witcher 2 combat mechanics need major improvement

[wildhuntsucks]

witcher 2 combat mechanics need major improvement

I agree with gamespot critics assertion that witcher combat and gameplay is weak. It seems like the director can't decide whether to make it combat based like a pure hack and slash or more tactics based where alchemy plays a prominent role. The witcher was purely combat and hack and slash with op spells. Alchemy wasn't important and didn't even need to be used to achieve victory. As it stands geralt can muscle his way through any encounter with just brute force and the game is a bit too easy. The relationship between geralt and the enemies is just lopsided with geralt being too powerful and the enemies being too timid and weak. Also the combat was just too dry even with the different stances. All the combat is in witcher right now is just point and click. Witcher 2 needs vastly improved A I and much more intuitive and inovative gameplay in order to get editors choice and better sales. Otherwise its just another run of the mill rpg.on a side note witcher has a great plot, cool music and is really gorey. So I think if gameplay is improved it'll be a great game with more replay value.

 

[tommy5761]

As for the gamespot critic how can anyone make that kind of judgment on a game that won`t even be released for 6 months and at most has only seen a few alpha based videos i guess what i`m trying to say is that it`s his opinion nothing more and nothing less. But i do tend to agree with you on the 1st one being a little dry on the combat issue but also disagree with you on TW1 being a hack and slash . IMO TW1 has a better storyline than any game since Baldurs GateAs for TW2 you do know that there are different ways to develop your witcher. You will be able to develop him as a master swordsman if you wish , or if potions , bombs , and traps are your forte then you can develop your witcher as an alchemy specialist or maybe you want a mix of the two and you will be able to develop him that wayAs for it maybe being another run of the mill rpg would you care to elaborate ?

 

[Flash]

It's 5 months to release. Give it time. Witcher games are about story - it's logical that devs finish story first, not combat.

 

[Garrison72]

I agree with gamespot critics assertion that witcher combat and gameplay is weak. It seems like the director can't decide whether to make it combat based like a pure hack and slash or more tactics based where alchemy plays a prominent role. The witcher was purely combat and hack and slash with op spells. Alchemy wasn't important and didn't even need to be used to achieve victory. As it stands geralt can muscle his way through any encounter with just brute force and the game is a bit too easy. The relationship between geralt and the enemies is just lopsided with geralt being too powerful and the enemies being too timid and weak. Also the combat was just too dry even with the different stances. All the combat is in witcher right now is just point and click. Witcher 2 needs vastly improved A I and much more intuitive and inovative gameplay in order to get editors choice and better sales. Otherwise its just another run of the mill rpg.on a side note witcher has a great plot, cool music and is really gorey. So I think if gameplay is improved it'll be a great game with more replay value.

You've no idea what the game is like. Keep speculating...

 

[wildhuntsucks]

It's 5 months to release. Give it time. Witcher games are about story - it's logical that devs finish story first, not combat.

Storys nice but problem is we aren't reading a book we are playing a video game. Therefore gameplay takes precedence over story. Only thing more important than game play is stability making sure game isn't crashing and runs smoothly. Even mass effect has made efforts to improve gameplay by adding cover mechanics system. The combat in the witcher was way too easy and simple. Most boss fights were over before they started aside from the headhunters,But killing them was pointless because they just kept spawning. Most players just want the witcher 2 gameplay to be unique and have its own personality. Geralt is a monster killer and a master of alchemy. But he plays more like an overpowered warrior mage and it gets dull. Bottom line is No one wants another diablo or a baldurs gate.

You've no idea what the game is like. Keep speculating...

I was refering to witcher one. Since I played and won the first witcher I actually do know what it is like. Therefore I am not speculating.

 

[dezired]

Well, I disagree. I liked TW1's combat. It was a lot better than BG/NWN/DAO combat, IMO. I wouldn't mind if they kept it mostly the same in TW2.

 

[vilgefortze]

@socraTake a break in your rpg career and go play action games. Or maybe pseudo rpgs like ME2.Here are my reasons:1.

Storys nice but problem is we aren't reading a book we are playing a video game. Therefore gameplay takes precedence over story.

You obviously don't understand importance of a good storyline in rpgs.2.

Bottom line is No one wants another diablo or a baldurs gate.

You're blissfully oblivious of the legacy of Baldur's gate.3.

Since I played and won the first witcher

You don't "win" an rpg. It's not a ***** tournament. It's not a ***** shooting contest. It's not a ***** race, and sure as ***** it isn't what you're ever going to enjoy.Take my advice: Go back to arena shooters like quake or hack and slash action games or racing/sports games. There you need not worry about "story", and you can obviously "win".Have a nice day.

 

[edk]

Alchemy wasn't important and didn't even need to be used to achieve victory. As it stands geralt can muscle his way through any encounter with just brute force and the game is a bit too easy. The relationship between geralt and the enemies is just lopsided with geralt being too powerful and the enemies being too timid and weak.

So you didn't need alchemy to win and say the game was too easy? If you didn't need alchemy you must have played on easy. How can someone who played on easy complain about the game's difficulty? Really, this topic is pointless. Lock/del/ban

 

[vilgefortze]

It is somewhat true that Alchemy wasn't really necessary even on some higher difficulty levels in TW1. Give the game a good few gos and you find that you can handle even the bosses without alchemy. I personally have a playthrough in which I beat most bosses (except beast, koschey and final javed(needed damn willow)) without a single potion on hardest difficulty.However, there are mods which make combat quite intense. I'm currently playing the FCR mod and I find it quite challenging. More challenging than I expected, atleast. So why not just try one of these before crying about why a game is not difficult enough, especially when the Devs have already confirmed TW2 combat in higher difficulties will be much more challenging?

 

[pm]

Storys nice but problem is we aren't reading a book we are playing a video game. Therefore gameplay takes precedence over story. Only thing more important than game play is stability making sure game isn't crashing and runs smoothly. Even mass effect has made efforts to improve gameplay by adding cover mechanics system. (...) Bottom line is No one wants another diablo or a baldurs gate.

Just my 2 cents. Any Witcher game is about story - we simply believe that this is what RPGs stand for. Combat, graphics, cutscenes, exploration... these are all side-features. There is only one feature that we treat as main, and it is the story. If you need my opinion, BioWare changed the gameplay of ME (cover system) and gazillions of players think they have shifted away from RPG genre this way. Let me make this clear - I'm not saying it's bad (I love shooters, Quake is my all-time favourite), it's just not pure RPG anymore.

 

[drag0ntamer]

I disagree with the OP. I play games for their stories, not the gameplay. I personally love games that take story over gameplay as their priority. It's games with amazing stories like the Witcher that truly immerse you in the game world. Granted if the gameplay is good then it just makes the game an even greater accomplishment.I agree with PM here on the ME issue. I was really disappointed with ME2's changes as I feel they gave in to corporate greed and tried to pull in shooter fans at the cost of screwing over their hardcore fans who loved Bioware for their RPG's. ME2 is still a great game, however the things they removed stop it from being an amazing one.

 

[vilgefortze]

Er...drag0ntamer, Master PM here is a none other than Mr. Gop himself. There are reasons why he cannot explicitly criticize Bioware for its marketing stunt with ME2. I'm sure he feels the same way you do, but for reasons of "political correctness" he cannot state so more openly.Bioware had developed a great formula that led to the success of many of its rpgs. However, after overuse of that same formula, even some of their hardcore supporters were leaving for greener pastures elsewhere. I myself number among them. And what do they do in response? They try to appeal to a new audience altogether with the ME2 stunt. People who've never played true rpgs play ME2 and love it.Their "first rpg" has both the intense shooter action they're accustomed too, and then there is "action" of a different nature. There's hint of a (poor) story, something new to them. They hail it as a great success. Hardcore rpg fans shake their heads and smile.

 

[dezired]

I think it's silly to categorize games and players into "hardcore RPG fans" et cetera. No, you're not any more "hardcore" if you happen to dislike the (arguably better..) combat of ME2 over ME1's combat. ME2 was still a RPG even though it had an excellent combat system too.

 

[vilgefortze]

But maybe if someone thinks ME2 is a better rpg than Baldur's Gate

mass effect has made efforts to improve gameplay by adding cover mechanics system.

No one wants another diablo or a baldurs gate.

, or wants to improve combat at the expense of a good story

Storys nice but problem is we aren't reading a book we are playing a video game. Therefore gameplay takes precedence over story.

the time has indeed come when we start drawing lines.

 

[dezired]

Well, that would depend entirely on what you like. To some ME2 might be a better RPG. To most, it undoubtedly is. "Old skool" players may or may not disagree, but no one's in the right or in the wrong here...

 

[fchopin]

If you say that ME2 is an RPG then you have no idea what an RPG is.At the most i would say it had 10% RPG elements and i am being very kind when i say this.On the gameplay for TW2 i would agree with you that it's important as i also would like good combat in the game.

 

[Flash]

I'm a huge fan of ME2. Love it, finished it 4 times. But it has little RPG mechanics in it.As for TW2, you can start worrying when the game hits gold. Untill then you can be sure that everything can change like hundred times.

 

[Cyberfrog]

The Mass Effect games are shooter-RPG hybrids, were always meant to be. Criticizing the games for not being something they're not trying to be ("pure" RPGs) is a bit senseless.

They hail it as a great success. Hardcore rpg fans shake their heads and smile.

As if I haven't had enough of that attitude on BioWare forums (where, guess what, a lot of people don't think The Witcher is a "true RPG" or something "hardcore RPG fans" ought to enjoy. I know I'm not the only one getting really tired of that elitist crap.So, any interest in having a better community than BioWare? Or are we seriously going to berate and insult our fellow gamers because of their gaming preferences?

 

[Seeker.217]

Time for me to step in ones more and remind everyone we may or may not agree what is a true RPG and it truth it dose not really matter if you like a game play it if you don't then don't play itbecause everyone idea of a Rpg is different because it dose not have this or to much of that Also who care what critics say about anything I like doing my own thinking when it comes picking what I like long time ago a Actor a famous Actor said this that Critics are just frustrated Actor or Writers that could not get a brake

 

[Garrison72]

Just my 2 cents. Any Witcher game is about story - we simply believe that this is what RPGs stand for. Combat, graphics, cutscenes, exploration... these are all side-features. There is only one feature that we treat as main, and it is the story. If you need my opinion, BioWare changed the gameplay of ME (cover system) and gazillions of players think they have shifted away from RPG genre this way. Let me make this clear - I'm not saying it's bad (I love shooters, Quake is my all-time favourite), it's just not pure RPG anymore.

Intriguing. How is it not pure rpg? You didn't explain.I love ME2, finished the game 6 times. I also think it veered away from deep rpg mechanics in favor of being a more accessible game to casual players. Still a good game, but not a hardcore rpg like The Witcher.I understand the op's point. Combat is the weak point of TW1. Geralt was indeed overpowered, and the timing base system was overly repetitive and simplistic. I also feel there wasn't enough variety in the abilities Geralt could learn.When I see the new combat, it looks completely different - an entirely new system inspired by some great games. It doesn't resemble TW1 in the least, so I think they've really sought to improve the combat system in TW2.