Witcher 3 combat is stiff and sloopy and needlessly confusing. Try just running with Geralt in a town. It's not fun. Ocarina of Time has MUCH better controls and combat.
Um... no. You should still play it. It's still VERY good. It's combat and controls is just bad. And if you like Wind Waker (another game with bad combat, in my opinion) then you should still give Witcher 3 a chance.
Twilight Princess has the best combat. Wind Waker's combat is very bland. Don't let the cutesy graphics disguise it. Replaying Wind Waker is a chore.
Wut. Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess all have combat that is like 99% identical. Wind Waker is literally just polished Ocarina of Time combat.
There are no similarities between Witcher 3 and Wind Waker, not in gameplay, presentation, storytelling, or anything else. Really bizarre comparison.
And while Witcher 3 is easy to get engrossed in, I can see why the gameplay would be very off-putting. When the 'action' part of Action RPG doesn't satisfy, it's enough to ruin the experience.
Um... no. You should still play it. It's still VERY good. It's combat and controls is just bad. And if you like Wind Waker (another game with bad combat, in my opinion) then you should still give Witcher 3 a chance.
Are you kidding? It had the best combat of all 3D Zelda games.
Twilight Princess has the best combat. Wind Waker's combat is very bland. Don't let the cutesy graphics disguise it. Replaying Wind Waker is a chore.
OOT, WW and TP have all very similar combat. WW's is a bit more polished than combat in OOT, like CaviarMeths already said. TP is good, but I don't think the animations are as fluid as in Wind Waker. Not that it matters, but if I had to pick, I'd pick Wind Waker for best combat.
Was there even a part in Wind Waker when you guys felt the combat was even compelling or challenging in a fun way??? Only good part for combat was fighting a certain bad guy at the end.
Yeah, no. It's bad. I hope Zelda U stays far away from that boring and bland combat.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've had absolutely no issues with the controls or combat in Witcher 3, save for occasionally getting stuck on a corner during a really annoying horse race... Of course this is coming from someone who didn't have any issues with the combat in Skyward Sword either. My issues with that game are on different merits.
Yeah, nothing is really selling me on The Witcher series. Sounds like a miserable time, to be honest.
It might end up being like DA:O: engrossing world and characters, but a combat system that is so unenjoyable that I end up quitting the game halfway through. The broken Gambit system made every fight in that game a tedious nightmare.
I'll pick up the third game at some point if I can get through the first two games, or if it goes down low enough on Steam.
Yeah, nothing is really selling me on The Witcher series. Sounds like a miserable time, to be honest.
It might end up being like DA:O: engrossing world and characters, but a combat system that is so unenjoyable that I end up quitting the game halfway through. The broken Gambit system made every fight in that game a tedious nightmare.
I'll pick up the third game at some point if I can get through the first two games, or if it goes down low enough on Steam.
The immersion in Witcher 3 is amazing, though. Player choice is great too. There's a town called Novigrad (I think its spelled this way) and it slaps around Hyrule Castle (in each iteration its ever been shown. I really hope the there's a town in Zelda U that's as impressive as the Novigrad town in Witcher 3. I actually feel like I'm in a medieval town in Novigrad.
Can someone explain to me what is so bad about the combat in Witcher 3? I've been playing it for the last week and I think the combat is great. I mean compare it to Zelda combat. What doesn't it have that Zelda does? The game you should be talking about for bad combat is the first Witcher. Have you played that garbage combat system?
I lol'd. Good laugh, thanks mate
The first Witcher required strategy and you can play whatever build you want. You want to go typical sword master route? Okay. Want to go full alchemy? Sure. Maybe be badass "mage" and kill enemies with pure sign build? No problems there. Everyone is valid to beat the game.
There offered actual challange and strategy required and I noticed the biggest whiners say it sucks most of the time is because they sucked hard and the game didn't pull any punches if you were unprepared.
Witcher 3 is braindead button masher classic with idiotic enemy AI that can't even hurt you, you powerlevel the game in act 2 without even grinding, which results in enemies dying in 2 hits, because they are 10-15 lvls below you. And even when Geralt decides to go fisting the monsters instead of taking out the sword, you still win, because the only hard part about the game is to start - after 5-10 levels, Death March is walk through the park.
Oh, also sign and alchemy builds are worthless
Actually, Witcher 3 has many things in common with Windwaker... mostly the bad ones sadly.
@Dave24: I think you quoted the wrong person in your post.
One unfortunate thing I've noticed is that several big RPG series start out OK and get overly streamlined as the series goes on. One particularly disappointing victim of this was Mass Effect. The first game, despite some wonky shooting, was a great RPG that supported several different character builds. There were actually huge benefits in focusing on hacking security systems vs going the generic soldier route. The sequel, ME2, streamlined the RPG and customization aspects of the game so much, though, that it practically turned into a cover shooter.
Fallout 4 hugely streamlined the few RPG aspects that were left in FO3 and New Vegas. It's more of a town building sim than an RPG, at this point.
Bloodborne drastically reduced the number of viable builds you could go for as opposed to Dark Souls.
Currently Playing: Metroid Prime 4: Beyond (NS2); Corpse Factory (PC)
Someone create a Witcher 3 thread. Nintendolife doesn't have a general Witcher 3 thread, just a few specific topics that are already dead. I didn't play the game, so I don't think I should be the one to create the thread.
@Dave24: I think you quoted the wrong person in your post.
One unfortunate thing I've noticed is that several big RPG series start out OK and get overly streamlined as the series goes on. One particularly disappointing victim of this was Mass Effect. The first game, despite some wonky shooting, was a great RPG that supported several different character builds. There were actually huge benefits in focusing on hacking security systems vs going the generic soldier route. The sequel, ME2, streamlined the RPG and customization aspects of the game so much, though, that it practically turned into a cover shooter.
Fallout 4 hugely streamlined the few RPG aspects that were left in FO3 and New Vegas. It's more of a town building sim than an RPG, at this point.
Bloodborne drastically reduced the number of viable builds you could go for as opposed to Dark Souls.
Mass Effect is still awesome and Mass Effect: Andromeda is incredibly anticipated. Bloodborne is still being called the best exclusive on PS4 right now so....
So where do you think Zelda U will fit into the timeline?
It could be a prequel to Skyward Sword (or maybe a sequel?).
Or could take place after Twilight Princess, and before 4 swords adventures.
Maybe set somewhere in the Downfall timeline.
(or even set before Wind Waker when Ganondorf came back, but I don't think Nintendo would end in a loss.)
So where do you think Zelda U will fit into the timeline?
It could be a prequel to Skyward Sword (or maybe a sequel?).
Or could take place after Twilight Princess, and before 4 swords adventures.
Maybe set somewhere in the Downfall timeline.
(or even set before Wind Waker when Ganondorf came back, but I don't think Nintendo would end in a loss.)
Somewhere between when they yelled "Ben!" in Star Wars and "Ben!" in Macklemore's "White Privilege II."
@Dave24: I think you quoted the wrong person in your post.
One unfortunate thing I've noticed is that several big RPG series start out OK and get overly streamlined as the series goes on. One particularly disappointing victim of this was Mass Effect. The first game, despite some wonky shooting, was a great RPG that supported several different character builds. There were actually huge benefits in focusing on hacking security systems vs going the generic soldier route. The sequel, ME2, streamlined the RPG and customization aspects of the game so much, though, that it practically turned into a cover shooter.
Fallout 4 hugely streamlined the few RPG aspects that were left in FO3 and New Vegas. It's more of a town building sim than an RPG, at this point.
Bloodborne drastically reduced the number of viable builds you could go for as opposed to Dark Souls.
Mass Effect is still awesome and Mass Effect: Andromeda is incredibly anticipated. Bloodborne is still being called the best exclusive on PS4 right now so....
Now Fallout 4.... Lol
I don't see how any of this addresses what I said. ME 2 and 3 majorly dumbed down most of the RPG aspects of the series, and Bloodborne only really supports one playstyle, as opposed to something like Dark Souls, which supported several different character builds. I'm not saying they're bad games, but they are worse in terms of being RPGs.
Ding ding ding! That marks the 20th time the topic of timeline placement appeared on this thread! We need new information Nintendo! I can't last much longer.
But anyways, I believe it will take place after Skyward Sword.
1. The sailcloth
2. A seemingly wild, untamed world
3. SS was the most recent console game, and it was also the most story oriented, so I'm assuming Nintendo had a plan going on to the next game, continuing the story and such.
Obviously, there are tons of problems with this, like the Hylia bridge and stuff like that, but there are arguments against every possible timeline placement, so who knows.
Oh, that's right, Nintendo knows, but they AREN"T TELLING US NOTHING.
So where do you think Zelda U will fit into the timeline?
It could be a prequel to Skyward Sword (or maybe a sequel?).
Or could take place after Twilight Princess, and before 4 swords adventures.
Maybe set somewhere in the Downfall timeline.
(or even set before Wind Waker when Ganondorf came back, but I don't think Nintendo would end in a loss.)
I know we all love Zelda but... Does that even matter? The Zelda timeline is a joke. It's a mess.
@Blast: Agreed. The series is clearly not meant to be this ages-sweeping epic, and instead seems more like it does different things with a core set of elements that don't seem to change. Like how Final Fantasy used to be before Squeenix went nuts with the Nova Crystalis stuff.
Currently Playing: Metroid Prime 4: Beyond (NS2); Corpse Factory (PC)
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Posts 5,201 to 5,220 of 15,166
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic