The Witcher...*rocks*

[Steel_Wind]

The Escapist had some very different things to say about this game. You can find their review here.

Folks here have been giving the game such glowing praise (not to mention a number of other very positive reviews out there). I generally like the Escapist for doing different kinds of articles about games and gamers. I'm wondering why such a disparity from the rest of the gaming community.

If you dig a little deeper - you'll find that this "reviewer" you have linked to has never reviewed a game before in his life. This was his first. He never finished the game and didn't even come close. His blog also indicates he is overwhelmingly predisposed to an Oblivion style RPG experience, and story based games are pooh-poohed by him.

Which is a nice way of saying this guy is a total game review virgin and does not know what the hell he is talking about.

There was a huge thread in late October/early November on this issue on the Quarter to Three Forums , a gaming site where many (most, probably) of the posters are gaming journalists and developers. Reviewers who stumbled in their "reviews" and gave away, unknowingly, that they had not actually played the game past Act 1 or 2 were torn apart and savaged. Because of the nature of the game, it was unusually easy to tell where a reviewer stopped playing when it came to the Witcher. The push to "be first" with a web review of the Witcher showed that those who claim to have played it through were not likely to have had the time to have ever done so. But the early reviews still came out, just the same.

Desslock, the main RPG reviewer from PC Gamer along with Jeff Green, editor at Games for Windows (nee Computer Gaming World) chimed in and did some savaging of their own over this issue at the time.

The main reason for the disparity in reviews of The Witcher is simple: game reviewers have been conditioned to review short PC games and console titles with game lengths between 8 and 20 hours. They get paid on this assumption. They don't finish 40 hour games - let alone 80 hour games. They tell you they do - or leave you to infer that they do - when in fact, they don't. They lie. In fact, they lie a LOT.

The Witcher is a game you need to advance well past the first 5-10 hours to get a true feel for the game. Especially as the end game is so strong, in reality, you need to finish the game to review it. Most of the reviewers who didn't like it much didn't come even close to finishing it - and their reviews showed it.

 

[Thanee]

You can say quite a bit about a game without finishing it, though. Only the story and higher level abilities are hard to review without knowing them to full extent, but gameplay, graphics, atmosphere, and so on are quite reviewable after only some hours of playing a game.

If the game is an annoyance to play it won't really help when the story is great near the end (Note: this is meant in a general way and does not apply to The Witcher).

I havn't restarted the game yet (have played through the first Act, but want to start new and only then continue, because I left a few things out, which I couldn't get back to, thanks to only using a single save game, which I usually do when playing such games), but it's definitely a good game. Not a 90+% title, but a good 80+% in my eyes and surely worth a look if you like good story-based RPGs and don't mind the maturity level (which seems a little tagged on at times (at least for the little part I have played so far), though most of the mature themes are hopefully there to deliver the story not for maturity's sake alone).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Steel_Wind]

You can say quite a bit about a game without finishing it, though. Only the story and higher level abilities are hard to review without knowing them to full extent, but gameplay, graphics, atmosphere, and so on are quite reviewable after only some hours of playing a game.

No. I disagree. When it comes to the Witcher, you need to get to the end of Act III, not Act I, to form a view of the combat style in the game, the flow and the atmosphere.

There are far too many changes in how all of those things are impacted later as the game develops. Your assumption, in my view, is very wrong and belies the reason behind the disparity in the "reviews" of the game.

Moreover, a "first impression" is what you write based on a 10 hour gameplay experience of an 80 hour game. Calling it a "review" is lying to the reader.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

If you dig a little deeper - you'll find that this "reviewer" you have linked to has never reviewed a game before in his life. This was his first. He never finished the game and didn't even come close. His blog also indicates he is overwhelmingly predisposed to an Oblivion style RPG experience, and story based games are pooh-poohed by him.

That is interesting in an of itself, because a review should probably not be linking to his personal blog and revealing personal biases towards games. Young guy, new to the industry I'm sure. A mistake he's not likely to make again.

However, I've never expected reviewers to actually finish games, at least the games I enjoy, which tend to push into the 30-40 hour range. There's just too much on their plates to do that. So the fact that he didn't finish the game doesn't terribly bother me.

No. I disagree. When it comes to the Witcher, you need to get to the end of Act III, not Act I, to form a view of the combat style in the game, the flow and the atmosphere.

Story I can understand. Sure, some things develop more slowly, I get that. Atmosphere... I think I should a pretty intuitive grasp about the atmosphere and environment within the first hour of play. Of course, I get that this can change so it might be important to see the forest for the trees, as it were.

But the combat system, I'm curious why it takes until act 3 (which is how many hours of the game?) to grasp.

 

[Steel_Wind]

But the combat system, I'm curious why it takes until act 3 (which is how many hours of the game?) to grasp.

The full combat system takes into account the following:

1 - Steel Sword
2- Silver Sword
3- supplementary weapons
4- Witcher off signs
5- Witcher def signs
5- off and def potions
6 - bombs

The nature of the way the combat abilities in the game evolves is that many of those powers will not be available to you until the mid to two-thirds point of Act III.

In Act 1, you have only a steel word, a few lesser potions and one or two minor offensive signs. At that stage, your signs are, for the most point, a throw-away ability - akin to cantrips.

And no - a silver sword is not really just a "magic" weapon in D&D terms. The point is that silver needs to be used against some opponents - while steel is used against others. Being forced to switch weapons during a fight and the choices that makes you take during combat in terms of priorities has a significant impact on combat flow by Act III.

The tactical feel of combat in the game is a mix of all 6 developed to their mid-point potential - and not a mere 3 abilities at the low end. Witcher signs, especially, are underpowered in the early part of the game. (Arguably, they can become overpowered by the end game, but that's another point entirely).

End result: the combat in Act 1 flows very differently than it does by the end of Act II - and still more differently than it does in Act III, by which time bombs and developed off and def signs become a major element in combat.

It's like trying to "review" the magic system in 3.5 and its effect on a combat by only looking at level 0 cantrips and ignoring the potential of ranged attacks. It's just not a remotely fair assessment.

 

[LrdApoc]

Steel Wind, I know I can't add much here to your points because an indepth review of a title would ideally cover all the things you mention, however as you say reviewers are payed to turn things around quickly. This season I've had to churn out a good number of reviews and the approach I take as a professional reviewer is to give the player a feel for if they want to try a game.

Now in both the reviews I wrote of The Witcher I had not completed the game before I wrote them. I had however played into Chapter III. Same with Mass Effect. I'd played most of the way through the games, I'd dallied with subquests, etc. I had a good feel for the systems and what I felt people needed to know to decide if they wanted to invest the time in any of these games.

That is my goal as a reviewer... to explain the experience, to give my insight into the gameplay, the story and how much a game is fun or not. There are some games I will never finish before reviewing.. Kane & Lynch being one. Its not something I enjoyed so I have pushed it off the review plate and moved on..

There is a great debate about the value of a review, a debate we see all the time. The reality is that for hardcore fans there is really little impact. Hardcore players do not take just one voice into consideration.. nor should any consumer to be frank - I know I don't and I write professionally about this silly industry. It is the casual player, the occasional consumer that benefits from reviews and often does not have the time or interest to research a purchase.

Its sad to some extent because the expectation of experience and knowledge about games, gameplay and gaming itself is effectively as low as : I can type and almost always spell. The mark of a good review is that is speaks to the reader, unfortunately not every style suits every reader.

Sorry I've ranted - the gist though is I agree that The Witcher received a short shrift from some who did not spend more than 5-8 hours with the game. But I didn't need more than that as a player to know that I was happy with my purchase.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

FYI, there's finally a demo out.

 

[Steel_Wind]

FYI, there's finally a demo out.

Yes there is. The Demo includes all of the Prologue and ALL of Act 1.

That's 10-12 hours of game play. For free. And apparently you can move your saved game over to continue on into Act II and beyond to play the rest of the game if you choose to buy the game.

Quite a bargain. Many games these days are only 8-12 hours long in the FULL GAME. That's just the demo length of The Witcher

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Hmm. It keeps ending for me when I talk to the Reverend after lighting the torches, and that was only an hour or two. Is that the end of Act I, or is it a bug?

Pretty enjoyable, though. A little buggy -- I had a couple CtDs -- but performance was very good, the voice acting respectable, and the world and graphics are awesome. The localization is a little rough, and there are some odd parts where it feels like they left bits out.

Still, this one might have to go on the Christmas list.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Hmm. It keeps ending for me when I talk to the Reverend after lighting the torches, and that was only an hour or two. Is that the end of Act I, or is it a bug?

Pretty enjoyable, though. A little buggy -- I had a couple CtDs -- but performance was very good, the voice acting respectable, and the world and graphics are awesome. The localization is a little rough, and there are some odd parts where it feels like they left bits out.

Still, this one might have to go on the Christmas list.

Bug.

Are you under XP or Vista?

And you should post any crashes on the www.thewitcher.com forums.