I'm sorry about the double post.
I mean triple.
I mean triple.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Review The Escapist bitch-slaps The Witcher
- Thread starter Calis
- Start date
Herbert West
Arbiter
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,293
Claw said:
I live in Europe, not in the US of A
User was nabbed fit
Guest
Violence is great. Sex is better. But you can't have the latter without the former (not necessarily at the same time though).
User was nabbed fit
Guest
Why no sex in a video game? What about in games where it's crucial?!!! LIKE OMG THE SIMS 2! How will I make babies?
MountainWest
Scholar
Equip the stork.
Herbert West
Arbiter
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,293
Ausir said:
Well, I hugely disliked the way sex was handled in Mass Effect- although I've only seen those scenes and dialogues leading to them on youtube. It made the ASCII man sigh. So in that case I'd preffer no sex at all.
ViolentOpposition said:
What makes me laugh about that was the review i read in some gaming magazine when DarkWatch first came out - like "OMG Sex in a video game but it's okay and not gratuitous because it furthers the storyline!!1111!1!1"
No, actually. It was some horny, fat, "can't get laid if I pay for it" developer who said - man, no porn. Hey! I can make my own!"
Plus it wasn't very good anyway. LOL
Jaime Lannister
Arbiter
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 7,183
I don't mind if there's sex in a video game as long as it's not required to further the storyline.
Micmu
Magister
Princess Adda pretty much rapes you at that merchant's banquet (and you're required to attend it in order to advance the plot). Is there a way to avoid her? Not that I tried.Ausir said:
Deleted member 7219
Guest
Can't you tell her to fuck off? I'm sure there was that dialogue option.
I chose to do her though, she is a Princess after all, even if she is inbred.
I chose to do her though, she is a Princess after all, even if she is inbred.
Micmu
Magister
I guess I've been badly C&C-ed 
:shock:ViolentOpposition said:
Futile Rhetoric
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,608
It makes Baby Jesus cry.Ausir said:
Shannow
Waster of Time
More than being nailed to a cross?Futile Rhetoric said:
Man, sex sure is evil.
Futile Rhetoric
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,608
Only out of wedlock.Shannow said:
And in the bum.
MarekBrutus
Novice
Hi, I am that Polish person Elwro called "compatriot".
I know that I risk boring you to death, and will face whatever penatly you deem necessary for continuing this , but I just have to let you know what Mr. Corvus has wrote in response to my recent message in which I for the last time (or so I though) tried to make him understand what exactly is wrong with his "work".
Well it was this:
"Marek,
Perhaps you should look up the definition of "review" in a dictionary before you start lecturing me on the impartial nature of reviews.
--Corvus"
Because I have noticed that some people here saw nothing wrong with his "review", and because Mr. Corvus once more claims that it was a "review" (even though he already called this in his blog an "opinion piece") I have wrote this earlier today:
Mr. Corvus
I tried to be civil, I really have. But you make it impossible. So now the gloves come off:
Can you direct me to the definition of the word "review" that allows the author to make up lies about the work he is reviewing? Because your "work" has several such fabrications, not to mention omissions of the facts that could persuade your readers to try the game for themselves:
a) "The story unfolds clumsily via intrusive in-engine cut-scenes, stilted dialog and uneven vocal performances."
"Still, given that the game wrests control from the player to present long and awkward conversations between the characters at inappropriate moments (...)"
Actually Mr. Corvus the game is heavy with the cut scenes only in the Prologue and part of Act I. Following Acts of it have just a few of them and one can play for hours, if not days, before seeing one of them. You'd know that if you'd play the whole game. You did not, but chose to make up a thing that turned out to be untrue - basically you lied about how the game presents the storyline.
b) "I feel that the game should make we want to read the books, not reproduce them for me, word for word."
Have you read the books, Mr. Corvus? You mention nothing about it (and I know most of them were not translated into English). Then how do you know what is in them? The simplest answer is you don't, but you choose to lie about it.
I have read the books and I can assure you that the game does not reproduce them word for word - it would be a hard thing to accomplish, since Mr. Sapkowski has not written a word about what happened to Geralt after his demise. The game uses some easily recognizable quotes from the books, but those appear only when Geralt meets people that know him and serve to present his connection to those people (and vice versa). It is called "staying with the climate of the source material" Mr. Corvus. Most of the games dialog and narration is a new material.
c) "This clumsy, unresponsive control system extends to combat."
Actually it is clumsy and unresponsive for you and only in one of the three view modes. A quick glance on the forums about the game is enough to determine that. But you have not tried to other view modes. You have not mentioned them at all. You have not even mentioned in what mode you were playing - just as if you were unaware of the other possibilities existence (even though they are described in the Manual). Frankly speaking you cut out 2/3 of the game engine from your review and judged it based on your incompetence. So that assessment Mr. Corvus is not true either.
d) "Geralt has three combat stances: heavy, light and one for a group of opponents."
Actually he has six - three for the steel sword and three for the silver sword. They are described in the Prologue by one of the characters and are mentioned in the Manual. Have you read it at all?
e) "What remains a problem, however, is when Geralt is surround by enemies, the engine confuses who you're trying to attack; usually if you try to attack the person in front of Geralt, you actually end up selecting the enemy behind him. So instead of following through on a combo, Geralt will begin to slowly turn to face the new target."
I have not been able to reproduce your "problem". I have even reinstalled the game without a patch. The result is the same:
The game does allow for following through a combo if you attack another opponent, provided he is within your reach. In fact even if you kill one opponent and attack another in the right moment, the combo will continue.
The only circumstance in which Geralt slowly follows the target is if the target is moving behind other enemies - in the second row, so to speak. Why would you want to attack such person, when there are enemies near you, is beyond me though. The fact remains though, that it was not the engine, but you, that got confused as to whom you were attacking. And yet you left no room for doubt in your readers� minds - you tested the game and it is a complete failure. Too bad for you that it actually is a lie.
"Despite having all of his professional bases covered, Geralt died before the events of the game begin (...)"
Do you know how he died in the book? I do not think so. Well he died stuck in the crowd, stabbed by a peasant with a pitchfork. He was pinned down, could not move, could not strike at his enemies, and could not cast a sign. He was an easy target - just as any man pinned by the crowd is. Which is why, as anyone with any melee combat experience will tell you, getting surrounded is officially a very bad thing. Geralt in the game has several options to break out of encirclement - two of the signs will push his enemies away (Aard and Igni); he can also try to jump over the opponent facing him or move to the side or back. If all else fails he does know, as you yourself said, the group combat stance. And yet you got stuck repeatedly. The answer I have to give to the question of how qualified you are to judge any melee combat system of a game is: You are not qualified at all.
f) "Even certain inventory items bear the description "Can be sold or given as a present to a woman." Hmm. I guess men don't get presents in The Witcher. They must have to earn their way, something women clearly can't do on their own."
And those items are: flowers, female head scarfs, shawls and gloves. Other items like gems, signets, food, drinks of all sorts or books have only the description "Can be sold or given as a present". And guess what? You actually can give them to men!!!
So unless your point was that a heterosexual character like Geralt should be giving female clothing items to men, you failed completely in that point. You made a wrong assumption about men not getting the presents, possibly because you have not checked that at all and have not got to the part of the game where it was made evident. And in you arrogance you did not let the readers know, just what items have this, so called "sexist", description - the items that usually come to mind when searching for a gift for a women. You decided that this is a trivial bit of information, right? Can you enlighten me who gave the right to decide what is and what isn't a derogatory gift for a woman? *It was a rhetorical question - you actually don't have to answer that.*
g) I have told this before but I am going to repeat it:
Most of your work has been written as if you actually played the whole of the game. Even though you admitted that you have not, not in one of your opinions have I found a reference to that fact - a phrase that you may be wrong, that what you say is just the estimate. It looks like you've added that information as an afterthought, and yet that fact should be visible through out your entire work.
h) You mention a lot of graphic problem that you have encountered. I did not have that many, but some of my acquaintances, that have older machines did have some. So it definitely is possible, especially since you played without a patch.
The problem is that you do not mention the patch at all. This is strange, as you admitted that you wrote this as the game was released in USA. The patch was easily available, but you played without it - well that is your choice. But not mentioning the fact that the patch does exist and could help alleviate some of those problems is simply depriving your readers of vital information. I do not think that you even knew about the patch, because you just did not deem it important to gather any preliminary information about the game.
i) The fact that you asked me to look for a definition of a review, shows clearly that you have totally disregarded all of criticism that you received from me and other readers about professional approach to game journalism. There is also a matter of your constant defense of your right to own opinion (even though it is not really an issue here) combined with total lack of response to the more direct examples of your work ineptitude. That fact leads me to a sad conclusion:
The simple fact of the matter is that you are an arrogant jerk that does not care how accurate and true to the facts his work is. This makes a civilized conversation on the subject superfluous.
No regards this time,
Marek
P.S.
"Mr. Literate person" - товаришь Сталин is easily translated by Google translator as "tovarish Stalin". Frankly speaking if you had problems Сталин alone is easily recognized by popular search engines I tried: Google, Lycos and Yahoo. So what exactly is your degree of literacy and skill in that area is highly debatable.
BTW, I think I'll put it on the RPGCodex, along with the rest of our exchange - just so anyone having doubts about you can put them to rest.
I have "moved" this conversation here, so that Mr Corvus can answer those direct charges against his "work" in public. I do wonder if he'll respond, but to be honest I will not hold my breath.
I know that I risk boring you to death, and will face whatever penatly you deem necessary for continuing this
, but I just have to let you know what Mr. Corvus has wrote in response to my recent message in which I for the last time (or so I though) tried to make him understand what exactly is wrong with his "work".Well it was this:
"Marek,
Perhaps you should look up the definition of "review" in a dictionary before you start lecturing me on the impartial nature of reviews.
--Corvus"
Because I have noticed that some people here saw nothing wrong with his "review", and because Mr. Corvus once more claims that it was a "review" (even though he already called this in his blog an "opinion piece") I have wrote this earlier today:
Mr. Corvus
I tried to be civil, I really have. But you make it impossible. So now the gloves come off:
Can you direct me to the definition of the word "review" that allows the author to make up lies about the work he is reviewing? Because your "work" has several such fabrications, not to mention omissions of the facts that could persuade your readers to try the game for themselves:
a) "The story unfolds clumsily via intrusive in-engine cut-scenes, stilted dialog and uneven vocal performances."
"Still, given that the game wrests control from the player to present long and awkward conversations between the characters at inappropriate moments (...)"
Actually Mr. Corvus the game is heavy with the cut scenes only in the Prologue and part of Act I. Following Acts of it have just a few of them and one can play for hours, if not days, before seeing one of them. You'd know that if you'd play the whole game. You did not, but chose to make up a thing that turned out to be untrue - basically you lied about how the game presents the storyline.
b) "I feel that the game should make we want to read the books, not reproduce them for me, word for word."
Have you read the books, Mr. Corvus? You mention nothing about it (and I know most of them were not translated into English). Then how do you know what is in them? The simplest answer is you don't, but you choose to lie about it.
I have read the books and I can assure you that the game does not reproduce them word for word - it would be a hard thing to accomplish, since Mr. Sapkowski has not written a word about what happened to Geralt after his demise. The game uses some easily recognizable quotes from the books, but those appear only when Geralt meets people that know him and serve to present his connection to those people (and vice versa). It is called "staying with the climate of the source material" Mr. Corvus. Most of the games dialog and narration is a new material.
c) "This clumsy, unresponsive control system extends to combat."
Actually it is clumsy and unresponsive for you and only in one of the three view modes. A quick glance on the forums about the game is enough to determine that. But you have not tried to other view modes. You have not mentioned them at all. You have not even mentioned in what mode you were playing - just as if you were unaware of the other possibilities existence (even though they are described in the Manual). Frankly speaking you cut out 2/3 of the game engine from your review and judged it based on your incompetence. So that assessment Mr. Corvus is not true either.
d) "Geralt has three combat stances: heavy, light and one for a group of opponents."
Actually he has six - three for the steel sword and three for the silver sword. They are described in the Prologue by one of the characters and are mentioned in the Manual. Have you read it at all?
e) "What remains a problem, however, is when Geralt is surround by enemies, the engine confuses who you're trying to attack; usually if you try to attack the person in front of Geralt, you actually end up selecting the enemy behind him. So instead of following through on a combo, Geralt will begin to slowly turn to face the new target."
I have not been able to reproduce your "problem". I have even reinstalled the game without a patch. The result is the same:
The game does allow for following through a combo if you attack another opponent, provided he is within your reach. In fact even if you kill one opponent and attack another in the right moment, the combo will continue.
The only circumstance in which Geralt slowly follows the target is if the target is moving behind other enemies - in the second row, so to speak. Why would you want to attack such person, when there are enemies near you, is beyond me though. The fact remains though, that it was not the engine, but you, that got confused as to whom you were attacking. And yet you left no room for doubt in your readers� minds - you tested the game and it is a complete failure. Too bad for you that it actually is a lie.
"Despite having all of his professional bases covered, Geralt died before the events of the game begin (...)"
Do you know how he died in the book? I do not think so. Well he died stuck in the crowd, stabbed by a peasant with a pitchfork. He was pinned down, could not move, could not strike at his enemies, and could not cast a sign. He was an easy target - just as any man pinned by the crowd is. Which is why, as anyone with any melee combat experience will tell you, getting surrounded is officially a very bad thing. Geralt in the game has several options to break out of encirclement - two of the signs will push his enemies away (Aard and Igni); he can also try to jump over the opponent facing him or move to the side or back. If all else fails he does know, as you yourself said, the group combat stance. And yet you got stuck repeatedly. The answer I have to give to the question of how qualified you are to judge any melee combat system of a game is: You are not qualified at all.
f) "Even certain inventory items bear the description "Can be sold or given as a present to a woman." Hmm. I guess men don't get presents in The Witcher. They must have to earn their way, something women clearly can't do on their own."
And those items are: flowers, female head scarfs, shawls and gloves. Other items like gems, signets, food, drinks of all sorts or books have only the description "Can be sold or given as a present". And guess what? You actually can give them to men!!!
So unless your point was that a heterosexual character like Geralt should be giving female clothing items to men, you failed completely in that point. You made a wrong assumption about men not getting the presents, possibly because you have not checked that at all and have not got to the part of the game where it was made evident. And in you arrogance you did not let the readers know, just what items have this, so called "sexist", description - the items that usually come to mind when searching for a gift for a women. You decided that this is a trivial bit of information, right? Can you enlighten me who gave the right to decide what is and what isn't a derogatory gift for a woman? *It was a rhetorical question - you actually don't have to answer that.*
g) I have told this before but I am going to repeat it:
Most of your work has been written as if you actually played the whole of the game. Even though you admitted that you have not, not in one of your opinions have I found a reference to that fact - a phrase that you may be wrong, that what you say is just the estimate. It looks like you've added that information as an afterthought, and yet that fact should be visible through out your entire work.
h) You mention a lot of graphic problem that you have encountered. I did not have that many, but some of my acquaintances, that have older machines did have some. So it definitely is possible, especially since you played without a patch.
The problem is that you do not mention the patch at all. This is strange, as you admitted that you wrote this as the game was released in USA. The patch was easily available, but you played without it - well that is your choice. But not mentioning the fact that the patch does exist and could help alleviate some of those problems is simply depriving your readers of vital information. I do not think that you even knew about the patch, because you just did not deem it important to gather any preliminary information about the game.
i) The fact that you asked me to look for a definition of a review, shows clearly that you have totally disregarded all of criticism that you received from me and other readers about professional approach to game journalism. There is also a matter of your constant defense of your right to own opinion (even though it is not really an issue here) combined with total lack of response to the more direct examples of your work ineptitude. That fact leads me to a sad conclusion:
The simple fact of the matter is that you are an arrogant jerk that does not care how accurate and true to the facts his work is. This makes a civilized conversation on the subject superfluous.
No regards this time,
Marek
P.S.
"Mr. Literate person" - товаришь Сталин is easily translated by Google translator as "tovarish Stalin". Frankly speaking if you had problems Сталин alone is easily recognized by popular search engines I tried: Google, Lycos and Yahoo. So what exactly is your degree of literacy and skill in that area is highly debatable.
BTW, I think I'll put it on the RPGCodex, along with the rest of our exchange - just so anyone having doubts about you can put them to rest.
I have "moved" this conversation here, so that Mr Corvus can answer those direct charges against his "work" in public. I do wonder if he'll respond, but to be honest I will not hold my breath.
But i had it only 3 times.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.