like it. And the consensus is the gameplay is one of the best while the Witcher series is one of the worst. Even though W3 is one of my favorite or most memorable game out there, I think the gameplay is one of the worst. That's why I'm confused by others that think the gameplay is good.

I played Shadow of Mordor, Arkham and Phantom Pain. All those games are way way way better in terms of gameplay. Not really RPGs, but I can't see why Witcher couldn't be half as good or better. But at the end of the day, I couldn't finish those games, but somehow I finished W3 and it's way longer. That's why I'm so frustrated because I love everything about it but the gameplay just makes everything worst. I would be fine if the gameplay is OKAY. But I want to pull my hair in so many occasions. It has nothing to do difficulty. Good gameplay has nothing to do with difficulty. It's about satisfaction and enjoyment of killing shit. In other games I just want to kill shit and enjoying it. But in W3, I just want to run away from everything because the enemies are freaking annoying and the combat is horrible. And nothing makes sense, inconsistency in gameplay. One moment it's too easy and the next you just die from one hit.

I just don't want CDPR to think their gameplay is mediocre and not do anything about it. That's it. But at the same time, I doubt they can improve upon it in the same game; there's just too many things to list. It could be an engine problem too. I'm just relying on mods for now to improve upon it so I can just run around and kill shit for fun. It's just hard with the current state.

A short and simple explanation is that the gameplay is not satisfying at all. It's the opposite. It's very frustrating and unenjoyable. Repetitive. No options. Same play style. No learning curve. No balance. Horrible controls. Animations aren't synced with combat. A lot of stuff are useless. Playing more doesn't make you better. etc. etc. I cannot think of one thing that is above average in terms of gameplay elements. Not one. The progression is bad. Items, weapons and armors are all retarded and uninteresting. Everything is just dull and boring, to put it bluntly. If the gameplay is anything near, like Diablo, which isn't even good, I wouldn't be suffering and enduring through the game. Like I said, the story, graphics and characters are that good that I have to finish it even though I hated the gameplay so much. And I'm not even an RPG or story oriented player.

I'm not expecting an RPG to be good in terms of gameplay. But I expect it to be decent. To be frank I hated RPGs until the Witcher came along. Not for the gameplay, obviously, but the adult oriented lore. I've always been a gameplay oriented player. I think fighting games and RTS like Starcraft are the best in terms of gameplay and no other genre comes close IMHO, mainly because of its complexity, high learning curve and competition. I can play those games all day and will never get bored because it takes years and years to master those type of games. And the more you get better at it, the more you enjoy it.

Witcher 3, I came out the same as when I first played W2. Nothing to learn or improve.

 

[Nolenthar]

It has nothing to with "grander" or anything like it. I don't understang why you absolutly want to think that we put some kind of greatness behind the term of RPG but whatever.

Does Bood and Wine will implemented new gameplay mechanics like HoS did?

An interview for a polish website said that they revamped completely the monsters AI. Whether it will only impact the new monsters or also the old one is unclear though.

---------- Updated at 06:47 AM ----------

...

No. There is no consensus saying TW3 is one of the worst. I've never read it in any critic but a fair few who expected the combat to be a QTE based mechanism (ala Batman / Shadow of Mordor). Which it seems you liked.

My own experience is that Shadow of Mordor became extremely boring combat wise after a few hours, as I could solo all fortress and kill hundred of orcs. There is absolutely nothing to plan, nothing to do. You just press buttons when the game expects you to press a button. You'll always do exactly what the button expects.

The Witcher 3 doesn't act at all like this. If I don't plan my moves correctly, or my positioning, I'll get hit often. Unfortunately, at one point, I may have too much armor for this to matter. But this is a balance issue, not a gameplay issue imo

 

[PillarBiter]

You all are wrong! Every single one of ya. None of these are RPG's! THIS is an RPG!
View attachment 39991

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Everything is just dull and boring, to put it bluntly.

I have to wonder if we're all playing the same game here, because to me, when executed properly, the flow of combat feels absolutely superb. Different actions have different momentum and when you adapt to Geralt's playstyle, it can create a sense of dancing with your enemies, instead of just pommeling them with your weapon. And what I like about it, in comparison to Mordor or Arkham series, is how it's all on me...if I plan accordingly, know how to predict enemy movement and synchronize Geralt's animations well, it feels extremely fluid and vice versa.

Here is a visual example of how just a simple attack, parry, attack, dodge combination can feel in the hands of a good player:

http://giphy.com/gifs/geralt-tango-1iTJ6rkMJ2lOSvvO

Anyway it seems this thread has run it's course and some people are only capable seeing negatives here( from a very biased perspective), without trying to look it's context and design goals.

 

[Yasakani]

No. There is no consensus saying TW3 is one of the worst. I've never read it in any critic but a fair few who expected the combat to be a QTE based mechanism (ala Batman / Shadow of Mordor). Which it seems you liked.

My own experience is that Shadow of Mordor became extremely boring combat wise after a few hours, as I could solo all fortress and kill hundred of orcs. There is absolutely nothing to plan, nothing to do. You just press buttons when the game expects you to press a button. You'll always do exactly what the button expects.

The Witcher 3 doesn't act at all like this. If I don't plan my moves correctly, or my positioning, I'll get hit often. Unfortunately, at one point, I may have too much armor for this to matter. But this is a balance issue, not a gameplay issue imo

No, I thought QTE is okay but much better than the current W3 because it is more refined in terms of animations and controls. Animations mainly because you only have one base model to work with (orcs). The gameplay works as it is intended, whether you like the style or not. And it's very satisfying. It only gets dull once you learn how to out maneuver or counter the different types of enemies because it forces you to do just that without much variation. But at least you have some options and have to maneuver around depending on the enemies. Where as W3 is roll, roll, roll, and mash on one button most of the times. It doesn't really matter much the enemy type.

The controls are a lot better in other games too and I can do the exact move that I want the character to do. And more responsive and faster. W3 almost everything is random both in terms of attacks and targeting. A major issue because Geralt is not doing what I want him to do; why bother controlling him in the first place then. This is one of the biggest problem in the game. There's this list of things you shouldn't do for gameplay mechanics, and CDPR seems to ignore those. Imagine a situation when you need to do this one critical fast attack, but instead, Geralt does a ballerina dance (!). Then you died. It's like playing a fighting game where when you press one of the kick button, the character will randomly do the other attack instead. Makes no sense. That's not balance, that's just faulty gameplay, or a bug if it's in the case of fighting games. Controls have to be tight and precise in an action game like this. It has to take into consideration the speed, strength, recovery and priority of the attack. If he does a move that randomize all those properties... you're not really controlling him.

In QTE you have to move and position correctly too, if not, more important as you have to go behind or avoid certain enemies. In W3, you just keep rolling like an idiot until you distance yourself away from enemies so you can Quen or Igni or mash on random attack buttons. Doesn't matter so much where you roll, just as long as it's far enough to avoid their swords. Then you just mash on one attack button until it dies. It gets worst against monster since most of them have ONE attack. ONE. And no AI whatsoever. Just walk toward Geralt and do this ONE attack. /done

Having armor is one of the most lazy and stupid way to play the game. Just because I have money for armors now I don't have to do anything except mashing on one button. Geralt the master swordsman because he has armor.

There's more problem than just the controls. I'm not saying it should be a QTE game. There's just no interesting options to play Geralt. You just play one style of avoiding attacks and mashing on one button. Armors and Swords changes nothing... if anything it makes the game even worst because now you don't have to even dodge or roll... just mash on one button.

I'll just stop here.

 

[Nolenthar]

....

Your preference mate. QTE games bore me to death, and I prefer TW2 and TW3 combat a lot more, TW3 even more than TW2 as it addressed my biggest issue with TW2 combat (which is the lack of dodge). I'm no genius developer, but I could easily code a batman / Shadow of Mordor combat system. It's a script a 5 year old boy could write.

In any case, I'm out too. Playing on PC means I can address the difficulty curve that is clearly lacking in vanilla. I hope CDPR reworked it with B&W as I would like console players to have the kind of experience we have on PC, but if it's not, I'll simply wait for the mods to be ready to address this. I'm in no hurry, this game will be just as good in 2 months.