@verysalt: The weird thing is that the groundwork for some fun combat was there, and all it really would have taken would have been some minor tweaks, but they seemed to think it was fine as is, because "no one plays RPGs for combat"...
1. Hitboxes were a mess, especially with faster moving enemies like Nekkers.
2. The tactile feedback was way off. It always felt like Geralt was either slicing through jello, or whacking on a piece of wood, with nothing in between. The way enemies would react to being hit also made them seem extra floaty or like a wall.
3. On top of the feedback, the animations and hit stun (or lack thereof) really hurt the overall feel and flow too, and Geralt simultaneously flowed around like a ballerina, but also felt herky-jerky due to his swing animations being so long.
In a world where both Dragon's Dogma and the Souls series exist, there's no excuse for combat like this anymore. It's barely above Risen 3 or Fable levels of jank.
@verysalt: The good old "difficulty" argument. :( Death March doesn't do anything for difficulty other than make the already weak combat tedious. By level 15 or so it's about as easy as Normal and BaBB. The "realistic" argument is tired and flat out nonsense too. They never tried to make Geralt realistic, and they've cited time and again how the Arkham and Souls games "influenced" them. For all of their influence, the combat doesn't come close to being as good as either. Realism is tossed out the window entirely anyway when you include Signs and Mutagens.
@ps3gamer1234: That logic is nonsense. A lot of people enjoy "games" that are mostly just graphics and story, with very little in the way of compelling gameplay. See: TLOU and any of the Uncharted games; all of which score extremely high after the first game. The Assassin's Creed games also scored high and they too were ridiculously boring and almost entirely auto-pilot. Games that are developed for "mass appeal" are going to be watered down experiences that try to cater to everyone. They also happen to score so well, because most critics are mainstream anyway, or didn't start playing games until after 2005, so they have no real reference.
@verysalt:Three dimensional fancy ninja? I would have settled for combat that didn't have garbage feedback, nor shoddy hitboxes. Or better yet, wasn't just outright boring. For all of the things it does right, the combat is just terrible in comparison, and you spend at least half of the time doing it.
@Fandango_Letho: Yet every single preview insinuates that it's typically better to simply run past your enemies. Even this very article mentions how the combat is "more measured". That's just PR code for: barely there aside from a few choice sequences. I can't find it specifically for this article, but the other articles that came out on Nov 30th from the same event in Japan, Capcom paid for "travel" accommodations. The current Youtube videos are also all sponsored by Capcom.
@BuyaPC:I don't need any Mass Effect remasters on PC, since they still look pretty good (unless they could magically fix "oatmeal face" from the first game), but Dead Space has been looking rough for a long while now. There are also higher resolution textures for Mass Effect 2 & 3 already on PC.
@xbox360kb:A lot of people really love to pretend that doing a remaster doesn't take away from any potential new works, and that everything can simply be outsourced to a developer that specializes in ports or remasters.
@kagatoac:I think the show surpassed both Arrow and The Flash with the last half of season 2 and all of season 3 easily. The first season of The Flash was great, but the second season just retread too much of the first, and Arrow has simply been "okay" for the last two seasons.
Isaac_Redfield's comments