Selea said:
It's bad design because for sword attacks it doesn't work that way. A gameplay must be consistent, that's one of the key points.
For swords attacks it doesn't work like that. You can merge one attack with the other, with signs you have to wait the animation of the attack to end, and then (after a little pause caused by more frames than needed) the animation of the sign casting to start. Again, a gameplay must be consistent: or you don't enable the merging for everything or you enable it for everything elsewhere there cannot be good timing in fighting.
The timing you talk about is just why the gameplay is not well done in this point, because every good system has a certain timing that the player get accustomed to: TW2 has a different timing depending on which action you do (and not tied to a certain skill, it is an arbitrary and artificial change of timing) and this is bad design.
As I said, it is mostly seen with FCR and playing in a certain way. If you play "normally" it is very difficult to see this because:
You don't need good timing dodging around and dodging actually resets an input block, so also if your input blocked and you then dodge you can either not understand it blocked to begin with. Given that 99% of the people play TW2 by rolling around a lot (there's no other way to play, isn't it?) it is difficult you encounter the problem if you don't know where to look.
But if you install FCR and change way of playing (not dodging) then you start to see all the flaws in the input dynamics.
And do you like it? I mean, do you think it's a good gameplay one where you have to dodge all the time and sort of "game the system" to win? As it is now you have always to go for the lone wolf outside because you cannot fight a group for various skill choices. I cannot understand how people can really defend this type of gameplay and either say it's well done.
People are here even comparing Dark Souls with TW2, do you understand it? What there can be of more distant from it I don't know.
Witcher games ARE rpgs. Moreover I said that combat is A primary aspect, not the only one. I said that story and characters are, in the same way. Still, combat is a large part of an rpg, included The Witcher, in fact. There are a lot of fights in the franchise, isn't it?
It was not trolling, it really seem to me like they took very little time on researching and making the gameplay aspect. First with that Quen turning the gameplay in complete hack & slash, removing it in the EE now it's only dodge and attack from behind, and this only talking of the theoric aspect; if we enter in the technical we have, again, the broken rythm and fluidity that is something you are not used seeing in a studio of this level. I mean, seriously, it seems like they didn't either test the system themselves and took serious work on it.
They didn't focus on the combat aspect too much in this iteration, and I say what I see. When the EE came out I thought they would have worked on that aspect first of all and lost a lot of time to rework it properly given how many people (that knew of what they did talk about) at the time said the same as I'm saying now, but nothing much was done apart little touches. They focused even more on the story etc.
Probably they did because at that point it would have taken too much time to revisit everything and they already started working on the next game, but still, the result is what we have and surely the combat is the weakest aspect of the game.
Thank you for this information. I really appreciate it.
I'm very happy that they seem to be working on this aspect much more this time around.
No, what you call consistency, is your own assumption that the game was meant to work in way, but it simpy works in another way, thats not consistency.
Its the same as if saying since i can pick up herbs to make potions, then every single plant i see whould work for that, or if you say in a fighting game you should be able to combo super attacks with normal strikes just because they can be done one after the other in the same stance, its not inconsistency, the game never tells you, or implies in any way that casting signs is another perfectly combinable move just like every sword swing.
Sword attacks are one thing, and signs use is another, they are meant to be used for different porpuses and in different situations, and as well, they are not meant to be used in the exact same way or be interchangeable one with the other.
"or you don't enable the merging for everything or you enable it for everything elsewhere there cannot be good timing in fighting... every good system has a certain timing that the player get accustomed to: TW2 has a different timing depending on which action you do (and not tied to a certain skill, it is an arbitrary and artificial change of timing) and this is bad design"
Again this "rule" is just your taste, all games have different timings, because all games have different animations, this is why i said that your problem isnt the "melting" but the time, in a fighting game a kick might cost more time than just a punch, and its the same thing.
Of course, i understand (at least i think i do), that your problem isnt animations with different length(otherwise you'd complain about every game), but its that pause that happens after the animation is apparently done, well, while this does suck in my opinion, its still isnt plain bad design, its simply a decision meant to be there that you and i disagree with.
If the animation instead of having a pause after it, would actually last until the exact time you can use a sign, it'd be the same gameplay-wise, obviously it would look better, but for playing the game, its the same time you have to wait, and the same time you have to meassure, and you would have to use the attacks in the same way.
About the rolling around and input block, i did play the game quite some time without dodging to see how it was with just running and blocking, and havent noticed what you talk about, BUT, you may be right since i didnt test this too much, so ill just take your word in this aspect.
About my playstyle, i hate rolling around all the time, i dont like it, and i think its because the other concepts are applied in a very bad way, thus rolling became by far the most useful and reliable choice, as i said in my other post.
Its fair to compare Dark Souls's mechanics to those of TW2 cause they are esentially and conceptually very similar, apart from timing, but its the application of that concept, of that idea, that its done in a much worse way in TW2, and therein lies all the complaints about the combat in TW2, both from casual players, and loyal fans alike, even when it might be really fun for a lot of us.
I think you are confused what something is, with what its labeled as, using "genres" to define games is an extremely vague and inaccurate choice since a long time ago.
The only thing one can say TW games are, its that they are TW games, the end.
Its the same that happens with Mass Effect, a lot of people say "its an RPG!!" and others say "Its not an RPG!!! its ahooter with char creation and dialogue choices, or whatever" and both of this claims are a superficial generalization and simplification to easily designate and resume the game, while the true, most accurate and precise statement, is just that ME is ME, and it plays like ME.
This is why people discussing games in general and in detail dont use genres, but use other games as points of comparison.
It is true, that RED advertises or refers to TW games as RPGs, but of course, what the hell would they call them otherwise? what time or space could they have to truly and effectively explain how TW plays in every talk or headline? what word could there be to simplify it without falling into uncertainty and possible missguiding?, none.
About combat in the context.
"it is as much important (if not even more for some aspects). "
Ask this to any witcher dev or fans, and you'll likely get the same answer, "its not like that".
"I said that combat is A primary aspect, not the only one" and thats exactly why i said "you say combat is
a primary aspect to the RPG genre"
Yes the games do have a lot of combat, but they have plenty of all things RPGs tend to have actually, CDPRED like to try to do everything, if combat was that important to them for their vision of their RPG as is the story, they wouldnt even include easy difficulty modes, and add an automatic decision system or something like that.
What it might "seem" doesnt matter, CDPRED are probably the most ambitious and crazy-for-detail AAA developer in the industry today, and calling out their intentions, rather than their performance, is once again useless.
Actually, if they didnt even cared for the combat, why are you creating this whole thread? you made it because you wanted to help them with constructive criticism (as well as some small accusations imo), so you already know they DO want to make a good combat.
Everybody can screw up, make mistakes, take bad decisions etc. If RED would've made great combat in addition to all things they do, they'd do basically perfect games, and nobody is perfect.
You say what you see? so you saw every member of the gameplay team in their offices working and listened to every conversaton they had? no, so you dont say what you see, lets get serious.
As you know, i totally agree that the combat is by far the worst part of the game, but we can only make guesses, and i would be inclined to believe, that a team that has done all what RED has done, and behaves like they do, and rewrite the entire combat system from their already amazing TW1 just cause they want to change things forever until their perfect vision is reached, does not lack will power or intentions, or puts little focus into somethng as important as combat.
I mean seriously look at how other devs act, Assassins Creed has bad combat since its first game and after 4 sequels it still sucks the same or more, and the worst part is, it does that in the EXACT same way, its not like they tried to change but failed, and like this, i could probably talk about 90% of the whole industry.
To end up our conversation, i wanted to add this thing about the combat from TW3 that i forgot.
I didnt add it before because its not a quote or anything like that, but i've read every single article and report made by journalists who saw a gameplay presentation both at E3 and gamescom, and one of the things almost all of them were surprised by, is the fluidity of the animations blending together and how Geralt could seamlessly combo-up sword strikes and signs in all directions without even having to move the camera or turn his whole body.
Needless to say, im very excited, and i think we will both enjoy the next game a lot when it comes out.
