Zero Punctuation: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

[Moeez]

I actually defend this attitude to reviewing games (not finishing the whole thing) because it perhaps shows better what sort of game you're playing.

A good game will keep you playing to the end.

A bad game will not.

If someone criticised say Friends or Chuck or My Little Pony or some tv series they'd be allowed to after watching only a few episodes. The whole point of watching those few episodes is to give you an idea of whether you will like the series and if it is engaging enough to keep your attention until the end, but suddenly when it comes to videogames for some reason you have to play the whole thing to have a valid opinion? Sounds like more than a few people are just butthurt because their pet franchise just got insulted.

Also, I'm getting really bored of Dark Fantasy. It's like the nineties, when comic books sucked because people thought that the deconstruction of Alan Moore and Frank Miller could be best replicated by just swearing a lot and murdering people, entirely missing what actually made those books deconstructionist and good (see also Mark Millar, who is just mean spirited). Dark Fantasy can work, provided you understand what dark fantasy actually is, but most writers of it nowadays miss the deconstructionist satire of the genre, highlighting the flawed preconceptions of a legion raised on Tolkein, and just give us an entirely straightfaced Tolkein-esque fantasy with lots of swearing and shagging (see also BioWare)

As for the Witcher itself, I'm not a PC gamer, I'm not going to be a PC gamer, I didn't play the Witcher 1 and I'm not even remotely interested in the Witcher 2. As for this review it didn't make me laugh as much but I actually like that from Yahtzee sometimes because when his reviews don't make me laugh it's usually because he's making actual relevant points which will tell me whether I like the game or not, and not because he's a terminally unfunny halfwit who needs to be reminded that performing as a 'deliberately a snobbish tosser' and succeedding makes you look like a snobbish tosser (see also Jim Sterling)

And finally finally, I'm reminded of the Penny Arcade strip with this one.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/5/25/

Except The Witcher does dark fantasy right. It handles mature themes (asides from swearing and sex) like race relations, politics, morality, and huge consequences to your decisions really well. It has enough twists on the typical fantasy tropes, and is very funny. Geralt might seem generic, but he's a sarcastic dude and there is enough humour to diminish your assumption about this game's handling of dark fantasy.

There ARE reasons why Witcher 1 is regarded as one of the best RPGs in years. Maybe give it a try, and get absorbed into the unique world and its many systems.

 

[1337mokro]

How do you get fired from a Dick sucking factory?

By biting down to often during work hours.

 

[sunburst]

More people need to release horribly negative (or hell, slightly negative) reviews of TW2. The fan response is always as swift as it is hilarious. It's been a while since I've seen such a dedicated and volatile fanbase.

 

[Continuity]

I suspect Yahtzee might have a point with this review. With the first Witcher game i bought it, gawped at the graphics, spent a week upgrading my PC to play it well then after i got used to all the beautiful scenery i realized the game beneath it was just complex for the sake of being complex, it didn't last me much longer after that...

As a long time PC and console gamer i like an RPG that's involved but The Witcher imo was just taking the piss. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sequel is just as bad.

Humour me, what exactly was complex? from my perspective it was a fairly medium weight hack n'slash / RPG. Sure you have potions and the alchemy to create them but thats hardly complex, and the combat could only be made more simple if the computer actually did it for you.

Where is the complexity? OK its a fairly long winded game and some bits bordered on tedium, but that, for me at least, in no way tarnished the great experience provided by the atmosphere, plot, and characters. The combat was a little lacklustre but then if you're playing RPG for the combat then you're simply playing the wrong genre.
Besides, being long winded and tedious never stopped WoW from being a big hit so I don't think we can fairly level that as a criticism of the witcher, at least not whilst letting WoW slip by unmentioned.

Longwinded, tedious and lackluster, you use those words and seriously have to question my problems with the game?

Combat was atrocious; 2 swords and 3 combat styles per sword each that have to be individually xp'd and to top it all off combat involved little more than clicking the mouse at the right time. The problem here is its not RPG combat and its not action combat but some bastard hybrid of the worst parts of both.

Beyond that nothing was utterly terrible, it just wasnt good enough, none of it fired me up enough to put aside the games flaws and enjoy it. I'm not saying i cant enjoy flawed games but this game just had too many.

Oh and i'm not a WoW player.

I'm a fairly harsh critic, I can make any game you care to name sound poor by enumerating its weaknesses. The witcher wasn't a bad game, in fact I found it to be a very good one. And I personally dont really count longwinded as a flaw per se, it only becomes a flaw when you're not enjoying the game much, otherwise its a virtue IMO, especially in an RPG. Yes the combat was poor (not terrible though), yes it was little more than hack n'slash but so what? its an RPG, the main strengths of the RPG genre are not combat/action but plot, dialogue, immersion, characters etc... combat is just the chaff around the wheat, a perfunctory necessity.

As far as flawed games and rough diamonds go, the witcher doesn't even register on the scale, its flaws were relatively small and nothing was game breaking or particularly annoying. Compare it to a real diamond in the rough like Bloodlines the masquerade and then you'll see just how polished it is.

I can understand why many people didn't get on with the witcher, and its clearly not a game for everyone and it doesn't help itself by having the tutorial area (up to that demon dog thing) being the most tedious part of the game (which most people never get past by all accounts), I just think that its a much better game than many of those people give it credit for, like Yahtzee they dont give it enough of a chance to show them what it has to offer... and who looses out? they do.

On another note I firmly believe that not all games should cater to everyone, some games ought to have niche appeal or else all we're left with is bland bland bland. I support CD Projekt Red if only because they're one of the few AAA developers to buck the trend toward always catering to the lowest common denominator (no slur on those people intended, their only crime is being numerous)

How do you get fired from a Dick sucking factory?

By biting down to often during work hours.

Outsourcing, they can suck dicks for 1/10th of the price in india.

Hell, they can do anything for 1/10th of the price it seems, i've already lost two jobs to outsourcing and i'm not yet 30.

 

[Continuity]

I actually defend this attitude to reviewing games (not finishing the whole thing) because it perhaps shows better what sort of game you're playing.

An attention span will keep you playing to the end.

A lack of attention span will not.

There, I corrected that for you. Also I agree, all professional critics should write reviews without actually completing the object of their review. I can't imagine a more useful book review for example than one written by someone who only read the introduction and then decided the book wasn't for them... genius, why didn't we think of this sooner!!!

 

[NickCooley]

When I finally overthrow the governments of the world one of the many changes I will make is that any fanboy of any system will be thrown into the soon to be constructed labour camps in Siberia. If your life is so empty that you gain such an overwhelming level of unwarranted self-importance over something as meaningless as choice of gaming system breaking rocks for my glorious future empire is all you're good for.

 

[QtheMuse]

Ah well, yes this game is not for everyone but then again no game is for everyone. Like I don't think yahtzee has ever reviews any sports game such as madden and all that jazz. Yes it might have a steep learning curve but to me it makes me feel like i am playing a challenge and not just some button masher bash fest.

On a side note the Witcher 2 is coming to xbox.

 

[KillahMate]

I was going to get the Witcher 2, but this video convinced me not to.

I guess I'll save my money for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 instead.

It's funny that I can't tell whether you're joking or not...

 

[Relin]

I understand his experience, it's not you typically game you come across.
The UI is meh. The XP gain from side quests is horrendous (thus very low satisfaction).
No clear class and spell separation. Lack of guidance. Bad difficulty curve.
No satisfaction in the first minutes of the game by randomly chosen spells and abilities.
No storage chest for items.

But I still like the beautiful crafted environments, excellent voices, deep combat (Took the mage path), the Characters and the exceptional community support.

For me the positive things in "The Witcher 2" outweighs the negative ones.
Still, I acknowledge the negative points and there's much that can be improved upon in "The Witcher 3".

 

[plainlake]

Grumble.. The sad thing is that he is right, also in the regard that he is no pc-gamer, beeing smug is not enough in itself. Bring it on witcher!, I know that I will enjoy figuring you out.

Using your TV for games is like using TV for porn, You wont get exactly what you want but most people can enjoy it in some regard.

 

[Zannah]

The Witcher 2 wasn't that hard. Poorly written, unimmersive and outright lying about half it's features yes, but not that hard to figure out.

 

[marurder]

Not a particularly good review, more of just a hate speech (is this the current fad?). Not much justification than "boo hoo I dunt like ett!"

 

[plainlake]

Smug superiority is not exlusive to the fanboys. Nor is unwarranted self-importance.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

snip

Except The Witcher does dark fantasy right. It handles mature themes (asides from swearing and sex) like race relations, politics, morality, and huge consequences to your decisions really well. It has enough twists on the typical fantasy tropes, and is very funny. Geralt might seem generic, but he's a sarcastic dude and there is enough humour to diminish your assumption about this game's handling of dark fantasy.

There ARE reasons why Witcher 1 is regarded as one of the best RPGs in years. Maybe give it a try, and get absorbed into the unique world and its many systems.

I wasn't talking about the Witcher particularly, I haven't played/read/watched it so I wouldn't know. Also, I don't think Yahtzee particularly said whether the Witcher did dark fantasy well or not either, he just pointed out that it was another example of Dark Fantasy.

Like I said, some things do it well, the majority do not. If the Witcher does it well and you like it good for you, but I'm still not going to play it for so many other reasons besides the genre. If I really wanted a good Dark Fantasy to occupy a lot of my time I'd read Left hand of God or something. Diff'rent strokes and all.

I actually defend this attitude to reviewing games (not finishing the whole thing) because it perhaps shows better what sort of game you're playing.

A good game will keep you playing to the end.

A bad game will not.

There, I corrected that for you. Also I agree, all professional critics should write reviews without actually completing the object of their review. I can't imagine a more useful book review for example than one written by someone who only read the introduction and then decided the book wasn't for them... genius, why didn't we think of this sooner!!!

Sorry, pet peeve, but I automatically equate anyone who does these faux 'corrections' as pretty much the worst and most annoying kind of poster. You may well be a lovely well rounded gentleman, but that single quote puts you lower than an internet troll in my opinion.

But to respond to the point I think you were trying to make.

If I was to start watching Bimbos BC, or Son of the Mask, or The Room, I would find within the first fifteen minutes that the acting was terrible, the budget nonexistant, the effects awful, the script beyond help, etc. Do I really need to keep watching? The movies are awful, and if a movie is provably awful for several reasons within 15 minutes, then why is continuing to watch the following hour going to prove anything? What is it that watching 99 minutes of The Room proves that watching 15 doesn't? I'll finally know the conclusion of a story I don't care about? I'll have proven I have a great attention span and apparently far too much free time on my hands?

Just having a good attention span means nothing when it comes to entertainment and hobbies. I have a good enough attention span to write for three hours in an English exam, does that mean that I'd rather write a three hour English exam every day than play Fallout 3 for three hours? Fuck no. During my A Levels I had nine hours of exams in one day, and I finished them all, my attention held and my concentration good enough to get me some good grades. So does my ability to sit through nine hours of near constant writing somehow translate to the exams being the most fun I've ever had in my life? Again, no.

The problem here is that Yahtzee has been over this point so many times that anything I could say would just be repeating him. The defence of FFXIII 'it gets good twenty hours in' is simply 'leave your hand on a stove for twenty hours and you'll stop feeling the pain as well.' Your ability to endure something does not make it good, or you a superior person for liking it.

Is The Room somehow atranscendant example of neo-noir filmmaking because I watched the whole thing? No, it's still a turgid pile of rancid shit. Is the Witcher 2 the second coming of Christ because you were able to play it all the way through? No. I won't add a qualification here because I have no intention of actually playing this game, but from what I can see it's the sort of game that appelas to a very specific sort of demographic, so actually there was very little point to the last few paragraphs, but if I have taken up even a little amount of your life by making you read this, then apparently I am the next Stephen king because your attention span was apparently great enough to get you through this rant, so my writing must therefore be good, right?

 

[Omnific One]

The Witcher 2 sucked at explaining anything. The quest indicators were useless. The third act was pretty bad, especially considering Triss was MIA during 2 and 3. The UI took a bit of getting used to.

But, damn it, I loved the Witcher 2.

 

[Moeez]

Is The Room somehow atranscendant example of neo-noir filmmaking because I watched the whole thing? No, it's still a turgid pile of rancid shit.

Off-topic: Wait, you know the appeal of The Room, right? You better not be talking smack about my (and a lot of people's) favourite worst movie. People still clamor for screenings of it. The Room is the Citizen Kane of bad movies. It's a masterpiece. Amazing on how many levels it fails. It is easily the funniest movie I've ever seen, and bothered recommending it to everyone I know.

Seeing the whole movie is worth it, because it's unintentionally hilarious in every single scene!
Everyone betray me, I'm fed up with this waaaaarld!