Ausdoerrt said:
Assassin's Creed did a bit better at making combat interesting
You are surely jesting, sir. It has one of the most boring combat systems ever. One-button mashing "combos" get boring fast. Especially after the addition of "press this button to win" move.
That's why I called the countermove overpowered. But really, how much different is it from what Witcher does? In AC you click the button, timing it so as to create a string of combo's, or timing it so as to counter correctly. The Witcher you...well, you just time and then you only click. I'm only looking at the sword-fighting here, which really isn't that stunning in the Witcher. It's all the other stuff that makes combat interesting, but you surely can't mean that timing your clicks 2-3, or in the end 4 times in a row is the epitome of sword fighting.
IIRC there was defending in W1. Also, group style in the big battles against knights was utterly useless. I recall having to constantly using the right styles and weapons to get the edge in combat.
There was no defending. Unless you call the text pop-up once in a while that stated that your character had 'Parry!' of 'Block!' or whatever it was that it showed, or are referring to the hand-to-hand combat which was just seriously simplistic (you block, he swings, you hit opponent, repeat). Most of the sword-combat happens in the background, through number-crunching. And, although the visuals of the standard combo's is pretty good, it hardly shows the full range of what is actually happening.
You might've switched styles when fighting a group, but how long did that take to figure out? Either you read the monster entry, so you'll know beforehand what to use (that was a really nice touch, to be able to research enemies), or you trial-and-error it out of the next mob you see. As far as fighting systems go, it's
not a deep or involving system, and were the game to only involve swordfighting it would get boring incredibly fast, that's all I'm trying to say. The complexity of the Witcher is entirely not in the Styles or in having to choose between different blades (basically only two, all the other weapons hardly did anything).
W1 wasn't an action game, and not marketed as such. It was an H&S ARPG. Do you blame Diablo for being not interactive enough? Stats first, correct equipment/potons second, combat interactivity last. It's not Devil May Cry for Christ's sake.
Hell yes I blame Diablo for not being interactive enough. The click-fest, especially in the beginning before you get interesting skills, is absolutely horrid. After that, things start to get interesting and playing well becomes an important part of the game, instead of just clicking like an idiot.
I've just recently started (well, not started, I've just been spelled away from Vizima) on the highest difficulty. Styles are vital to choose well, but once you know what style to use, there's no thinking left anymore, no strategy. It's like a monkey finding out which button to press to get food; that's all you need to know, a conditional response.
I'm repeating myself here, but oh well. What I was arguing is that, rather than the styles, what made The Witcher interesting in combat was the combination of potions and signs, which account for why the styles were so simple, as you are already busy enough with picking the right potion or the right sign for the right moment.
Stats first, correct equipment/potons second, combat interactivity last.
Stats might've had a big impact, but you hardly need to choose them in W1. You get enough points to fill out pretty much everything in the end, and apart from preferring a certain sign over another, everybody ends up with the same witcher. Correct equipment? You get to choose two blades, upgrade them two or at most three times throughout the game, and you get your pick out of a total of 5 armors, throughout the entire game.
Potions, now, that's where the game really get's going. You really need to stress this element more, it's pretty much the defining aspect of the Witcher. Creating the right combination of a swallow with albedo, a willow with rubedo, perhaps a blizzard with nigredo, some Samum bombs to stun enemies, Black Blood against bloodsuckers, the huge variety of oils to coat your weapon in, etc. etc.
And for some reason you don't even mention signs. They allow for some really nice strategic ways of killing mobs. I wouldn't have survived without signs on the highest difficulty.
What comes first in the Witcher might be stats. But after that it's potions, then signs, followed by styles, followed by equipment. The blade-combat only happens with the styles, and that part is really not very fleshed out. You're right that interactivity in that part is probably not needed, but they've already entered some interactivity by making you time your attacks correctly. Couldn't have hurt had they given you some form of blocking manually, or perhaps a countermove (one that isn't an instant-kill). All I'm saying is, combat with a blade is not very interesting, nor deep, nor is it what makes the Witcher the Witcher. The game would surely have benefited from a more complex swordfighting system that involves more than just timing your clicks.
