The Witcher - Zero Punctuation Review @ The Escapist
 

So, the famous Yahtzee has The Witcher in his sights in the latest Zero Punctuation review at The Escapist. If you don't know Zero Punctuation, it's an animated video review with a humorous, cynical twist - or at least, I presume that's the idea, although the forum comments seem to indicate a lot of readers take it quite literally. Yahtzee found The Witcher "boring and stodgy" and didn't like that the alchemy required "an 8 week correspondence course" to understand.
Thanks, Melvil!
More information.

All his reviews are scathing. They are usually way over the top BUT do really skewer some things that need skewering.

Example from that review: "..so those dirty console-playing peasants don't ruin it for the glorious PC gaming master race." :-)

The guy shouldn't be taken seriously unless you want to get offended by him utterly whacking some of your fave games. His "reviews" are a good laugh, though; the one on Mass Effect is simply hilarious:

I like that guy. I officially bookmarked his site!

His review is strangely close to the other Escapist Witcher review by Corvus. :)

Too fast for my brain.

Didn't really find it funny, sorry. A couple of very vaguely amusing lines and that's about it. The Painkiller bit at the end was funny. Does he usually do better than that or is this exactly what everyone raves about?

Pretty much. He rants about games while speaking really fast and uses simple flash animations for effect. Not much to like if you don't like the style.

This world is a hard place for RPG devs. When they're not being chastised about making mundane 'Diablo' hack n' slash games with zero depth they're being chastised for not being hack n' slash and having depth.

It certainly wasn't one of his funniest. But all his other review's are basically the same style, just a little wittier.

He had a point as far as the quest system and combat goes. I know a lot of my codex-lurking brethren love to worship this game, but the truth is that the combat is just as bland and monotonous as Oblivion. The quest system, which is mostly fetch quests or "kill the foozle" tasks isn't the grand PC gaming epic people make it out to be.

I think a lot of us old folks like it because the "Diablo/Morrowind" generation hate it so much. We like it because they don't…and because it's PC only.

I played it up until halfway through chapter 3 and became very bored. I forgot why I was even questing and lost interest. I then returned to playing Exult.

You like something because other people hate it? Really? I enjoyed the combat, although I can see not everyone would agree. The quest system criticism I don't get, unless we're talking about the completely optional Wither contracts, of which I did only a few. Otherwise, I thought the quest structure as a whole was very good and I don't really understand how you could forget why you were questing, with quite an interesting plot that strings along nicely.

I think he's got a good sense of humor, but his main ingredient is the titular "zero punctuation". He's moving so fast that when you get hit w/ something funny, before it's even left your brain really he's got you snickering about something else. Do it as a slideshow and it's probably not half as funny.

But he does have a reasonable gripe, I think, which nobody else seems to really bitch about.

Come on now, the need to research every creature in the game (even after killing scores of them) to even know what it is youre looking at is pretty ridiculous. The fact that lots of quests depend on you knowing a bunch of almost random ones compounds it, it's totally frustrating. Time to run around buying $400 books, even after investing talent points in monster lore. Better hope you can even find the damn book. It's stupid as hell.

And dont even get me started on the herbs

Hmm… I can see your point Sammy, but I haven't hit that aggrevation level yet. I've only bought one book,… wait… two - One on herbs and one on monsters. Haven't seen a need for more yet. At this point in the game (chapter 2) I have every bit of information that I need to complete any monster killing quest I currently have, so no big deal.

As far as this video goes, I found it quite hilarious actually. I completely disagree with nearly everything he said, but it was funny.

Unfortunately that completely buggered review by Corvus has permanently put me off of the Escapist. I still have nothing good to say about them. At least this guy had the decency to call it a "preview" citing that he only played for two hours. Corvus plays for two hours and calls it a "review."

Deep down, we are all guilty of loving games that "they" hate simply because the RPG fan underclass hates them. There is no shame in admitting it. I revel in it.

I think Yahtzee's pretty funny. The "lulz blowjob" thing at the end didn't do it for me, but he usually gets a chuckle or two out of it. His complaints and points on the Witcher are pretty asinine from our perspective, but I think they make sense from a mainstream console player perspective, i.e. not the target market of the Witcher. Kinda irrelevant, in that sense.

It helps to watch Zero Punctuation if you recognise it as a comedy schtick, which it is, and don't consider it a review, which it isn't.

Speak for yourself. I'm not, and I do think there is "shame" in snobbery.

I'm the kind of person who quickly grows very tired of this kind of "humorous" thing if it isn't spiced up or surprises me now and again. I was highly amused by his first couple of "reviews", but after a while I realized that it was very much style over substance. His Bioshock thing was pretty good and I agreed with that for the most part, but after having watched a few more and culminating with this Witcher review, I find that his intention is not to be objective but to be entertaining. That's when I lose interest.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of the game (not yet anyway - in Chapter 2 still) but most of his complaints were related to what I consider fully accepted and established standards in the hardcore RPG genre. The combat system is not great, I will agree, and the monster research is a bit silly - though such a thing is quite common in the genre and hardly a big deal. However, the overall fidelity of the interface and wealth of information available in the journal are very much positive things from where I'm sitting.

He constantly whines about the console influences we see everywhere - which I fully agree with - but to then go on and whine when a game DOES cater to the minority, and stays true in terms of target audience (i.e. doesn't compromise for money), is really not a wise move if you want respect as a reviewer. Since he seems a reasonably smart person, I can only assume he doesn't want to be respected as an objective reviewer and I shall oblige him in that regard.

So why do you judge him as an objective reviewer then? I mean, even if he really likes a game, he'll drag it through shit, as he's done several times before. :) His entire "reviews" exist only to put games down as much as possible.

I always start with the assumption that a review is - at least partially - based on objective observations, because that's the only way it can make sense to me. Naturally, it can be interesting to hear the opinion of strangers, but ultimately they're worthless to me if I don't have detailed knowledge of their personality and preferences. I need reviewers who are able to look beyond their own limited areas of perception and appreciate that other people exist with different expectations and experiences. What's more, I need consistency. It won't do to criticise games for one thing, and then criticise other games for not doing the very same thing. Such inconsistency demonstrates further the lack of value held in the words of the review.

I personally don't think his reviews are all that thoughtless and arbitrarily through-shit-dragging, but I realise there is always that element present, intentionally. But he has lavished significant praise upon certain titles in his reviews, and as such your claim is not entirely true - as was the case with Portal.

However, I don't judge him, as in judge his person. I simply observe that either his intention or ability to be objective is too limited, and as such he will get no more attention from me, because I find no use in reviews without that particular element present.

I'm sorry, but I think you're going in with a wrong set of expectations. Zero Punctuation isn't a review feature. It was never a review feature. It's a comedy skit that highlights the bad side of games and makes fun of everything and every one. It's not supposed to be informative or a potential part of your buy or don't buy loop.

It worries me that some Escapist readers actually don't seem to grasp this, only one user had this astute comment:
And that's the way you should watch him, not as an objective reviewer. Because he's not, he's just funny. If you don't find him funny, don't watch, but don't judge him by expectancies he's not supposed to fulfil.

I don't think you read my post very carefully, because my conclusion is exactly the same as yours. He's not objective, and therefore I find it of little interest after that discovery. I never had any expectations and if I did, they would be beside the point. I'm talking about the end product - his "commentaries" which were never advertised to me in any way so I have had nothing on which to base any expectation anyway. I merely assumed that he would be objective because it definitely seemed like he had some firm opinions on the matter and wanted to clarify them using humour.

I don't know if there is a statement on the site that specifically explains that he doesn't mean anything he says, but if so I certainly missed it. Maybe you can point it out, so I know that I was being a fool for my assumption. If we're talking about your own personal interpretation of the intentions of the site and his commentary, then let's not pretend it's fact.

Anyway, even with the humour included it's quite obvious to me that he has something to say, and that he takes a stand in his own way. Maybe he's hiding it behind whatever, but I think we can all agree that humour is best when based in reality, and in that way he has amused me in the past.

However, I no longer find enough "reality" in his reviews and he seems a victim of his fame at this point, much more so than a guy with good points - which is how I saw him before.

His reviews are satire. Satire is not appreciated by many, maybe most, people. Satire tends to go over especially badly when they are satirical about something you like or care about. It goes over super especially bad when the satirist pokes a hole in something you deep down know is a problem but try to ignore because you like the whole. I love satire and I find his reviews, even of games I really like, are hilarious. And often right on point, if greatly exaggerated, but that's what satire is all about.

It's not objective, but it was never meant to be objective. It's his opinions on what sucked in games and greatly exaggerates that. That does not mean he didn't find good points in the game or that there was not a moment that he enjoyed himself with it (I assume). It's (presumably) just not funny to talk about a game's high points, or so we are led to believe.

I find it funny and like his stuff, but it's not world-shocking either. I didn't know he was very popular, though! It that a new thing?

You obviously haven't experienced him with a game he liked, as with Beyond Good and Evil, Portal, and presumably a few others. To me, it's not simply about bringing games down, it's about him using humour - or satire if you will - to underline his points. I have no problem with satire, though I suppose that is a predictable assumption given my words on the matter. I'm simply saying that unless a review is objective to a certain degree, I don't personally find it of much interest. I also happen to prefer humour with some significance which typically requires something grounded in reality, but that's just another personal preference. Bringing stuff down just because is simply not amusing to me, but I would hate to give the impression that I'm somehow offended or even moved on any significant emotional level. That's not the case, and I remain quite detached in this case. I guess that might make me a total bore, but so be it.

About him being popular, I have no proof of that. I'm just noticing links to his work everywhere these days, and people are responding to his commentaries a lot on the sites I tend to visit (like octopusoverlords and quartertothree). Maybe that's not popularity as such, but he's certainly a figure people are taking note of these days.

I won't watch the review since I'd rather give this guy a fair chance by listening to a satire of a game I actually hate first instead of one I like. If I listened to this one first it might stoke my ire and make me prejudiced towards all of them.

However, I will say this, on the issue of snobbery among PC (and RPG) elitists: Is a little bit of snobbery such a bad thing, when the other side (the common popular console-playing masses) often do not even acknowledge our existence? If we refuse to take a stand in defence of the more intellectual games we enjoy over the mindless hack-n-slashes and other cliché popular genres, then we are doing ourselves a disservice and contributing to the downfall of our own favorite kind of game. Why is it our responsibility to give dumbed-down console games a fair chance when the typical consumer of that type of game has absolutely no interest in even trying the highly complex games WE enjoy? Most of the people I talk to in real life won't give them a CRPG a second glance! So hey, if we occasionally show a little bit of snobbery toward them when talking amonst ourselves, I think it's warranted. Still, I guess it's bound to happen since we just think harder about this sort of thing than they do. Heh.

DArtagnan: no, there's no detailed guide to not taking him seriously, though he has noted himself he's purposefully not being positive (see: Psychonauts ZP). But considering you came to exactly the same conclusion as I did, albeit after a few more episodes, I'm not sure where this angry "it's just your opinion" is coming from. Isn't it your opinion too? Isn't it, for that matter, apparently the opinion of everyone here.

Well, let me put it this way, here is an EscapistMagazine.com user graphic (compared to RPGWatch and GameBanshee for reference). Yahtzee was hired in August. At the end of last year the Escapist had a healthy 150,000-200,000 hits a month, as far as I can tell. At the last known report (a few months back) they now have over 1,000,000 hits a month. Some of that is from their other efforts in overhauling the site but let's not kid ourselves, it's mostly Yahtzee.

Now I like the Escapist, a lot, despite having a tendency to run-in with their staff, but I hope they're not kidding themselves in riding on this gimmick, because that's basically what it is. Their readerbase has surely become less…well…less eloquent, to put it mildly. I haven't noticed a real drop-off in article quality, and that's good, but maybe someone disagrees on the point.

I don't think snobbery is ever really "warranted". But then again, I don't take it very seriously myself. I think the only people who make a big deal about not being snobs are those who are offended by snobbery myself. And I'm not. People can feel superior to me all they want, why would that matter to me?

Not to hijack a thread but I wish you really knew what you are complaining about xSamhainx! You don't have to buy and read every book in the game. Talking to people, checking abandoned houses and putting a couple of bronze and silver talents into intelligence does the trick just as well. Almost all the info and books you need can be got for nothing or next to nothing.

I assure you, I haven't felt the slightest hint of anger towards you. I don't get worked up over exchanges as small as these, and even when I'm passionate about something I generally excel at keeping my feelings in check when posting, and I'm not passionate about this.

However, you made a claim as if it was fact and now you reveal that it's merely your opinion. I find it interesting that I have to be angry just because I prefer making my own interpretations. My opinion is that he's not sufficiently objective to be of use to me, but I still don't know what everyone else seems to know - that it's apparently the entire point of the site.

I will remain sceptical until I see something to convince me, and I have to assume that people mean what they say even if they spice it up with humour. As I said, I don't really see the point otherwise. I fully admit, though, that I might just be totally dense.

Something Awful's reviews of games don't contain instructions that they're not to be taken seriously either. It's kind of implied. Just like Zero Punctuation is satire and thus implied not to be serious, in addition to him noticing several times that he can't be nice to games because people don't like it. Hell, there's no real reason to assume he's being serious about his stated opinions, is there?

But hell, since you agree it's not to be taken seriously anyway, what's the diff? That's enough of that for me.

Well, of course we shouldn't continue if you feel upset. That wasn't my intention, I just wanted to clarify.

The thing is simple, maybe they're not MEANT to be taken seriously but really, try to think about that. Why would he comment on popular games if he had absolutely nothing meaningful to say? Why is the commentary funny if it doesn't have something that rings true? I personally found many of his commentaries amusing precisely because he had good points that were based in reality - like the fact that Bioshock was made to suit a more casual audience than similar games in the past.

I have no great love for the Witcher, but I found much of his commentary lacking in terms of being founded in reality. It became bitching for the mere sake of bitching, which is apparently what you and others have expected all along. In that case I might be in the minority when I say that I felt many of his past commentaries were full of valid points, and the humour helped underline them and bring them across. I will reserve the right to believe that was partially his attention all along, and until I hear otherwise I don't think it's fair of you to expect me to change my mind because you feel differently.

Now, I probably can't be anymore clear, so if this hasn't clarified things sufficiently then you're likely right. That's enough of that.

Oh, hang on, I wasn't contesting that. Loaded with valid points. But the thing is, ZP as a medium has to focus on the negative side of games. Would you purchase BioShock based on his bit? It's a purposefully one-sided look at games; he takes an in-depth look at what's wrong and barely a glance at what isn't unless the game wowed his pants of (see: Portal).

My contention is that if you're going to purposefully highlight only one side, then you're technically being biased, since you'll never going to give the full picture.

Now Yahtzee simply doesn't know RPGs, and he knows even less about PC RPGs, so yes, if you shove the Witcher into his hands his negative valid points turn into negative invalid points. But they're still purposefully negative points, valid or not.

To me, there's a difference between focusing on the negative and not being consistent or knowledgable about that which he writes. I have no problem with the satirical and "negative tone" aspects of his reviews, and indeed that's probably the source of much of the humour. You can remain partially objective even if you have the intention to be negative, as long as you don't lose sight of what you're dealing with. It wouldn't be the best source of objective journalism, for sure, but it would still be useful to me as long as he remained informed and consistent.

I have a problem when he jumps around in his views, which is exactly how I read his complaints about the complex and "hardcore" nature of the Witcher. In several of his previous commentaries, he's bitched endlessly about the dumbing down of many games, like the case was with Halo 3 and Bioshock. He was craving more complex features, including RPG features like a traditional inventory (Bioshock) and lamented how it was obviously simplified for the console tards. Sure, you could make a case that he didn't want such features like they were implemented in the Witcher, but if you have an understanding of the genre you will know that the implementation is not a big negative in an objective sense.

Naturally, I can't prove that he has changed, but to me he's increasingly becoming more about the inventive bitching, than the excellent points he used to include - a gimmick as you say. The end result is a much less amusing and much less useful site, but this is all about my own personal opinion.

I should also note that I never buy products based on reviews, or at least extremely rarely. I just take pleasure in reading (or listening) to reviews that are made by informed and objective people. It helps me to articulate my own points of view and sometimes it even manages to change my mind about the occasional title. So, I would never use any review site as a guide to my purchases. It's just another way to pass the time.

If I had followed his review, I might not have bought Bioshock, no. Though I found he was reasonably fair regarding the good points, and I'm a huge fan of that particular subgenre, so I don't think his negative tone would have dissuaded me. In fact, that was one review where I agreed almost 100% and had I done it myself, I might very well have sounded equally negative and I don't have a need to be gimmicky. So, you see, I never considered the site a pure gimmick, and I'm still not convinced that was his original intention - at least not all the way.

I remember it launching with this air of intelligent thought towards the subject of games, but as I recall people saying this started to diminish over time. Of course, I never kept score or consistently read their articles, so I have no personal opinion of it.

As to snobbery, I don't understand why it is ever necessary. I mean, it exists on both sides, but just the same there are people that simply enjoy games and I would hope that is the vast majority of true game lovers. Surely there is the mainstream console crowd, and it may even impact the PC market, but as a game lover, I've gone from cartridge-based consoles from before the time of home computers, to the Commodore 64, to simple PC games, to advanced PC games, to simple console games, to advanced console games, and I've loved them all. But I've said all of this before…

Loved it… and no, it's certainly not objective - it's pretty obvious that the guy greatly exaggerated "The Witcher"'s flaws. But nonetheless, some of his points are very valid. I'd say it's the overdue reaction to all the totally uncritical reviews out there which praise the game as if it were near perfect.