RPG Codex - 2008 In Review

[Prime Junta]

Come on, people -- surely you can find something more serious to complain about in the state of computer role-playing games than *this.*

 

[DArtagnan]

I was talking about the improvements, too. The EE is actually sold in a boxed form here, too.

http://www.amazon.de/The-Witcher-En..._1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1232487978&sr=8-1

Let's see if I can keep this simple.

The improvements are free. You can go download them at no cost, or AFAIK they'll send you the upgrade for a small cost to cover expenses.

You're linking The Witcher: EE - which is the game PLUS the improvements.

 

[DArtagnan]

Come on, people -- surely you can find something more serious to complain about in the state of computer role-playing games than *this.*

Are you referring to those complaining about receiving a free upgrade, or are you referring to the debate in general?

Because if it's about the debate, I think it's a pretty interesting discussion and it's very enlightening that there are people out there who're more jaded than myself, who actually think it's a negative to get free significant upgrades.

They're even spinning one of the most widely respected CRPGs in recent years as a broken and non-functional game that REQUIRED these fixes to be complete.

We're talking about levels of blindness approaching paranoia. There IS such a thing as decent people caring about their work, it's just not that common in this industry. But they DO exist - really - I promise.

 

[Prime Junta]

I was referring to those complaining about getting a free upgrade.

 

[DArtagnan]

I was referring to those complaining about getting a free upgrade.

Then you've got a point

 

[Dhruin]

It's pretty simple for me - before the EE I thoroughly enjoyed The Witcher - I'm pretty sure I'll think of it as a classic in years to come. Along with MotB, it's the best CRPG experience I've had in recent years.

Complaining that they made improvements and used the opportunity for some marketing is ridiculous. A completely worthless article.

@Alrik, come on, you're being silly. Anyone who owns TW can download everything for free. If you don't already own it, what on earth is wrong with CD Projekt selling the Enhanced version? You surely can't expect they give the whole thing away.

 

[Squeek]

I don't know about The Witcher, but the software business has a long, long tradition of shipping unfinished products. As customers, we really ought to make a habit of voicing our intolerance of it. Otherwise, we're just inviting it to happen more often, because it seems to be the nature of the business.

 

[Asbjoern]

I don't know about The Witcher, but the software business has a long, long tradition of shipping unfinished products. As customers, we really ought to make a habit of voicing our intolerance of it. Otherwise, we're just inviting it to happen more often, because it seems to be the nature of the business.

For God's sake. We (Or perhaps I) agree entirely with this. That is not the matter of the dispute. The problem is comparing what you write above to The Witcher, which is somehow called an unfinished game and in order for people to have something to actually complain about it is also wrong to publish a new edition of the game with all previous patches and enhancements including a considerable amount of expensive new alterations, when those enhancements are actually made publicly available for existing owners.
If CD PROJEKT had chosen not to release the Enhanced Edition for existing owners then there would be a problem. No doubt about it.
The Enhanced Edition is just an alternative way for CD PROJEKT to publish a Game of the Year Edition. I thought that was common perception.

But the matter of it all is that Dark Underlord and obviously also Brother None see The Witcher as an opportunity to voice their integrity and firm belief of principles, by criticising a game that is actually considered the best hardcore RPG in recent years. They are not hypocrites and The Witcher must be the victim to show this. It's just another way to show their elitism.

No other publisher/developer than CD PROJEKT would go through the expenses related to re-recording the dialogue voices for an already published game, when their game had already gained wide success and recognition among customers and reviewers. It is very impressive that they're that dedicated to their art.

 

[Brother None]

You're siding with the person who's saying that it's a negative that they released the enhanced edition like they did.

I'm not "siding" with anyone. I wasn't aware this was kindergarten.

It's not praise-worthy to do something nice?

Not when nice is a part of your job. That's to say, I can praise a nurse for doing her job well, but I should not consider it above and beyond for her to do so. I apply this same logic to patches, or in EE's case fixing f'd up translations.

They'll keep shovelling crap at us? Are you aware that The Witcher was widely considered one of the best CRPGs ever, BEFORE the enhanced edition? Wasn't it GOTY at several places as well?

It was RPGotY on the GameBanshee list I co-authored, yes. But I wouldn't know, I can't get it to run because the Atari-pressed CDs have some CD drive conflicts they failed to mention.

"They" was not a reference to CD Projekt Red, tho'

You say it's nice that they're fixing the translation, but then you're saying they're actually hiding it as a gift and being dishonest.

I'm saying the PR campaign was disingenuous, yeah. A "fix" should be presented as a "fix", it wasn't, it was presented as an enhancement, which it's not - or only to a certain extent. I have no huge problem with it (I would if it cost anything, but it doesn't), but I do consider it to set bad precedent in publisher-consumer communication.

How about cutting them some slack.

Why? I don't owe them anything.

The dialogue was in no way preventing the game from being fully playable

Nor were long loading issues preventing the game from being fully playable. That seems like a rather academic point.

I'm trying to demonstrate what unfinished means in this business, and Gothic 3 would seem a very fitting example.

No, you're explaining your personal definition of unfinished. I don't use that definition. That's a pure technical point, and not worth bothering with.

I said "perhaps the best" - because it's not officially proclaimed as the best game of all time. But based on many, many posts on sites like the Codex and NMA - it's very clear that Fallout 2 is respected as one of the very best games ever released by a lot of people. To pretend like you're not aware of this is a tactic with a purpose I fail to perceive.

The purpose is to disarm what is technically a straw man.

More importantly; Were you around when Fallout 2 was released? Do you know how much flak that game got for the state it was released in?

Come on, people -- surely you can find something more serious to complain about in the state of computer role-playing games than *this.*

Surely. But while I don't have an infinity of time, I have enough time to not just focus my complaining on a single topic. I like to spread it out.

There's plenty to dislike. And I love CDP:Red. But there's no love lost between me and their PR department. Though, come to think of it, I don't like any developer's PR department. I just hate some (Bethesda, Nintendo) more than others (CD Projekt Red, Ascaron)

Because if it's about the debate, I think it's a pretty interesting discussion and it's very enlightening that there are people out there who're more jaded than myself, who actually think it's a negative to get free significant upgrades

Please point out where anyone states or even implies that it's a negative to get free significant upgrades.

If you want to debate, debate. But I don't really have the time nor the patience for these word-games.

But the matter of it all is that Dark Underlord and obviously also Brother None see The Witcher as an opportunity to voice their integrity and firm belief of principles, by criticising a game that is actually considered the best hardcore RPG in recent years.

I am not criticising the game (haven't played enough of it considering my problems getting it to run). Nor have I ever criticised the act of upgrading something freely. I am critical of their PR, and I'm saying it sets a bad precedent, and that worries me. I do not appreciate the ensuing personal attacks.

Look, here's what it comes down to: I like CDP:Red, and like the rest of you that makes me loathe to criticize them that much, especially since we don't have a lot of real RPG developers left. But at the same time, I'm not looking forward to a time when publishers are using patches or fixed scripts to repackage their game and cash in some more sales. I already don't like GotY edition, but at least they're not dishonest.

I'm not trying to mindread CDP:R to get their motives. But just imagine it wasn't CDP:R doing this, but Rockstar finally getting GTA IV to run properly on PC (%@F$#R# memory leak), and then releasing that patch with some new textures as an enhanced edition and selling it all over again. Somehow it looks like a cheap PR stunt then. Because, in reality, that's what it is.

(though to be honest, the biggest hole in my argument that for some reason none of you mentioned is that EE doesn't just fix, it adds)

 

[rune_74]

Wow. This sure blew up eh? I don't see how a free upgrade should be regarded as bad. They fixed the game enough with patches way before the upgrade to make it playable. It was an excellent game. Sure I think they could have done a better job on some of the translation though.

 

[skavenhorde]

Wow. This sure blew up eh? I don't see how a free upgrade should be regarded as bad.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It's actually really funny.

Who really cares what he does and doesn't like? The important thing is to discover what games YOU like, and enjoy those!!

I seriously wanted to know what DU likes if he thinks the Witcher is overrated garbage. I'm thinking Final Fantasy 7 and Princess Maker 2

I already know what I like, don't be absurd, but he is a moderator isn't he or at the very least posts news over there at the codex and from what I can tell he took over for VDweller. So what would someone like that consider a good RPG if The Witcher was crap?

 

[xSamhainx]

Wasteland or nothing! All heretics must burn!

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I seriously wanted to know what DU likes if he thinks the Witcher is overrated garbage.

The original Fallout, Arcanum and (to a lesser extent) Bloodlines if you're talking about good RPGs. The "choices" in The Witcher (no matter what you choose, the same stuff happens), the railed linearity of the game (you're forced to do most quests in an area before you can move on and when you do, you move onto the same area in the same state regardless of your "choices") and the lack of choice in the skill system didn't make it a good "RPG" for me. It's an enjoyable game sure (I say as much in the article) but it's not a particularly good "RPG".

Did you use the Steel and Silver swords and their 3 different attack modes? Did you throw in some incinerate and knock-down? Did you save Alvin and kill the bad dog? Did Vizima burn for you? Did you fight the beast in the sewers with an ally by your side? Did you kill the bad guy at the end in Christmas Land? Did you get the best armour in the game? There's a 99% chance you'll answer yes to all of the above (I'll wager a 1% chance you didn't bother with the armour).

Did you steal anything or sneak around and find a back way in? Did you use Axes instead of Swords or even forsake weapons altogether and use only Magic? Did you use your persuasive skills to obtain some extra information? Did your barter skill help with the cost of anything? Did you skip the village by the river and the whole wedding quest? Did you bypass any areas at all or avoid any of the quests? Did your specific choice of skills and the character you decided to play open up anything that I couldn't get? You'll answer no to those.

You and I not only did the exact same things, we did them in the exact same order with exactly the same tools. Now to an extent you can make the same argument against any RPG (I'm certain we've all been to The Hub in Fallout) but The Witcher forced it on you in a set, pre-defined order. In truth, it was an incredibly linear game with each quest being necessary to complete before you could move on to the next. Each area had to be resolved before the game would let you walk through the doors to part two.

The choices you were provided with didn't matter much at all. They were either ignored entirely or simply didn't affect what happened next. You still fought Salamandra when and where the game decided you would. You still needed King Foltest to point you to the Manor. Hell, even if you chose to forsake everyone, you still ended up with allies at the end.

 

[Prime Junta]

But the matter of it all is that Dark Underlord and obviously also Brother None see The Witcher as an opportunity to voice their integrity and firm belief of principles, by criticising a game that is actually considered the best hardcore RPG in recent years. They are not hypocrites and The Witcher must be the victim to show this. It's just another way to show their elitism.

Bingo. This is what irritates me about this discussion -- it's not about the industry, it's not about The Witcher, it's not about CDProjekt RED. It's all about "look at me! I have teh principles!"

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

So improving an already entirely playable and enjoyable game (with minor problems being readily patched) making this improvement available as a mega patch and then continuing to sell the game in this improved form is somehow wrong. U-huh.
It's fair to discuss the shortcomings of the witcher, and DU makes some valid points there, but critizizing the way CD project responded to customer feedback is nothing short of dumb. I consider that an outstanding example of customer support.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm not "siding" with anyone. I wasn't aware this was kindergarten.

Why on earth are you under the impression that you can't pick sides outside of kindergarten? Sometimes it's refreshing to admit you're on one side, and the opposing part is on another. It's basically the origin of our conflict.

Anyway, you've been arguing the same things and if that's not being on the same side, then find whatever word you prefer and apply it.

Not when nice is a part of your job. That's to say, I can praise a nurse for doing her job well, but I should not consider it above and beyond for her to do so. I apply this same logic to patches, or in EE's case fixing f'd up translations.

Well, if I spot someone doing their job well - I think it's praise-worthy. That's honestly the opinion I thought most people shared, but evidently you don't.

I'm saying the PR campaign was disingenuous, yeah. A "fix" should be presented as a "fix", it wasn't, it was presented as an enhancement, which it's not - or only to a certain extent. I have no huge problem with it (I would if it cost anything, but it doesn't), but I do consider it to set bad precedent in publisher-consumer communication.

It's an enhancement in the truest sense of the word. The tiny minority opinion that it's a fix for a "broken" GOTY hasn't been argued very well. You certainly have nothing in this thread to even remotely demonstrate that it was broken.

Why? I don't owe them anything.

Cutting people slack typically implies that you do someone a favor or service, DESPITE not owing them anything. That's actually pretty much what the concept is about.

Nor were long loading issues preventing the game from being fully playable. That seems like a rather academic point.

Those two points are pretty vital to this debate, because we have people arguing that it was broken - when it wasn't.

No, you're explaining your personal definition of unfinished. I don't use that definition. That's a pure technical point, and not worth bothering with.

It's an example, not a definition.

The purpose is to disarm what is technically a straw man.

Hopefully, we've established this isn't kindergarten. Now, I hope we can establish that it isn't college or high school where half the points made are somehow straw man arguments.

I pointed out that Fallout 2 is hailed as one of the best games by so many on the codex, and I assume you and the originator of the review share that opinion. Can you confirm this?

If you DO, in fact, think it's one of the best games - then I find it interesting that you're so unforgiving of The Witcher, which is the point. It has nothing to do with a straw man.

More importantly; Were you around when Fallout 2 was released? Do you know how much flak that game got for the state it was released in?

I started gaming in 1981 - and I'm a huge fan of CRPGs. That said, I don't have any recollection of similar responses.

There's plenty to dislike. And I love CDP:Red. But there's no love lost between me and their PR department. Though, come to think of it, I don't like any developer's PR department. I just hate some (Bethesda, Nintendo) more than others (CD Projekt Red, Ascaron)

Literally hate them?

Please point out where anyone states or even implies that it's a negative to get free significant upgrades.

You need only re-read this thread.

If you want to debate, debate. But I don't really have the time nor the patience for these word-games.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not keeping you here, and you should feel free not to respond.

I am not criticising the game (haven't played enough of it considering my problems getting it to run). Nor have I ever criticised the act of upgrading something freely. I am critical of their PR, and I'm saying it sets a bad precedent, and that worries me. I do not appreciate the ensuing personal attacks.

You're calling the game non-functional and broken.

What personal attacks are you referring to?

Look, here's what it comes down to: I like CDP:Red, and like the rest of you that makes me loathe to criticize them that much, especially since we don't have a lot of real RPG developers left. But at the same time, I'm not looking forward to a time when publishers are using patches or fixed scripts to repackage their game and cash in some more sales. I already don't like GotY edition, but at least they're not dishonest.

But that's not what they're doing. You're claiming something on very shaky grounds and you're being called on it. If you can't handle criticism for uninformed opinions, then don't display them in public.

 

[Maylander]

To be perfectly honest, I only found The Witcher to be "decent". I'm sure I disagree with DU and Brother None on a lot of issues, but DUs list of concerns regarding TW is pretty similar to my own list. It's a good RPG, by all means, but far from my favourite (even in recent years).

 

[DArtagnan]

To be perfectly honest, I only found The Witcher to be "decent". I'm sure I disagree with DU and Brother None on a lot of issues, but DUs list of concerns regarding TW is pretty similar to my own list. It's a good RPG, by all means, but far from my favourite (even in recent years).

I didn't enjoy The Witcher at all, really.

That's down to personal preference, though, and I have a very easy time seeing what's good about it.

I don't like the rigid linear structure, and I think the combat system is awful - both aspects are severe enough to hold back whatever enjoyment I might get from it.

But there's a huge disparity between not liking something, to being blind and unreasonable BECAUSE you don't like something.

 

[Maylander]

Yes, if you analyze The Witcher from a neutral point of view, it's fairly easy to see that it is an RPG of good quality (overall), and contains many elements that would please a lot of RPG fans.

As with all things though, whether you enjoy it or not is a matter of personal preference.

 

[DArtagnan]

Yes, if you analyze The Witcher from a neutral point of view, it's fairly easy to see that it is an RPG of good quality (overall), and contains many elements that would please a lot of RPG fans.

As with all things though, whether you enjoy it or not is a matter of personal preference.

I agree completely, and it's not anyone's lack of enjoyment or opinion about the game that represents the source of disagreement.

It's that they're factually wrong - as I see it - in calling the game broken and non-functional and saying that the developers were all but obligated to release this enhanced version for free. That's simply not right, and I think - as hard as it is to believe - they REALLY do care about their game and that was the main source of inspiration for these improvements. The fact that they don't charge you for them is - to me - extremely supportive of this point of view.

Greedy "standard" developers/publishers would SURELY have charged by way of releasing a Gold edition, without making the improvements available free of charge. In fact, that's pretty much how it always goes in all other cases involving games at this level.

You don't have to be grateful, but at least recognize what they're doing and don't call them dishonest.