Combat in Witcher 2 is terrible and frustrating.

[Sn3akyStalk3r]

I'm just hear to pour out my frustration. I played the game before, then played Witcher 3 (which has got great combat mechanics), and now I'm playing Witcher 2 again.
The combats (and I'm playing in normal difficulty, I can't even imagine what it's like in Insane mode) are ridiculously difficult and poorly designed. You take damage when you're blocking, you take damage WHILE you're rolling (so what's the point in dodging when you take the damage anyway), and most of the times, when i'm doing the counter-attack, I get hit during the animation, and sometimes I don't even deal damage. And the Quen sign is simply useless before you upgrade it a lot.
In many situations you fight like 5 to 8 enemies at once. What are you supposed to do since you're getting smashed, no matter if you block, roll or try to counter-attack ?!

[DeadByLag]

It was CDPR's first attempt at their own game engine development, so of course there were plenty of rough edges. Since you have played Witcher 3 then you can surely tell how much they've learnt and improved. The first game which was their first ever attempt at game development using somebody else's engine (i.e. BioWare Aurora engine) was way worse.

As a player coming from Witcher 1 I can't claim it's all that bad since it was a huge departure and improvement from the first game. I never regarded it a problem fighting with multiple enemies. In fact the most fun I had were those quests (e.g. Battle of Vergen) and locations where multiple opponents could be engaged. As with any other game, the crucial bit is understanding how the mechanics works, what limitations they have, and what can be exploited to give the player an edge. Once I had a stable footing on the combat system, combat was a blast of fun. At least when compared to the first game.

[crazycupmuffin]

I love these games. But none of the games in this series has very good combat mechanics.
It's like a poor man's dark souls combat-wise. But everything else is A+.

[LuckyHero]

I feel the frustration, I liked the Witcher 1, but the combat is abysmal in it, this game, though much more fluid, is still a little wonky and I've yet to play the 3rd game (having barely played this one yet) to comment on the combat system. My main gripe so far is how riposting doesn't avoid any incoming damage which defeats the purpose of a riposte... Ripostes in ANY combat game should always be somewhat high skill for high reward in that maybe the closer your timing to when the enemy is about to hit the more damage you do/take or just reduce the timing window and reward the player with no damage taken on a successful riposte whilst increasing the damage they take if they mess up the timing. It makes so much more sense to roll away and avoid an attack altogether than try to riposte half the time and even then the roll has no I-frames (at least in my experience) so even then you might take the damage making it a lose lose situation. It's frustrating, but honestly the story of these games is so deep and ACTUALLY GOOD that I am willing to put up with it just to get the story.

[Lagrange]

I felt the same in the beginning, but man after playing a whole game - I love it more than the Witcher 3 combat. It has a steep learning curve - but thats it! It forces you to play like a Witcher. If you spam sword like in Assassin's Creed, you're going to get cut into two.

All the bombs, portions and oils are not fancy items to collect. You MUST use them to survive. Learn what each oil and bomb is used for. Learn to switch signs in between rolls [super crucial].

Learn when to runaway.

Its a good combat system with half baked tutorials.

My advice: Don't use the knives or traps. Go heavy on bombs and portions - especially if you're doing a sword alchemy path.

Look at Youtube tutorials. I feel the frustartion because I was angry at myself too. But once you get the hang of dodging and switching between items - you're unstoppable.

A Witcher is strong - but not unbeatable.

[Sn3akyStalk3r]

In the Witcher 3 you can either dodge OR roll. Dodging requires timing but you don't get hit, and you can also take a little damage while rolling if you do it too late.
In Witcher 2 however, rolling is your only option to dodge attacks, but you take crazy amounts of damage no matter the timing, especially since it's considered a backstab to hit you while you roll apparently.
So you can either try to counter attack but it never works (you get hit during the animation and it often gets blocked by the enemy), you can try to dodge with a roll but it simply f*cks you even more, or you can parry but you take damage anyway. How exactly is that a good combat system? This is simply the opposite of fun. Most guys who have played the game tell you to simply roll in circles for ages around the enemy like Sonic the freaking hedgehog.

[JIM CROCE HOLOGRAM]

Originally posted by Sn3akyStalk3r:

In the Witcher 3 you can either dodge OR roll. Dodging requires timing but you don't get hit, and you can also take a little damage while rolling if you do it too late.
In Witcher 2 however, rolling is your only option to dodge attacks, but you take crazy amounts of damage no matter the timing, especially since it's considered a backstab to hit you while you roll apparently.
So you can either try to counter attack but it never works (you get hit during the animation and it often gets blocked by the enemy), you can try to dodge with a roll but it simply f*cks you even more, or you can parry but you take damage anyway. How exactly is that a good combat system? This is simply the opposite of fun. Most guys who have played the game tell you to simply roll in circles for ages around the enemy like Sonic the freaking hedgehog.

I found a rhythm in rolling and combining signs as a decent way of avoiding damage. I was confused at first, but then I realised that a roll wasn't a damage negater but a chance to avoid being hit by the weapon the enemy was using. I learned to roll in a different direction to their weapon's path and then did some damage from behind. Otherwise I used Igni, Aard, and Yrden to disrupt -- especially when I had incinerate on Igni -- and then attacked the guys I hadn't used the signs on, unless they were in that stunned state where you can get an insta-kill.

Bombs I didn't realise the value of bombs until the end when I kept getting beaten by the same wave-style fight. The bombs that do damage are great, but the ones that stun are even better. They're especially tide-turning when a fight you didn't expect jumps out at you and there was no time to prepare with oils or potions.

I don't think the combat system is great, but I also don't think you've tried all your options.

[Hrothgar]

Originally posted by Sn3akyStalk3r:

In the Witcher 3 you can either dodge OR roll. Dodging requires timing but you don't get hit, and you can also take a little damage while rolling if you do it too late.
In Witcher 2 however, rolling is your only option to dodge attacks, but you take crazy amounts of damage no matter the timing, especially since it's considered a backstab to hit you while you roll apparently.
So you can either try to counter attack but it never works (you get hit during the animation and it often gets blocked by the enemy), you can try to dodge with a roll but it simply f*cks you even more, or you can parry but you take damage anyway. How exactly is that a good combat system? This is simply the opposite of fun. Most guys who have played the game tell you to simply roll in circles for ages around the enemy like Sonic the freaking hedgehog.

Upgrade the sword perk to attack while blocking. No more Dead Souls combat.

[BaitMaN]

witcher 2 was difficult even on normal difficulty, in the start you even die to normal soldiers. its frustrating, but you have to learn and improve. i gave up and then after 1 yr again started and liked it.
they made witcher 3 combat a lil bit easy to get more ppl playng without giving up.

[Emaxmagnus]

Its not difficult, its tedious because the system is very cluncky

In the end all you have to do is hit and roll, hit and roll, hit and roll.....and spam quen when you mess something up just to survive the hit that you know you will get sooner or later

[Raxo]

yeah im facing letho and jesus, it's showing.

im playing on normal too

[StarChart]

I'm going to have to disagree. I feel like the W2's combat is very fun. Balanced? Not really, but fun nonetheless. See I hopped on the hype train when W3 came out and I loved and played the hell out of that game (my hours and statistics should be proof this isn't my first rodeo). So naturally, I did what anyone else would do when they join a franchise late, I bought the earlier installments and gave them a shot. I played maybe 2 or 3 hours of W2 then gave up because it was such a gross departure from what I was used to in W3.

However, many months later I came back to W2 and really re-evaluated how the combat worked and what I was doing wrong. The main difference that I noticed was the mindset I had to enter in order to use the combat system properly. While W3 incentivises a much more aggressive playstyle, dodging towards opponents because you get iframes. W2 rewards a more defensive, slow and methodical approach. Rolling away from enemies instead of into them. Giving yourself breathing room to recover vigor. The dodge feature in W2 is a way for you to GTFO after you land a blow or two while in W3, that dodge lets you stay in the heat. Then again, it's not like W2 doesn't HAVE aggressive strategies that you can execute. I've found great success when I do a fast attack to charge towards an enemy, roll to the side, do another fast attack and have them virtually stun locked.

While playing through W3 on the hardest difficulty, I never felt really danger or that I could lose a fight if I didn't prepare. I ran through the entire game with nothing but a couple Swallow potions, 20 points into the light and heavy attacks and Alt spamming. I ended W3 with like ~36 unspent skill points on Death March since every skill felt "Meh". W2 on the other hand should be treated as almost an entirely different game. It is so radically unique from its successor that an outsider might struggle to say the games are related, if not made by the same studio.

In W2 I really needed to spend time learning how Geralt moves. How his attacks land. The way enemies telegraph their actions. How I can prepare for battles using bombs and potions. Spending a good ammount of time looking into the skill trees and planning my approach and build. That was the biggest pill to swallow btw. Not being able to use potions mid combat. HOWEVER you absolutely CAN use oils mid combat. I spent a lot more time reading and learning about the games mechanics that I ever did while playing W3. It isn't too inviting to new players but ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ is it worth it once you get a grasp.

I honestly believe the main issues you're having with the combat are the same as mine when I first started playing W2. I came in with the expectations of the mechanics being even slightly like W3. So yeah, I absolutely can relate with your feelings. But do give the game some time. Try to separate W2 and W3 and think of them as different games from different franchises and companies. That will help you over that slump in the beginning. Don't compare one to the other because you will attempt things that you can do in W3 only to be punished in W2 and you won't attempt things in W2 that could lead to great success.

[StartingFresh]

Its 7 years old, what did you expect? If you played W3 and then came to complain that W2 is not W3 then I honestly think you should stop playing games.

[BốiRốiVL]

I just finished Witcher 1 and continous with Witcher 2. All I can say is Witcher 2 has a very difficult control compare to the first game.

[DeadByLag]

Originally posted by BốiRốiVL:

I just finished Witcher 1 and continous with Witcher 2. All I can say is Witcher 2 has a very difficult control compare to the first game.

It is, because it's a completely different type of combat scheme and system. You have to keep at it; practice makes perfect. It took me the whole of act 1 to finally grasp the mechanics and then it was fun thereafter.

[Sn3akyStalk3r]

Of course I'm not complaining that it's not as good as W3, that's obvious, it's not as recent. All I'm saying is that it's pretty frustrating to take damage when you're not supposed to take any, like when you're rolling away and you take the hit anyway, or when you're doing a counter-attack and it does not only no damage, but you take hits in the process. But I think the worst might be when a boss throws you to the ground, and you take unavoidable hits while Geralt takes thousands of years to get the F up.
So excuse me for pointing out some pretty annoying flaws, the fact that I played W3 before playing W2 again just helps me realize how much they've improved the combat system. Thank god.
Also (if I may say), I feel like the alchemy system in W3 has also amazingly improved, which is great, considering it was so tedious in W2 and I never bothered using it (but again, that's only my humble opinion)