Current Events > How is The Witcher 3's combat system?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Smackems posted...

Bad memory

The combat has a similar flow and weight, and environments share similarities although not as good

oh
it just... felt like a really empty and uninteresting world but w/e.

---

its decent for what it is, but its big fault is that theres just not much to it so what you see in the first 10hours is basically what youll be seeing for the next 100hours which can make it seem overly repetitive and tedious.

Geralt moves like he's wearing iron boots with lube on them. Couldn't stand it.

---

shit sums it up pretty well

less liquid shit than witcher 1 but still a solid log

---

It took me a bit to get used to. At first i was thinking "How am i going to play this?"


---

Cemith posted...

Geralt moves like he's wearing iron boots with lube on them. Couldn't stand it.

that's kind of how I felt about the combat in 2. *That* was clunky.

---

If the combat is kind of lackluster, then why is his game so hailed?

---

DespondentDeity posted...

you listen to Wizard and the Bruiser?

nah. never heard of that

---

SrRd_RacinG posted...

If the combat is kind of lackluster, then why is his game so hailed?

Story.

---

It could be worse, but for all the hype the game gets, its pretty basic.

---

SrRd_RacinG posted...

If the combat is kind of lackluster, then why is his game so hailed?

Ppl kept memeing it so it got super popular

---

Well the other Witcher games were amazing, too. For the story, not the gameplay. Witcher 3 continues that tradition. Plus it's just a really fun adventure. Not everything needs to have super technical hard ass combat to be enjoyable.

---

Hexenherz posted...

Well the other Witcher games were amazing, too. For the story, not the gameplay. Witcher 3 continues that tradition. Plus it's just a really fun adventure. Not everything needs to have super technical hard ass combat to be enjoyable.

Think about it like this, a game with a good story is fun to progress through, but if the gameplay isn't fun, it's a chore. How many games have you played for the story, even though the gameplay is bad or clunky?

It's like trying to read a book, but every fifth word is replaced with something random. You can still enjoy it, sure, if you wade through the mess, but it's just not a good experience trying to slog through the whole thing.

---

Cemith posted...

Think about it like this, a game with a good story is fun to progress through, but if the gameplay isn't fun, it's a chore. How many games have you played for the story, even though the gameplay is bad or clunky?

It's like trying to read a book, but every fifth word is replaced with something random. You can still enjoy it, sure, if you wade through the mess, but it's just not a good experience trying to slog through the whole thing.

Yeah but I didn't find Witcher 3's combat to be a chore :\ Simple, maybe, though there were some options to keep it interesting for ... a couple dozen hours I guess. After a while it became something you did out of necessity, but it still didn't feel like a chore.

Fallout 4 on the other hand...

---

Yeah I think Dragon's Dogma will be more your speed.

---

Gwent is the only reason to play witcher 3

---

SrRd_RacinG posted...

If the combat is kind of lackluster, then why is his game so hailed?

because everything outside of that tends to range between good to incredible. its world design, especially in relation to its story and quests is probably the best seen in a game so far.

The combat is fine imo. The problem is that the combat is only fine but the game can be extremely long. Doing plenty of side stuff I finished the game at 90 hours or so.

---