RPGWatch Feature: The Witcher Review

[Dark Savant]

Demo is available
http://www.thewitcher.com/community/en/www/download_the_demo.html

 

[Prime Junta]

I can't resist posting this link regarding the discussion about Half-Life 2 and whether it's "about" something or not:

[ http://www.tomsgames.com/us/site/flash_videos/second_take_fixing_game_reviews.html ]

This is a professional game reviewer who explains (among other things) why he feels that Half-Life 2 would deserve a 10/10 even though the story is really pretty thin and clichéd -- "saying that Half-Life 2 needs a better story is a bit like saying The Beatles needed a better drummer."

Which is pretty much the point I was trying to make when contrasting HL2 (and other dopamine-driven games) with The Witcher.

 

[Corwin]

You don't like Ringo!!??!!

 

[woges]

How is the witcher not dopamine exactly?

 

[Prime Junta]

You don't like Ringo!!??!!

I was quoting the THG reviewer. I've nothing against Ringo.

 

[Prime Junta]

How is the witcher not dopamine exactly?

It is, but it's more than that -- in it, the dopamine-reward features serve what the game is "about," not the other way around, as in the games in my list.

 

[JDR13]

Demo is available
http://www.thewitcher.com/community/en/www/download_the_demo.html

Well I think that set a new record for a demo download size.

Hmmm, I hope the full game gets a lot better than this, or I just can't understand all the super-hyper praise it's been getting here.

 

[Prime Junta]

Trust me, it does. The real kicker in it is the way the consequences of your actions unfold, and that only starts to happen in Act 2 -- stuff you do in Act 1 set things in motion that only comes back to you later.

I haven't played the demo, but I would expect that at best it'll give you an idea of the technical performance and the combat basics; there's no way you could get an idea of the character development, the journal, or the alchemy system, let alone the plot or the way it's structured.

I believe this is also one of the problems some reviewers have had with it -- they never make it past Act 1 for any of a number of reasons. IMO that's like writing a book review of The Lord of the Rings if you've only read it up to A Short Cut to Mushrooms.

 

[JDR13]

My problem is the fundamental mechanics of movement and combat in the game, I just don't like them at all, and I don't think that's going to change with more gameplay.

I wish they had made combat a true real time experience ie: you click= he swings, like in Gothic, rather than the pseudo real time experience that it actually is. This is further aggravated by the fact that they chose to highlight the enemies with colored rings, making it look and feel more like "point and click" combat to me. I don't like the camera either, they call it "over the shoulder", but it's actually slightly off to the side in a weird way that bothers me, maybe because I've been playing Gothic 3 lately.

I don't care for the movement either, although I think that's due to engine limitations more than actual design decisions. It bugs me to no end that you can not jump in the game. It feels very restrictive to me, especially with the liberal use of invisible barriers that keep you from exploring off the beaten path. Again, I suspect this may be amplified due to the fact that I've been playing Gothic 3.

 

[Prime Junta]

My problem is the fundamental mechanics of movement and combat in the game, I just don't like them at all, and I don't think that's going to change with more gameplay.

I wouldn't be so sure. It is different than most other games out there, but once you get the hang of it it's quite fun, as well as surprisingly rich and tactical -- for example, when you learn to switch styles between swings, or mix signs and styles. But if you're just coming from a type of game with a different style of real-time combat, you'll have the wrong reflexes wired in, and it will take some time to un-learn them.

FWIW, I really hated the combat in Gothic 3 -- I found it crude, unrealistic, and un-fun, even after the patches sorted out some of the most egregious problems like the stun-locking piggies. As real-time cRPG's go, I think I liked Jade Empire's combat the best, and that was very rhythm and timing-based too.

But yeah, those are genuine limitations of the game. Still, IMO they're pretty superficial, and it would be a shame if they stopped you from enjoying what's really great about the title.

 

[Dhruin]

I've said this a dozen times before, so apologies if this is repetitive. Not being able to jump is a valid criticism (if a minor one). That said, switch to one of the iso modes for a bit and you'll realise it is a point and click game - just with a choice of views and different control schemes.

 

[cba]

Why do the other translations sound like they have been Polish -> English -> Target language? Well you don't suppose it would have been easy for Atari to find good translators Polish -> Target language, do you? May I remind you of the "freshmanness" of the studio and the country it's based in? I think Atari's policy was to do it with their usual translators, rather than looking for additional staff (hey! Polish isn't that popular of a language, you know...).

Too bad, shouldn't there be an excess supply on polish/german translators in Poland and Germany? I suppose at least the russian translation was made directly? And when the game already bases on a series of novels, shouldn't at least the book-publishing house have competent translators? The game may make the novels popular outside Poland, after all...

 

[Jabberwocky]

I didn't like the controls too much at first, but now they have really started to grow on me. I have very few moments now where I can't get Geralt to do what I want him to do. Most of the time combat seems very fluid. Not jumping doesn't bother me - you can jump when in combat, and any other time... well, can someone explain to me why you would want to jump around everywhere, even not when fighting??
I think the game works very well the way it's designed.

Now if you're going to complain about something, complain about not being able to sheath and un-sheath your sword at will!!

 

[Prime Junta]

@Jabber, you can sheathe and unsheathe your sword at will. Q and E to unsheathe steel and silver, respectively, tab to sheathe. Or did you mean that you can't do that in safe areas?

 

[KazikluBey]

After a while the game automatically sheathes your sword even in unsafe areas, which can be rather annoying if you were just getting into the aggro range of another enemy.

 

[Jabberwocky]

@Jabber, you can sheathe and unsheathe your sword at will. Q and E to unsheathe steel and silver, respectively, tab to sheathe. Or did you mean that you can't do that in safe areas?

Yes, that's what I meant. I know how to take them out at will, but I didn't know about the 'tab' key - must've missed that in the manual. The other thing was what KazikluBey just said.

 

[Ionstormsucks]

Recently bought the game... it's certainly not a bad game, but in my opinion the scores it got from most gaming websites (including this one) are a bit high. One cannot get rid of the feeling that rpgs have become so rare nowadays that they just need to be above average to get a really high rating... and yes, I'm a bit disappointed that RPGWatch has given in to the hype. Next time take of the rose-colored goggles, guys.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

So, what didn't you like? You can feel all you want, but if you accuse the site of rose tinted glasses, you should probably back that up with some arguments.

 

[magerette]

Recently bought the game... it's certainly not a bad game, but in my opinion the scores it got from most gaming websites (including this one) are a bit high. One cannot get rid of the feeling that rpgs have become so rare nowadays that they just need to be above average to get a really high rating... and yes, I'm a bit disappointed that RPGWatch has given in to the hype. Next time take of the rose-colored goggles, guys.

What hype would that be? If you're referring to positive and enthusiastic reviews from unpaid volunteers at small rpg sites like here and codex I guess we gave in to it.

I agree that everyone doesn't see the game in the same light, but it still surprises me when hardcore rpg gamers say The Witcher is not deserving of the high scores it receives. When a game gives you exactly the experience you hoped it would and even goes beyond your expectations, are you supposed to nitpick at it so you don't appear to be succumbing to hype?

Anyway, ISS, it's good to see you around and I miss your posts. I'm sorry that The Witcher didn't do it for you--sometimes enthusiasm builds false expectations, and nowhere is personal point of view so powerful as in assessing a game experience. I felt exactly the same feelings you describe about the hoopla over KotOR when it was released, and I still am frequently amazed at people's personal attachment to Fallout, a game that I could recognize as unique and well-designed, but just didn't involve me at the same level.

There's no argument that can overcome personal reaction, and I don't mean to speak for anyone else, so I'll just say that my feelings and expressed opinions about The Witcher are not influenced by hype, press releases, or CDProjekt's vast influence, but are my honest reactions to the game.

 

[Ionstormsucks]

So, what didn't you like? You can feel all you want, but if you accuse the site of rose tinted glasses, you should probably back that up with some arguments.

Ok, you asked for it... but let me stress first that I'm not saying The Witcher is a bad game. The question is if it deserves the highest score that is possible - and in my opinion that is just not the case. It's interesting that you guys, mention a lot of cons, but simply ignore them when it comes to the overall score. Take the loading times for example... I admit, in the beginning the loading times didn't bother me much... everything was new and interesting, even the loading screens were fun to watch and the music rather nice to listen to. But after a while the loading times just go on your nerves... and no, I don't have an old PC, it's a rather new one and it still takes rather long to load. The loading times really slow down the pace of a game which is already quite slow (lots of dialogue, etc.) and after a while I found it annoying.

Another thing that should have an impact on the score are the bugs... there are quite a few in there, admittedly there is a workaround for most of them, but still they are there. I did not take me long to encounter a few... some of the were only minor bugs, others were just incredibly annoying (for example if you click to attack and Geralt just doesn't attack).

One of the most painful aspects of the game (at least for me) are the "technical limitations" that you mentioned, but also decided to ignore in the end. The heritage of the old Aurora engine weighs heavily, and although I definately admire what cdproject did with the engine (especially the graphical improvements are stunning), it's still the same old engine, with the same old limitations. In terms of movement the Aurora engine always was and always will be horrible. And it's not only the ways of movement, it's also the movement itself and the way the engine handles walkmeshes... the fact that your toon sometimes cannot step over really small edges is so damn yesterday. Admittedly the limitations of an old engine are not cdprojects fault, but that doesn't make them go away.
Another thing which pissed me off was the way dialogue trees are handled in The Witcher. It's really only a minor thing, and if you don't know anything about the Aurora engine, you probably won't realize it... but if you know how the engine handles dialogue trees it just makes you go crazy. You probably realized that very often if you have several dialogue options (not always) you can chose one, then you'll get your answer from the NPC, and then the dialogue breaks off. If you want to chose the other dialogue options you'll have to talk to the NPC again and go through the options one after the other. Sorry guys, but that's just sloppy scripting there. It's exactely one parameter that you have to set so you don't exit the dialogue completely but are led back to an earlier dialogue branch. In a few cases the programmers did exactely that, but in like 90% of all dialogues they didn't...
Another thing which sucks is that cdproject stuck to the way the NWN handled monster spawning. You walk over a trigger and suddenly a monster spawns... it's predictable and yesterday. There are fan-made scripts that handle monster spawning in a less predictable way, obviously cdproject didn't even consider to include one.
I won't go into details when it comes to object interaction, I'd probably have to cry thinking about the old clicky clicky interaction that the Aurora engine features.

There are many more examples, and I really don't want to mention every single one... overall one could say that it's rather disappointing that the very core mechanics of the game were hardly changed (apart from certain aspects of the game, like character development).

Another thing that bothers me are the jumpy conversations. I can't really say anything about the localisation... I'm from Germany, but playing the game in English, and as a non-native speaker it's always hard to tell if a localisation is good or bad. Personally I found the voice acting okish, but what I consider to be annoying is that sometimes pieces of information are simply missing. Sometimes the story progresses and you have to fill the existing dialogue gaps yourself. The game does not leave you completely clueless, but nonetheless I consider this to be a flaw in design.

I could go on with a few other things, all minor ones like the things mentioned above... it's really the sum of all these small flaws and glitches that makes The Witcher seem rather old fashioned. I'm not talking about story, linearity or stuff like that... that's really a matter of taste. I'm talking about the things that you can judge objectively... and from my point of view these aspects do not justify the highest rating possible.

Anyway, ISS, it's good to see you around and I miss your posts. I'm sorry that The Witcher didn't do it for you--sometimes enthusiasm builds false expectations, and nowhere is personal point of view so powerful as in assessing a game experience. I felt exactly the same feelings you describe about the hoopla over KotOR when it was released, and I still am frequently amazed at people's personal attachment to Fallout, a game that I could recognize as unique and well-designed, but just didn't involve me at the same level.

Wow, someone remembers me... I feel a bit honored now. Hehe, but honestly you have a really nice point there bringing Fallout. If you ask me if I like Fallout, I have to tell you that I love it... for me personally it's one of the best RPGs ever made. If you ask me if I had given it 5 stars in a test, I have to tell you that I would never ever have done that. Despite all the many great things that Fallout featured, it was also quite bug-ridden, and the graphics were not up to date (not even close to that) at the time of release.
I think the Witcher might be a similar case. Let's assume for one moment that The Witcher features a great story, atmosphere, non-linear plot, etc (It didn't always work out for me, but let's just assume that the overall majority of people likes these aspects of the game). Even if I like all these things about the game, it seems to be pretty obvious that it is deeply rooted in 2002.

Ok, objectivity aside... what bugs me most about the review is the passage called "The Most Significant Game Since Fallout". You know, whenever someone tells me what the future of a particular genre is I get that strange feeling in my stomach. Also sentences like, "That would make The Witcher's final score sixteen out of five: in other words, the best thing that has happened to computer games in what feels like a very long time," make me feel uneasy because they sound a bit like all the reviews about Oblivion (found all over the internet) where some journalists were bold enough to use terms like "the almost perfect game". That all sounds so extremly exaggerated... What is the perfect game for one gamer is perfect crap for another. And what might be significant for one gamer is totally unimportant for another one. Don't use empty phrases like "The Witcher isn't the sum of its parts" to cover almost uncritical opinion. From my point of view the review includes way too much personal opinion... the raw facts are treated as mere side-notes, if they are mentioned at all. But why are people reading reviews? I am reading reviews so I can decide if I might like a game or not (and consequently buy or not). Since taste is a very personal thing I simply cannot base my decision solely on the opinion of a person I don't even know... I also need the facts.