If he isn't trolling, please explain to me any of this:
Interinactive wrote:
TW3 is a 'terrible game' because it requires 'zero skill', and Batman (yes, Batman, the same Batman games we've all played) has combat that is a 'lot more complex'
Based on Batman and no detailed explanation of any part of TW3. Perhaps it's just shitposting then.
Also, IMO the sky is purple and grass is pink. That is my opinion. No matter how ridiculous it sounds, please don't criticise me for it or else you're trolling
Because he can? You know, like Kaltern can play fageffect androgynous while hating it....
Well I never played batman because it looks v. derp to me.. but honestly calling W3 combat complex and rewarding?! c'mon man its a great game and i'm a huge fan of the franchise. Combat, Itemization, Crafting and even the alchemy were so forgettable and boring in comparison to the earlier games.
I can take or leave 'open world' as well, our opinions heavily differ here. I really really do not enjoy chasing down ?'s of lacklustre content maps in which so many games and people love to spend 300 hours doing. Fortunately CDPR pretty much put an entire 80 hour linear game into W3 which no other studio's done before in open world, that made it all work for me.
Maybe its the batman comments as I can't comment, but to me he's just giving his opinion.
Well I never played batman because it looks v. derp to me.. but honestly calling W3 combat complex and rewarding?! c'mon man its a great game and i'm a huge fan of the franchise. Combat, Itemization, Crafting and even the alchemy were so forgettable and boring in comparison to the earlier games.
I can take or leave 'open world' as well, our opinions heavily differ here. I really really do not enjoy chasing down ?'s of lacklustre content maps in which so many games and people love to spend 300 hours doing. Fortunately CDPR pretty much put an entire 80 hour linear game into W3 which no other studio's done before in open world, that made it all work for me.
Maybe its the batman comments as I can't comment, but to me he's just giving his opinion.
Will have to agree with you here.
Batman never did much for me, but the combat was slightly more entertaining and certainly more challenging than TW3 combat.
Nobody said the combat in TW3 was complex or rewarding. He said the combat in Batman was 'a lot more complex' than TW3, which I can tell you for a fact - it isn't. Batman's combat (and mechanics in general) are extremely simple, so simple that my 7 year old can play it (the latest one at least) very easily.
Indeed, Batman's combat system wasn't more "complex" than the one in TW3, it simply felt more fluid and intuitive, but fluidity and intuitiveness shouldn't be confused with complexity.
'Because he can' what? That response doesn't even make sense in response to anything I just said
Because he can have an opinion which you do not have to agree with. And if your opinion does not coincide with his then saying that he's trolling is just trolling.
I hated Batman combat yet liked TW3 one, even though it certainly has flaws and doesn't deserve to be called great.
Rocksteady Batman's combat system is the definition of derpification for me personally. You don't even have to control movement in most of the fights, because he just leaps 15 meters from enemy to enemy without any input required from the player. Most of the fights in these games can be won just by observing these HUGE, glaring prompts above enemies' heads and pressing exactly two buttons: attack or counter, whenever it's appropriate. Sure, later on more enemy types are introduced but tactics to beat them are still very simple and straightforward. I actually finished all 3 Rocksteady Batmans (haven't played Origins) without spending half of the experience points - or whatever it was called - because after getting the essentials I just couldn't be arsed.
Witcher takes the same basic concept, but scraps the idiotic "fluid" leaping and glaring icons and introduces a shitload more of enemy types. Your basic bandit camp has similiar variety batman's gangs had (normal guys, shooters, shield warriors, two-handers), but you also get to fight animals and many different monsters, which changes the game considerably. And at Deathmarch it actually offers a challange from time to time, which Batman never did (even with half of the experience not getting used, which is ridiculous by itself).
Well, IMHO, the game is great but the combat was very lacking and could definitely do with som improvement. But I would still consider it a GOTY (especially compared to a lot of games out there) and buy it at full price (which I didn't as I'm a cheapskate).
But having an opinion about a game, any game for that matter, and people start slagging you off is just because they don't agree with you is fucking retarded.
I hated Batman combat yet liked TW3 one, even though it certainly has flaws and doesn't deserve to be called great.
Rocksteady Batman's combat system is the definition of derpification for me personally. You don't even have to control movement in most of the fights, because he just leaps 15 meters from enemy to enemy without any input required from the player. Most of the fights in these games can be won just by observing these HUGE, glaring prompts above enemies' heads and pressing exactly two buttons: attack or counter, whenever it's appropriate. Sure, later on more enemy types are introduced but tactics to beat them are still very simple and straightforward. I actually finished all 3 Rocksteady Batmans (haven't played Origins) without spending half of the experience points - or whatever it was called - because after getting the essentials I just couldn't be arsed.
Witcher takes the same basic concept, but scraps the idiotic "fluid" leaping and glaring icons and introduces a shitload more of enemy types. Your basic bandit camp has similiar variety batman's gangs had (normal guys, shooters, shield warriors, two-handers), but you also get to fight animals and many different monsters, which changes the game considerably. And at Deathmarch it actually offers a challange from time to time, which Batman never did (even with half of the experience not getting used, which is ridiculous by itself).
Well, after a while - I could defeat 9 out of 10 enemies in Deathmarch without effort.
The thing about Batman is that you need perfect timing on the harder difficulty levels - especially because you want to maximise your XP gain. Also, the markers are optional.
That's much, much harder to do than anything in TW3.
I hated Batman combat yet liked TW3 one, even though it certainly has flaws and doesn't deserve to be called great.
Rocksteady Batman's combat system is the definition of derpification for me personally. You don't even have to control movement in most of the fights, because he just leaps 15 meters from enemy to enemy without any input required from the player. Most of the fights in these games can be won just by observing these HUGE, glaring prompts above enemies' heads and pressing exactly two buttons: attack or counter, whenever it's appropriate. Sure, later on more enemy types are introduced but tactics to beat them are still very simple and straightforward. I actually finished all 3 Rocksteady Batmans (haven't played Origins) without spending half of the experience points - or whatever it was called - because after getting the essentials I just couldn't be arsed.
Witcher takes the same basic concept, but scraps the idiotic "fluid" leaping and glaring icons and introduces a shitload more of enemy types. Your basic bandit camp has similiar variety batman's gangs had (normal guys, shooters, shield warriors, two-handers), but you also get to fight animals and many different monsters, which changes the game considerably. And at Deathmarch it actually offers a challange from time to time, which Batman never did (even with half of the experience not getting used, which is ridiculous by itself).
Well, after a while - I could defeat 9 out of 10 enemies in Deathmarch without effort.
The thing about Batman is that you need perfect timing on the harder difficulty levels - especially because you want to maximise your XP gain.
That's much, much harder to do than anything in TW3.
Well, it was for me - anyway.
Personally I never found it hard, but okay - different people can find challenge in different things, after all.
I agree that Deathmarch in TW3 started getting easy after a while, though some boss fights still were demanding enough for me. It has a lot to do with lack of level scaling, I think, which is why I'd actually love to see levels removed from the game altogether, leaving monsters with stats set per their type and progression through acquiring abilities and gear, instead of level difference - so that a golem would be a hard fight because it's a golem, not because it's a 30 lvl golem, if that makes any sense.
It has a lot to do with lack of level scaling, I think, which is why I'd actually love to see levels removed from the game altogether, leaving monster with stats set per their type and progression through acquiring abilities and gear, instead of level difference - so that a golem would be a hard fight because it's a golem, not because it's a 30 lvl golem, if that makes any sense.
It has had this option for some time now. The only downside, I guess, is that some weaker enemies might seem to be more powerful than they should be - but I haven't run into that with my new game yet
Ha, I'll have to try it sometime. Sadly, I've finished a second playthrough several months ago, so a next one will have to wait a while
I don't know, to me, having to use the all the buttons on the controller (or plenty on a mouse + keyboard) is complex. If complex is not the word, then what is? "Rewarding"? Perhaps in your playthrough you mashed buttons, but that's not how I played the Batman games. (Not that I could have such a large streak as in the video, of course.) And I'm not saying Witcher should have a deep system as the Batman games.
I don't know, to me, having to use the all the buttons on the controller (or plenty on a mouse + keyboard) is complex. If complex is not the word, then what is? "Rewarding"? Perhaps in your playthrough you mashed buttons, but that's not how I played the Batman games. (Not that I could have such a large streak as in the video, of course.) And I'm not saying Witcher should have a deep system as the Batman games.
Well, most games require use of all the buttons on a controller
Complexity, to me, is about the amount of options combined with the depth of options.
For me, the Batman combat system is a pretty simple and streamlined system - but it's quite challenging on the harder difficulty levels.
I'd call it a highly skill-based system - as in personal skill.
TW3 was more or less a pushover if you built your character correctly, and I certainly didn't feel terribly challenged.
Ok, on Death March - it was hard at first because they made trivial enemies hit like dump trucks. But in terms of how to approach the combat - and how to move around, it really wasn't very challenging and didn't require much of what I would consider personal skill.
Perhaps I am misusing the word "complex". Please post examples of games with "complex" fighting mechanics, because I'm missing something here. Having a nice animation to go with the fighting does not make a game streamlined. But, neither does having 1000 combos that you never need make a game complex. In the Batman games, you cannot really advance, even on the regular difficulty, without using most of that stuff. You may not do it in style, but you have to use it to not die. Again, I have not played the last two Batman games, and those may have been streamlined; I am speaking about Asylum and City.
Perhaps I am misusing the word "complex". Please post examples of games with "complex" fighting mechanics, because I'm missing something here. Having a nice animation to go with the fighting does not make a game streamlined. But, neither does having 1000 combos that you never need make a game complex. In the Batman games, you cannot really advance, even on the regular difficulty, without using most of that stuff. You may not do it in style, but you have to use it to not die. Again, I have not played the last two Batman games, and those may have been streamlined; I am speaking about Asylum and City.
Well, I'd say games like ToEE, Silent Storm and Jagged Alliance 2 all qualify as having reasonably complex combat systems.
For action RPGs, complexity is pretty rare - for obvious reasons.
But, you could look at certain MMOs for complexity in that way. Even something like World of Warcraft (vanilla) - which had a ton of options during combat. It wasn't unusual to have something like 15-20 relevant abilities you had to manage, and the depth of the math behind them was pretty significant too.
ESO high-level raids/PvP would also qualify, though I wouldn't call it super complex or anything.
For pure action games, you could always look at something like Virtua Fighter or whatever. Quite the arsenal and depth in that combat system.
I'm not terribly excited about math-style combat systems, ala MMOs. Usually that means turn based, which to me, in a role playing game, if your role is a combat master, I expect you to be a skillful master at combat, not swing the sword for a higher number, then wait for some stuff to happen before you swing again. I understand why I have to role dice in a tabletop, but not in a modern computer game.
Casus wrote:
For pure action games, you could always look at something like Virtua Fighter or whatever. Quite the arsenal and depth in that combat system.
I don't think anything of that caliber is possible in a 3D game with traditional control inputs. There is a reason why these games are locked in one dimension.
I'm not terribly excited about math-style combat systems, ala MMOs. Usually that means turn based, which to me, in a role playing game, if your role is a combat master, I expect you to be a skillful master at combat, not swing the sword for a higher number, then wait for some stuff to happen before you swing again. I understand why I have to role dice in a tabletop, but not in a modern computer game.
Casus wrote:
For pure action games, you could always look at something like Virtua Fighter or whatever. Quite the arsenal and depth in that combat system.
I don't think anything of that caliber is possible in a 3D game with traditional control inputs. There is a reason why these games are locked in one dimension.
Anything is possible. Question is if it's desirable or particularly entertaining.
As I said, I don't think complexity for the sake of it is a good thing. It's all about what you're trying to achieve with your game - and combat shouldn't be the only focus in all games.
Because he can have an opinion which you do not have to agree with. And if your opinion does not coincide with his then saying that he's trolling is just trolling.
The opinion police again. I've addressed this twice already.
He can have an opinion, I can have an opinion, and we don't have to agree. No shit. Guess what else we can have? An argument or discussion, as is the point of any forum, and we can do it without your condescending intervention.
This ridiculous mentality of continually pointing out people are allowed to have opinions ruins any type of discussion - online or otherwise. It's not worth saying anything anymore.
For the nth time I'll point out that there still isn't anyone here calling the combat great, it is easily the weakest part of the game. Evidence can be found throughout the entire thread since it was released. How that makes it terrible overall, I still don't understand. And I still don't understand how Batman (of all games) can be used to compare the two with 'complexity' in mind
I didn't bring up Batman. You decided to attribute that to me, but I didn't even think of Batman when talking about Witcher, because one is a brawler and the other a medieval swords play. Read what I have said in this thread. I don't like this game because of multiple reasons, chief among them combat and controls. I was never a fan of the story, and I did not find the graphics impressive at all at release time (might have improved since, I don't care). Usually, I am willing to ignore dislike for those for a while, if gameplay is good, but to me it was terrible. Are you the type of people that claim that in order to have legitimacy of complaint (the legal right), one must sink 230 hours in a game? I am not one of those. I had this game on preorder for many months before release. Even the graphics downgrades looked like silly fuss to me. But once I played it for several hours and found everything so jarring, I just refunded it.
As I said, I don't think complexity for the sake of it is a good thing. It's all about what you're trying to achieve with your game - and combat shouldn't be the only focus in all games.
Agree completely.
I'd give some more reasons to Interinactive to fume; despite being completely simple, I enjoyed the combat in Skyrim a lot more than this.
Are you the type of people that claim that in order to have legitimacy of complaint (the legal right), one must sink 230 hours in a game? I am not one of those.
so true and nor am I.
^^ although watching that batman combat the AI looks like it's just standing around waiting to be punched with no threat. Many of these types of games you can often put the controller down and watch for 20 or more minutes for the AI to actually kill your char.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
so true and nor am I.
