RPGWatch Feature: The Witcher Review

Prime Junta said:

Sure, it could be that the reviewers could but don't want to, or their editors won't let them, but I can't know that, can I?

Therefore, I stand by my observation: most game reviewers miss the point of a game like The Witcher because they're not capable -- for whatever reason -- of properly addressing what the game is actually "about."

Click to expand...

Some do, sure.

But for others the logic is different. These aren't stupid guys, Jeff Green mentioned it as a GotY candidate some time back, often the reviewers themselves can see it for what it is.

But how many of the people that grew up with Diablo, Oblivion and WoW as their main RPG experiences do you expect to "get" this?

The reviewers don't have to write what the game is about because when their readers play through the game they won't get what it is "about". They'll just see another RPG with action-y gameplay, great setting and some annoying flaws, an 8/10 game. I'd say it's unfair to the reviewers to just assume they can't see it's more than that, considering they're writing for people who simply wouldn't "get" it even if they were told.

To pick a nit, I didn't actually say they didn't get it. I said they're not capable of fitting it into their review-writing conceptual framework. You're doing a pretty good job of explaining why the conceptual framework is what it is.

But you're right, I should've rephrased that to be less condescending.

Semantics.. I'm with PJ though. I think.

What it boils down to, for me, is along the lines of "Hollywood" vs. "Independent" movies. Or "A vs. B" movies. Superficial glamor vs. deeper grittiness. Elder Scrolls vs. Gothic.

Most reviewers only evaluate the "standard" quality of a game (read: score = polish + instant fun - bugs) rather than it's meaningfulness or for lack of a better term, its "classic-factor" (score = fun + "aboutness" in PJs terms + special sauce). In the latter equation, polish, instant fun and bugs are negligible.

The thing is, most people probably only care about the standard quality. To take a movie example again, I found Waterworld (imdb rating: 5.5) to be very enjoyable, because it was as far as I'm concerned... "about" something. Others obviously disagree. Other hollywood movies are usually well made but ultimately ordinary, in my opinion.

In the end, I'm not sure how I would change something about the way reviews are made or if I'd change something at all. I would, however, like there to be "about" scores as well. The inherent problem is that it's not really a tangible quality...

... well, and the holy grail are, of course, games that are exceptional on all fronts.

Review got some notice on the offical site:

http://www.thewitcher.com/community/en/

Great game no real doubt about it - hope they can spend a little more money on the english voice acting in their next game. The delivery is a little broken in places and probably one of the things that stops them getting 9's on the major sites.

About translation

I liked the review very much!

Some of you complain about the bad translation and incohereces in the game. This game was made in Poland, so the source language was Polish. I haven't played the English version, but after playing the original I can say that translating this gme, full of texts that have Polish culture background, must have been a real challenge. So, what's the conclusion? Hope the translators will do a better job next time (with the add-on, or the next part) or... as many Poles like English versions of games (meaning is sometimes lost in translation) - "just" learn Polish language, not an easy one .

PS. And I highly recommend Sapkowski's books about the Witcher! Esepcially to those who plaed the game! If you loved the game, you'll definitely love the books.

Playing the french version and it seems fine.

Might be just the english version or just havent spotted what these people talk about.

I suspect the main problem with the translation was the budget Atari wanted to allocate.

I think I can calm any fears about future titles from CDP: if these guys have learned anything with The Witcher, it's what to focus on fixing in any future projects (expansions, sequels, totally separate titles, whatever). I think Witcher proved they have a great grasp of what makes a great RPG, and now they have overwhelming amounts of feedback about what doesn't quite work. I'm already giddy thinking about a game with all of the positive elements of The Witcher, minus load times and crashes, with better inventory management, more consistent dialogue and VO... and who knows what else they could jam in there.

Enjoyable read, and a review I entirely agree with. Top stuff.

Thanks Tom. I certainly didn't mean to be negative earlier--CDProjekt Red has my total respect for what they've done. It's obvious that they are perfectionists and craftsmen who set themselves a high standard. It's just hard for anyone sometimes to work under the kind of pressure and expectations of the public that a follow-up to something as big as this game can generate.

I think it's that as an rpg gamer, I've seen so many companies that produced landmark rpgs fall by the way--Troika, Sir Tech and so forth. You get paranoid.
The difference is, of course, that the world of gaming has evolved since those days, and hopefully artists with vision in gaming now also realize they need to have those with some business sense around as well to survive.

But I agree, they will also have the opportunity to exceed what they've already done--hard as that is to imagine, and I am already looking forward to it.

Not that I'm a fan or anything.

magerette said:

I think it's that as an rpg gamer, I've seen so many companies that produced landmark rpgs fall by the way--Troika, Sir Tech and so forth. You get paranoid.
The difference is, of course, that the world of gaming has evolved since those days, and hopefully artists with vision in gaming now also realize they need to have those with some business sense around as well to survive.

Click to expand...

Yeah I hear that. It's still tremendously difficult for independent developers to make an impact on the industry and continue to do so for an extended period of time. You constantly have to have at least two projects in development, meaning a bigger team and more money spent. Where CDP has an advantage over those companies, though, is that they have the publishing business to fall back on. It provides a steady revenue stream, meaning that CDP can actually take their time with projects, instead of being under forced timelines.

And I have to say it, despite any niggles some people have about the voice acting 'cuts', Atari did at least let them develop the game their way - it must have been quite a risk, especially with all the 'mature' stuff.

Most of the game was developed before they signed a publishing agreement with Atari - CD Projekt is not just a small development house, but the largest game publisher in Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia, so the game was mostly self-funded.

kalniel, atari wasn't involved in the decision making project, iirc atari was signed as a publisher in the last year of development. As Tom mentioned them being independent, with some cash flow they worked at least 3 years publisher free, again if memory servers.

In regards to the quality of other reviews I have to agree with PJ and BN, thing is all of us are at least moderate RPG fans and many of us are nuts about them, so you can't expect everyone to be able to appreciate the finer points of a classic RPG.
It's like taking someone whom doesn't care about musicals to Les Miserables or Sound of Music, it's just about different tastes, different feelings and different activators of endorphins and there is room for everyone at the table.

Tom Ohle said:

I think I can calm any fears about future titles from CDP: if these guys have learned anything with The Witcher, it's what to focus on fixing in any future projects (expansions, sequels, totally separate titles, whatever). I think Witcher proved they have a great grasp of what makes a great RPG, and now they have overwhelming amounts of feedback about what doesn't quite work. I'm already giddy thinking about a game with all of the positive elements of The Witcher, minus load times and crashes, with better inventory management, more consistent dialogue and VO... and who knows what else they could jam in there.

Click to expand...

Great points ... I look forward to what they do next!

Great review. You hit the nail on the head as was said before. And the main game site is linking you. Grats!

I got the feeling while playing that the first opening battle and the outskirt villiage stuff was merely a way to reorientate the player to not only the game basics, character build ect., but also to put you in a mind set that would make you notice the clues you needed for the main story. So don't give up until you reach chapter 2.
I don't think the real game shines til then.

The best review I have read in a long time, very well written and answering precisely the right questions for me without spoiling too much of the story.

(The collector's edition is still standing unopened in my shelf due to a lack of spare time on my part. Now I am looking forward to playing it even more!)

Really nice review, but I would like to react to some things mentioned above about female characters in the game. I really find Triss and Shani quite attractive (I think this is not only my point of view) and also close to their description in the books. For Triss her sex appeal is really an essential tool for manipulation of others (e.g.: sorceresses invest about half of their magical skills into development of new cosmetics) and Shani can't be older than 30, since she was just a student of medicine some 6-7 years ago (she was really young when participating in the battle of Brenna).

Brother None said:

And you guys called us unabashed fans? :lol:

Great review, but one key thing I don't like...



This is wrong. They are perfectly capable of fitting this fact into their review, it's just that they don't want to. They don't want to because the people reading their reviews don't want to read about it and might not actually notice it when playing the game. These reviewers know their audience, and they know that for their audience this is an 8-out-of-10 game, not a game which you can only describe by rambling on about philosophical underpinnings of game design or waxing poetic about the current state of game design and the way this game kicks it in the nuts.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I read a BioShock review over at gamecritics.com awhile ago. The writer praised the game for its underlying Ayn Rand objectivst philosophy but called the game not revolutionary or innovative enough (which I agree). It was probably the best and the most objective BioShock review I've read. But most of the readers dismissed the review as "dumb" or "the worst ever" just because the writer slapped an 80% score.

Anyways, It's good to have a game like The Witcher (along side with BioShock and Mask of the Betrayer). I noticed that the long loading times have garnered complaints, and some have even completely stopped playing due to it. Yes, it is long but the story and the gameplay kinda outweighed it for me. And since I've been playing the game non-stop, the loading times is only way for me to get a shut-eye.

Also, I'm new here...and it's good to be here. Been playing CRPGs since the late 90s but I only discovered RPG Watch just today. I can't believe it.

Well, RPG Watch isn't that old of a site - it's only about a year old.