I agree, but sometimes people finger "bad game design" as an excuse for "im not very good at this game and the learning curve for me is steep". Taking cues from other games is only relevant if it needs to play like those games or if something is fundamentally broken. If I were to critique Wild Hunt, I'd say sometimes enemies poorly telegraph attacks with goofy hitboxes that don't fully look like they're connecting with you (the Griffon has some weird, odd looking bite attack for example) and that makes them difficult to read and strategise around.
But being different to other titles, or even difficult by its own merits, does not constitute as bad game design. If a person can learn the game systems and apply a level of skill that results in consistently high performance without using exploits, then that by default means the combat system works. Consistency is the key word. Bad game design can be identified by high level of unpredictability and poor readability in the game systems. The original fucked up hit boxes of the dragon fight in The Witcher 2 are a great example of this. But so far Wild Hunt isn't that. Not perfect, room to improve, but what's there works.
If a strategy isn't working, stop beating yourself over the head with it. Try something different. Approach encounters differently.
just feels odd like he has his butt hole clutched 24/7. Overall for the most part the animation selection is pretty darn limited sadly enough.
