15849 réponses à ce sujet

[KBomb]

Been awhile,

popped in to say that this game still has me blown away months later.

I've had more memorable quests and short little stories in these small bursts than ever before.

The Ice Giant quest for example.. A Jarl's son carrying on his fallen companion's blade to finish his quest for him, on the honor of the man's ancestors. Ahhh..

Without writing a massive post about what quests in particular, people who've had a chance to enjoy the game thus far should keep an eye out or remember the quests.. Ice Giant of Undvik, The Cave of Dreams, King's Gambit.. Cabaret.. and so many more.

They just know how to get me to care. Side quests usually aren't something people remember from games, usually it's up to the main quest. Well, I'm currently 8 levels above the main story quest right now because I'm still enjoying the side content. And before anyone informs me that it's a problem that you outlevel content, you can simply choose to do only the main quest anyway and still be fine.

The sights in this game, the music in this game and how well they seem to tie everything together.. I mean, people remember the deeds you do! Good and bad which it should be. Just threw out a bunch a roudy men from a err.. Tavern.. for mentioning I've done their people well before.

Being able to tell people, "No, keep it." Makes me feel better too when I turn in a quest. Sadly it's not always an option but hey, haven't had a game allow me that option in awhile.

A very minor con so far which actually DA had better on were how forgiving they were for ill choices of talents. I leveled early my witcher on Death March mode Alchemy.. Eeeesh.. Alchemy shines really well late game but immediately you'll get better rewards for focusing on signs or even combat. 1k crowns is hard to come by early game but luckily for myself late game I have a lot more coin in the pocket. DA allowed for you to buy a really cheap amulet early game and it wasn't exactly hard to find the merchant that sold it.. It's my belief in Witcher they should have allowed you to craft that "potion" which allows you to re-specialize. I mean, is he not an alchemist himself?

Talents also seem to be a problem for both games IMO. I like how Combat/Signs/Alchemy flow but I'd like to have a varied build if you get what I mean. It seems you cannot go half way on these builds unless you are very high level with all the powers channeled from (little shrines that give you an ability point upon channeling from)

What frustrates me a bit also is how they have some icons not popping up on the map unless you happen to be in the area. I'd like for them to do something better about that next time. I do use the interactive map online now to help me find shops I'm looking for but still, it may be a bug?


Lastly, cutscemes mid combat seem to be a problem for me still even from witcher 1 to 3. I'd leave my video below showing me getting absolutely destroyed by a werewolf after a short dialogue. I mean I couldn't even dodge! He just swings as the screen fades from black to view... Arrrrghhhh!!!!!!!

Overall I'd give it a 9.5/10, still enjoying these little moments, and even the side game, gwent is really catchy! Thanks CDPR for being awesome!!!

Hello, Ogre! Long time, no see. Glad to see you're still enjoying TW3.

[Wolven_Soul]

Agreed on most of this even on the bits I snipped for length. (The dialogue is hit or miss for me. But I actually like the voice alot and to me the conversations at least feel more vibrant. My only issue is a lack of actual choice. It tends to boil down to yes/no/snarky/investigate. I have to craft my characters in more subtle ways i.e. my sniper is mostly sincere about being a nice guy my lady is just trying to worm out information and it's easier with honey she then robs everyone blind and builds herself a glorious house while leaving everyone else in shacks with holes in the roof (which isn't bad just different but I'd rather have more dialogue in addition to that).

 

 

Is it really fair then to say ME3 can't be judged against TW3 because they're too different at combat when comparing TW3 and DAI/DAO/DA2 which are all very different from TW3 combat? (For one they didn't focus on swordplay and are meant to be played in parties with each party member complimenting the other).

 

I never said the quality of the relationships was bad. I said I didn't feel invested in them because of the predefined character. I never said anything about the quality being better and if you think I did please quote me so I know where my message was misinterpreted. The whole point of that was me saying what I value.

 

 

There's a quest to make him less bad but eh he's kind of charming in his badness. Also he has more remarks on what you do when he's bad. XD

 

But he does bring up your exploits. With funny little comments to it. If he could just drop the stutter and the awkward pausing!

 

 

ME is still a lot more different from TW3 than TW3 is from the DA series.  One is shooting, the other is hand to hand combat mixed with magic.  So it is more fair to compare the fantasy games to each other than it is to compare a fantasy to a sci-fi, at least in terms of combat.  When I compare Witcher's combat to a Dragon Age game I am not comparing action combat to party combat, I am comparing to how combat in Witcher feels to how combat feels with whatever character you happen to be controlling in DA.  Yes, Dragon Age combat is party based and when your comparing two games that are both party based, you have to take into account how your character interacts with the others.  Taking that out of the equation though and focusing on how well controlling your character feels, then controlling Geralt in combat feels so much better than controlling any one type of character in DA:I.

 

I didn't see anywhere you actually said that so it must have just been me misinterpreting.  That being said though, I still personally felt far more invested with Geralt's interactions than I did with any of my characters interactions in DA:I.  Perhaps this is simply because I feel more drawn to characters who are more fully fleshed out, and I don't think it can be argued that Geralt is much more fleshed out than any character you can make in DA:I except for whatever head canon you give to him or her.  This preference might be due to the fact that I read...a lot...and with books all characters are always predefined, and the good ones always pull me in.  As I hold books to be the best form of storytelling that there is, that might be why I am usually more drawn to the predefined characters in video games.  

[Wolven_Soul]

Fair enough, but saying that they don't invest themself in their games is quite ludacris. Look at the immense worlds they build and the lore around it. Along with all the little details that makes people explore their games for countless of hours. I know its not you who said it, just putting it out there. 

 

One thing that also bothers me is when people say "mods will fix it". If it was any other game you would never say that, you would just learn to live with the bad and love the good. But when its a Bethesda game and since it has mod access all of a sudden it needs to be fixed, it isn't good enough on its own. I just see that as a weird attitude for gamers. As i see mods they let you tune your experience and fix the small things that annoy you, that does not mean the game is broken or needs to be fixed, you just have the ability to do something with it. 

 

Well tired rant over, bed time!

 

I do love their worlds, they build some of the best.  So I am with you there.  There is no doubt in my mind that they invest themselves in their games, I just wanna see them push themselves a little more, try new things.  At the very least get a new engine.  

 

As someone who has always played on console and thus has never had access to mods, I am in agreement with you there as well.  I was never able to use a single mod in Skyrim or either of the Fallouts Bethesda has made, and I loved every single one of the games.  I will be glad to get the chance to do so with FO4 and whatever games are coming next, but I don't feel that it is needed to enjoy the crap out of their games.

[Wolven_Soul]

 

 

 

I don't have an issue with head canon, I do it often when I play any game, not just an RPG. My only issue is when the story and characters rely so heavily on it.  I might as well just take their setting a write a book or something since I'm already doing their job.  We'll have to disagree on the interactive movie bit. I don't consider any Rpg close to one. And imo, the comparison is usually used as a way to dismiss any RPG that doesn't have a CC and let you run around the world as some sort of silent rat monkey creature.

 

 I'm cool with the happy medium approach. Shepard and Hawke will always be my two favorite BW PCs.  I consider them just as strong of a lead as Geralt...well Shepard is.  Hawke was sadly tossed and given a possible death by the order of the lamest BW PC of them all.

 

 

I think I am happiest with the happy medium approach.  I love custom characters and I love predefined ones, but characters like Shepard and Hawke give us the best of both worlds.

[Xetykins]

I used to be anti fixed protagonist, like as fixed as Geralt. After TW3 I really don't mind anymore. As long as I get that same rich story, I will be happy. I'm now actually thinking of buying xbox to play all Halo games since I think masterchief is awesome but never even thought about really playing it before.

 

Obviously, I still prefer creating my own character, but I am not closed-minded anymore.

[ashwind]

I am happiest with either extreme approach. Tell me that I am Geralt the Witcher and I play as Geralt the Witcher. Of course the world must react to Geralt accordingly. Tell me that I am a prisoner and was given my freedom because someone believe that I might be Nerevar reincarnated and nothing else - I will play as a character of my own design.

 

Medium is usually the worst... because medium means you are partially a character of your own design but also a character partially of someone else's design. Such an approach usually leads to contradicting experience.

 

Fallout 4: I dont care about Shuan... because Sparta!!! I think more females find the story good interesting, the conversations emotional and all that... but... I simply find the plot cheesy. The world as we know it has ended but not ma parental duties!! 

 

Game developers take note please... males... we care more about our car than digital babies and children.  

[Akrabra]

I am happiest with either extreme approach. Tell me that I am Geralt the Witcher and I play as Geralt the Witcher. Of course the world must react to Geralt accordingly. Tell me that I am a prisoner and was given my freedom because someone believe that I might be Nerevar reincarnated and nothing else - I will play as a character of my own design.

 

Medium is usually the worst... because medium means you are partially a character of your own design but also a character partially of someone else's design. Such an approach usually leads to contradicting experience.

 

Fallout 4: I dont care about Shuan... because Sparta!!! I think more females find the story good interesting, the conversations emotional and all that... but... I simply find the plot cheesy. The world as we know it has ended but not ma parental duties!! 

 

Game developers take note please... males... we care more about our car than digital babies and children.  

Well i work with teaching kids, and i don't have a car. So in disagreement. I don't think medium is the worst, i think its the hardest to pull off, but the most rewarding when you do. I would say Fallout 4 did a decent job with it. Made the personal story turn into something more. Ofc it will make it harder to go through the game again having that much of the characters background set in stone. And that is the sacrifice they made and i respect them for trying atleast once to do something new with the story. I would say it paid off, but it pissed off alot of people. 

 

The Witcher 2 is one of my all time favourite games, but i have only played it from beginning to end three times. Compared to DA:O that has race,gender and background choices which i've probably beaten 30 times. Still that doesn't diminish the game, as the quality speaks for itself. Aslong as it delivers something compelling that makes me want to play it again sometime in the future, well that is enough for me. And TW2 + Fallout 4 are games i will return to for the rest of my life because the quality is there. 

[FKA_Servo]

Game developers take note please... males... we care more about our car than digital babies and children.  

 

Way to pigeonhole. As it happens, I care deeply for my dog, and I'm using my infant son as ammunition for my mini nuke launcher.

[wicked cool]

Ok im now officially a witcher fan. 3 hours in(pc) and my only complaint so far is that geraults movements at times feels clunky.
Things im amazed by (i was a diehard skyrim and dai fan)
-swimming and diving. Ive only been in water once but wow they did a great job-A+
-signs. Axii or mind control. Wow truly feels like you cast a spell. A+ in execution
-2 side quests do far and im still torn if i made the right decision-A+
-witcher sense-its a little clunky and probanly could have been a little less blurry but its so much better than dai
Sonic searching-solid b
-npcs-tons of townsfolk but in first small village theres 4-5 npcs that will talk to you . Its much better than dai but maybe its unrealistic to expect more npcs to talk like skyrim
-monsters and combat- only a handful so far but wow. They have ai and so far swordplay and signs are fun but it feels like a learning curve-B+
-looting-lots to loot and feels a little overwhelming as im not sure what i need. Clearly meant for hardcore -B
-day/night and weather-wow so much better than anything ive played. -A

So far other than movement being clunky there does seem to be too many cutscenes and like dai you walk into them. I would have liked some sort of stealth gameplay. Would e nice to sneak up on an enemy or looting while guards are nearby. Leveling seems overly complicated. I took a point in fast attack but im not sure if i made the right choice

[Ryzaki]

ME is still a lot more different from TW3 than TW3 is from the DA series.  One is shooting, the other is hand to hand combat mixed with magic.  So it is more fair to compare the fantasy games to each other than it is to compare a fantasy to a sci-fi, at least in terms of combat.  When I compare Witcher's combat to a Dragon Age game I am not comparing action combat to party combat, I am comparing to how combat in Witcher feels to how combat feels with whatever character you happen to be controlling in DA.  Yes, Dragon Age combat is party based and when your comparing two games that are both party based, you have to take into account how your character interacts with the others.  Taking that out of the equation though and focusing on how well controlling your character feels, then controlling Geralt in combat feels so much better than controlling any one type of character in DA:I.

 

I didn't see anywhere you actually said that so it must have just been me misinterpreting.  That being said though, I still personally felt far more invested with Geralt's interactions than I did with any of my characters interactions in DA:I.  Perhaps this is simply because I feel more drawn to characters who are more fully fleshed out, and I don't think it can be argued that Geralt is much more fleshed out than any character you can make in DA:I except for whatever head canon you give to him or her.  This preference might be due to the fact that I read...a lot...and with books all characters are always predefined, and the good ones always pull me in.  As I hold books to be the best form of storytelling that there is, that might be why I am usually more drawn to the predefined characters in video games.  

 

Eh it's the difference between a game where you move between characters and one where you don't. (And honestly ME3 is actually a better comparison in that front considering you never control anyone other than Shepard) I personally don't see how the comparison is less valid. 

 

Yeah if I had liked Geralt that'd been nice but I didn't so I'm just sitting there "ehhh." As for the liking predefined characters I like them just fine in any game that's not an rpg. But that's not what I play rpgs for.

[FKA_Servo]

Ok im now officially a witcher fan. 3 hours in(pc) and my only complaint so far is that geraults movements at times feels clunky.
Things im amazed by (i was a diehard skyrim and dai fan)
-swimming and diving. Ive only been in water once but wow they did a great job-A+
-signs. Axii or mind control. Wow truly feels like you cast a spell. A+ in execution
-2 side quests do far and im still torn if i made the right decision-A+
-witcher sense-its a little clunky and probanly could have been a little less blurry but its so much better than dai
Sonic searching-solid b
-npcs-tons of townsfolk but in first small village theres 4-5 npcs that will talk to you . Its much better than dai but maybe its unrealistic to expect more npcs to talk like skyrim
-monsters and combat- only a handful so far but wow. They have ai and so far swordplay and signs are fun but it feels like a learning curve-B+
-looting-lots to loot and feels a little overwhelming as im not sure what i need. Clearly meant for hardcore -B
-day/night and weather-wow so much better than anything ive played. -A

So far other than movement being clunky there does seem to be too many cutscenes and like dai you walk into them. I would have liked some sort of stealth gameplay. Would e nice to sneak up on an enemy or looting while guards are nearby. Leveling seems overly complicated. I took a point in fast attack but im not sure if i made the right choice

 

Go to your gameplay options and try the "alternate movement style." All it does is make the game as responsive as it should be in the first place, and it's only a thousand times better than the default setting. The gameplay takes a minute to get used to, especially coming from DAI, but if you like that sort of thing, you'll probably end up enjoying it and getting very good at it. Dodging and parrying was tough early on for me, but soon enough that was all second nature.

 

When looting ingredients, remember that you only need to craft potions and such once - then when you use them they'll replenish using a strong alcohol when you meditate. So don't stress picking flowers - also, what you need can be bought cheaply enough from nearly every alchemist. The witcher gear will outclass every other piece of gear you can find or craft, unfortunately, but hunting for it is a lot of fun, and it's upgradable, so it wouldn't be a bad bet to start gathering it early. Buy maps from blacksmiths to find that stuff.

 

The talent system is mystifying (not confusing mystifying, just weird design mystifying), but fast attack is a good bet no matter how you end up playing. Just remember to slot your talents, otherwise they don't function.

 

Overall, TW3's open world and art design are bangin'. The towns are well-designed, the population density seems spot on, and the cities are beautiful. Novigrad is a sight to behold, just walking around in it. I hope you enjoy it.

[Wolven_Soul]

I used to be anti fixed protagonist, like as fixed as Geralt. After TW3 I really don't mind anymore. As long as I get that same rich story, I will be happy. I'm now actually thinking of buying xbox to play all Halo games since I think masterchief is awesome but never even thought about really playing it before.

 

Obviously, I still prefer creating my own character, but I am not closed-minded anymore.

 

The original trilogy's story is really good.  Halo really raised the bar for story telling in a FPS.  4 wasn't terrible, but not quite as good, though from what I am hearing about 5, it leaves a little to be desired.  343 isn't quite at Bungie's level in that regard quite yet.

[Wolven_Soul]

I am happiest with either extreme approach. Tell me that I am Geralt the Witcher and I play as Geralt the Witcher. Of course the world must react to Geralt accordingly. Tell me that I am a prisoner and was given my freedom because someone believe that I might be Nerevar reincarnated and nothing else - I will play as a character of my own design.

 

Medium is usually the worst... because medium means you are partially a character of your own design but also a character partially of someone else's design. Such an approach usually leads to contradicting experience.

 

Fallout 4: I dont care about Shuan... because Sparta!!! I think more females find the story good interesting, the conversations emotional and all that... but... I simply find the plot cheesy. The world as we know it has ended but not ma parental duties!! 

 

Game developers take note please... males... we care more about our car than digital babies and children.  

 

When it is done well, as in Shepard and Hawk's case, it is the best approach.  Because you get a detailed history of that character, and all of the potential story possibilities that come with that, but you get full say in how those relationships develop.  With the medium approach you get, in my opinion, better stories, and the ability to more greatly influence those stories.

[Wolven_Soul]

Eh it's the difference between a game where you move between characters and one where you don't. (And honestly ME3 is actually a better comparison in that front considering you never control anyone other than Shepard) I personally don't see how the comparison is less valid. 

 

Yeah if I had liked Geralt that'd been nice but I didn't so I'm just sitting there "ehhh." As for the liking predefined characters I like them just fine in any game that's not an rpg. But that's not what I play rpgs for.

 

It's not a better comparison because in one game you shoot people and in the other you hack at them with a sword and blast them with bombs and signs.  It's really as simple as that.  As I said, when I compare the combat, I don't take the party based system into account, only how it feels to be controlling whatever character you happen to be controlling, which is the fairest comparison you can make between the games' combat system.

 

I play RPGs first and foremost for the stories, because they tend to have the best stories.  However that story comes into being is perfectly fine by me.  That's mostly what I am in it for, because above everything else, I am a lover of stories first, video games second.  

[wicked cool]

Is there a spot early on to tell if the free dlc stuff is installed

[FKA_Servo]

Is there a spot early on to tell if the free dlc stuff is installed

 

You can verify that they're installed in your game menu. Some of the content, such as alternate appearances, have a toggle associated with them, but since all the DLC is lumped together now (at least I think it is) if that stuff is installed, it means all of it is installed.

 

Are you playing it through GoG Galaxy, Steam or Origin (lol)? If you're playing it on PC just off the discs and not through any game client, then all the DLC (and the patches, for that matter) have separate installers. Which would be a perplexing way to do it, but who am I to judge?

[FKA_Servo]

It's not a better comparison because in one game you shoot people and in the other you hack at them with a sword and blast them with bombs and signs.  It's really as simple as that.  As I said, when I compare the combat, I don't take the party based system into account, only how it feels to be controlling whatever character you happen to be controlling, which is the fairest comparison you can make between the games' combat system.

 

I play RPGs first and foremost for the stories, because they tend to have the best stories.  However that story comes into being is perfectly fine by me.  That's mostly what I am in it for, because above everything else, I am a lover of stories first, video games second.  

 

At its heart, and despite being able to play it "pause to aim" (which, while supported, likely isn't at all intended) ME is an action oriented third person shooter, at least from ME2 onwards, just as TW is an action oriented 3rd person slasher... at least from TW2 onwards. I think it's a decent comparison, as they link up much more naturally than either one does with DA, which can be played from more than one perspective, in real time or not, ostensibly with strong emphasis on programmable tactics (in the case of the earlier games).

 

I agree with the latter part, of course, but sometimes I like being told a rollicking story, and sometimes I like to meander around in a rollicking story. TW3 was mostly awesome at the former (HoS knocked me on my ass), and at various moments was terrific at the latter, thanks largely to the pacing of the story at certain times and the scope offered up by the world, but for me, nothing still matches up to creating a character who is free to set his or her own priorities and letting them engage with the main plot on their own terms rather than predefined terms. Something that Bioware and Bethesda traditionally offer in spades, though sometimes coherence demands a certain about of work on our part as well. You get back what you give, though.

 

It's all good, either way. I can hardly complain.

[Hazegurl]

It's not a better comparison because in one game you shoot people and in the other you hack at them with a sword and blast them with bombs and signs.  It's really as simple as that.  As I said, when I compare the combat, I don't take the party based system into account, only how it feels to be controlling whatever character you happen to be controlling, which is the fairest comparison you can make between the games' combat system.

 

I play RPGs first and foremost for the stories, because they tend to have the best stories.  However that story comes into being is perfectly fine by me.  That's mostly what I am in it for, because above everything else, I am a lover of stories first, video games second.  

I agree. Comparing sword play combat to shooter combat is reaching a bit.   As for the TW3 vs DAI combat. TW3 wins hands down. Geralt just flows in combat and switching between crossbow and back to sword to using bombs is done really well, at least to me.  The Alternate movements are really good too, but I found myself switching back to the default.  I got too used to it.  One of my biggest issues with DA combat is how stiff the sword play is.  You hack and slash but there is no flow to the movements.  That's one of the reasons why I don't play warriors.  I prefer playing mages but you can't even move around while attacking, but I do like the faster combat with them.  But yeah, overall, I like to move around while in combat. I like rolling and dodging, blocking, regrouping et al.  I don't like being locked in place hacking and slashing then having to stop to run away or move to another spot to get a better position.

[FKA_Servo]

I agree. Comparing sword play combat to shooter combat is reaching a bit.   As for the TW3 vs DAI combat. TW3 wins hands down. Geralt just flows in combat and switching between crossbow and back to sword to using bombs is done really well, at least to me.  The Alternate movements are really good too, but I found myself switching back to the default.  I got too used to it.  One of my biggest issues with DA combat is how stiff the sword play is.  You hack and slash but there is no flow to the movements.  That's one of the reasons why I don't play warriors.  I prefer playing mages but you can't even move around while attacking, but I do like the faster combat with them.  But yeah, overall, I like to move around while in combat. I like rolling and dodging, blocking, regrouping et al.  I don't like being locked in place hacking and slashing then having to stop to run away or move to another spot to get a better position.

 

I don't think it's reaching. It all boils down to whose skill matters. Geralt is only as good at dodging as we are. Shepard is, broadly speaking, completely reliant on our skill at aiming to land any of her shots. Whereas our skill as players has no bearing on how good a shot Varric is, or whether our mage inquisitor is going to land a spell, or whether Alistair is going to block an attack (though admittedly, this has shifted somewhat in DAI). In execution, the two approaches are drastically different, and that is why there's really no objective grounds for comparison between the two gameplay styles. Your entirely valid preference appears to be skill based action combat, versus DAI (and all the previous games, as well as a zillion other classic RPGs) with its real-time w/ pause stat based combat. FWIW, it's just probably my preference too, given how much I enjoy TES games, TW3, and ME. I can't blame anyone who doesn't like it though (or who is physically incapable of dealing with it, for that matter).

[wicked cool]

Big problem with dai is damage sponges

If u want to one shot an opponent you
Basically have to craft and farm schematics or use the nug from a previous game. Its use special attacks and then fight with normal attacks until you refuel. Other than giants you rately knock down an enemy and when they flee its an awful animation. With w3 and skyrim combat has a more brutal feel and both are mire personal. Finishing moves would help along with an
Option to zoom into the battle. I should have unlimited pommel strikes etc for low to mid chart attacks. The higher abilities should be more dramatic and devadtating but also need time to cool down. I shouldnt be locked out of a second weapon

[Hazegurl]

I don't think it's reaching. It all boils down to whose skill matters. Geralt is only as good at dodging as we are. Shepard is, broadly speaking, completely reliant on our skill at aiming to land any of her shots. Whereas our skill as players has no bearing on how good a shot Varric is, or whether our mage inquisitor is going to land a spell, or whether Alistair is going to block an attack (though admittedly, this has shifted somewhat in DAI). In execution, the two approaches are drastically different, and that is why there's really no objective grounds for comparison between the two gameplay styles. Your entirely valid preference appears to be skill based action combat, versus DAI (and all the previous games, as well as a zillion other classic RPGs) with its real-time w/ pause stat based combat. FWIW, it's just probably my preference too, given how much I enjoy TES games, TW3, and ME. I can't blame anyone who doesn't like it though (or who is physically incapable of dealing with it, for that matter).

I disagree, Sword play vs sword play is a much more accurate comparison than swordplay vs shooter.  Sure they rely on some level of skill from the player to land a blow or dodge an attack but it wouldn't be fair to even compare the two since the mechanics and combat experiences  are naturally going to be different.  I spent most of my combat in the ME series hiding behind cover.  I love being a sniper in ME, especially ME3.  That doesn't mean I have a right to say that TW3's or even DAI's combat is inferior because I can't be a sniper or something. The combat experiences are just far too different.  I'm not going to say that basketball and soccer are comparable simply because they require skill to score a point.  

 

My complaint about DAI's swordplay is based on the movement during combat, which is very stiff, and even the animations suck.  I loved Dragon's Dogma combat. I think their combat is superior to DA in every way.  Nothing like climbing a large creature and stabbing it while it tries to fling you off.  I also liked the variety, which BW felt the need to give us less of for some reason. Comparing DD, DAI, and TW3 is IMO, a much more fair comparison than throwing a shooter into the bunch.  

[vbibbi]

Big problem with dai is damage sponges

If u want to one shot an opponent you
Basically have to craft and farm schematics or use the nug from a previous game. Its use special attacks and then fight with normal attacks until you refuel. Other than giants you rately knock down an enemy and when they flee its an awful animation. With w3 and skyrim combat has a more brutal feel and both are mire personal. Finishing moves would help along with an
Option to zoom into the battle. I should have unlimited pommel strikes etc for low to mid chart attacks. The higher abilities should be more dramatic and devadtating but also need time to cool down. I shouldnt be locked out of a second weapon

Damage sponges made parts of the Descent really aggravating. Not that all enemies should be able to be killed in one blow, but when the challenge is boredom from whittling away health rather than tactics in winning a fight, it's a problem.

[Ryzaki]

It's not a better comparison because in one game you shoot people and in the other you hack at them with a sword and blast them with bombs and signs.  It's really as simple as that.  As I said, when I compare the combat, I don't take the party based system into account, only how it feels to be controlling whatever character you happen to be controlling, which is the fairest comparison you can make between the games' combat system.

 

I play RPGs first and foremost for the stories, because they tend to have the best stories.  However that story comes into being is perfectly fine by me.  That's mostly what I am in it for, because above everything else, I am a lover of stories first, video games second.  

 

Biotics. That said I can play all of DA series without using a sword or grenades once so I mean really one is an action rpg that's meant to be played with a single character vs groups and the other is groups vs groups. Clearly they're going to have differences. That said when I controlled Geralt he was clunky as hell anyway. I only said ME3 because it was a non contest to me. DAI's hitboxes in melee are pretty mediocre meanwhile Geralt specializes in it so of course certain combat is gonna feel better in TW3 than DAI.

 

Yeah for me the enjoyment of the rpg comes from me having some control over the story. Without that I might as well read/play something else because a vast majority of game stories are mediocre at best when it comes down to it and if I'm playing something for story I'd rather read something better written.

[FKA_Servo]

I disagree, Sword play vs sword play is a much more accurate comparison than swordplay vs shooter. Sure they rely on some level of skill from the player to land a blow or dodge an attack but it wouldn't be fair to even compare the two since the mechanics and combat experiences are naturally going to be different. I spent most of my combat in the ME series hiding behind cover. I love being a sniper in ME, especially ME3. That doesn't mean I have a right to say that TW3's or even DAI's combat is inferior because I can't be a sniper or something. The combat experiences are just far too different. I'm not going to say that basketball and soccer are comparable simply because they require skill to score a point.

My complaint about DAI's swordplay is based on the movement during combat, which is very stiff, and even the animations suck. I loved Dragon's Dogma combat. I think their combat is superior to DA in every way. Nothing like climbing a large creature and stabbing it while it tries to fling you off. I also liked the variety, which BW felt the need to give us less of for some reason. Comparing DD, DAI, and TW3 is IMO, a much more fair comparison than throwing a shooter into the bunch.

But basketball and soccer are more similar than basketball and backgammon, and their respective merits are entirely subjective because they're all fairly different. Which is basically what I'm positing. And I think you're claiming TW3's combat wins hands down because it does things that DA does not, could not, and frankly, should not.

It's not important that one is a shooter, what's important that success in gameplay relies on the skill and reflexes (or lack thereof) of the player in ways that it doesn't in Dragon Age. And Dragon's Dogma is decidedly also an action game, so that comparison is just the same as comparing the witcher. It's like comparing BG2 to Ocarina of Time.

I'm curious whether you hold the same position on the previous DA games? Because your issues with DAI are even better represented there.

[panzerwzh]

An interesting review of TW'3 combat

http://www.gamesrada...l-you-expected/

 

" Most of all, what I like about the Witcher 3's representation of swords is it recognises that they are sharp. One of the weirdest accusations I've heard directed towards Wild Hunt's combat was that it is lightweight. Swords aren't heavy. They don't need to be. A good longsword weighs around three to four pounds, and the length of the blade generates an incredible amount of leverage when swung. Consider how easy it is to slice carrots with a sharp kitchen knife, and then add a three-foot pivot to the handle. Yeah.

 

The Witcher 3 is one of the only games to successfully communicate this lightness, this efficiency. Not simply in its grislier moments, but in how Geralt moves lightly on his feet and wields his blade with such ease. It isn't like a big club he uses to bludgeon opponents with, as you might see in Skyrim or a lot of JRPGs. It's more like an extension of his arm, easy to hold, to adjust, and to strike with. Sword-fighting is all about skill, not strength, and Geralt epitomises this notion when he fights.

 

...

 

That's a lot of moving parts. But importantly, all of these have varying effects on different enemy types. A large part of the Witcher combat style is adjusting to whatever opponent you're facing, exploiting vulnerabilities through combinations of oils, potions and bombs. It's true that on easier difficulties you can bypass a lot of this, and casually hack your way through the combat. But that's the point of easy mode - to let players enjoy a game without requiring enormous skill or knowledge to do so. On harder difficulties, you need to prepare for fights accordingly, to learn the weaknesses of the monsters you face, and ensure you have a good stock of bombs and potions available at all times.

 

The variable nature of Witcher combat is also represented when a fight begins. Counters work differently depending on whether you're fighting a human or a monster, and you can't rely on blocking with your sword if a ten-foot-high Fiend charges at you. The game could explain these subtle changes a little better than it does, but there's always an inherent logic to them. There's no point fighting a pack of wolves in the same way you'd fight a man wielding a club, so the game adjusts accordingly, and if you try to block a strike from a monster that would easily shatter all the bones in your arm, well, the game is going to punish you for it."