The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt [2014]

[HoonDing]

This will not be a fun game.

[Keyrock]

I think the game should work well with a mouse and keyboard and I see no reason why that would be hard to achieve. The Witcher 1 worked smoothly that way and its not rocket science to implement. That doesn't mean I'm against playing with gamepads but I don't like PC games being built around controllers when there's a perfectly functional input device on the machine itself.

 

I would never trade looking around with a mouse for a slow and finicky analog stick, and this is coming from someone who spent years playing on PS2's extremely well made gamepads (that still work after 7 years of abuse).

In my opinion TW2 worked perfectly fine with m&kb, my whole first playthrough was with m&kb and I had zero problems with it, other than the combat being less responsive than I would have liked, but that's the same across all control configurations.  Subsequent playthroughs were with a 360 controller, since I found that to be a superior/more comfortable way to play the game.

[Malcador]

I think it is a good wager to say that while TW3 will be released on all platforms, it will be designed with a controller in mind.

True, a shame as well

[Keyrock]

 

I think it is a good wager to say that while TW3 will be released on all platforms, it will be designed with a controller in mind.

True, a shame as well

 

Why?  Why wouldn't you design the game around the best available tool for the job?  Would you be disappointed about space sims being designed around flight sticks? 

 

Edit: Heck, even TW1 would have been better with a controller, but it didn't have native support.  Using Xpadder can make it work, but you still need m&kb for menus and some rarely used functions.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Keyrock

[Nonek]

Personally I found mouse and keyboard far more responsive and precise than a controller, my arena score with m&k was a few hundred thousand points higher than with controller.  May just be my preference, but i'll definitely be playing the third game with m&k.

[Tagaziel]

If a game works good with a controller, it's going to work better with the much more precise and responsive mouseyboard.

[Malcador]

Why?  Why wouldn't you design the game around the best available tool for the job?  Would you be disappointed about space sims being designed around flight sticks? 

 

Edit: Heck, even TW1 would have been better with a controller, but it didn't have native support.  Using Xpadder can make it work, but you still need m&kb for menus and some rarely used functions.

Best tool, maybe, But I suppose after TW2, it is to be expected.

[Keyrock]

If a game works good with a controller, it's going to work better with the much more precise and responsive mouseyboard.

Does a racing game work better with m&kb?  How about action games like Batman: Arkham or Sleeping Dogs? (both notable for having similar combat systems to TW2) How about a platformer?  Does a space sim work better with m&kb than with a flightstick?  Mouse & keyboard is clearly superior for certain types of games:  FPS, RTS, tactical RPGs, just to name a few.  This is not a tactical RPG, it's an action RPG with a third person perspective.  

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

I think it is a good wager to say that while TW3 will be released on all platforms, it will be designed with a controller in mind.

True, a shame as well

 

Why?  Why wouldn't you design the game around the best available tool for the job?  Would you be disappointed about space sims being designed around flight sticks? 

 

Edit: Heck, even TW1 would have been better with a controller, but it didn't have native support.  Using Xpadder can make it work, but you still need m&kb for menus and some rarely used functions.

 

 

Because its not the best tool for the job? What's the problem with using 4 keys on the keyboard and a responsive mouse?

 

If there were long combo chains then you could argue the gamepad is more comfortable

 

 

If a game works good with a controller, it's going to work better with the much more precise and responsive mouseyboard.

Does a racing game work better with m&kb?  How about action games like Batman: Arkham or Sleeping Dogs? (both notable for having similar combat systems to TW2) How about a platformer?  Does a space sim work better with m&kb than with a flightstick?  Mouse & keyboard is clearly superior for certain types of games:  FPS, RTS, tactical RPGs, just to name a few.  This is not a tactical RPG, it's an action RPG with a third person perspective.  

 

 

What you're saying makes sense only if the game has long combo chains that would be cumbersome to do on the keyboard. In other words, if it played on the level of complexity of Devil May Cry. If not, it boils down to personal preference. 

 

The Witcher 1's controls were instantly intuitive and did the job well. There's no way a gamepad would have been better because its  much quicker to face and target enemies with a mouse than it could ever be with a gamepad, even with an implemented lock on system. 

[Keyrock]

 

The Witcher 1's controls were instantly intuitive and did the job well. There's no way a gamepad would have been better because its  much quicker to face and target enemies with a mouse than it could ever be with a gamepad, even with an implemented lock on system. 

 

As if you needed to precisely "hit" the opponent in TW1.  You could always up the sensitivity of the controller's axes, you know, if the game actually had controller support, so you could turn just as fast with the thumbstick as with the mouse.  It would be less precise, but it wouldn't matter one bit because in TW1 just just had to be kind of in the neighborhood to "hit" your opponent.  The game didn't have much in the way of hit detection, you hit the mouse button, Geralt swung the sword like a mad acrobat and did a bunch of spin moves or whatever and you "hit" your opponent.

 

Maybe "better" is the wrong word.  To me it's much more comfortable to hit buttons with my thumb or shoulder buttons or triggers with my fingers on a 360 controller than push keys on a keyboard, partly because I can lean back in my chair, partly because I can move the controller around with me during those frantic fights where I mimic movements with my body because I'm like that, and partly because I find the likelihood of me hitting the wrong button/key is far lower on a controller than on the keyboard because of how the buttons are spaced out.  If you're more comfortable with m&kb then more power to you, I'm sure they'll have perfectly fine m&kb controls, they did for the previous game (except the menus, but that sucked wih ANY control scheme).

Edited June 30, 2013 by Keyrock

[Nonek]

I do believe I remember a developer of the Witcher 2 saying much the same thing in an interview, that he liked to play on the sofa with a gamepad. For that I agree the controller is a more viable solution, it's perfect for relaxed fun. 

 

I wouldn't risk playing with a controller in an insane runthrough however.

[Keyrock]

Yeah, I overstated myself when I said a controller was a better tool for the job for The Witcher, it would have been more appropriate for me to say that it's just as good a job.  All of the advantages of m&kb don't really apply to The Witcher games:

 

1) Faster, more precise aiming - Doesn't really apply since Geralt isn't an archer.  In TW1 you only kind of sort of had to have the enemy somewhere in the neighborhood of directly in front of you to hit them, and in the case of groups you just used group stance with which it didn't matter at all where the enemies were as long as you were in melee range.  They could be directly behnd you and you'd still hit them.

 

2) Far larger number of buttons/keys - Geralt doesn't have a large enough array of special abilities/signs to make more than 12 keys necessary.

 

If you're more comfortable with m&kb then it may feel better for you to use that than a controller.  I know when I first started playing my second playthrough of TW2 it felt a bit awkward using the controller because I had been used to the m&kb control from my previous playthrough.  It took me a little while to adjust, but once I did it felt better than m&kb.  I guess it comes down to preference.  I just don't think designing the game around a controller takes away from the m&kb experience.  Geralt isn't going to have enough skills and spells to warrant 20 hotkeys anyway and he doesn't really use ranged attacks that require precision aiming. I mean, I suppose they could make Igni and thrown daggers into precision aiming attacks ala third  person shooters rather than lock on attacks, I just don't see that adding to the game exoerience.

[licketysplit]

They promised a better PC port this time. We better get it. Because they made concessions to the bloody gamepad in TW2. The UI was an abomination. 

[alanschu]

 

 

is clearly inspired by Batman: Arkham

 

I did not get this impression at all.  Mostly because I found Batman's combat to omgbbq fun, while The Witcher it was not so much.  Batman is about chaining a multitude of hits and neither he nor his enemies really have any sense of "preventing" opposition attacks, with the exception of Batman's counter.  The whole combat system is literally designed around multiple hostiles and it flows so well.  The Witcher's was a lot of tumbling trying to get an attack on the flanks and Geralt becomes exceedingly vulnerable with multiple hostiles.  Due to the multiple hostiles, Batman's combat has a plethora of autoaiming to assist the player, while it's not uncommon for me to forget that Geralt attacks the direction he's facing, so I sweet tumble into... attacking the air...

[Gorth]

They promised a better PC port this time. We better get it. Because they made concessions to the bloody gamepad in TW2. The UI was an abomination.

[like]

 

Just kidding, but I hear you. It was one of the first things that left a bad taste, that and the feeling of "unresponsiveness" (for lack of better description) of the controls compared to TW1. Not necessarily a keyboard vs gamepad thing (since I have both), but it just felt sluggish compared to the first game, not sure why. The horrible UI was one of the main factors killing the game for me though.

[licketysplit]

 

is clearly inspired by Batman: Arkham

 

I did not get this impression at all.  Mostly because I found Batman's combat to omgbbq fun, while The Witcher it was not so much.  Batman is about chaining a multitude of hits and neither he nor his enemies really have any sense of "preventing" opposition attacks, with the exception of Batman's counter.  The whole combat system is literally designed around multiple hostiles and it flows so well.  The Witcher's was a lot of tumbling trying to get an attack on the flanks and Geralt becomes exceedingly vulnerable with multiple hostiles.  Due to the multiple hostiles, Batman's combat has a plethora of autoaiming to assist the player, while it's not uncommon for me to forget that Geralt attacks the direction he's facing, so I sweet tumble into... attacking the air...

 

 

They didn't quite nail the free flow aspect of Arkham because enemy AI is far too agressive and they block after about 3 hits no matter what. Plus, Geralt's riposte is still risky, so no safe counters either. Signs, bombs and traps are meant to take up the slack here. I thought aiming was fine, but you run out of options ( vigor) pretty damn quick, especially on hard modes. So the changes they are making in TW3 are most welcome for me. Everything has been tweaked.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

is clearly inspired by Batman: Arkham

 

I did not get this impression at all.  Mostly because I found Batman's combat to omgbbq fun, while The Witcher it was not so much.  Batman is about chaining a multitude of hits and neither he nor his enemies really have any sense of "preventing" opposition attacks, with the exception of Batman's counter.  The whole combat system is literally designed around multiple hostiles and it flows so well.  The Witcher's was a lot of tumbling trying to get an attack on the flanks and Geralt becomes exceedingly vulnerable with multiple hostiles.  Due to the multiple hostiles, Batman's combat has a plethora of autoaiming to assist the player, while it's not uncommon for me to forget that Geralt attacks the direction he's facing, so I sweet tumble into... attacking the air...

 

 

Batman's combat is so stupidly automated that a blindfolded guy on Youtube played it and won against 5-6 opponents while mashing the buttons.

 

I'm not advocating Gothic type keyboard breaking as a way to fight in games, but if the game can be played just as well by my dog chewing the controller then what does the game need me for anyway, it might as well play itself.

[Tagaziel]

Does a racing game work better with m&kb?

No, it works better with a steering wheel, gear box, and pedals.

 

How about action games like Batman: Arkham or Sleeping Dogs? (both notable for having similar combat systems to TW2)

Can't say anything about Sleeping Dogs, but I've played both Arkham titles on mouseyboard and never had any problems. The precision of camera movements was pretty damn handy.

 

How about a platformer?

The long, long, long history of platformers on the PC shows that a mouseyboard has no problems with platformers.

 

Does a space sim work better with m&kb than with a flightstick?

A joystick is not a console controller (I don't recall a joystick being one of the factory-default pripherals for any of the current generation consoles), so the point is moot.

 

Mouse & keyboard is clearly superior for certain types of games:  FPS, RTS, tactical RPGs, just to name a few.  This is not a tactical RPG, it's an action RPG with a third person perspective.

And how does that make the mouseyboard any worse? Fast and precise camera control, robust key mapping on both the keyboard and the mouse, and an ergonomic layout. Who can want more? Third person action RPGs have a long history on the PC platform as well. The controller didn't revolutionize anything, nor is it intrinsically better suited for these kinds of games.

[exodiark]

Heh, i have to say to say that i have never heard that excuse (too masculine) when it comes to gaming. Why is it even considered a negative?

Because patriarchy!

Heheheheheh, can't resist.

[alanschu]

 

 

Batman's combat is so stupidly automated that a blindfolded guy on Youtube played it and won against 5-6 opponents while mashing the buttons.

 

You mean the guy that was doing one of the early, almost tutorial fights?  Yeah, he sure did pretty well.  I actually made a comment on it!  He didn't seem to like it, though it took him 6 months to think of his response.

 

I don't care if the combat is "easy," because it's *absurdly fun.*

 

Yes, I can "win" by pressing X and Y and doing nothing else, or I can look totally badass and get a flawless victory while pulling of a 38 hit combo with 9x variation bonus.  And when you get farther than 10 minutes into the game, you start meeting badguys that you can't just press X or Y, because the game does a pretty stand up job of slowly building up your skills and introducing you to new combat types.  You're right that the auto target does help a lot, but that may be because at any given time it's not impossible for you to be fighting against 10+ guys.  Though when you're fighting the mooks, it's not about "am I going to die?"

[Drowsy Emperor]

Well I suppose you could argue that the whole comic book approach makes it okay for the mooks to be mostly easy pickings, but I don't think that would be appropriate for Geralt even if he is superhuman, and Batman isn't. 

 

I couldn't tell you why though. I guess I don't find slaughtering enemies by the dozen in an RPG particularly fun - I prefer less combat to build up anticipation and encounters that are more meaningful and varied - not there just to fill empty space in the levels. 

 

At least that way the gameplay would be more like something from a book and less about gamey elements like grinding, level progression etc.

[Keyrock]

 

Does a racing game work better with m&kb?

No, it works better with a steering wheel, gear box, and pedals.

 

 

How about a platformer?

The long, long, long history of platformers on the PC shows that a mouseyboard has no problems with platformers.

 

1) Yes steering wheel it the best tool for the job, but that doesn't change the fact that a gamepad is still WAY better for a racing game than m&kb.  Ever played a racer, or even a game that has driving like GTA with m&kb?  Sucks, doesn't it?

 

2) Take a platformer, either 2D or 3D, and put it in front of 100 people.  Now offer them either m&kb or a controller.  I guarantee that at least 95 of them pick the controller.  You can make a platformer work with m&kb, but you will never convince me that that either WASD or the arrow keys are more comfortable for platforming than an analog stick, or even a D-Pad.

 

Point is, as it concerns TW3, that the extra precision and extra buttons of m&kb don't really help because of enemy lock on and limited number of skills/spells.  If you're more comfortable with m&kb and the keyboard layout is better suited to you that's your prerogative, but it doesn't make m&kb better for the job, it just makes it better for you.  I find it easier and more natural to switch between enemies with the analog stick and I find myself pushing the wrong button a lot less on a controller because the buttons aren't as crammed together as on a keyboard.  With the advantages of m&kb rendered meaningless, it basically boils down to what control method any given person is more comfortable with.

[Nonek]

Considering Geralt's profession I was a little surprised by how little combat there was in Assassins of Kings, in comparison it was miniscule to the usual rpg, where we are interrupted every few yards by rote slaughter. Refreshing to say the least.

[Tagaziel]

1) Yes steering wheel it the best tool for the job, but that doesn't change the fact that a gamepad is still WAY better for a racing game than m&kb.  Ever played a racer, or even a game that has driving like GTA with m&kb?  Sucks, doesn't it?

Not really, no. Depends entirely on your preference, as you point. It's not a fact that a controller is better.

 

2) Take a platformer, either 2D or 3D, and put it in front of 100 people.  Now offer them either m&kb or a controller.  I guarantee that at least 95 of them pick the controller.  You can make a platformer work with m&kb, but you will never convince me that that either WASD or the arrow keys are more comfortable for platforming than an analog stick, or even a D-Pad.

So I guess hundreds of platformers released for the PC before modern console controllers were developed are abysmal, unergonomic pieces of ****? Good to know.

 

Also, argumentum ad populum is bad. You should feel bad for using it.

 

Point is, as it concerns TW3, that the extra precision and extra buttons of m&kb don't really help because of enemy lock on and limited number of skills/spells.  If you're more comfortable with m&kb and the keyboard layout is better suited to you that's your prerogative, but it doesn't make m&kb better for the job, it just makes it better for you.  I find it easier and more natural to switch between enemies with the analog stick and I find myself pushing the wrong button a lot less on a controller because the buttons aren't as crammed together as on a keyboard.  With the advantages of m&kb rendered meaningless, it basically boils down to what control method any given person is more comfortable with.

So, my opinion is bad, your opinion is fact? Coolio.

[Keyrock]

 

1) Yes steering wheel it the best tool for the job, but that doesn't change the fact that a gamepad is still WAY better for a racing game than m&kb.  Ever played a racer, or even a game that has driving like GTA with m&kb?  Sucks, doesn't it?

Not really, no. Depends entirely on your preference, as you point. It's not a fact that a controller is better.

 

 

 

A controller has clear advantages that translate directly to a racer:

 

1) Analog steering, allowing you to steer more or less depending on how far you move the thumbstick.  With a keyboard it's all or nothing.

 

2) Analog triggers, allowing you to feather the throttle.  Again, with a keyboard it's all or nothing.

 

Even if we're comparing with a controller that doesn't have analog triggers, as some don't, the analog steering itself is a massive advantage.

 

Obviously at this point you're only arguing for the sake of arguing, because stating that m&kb is just as good for racers as a controller is just plain ridiculous.  Same goes for platformers.  That would be like me arguing that a controller is just as good for a RTS as m&kb.  

Edited July 1, 2013 by Keyrock