Oh man, It's just a game. And inspired by doesn't mean a copy. Besides, if you remove game specific settings (knife opponent always block etc.) and AI (enemy stand before you and wait dozens of seconds for you to attack him while other 10 enemies who surround you just watch and wait for their turn), both Batman and AC systems are similar.
I just watched the E3 demo and then the publisher pitch video leaked awhile back.I'm glad that CDPR is still improving their product:W2 is more open-world; no more ridiculous loadingArmor/weapons have increased in number of equippable pieces as well as total numberW2 (at least according to the pitch video) has a day/night cycle W2 is still M for Mature, like the first gameGeralt has scabbards (that has been requested of Bioware for ten years and they still can't deliver)Etc.So at least one developer is actually listening (even if CDPR is doing some more actiony-RPG faddish stuff like a shorter, more cinematic and less text-based experience; timed responses that trigger QTEs, etc).Anyway, I just wanted to say how underwhelmed I was by the combat in the E3 demo. Everything looked like a special move, it seemed somehow bodiless, looked like it was missing animation frames, and there was too much acrobatics as well no reactivity-- or even threat-- from the enemies. The simple sword swings of W1 were way more visceral and satisfying to look at. I do hope they get it right.PS: The dialogue in the gallows scene was awful good.
the combat seemed un-finished in that last footage but we already know that they combat isnt finished. the enemies were always too close to geralt and hiting them had no weight to it (they flew like baloons when they died) and geralts attacks were always "too falshy". the spinning jumping attack came out way too often and it didnt look good. a combat should be mostly consisted of simple moves with bigger moves as a spice for veriety. making 30% of his moves a flashy ones made the combat feel too "game-y". its not a good balance. but i hope they will improve upon it since it has good foundations, IMO.
It's up to the player which moves he choose to use. In such demos on exhibitions most often there's invulnerability turn on or some ridiculous regeneration to assure that player won't die. Imagine that you are dev presenting the game to the audience and you die in game, and then have to repeat the scene from the beggining. Unacceptable.Jumping attack and rolling was used much too often and only later, after the fight we saw parry move. How effective the combat looks depends on player's skill and character level. One can constantly hit the same button or use variety of effective moves. Logic dictates that most experienced players would be testers and those are not present at the exhibitions.
Of course we will!Spitz6860 said:
As for the action-RPG - during all our presentations we were showing much combat & fighting situations. We didn't want to show only plot-related moments at the open presentations, as it would spoil a lot of the story (which, itself, is the main part of the game!). Such situation have probably caused such feeling in some of the journalists. Please rest assured - we're not doing anything more 'action-oriented' than the Witcher used to be. It's still true -blooded RPG. With new and exciting combat system implemented as an addition to the story And we all hope you will enjoy it!for the record, I really liked Batman: AA, I felt the combat was simple for the uninitiated, but had a lot of depth to explore if you wanted to get into it, but it wasn't *necessary* to do so.... in most situations you could get by with punches and blocks, though a few boss fights required special tactics and moves, but mostly just dodging and a well timed batarang to the face, and I think it was well executed. (Except Killer Croc, that was annoying. They also had fun with one part where on console they said you lost because you didn't use the "middle thumbstick", and on PC it told you to "tilt the mouse" in an impossible to win situation, it was funny. leaves you dumbfounded for a minute, but in a good way as you quickly realize you were supposed to... um, well, won't spoil it) But I couldn't help but think Batman could have been so much more fun if it was more than JUST fighting. As fun as some of that fighting was (plucking guys off the ground from gargoyles NEVER got old, though you did sometimes wonder what the architects were thinking...) So I hope if indeed the fighting is similar to Batman, Witcher successfully weds that to a strong story, which, from the previews shown, it looks as though they have. 'cus that would be awesome.Flash said:
Your post fits in description of what devs say about TW2 combat - "easy to learn, hard to master". I really have high hopes for TW2 combat. I hope that it will have the RPG deepness. I like when what I see on the screen has some meaning, explanation and dependencies. Like this attack is better for this kind of situation because ..., and this part of equipment is absolutely needed in this situation because... It seems obvious but in a lot of games devs try to tell you that it has some meaning when in fact it doesn't. There is a story behind it, there is lore but in game there is nothing in files, nothing in game mechanics, it does nothing. It just pretends to be important when its not. I'm disappointed for example when I see an enemy in leather armor and that armor does nothing, is nothing more than an eye-candy.
Just to be clear with you - The Witcher 2 will be real RPG, not an action one. No worries, really.Combat system which you've seen on those presentation was finished in about 20-30%. It was really early stage of its development. Even all animations was not final.Yes, you can see there out direction - more immersive, more fluent, with more tactical options. But not simpler like in action RPG games.For instance - still you have two tottaly different sword types ( steel and silver ), you can't just mash - especially on guys with shields, we have more opponent types than in the wither 1 and they will behave tottaly different - and so on. Again, no worries. Keep the faith in us. And we will reward you with RPG greateness
what I expect from a combat system is simply reward the player with reacting in time. in most RPGs u just input "attack, attack, attack, attack" until the enemies die. no reward for the defensive player. no meaning for enemy position, enemies attacks or enemy's defense. it's just the player attacking.if a combat system has a block button that prevents damage from the player than it immediately elevates the combat into something where the player actually has to pay attention to the enemies and what they are doing. if u manage to block in time than u can preserve your life for longer and the end result of the combat will be a LOT more rewarding because u know u survived thanks to your input. surviving by the stats alone means that the combat was won or lost even before it began since it hasnt got much to do with the player input during the combat. i want an RPG but i also want an engaging combat. a combat where i actually need to pay attention to the enmies. i dont need a DMC combat system but just a system that allows me to avoid damage by blocking or dodging. I think that an RPG combat system can be, like with batman:AA , a system that allows for depth a player needs to use in great challenges but can completely disregard in easy situations where he can survive on stats alone. this system should work well if several difficulty settings exist to if u want to rely on stats just play on easy (where enemies block less and that player can block less himself since damage is decreased) or if players want a mroe action oriented system they can up the difficulty to hard in which they need to use the advanced combat maneuvers otherwise they wont survive. the repeating statement on TW2 having a pure RPG combat is the opposite of re-assuring to me, actually. i want an evolution of TW1 and not the old "click the enemy repeatedly until dead" system in 90% of the RPGs.
Anyone else like me not too bothered in the combat system? I never used to roleplay DnD with a few mates around a table to care about the combat, but how i was progressing as a character, and the story we were making for ouselves. As long as the story, and character progression is excellent again, even more improved on The Witcher 1, combat will be at the back of my mind. Hardcore RPG's have never really been about the combat. The system they have shown off now looks good enough for me.
When I first saw the gameplay demo for the TW:ROWW and saw that they implemented controls that YOU can control Geralt dodging, countering, and such, I said "That is what I want!" In TW1, it is good, but I did not feel connected, all i was doing is making the quick time combos, and when ever I try to dodge by double tapping, I could be 30 yards away from him and I still got damaged. So, whats the point? If they make the controls right, reward you for your dexterity, and have RPG elements that can make combat easier, then I say go for it! Besides, I rarely use my gamepad, I only have 4 games out of 10 that I can use my controller. BTW, more controller support please!
what he said.when the consequences of combat are made thanks to MY input it's when i feel like a warrior. if the game does it for me than i am disconnected. that the game was doing well. not me. if only the stats of the characters determine the combat skills than the results of the combat are kinda determined before the fighting has even began, and if that's the case than why am i even a part of combat? i might as well sit aside and let it play itself. i want to be involved. i want to play the combat. the clicking fiesta that is traditional RPGs was the reason i was never an RPG type of gamer.Ritly said:
Just make the Witcher 2 a game that takes full advantage of pc capabilities, and I will be happy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=ksa_nWGh02U&feature=relatedThis is what i'd like to see in Witcher 2. It's what the first game's combat was supposed to be. Very tactical, detailed battles, yet dynamic and intuitive. Everything that usually is presented just through numbers and text in RPGs is fully played out in front of you. The dodges, parries, cuts, spell effects. It's as vibrant as a battle from the books. I can see many of those elements in TW2 gameplay videos but the "lock" that's needed to play everything out perfectly isn't there and whatever's happening just lacks impact. In TW1 you have a certain area around you, you try to keep free from enemies, while in what i've seen now they're swarming you completely while you roll inbetween them.And i really digged Geralt circling around enemies, moving his sword in the air, that was awesome.