Why are The Witcher 2 fans so defensive?

[synobal]

Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.

The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.

I compared DA 2 to it's predecessor DA:O and it fell so far short in my eyes. I know a lot of people liked DA 2, had it been released prior to DA:0 or simply been it's own title and not as a dragon age title or something that said 'hey are aren't even expanding on DA:O' I would of been less critical on it.

 

[LostAlone]

I can kind of see why.....Witcher 2 requires thought and trail/error not to many games like that anymore...

Trial and error essentially equates to bad game design. Or at least it is a symptom.

When trial and error means 'It takes a few times to find the perfect strategy for defeating this one enemy/area/boss, but brute force works ok too if your willing to utterly deplete your healing resources' then its not a big deal.

If trial and error means 'The only way to move forward to die over and over while trying things essentially at random until something sticks' then the designers should be ashamed of themselves.

I get the impression that The Witcher is of the ilk that continually puts you in situations where you need to have already done something specific before you get there, but there's no reasonable way to know that before you get there. If that's not true, then I apologies but that's the impression I get.

Save scumming (ie quick saving every ten seconds) is not something that a game should expect you to do in this day and age. That kind of game play is just not fun. Its barely even a game at that point. You never actually 'play' for more than a few moments, and you don't succeed because you are any good, its just pure persistence. When you are playing that way, there is no aspect of timing or skill or ability. There is no way you can fail, there is just time. The best you get is perfecting the game, and thats not fun to me.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Out of habit, I always read the manual, even when it's a damn pamphlet. Sometimes it's necessary, but my true console moron friends will ask me how to do basic things on games we both own and I'll just tell them to read the manual. They normally say, "Very funny. Now how do I throw grenades?"(or something else similarly easy)

Personally, I think it's got less to do with wanting your hand held and more a case of couldn't be arsed to actually read a few pages.

EDIT: Though my friends may be a particularly stupid and/or lazy bunch.

 

[Lizmichi]

Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.

The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.

The problem being is that Dragon Age 2 played more like a Hack and Slash with badly placed RPG elements. Origins pulled off being an RPG relatively well but Dragon Age 2 immediately showed how much of a cashout it was pretty early on.

Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.

And I didn't mind that at all. I still enjoyed DA2 and I know the issues with DA2 but it's not stopping me from liking it. All that matters to me is if I enjoy it and I did.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

"The sex thing makes the game look immature." well maybe if your the kind of person that giggles with their hand over their mouth at sex but in most countries bar the US it's an 18 rated game and besides which you can easily play all the way through it without even coming close to having sex....or y'know, blow all your money on hookers...either way.

People like that annoy the hell out of me. Yes its sex, Yes people have sex, grow up.

See some one get burnt alive = yawn seen it before

See a couple having sex = alert Fox News!

 

[Lordpils]

The Witcher 2 fans aren't defensive. FANS are defensive. It's bizarre to me how you are just noticing this with respect to this one game. I'd guess this is the first time you are on the opposite side of the argument.

Fans are always defensive of what they love with the level/insanity of the defensiveness inversely related to mainstream opinions.

Sorry I couldn't read all of A, probably a B person but was just responding to the general premise of the thread anyway.

I am a fan of Okami, but you don't see me telling someone they are retarded lunatics for not enjoying it. Some fanbases tend to be more rabid then others (though there are always fans within one group or another who tend to be more or less reasonable then the average) some fans will politely disagree with your position or will say that they believe the good outweighs the bad, others will tell you that you should be crusified for daring to insult their perfect game even if all you said was it wasn't your cup of tea.
The issue is with people who either don't understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity or are insecure in their love of the game.

 

[LordRoyal]

Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.

The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.

The problem being is that Dragon Age 2 played more like a Hack and Slash with badly placed RPG elements. Origins pulled off being an RPG relatively well but Dragon Age 2 immediately showed how much of a cashout it was pretty early on.

Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.

And I didn't mind that at all. I still enjoyed DA2 and I know the issues with DA2 but it's not stopping me from liking it. All that matters to me is if I enjoy it and I did.

And yet your willing to look over the glaring large problems of DA2 and yet whine incessantly that the Witcher 2 gives you two different kinds of swords your player character selects automatically in combat?

 

[Jeffrey Rodriguez]

It's fanboys what do you expect they can whine about pretty much anything. Especially PC fanboys an overly aggressive bunch since they don't have allot to embrace in today's market. people should learn to just be regular fans, enjoy what they like and let other people criticize any game they like even if they don't agree.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

I can kind of see why.....Witcher 2 requires thought and trail/error not to many games like that anymore...

Trial and error essentially equates to bad game design. Or at least it is a symptom.

When trial and error means 'It takes a few times to find the perfect strategy for defeating this one enemy/area/boss, but brute force works ok too if your willing to utterly deplete your healing resources' then its not a big deal.

If trial and error means 'The only way to move forward to die over and over while trying things essentially at random until something sticks' then the designers should be ashamed of themselves.

I get the impression that The Witcher is of the ilk that continually puts you in situations where you need to have already done something specific before you get there, but there's no reasonable way to know that before you get there. If that's not true, then I apologies but that's the impression I get.

Save scumming (ie quick saving every ten seconds) is not something that a game should expect you to do in this day and age. That kind of game play is just not fun. Its barely even a game at that point. You never actually 'play' for more than a few moments, and you don't succeed because you are any good, its just pure persistence. When you are playing that way, there is no aspect of timing or skill or ability. There is no way you can fail, there is just time. The best you get is perfecting the game, and thats not fun to me.

No offense but it sounds like you have never played it so its hard to describe what is great/crap about it to you

 

[Worgen]

because its the type of game that alot of gamers have been waiting for along time to have again, thats why there was so much bile directed at da2, its because there havent really been many hardcore fantasy games in along time, da was kind of one and so is the witcher series and anything that someone else does to try and dismiss games like that, possibly back to them not making them again is seen as a threat

 

[DustyDrB]

I feel like this is just part of a larger issue. PC Gamers seem more on edge this year. I'm not saying they don't have their reasons, but there's just been a lot more hostility between console gamers and PC gamers than ever in my memory. I think of myself as a generally even-keeled and reasonable guy, but I've found myself growing tired (and a bit angry) of this childish back and forth.

The Witcher 2, even though its coming to the Xbox 360 later this year, seems to be a title that many PC gamers and more old school RPG enthusiasts (even though The Witcher 2 isn't all that old school) are standing behind as an example against games like Dragon Age II (which is seen as overly simplified and consolified by many). Notice how any discussion of The Witcher 2 will turn into at least a small scale bashing of Dragon Age II.

I can understand PC gamers some, having only recently tried to play Baldur's Gate and seeing the complexity of it and also realizing that the Dragon Age series was promoted as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. I get that many people feel jilted and lied to. But it's really getting hard for me to care, or to sympathize with them. Against my better instincts, the constant belittling of many of the more militant PC gamers has jaded me against them.

Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.

The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.

The problem being is that Dragon Age 2 played more like a Hack and Slash with badly placed RPG elements. Origins pulled off being an RPG relatively well but Dragon Age 2 immediately showed how much of a cashout it was pretty early on.

Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.

It played nothing like a hack and slash. Have you ever even played a hack and slash game? There are legitimate criticisms of Dragon Age II[footnote]Enemies in waves. Over recycled environments. A shitty ending (the fantasy Nazis are right!) and an extremely awkward and forced end to the second act (with Leandra, not the Qunari). Ignoring some potential player choices from Origins. And Fenris. Just...Fenris.[/footnote], but this one is just wrong.

 

[linwolf]

The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.

It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.

Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.

The first game also had the same "Humans - Steel, Monsters - Silver" plus it included characters, settings, monsters, etc from the novels. All of which expanded upon things seen in the novels...

Really the first game is for fans of the novels and anyone who likes good RPGs. If they want to stay true to them I don't understand why they should suddenly forsake lore for simplicity. I didn't mind the Silver sword vs the Steel sword thing as it has been mentioned it is ridiculously easy to switch weapons.

Yes but people also need to have context of why it is that way. I don't want to have to read a book to understand a game. That's ridiculous and what works in a book may not work in a game.

But it do work, it work well and give the game a bigger sense off immersion.

And really silver against monsters makes sense but silver against human not so must so it isn't really that hard to get you head around.

 

[LordRoyal]

I think the better question is: "Why are gamers so defensive?" I've noticed that most gamers are extremely annoying and whine about pretty much everything they can think of when it comes to something they hate, then go into ultimate rage when someone doesn't like what they like. For a sect that wants to be taken seriously, it is rather hilarious how childish and retarded they can be.

No offense but its not just "Gamers" go talk to a yankees fan or Heat fan they well piss in your ear for hours on end how great thier team is and deny to the grave anything bad. Hell football hooligans well kill you for saying something bad about thier teams.

None taken. I am qualified as a gamer, and a baseball fan. I love the White Sox, so I am constantly defending that team. However, there-in lies the difference. "Team." It's a competitive sport, not just some thing that someone likes. I don't think I can compare Witcher 2 to the Yankees. You don't go to stadiums to watch a video game actively compete against another video game.

You do see the developers attempt to outsell each other. It is still a competition, just in sales

 

[Kecunk]

I think its that PC gamers tried to make the witcher 2 into the poster game for PC > Console. So if it turns out that it is not the greatest game ever made they kind of take it as a blow to the ego.

 

[Lizmichi]

The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.

It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.

Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.

Actually it was exactly like that in the first game.

Then the game is poorly ported over to a video game. It's a fan game for fans of a book in a world of video game fans.

and why doesn't Legolas have a machine gun ! he could kill way more Orcs if he had a machine gun !

.................. Because it doesn't fit with the Lord of the Rings. You can have one sword and it would fit in the Witcher.

 

[Xanadu84]

I think it's because while streamlining is one of the best things to happen to games, complex systems should not be completely tossed out the window. If it occurs to you that you like Pizza slightly better then you like Chinese, it would be foolish to dismiss the idea of ever eating Chinese again, and eating Pizza 7 nights a week. So people who like these meaty, complex games feel the need to defend there preference for fear of losing something they love forever. Shortcomings, particularly shortcomings that framed within the confines of, "Too confusing", look like an attempt to kill the complex games they love. And I hate to say it, but there fear isn't entirely unfounded. Who is going to argue both for a continuation of more complex games, and at the same time, say that one of the few games that sticks to complexity has problems with being confusing?

 

[Lizmichi]

Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.

The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.

The problem being is that Dragon Age 2 played more like a Hack and Slash with badly placed RPG elements. Origins pulled off being an RPG relatively well but Dragon Age 2 immediately showed how much of a cashout it was pretty early on.

Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.

And I didn't mind that at all. I still enjoyed DA2 and I know the issues with DA2 but it's not stopping me from liking it. All that matters to me is if I enjoy it and I did.

And yet your willing to look over the glaring large problems of DA2 and yet whine incessantly that the Witcher 2 gives you two different kinds of swords your player character selects automatically in combat?

In DA2 you don't have to switch between swords to kill a human and say a darkspawn. It breaks flow for me. Now I don't call this whining at all. I can not stand the Witcher, I was bored, that's what bothers me the most. I can dislike something and not be whining. I have many things I dislike about the Witcher and I'm not going after you for disliking the Witcher. Please give me the same.