The combat is very inconsistent.

[gibb_geralt]

The combat is very inconsistent.

Mainly when it comes to shielded folk and those with large swords that act as a shield. It is impossible to tell when the opponent will block or not. Many a time the opponent has been mid attack, the perfect time to strike one would think, and then automatically blocks my attack when it should be physically impossible. I have had many a time where an enemy is standing still with his sword or shield right up in front of him, and i've been able to hit him multiple times. What's even more frustrating than both of these is when i go to attack those with cross bows and then somehow block my attack without a sword drawn.

The fact that this game's enemies all attack at once also means that once blocked, Geralt will stumble, and that is a death sentence. So due to the seemingly random "block" animations from the opponent, and no real way to deduce whether or not an opponent is vulnerable, it is impossible to master the combat system. You will always fall victim to chance.

CDPR just need to figure out a way to make it clear whether or not an enemy is vulnerable at the front or he is ready and waiting. They obviously need to get rid of the men who block mid attack and have amazingly sturdy bows that can deflect sword strikes.

Still a really fun combat system, but the lack of consistency many battles the victim of chance.

 

[bcheero]

If blocking was consistent and you knew when they would attack, then there wouldn't be any challenge left. The game specifically tells you to use aard against shield bearers to soften up their defenses. I'll get back to this response later

 

[wichat]

Maybe is a death sentence, but if you're able to arrive at the end that means that you can survive even facing this awful sheilds... They are soldiers and Geralt is a Witcher so fight like a witcher use to do if you can't defeat them only with your sword. Not all in this live is easy... and less The Witcher.

 

[schmooples]

I didn't think Gibb_Geralt wanted it to be consisted. Gibb_Geralt just wanted that animations were correct and outcomes propable.

- Altering strike mid-swing effciently is very hard.

- Blocking when attacking requires something in the other hand and skill.

- Blocking with weapon is more dangerous than with a shield.

- If you are mislead with a feint, it often leaves you very open for strike and so on...

If you are defensive with a shield it doesn't make much sense to get hit if you on the other hand are able to block while offensive.

EDIT: I want to point out that I don't know anything about combat system in TW2

 

[gibb_geralt]

If blocking was consistent and you knew when they would attack, then there wouldn't be any challenge left. The game specifically tells you to use aard against shield bearers to soften up their defenses. I'll get back to this response later

Even then you don't know how many hits you can get in before he blocks without warning. The poster above is right in that i am moreso talking about animations being consistent, showing adequately whether or not an enemy is viable for a frontal attack or not. When in the heat of battle, and not rolling around like a headless chicken, this information is vital for a fluid battle.

Also, what you're telling me is that not knowing an enemies current status is what provides a challenge? No, it only provides frustration. Leaping into an enemy without an indicator on whether or not the attack will be blocked and Geralt gang banged or a successful hit is not a good thing.

 

[AsTheDeath]

As Schmooples said, I believe OP is referring to what could be called incorrect animations, stuff such as being able to hit someone through their shield, or someone being able to block using thin air. There are some flaws with the combat system, no-one can deny that. I hope CDPR will take these into account when making TW3.

 

[gregski]

Even then you don't know how many hits you can get in before he blocks without warning.

So, you would like enemies to warn you that they're going to block? It is a part of the combat system - you manage to hit him once, than for the second or third time, but with every next blow you risk being blocked so you have to actually weigh up the odds, calculate the risk and think if you should land the next blow or move away. I think it adds to the combat system and makes it quite rewarding.

Also, what you're telling me is that not knowing an enemies current status is what provides a challenge? No, it only provides frustration. Leaping into an enemy without an indicator on whether or not the attack will be blocked and Geralt gang banged or a successful hit is not a good thing.

For me it is a good think as it adds risk to the system as I stated above.

 

[227]

It is a part of the combat system - you manage to hit him once, than for the second or third time, but with every next blow you risk being blocked so you have to actually weigh up the odds, calculate the risk and think if you should land the next blow or move away. I think it adds to the combat system and makes it quite rewarding.

Exactly this. You can often manage two strong attacks and one fast attack after hitting an opponent with Aard, but it's largely unpredictable. You have to constantly weigh the pros of getting a few extra hits in with the cons of them blocking you. It's not realistic to take that risk when you're getting surrounded, for example, but if you just threw a Dancing Star and all of your attackers are flailing around, you can probably afford to take a chance.

A little more visual feedback that an opponent is vulnerable or ready to block wouldn't hurt, though. Just so long as it's subtle and doesn't mean obvious "you can kill me now" signs. If it were impossible to master as-is, however, then no one would have ever finished the game on Insane difficulty.

 

[Kindo.824]

If it were impossible to master as-is, however, then no one would have ever finished the game on Insane difficulty.

... without levelling up, at that. Or wasn't that on Insane? Either way.

 

[227]

Or wasn't that on Insane? Either way.

If you're referring to my level 1 playthrough, that'd be on Dark, good sir. There are plenty of others who have artificially increased the challenge of Insane in absolutely crazy ways, though.

Insane's not for me, personally. I'd probably throw my computer out a second-story window the first time my saves became invalidated.

 

[Kindo.824]

If you're referring to my level 1 playthrough, that'd be on Dark, good sir.

Not just you, but there are several who have attempted similar challenges and succeeded. Either way, it's of course made of awesome to do anything of the sort, and we need not go further to prove the point that the combat system in no way prevents you from finishing the game even on higher difficulties.

There are plenty of others who have artificially increased the challenge of Insane in absolutely crazy ways, though.

Well, then. Gods... I'll have to try it with the Shovel next time I'm there.

Insane's not for me, personally. I'd probably throw my computer out a second-story window the first time my saves became invalidated.

Same here, for the same reason. Save game invalidation is not a game mechanic that inspires me.

 

[secondchildren]

So, you would like enemies to warn you that they're going to block? It is a part of the combat system - you manage to hit him once, than for the second or third time, but with every next blow you risk being blocked so you have to actually weigh up the odds, calculate the risk and think if you should land the next blow or move away. I think it adds to the combat system and makes it quite rewarding.

Actually this is what opponents do in Batman games. They "phone" you and ask permission to attack, before doing so.

 

[gibb_geralt]

So, you would like enemies to warn you that they're going to block? It is a part of the combat system - you manage to hit him once, than for the second or third time, but with every next blow you risk being blocked so you have to actually weigh up the odds, calculate the risk and think if you should land the next blow or move away. I think it adds to the combat system and makes it quite rewarding.



For me it is a good think as it adds risk to the system as I stated above.

Most like consistency in their combat. COnsistency only adds to the combat system. A calculated risk is definitely a good thing, but not a risk in which you never know your chances of succeeding.

@227: Ah yes, those who play on insanity. Rolling around for 20 minutes before giving off one Aard following it up with one attack, only to once again again roll around for 20 minutes. Fixing the block animations would prevent this from being the only viable strategy.

There are absolutely no pros to enemies that can block mid attack, block without drawing their sword, and be damaged with a shield right in front of them.

 

[Lurtz_Of_Orthanc]

@ secondchildren, You're thinking of Assassin's Creed. Batman Arkham Asylum is indeed guilty of guys standing around to attack 1 at a time, but Arkham City rectifies this, with up to 3 enemies pouncing on you when you make a move against one of their buddies.

 

[CostinRaz]

Gibb_Geralt: Yeah obviously, because you can't parry the attacks of human foes and then follow up with an attack of your own. I am not talking of riposte here.

I've beaten Letho using just parries, light attacks and heavy attacks in Act 1. No rolling, no Aard, no Yrden, no Quen, bombs or anything like that, though yes I had potions and buffs.

So yeah rolling is the only viable strategy on Insane, yeah right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daHHX9XolUA

 

[Garrison72]

^Pretty much how I play. I buff myself with the best gear and potions then parry, counter, Aard, Yyrden, etc. Obviously can't do that forever so I mix in dodging and bombs. I particularly like leveled up Aard which can down three opponents at once, which lets you execute strong attack while they're helpless on the ground, or I toss dancing star so they burn that much longer. EE makes a more parry-centric play style possible.

 

[gibb_geralt]

Cool mang. You dwon a fight consisting of one enemy. It's too bad 90% of fights in the game have at least 5 enemies with different weaponry.

Anyway, this was just some criticism that i felt needed to be heeded by CDPR. Shield bearers who can be hit through their shield, rangers who can parry with an undrawn sword and 2 handers who can block mid attack makes for inconsistent combat that leaves a lot to chance. Bringing in more consistency can only heighten TW3's combat system.

 

[Sirnaq]

Mainly when it comes to shielded folk and those with large swords that act as a shield. It is impossible to tell when the opponent will block or not. Many a time the opponent has been mid attack, the perfect time to strike one would think, and then automatically blocks my attack when it should be physically impossible. I have had many a time where an enemy is standing still with his sword or shield right up in front of him, and i've been able to hit him multiple times. What's even more frustrating than both of these is when i go to attack those with cross bows and then somehow block my attack without a sword drawn.

The fact that this game's enemies all attack at once also means that once blocked, Geralt will stumble, and that is a death sentence. So due to the seemingly random "block" animations from the opponent, and no real way to deduce whether or not an opponent is vulnerable, it is impossible to master the combat system. You will always fall victim to chance.

CDPR just need to figure out a way to make it clear whether or not an enemy is vulnerable at the front or he is ready and waiting. They obviously need to get rid of the men who block mid attack and have amazingly sturdy bows that can deflect sword strikes.

Still a really fun combat system, but the lack of consistency many battles the victim of chance.

You silly op, shielded and two handed swords enemies always parry, to break their defense you must just wait for their attack, parry it and then counterattack or do riposte or use ard sign or roll to their back. Its obvious that when you are facing enemy and he is focused on you he gonna block your attack. On easy mode enemies never block, maybe you should check that.

 

[CostinRaz]

Cool mang. You dwon a fight consisting of one enemy. It's too bad 90% of fights in the game have at least 5 enemies with different weaponry.

Which are easier to deal with then that one dude since he has Quen, bombs, Igni and Aard. Or what you think the strategy of parrying and counterattacking doesn't work on groups? Well given that we are forced to do that in the eternal battle I'd tend to disagree. Or the Prologue which can be done with no problem without using Quen, rolling, bombs, potions.

I am calling you out on the bullshit you spin by claiming beating Insane revolves around spamming roll.

 

[Guest 3593423]

I like the combat. It's unpredictable (to a point, of course), making it more realistic.