This game is quite challenging.

syntax42syntax42 USAMember UncommonPosts: 1,378

It is hard to get a general idea of how the combat actually plays out by reading reviews.  The few that I read only hyped the game and made it seem like the next big action RPG.  I somewhat regret my purchase.

 

If you like methodical, unforgiving combat, similar to Dark Souls, this game is for you.  It might not be as hard as Dark Souls, but it isn't anywhere near as easy as other action RPGs.  Expect to spend almost as much time gathering crafting ingredients for potions and other life-restoring items as it takes to get through the quests.  Save after every fight and heal up after every fight.

Even on the easiest difficulty, I find it difficult to fight monsters that I haven't faced before.  Their patterns and attacks take time to learn.  I think they should have set the player with a higher level coming out of the first zone to make fighting some of the monsters easier until they can learn the various patterns.  Instead, I'm taking huge hits from small mistakes and have no other way to gain an advantage over my opponents.

If you don't mind getting frustrated by fights and having to save/load often, this game might be for you.  If you're looking for something less frustrating and more along the lines of Skyrim or Assassin's Creed, avoid this game.

«1

Comments

  • etlaretlar Member UncommonPosts: 689
    [mod edit]

    A little Harsh i think.

    I played through you 90´s games, and i found the combat rather hard as well, but i also started on a higher difficulty, 

    and had to set it down a notch.

    i think im playing "normal" mode now, and i quicksave often aswell, though not quite as much as the the describes ;)

     

    PS: it´s a great game, looking forward to playing it on a harder setting, will make it feel more like a survival game i think, lol :)

  • luisrkillerluisrkiller orlando, FLMember UncommonPosts: 107
    [mod edit]

    Or he is just sharing his opinion and actually finds it challenging. As a beginner in the Witcher series I've actually found some of the encounters pretty challenging. I'm playing on the difficulty above normal, but not everyone has the same playstyle [mod edit]

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,236

    I had similar problems with Witcher2 - early enemies like the Endrega Queen or the bridge troll will kill you with 2 hits.

    You have no hope to kill them by just rushing towards them with your sword.

    Try some mage build and keep your distance or place bleeding traps on the ground and "sit" it out.

  • jdnewelljdnewell Spring Hill, TNMember UncommonPosts: 2,206

    The combat is a bit challenging if you just try to rush in swinging your sword.

    Try using bombs and signs, or even ranged with the crossbow.  You will have to use more than just charging in and hacking away like in skyrim.

  • syntax42syntax42 USAMember UncommonPosts: 1,378
    Originally posted by Dakeru
    I had similar problems with Witcher2 - early enemies like the Endrega Queen or the bridge troll will kill you with 2 hits. You have no hope to kill them by just rushing towards them with your sword. Try some mage build and keep your distance or place bleeding traps on the ground and "sit" it out.

    This is exactly what I was referring to.  If you don't know how to fight a tough enemy, you have to be prepared with multiple options.  Doing so requires a lot of time spent gathering resources before you go into battle.  I don't like that kind of tedious game, so I turned the difficulty down to avoid it as much as possible.

    On a related note, what happened to all of Geralt's (the main playable character) equipment, experience, and levels from Witcher 1 and 2 games?  It doesn't make sense that this guy is supposed to be a seasoned fighter but you start as if you barely know how to fight.  

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 6,219

    I don't like most games where you have to gather and craft and so leave them unfinished.  It's a mini game I don't enjoy most of the time.  ME1 had that planet mining which was fun for about 30 mins after that it was just boring.  I'm glad they dropped it in later games. 

    I like the way Skyrim and some other games do it.  It's there if you're into that sort of thing but not needed to progress. 

     

     

    "Change is the only constant."


  • jdnewelljdnewell Spring Hill, TNMember UncommonPosts: 2,206
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dakeru
    I had similar problems with Witcher2 - early enemies like the Endrega Queen or the bridge troll will kill you with 2 hits. You have no hope to kill them by just rushing towards them with your sword. Try some mage build and keep your distance or place bleeding traps on the ground and "sit" it out.

    This is exactly what I was referring to.  If you don't know how to fight a tough enemy, you have to be prepared with multiple options.  Doing so requires a lot of time spent gathering resources before you go into battle.  I don't like that kind of tedious game, so I turned the difficulty down to avoid it as much as possible.

    On a related note, what happened to all of Geralt's (the main playable character) equipment, experience, and levels from Witcher 1 and 2 games?  It doesn't make sense that this guy is supposed to be a seasoned fighter but you start as if you barely know how to fight.  

    Because that wouldnt make for a very good game lol. Starting off as a complete badass with the best equipment, magic, ect. would almost defeat the purpose of any RPG.

    I get what you are saying, but for game play reasons is just not feasible to have you start off at the highest level of badassery.

    Just keep at it, the combat does get easier the better you get at it.  Sometime having a game challenge you is a good thing. Makes you think instead of mindlessly running in and mass killing shit. There are games like that out there, D3 for example, and are fun for what they are. This just isnt an easy mode game.

  • CaldicotCaldicot StockholmMember UncommonPosts: 450

    If you had played the previous games you would have known that this is what Witcher combat is like. Challenging but rewarding when mastered.

    If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan

  • ElRenmazuoElRenmazuo Alexandria, VAMember RarePosts: 5,361
    I started on hard mode and set it to normal later, the game is the right amount of challenging but not too much.  I just love the scenery a lot lol.
  • Viper482Viper482 Somewhere, FLMember RarePosts: 1,729
    [mod edit]

    .

    [mod edit]

    OP, I am with you bud and I am 44 years old and played this pre-90's stuff. The game is challenging but not too much. Just right imo. I took your post more as you were surprised with the difficulty and adjusted rather than being a "scrub" such as this elitist guy suggested.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,209

    This is all just a mindset.

    The first encounter I ran into handed me my ass. 

    I stared at the screen for like 5 seconds in disbelief (5 seconds is a long time, really try it.)

    I then replayed the fight 6 times until I won. Then I played it one more time so I could win in a better state than the previous win.

    To me this was exciting and I enjoy the challenge. However, I turned the difficulty to normal because I hate crafting and I suspected I would have to do MORE crafting on higher level as I would need more "stuff".

     

    There are also some funny moments. Like the time I found drowners by the water and I went to use igni but instead of incinerating them as they headed toward me my character turned and set a nearby barrel ablaze.

    OP, you have to use the tools at your disposal.

    Don't always roll out of the way, you can "step aside" ("alt" in a pc) if you are just spamming the left button know that your enemy is going to swarm you. They are also going to block.

    So keep an eye out for what is coming behind you "then" roll out of the way. Don't get swarmed.




  • syntax42syntax42 USAMember UncommonPosts: 1,378

    Originally posted by jdnewell

    Originally posted by syntax42 On a related note, what happened to all of Geralt's (the main playable character) equipment, experience, and levels from Witcher 1 and 2 games?  It doesn't make sense that this guy is supposed to be a seasoned fighter but you start as if you barely know how to fight.  

    Because that wouldnt make for a very good game lol. Starting off as a complete badass with the best equipment, magic, ect. would almost defeat the purpose of any RPG.

    I get what you are saying, but for game play reasons is just not feasible to have you start off at the highest level of badassery.

    Just keep at it, the combat does get easier the better you get at it.  Sometime having a game challenge you is a good thing. Makes you think instead of mindlessly running in and mass killing shit. There are games like that out there, D3 for example, and are fun for what they are. This just isnt an easy mode game.

    I feel like they missed an opportunity.  Geralt doesn't have to be the ultimate badass starting right away, but he also shouldn't start as a "level 1 noob" like they did.

     

    Originally posted by Caldicot

    If you had played the previous games you would have known that this is what Witcher combat is like. Challenging but rewarding when mastered.

    I didn't play the other games.  There are likely others who haven't and are just now starting with Witcher 3.  For me, the previous games' reviews indicated they didn't meet the standards set by the industry at the time.  Witcher 3 seems like they are still a few years behind other games' mechanics and concepts, but it is close enough.  By that, I am referring to combat, UI, game polish, and things other than graphics.  

    They dropped the ball on level mechanics.  Skyrim set a nice standard for open-world games by making everything scale to your level.  Witcher 3 places too much emphasis on player level versus monster level.  If the enemy is more than 5 levels over you, fighting it will be a waste of time.

    They also dropped the ball on the card game.  The starting deck isn't good enough to beat any of the NPCs reliably.  I haven't won a game yet.  There should be some progression of difficulty as the rest of the cards in the game are made available for the player to obtain.

  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 2,010
    Originally posted by syntax42
     

     Witcher 3 places too much emphasis on player level versus monster level.  If the enemy is more than 5 levels over you, fighting it will be a waste of time.

    They also dropped the ball on the card game.  The starting deck isn't good enough to beat any of the NPCs reliably.  I haven't won a game yet.  There should be some progression of difficulty as the rest of the cards in the game are made available for the player to obtain.

    Fighting monsters much higher level than you is usually a death sentence in all games; also I haven't yet lost a game of gwent (standard deck).

    ....
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,209
    Originally posted by syntax42
     

    I didn't play the other games.  There are likely others who haven't and are just now starting with Witcher 3.  For me, the previous games' reviews indicated they didn't meet the standards set by the industry at the time.  Witcher 3 seems like they are still a few years behind other games' mechanics and concepts, but it is close enough.  By that, I am referring to combat, UI, game polish, and things other than graphics.  

    They dropped the ball on level mechanics.  Skyrim set a nice standard for open-world games by making everything scale to your level.  Witcher 3 places too much emphasis on player level versus monster level.  If the enemy is more than 5 levels over you, fighting it will be a waste of time.

    They also dropped the ball on the card game.  The starting deck isn't good enough to beat any of the NPCs reliably.  I haven't won a game yet.  There should be some progression of difficulty as the rest of the cards in the game are made available for the player to obtain.

    I've been doing much better with fights but I've been smart about them. I don't get swarmed, I use heavy attack to finish off or take a chunk out of adversaries but I don't spam it because it's slow. 

    brew oils or potions that will help.

    I'm about to go up against the noonwraith (which is sort of a cool quest in how they did it). The Witcher gives you the clue to brew some oils. I could just try it but to the herbalist i wil go to get some of the indgredients I still need.

    I think you give away your problem in your post: "Skyrim set a nice ..."

    You are playign this like skyrim. 

    And I understand that as I did the same thing. I've been playing Skyrim since launch and still play it and am modding it. But I learned that this is not skyrim.

    I think this is a general issue wiht some players, they think that every game should be the game they are most comfortable with. And obviously The Witcher is not. You need to play it like it's supposed to be played. You have to "bring more" in this game than an Elder Scrolls game. That's not good or bad, just different.

    As far as the card game, I won my first try. So if you are not including your first try in your "I haven't won a game yet" then you are doing something wrong. As I said, i won the first game. And will never play another as I just don't care. But if you do then know that's it's very winnable.

     




  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,032
    Originally posted by jdnewell
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dakeru
    I had similar problems with Witcher2 - early enemies like the Endrega Queen or the bridge troll will kill you with 2 hits. You have no hope to kill them by just rushing towards them with your sword. Try some mage build and keep your distance or place bleeding traps on the ground and "sit" it out.

    This is exactly what I was referring to.  If you don't know how to fight a tough enemy, you have to be prepared with multiple options.  Doing so requires a lot of time spent gathering resources before you go into battle.  I don't like that kind of tedious game, so I turned the difficulty down to avoid it as much as possible.

    On a related note, what happened to all of Geralt's (the main playable character) equipment, experience, and levels from Witcher 1 and 2 games?  It doesn't make sense that this guy is supposed to be a seasoned fighter but you start as if you barely know how to fight.  

    Because that wouldnt make for a very good game lol. Starting off as a complete badass with the best equipment, magic, ect. would almost defeat the purpose of any RPG.

    I get what you are saying, but for game play reasons is just not feasible to have you start off at the highest level of badassery.

    Just keep at it, the combat does get easier the better you get at it.  Sometime having a game challenge you is a good thing. Makes you think instead of mindlessly running in and mass killing shit. There are games like that out there, D3 for example, and are fun for what they are. This just isnt an easy mode game.

    The SSI Gold Box games had you start at higher level in successive games in the same campaign. The first game in the series would start you at level 1, the second at 6, the third at 12 (or some similar progression). You can import your previous party with their abilities or create a new party with some equipment and skills.

    I loved this design feature. It truly felt like continuing a campaign. The monsters were still higher level and you kept progressing and gaining better spells, more hitpoints, better attacks, and better items. It's possible, just not done well in most games.

    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 10,279
    Originally posted by Torval
    Originally posted by jdnewell
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dakeru
    I had similar problems with Witcher2 - early enemies like the Endrega Queen or the bridge troll will kill you with 2 hits. You have no hope to kill them by just rushing towards them with your sword. Try some mage build and keep your distance or place bleeding traps on the ground and "sit" it out.

    This is exactly what I was referring to.  If you don't know how to fight a tough enemy, you have to be prepared with multiple options.  Doing so requires a lot of time spent gathering resources before you go into battle.  I don't like that kind of tedious game, so I turned the difficulty down to avoid it as much as possible.

    On a related note, what happened to all of Geralt's (the main playable character) equipment, experience, and levels from Witcher 1 and 2 games?  It doesn't make sense that this guy is supposed to be a seasoned fighter but you start as if you barely know how to fight.  

    Because that wouldnt make for a very good game lol. Starting off as a complete badass with the best equipment, magic, ect. would almost defeat the purpose of any RPG.

    I get what you are saying, but for game play reasons is just not feasible to have you start off at the highest level of badassery.

    Just keep at it, the combat does get easier the better you get at it.  Sometime having a game challenge you is a good thing. Makes you think instead of mindlessly running in and mass killing shit. There are games like that out there, D3 for example, and are fun for what they are. This just isnt an easy mode game.

    The SSI Gold Box games had you start at higher level in successive games in the same campaign. The first game in the series would start you at level 1, the second at 6, the third at 12 (or some similar progression). You can import your previous party with their abilities or create a new party with some equipment and skills.

    I loved this design feature. It truly felt like continuing a campaign. The monsters were still higher level and you kept progressing and gaining better spells, more hitpoints, better attacks, and better items. It's possible, just not done well in most games.

    Yeah I remember those. They were "old school" and took their cue from the original D&D where modules were done for different levels.

     

    These days though, with the time gap between games in a series, I'm glad they start over at level 1 so I can slowly remember what the heck I'm supposed to be doing :)

     

    The Witcher is pretty unique in many ways and I can see where people new to the series would take a while to get the hang of combat.

    You say you never compromise
    With the mystery tramp, but now you realize
    He's not selling any alibis
    As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes
    And say "Do you want to make a deal?"
  • wandericawanderica clayton, NCMember UncommonPosts: 283
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Dakeru
    I had similar problems with Witcher2 - early enemies like the Endrega Queen or the bridge troll will kill you with 2 hits. You have no hope to kill them by just rushing towards them with your sword. Try some mage build and keep your distance or place bleeding traps on the ground and "sit" it out.

    This is exactly what I was referring to.  If you don't know how to fight a tough enemy, you have to be prepared with multiple options.  Doing so requires a lot of time spent gathering resources before you go into battle.  I don't like that kind of tedious game, so I turned the difficulty down to avoid it as much as possible.

    On a related note, what happened to all of Geralt's (the main playable character) equipment, experience, and levels from Witcher 1 and 2 games?  It doesn't make sense that this guy is supposed to be a seasoned fighter but you start as if you barely know how to fight.  

    This is pretty much where I'm at with it.  I was really looking forward to it, and to be fair, there are some great elements to it, but instead of difficult, I find it very tedious.  Dark souls is a good comparison.  Definitely not as punishing and overall difficult as DS was, but it's clear that the devs were going for that harsh punishment for mistakes type of gameplay.  If the other 2 had been the same, I wouldn't complain, but I don't remember the tedium from the first two.  I keep plugging away at it an hour or so each time I play it hoping I hit that magic "it's easier now" point, but mostly I'm getting bored with it.

    Another complaint I have with it is that the open world feels sort of forced at times.  Random encounters of things that I have no hope of defeating because I find a group of level 17 enemies in a zone that is intended for much lower levels.  I love that there are so many sidequests, and that they all feel meaningful and impactful in most situations, but having to come back to a zone later on after I've already completed that part of the story feels . . . again, tedious.


  • Stuka1000Stuka1000 Member UncommonPosts: 955
    I played the game for about 7 - 8 hours and uninstalled.  It was just tedious to play.  The xp gain is way too low, one of the quests gives just 10xp, it's laughable.  This means that you are only about level 4 when leaving the first area only to have level 9 mobs thrown at you in the second.  I also suffer from arthritis in my hands so I'm not as quick on the keys as I used to be and the KB / Mouse controls are pathetic.  I can see why some people love the game but for me it's just an exercise in frustration.  
  • MelMel2MelMel2 Yuma, AZMember UncommonPosts: 8

    I agree w/OP, but I think that this is the right way to go about it as far as difficulty goes.  I don't mind gamers wanting to play on easier difficulties (I'm not that guy who thinks he has to prove to everybody how good he is at gaming), sometimes it's just more enjoyable to play.  I hated combat in DA: I, because it didn't live up to my expectations from DA: O and tactical combat, so in order to enjoy the story I played it as on easy and didn't be bothered with playing the game as a tactical team combat game.

     

    I do however think it's great that they are maintaining the ability for players to play at an extremely challenging mode.  I was reading an article somewhere recently about games are universally reducing the difficulty to the point that: easy = impossible to lose, medium = easy, hard = medium.  Which means for players looking for a max challenge, it's just no longer there.  Some of my favorite games I thrashed on the highest of difficulties so fast it wasn't even worth it and that is extremely frustrating to continue seeing in the industry.

     

    With TW 3, I think it allows you to ramp it up to where every fight is down to the wire, and you have to approach every fight like it's a big boss.  Or you can ramp it down to where you can enjoy it as a fast paced action combat rpg.

     

    I can't imagine any reasonable adult would ever look down on somebody for not beating a video game on the hardest difficulty.  There are much more impressive accomplishments for human being to strive for, lol.  I'll play the game to maximize it's fun factor, hopefully all games will allow a wide range of difficulties for everybody to enjoy.

  • HedeonHedeon Member UncommonPosts: 995
    Originally posted by etlar
    [mod edit]

    A little Harsh i think.

    I played through you 90´s games, and i found the combat rather hard as well, but i also started on a higher difficulty, 

    and had to set it down a notch.

    i think im playing "normal" mode now, and i quicksave often aswell, though not quite as much as the the describes ;)

     

    PS: it´s a great game, looking forward to playing it on a harder setting, will make it feel more like a survival game i think, lol :)

    quicksave ruined alot of days/evenings for me in games, used to go away from the Amiga (since I hardly had a PC before it were standard to have the option to save).

    before when hitted a point where I had a hard time to get past, and return later, after quick save I started obsessively to get past harder parts, with amazing amount of time staring at loading screens in frustration. However nothing beats the accomplishment feeling of finish a game within the max amount of lives available in game. 

    anyway the OP almost sold me on this game.

  • wandericawanderica clayton, NCMember UncommonPosts: 283
    Originally posted by MelMel2
    I agree w/OP, but I think that this is the right way to go about it as far as difficulty goes.  I don't mind gamers wanting to play on easier difficulties (I'm not that guy who thinks he has to prove to everybody how good he is at gaming), sometimes it's just more enjoyable to play.  I hated combat in DA: I, because it didn't live up to my expectations from DA: O and tactical combat, so in order to enjoy the story I played it as on easy and didn't be bothered with playing the game as a tactical team combat game.   I do however think it's great that they are maintaining the ability for players to play at an extremely challenging mode.  I was reading an article somewhere recently about games are universally reducing the difficulty to the point that: easy = impossible to lose, medium = easy, hard = medium.  Which means for players looking for a max challenge, it's just no longer there.  Some of my favorite games I thrashed on the highest of difficulties so fast it wasn't even worth it and that is extremely frustrating to continue seeing in the industry.   With TW 3, I think it allows you to ramp it up to where every fight is down to the wire, and you have to approach every fight like it's a big boss.  Or you can ramp it down to where you can enjoy it as a fast paced action combat rpg.   I can't imagine any reasonable adult would ever look down on somebody for not beating a video game on the hardest difficulty.  There are much more impressive accomplishments for human being to strive for, lol.  I'll play the game to maximize it's fun factor, hopefully all games will allow a wide range of difficulties for everybody to enjoy.

    This does seem to be a trend in modern gaming, and I don't understand it.  It seems to me that a company out to make as much money as possible would want to appeal to as many possible customers as possible.  I can't for the life of me understand why game companies today don't have 5 or 6 difficulties that allow easy to be "can't die" and the hardest setting to be lol-good-freakin'-luck.  Or better yet., a difficulty slider that allows for all of the in-between settings as well.  I love a good challenge, but sometimes, I just want to veg out and take in the good story, meet the "locals", and enjoy the environment without having to use the ancient art of kung fu keyboard.


  • sacredfoolsacredfool Member UncommonPosts: 845

    I started on normal and am winning a reasonable number of fights.

    Meaning, the boss usually kills me if I mess up a couple of times and normal encounters slowly reduce my health until I have to rest.

     

    And I managed to roll off a cliff once when fighting deserters. And died.


    Originally posted by nethaniah Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
  • syntax42syntax42 USAMember UncommonPosts: 1,378
    Originally posted by Hedeon anyway the OP almost sold me on this game.

    I'm not trying to discourage or encourage anyone.  I feel it is better to understand the facts and be given a broad viewpoint instead of the biased reviews people (fanboys) are posting on Steam.  Negative reviews there, no matter how helpful or truthful, are getting down-voted like it is Reddit just to give them less credibility and hide the flaws and criticisms of the game.

     

    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by syntax42 They dropped the ball on level mechanics.  Skyrim set a nice standard for open-world games by making everything scale to your level.  Witcher 3 places too much emphasis on player level versus monster level.  If the enemy is more than 5 levels over you, fighting it will be a waste of time.

    I think you give away your problem in your post: "Skyrim set a nice ..."

    You are playign this like skyrim. 

    Please don't take my words out of context.  I'm not playing this like Skyrim.  

    The point I was trying to make was that Witcher 3 uses level numbers as an artificial way of increasing the challenge to the player to the point it becomes impossible to face certain challenges.  This is made worse by the extremely-varied level range of the second area.  The result is that every 5 levels, the player will have to visit every area of the map again just to complete the newly-available quests that meet their level range.  I don't think that's fun, to have to re-visit everything as many times as their design choice resulted in.

    Plenty of games (aside from Skyrim) have found creative ways to challenge players and to gate content without using an archaic level-dependent system for determining what challenges the player can face.  Take the Zelda series, for example.  As Link progresses, he gains new items and abilities that allow him to beat certain bosses, solve certain puzzles, and get past certain obstacles.  More action-RPGs need to learn from the best and do things in a creative way instead of rely on levels.

     

    A friend showed me the original Witcher's combat today.  I was surprised that it was better, in my opinion, than what we have now.  Witcher 1 had combo systems and stances.  What happened to those?  Instead, we get to roll and spam the same attack button or two with no true feeling of using tactics in a fight.

  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 2,010
    Originally posted by syntax42
    Originally posted by Hedeon anyway the OP almost sold me on this game.

    I'm not trying to discourage or encourage anyone.  I feel it is better to understand the facts and be given a broad viewpoint instead of the biased reviews people (fanboys) are posting on Steam.  Negative reviews there, no matter how helpful or truthful, are getting down-voted like it is Reddit just to give them less credibility and hide the flaws and criticisms of the game.

     

    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by syntax42 They dropped the ball on level mechanics.  Skyrim set a nice standard for open-world games by making everything scale to your level.  Witcher 3 places too much emphasis on player level versus monster level.  If the enemy is more than 5 levels over you, fighting it will be a waste of time.

    I think you give away your problem in your post: "Skyrim set a nice ..."

    You are playign this like skyrim. 

    Please don't take my words out of context.  I'm not playing this like Skyrim.  

    The point I was trying to make was that Witcher 3 uses level numbers as an artificial way of increasing the challenge to the player to the point it becomes impossible to face certain challenges.  This is made worse by the extremely-varied level range of the second area.  The result is that every 5 levels, the player will have to visit every area of the map again just to complete the newly-available quests that meet their level range.  I don't think that's fun, to have to re-visit everything as many times as their design choice resulted in.

    Plenty of games (aside from Skyrim) have found creative ways to challenge players and to gate content without using an archaic level-dependent system for determining what challenges the player can face.  Take the Zelda series, for example.  As Link progresses, he gains new items and abilities that allow him to beat certain bosses, solve certain puzzles, and get past certain obstacles.  More action-RPGs need to learn from the best and do things in a creative way instead of rely on levels.

     

    A friend showed me the original Witcher's combat today.  I was surprised that it was better, in my opinion, than what we have now.  Witcher 1 had combo systems and stances.  What happened to those?  Instead, we get to roll and spam the same attack button or two with no true feeling of using tactics in a fight.

    Actually, if anything I think you are grossly misrepresenting the game. It can be challenging, but it is absolutely nothing like Dark Souls. Not just in the level of difficulty, but in the combat mechanics, how difficulty is built into the game, the whole premise of the game, in fact in just about every way I cannot see how to justify your comment "If you like combat similar to Dark Souls this game is for you".

    Going on you say in your OP "even on the easiest difficulty , I find it difficult to fight monsters I haven't faced before". Again this is misrepresenting the game. I play on normal difficulty and while it is a refreshing challenge to face new monsters I haven't encountered before, I don't think I have actually died from normal mobs.

    Many of the issues you listed have simple solutions. For example you can just run away from nearly every encounter if things get too hard, there is a skill that replenishes your health out of combat, you can use axii to take out whole groups of mobs by making them fight one another, gwent the card game is fairly easy to win at- just think about it a little, etc.

    Sovrath also has a good point in the comment "you are playing this like Skyrim". The world is not built same way, it doesn't need to auto scale mobs to your level. You don't have to come back to fight harder mobs most of the time, unless you want to. And isn't it actually good that an open world rpg is not built like an mmo where you go through zones till you get to the highest level zones and never have a reason to go back anywhere?

    Even your example of Zelda is misguided. Link has to have those special items/abilities to beat the harder monsters, Geralt also needs the better items/abilities to beat the harder monsters- its exactly the same!

     

     

    ....
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,209
    Originally posted by syntax42
     

    Please don't take my words out of context.  I'm not playing this like Skyrim.  

      Instead, we get to roll and spam the same attack button or two with no true feeling of using tactics in a fight.

    And THAT'S why I'm saying you are playing it like skyrim.

    I'm not taking your words out of context.

    If all you are doing is spamming the same attack button "or two" then that's essentially skyrim combat.

    there are more tactics in Witcher 3 than in Skyirm.

    Also, in Skyrim there is no dodge or "step out of the way". (two separate things in Witcher 3)

    If you are spamming an attack in Witcher 3 then you will probably lose. And I agree with another poster you are misrepresenting the game. Not on purpose but because of how you are doing combat.

    If you are always light attacking then you are not doing it correctly. If you are always rolling out of the way then you are not doing it correctly. If you are not mixing your attacks from light to heavy then that's going to hurt you. I found that a well placed heavy attack will take down a foe at the right time instead of a lot of little attacks to get that last bit of health down.

    Stepping out of the way allows you to move without using stamina. So use it. Rolling uses stamina. This is great for when you are getting swarmed.

    Additionally you have to use your signs. If you use igni it can unbalance the opponent and you can come in for an attack. Make sure you use your shield as well. Make use of your alchemy.

    If you are going up against a wraith, make sure you are using a wraith oil (for example). Or take a potion to bolster your stamina regeneration.

    Now, as I've said earlier, i'm not one for crafting so I took my difficulty down to normal. Now the game is challenging enough without me having to craft every single little time.

    There just more you have to do in this game in order to be more effective. I'm at the point where I win more than "not". And I think it's because I looked at what I was doing wrong, looked at my tools and adjusted.

     

    As far as your comment on "every 5 levels" in truth that would be a preference for me as I like the idea of areas that you can't tackled until later. I think you are thinking about "open world" in a linear fashion "well, I visited there now I don't need to go there any more". That's what an open world game is about. It's a "world" and you will go to the same places again or revisit things. It's not necessarily about "well, I finished that quadrant".

    That was a HUGE disappointment in Oblvion and while skyrim was better at it, it still wasn't challenging enough. I went through Bleak Falls Barrow last night with a new character and an iron two handed sword and never once came close to danger. I don't think that's right.

     




Sign In or Register to comment.