I don't know whether one game's combat system is objectively better than the other, all I can tell is that I couldn't stand TW3's broken balance, hitboxes and enemy design, and that I found Geralt punchy and weighty sword swings impact in TW2 infinitely more satisfying than TW3's utility-knive-though-molten-butter impact in TW3
I agree on the balance. It's way too easy. But I don't experience 'broken' hitboxes myself.
Neither do I. Nor did I experience "bad" enemy design. I mean, TW3 surely brings a lot more enemy design than TW2 did. I can't exactly remember any combat in TW2 where the tactic was not simple roll and roll, roll and roll, roll and roll, where TW3 technically gives you many different enemies and tactic for them all. When it comes to the hit feeling, still not sure either.
For a fact though, each new Witcher game meant I couldn't really go back to the previous liking the combat. I liked TW1 combat before playing TW2, and I liked TW2 combat before playing TW3, but playing TW2 now makes me very unsatisfied with its combat system compared to 3rd one. So I guess, to my perspective, they did good.
But it's all a matter of preference. I have hard time reading poisonous spit like we can here, especially coming from people having finished the game 7 to 8 times, but we got to get used to it nowadays with the internet. I HATE IT !!! BUT I PLAY IT EVERY F***** DAY OF MY LIFE, IT'S SO SHIT !!!!
In my opinion combat system is good, maybe even very good. A little bit to Hollywood-style and lacks element of tactic - I wish there would be possibility to select mode similar to Witcher senses where time would go slower and you would be able to strike more precisely (chop off hand, cause bleeding by attacking artery etc.). Crossbow should do more damage - right now it almost useless while you have four skills related to crossbow in combat skill tree. Sometimes there are problems with target selection.
In general combat system works fine for me and I had a lot fun with it.
In general combat system works fine for me and I had a lot fun with it.
I can say The Witcher is an rpg with a very good combat system because nearly every other RPG Skyrim,Dark Souls,Fallout,Far Cry, etc when you melee you just slash nothing more
I've been reading this thread and it looks like people have forgotten the name/purpose of this thread.
I admit I strayed a little too but people seem to be only mentioning how the gameplay could be better.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
---------- Updated at 08:51 AM ----------
I almost agree. I'd say they use the stabbing weapons as if they were clubs.
I admit I strayed a little too but people seem to be only mentioning how the gameplay could be better.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
---------- Updated at 08:51 AM ----------
I almost agree. I'd say they use the stabbing weapons as if they were clubs.
the first time a tried W2 i couldnt even pass the first couple enemies in the introduction area, i kept dying and dying because i tried to faceroll my way on them, then i started to use singns block and roll and payed more attention to my stamina and passed them just fine
not even once i was forced to explore the combat mechanic in W3, you can finish the game literally spamming X and its very unsatisfying and unrewarding , but if only the sword combat felt good, it would be ok, but it doesnt, sword fight feel like a pillow fight , even W2 felt better
There are many different approaches to combat in RPGs. The more "open-ended" the gameplay experience is, the more "loot" and "gear" define the character you're playing. So for games like Diablo, TES, Dark Souls, and I would argue the majority of MMOs, you play a "voiceless" protagonist (a blank slate which is left largely up to the player's imagination). These combat systems are very enjoyable in practice and are based almost entirely on the assortment of equipment you choose to use. Your appearance, your skills, your attack styles...all of it is pieced together to build the player's vision, and the resulting player character is largely a composite of the gear.
For more character- and narrative-driven RPGs, main characters are pre-defined and much more meaningfully fleshed out. Games such as Final Fantasy, Gothic/Risen, or Assassin's Creed tend to be more linear, as it's much closer to an interactive story with an established story arc, and player characters go through the same evolution as any character in a novel or film. In these cases, player characters are an intrinsic focus of the established storyline and must therefore fit into the established narrative and theme. "Loot" and "gear" must now be extensions of the player characters themselves, as well as their fighting styles and summary strengths and weaknesses. Break this, and you break the main theme of that character.
As the western market is largely dominated by the former approach, I think some players feel "hemmed in" by the latter approach, but there's really not much to be done. The combat system in TW3 works pretty flawlessly in execution...but only if you play like a "Witcher". (In Vesemir's voice):
Study your opponent. Don't charge in. Move cautiously. Analyze, don't react. Wait for an opportunity -- then strike. Above all, remain calm and remain patient. Hesitation can get you killed, but blind bravado can get you killed even faster.
Now...if that's not the style a player wants to play with...the combat here might be hard for them to enjoy.
For more character- and narrative-driven RPGs, main characters are pre-defined and much more meaningfully fleshed out. Games such as Final Fantasy, Gothic/Risen, or Assassin's Creed tend to be more linear, as it's much closer to an interactive story with an established story arc, and player characters go through the same evolution as any character in a novel or film. In these cases, player characters are an intrinsic focus of the established storyline and must therefore fit into the established narrative and theme. "Loot" and "gear" must now be extensions of the player characters themselves, as well as their fighting styles and summary strengths and weaknesses. Break this, and you break the main theme of that character.
As the western market is largely dominated by the former approach, I think some players feel "hemmed in" by the latter approach, but there's really not much to be done. The combat system in TW3 works pretty flawlessly in execution...but only if you play like a "Witcher". (In Vesemir's voice):
Study your opponent. Don't charge in. Move cautiously. Analyze, don't react. Wait for an opportunity -- then strike. Above all, remain calm and remain patient. Hesitation can get you killed, but blind bravado can get you killed even faster.
Now...if that's not the style a player wants to play with...the combat here might be hard for them to enjoy.
Instead of analyzing and studying things cautiously, you can also put the right oil on your blade (only if you're in the mood), quen yourself, charge, then Aard your opponent, followed by 3 or 4 swings -- if you didn't insta-killed him already, then roll. Occasional Yrdens when you fight ghosts, maybe Axi when you're against a shield user. You can do this 90% of the time during this very long game and it works like a charm. The game even holds your hand by granting you an automatic lock.
You "analyze" and "study" when there is something new, but you're done with most of your analysis during the first 10 hours. The rest of it is reusing the same well-known and obvious patterns, with the rare exceptions of some bosses, with swords that have all the same movesets, with 7 new gameplay skills to unlock (rend/whirl/arrow riposte/signs alternatives), during the dozens of hours that are left.
Difficulty wise, no question. And it's been something CDPR received CRAPLOADS of complaints with TW2. My understanding (pardon me if I'm wrong) is that you discovered The Witcher with the 3rd one, so I assume you only played TW2 Enhanced Edition, which already nerfed the prologue. The difficulty curve was very high, no argument there.
However, where I'd argue there is that TW2 combat system was easily abused. Once you understand a straight sword attack is not going to work on most human enemies, and that you understand than parry is tactically a bad choice (because of its stamina cost and, with EE, the damage you take anyway), and that roll technically solves most of your problems (no stamina cost, allows you to backstab ennemies, to avoid dangerous situations), the only thing left to learn is to plan where you will roll (especially prior to improving your skills to receive less damage from attacks from be back).
Unarguably though, higher stamina pool meant signs matter more. Quen dangerous effects of blocking any stamina regen meant that you couldn't abuse it, like you can in TW3.
Unfortunately, as many people complained about the difficulty of TW2 combat system, especially in its original edition, I'd assume developers chose a different path for TW3, which was to mainstream it. Give the player the feeling of overpowered-ness. I can't say the game was particularly easy to me the first hours, but it was night and day compared to TW2. Unfortunately, Difficulty level didn't fix it. I had hoped Death March would provide a challenge, It did for 10 levels, then stopped.
But I'm not arguing difficulty there, I'm arguing mechanics and gameplay. TW3 combat system feels richer to me. Basic moves to start with has been enriched by a Dodge. Parry is useful but depends of the monster you fight. Roll is no longer the king of defense. Horde Monsters, Solo Monsters, Flying Monsters. You don't fight a pack of wolves like you fight a Griffin, nor do you fight 3 peasants like you fight a group of archer, lancer, and shielded enemy. Some monsters will acquire a spectral form, and some will swarm you. Yes, the relative low difficulty makes a few of those things less relevant than they should be. I'm lucky enough to play on PC so can mod the game to alter this.
When it comes to the sound and feel of the sword, TW2 is far but I could indeed remember more inertia feeling in the blade. But really, nothing that stroke me while playing TW3.
All of this imo commends respect for this combat system. Sure, maybe it's not perfect, and if we had a TW3 EE or a TW4, there would be a lot of things I could ask CDPR to improve. But I really do not think that there is nothing there. I could of course exaggerate, and state that I could play the whole game spamming X (which I won't because it's not true), but the truth is that CDPR tried hard to improve the combat compared to TW2, and did a pretty good job at it if you ask me. I surely enjoyed combat in TW3, and many of my complaints with TW2 combat system were gone, even though new came unfortunately.
i dont think anyone doubt their good will of making a better balanced combat system than the W2, and the W3 combat system in itself is good and deep enough, thats not the problem, the problem is that at no time you are forced to use it or even discover, i remember the game showing me how to craft oil and shit, and i was like wtf ? stop let me play and spamm x, not because i didnt want to do that but because i realized very early on that it was going to be useless and gimmicky and in no way be a major part of the combat system
and no i played W2 the first time around its original release window, i bough it recently and retried the starting area, and god it felt better than the W3, and will not even start how i felt after playing DS3, holy shit that game knows how to make combat feels good, and am talking about the " feel " not the depth or mechanic
and the feel is another issues of W3 combat system, you watch the old trailer and you see how nervous faster and more enjoyable it is to watch and hear ( the sound design espacialy far superior ), and then ther's vanilla .... how the hell did they go from that to vanilla is beyond me, lifeless and slow ass movements and uninspired sound design killed it for me
fun thing is that i was enjoying the combat on my first run before i started to watch again the old trailers and notice the difference, when i arrived to the swamp area i started to check back the old trailers and noticed all the differences ...
God, I'd want to hear someday devs explanation about their changes in final game in comparision to the trailer. Especially connected with combat. Maybe then I will be able to understand it.
Last edited:
Well, I won't argue. I can't say any of this has been, nor is my experience of TW3. Maybe my modded experience has made me ignorant of what the game really is in vanilla, but spamming light attack (I don't know what's X, I'm playing on PC) never got me anywhere against anything else than the lowlife peasant. Staggering and parry will make sure this doesn't happen.
I do not watch the old trailers, I didn't do it before the game was released as I hate spoilers, I sure don't do it now that it's released because I don't see the point in studying how the game has changed during its development now that I can play it, but when I do it (which is generally when people claims it was so much before like my dead grandpa used to say), I rarely notice anything drastically different. Apart from the fact that it's a demo, and that's obviously it's reworked. I mean, you do know the principle very well, given your work on STLM and any video accompanying it.
But it's alright, I mean, one person one opinion. I'm relatively happy to be what seems like a satisfied customer. I'd be upset if I had so many griefs toward my favourite game. I mean, I probably no longer will be on those forums, and will be enjoying other games. I mean, if I thought TW3 graphic was crap, its combat system crap as well. I don't have time for playing game I don't like. Less time even to spend too much time complaining about them.
I don't think that the witcher 3 combat system is bad or not satisfying, in my opinion it is one of the best i have played. The main problem with the combat in my opinion is the lack of scaling, after a certain level you find yourself outleveling a lot of creatures or in a huge level disadvantage, adding to it that outleveled enemies are nerfed removing the challenge against them. In my opinion CDPR done it in order to let players feel their progression (so many complained about the scaling in oblivion). i am playing with ESGO the enemies are scaled and i got to tell you it can be overwhelming sometimes.
I don't know why but after playing the witcher 3 other games feel dull and uninteresting, even active combat of great mmos feel uninspiring.
I don't know why but after playing the witcher 3 other games feel dull and uninteresting, even active combat of great mmos feel uninspiring.
Last edited:
Witcher 2 is my first RPG. I used to be an FPS, shall we say, enthusiast. The dragon in the beginning of the Witcher 2 must have killed me 50 times before I finally got past it. It was not a good experience for a new comer. But after that everything changed.
Speaking of my initial experience, I should also add that I find it hard to convince other people into playing RPGs if they know from beforehand that its an RPG. I mean, they have no problem playing Assassins Creed or Arkham. The power of marketting!
I remember getting really hyped over the new combat mechanics, then the game got delayed and the downgrade wars came and I was like "Meh"
First time I played it I was blown away and that hype got back so much so that I put over a thousand hours into it
But looking back, further and further into the depths of how much was changed (and for the worst) really makes it hard for me to feel that overwhelming joy when I play it again, vanilla combat is just so bad. On the bright side, you can get Aerondight in Blood & Wine so I'm pretty excited to use that again.
First time I played it I was blown away and that hype got back so much so that I put over a thousand hours into it
But looking back, further and further into the depths of how much was changed (and for the worst) really makes it hard for me to feel that overwhelming joy when I play it again, vanilla combat is just so bad. On the bright side, you can get Aerondight in Blood & Wine so I'm pretty excited to use that again.
I think I'm beginning to see what people are referring to by "faster combat as shown in the trailers". The scenes like the one where Geralt saves the woman from being lynched? Or the one where he's exercising inter-cut with him fighting the wolves? (Or was that Witcher 2? Whatever. Same difference.)
First, the lynching scene uses a classic cinematographic technique of closing in the shots for the action inter-cut with slow-mo shots. Both of those things trick the brain into thinking that things are happening on-screen more quickly than they are. In films, fight scenes are often filmed in multiple (like bloody hundreds, sometimes) takes at a lot of different angles. That way, editors are able to choose from a wide variety of shots during post. They'll specifically scan the takes to try to find objects (arms, legs, swords, etc.) that move past the lens in the very near foreground -- giving the illusion of large, fast-moving objects. In reality, for safety's sake, most filmed fight scenes are actually shot with the actors moving at ~75% of full speed. Move too quickly, and all you capture on film is a blur. Use higher-speed film, and it mucks with colors and lighting, making editing a nightmare. This same approach is used in both trailers.
Now, I know it's all CGI, but the reason it looks so "real and believable" is because they follow established, cinematic technique very closely
For the fight with the wolves, Geralt is flourishing the sword, not fighting with it. You can't do that during an actual fight -- twirling a blade like that is an exercise to increase strength, become used to the balance of the weapon, and build up fine-motor muscle control in you fingers, wrist, forearm, shoulders, and core. Try doing that in an actual fight, and an opponent will simply walk up and cut something off with one swing. This is where theatrics blends with realism to create cool action sequences. The close-in and moving shots create a lot of foreground movement again. The blade twirling grants lots of theatrical flare. Together, both of these things give the Illusion of Geralt as a living tornado of death.
If you were to watch either of those sequences play out from beginning to end from a wide angle, it would look a little odd. During gameplay, the moves need to be both clear and representative of more realistic and vicious-looking strikes. In TW3, Geralt is already leaping about and attacking with such crazy fast strikes that I would be nervous facing him even for a choreographed film shoot. No human being could keep that up for more than a few seconds.
First, the lynching scene uses a classic cinematographic technique of closing in the shots for the action inter-cut with slow-mo shots. Both of those things trick the brain into thinking that things are happening on-screen more quickly than they are. In films, fight scenes are often filmed in multiple (like bloody hundreds, sometimes) takes at a lot of different angles. That way, editors are able to choose from a wide variety of shots during post. They'll specifically scan the takes to try to find objects (arms, legs, swords, etc.) that move past the lens in the very near foreground -- giving the illusion of large, fast-moving objects. In reality, for safety's sake, most filmed fight scenes are actually shot with the actors moving at ~75% of full speed. Move too quickly, and all you capture on film is a blur. Use higher-speed film, and it mucks with colors and lighting, making editing a nightmare. This same approach is used in both trailers.
Now, I know it's all CGI, but the reason it looks so "real and believable" is because they follow established, cinematic technique very closely
For the fight with the wolves, Geralt is flourishing the sword, not fighting with it. You can't do that during an actual fight -- twirling a blade like that is an exercise to increase strength, become used to the balance of the weapon, and build up fine-motor muscle control in you fingers, wrist, forearm, shoulders, and core. Try doing that in an actual fight, and an opponent will simply walk up and cut something off with one swing. This is where theatrics blends with realism to create cool action sequences. The close-in and moving shots create a lot of foreground movement again. The blade twirling grants lots of theatrical flare. Together, both of these things give the Illusion of Geralt as a living tornado of death.
If you were to watch either of those sequences play out from beginning to end from a wide angle, it would look a little odd. During gameplay, the moves need to be both clear and representative of more realistic and vicious-looking strikes. In TW3, Geralt is already leaping about and attacking with such crazy fast strikes that I would be nervous facing him even for a choreographed film shoot. No human being could keep that up for more than a few seconds.
yeah, obviously i was exaggerating when saying " spamm X " ( i play with an xbox controller ) but am sure you get point, the only reason i bought the game was because of the 35mn gameplay demo, wich showed the game running, not CGI, not scripted ( it might be but my bet is that it wasnt ), amazing nervous fast paced combat and magic ! dark swampy areas with fogs and monsters ! OK TAKE MY MONEY ! not even once it crossed my mind that the game would change SO much compared to the release, because nothing looked faked or out of reach in term of graphics, and because i had a small experience with W2 i though it just looked like an upgraded W2 going open world, same for the combat
i totally understand you not wanting to deal with trailers and early footage ( and i tend to be more like that lately ) but you have to consider that some peoples including me, pre ordered the game because they were shown gameplay footage
but then we knows what happened, still, i deeply remember my early hours exploring the game and being blown away by everything else, i enjoyed the game fully and never regretted my purchase once, even combat !
if we take the combat in its proper context ( their first open world game and the first time their engine going that route ) its GOOD and most importantly IT WORK without any issue, but if we start to take it a part and try to criticize it, then it simply does not hold itself
even without comparing it to what they originally envisioned in the demos, just comparing it to the W2 combat, it has many flaws, W2 wasnt perfect either but it certainly was deeper and felt better, i didnt play it enough to properly judge tbh, but from my short experience the only main problem was the controls itself ( slightly not responsive and some weird camera angles problems some due to level design ), not the combat system or how it feels when cutting shit around and burning it with igni
all in all, am still happy with the game, i wouldnt have spent so much hours in it, let alone modding it, but sometimes its good to look back and see what went wrong
Last edited: