@Cloud_imperium said:
Wow, you posted a wall of text with nothing worth discussing Congratulations. "If you're gonna go down the path of "brah, that's your opinion", why debate an opinion to begin with?". You are the one who started the discussion remember?
Witcher 3's encounter is pretty good. Don't know what you are talking about. Again, Planescape: Torment is a poor example and if dialogues are gameplay sequences then same goes for the Witcher as well.
Yet again you failed to understand my comment. I never defended bad combat is RPGs. I just said that it's improvement over other open world RPGs out there. It's a lot more tactical than those games and nowhere near as bad as some people say it is. It's helluva lot better than Planescape: Torment (a poor example of combat and encounters).
From Software games have nothing going for them except for combat and semi exploration elements. All of them are linear and none of are pulling stuff that Witcher 3 is doing. No shit they have better combat (never said they don't) because they have to make it good, there is nothing else in those games.
1: You should learn what a wall of text is, given how every bit of my post is actually broken up into proper paragraphs.
2: You made a comment against the TC's opinion, stating something...you know since you need to be walked through this process: This is what you posted, and what I bolded "I don't think it's fair to criticize the game just because its gameplay isn't perfect.", upon which I proceeded to argue that no, it's not about it simply not being perfect, you know besides the fact that criticism is exactly that. Pointing out anything something does poorly or not as well, ergo not perfect.
To which at this point you've never made any attempt to argue what you even liked about the combat or what it does, but every irrelevant excuse for CDPR. It's their genre, look at their competition, judge them in a vacuum, look at all this other stuff the game does that should excuse it because the game has so much gameplay per square inch. And none of those arguments would hold any water, in any debate, on an objective level. Because it's genre in gaming, is a loose defense, because the nature of modern video games is to borrow elements from so many genres. Their competition? That's a fallacy, it ignores that all of them can be quite poor. Judging them in a vacuum? That one speaks for itself.
3: Planescape, because somehow this needed its own walkthrough here, even if I explained in plain english, but I'll give it another go, with more redundancy. I out right said the words "the combat in Planescape is shit", but the difference is that you can play that game start to finish and never touch the combat. Because it allows other gameplay builds, which is what the point was in bringing up that game and New Vegas. In contrast The Witcher 3, no matter what build you make, and I went full signs, I'm still going to have to deal with the sword based combat, no matter how you want to slice this. Hence my point if these open world rpgs can't make good combat systems, don't make combat such a big part of your game. Put it another way; Metroid Prime is a FPS where the shooting is at best meh, but shooting shit is not a major focus of that game. It primarily uses it only for boss fights and the rare times you deal with a Pirate or a Metroid, thus giving any action sequence stakes and build up. In contrast a lot of The Witcher 3 be it me going to bandit camps, monster nests, handling witcher contracts, doing the bloody baron quest, handling the gangs of novigrad quest, searching for whoreson junior, or even playing as Ciri has me dealing with: you guessed it, the combat.
Planescape? The second that game begins if you hold up your end of the bargain, you don't need to touch its combat, and given how routinely the game is praised for its writing, yes its conversation battles, are some of the best designed gameplay sequences in that game. The Witcher 3 doesn't have ANYTHING like that, pretending otherwise is being willfully ignorant of how Planescape plays.
4: "It does other things" - again the other things add to atmosphere and the game world (admittedly fantastic aspects of the game), but that's not the only way you interact with this game. The biggest way you do is when they send you on quests to go fight things, that makes up a lions share of the gameplay in this game. Otherwise you're picking some simple dialogue options or exploring a world that would be just big n pretty. The crafting? that services the combat. The parry ?services the combat. The spells? services the combat. The leveling? services the combat. Alchemy, whcih depending on your build you might not even use, is about combat. Ergo, no excuse here. If so much of my time is going to be spend doing this thing it better be good. The other elements don't make this less of a short coming or a flaw, nor does it make it impressive that they made it to mediocre battle system by doing other things.
You'd have something resembling a defense with that if you had any other way to handle quests, but you can't make an intellectually high character who gets by on charisma. You can't make stealth builds. Even your mage builds in this game are limited in comparison to other RPGs. So this myth you keep going on That Witcher 3 is somehow excused from having to make a better battle system, because it focused way more on production value and its fictional world, and not enough on its gameplay is exactly what the TC was bringing up in the first place.
So as far as me not giving you much to discuss, eh, actually I gave you plenty to work with.
@SpinoRaptor24 said:
I think you're confusing objectives with rewards. The stars in Galaxy were rewards, not objectives. The objectives were whatever you had to do in that level to get them, be it fighting a boss, collecting purple coins, finding secrets etc. In MGS5 the objectives and mission structure were more or less the same. Spend 10 minutes traversing empty terrain to first get to the base------> scout out and tag the enemies-----> infiltrate the base through stealth or guns blazing-----> pickup prisoner or intel------> head back to the helicopter for extraction. I suppose you could argue you can tackle missions in different ways since you had a host of unlockables and an arsenal of weapons in order to get an S rank, which adds some variety. Personally it didn't make a difference to me since I was too bored of the game to play it a second time.
Quiet and The End both play out the same way, the only difference is you can't turn off your console and come back a week later to find Quiet dying of old age. Also the fact that you knew I was talking about Quiet even though I didn't specifically mention her means that you inadvertently acknowledged they're both the same, so GET REKT.
Yeah that bush league stuff might have worked on olden days SW spino, but we go way back, so I'm not buying that BS. I'm not disagreeing MGSV's framework leaves a lot to be desired, but when I put up a list of those missions and point out what you actually did during those missions, and it's a variety of activities, no, your argument for repetition, doesn't hold weight, just because it has a core gameplay loop. Which any video game will have, that's not what makes it repetitive. This isn't a Destiny scenario where every single mission came down to ghost goes to open a door or read computer logs, and you hold your ground and shoot a wave of enemies. That simply wouldn't fly with MGSV.
And again whether you want to find it fun or not is irrelevant, the mechanical freedom is a valid defense. You want to argue that its irrelevant because x or y strategy was good enough for majority if not all of the game? I'll hear you on that game, the game is made way too easy because of all the mechanics at your disposal. But repetitive? It's only repetitive if you want to go full completionist about it, if you want to stick to the main missions, it's a non issue.
Also I'm going to assume the bold is you trolling, because the obvious is the following: The End is a sniper, and I naturally went to the only sniper battle in the game as your comparison. And they don't play the same. The set up is entirely, the setting doesn't play anything like that, for starters she actually kills you as opposed to putting her to sleep, you follow her red dot more than anything, you have to follow her invisible trail, sneaking up and meleeing her isn't really an option as it was with The End. That logic would imply that the Crying Wolf fight is just the Sniper Wolf fight again, and that's not true in any context.
@khoofia_pika said:
Criticism for Witcher 3's combat is valid, but the excessive hate it's getting here is straight up bullshit. No, it's not the deepest, most well thought out or even the best controlled combat system there ever was, but it works well enough. Mechanics such as rolling, dodging, parrying add a lot to the melee combat and so do the signs. Enemy variety is great, and there's no way you can defeat all the enemies you come across using just one strategy throughout the game.
1: No one called the game bad, nor the combat bad
2: Big one here, on the highest difficulty on the game I've done little more than use igni, and the magic trap zappy thing against things igni doesn't do well against (Wraiths). Hell I cheesed the Royal Wyvern near the wyvern nests by locking him in with the magic trap. There is nothing to it lol. I haven't touched a potion since going into the caves with Keira, and I haven't used a bomb in combat, lets see, carry the one, right, exactly zero times. They are only in my inventory to blow up nests.
Log in to comment