Don't get hit then?
No really, playing it on hard with enemy scaling on is the only way I enjoy Origins. Everything else is way too easy.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
AC: Origins plays the way people accuse Witcher 3 of playing
- Thread starter Yasuke
- Start date
No really, playing it on hard with enemy scaling on is the only way I enjoy Origins. Everything else is way too easy.
Too true! I think now it just means I don't like the controls.
I don't get hit often, but it's still stupid that two levels makes such difference. I'm now constantly playing missions two or three levels below their recommended level and I'm doing fine. Captains can kill me in one hit though.
It's 729 kroner for the deluxe edition on psn and the lesser one does not contain a mount and I don't want to play the whole game mountless. That's actually the reason I didn't get it at launch either (the mount).
It needs a steep sale. 650 for the regular version is also too much just to try it.
OK - First, I think I was too hard on the RPG point. I thought about this more and you can make a good case the game is an action RPG. Second, AC:O's stealth game play is different from other stealth games and that means some stealth gamers will not like it. I think it's fine not to but it's not "weak as fuck". Here is what I liked about it:
1) The eagle lets you fly over a base and see where the guards are. You can also mark the guards. Once marked, you always know where they are. This is a really cool feature.
2) The basic stealth gameplay is good. You sneak around bases, avoid detection, kill unaware guards, hide their bodies and repeat. You can backstab unaware guards. You can also kill them if they are below you (you jump on them and then quickly kill them).
3) It's possible to play as a stealth character. In AC 1, AC 2 and AC Brotherhood, it always felt like it was really hard to not get spotted. In this game, not getting spotted is a lot easier. You can hide in bushes, grass, closets, etc. You can also sneak up on guards by climbing up on roofs, ruins, etc. Finally, you have a fairly good chance of knowing if they are looking at you. This makes it a lot easier to play as a stealth character.
4) If you get caught, all of the guards don't get alerted. Only the guards near the guard that spotted you get alerted. If you are fast, you can kill them and then go back into stealth mode.
D) You can hide bodies so the guards didn't know you are in the base.
E) If you are caught, you can run and hide. Once you were hidden, you could go back to silently killing the guards.
F) The predator bows and hunters bow worked really well if you were not spotted. You can pick off enemies from a distance.
G) There were some useful stealth skills. For example, you can use darts to silently poison enemies or put them to sleep. You can also poison bodies so if they are found, the finder will get poisoned and slowly die.
AC:O's stealth game play isn't like most stealth games and it's not for everyone. AC:O doesn't play like Deus Ex (https://www.deusex.com/), Styx: Master of Shadows or Thief 4. I think it's fun and I also think a lot of people who like stealth games will like it.
You will not be mount less if you buy the regular game. You start the game with a mount. You can also buy mounts in the game (you use in game currency, not real money, to buy the mount).
Ah ok, it doesn't say that on the store page just that one of them contains a mount and one doesn't.
Anyway.. it needs a sale :)
No I can't agree. I thought the combat was fun, felt loose I guess you could say but I definitely enjoyed it more than the previous games.
It is always better to try... after all humans like different things ;)
Witcher 3 did not have janky combat at all imo.
Not sure why people come after the combat in that game as if it's some unplayable mess. It's not the greatest, but it's functional and works well within the game. Different builds are also possible and pretty fun.
Not sure why people come after the combat in that game as if it's some unplayable mess. It's not the greatest, but it's functional and works well within the game. Different builds are also possible and pretty fun.
Hard to explain I think it feels sluggish maybe there some input lag. But playing Origins after GoW/BoTW/HZD it left a lot to be desired.
It was ok I think. But the weapons were pretty uneven in how they looked and felt. Sword was the only weapon i could stand in the long run. Especially that exotic one with instant charge attack. The staff was also ok but daggers felt horrible, which was the most disappointing concidering they felt like the most proper assassin weapons.
My favorite part is how frequently enemies teleport.
Couldn't force myself to finish the game, but I recall getting a weapon that had instantaneous heavy attacks and just absuing that to kill everything really easily. Made the existence of combat in the game trivial. I don't even recall that game having any stealth or anything indicative of "assassin'".
Couldn't force myself to finish the game, but I recall getting a weapon that had instantaneous heavy attacks and just absuing that to kill everything really easily. Made the existence of combat in the game trivial. I don't even recall that game having any stealth or anything indicative of "assassin'".
Eww
You prefer The Witcher 3's bizarre movement inertia and inconsistent attack animation timings and general inability to move in the direction you want, when you want, I take it?
cant you get it cheap second hand from a gamestop also. You will always have a mount you just wont have an "exclusive" mount but you could probably buy it from the psn store seperately if you wanted.
Combat is not bad, but could be better definitely. My main gripes are the level progression and the repetitive nature of the missions.
Good idea actually (the gamestop one) :)
I'm heading there later today anyway to get Mario Tennis Aces.
I was mostly worried that I wouldn't have a mount at all in the game.
I have a lot of trouble using the charged right trigger shield break, the timing and range are still hard for me to get right.
The Witcher is just light/heavy sword slashing + 1 combo (light spinner move and heavy charge attack). All the magic, bombs, crossbow are just support abilities and your main damage will always come from the sword attacks. Things like horse-combat are so awkward they don't work in the game. The enemy variety is worse than AC:O, everyone from the simple thug, to guard, to the Wild Hunt fight the same way. The only advantage is the monsters, which are better than Lions/Crocs of the AC.
The weapon switching (2 melee, 2 range) alone made AC:O gameplay way more diverse and interesting than Witcher where your only choices was to slash your way through every single engagement: dodge -> slash slash slash -> dodge -> slash slash slash: everything from humans, to animals, to bosses. AC:O allowed you to choose whether it is a single target daggers, broad sweeps, going for headshots or simply barraging enemies with arrows all on the spot. And you could chain all of that kiting the enemies with the parkour system, because the enemies of the Witcher couldn't chase you up the platform. Lions didn't know how to climb, so you could even have a strategy for luring the enemies back onto the ground to get assaulted by a lion...
AC:O has everything for the setting: archery, stealth, horse combat, multiple weapons. You can actually plan the engagement instead of going through the MMO-style bands of wolves/bandits like in the Witcher. It is way more dynamic with weapon-switching enemies, environment hazards, roaming animals, reinforcements, bounty-hunters. If you didn't like the fast daggers, you can switch to the long-reach slow weapons, or a completely different combat approach.
The weapon switching (2 melee, 2 range) alone made AC:O gameplay way more diverse and interesting than Witcher where your only choices was to slash your way through every single engagement: dodge -> slash slash slash -> dodge -> slash slash slash: everything from humans, to animals, to bosses. AC:O allowed you to choose whether it is a single target daggers, broad sweeps, going for headshots or simply barraging enemies with arrows all on the spot. And you could chain all of that kiting the enemies with the parkour system, because the enemies of the Witcher couldn't chase you up the platform. Lions didn't know how to climb, so you could even have a strategy for luring the enemies back onto the ground to get assaulted by a lion...
AC:O has everything for the setting: archery, stealth, horse combat, multiple weapons. You can actually plan the engagement instead of going through the MMO-style bands of wolves/bandits like in the Witcher. It is way more dynamic with weapon-switching enemies, environment hazards, roaming animals, reinforcements, bounty-hunters. If you didn't like the fast daggers, you can switch to the long-reach slow weapons, or a completely different combat approach.
OP
OP
It's less that I don't like the control layout (which is fine and what I'd expect it to be in an action RPG) and more that they handle like shit in use here.
I played The Witcher 3 and Assasins Creed Origins back to back today and I have to say that the combat in Origins is better. It gives you way more options. The AI in Origins is still shit though. Both combat systems are at least solid, not like Skyrim levels of bad combat. Both games lack the punch weapons are supposed to give. Compare it to something like the new God of War or Bloodborne and the difference is insane.
I feel the exact opposite. It's the best in the series by far.
Something like the Trials of the Gods would've sucked with the prior games' combat.
Is trials of the God's DLC?
There is no flow but also no difficulty to the combat (in the base game) at all, it control's like baby's first dark souls.
Yeah the combat was stupid easy in the old games but at least with counters/parries it was fun to watch and had some beautiful animations that were super varied depending on the weapon types.
Now it's just ugly hacking and slashing.
If the combat is still going to be ankle level shallow, make sure it still looks cool imo.
I agree, the previous ones system got dull and couldnt play them anymore, this change is welcome and Im glad Odyssey is improving on this system and didnt came back to the previous ones.
Well people have bad tastes. AC Origins controls way better than the Witcher 3 does. I really don't get this thread that says it's as bad.
I think AC O controls better, have more pleasant game feel and combat have more option and how enemies react is a bit better and overall killing a dude with a headshot is so satisfying. But theres not enough enemy variety and while it is fun while you are doing it you dont really remember memorable encounters.
Witcher 3 does not feels as good with how geralt controls, neither the weapon feedback and overall hit feedback is good, combat is pretty rigid and enemies dont really engage you in vanilla game and traversing the world does not feels mobile and pleasant. On the other hand W3 is a bit more in depth with potions/oils/bombs and theres bigger enemy variety and overall due to how it frames those encounters combined with music and the world , its quite a bit more memorable even tho technically its not as sound as Origins. I do not think its cut and dry like some claim , both games have strengths and weaknesses in combat area alone
Witcher 3 does not feels as good with how geralt controls, neither the weapon feedback and overall hit feedback is good, combat is pretty rigid and enemies dont really engage you in vanilla game and traversing the world does not feels mobile and pleasant. On the other hand W3 is a bit more in depth with potions/oils/bombs and theres bigger enemy variety and overall due to how it frames those encounters combined with music and the world , its quite a bit more memorable even tho technically its not as sound as Origins. I do not think its cut and dry like some claim , both games have strengths and weaknesses in combat area alone
Threads like these remind me that I really can't trust anyone's opinion other than my own. I would've thought this game was garbage listening to ya'll. :P
If it doesn't look cool to you then you're doing it wrong.
janky as hell. i love how he charges up, does a running jump but ends up in the exact same place he started.
What is he supposed to do if he's right in front of the enemy tho.
have you never seen a contact sport? the clipping is also some of the worst and its always happening
Combat in Origins is way better than any of the old AC games. Still could use some tweaking, but it's decent.
Yes but animation wise I mean. If that charge attack always uses the same run into jump anymation, what do you do when the enemy is right in front of you without redoing the whole thing.
EDIT: Wait, you're the "Monster Hunter World is a portable remaster" guy. Not gonna bother lol
I don't feel like Origin's combat is remotely close to the combat in the Witcher III... In that I actually finished Origins and the Witcher III sits unfinished and unloved in my backlog.
I think they're similar games in scope, but my major problem with the Witcher III was Geralt's in and out of combat traversal. It never really felt right to me even after the movement patches.
Geralt feels "floaty" and disconnected from the environment where as Bayeck felt connected to the world and weighty.
Also, it doesn't hurt that Assassin's Creed's go anywhere traversal system (allowing Bayeck to climb just about anything) has never felt better.
The Witcher III is one of those perfect examples of a game I should like on paper, but in practice didn't enjoy enough to finish.
I think they're similar games in scope, but my major problem with the Witcher III was Geralt's in and out of combat traversal. It never really felt right to me even after the movement patches.
Geralt feels "floaty" and disconnected from the environment where as Bayeck felt connected to the world and weighty.
Also, it doesn't hurt that Assassin's Creed's go anywhere traversal system (allowing Bayeck to climb just about anything) has never felt better.
The Witcher III is one of those perfect examples of a game I should like on paper, but in practice didn't enjoy enough to finish.
you would probably move the person youre running and jumping into
Yup, animation wise it looks worse than AC1. It looks ridiculous in a bad way, and this is like the best case scenario for these specific animations, they usually look much much worse.
Not have garbage special attacks that look like shit in 95% of combat situations?
That doesn't even happen in Dark Souls, which is a game that's universally praised for its combat.
I know the video is from DS2 but it's true for the whole series.
OP
OP
If it doesn't look cool to you then you're doing it wrong.
This...looks janky.
And it's like, a best case scenario.
I laughed when I first started playing Origins and they decided to go the Zelda route with its combat. It's so bad, mainly due to the targeting and camera system, which is fucking awful.
Hmm, never really had any problems during combat. Parrying, blocking, maneuvering around enemies felt pretty smooth to me, and pretty simple. Sure I'd get stuck at times in the environment or experience a hiccup every now and then but never enough for a consistent complaint.
Bayek's "chainkilling" animation is just bad and clunky. It doesn't help that he also takes forever to pick up the enemies weapon and throw it.
Was really surprising as this is done much better in the far cry games.