Zero Punctuation: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

[370999]

Anyone else find it a bit funny that people are arguing over consoles and PCs, those commercial devices that are sold for the purpose of making money?

Anywho I haven't palyed this game but not having a proper tutorial is quite the cardinal sin IMHO. People may say who it isn't immersive, but I never ageed with that. What isn't immersive is having to pause the game and leaf through a pages upon pages ot find out how you do X. It is the same as if someone complained about the Star wArs prequels having plot holes and someone else replied "God that's stupid, read the novels". You shouldn't have to, it should fit within the game.

Also I don't quite get where people are being so extreme about Yahtzee not having a set defintion of a game's difficulty. I like my food cooked, that doesn't mean burned nor raw, I expect a chief to be able to find a medium. Likewise I would say the same thing about game difficulty.

I do think it is a tad myopi that quite a few people would of been cheering on Yahtzee if this game come out on a different platform then the one they owned but meh. also this idea that he hates the PC gamer is a tadd amusing. How do you think he played it?

 

[Continuity]

Although I think that he should have read the manual, Yahtzee does have a point.

The game SHOULD teach you how to play it. It shouldn't make you read the manual the whole way through just to know the basics, and likewise the game shouldn't not introduce you to mechanics when they're needed.

This process natural progressions from manuals because you learn the mechanics while actually enjoying the game, and the fact that you're gradually introduced to new mechanics means the difficulty can be curved extra well. An example of this would be Dead Space, I suppose.

While manuals are good, teaching the player the mechanics while they are playing, and more importantly introducing the mechanics as they are needed (thus giving you a prime chance to learn them, and also not sh*tting all over you progression wise) is ALWAYS better.

If I need to know something to get past a certain stage, and the game does not and never has until this point told me what that something is, then that game has failed in teaching its own mechanics and the experience is decidedly poorer.

Why do all game have to tell us everything there is to know about their mechanics? some really great games dont tell you anything, they just dump you in a complex world and expect you to get on with it... and you know what? the learning and discovery process that entails is often the most engaging aspect of the game. Minecraft and X3 are two examples that spring to mind. Sometimes, a comprehensive tutorial does more harm to gameplay than good.

Now i'm not saying the witcher couldn't of done with more hand holding for those that wanted it, i'm just saying that it isn't always the case that more hand holding makes for a better game, which is what you seemed to be implying.

 

[Mantonio]

Although I think that he should have read the manual, Yahtzee does have a point.

The game SHOULD teach you how to play it. It shouldn't make you read the manual the whole way through just to know the basics, and likewise the game shouldn't not introduce you to mechanics when they're needed.

This process natural progressions from manuals because you learn the mechanics while actually enjoying the game, and the fact that you're gradually introduced to new mechanics means the difficulty can be curved extra well. An example of this would be Dead Space, I suppose.

While manuals are good, teaching the player the mechanics while they are playing, and more importantly introducing the mechanics as they are needed (thus giving you a prime chance to learn them, and also not sh*tting all over you progression wise) is ALWAYS better.

If I need to know something to get past a certain stage, and the game does not and never has until this point told me what that something is, then that game has failed in teaching its own mechanics and the experience is decidedly poorer.

Why do all game have to tell us everything there is to know about their mechanics? some really great games dont tell you anything, they just dump you in a complex world and expect you to get on with it... and you know what? the learning and discovery process that entails is often the most engaging aspect of the game. Minecraft and X3 are two examples that spring to mind. Sometimes, a comprehensive tutorial does more harm to gameplay than good.

Now i'm not saying the witcher couldn't of done with more hand holding for those that wanted it, i'm just saying that it isn't always the case that more hand holding makes for a better game, which is what you seemed to be implying.

The thing with those games is that they don't have much of a story. Ones that do can teach you the mechanics in game and still be incredibly enjoyable.

Example, look at Dead Space. You remember how the game taught you to run, or how to best kill a Necromorph? If they hadn't been in the game, and instead you could only work it out by reading the manual, it would have been a decidely poorer game.

And it's not hand holding at all! They're about teaching you the mechanics in game, leading to a richer experience with a better difficulty curve. By your ridiculous definition school lessons are hand holding.

 

[Barrelroller]

It's a little bit annoying to see him getting things flat out wrong about games sometimes, and especially when it involves difficulty too. You CAN skip cutscenes, and it has difficulty levels too. The whole PC gamer master race thing is ridiculous - most PC gamers probably own at least one console themselves if you'd actually think away from a vocal minority.

I really agree about the introduction level though. It's definitely the poorest bit of the game, and I can see how it makes people shy away from it. The story is in my humble opinion a step over the usual fluff you find in games, and the characters definitely has some charm to them. I even found myself laughing at bits!

 

[AwesomeNinjaPowers]

At least Yatzee got further into the game than I did I only just finished the prologue before I had to bury it in the back of the cupboard before I did something unfortunate to it with a pair of jump leads and a battery. Hate isn't a strong enough word for what I feel for this game. And that upsets me as I enjoyed the first game

Also HAH! Justification is mine! Yatzee has proven that I'm not the only one with this opinion of the game. Now excuse me while I go and rub it in my friends face XD

 

[Hobonicus]

I kinda pity the people who think this game is too difficult to get into. I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I'm generally really bad at hard or complicated games, or games that require you to do a lot of extra research outside of it. The Witcher 2 is none of those, but the fact that it's treated that way is sad. Yes, the interface is really sloppy and the game doesn't explain much up front, but that never seemed like an issue to me.

Like I said, I generally hate complicated or poorly communicated games, so I'm kinda flabbergasted that some people consider The Witcher 2 to be difficult in that regard. Deciphering a game's mechanics isn't something I'm used to, and I generally have zero patience with convoluted game design. That said, I never had to alt tab out, I never got overly confused with the UI, I never died five times trying to figure something out. I didn't understand some mechanics at first, but between the in game tutorial in your journal, and the fact that it's just a fairly simple game, everything was pretty easy to get. Am I supposed to believe that I'm simply smarter than everyone else, or have a better attention span? Because I seriously doubt that. And yet here I am dumbstruck by the amount of people upset by difficulty that I didn't even realized existed. It didn't tell me everything sure, but it in no way was too convoluted to figure out in a couple minutes.

It's a little sad that some people will pass this up because it's apparently too user unfriendly for them. The game has great writing and story, far better than any other "mature" dark fantasy out there. If someone has issues with the story, characters, combat, etc, that's totally fine. Hating a relatively simple game for being too high a barrier of entry is silly; hating a game for not simply reusing standard tropes (drinking potions before combat or the two swords) that you've grown accustomed to is silly.

I was going to write a detailed response how how ridiculous the video was, but it just doesn't seem worth it now. In the end, Yahtzee, and anyone parroting his inability to figure out fairly simple mechanics, just came out as extremely obtuse to me. I thought we were better than this, guys

 

[danirax]

Yahtzee give it another try! oh and use right mouse button to skip pretty much anything
and you can use runes and enhancements only on weapons/armor that have slots....
aside that queen is really useful against many enemies and so are the bombs....

 

[SuperShadowAce]

Good review as always. Will you do Okamiden in the summer drought?

 

[Luke Cartner]

That cut scene before the boss fight is skipable.
Its the right mouse click.
I know this because in the left hand top of the screen a message indicating right mouse click to skip...

I guess its too hard to read..

 

[garjian]

this is the first ZP in a while that ive actually laughed at xD ...maybe im just cheery from modding oblivion all day...

 

[Jack of Spades]

The reasons for the 2-swords are mostly for story as the game is based on a series of books.

 

[The Bandit]

Yes Yahtzee, it does indeed appear that console gaming has made you soft and squishy and wimpy.

I'm joking of course

kind of

maybe

It is of course a giant irony that he will complain about the overcomplexity in a PC game review, but then turn right around and complain about the lack of such complexity in a console game review.

I don't think Yahtzee (or anyone else on the planet) will ever consider difficult controls to be a good kind of complexity. Yahtzee wants complexity in the story. Controls and UI should be as streamlined as possible.

 

[jklinders]

I would've said he could have eased off on the sarcasm involving elitist PC gamers a morsel. But then that would be ignoring all the crap that was wafting off a few of the PC gamers that I have seen since the announcement that The Witcher 2 is going to consoles.

Anyway I was entertained and that is what I go to Yahtzee for.

 

[PopcornAvenger]

I came away with the near opposite impression - that Yahtzee actually (kinda) liked the game, not hated it. What bile? Hell, that first part was a big olive branch between PC gamers and those other, lesser, races *cough*. That video was *mild* compared to when he really get his hate on. There wasn't even one picture of a big turd on the game box, or the monitor projectile vomiting feces.

As for not taking him seriously, those TW2 fans possibly insulted by this video, Yahtzee is a game *critic*, not a reviewer. His videos are critiques, not reviews. Which means he looks for every one of the game's flaws to nitpick. He hit TW2's three biggest issues accurately, which is inventory, the difficulty curve of it's combat, and the first boss fight. Of course, those of us with a bit more patience, less ADD, or more sedation, whatever, don't mind the game's flaws. It's a beautiful game with thrilling combat, intrigue, and RPG goodness.

 

[Siege_TF]

I remember another series of games with pain in the ass magic and steep as hell learning curve; Phantasy Star. PS1 in particular had you grinding for two hours before you could make the trek to the next town, and it's a trip the main character supposedly made on a regular basis.
It's certainly not good to see RPGs going back to THOSE roots.

 

[The Lugz]

nice review, but some things in it are factualy inaccurate

you can skip the cut-scenes, but it's pretty-much a quick-time event to do so
( the option disappears quickly )

the combat is slow, but responsive you have the same half-a-second to think before geralt acts as you do in other fp-adventure games, such as batman aa and even very similar evade tactics
though i will say batman's was wayyyyyyy more fluid overall, and you don't need to work as hard if you don't want to, there is an easy-mode and a hard-mode built right into the combat, where as the witcher just has difficulty levels on the menu and expects you to use them

the idea is the combat has a sandbox element to it, you can dodge in and out or spec your geralt to be a tank and sit there ad block one guy, bomb stun the rest and pound them down one by one
generally i found bombs were insanely op, i managed to have a stack of 85 stun-bombs at one point because i gathered herbs and drops all morning and you can just walk into a camp of 20 enemy's and spam bombs and evade any random spells or arrows that come your way
they are the witcher's really exploitatively overpowered move, as is the fact you can spam light attack and make him jump across an implausibly large room ( similar again to batman's combo manurers )
then instantly evade roll away from mele range before the target or his friends can respond

also later in the game you get the ability to effect multiple enemy's, areas, and redirect damage with your attacks so there's plenty of flexibility to make the combat work

the REAL problem, is the game doesn't tell you this and just expects you to figure it out
this combat system, NEEEEEEeeeEEEEds a tutorial because plenty of people do not get it at all, the rest don't enjoy it until half way through the game

if you have problems with groups, try using a stun-bomb then mind-controlling one
( the bottom spell )
and setting a trap near yourself ( assuming they try to close )
then using qickstrike ( left click spam ) as you drag your focus dot over an enemy geralt should fly at him take a quick stab and then you evade roll instantly before the group can hit you, that will massively reduce the damage the group can deal to you and let you deal more damage than you could by yourself
if it comes down to a 1-1 situation, or even a 2-1 situation most of the time you can simply shield the damage and focus one down, but occasionally you might want to throw in a knock-back to push them off guard

for shielded mobs, pop down a trap and attack them with heavy attacks from behind
otherwise you just hit armour and do rubbish damage.
knock-back ( top spell ) is also good for armoured targets as it unbalances them so you can attack them off guard

in conclusion, you can certainly kill things, you can do so fairly repetitively if you know what your doing which means it's down to using the spells and ability's well and working for your kills which is fine, if a tad clunky at times

what isn't fine, is throwing someone in the seat of a 747 with 1000+ buttons and expecting them to know how to fly it

this is the perfect time for a tutorial in witcher 3, right at the beginning
( people that finished 2 will probably be able to figure out what i mean )


and, Yahtzee seriously go finish it it's a great rpg once you get into it, it's nothing like the ff games it wont take you 12-20 hours to get into like some people claim >.>
your cheating yourself out of a great experience, i promise!

 

[TastyCarcass]

well I just finished a year of uni, so that sounds like large amounts of time after getting fired from the dicksucking factory

 

[Artina89]

You know, from all of this there is one thing I'm interested the most.

Does Yahtzee have just a general dislike for PC gaming now days, or does he just do not enjoy the way that PC gamers treat console gamers.

Maybe it's a bit of both.

OT: I enjoyed the review. I was not really interested in The witcher 2 and I would have thought that his opinion on the series would not have differed that much from when he played the first Witcher game.

 

[Continuity]

The thing with those games is that they don't have much of a story. Ones that do can teach you the mechanics in game and still be incredibly enjoyable.

Example, look at Dead Space. You remember how the game taught you to run, or how to best kill a Necromorph? If they hadn't been in the game, and instead you could only work it out by reading the manual, it would have been a decidely poorer game.

And it's not hand holding at all! They're about teaching you the mechanics in game, leading to a richer experience with a better difficulty curve. By your ridiculous definition school lessons are hand holding.

I do remember deadspace, but there wasn't really any aspect of that game that desperately needed a tutorial, the cutting limbs off thing is something you find out in your first few encounters with or without the prompt.

As for hand holding... It comes down to relative difficulty, one persons lesson is another persons hand holding.
School lessons would be hand holding for a university educated adult... no?

A game isn't made poor by not telling you how it works, its just made less accessible to some (and less hand holding to others on the flip side). A game is good based on its mechanics and other content, not on how well you understand the controls, your experience will depend on your knowledge of the controls yes but not the objective "goodness" of the game. You could argue that a good game ought to be accessible and I agree, however being inaccessible doesnt make a good game bad.. it just makes it inaccessible.