It was awkward in W1. It was closer to an RPG than Witcher 2 and 3 which do not use RPG combat mechanics anymore. They're action games when it comes to combat. However, W1 wasn't using pure RPG combat either, so it was in this weird state where it didn't know what it wanted to be. Quite awkward. W2 and W3 decided to just be action games when it comes to combat, and that's an OK decision, IMO. It made the combat more fun compared to the weird RPG/action combination of W1. I prefer RPG combat in RPG games, but if they're not actually done well (and W1 was not done well), then pure action combat is preferable. I'm not sure if I liked W2's combat better or not. It seems W3 is not better, just different. So I guess I like both equally. Both have problems though. It does smell like dumped down, "made for consoles" combat, where the lack of buttons on gamepads made the game's combat worse. The game just maps multiple actions to the same key, and thus it gets confused often. Because of the lack of fast camera pans on gamepads, the game also assumes you're trying to attack something that you don't actually intend to attack. It completely disregards the fact that with a mouse, you are very able to point at exactly the enemy you want to attack. But the game will just turns you around and attack something you didn't want even if you use the mouse. You also have this awful "selection wheel" thing that tries to mitigate the awfulness of gamepads, and the game suffers because of it. They didn't do proper controls for the PC, they just ported the console version as-is pretty much. So the combat is not as good as it could have been.