RPG Codex - 2008 In Review

[txa1265]

It's always wonderful to see the pretense of politeness at RPGWatch dissolve into attempts at scathing wit whenever the Codex comes up. Congratulations, you're now playing on the same field as the Codex!

Hmmm ... apparently I needed to add a 'wink' in there ... problem with written content, you lose context. The attempt at humor in the original article was clear, and I was just being snarky here.

 

[Benedict]

I guess I just don't like wielding swords in games. I like playing mage types, and I have been able to do that in all the Elder Scroll games, but Witcher and the Gothics pretty much forced me to use a sword (or axe or whatever). Also, in Gothic 1 I couldn't get over the controls. I don't remember if I ever tried Gothic 2, I think I did, but still could never feel comfortable playing it.

Gothic 2 required a bit of running round before playing a mage without a sword but most of the game was sword free if that was the path you took, I preferred that sense of "magical secrets are carefully guarded" rather than just dishing it out to anyone.

 

[Benedict]

Stupid discussion anyway, sure they were employing a marketing tactic to drum up some extra sales but I don't see what the downside is - they made some improvements to an already above average game, existing customers didn't pay anything extra, some new customers got rounded up and hopefully drawn in both to the RPG genre and to future efforts from CD Projeckt, they made some more money that can go towards their next game being even better.

What's the issue? If a bit of marketing spin helps them to fund making the sort of game they ideally want to make and the sort of game that a lot of us enjoy playing without gouging money out of existing fans it's all good

 

[txa1265]

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

The only point I cede on that is that the EE doesn't merit re-entry as a GotY nominee. My summary would be - they've improved stuff in many ways, and you can download it or buy the fully patched and EE'd version for pretty cheap ... but it is still a 2007 game'.

Otherwise we start getting into considering GotY and gold/platinum editions as 'new games'.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

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.

Let me keep it simple:

1. I do know that the "improvements" alone are free. You just ignored by words of "apart from" and ",too."

2. I do know that this is the "full version" plus the "improvements". But, this is the final product.

 

[DArtagnan]

Let me keep it simple:

1. I do know that the "improvements" alone are free. You just ignored by words of "apart from" and ",too."

2. I do know that this is the "full version" plus the "improvements". But, this is the final product.

I'm not sure why you insist on being pedantic about this.

You said the enhanced edition wasn't necessarily free - and then I pointed out that I was talking about the improvements - which I really shouldn't have to as it's supremely obvious to begin with. There's no reason - whatsoever - to assume I was talking about the entire game being free.

The improvements ARE free, and that's an indisputable fact.

I didn't ignore anything.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

The only point I cede on that is that the EE doesn't merit re-entry as a GotY nominee. My summary would be - they've improved stuff in many ways, and you can download it or buy the fully patched and EE'd version for pretty cheap ... but it is still a 2007 game'.

Otherwise we start getting into considering GotY and gold/platinum editions as 'new games'.

Agreed. It's not really a substantial enough change to be considered a separate release.

 

[Brother None]

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!"

Oh please. Look, give what I'm saying a fair hearing instead of just shoving this into some chest-thumping of mine. I have no need to pump up my principles and I certainly don't need to do it over TW's back, because I already know how everyone thinks of the game and the EE and I know my viewpoint is not a popular one. If I want to impress people, I'll just do the popular thing and bash Bethesda all the time.

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.

I haven't though. And maybe part of the problem we're having communicating here is that you're not giving what I'm saying fair time, and are more interested in just undercutting my arguments. I know, I know, internet debates, that's how it works, but I'm not like that, I'm more interested in genuinely sharing opinions, and this kind of "you're on his side" finger-pointing just doesn't help there.

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.

Because I have never argued that it's broken, nor do I see why you want to make the debate be about that point. Nor do I see what that has to do with the argument. Something doesn't have to be completely broken to be fixed. The translation that Atari messed up was something that was fixeable if never broken.

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?

No, you said "perhaps the best game of all time". I don't know of any site that has a consensus that this is true, I'd say both the Codex and NMA "majority opinion" would be that Fallout 1 is better. Hence why I called it a straw man.

Calling it "one of the best" might not be, tho' it probably wouldn't feature in my personal top 10.

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.

But I was equally unforgiving of Fallout 2 (though I wasn't much of an active poster back then).

However, you're obscuring the core of the argument again. I never called the Witcher a bad game. From what I've played (again, not much due to technical issues), it was the best RPG of last year and probably one of the best of this decade so far. That's not my issue.

Literally hate them?

Nah, I don't literally hate anyone. I don't like PR though. You have to communicate with them in my line of business but as a rule I prefer to go straight to developers. It's PR's job to manipulate me and audiences. I'm fine with that in theory, it's just a part of how our economy works, but I'm not a big fan of that in practice.

The reason I named Bethesda and Nintendo that highly is because they're typically insular PR stations, who try to cut off all flows of information down to what they approve. Bleh. Blizzard, by comparison, is fantastic. CD Projekt Red is somewhere down the middle.

You need only re-read this thread.

No. Quotes please. Tell me where I said "it's bad that CD Projekt put out a free large expansion of the game", please.

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

I'd love to continue. I'm requesting you stop attributing opinions to me that I never expressed, because it doesn't help the debate.

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

Where have I called the game non-functional and broken? Quote, please.

What personal attacks are you referring to?

What Asbjoern said.

But that's not what they're doing. You're claiming something on very shaky grounds and you're being called on it.

What have I claimed on shaky grounds? From post 1, I have made it very clear that I like the Witcher, that I think DU is being too harsh, but that I do feel EE was over-hyped and that the way it was presented is disingenuous.

You have attributed a lot of opinions to me that I never expressed, and of course I can't defend those opinions because they're not mine. I called it unfinished, but you never asked me what I meant by that, instead just assuming I meant unfinished in the harshest sense. I have never called the game broken. I have never called the game non-functional. Indeed, the crux of my argument was never about how broken or non-broken the game was, but instead how its final fix was presented. All I've talked about critically is publisher-consumer communications.

I'm glad for you that you can wave the flag of victory, but of course I can't defend any of these statements. They're not mine.

The only point I cede on that is that the EE doesn't merit re-entry as a GotY nominee. My summary would be - they've improved stuff in many ways, and you can download it or buy the fully patched and EE'd version for pretty cheap ... but it is still a 2007 game'.

Otherwise we start getting into considering GotY and gold/platinum editions as 'new games'.

Definitely agreed there. We excluded TW:EE just like we do ports and GotY editions from GB's GotY editorial for exactly that reason.

Stupid discussion anyway, sure they were employing a marketing tactic to drum up some extra sales but I don't see what the downside is.

There's no free ride in this world. The downside is obvious - if we start treating fixes as expansions, that encourages more publishers to be less concerned about the 0-day status of their game. And their concern is already middling.

It's the same reason I've always protested "they'll patch it anyway" as a valid viewpoint.

 

[DArtagnan]

I haven't though. And maybe part of the problem we're having communicating here is that you're not giving what I'm saying fair time, and are more interested in just undercutting my arguments. I know, I know, internet debates, that's how it works, but I'm not like that, I'm more interested in genuinely sharing opinions, and this kind of "you're on his side" finger-pointing just doesn't help there.

Regarding this, I have no vested interest in doing anything except communicating my opinion and clarifying why it's my opinion. It's unfortunate that you interpret my clarification as an attempt to "undercut" your arguments, but that's on you.

Because I have never argued that it's broken, nor do I see why you want to make the debate be about that point. Nor do I see what that has to do with the argument. Something doesn't have to be completely broken to be fixed. The translation that Atari messed up was something that was fixeable if never broken.

Yes, I'm afraid you only fix what's broken. So, you have to be very clear about exactly what you mean by a fix if it's not broken.

No, you said "perhaps the best game of all time". I don't know of any site that has a consensus that this is true, I'd say both the Codex and NMA "majority opinion" would be that Fallout 1 is better. Hence why I called it a straw man.

I clarified my use of the words and see no reason to do so again.

However, you're obscuring the core of the argument again. I never called the Witcher a bad game. From what I've played (again, not much due to technical issues), it was the best RPG of last year and probably one of the best of this decade so far. That's not my issue.

I'm not obscuring anything, nor did I claim you said it was a bad game.

Nah, I don't literally hate anyone. I don't like PR though. You have to communicate with them in my line of business but as a rule I prefer to go straight to developers. It's PR's job to manipulate me and audiences. I'm fine with that in theory, it's just a part of how our economy works, but I'm not a big fan of that in practice.

I'm glad to hear you don't hate them.

No. Quotes please. Tell me where I said "it's bad that CD Projekt put out a free large expansion of the game", please.

Done.

However, if you want me to point out where you said that they're hiding a fix as an enhancement and that it's dishonest, you're out of luck. You can read, I'm sure.

You called the ENTIRE enhanced edition "a fix", which logically implies that every single enhancement was a fix. You can only fix what's broken, despite what you apparently think, and that's so basic I can't accept you don't understand it.

You need to either take it back or acknowledge that you think The Witcher was broken until the EE was released. That is, if you care about being understood.

I'd love to continue. I'm requesting you stop attributing opinions to me that I never expressed, because it doesn't help the debate.

I'm human and I can only interpret the written word to the best of my ability. If you want me to stop doing that, you're out of luck again.

Where have I called the game non-functional and broken? Quote, please.

I've covered this, but you're not the only one saying it's broken.

What have I claimed on shaky grounds? From post 1, I have made it very clear that I like the Witcher, that I think DU is being too harsh, but that I do feel EE was over-hyped and that the way it was presented is disingenuous.

You have claimed that the enhanced edition was a fix, implying that you know enough about the game to claim it's broken - which you clearly don't as it's not. That's why it's shaky.

You have attributed a lot of opinions to me that I never expressed, and of course I can't defend those opinions because they're not mine. I called it unfinished, but you never asked me what I meant by that, instead just assuming I meant unfinished in the harshest sense. I have never called the game broken. I have never called the game non-functional. Indeed, the crux of my argument was never about how broken or non-broken the game was, but instead how its final fix was presented. All I've talked about critically is publisher-consumer communications.

Well, if you don't think it's broken and you have a very different meaning of unfinished, then maybe we don't really disagree.

I'm glad for you that you can wave the flag of victory, but of course I can't defend any of these statements. They're not mine.

I'm neither waving a flag of victory, nor do I expect you to do anything. But I reserve the right to disagree with anyone and demonstrate how and why. That's what I've been doing and nothing else.

 

[Prime Junta]

@BN, I wasn't referring as much to you as to to DU, and I apologize for phrasing my message in a way that didn't make this clear.

But I do think that you're wasting your energy on this one, given everything else that's wrong about cRPG's on PC's.

In any case, I'm done wasting my time on it, and since I just bought the re-released and fully patched Civ IV complete boxed set, I'm off to play that.

 

[woges]

The word 'fix' does not just mean to repair something that is broken. It can also mean to put in order or correct some existing thing, so your definition does not ring totally true DArt.

 

[Brother None]

But I do think that you're wasting your energy on this one, given everything else that's wrong about cRPG's on PC's.

I think DarkUnderlord is, but I don't think I am. I've expressed this opinion that I feel the PR campaign and branding of TW:EE is disingenuous twice now, in forum posts, and I doubt I feel strongly enough about it to ever make it into a newspost or editorial. For DU, it's a personal quest, and that's his call. For me, it's not a big deal, but it's still there.

Regarding this, I have no vested interest in doing anything except communicating my opinion and clarifying why it's my opinion. It's unfortunate that you interpret my clarification as an attempt to "undercut" your arguments, but that's on you.

How is trying to pidgeon-hole me in with DU clarifying your opinion?

Yes, I'm afraid you only fix what's broken. So, you have to be very clear about exactly what you mean by a fix if it's not broken.

Well, the translation as Atari put it out was bad, and thus it could be fixed. It was still usable, tho', and in that sense it wasn't broken. I'd call something broken that doesn't work, I'd call something fixeable aka unfinished if it doesn't work as it should.

I'm not obscuring anything, nor did I claim you said it was a bad game.

I didn't say you did.

Done.

What's done?

However, if you want me to point out where you said that they're hiding a fix as an enhancement and that it's dishonest, you're out of luck.

Out of luck how? That's the crux of my argument, it's what I've been saying since the start and just repeated to be the core of what I'm saying? How am I out of luck if you're finally actually get down to what I'm saying instead of what I'm not?

You called the ENTIRE enhanced edition "a fix", which logically implies that every single enhancement was a fix.

Really?
Obviously, EE is more than just a fix and CDP Red could've left it at it so I'm not as negative about it as DU is. But at the end of the day, it's just hype for fixing a game, which no matter how you twist or turn it is just wrong.

Really really?
(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)

You can only fix what's broken, despite what you apparently think, and that's so basic I can't accept you don't understand it.

The fact that you can fix segments of the game that were not in the state they should've been upon release - most noticeably the translation - does not mean the game as a whole is broken, not even that the unfinished segment of the game is broken. Broken, again, to me, means it can't be used.

I'm human and I can only interpret the written word to the best of my ability.

And you're honestly giving what I'm typing your full attention, not just trying to undercut what I'm saying and attributing opinions to me that I don't have. Honestly? I'm just asking.

I've covered this, but you're not the only one saying it's broken.

No, you haven't. You need to either take it back or find a quote where I call the game non-functional or broken.

lol takebacksies

Well, if you don't think it's broken and you have a very different meaning of unfinished, then maybe we don't really disagree.

I repeat for the third time now: my argument isn't about how broken or non-broken the game is, it's about the way the Enhanced Edition was presented. I assume that since you're arguing with me you've been arguing with the argument I've been making. If that's not the case, I'm confused.

 

[Squeek]

The downside is obvious - if we start treating fixes as expansions, that encourages more publishers to be less concerned about the 0-day status of their game. And their concern is already middling.

It's the same reason I've always protested "they'll patch it anyway" as a valid viewpoint.

I agree with this completely and see it as the crux of a point where The Witcher is being cited as an example (fairly or not, I have no idea since I haven't played it yet).

To anyone who doesn't see this as a significant point, all I can say is welcome to the world of computing. This is now, and always has been, a big deal.

 

[DArtagnan]

How is trying to pidgeon-hole me in with DU clarifying your opinion?

I might be able to answer that if I had tried it.

Well, the translation as Atari put it out was bad, and thus it could be fixed. It was still usable, tho', and in that sense it wasn't broken. I'd call something broken that doesn't work, I'd call something fixeable aka unfinished if it can doesn't work as it should.

So, what's the difference between an improvement/enhancement and a fix, in this case?

You see, you've been arguing that the marketing of EE as - well - an ENHANCED edition is dishonest, and nothing but a fix in hiding.

What's done?

The quote.

Out of luck how? That's the crux of my argument, it's what I've been saying since the start and just repeated to be the core of what I'm saying? How am I out of luck if you're finally actually get down to what I'm saying instead of what I'm not?

Out of luck in that I don't feel like showing you what you can so easily find yourself.

The fact that you can fix segments of the game that were not in the state they should've been upon release - most noticeably the translation - does not mean the game as a whole is broken, not even that the unfinished segment of the game is broken. Broken, again, to me, means it can't be used.

Are you saying the EE represents exactly what The Witcher should have been - according to you - upon release? There's not a single thing that could be considered an enhancement rather than a fix?

And you're honestly giving what I'm typing your full attention, not just trying to undercut what I'm saying and attributing opinions to me that I don't have. Honestly? I'm just asking.

If you don't think so, I advise you to stop wasting your time debating with someone you suspect of such behavior.

I repeat for the third time now: my argument isn't about how broken or non-broken the game is, it's about the way the Enhanced Edition was presented. I assume that since you're arguing with me you've been arguing with the argument I've been making. If that's not the case, I'm confused.

If you think I'm arguing with an argument, you ARE confused.

Anyway, I think you're being unreasonable by calling the enhanced edition a fix hiding as true enhancements. I understood this point from the start, and I've been trying to explain WHY I think you're being unreasonable.

 

[Brother None]

Are you saying the EE represents exactly what The Witcher should have been - according to you - upon release? There's not a single thing that could be considered an enhancement rather than a fix?

I just pointed out two quotes of myself pointing out that the Witcher:EE is more than a fix, and that part of what it does is adding rather than fixing. Why are you asking me to repeat what I just quoted myself already stating and have been stating since the start?

You're trying to make this too black and white. I never stated the EE is just a fix hiding as an enhancement without clarifying that I was aware that it also adds, nor is it true that the EE is an enhancement that was presented for what it was. The truth lies more in the middle, which is the weakness of my argument (as I pointed out myself), but does not invalidate it. A significant part of what the EE does is still something we should consider not a favour but a requirement, and CDP:Red's packaging all of it as an enhancement and getting only praise for doing so does not set a good precedent.

Note I'm not even saying it was a bad thing to do. I call the PR and publisher-consumer communication disingenuous, but I mostly worry about the precedent, as in the bit Squeek quoted.

 

[DArtagnan]

I just pointed out two quotes of myself pointing out that the Witcher:EE is more than a fix, and that part of what it does is adding rather than fixing. Why are you asking me to repeat what I just quoted myself already stating and have been stating since the start?

I'm not asking you to repeat anything, I'm asking you because I want clarification. I want to understand where you're coming from. I have no idea why everything must be about me twisting your words or making you do things. I can only assume you're used to dealing with people who're very manipulative. You'll find nothing of the sort with me, as I do all I can to stick to the point and remain focused.

But you can't expect me to ignore the meaning of your words, though we might define them differently. I can only lean on my own understanding when I interpret what you're saying, and ask for more when I'm in doubt.

You're trying to make this too black and white. I never stated the EE is just a fix hiding as an enhancement without clarifying that I was aware that it also adds, nor is it true that the EE is an enhancement that was presented for what it was. The truth lies more in the middle, which is the weakness of my argument (as I pointed out myself), but does not invalidate it. A significant part of what the EE does is still something we should consider not a favour but a requirement, and CDP:Red's packaging all of it as an enhancement and getting only praise for doing so does not set a good precedent.

But that's what I don't agree with. I would never expect a developer to hand me free gifts, and that's really the whole point. But you must understand that I consider The Witcher a VERY good product out-of-the-box. Did it have flaws? Oh yeah, indeed it had flaws, but all games have flaws upon release - and there are NO exceptions. But we're also talking about relative newcomers dealing with a HUGELY complex title with a limited budget. With that in mind, I consider The Witcher an amazing accomplishment - and having them go out of their way to improve it and release the result for free is pretty amazing.

I have no idea how anyone with any experience with this industry could expect a flawless, or nearly flawless title from this kind of developer with the conditions set by the current market. It's a miracle that The Witcher was even released in the first place, because it wasn't an indie title with crap production values, it was deep, rich, complex, and had a limited audience. The feat of getting it out the door is, in itself, praise-worthy.

Note I'm not even saying it was a bad thing to do. I call the PR and publisher-consumer communication disingenuous, but I mostly worry about the precedent, as in the bit Squeek quoted.

I see absolutely nothing dishonest about it - and you've utterly failed to demonstrate how they lied, though I guess you specifically use the word "disingenuous" to avoid having to be clear. The enhanced edition was marketed exactly like it was - enhanced, and I don't remember anything even remotely dishonest about the ads I've seen.

It seems to me that what you're really pissed about is the current market, and as such we fully agree. But blaming the one developer who goes above and beyond the severe limitations put upon non-AAA mass market titles, is so totally off the mark, that I have to react.

That's why I'm calling you unreasonable. You're living in a dream world where a bunch of no-clout polish developers can release a top quality title with no flaws, and have it be what we should expect. The fact that they actually very nearly accomplished this in the real world - albeit with some unfortunate flaws - seems to completely escape you.

 

[Brother None]

I can only assume you're used to dealing with people who're very manipulative. You'll find nothing of the sort with me, as I do all I can to stick to the point and remain focused.

Right, the constant attempts to attribute opinions and statements to me that I never made (followed by an unapologetic attitude when failing to produce quotes) must've given me the wrong impression.

I would never expect a developer to hand me free gifts.

Who said anything about gifts? I don't consider it a gift for translated versions of games to be of good quality. I don't consider it a gift for a game to run stably and without major flaws on most PCs.

But you must understand that I consider The Witcher a VERY good product out-of-the-box.

So do I.

having them go out of their way to improve it and release the result for free is pretty amazing.

And this is exactly my point. This attitude will be detrimental to the gaming industry if people follow this precedent. We should never consider it "pretty amazing" if a European developer tries to fix its English translation or polish other bits to some extent (such as the repeating character models DU points out). We should consider it cool that they give away free stuff (adventures) while doing so, but the package as a whole should be seen as it is. Its hype campaign means it wasn't, and that your perspective is the common one.

Again, forget that this is the Witcher we're talking about, because they're so charming. Go back to my earlier example and imagine this is GTA IV: EE. Does the criticism by itself look more reasonable if it is Rockstar North pulling this stunt? Hence my stress on precedent, even over the current situation.

The fact that the industry standard currently is lower than what CDP:Red did is only peripheral to the point*. I am even less forgiving about the state Troika put its games out in, and there's a lot of titles I've treated even more roughly than TW for the state of its translation. That doesn't mean the problem isn't there. They're all not living up to reasonable standards (and no, reasonable standards isn't "should not require a patch").

* Though one should note that - in my opinion - this point does mean that one shouldn't overstate the issue here. I never have, I think DU has though. I feel this point has kind of gone past you so I'll repeat it again: I'm fully aware of the fact that relatively the issues with the Witcher are minor, and that's why I would never write on my issue with the EE in any official way, but that shouldn't mean their existence in an absolute sense can be denied, which I think might be what you're doing - if it's not what you're doing we are probably in agreement that it's not a huge deal, but I never said otherwise.

(for something I don't care that much about, this thread is a bit long )

The feat of getting it out the door is, in itself, praise-worthy.

Indeed, as the site I work for has done. That's not really related to the point of EE's PR now is it? This hails back to the point I made earlier, that I - like the rest of you - am loathe to overly criticize CDP:Red considering what they represent in our current industry.

I see absolutely nothing dishonest about it - and you've utterly failed to demonstrate how they lied, though I guess you specifically use the word "disingenuous" to avoid having to be clear.

No, I used the word disingenuous because it applies, while the word "lies" does not. They didn't lie. PR doesn't need to lie to be disingenuous, tho' (BioShock PR anyone? Fallout 3? The Witcher's PR has never been that much better)

You're living in a dream world where a bunch of no-clout polish developers can release a top quality title with no flaws, and have it be what we should expect.

No. What is it that's unclear to you here? I'm not criticizing the Witcher. I'm not criticizing the Witcher: Enhanced Edition. I'm criticizing that PR-wise this fix-pack with added goodies is being treated as a full-blown rerelease, and you can see the effects of this PR in your perspective.
I would be really critical of it if they charged for it, since they didn't I don't have a major issue with it, but I'm not sure why you don't see the bad precedent this sets, and how important it is for publishers to remain honest about the state of the game as they release it and as they fix it.

 

[DArtagnan]

Right, the constant attempts to attribute opinions and statements to me that I never made (followed by an unapologetic attitude when failing to produce quotes) must've given me the wrong impression.

Why on earth would I apologize for something that's solely in your mind? Are you accustomed to people being sorry for what they do in your imagination? That's pretty arrogant, really.

Who said anything about gifts? I don't consider it a gift for translated versions of games to be of good quality. I don't consider it a gift for a game to run stably and without major flaws on most PCs.

No, it's a gift to receive one million dollars worth of investment for free. Especially when the product in question was already fully functional and hailed as one of the best CRPGs in several years.

And this is exactly my point. This attitude will be detrimental to the gaming industry if people follow this precedent. We should never consider it "pretty amazing" if a European developer tries to fix its English translation or polish other bits to some extent (such as the repeating character models DU points out). We should consider it cool that they give away free stuff (adventures) while doing so, but the package as a whole should be seen as it is. Its hype campaign means it wasn't, and that your perspective is the common one.

You really think someone with my general attitude and experience with the industry falls for hype? Well, obviously you do, but I have to say the notion is amusing.

We're still not talking about minor fixes, we're talking about a huge effort to make the game significantly better and then offer it all for free.

Again, forget that this is the Witcher we're talking about, because they're so charming. Go back to my earlier example and imagine this is GTA IV: EE. Does the criticism by itself look more reasonable if it is Rockstar North pulling this stunt? Hence my stress on precedent, even over the current situation.

I'm a pragmatic person, so I can't just forget what this is actually about. When you're pragmatic, you do what you can to look at reality and see it for what it is, and you try not to generalise and paint with merely black and white colors. This case has unique aspects that are vital to my opinion about The Witcher and the enhanced edition.

I can offer you my opinion on a case by case basis, but I refuse to label things like a simpleton. You can't possibly be serious when comparing Rockstar North with these guys.

It's still the same dream world where no mistakes are made, and compromises aren't needed.

The fact that the industry standard currently is lower than what CDP:Red did is only peripheral to the point*. I am even less forgiving about the state Troika put its games out in, and there's a lot of titles I've treated even more roughly than TW for the state of its translation. That doesn't mean the problem isn't there. They're all not living up to reasonable standards (and no, reasonable standards isn't "should not require a patch").

No, it's not peripheral to the point - it's VITAL to the point. Again, being firmly based in the real world - I can't be an idealistic fool if I'm to pass reasonable judgements. My wants and wishes have no bearing on reality, and as surely as we're all guilty of succumbing to the restrictions imposed on our individual positions in life, I must take into account similar limitations placed on others.

* Though one should note that - in my opinion - this point does mean that one shouldn't overstate the issue here. I never have, I think DU has though. I feel this point has kind of gone past you so I'll repeat it again: I'm fully aware of the fact that relatively the issues with the Witcher are minor, and that's why I would never write on my issue with the EE in any official way, but that shouldn't mean their existence in an absolute sense can be denied, which I think might be what you're doing - if it's not what you're doing we are probably in agreement that it's not a huge deal, but I never said otherwise.

It doesn't really matter how often you try to minimise what you originally said when defending DU and saying he's got every right to hate The Witcher, and that the enhanced edition is nothing but a fix hiding as a real upgrade. Oh, and before you start, this isn't about limiting your or DU's right to an opinion, this is about detailing my disagreement.

If you're starting to feel a certain doubt about your own position, which I can hardly imagine, you could simply acknowledge that MAYBE this is a case where your ideals can't apply full force and you didn't really mean what you said. There's no shame in that, and I promise to react similarly if I come to such a conclusion about my own opinion.

But subtly backing down while pretending you never really said what you said, won't leave a good impression. Oh, and note that I don't expect you to care about what impression you leave, but there it is.

No, I used the word disingenuous because it applies, while the word "lies" does not. They didn't lie. PR doesn't need to lie to be disingenuous, tho' (BioShock PR anyone? Fallout 3? The Witcher's PR has never been that much better)

Why don't you detail EXACTLY how they've been "disingenuous". What in their marketing campaign isn't 100% true? It IS a total repackaging. They spent 1 million dollars improving the game. They repackaged everything and included a vastly improved manual, soundtrack, behind the scenes CD, extra adventures as well as the free upgrade. All this for the price of a standard version, where everyone else would have charged a "collector's edition" price and not offered the upgrades for free.

No. What is it that's unclear to you here? I'm not criticizing the Witcher. I'm not criticizing the Witcher: Enhanced Edition. I'm criticizing that PR-wise this fix-pack with added goodies is being treated as a full-blown rerelease, and you can see the effects of this PR in your perspective.

It IS a full-blown re-release.

I'm not clear AT ALL about what's wrong with the PR campaign, as you put it. They're advertising their product, and they're being honest about it. I have no idea what you're talking about, so please clarify which you still haven't done.

Try to think about this logically, PLEASE. Let's pretend they DIDN'T re-release The Witcher as an enhanced edition. They simply kept the normal version and never made any PR campaign to tell the audience about the improvements they made.

What would the normal edition cost? Oh, that's right, the same as the enhanced edition. So, the PR campaign to advertise the enhanced edition is wrong, because?

The price is the same (if not lower), but the product is improved - and in my opinion it's improved A LOT. Beyond that, they include a lot of content that's traditionally exclusive to collector's editions that cost more. But it's priced identically here.

You have zero support for having your opinion about the PR campaign.

The only possibly "bad" thing about it is that they sell extra copies of what you ALREADY consider a good game, and on top of that the buyers get extra content for the same price.

Arguing against this is not only unreasonable, it's ignorant. Not that you're necessarily ignorant, but about this you most certainly seem to be.

I would be really critical of it if they charged for it, since they didn't I don't have a major issue with it, but I'm not sure why you don't see the bad precedent this sets, and how important it is for publishers to remain honest about the state of the game as they release it and as they fix it.

I don't see the bad precedent because there's nothing indicating such a thing. All I see are generous developers who care deeply about their product.

You can imagine I'm a blind fanboy, or however else you picture me in your head. But you're dealing with one of the most cynical and jaded hardcore gamers ever to crawl the earth, and I have 27 years of gaming experience - and I've never been anything but passionate about the whole thing. Investing this much in an ultimately pointless hobby is probably somewhat pathetic, but it should help me shape informed opinions about the industry and its players.

 

[Squeek]

...it should help me shape informed opinions about the industry and its players.

I remember sitting in a meeting of the Southern California Software Association sometime around 1991, back when most PC software companies were small and their VPs of marketing and development used to attend. One of them pissed off half the group when he stood up and called out a few people by name, challenging them to stop the practice of shipping software before it was ready. We're talking really pissed as in standing up and having to be restrained.

That guy spoke up at that meeting and called out those particular people as an act of what I assume he considered leadership. It helped me shape my own informed opinions about the industry and its players. I came away from that thinking it's up to the industry's leaders to lead and lead well.

 

[Brother None]

It doesn't really matter how often you try to minimise what you originally said when defending DU and saying he's got every right to hate The Witcher, and that the enhanced edition is nothing but a fix hiding as a real upgrade.

I apologize, but I'm done now. There's no point in continuing talking with you as long as you insist on these kinds of claims. After I've clarified my viewpoint and actually quoted myself saying from the start that this is more than a fix, you continue attributing the view to me that it's "nothing but a fix"?

EDIT: wait, I do see one way to resolve this. You make the point of being practical vs idealist. I've already said I do see DU's point but disagree with his blowing it out of proportion and would never do the same; DU might do so for idealist reasons, but I won't for practical reasons. Now, as I specifically said, in a relative sense there is little to be concerned with - and it seems to me you're agreeing with me there - but that doesn't make it right in an absolute sense. Do you at least see what I'm saying there or do you refuse to see anything wrong in the idea of game-fixes being represented as something they're not?
EDIT2: I don't know if this is the case internationally, but here the Witcher: Enhanced Edition is being treated as a GotY edition: TW's price has dropped (to 30 EUR right now I think), but TW:EE is about 40 EUR.