Currently Online 
| curl-6 said: I had a few minor niggles with it, like the combat, while very competent, not having as much depth as some other more involved action titles. Still one of the top 10 greatest games of the 2010s in my book though, and probably my #3 open world game ever made after only BOTW/TOTK. If they bring it to Switch 2 I'll give the new expansion a go for sure, really loved both prior ones. (To answer the poll, while both were terrific, I thought Blood and Wine was the better one) |
Not aimed at you, but I remember people coming into Witcher 3 thread back when it released and bitching how combat is not like Bloodborne (usually from people whose first Souls was Bloodborne and first Western made Action-RPG in vein of Witcher was Witcher 3 - AKA, tourists) - which was both quite hilarious and infinitely annoying.
IMO, Witcher 3 has more than just satisfying combat for its genre. Problem is many people not familiar with the genre (specifically Action RPGs made in West) come into genre expecting full fledged focus on combat like what pure action/action-adventure games have, forgetting that main focus of such Action-RPGs is RPG part, with serviceable action part, and sometimes purposefully different combat than what action titles offer.
However, I do get it - games like Witcher 3 (and games that came after it and tried to copy it) are made for mainstream audience first and not RPG enthusiasts, so no wonder that most people who played it fall into former, so their expectations can be very different than what people who are into genre are accustomed to.
