Witcher UK mag review slams, The Witcher?

Anyone here get Edge Magazine UK the 12/25/2007 review seems to give The Witcher 5 out of 10 or 50.0%, according to Game Rankings?

If true that is totally undeserved and any RPG gamer should cancel their subscriptions, well I would if I had one, since it's clear they couldn't possibly know WTH they are talking about. There is no doubt there are justifiable grips regarding The Witcher, but a 50% that is total Bullshit.
Or I wonder if this is the poorly done Escapist review?

Anyone?

Thanks.

Since fragzone gave it 1.5 out of 5. (30%) i am not that surprised. Its a pretty highscored compared to swedens bigges online review site.

But i also knew people can't be playing the game. They must stop after a few hours.
In fz.se case, an editor answered another question regarding the reviewers burden (violin music plays out to an crying audiance) that a reviewer put in around 5-10 hours playing the game, another 5-10 hours writing the review.

So, we should probably look at them as unsung heros.

5-10 hours writing a review!!??!! Nonsense!! I won't say how long I take, but it's not even close to 5 hours. I admit I write quickly cause I plan it all out in my head while I'm doing other things, and I make notes as I play about things which I feel need a comment, but those timelines are ridiculous.

The storyline doesn't even get a chance to open up in five hours of game play.

Having read about fifty Witcher reviews by now, I've noticed there just seem to be certain reviewers that the game turns off--they aren't impressed by Geralt, they think the voice acting is bad (!!They should play Seal of Evil demo for 5 minutes!!)they dislike the setting and they just can't see the game for what it is. So they don't want to finish it and play a bare minimum. Still shoddy reviewing, but the real reason is they just don't like the things that make an rpg a real rpg.

I probably would be the same if someone asked me to review Super Mario or whatever; I think the problem is the match-up. These sites and mags need to get a crpg player on the case, not their resident WoW guy or fps fan or the one who's only rpg outing is Oblivion. You have to appreciate the genre to realy understand why the Witcher rules. IMO.

magerette said:

I probably would be the same if someone asked me to review Super Mario or whatever; I think the problem is the match-up.

Click to expand...

I used to feel that way - but if you love games and have any integrity you learn. I didn't like RTS but I have come a long way - still not very good, but I know good from bad and can make my way through ... and know why Supreme Commander & Company of Heroes are good and Empire Earth III isn't. Same for games like the GBA 'Unfabulous' game (aimed at 'tween girls) or Nancy Drew DS (ditto) or Flipper Critters (aimed at 5 year olds) and so on ...

In short, I don't buy it as an excuse ... unless you are using as a reason to leave game reviewing ...

Leave reviewing Super Mario, anyway! Please no

I agree it's not a valid excuse--I was just trying to understand why some reviewers just don't "get" the game--they could be playing a totally different game than I am for all I agree with their perceptions.

You know your standard is gold for me Mike, but I question how many of these guys giving the clueless reviews we all know and hate are able to have the patience to unravel the good spots of games they aren't drawn to. That's the only explanation I can think up for the 5/10 and 1.5/5 Witcher reviews...well, other than substance abuse

I wonder too!! Why don't some of these places offer reviews to people who are known for writing solid reviews in a certain genre. Or at least offer them to people who have a background in it. While I appreciate Mike's PoV with respect to volunteer sites, paid work demands a certain standard, and we're NOT seeing it!!

It is possible that others may have a different opinion of the game. People do have different opinions from time to time, you know!

Nah, I'm sticking with my substance abuse theory.

In fz.se case. The time mentioned is one of the editors comments on another review. (Don't remember the name of the review, but it was published after the witcher. A review in itself i couldn't make heads or tail off). Altough reading the editors comment on that particulare review it just started to make sense to me ( in fz.se case). They never got passed chapter 1 before the review was due. And in that case i can except it beeing slammed. But in my view thats no review, its an opinion.

And i also think reviewers must have different views of a game (i loath Mass Effect as you might have read in another thread). But i think a reviewer reviewing a game must try to look on it with some kind of depth and understanding. And as me, hate MEs battles which completly ruined the game to be unplayable for me, i can most understand people having problem with some of witchers mechanics. And thats ok.

In fz.se case, which really made me understand what they came from, their reviews aren't anybetter then the ordinary evening news press. Its just shine and glory with a grade. No substance, no love for the trade- just as reading the back of a DVD trying to determine if this movie is any good!

I was just surprised that they openly admitted how little time they put into games. I mean, even COD4 with its short singleplayer campagin. 5-10 hours playing the game isn't anywhere nere whats demanded to write a review. So, i don't think this is just "the witcher" they slammed. 5-10 hours is to short for any game to be judged.

(Except tetris of course. Tetris requires years of playing to really be able to make a just review! )

In my opinion, a game that can be finished in 5 to 10 hours in not good to review at all! And the developers should be tortured as well as signing a legally binding contract to never do any sort of game development.

Sometimes non-gameplay aspects come into play. If the fz review is the one I recall the reviewer basically slammed the game for not conforming to his idea of politically correct gender relations (I am fairly confident in this statements since I know the reviewer from my school days and has followed his professional writing history)... Of course a reviewer should have the integrity to look past that, but they are only human.

xSamhainx said:

It is possible that others may have a different opinion of the game. People do have different opinions from time to time, you know!

Click to expand...

I *do* accept that ... and would celebrate a well written one that showed they had done a substantial playthrough and then dissected why they hated it. We haven't seen that - it is all "I couldn't stand it so I only played ~5% of the game in a rushed fashion and then hopped out to slam it here".

I use the analogy that it is like playing 15 minutes of a Medal of Honor / Call of Duty game, skipping multiplayer, and claiming knowledge.

What if a lover of hack 'n' slay (Blizzard) playes a game like The Witcher ?

Both (sub-) genres have very little in common ...

@Zaleukos

It might just be as you say. He had problem with sexism in the game.

I just for my life couldn't see that as the only problem. He did banged against other thing in the review. I only reacted once i saw the general statemen of an editor of that site (edit: wrote sight - i love my self... ). How much time the reviewer spent reviewing each game. (That statemen was a general statement and not particular to that review). I followed that comments thread just to see if any body high voiced reader bothered with a comment, but no one did.

I guess this shallow type of review is acceptable, and i only see them when they bash game i like. A shallow review, pointing out what i like and give a game high grade - is not something i bother with! Hm double standards!

In my case i do not like this particular reviewer at all since he usually reviews rpg and i can't feel his pulse since the reviews are short and says nothing. I re-read alot of reviews by him just to see if i could figure him out by reading is writing. That was impossible, which makes him a bad reviwer (read: ordinary reviwer).

I like the rpg meter at this site.

A game getting 3 or 4 (out of 5) on that scale says much more to me than a game getting a 5 on another site. Since evey aspect is clerarly defined. Me is a 3.0 rpg meter player... and don't like 5 games... I think that scale would be used more on everything.

I like movies that i say is "Hollywood standards" and detest high praised movies by those in the business. Cause i am after a quick fix, easy ride and laugh of my life. Well, now i really changed subject... I slap my face.

Now, where is POR2.

txa1265 said:

I *do* accept that ... and would celebrate a well written one....

Click to expand...

What I'm sayin is that nobody here (as far as I can see) has actually read the review that started this whole thread. I read the original post as "Someone dared give My Game a bad review, boycott the bastards! By the way, has anyone actually read the review??"

It just struck me as funny ='.'=

mute said:

Since fragzone gave it 1.5 out of 5. (30%) i am not that surprised.

Click to expand...

Seriously? How grossly incompetent can one reviewer be? I tried to Google Fragzone + The Witcher, is that a Swedish site? I didn't recognize the language.

It's hard to believe this line of thinking, about complaining about sexism in the game, when the point of the story is to highlight different forms of predigest like sexism, racism and genocide. Damn this reviewer must have slept through school/college, obviously he didn't learn about medieval social structures or he has no conceptual ability to understand allegories.

It certainly happens here in the US too, most of these corporate sites seem to hire only shills and sadly much of this incompetence can be traced pandering of consoles in a mtv sort of hollow mindset, you know blind consumerism, whether it's based on peer pressure or fear. Too, bad really about what it does to the industry when you treat fans/readers with such contempt.

There is an editorial today about reviewers and the object of their work in one of the major newspaper we get at my house. It's a movie reviewer who talk about how he can't get into certain movies he have to review and as such find them boring/bad/etc. He call them "the movie not for me".

If you can read French the editorial is online here at lapresse website. Unless you live in the Québec province (Canada) you might not understand everything that the author is talking about, though.

He claim to be a subjective reviewer and not an objective one and as such he can't review certain type of movie. One of his example for the article is The Golden Compass, he just couldn't get into the movie because of the Good vs Evil/kid as adventurers/etc, it just doesn't grab his interest. So he let somebody else in the newspaper staff write the review. It's a pretty good editorial. Pretty much alight the difference between an objective review and a subjective one while reviewing 3 different movies in 1-2 paragraphs each.

The real problem is that game review should only give score for objective elements (bugs, length, features, etc) but leave out of the equation 'expectation' or 'genre'. And they should play the whole game too. People wait till the end of a movie or a book before giving out a final verdict (unless it's a really atrocious experience), game shouldn't be different.

xSamhainx, are you actually suggesting there is some possible reason(s) to rate The Witcher 50% or in mute's point 30%, have you played the game?

And while,

Someone dared give My Game a bad review, boycott the bastards

Click to expand...

maybe your biased opinion of my post or your assuming my usual lack of linguist skills, so you didn't notice the "?", so clearly posed as an inquiry.

Lol, on with the crusade, viva le Coup d'état!