Why are The Witcher 2 fans so defensive?
- Thread starter remnant_phoenix
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly, Yatzhee summed it up quite well in his Mailbox Showdown against the people who sent him hate mail about his honesty on the subject of Super Smash Brothers Brawl. In other words,if you are a fan of something,you will defend it to the death if someone does so much as criticize it,out of rage and stupidity, fanboys defend things not worth defending. The companies don't care about who's insulting them,and they care even less about their defenders. (Because they don't need to,the defenders will just keep feeding them money anyway)
It's Dragon Age 2's hilarious negative overreaction in reverse.
Remember: opinions must be polarized! There's no such thing as under-par game with moderate improvements, or an ambitious game with mild flaws. Everything is either an unprecedented disaster slapped together by uncaring media conglomerates and goddamn Satan; or the magnum opus of a generation, zenith of quality and integrity--so ingenious that to not appreciate it means there must be something wrong with you.
Remember: opinions must be polarized! There's no such thing as under-par game with moderate improvements, or an ambitious game with mild flaws. Everything is either an unprecedented disaster slapped together by uncaring media conglomerates and goddamn Satan; or the magnum opus of a generation, zenith of quality and integrity--so ingenious that to not appreciate it means there must be something wrong with you.
Fans defend things because they think they need defending. People forget that reviews are opinions, and there's no point countering an opinion with "YEA BUT YEA BUT YEA BUT" because nobody's going to care.
Though for anyone who has complained about the lack of a tutorial, I tend to find that in sequels of games they assume that you'll have played the first one and if the controls are near enough the same then they won't bother teaching you the same controls again. That said I haven't played TW2 so I don't know how similar the controls are.
People also need to stop taking Yahtzee's 'reviews' so seriously, I know a review is all just opinions anyway but ZP ones are VERY opinion based. Yahtzee is an irritable git and just emphasises on the bad points of games for comedic effect, and also because it's easier to pick up on them. Jut because he says he doesn't like a game, doesn't mean EVERYONE has to not like it too.
Though for anyone who has complained about the lack of a tutorial, I tend to find that in sequels of games they assume that you'll have played the first one and if the controls are near enough the same then they won't bother teaching you the same controls again. That said I haven't played TW2 so I don't know how similar the controls are.
People also need to stop taking Yahtzee's 'reviews' so seriously, I know a review is all just opinions anyway but ZP ones are VERY opinion based. Yahtzee is an irritable git and just emphasises on the bad points of games for comedic effect, and also because it's easier to pick up on them. Jut because he says he doesn't like a game, doesn't mean EVERYONE has to not like it too.
Witcher 2 basically is being hailed as such - if you look at metacritic, there are a lot of 100's and 10's and some vocal detractors. The score it's sitting at is massive for a game made on a tiny budget by an unknown publisher.Netrigan said:
(Not to say that it actually *is* flawless - I'd actually compare it to Prince of Persia:SoT in that it has stellar writing, great atmosphere, and mostly good gameplay with some seriously clunky mechanics in there. But the point is that, like Prince of Persia, you can definitely find problems but the game as a whole is head and shoulders above most of the competition.)
Like many people have pointed out, it's the fanboy syndrome. My main gripe with The Witcher 2 is that it is too short and the more you progress through the game the more the story falls apart. And that it has amnesia as a character development tool. And that the writing and voice acting is still not as good as should be. And that, like Yahtzee so cunningly pointed out, you cannot drink potions during combat. And the beginning is a little slow on combat, because it isn't really explained to you, and because you only start gaining actual skills around level six.
But otherwise it's pretty cool. (Oh, and it has QTEs.)
So keep in mind, Yahtzee's job is to bash games, not praise them.
Other than that, it's a game you should try for yourself really. It doesn't swing to one end of the spectrum or the other. It could have been far better than The Witcher 1, it just lacks on content, imo.
But otherwise it's pretty cool. (Oh, and it has QTEs.)
So keep in mind, Yahtzee's job is to bash games, not praise them.
Other than that, it's a game you should try for yourself really. It doesn't swing to one end of the spectrum or the other. It could have been far better than The Witcher 1, it just lacks on content, imo.
The Witcher 2 has the interesting problem of many of its "flaws" (excruciating difficulty, realistic potion mixing, drinking potions outside of battle, reading the journal is a requirement, etc.) are viewed by many as "selling points".
When your "flaws" are actually "selling points", you can see how discussions would become very divided very quickly.
When your "flaws" are actually "selling points", you can see how discussions would become very divided very quickly.
A' I have played the first game. And have a savefile for any of the three ending. I don't need someone that remind me the story.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
B As for the rest, you made some point. Well, as you said your self that are not exactly downside... As for the longevity, I think it have been shorted by multiple main quest line possibility. I suppose that at the third act there must be at least 4 different quest line...
As for the comparison with dragon age... don't. Look, I played all dragon age games, and between awakening[the expansion] and DA2 there is the difference between duke nukem and bioshock. The story have become linear, the ambient reused, and so on. Witcher 2 can be many thing, but it is not a completely different game from the original game.
I loved The Witcher 2 but don't mind most of the criticisms (the only issue I had with Yahtzee's review was the statement about not being able to skip the custscenes - because they are skippable). While there are flaws TW2 and things that could have been handled better overall it was an improvement on the first in terms of combat, visual style, in-game choices, story, levelling and inventory management (even the inventory management still wasn't great).
For me the flaws were things that were far outweighed by the positives and I loved it as a result. But the flaws exist and people have a right to point them out and, in the case of game critics, they have a duty to do so. That way game makers can improve while gamers can be aware of these flaws and demand more out of their games.
As for Yahtzee, I love his reveiws and he has hammered some of my favourite (and his too) games over the last few years. Thats what he does. When he actually says what he likes its often surprising when one recalls how much crap he gave it in a review.
For me the flaws were things that were far outweighed by the positives and I loved it as a result. But the flaws exist and people have a right to point them out and, in the case of game critics, they have a duty to do so. That way game makers can improve while gamers can be aware of these flaws and demand more out of their games.
As for Yahtzee, I love his reveiws and he has hammered some of my favourite (and his too) games over the last few years. Thats what he does. When he actually says what he likes its often surprising when one recalls how much crap he gave it in a review.
You don't have to "look anything up".
The prologue is definitely thrown at you, and it's difficult just learning the (admittedly) new ropes of the Witcher 2's combat. It's heaps different from the first, and it took me a bit to find my groove. Everything was 'floaty' and too free-form at first, but I got used to it, and developed my style.
Imagine that.
Trial by fire, literally. (Dragon anyone?)
Besides, the prologue is f-ing interesting. I didn't find it 'tedious' at all, I wanted to know what happened next, and I wanted to know where they set me loose after the prologue. So you learn, and you adapt, and I like the way they did it to be honest.
Maybe they could have had Geralt practice on a dummy or two outside the tent where you start, show the basic movies and what not. Even then, people would still have trouble, because in all seriousness, you absolutely cannot teach someone to adapt to flow of the combat in this game. Trial by fire, it's the only way.
The prologue is definitely thrown at you, and it's difficult just learning the (admittedly) new ropes of the Witcher 2's combat. It's heaps different from the first, and it took me a bit to find my groove. Everything was 'floaty' and too free-form at first, but I got used to it, and developed my style.
Imagine that.
Trial by fire, literally. (Dragon anyone?)
Besides, the prologue is f-ing interesting. I didn't find it 'tedious' at all, I wanted to know what happened next, and I wanted to know where they set me loose after the prologue. So you learn, and you adapt, and I like the way they did it to be honest.
Maybe they could have had Geralt practice on a dummy or two outside the tent where you start, show the basic movies and what not. Even then, people would still have trouble, because in all seriousness, you absolutely cannot teach someone to adapt to flow of the combat in this game. Trial by fire, it's the only way.
What do you use to record them? I tried Fraps, but the frame rate was just awful.Danceofmasks said: