Review Bit-Tech reviews The Witcher - 7/10

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: CD Projekt; Witcher, The

<a href=http://www.bit-tech.net>Bit-Tech</a> has posted a 5-page long <a href=http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/10/31/the_witcher/5>The Witcher review</a>. Even though the reviewer seemed to like the game, he wasn't sure if other people like it too, so he cautiously gave it 7/10.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Basically it all comes down to the gamer. If you’re a hardcore RPG gamer like myself then you’ll be able to tolerate or cope with the problems and have yourself a merry old time. If you’re just a RPG fledgling though or aren’t sure the basic delayed-consequence system interests you though then you may do better to avoid The Witcher for a bit. It all depends on whether or not you’re really willing to sit down for a 40-hour game only to play it all over again to get different consequences – discuss the matter in the forums.</blockquote>Indeed. Who would want to play a game again and experience different things? That's just crazy.
<br>
<br>

<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgwatch.com">RPG Watch</A>

 

[cardtrick]

I hate the world.

EDIT: Also, it's infuriating that all of the reviews are damning The Witcher for its bugs. It has virtually no major bugs compared to most other RPG releases. What it does have is a hefty RAM requirement, which makes it somewhat unstable in Vista. People report great stability in XP and fairly frequent (although by no means as frequent as the reviews would lead you to believe) problems in Vista.

This is not The Witcher's fault. Vista really isn't ready for gaming yet, and it sucks that reviewers are apparently using it exclusively.

What is The Witcher's fault are the loadtimes, which are quite bad. But technically, it's a great game other than that. During play, it's far better optimized than Oblivion or NWN2 or any other fairly recent RPG release that is visually comparable.

EDIT 2:

An awful lot of The Witcher is spent running from one peasant village to another, hacking away at monsters and seducing (wooing, even) damsels.

THIS IS THE FIRST CHAPTER YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!!! PLAY THE DAMN GAME NEXT TIME.

EDIT 3:
And also, why are 2 out of the 5 pages of this review about optimizing your graphics settings? A short tip is fine, but this reads like a particularly worthless tweak guide. Are you seriously telling me that reviewers don't believe that their readers can figure out for themselves that high texture details are better than low texture details? It would be one thing if they talked about what sort of system requirements each setting would entail, which would be useful information for someone using a review to decide whether to purchase a game, but this is just . . . stupid.

This is one of the worst reviews I've ever read, for any game.

 

[MasPingon]

WTF is wrong with those reviews?

 

[cardtrick]

Are you asking, or is that rhetorical?

 

[MasPingon]

No, I'm not asking

 

[cardtrick]

Ah, good.

Also, this sums up the review in a nutshell:

Well, actually I’ve been following it pretty much since I finished Oblivion and have been hoping that it would be the game to tide me over and satisfy my PC RPG needs until Fallout 3 comes out next year.

 

[Serious_Business]

Those brilliant reviews are supposed to appeal to the mainstream public. This is why they'll lower a rating if it's "not a game for everybody". Game critics seem to have whored out a lot more than say, movie critics, as those tend to brand hollywood productions as such and explain their limitations, even if the general public will enjoy those kind of movies. I don't know what makes more sense. If critics try to be deep the public will just not follow nor appreciate the reviews; if I say that I like Civilization 4 because it is a highly engaging affair, which it is for me, that doesn't mean that it will be for a 14 years old. In that case reviews will be seen as elitist and not a good source for information, just like some movie reviewers are seen; they will often praise independent movies which are, to most people, boring.

If, as we can see here, reviewers whore out, they will be seen as accurate and useful to the common consumer, which is ultimately their goal. Reviewers have to sell as well. It would be inane to think that reviewers are being bought out by game companies; they're not. They only praise dumb mainstream games because those games sells and are appreciated. Why shouldn't they? One of the reasons why this is the way they do things is because of the business itself, which has no concrete independent side to it, and also because most of these reviewers are, after all, amateurs and nothing more (which is of course much source of amusement, especially when they claim their professionalism).

It's always hard for an idealist (i.e. Codex elitist assholes) to put himself in the shoes of someone who is in the business. The way I presented it, it makes more or less sense, I think. But we all know this is bullshit of the most upper degree, which is why you must arm yourself and fight the good fight in the name of the Codex.

 

[Black]

WTF is wrong with those reviews?

They don't like it cuz it's not TES VI: The Witcher.
Duh.

 

[fastpunk]

WTF?! The dude wrote a lot of positive stuff and when it comes to the score: boom! 7! What exactly justifies the cutting of 3 points from the score?!

 

[MetalCraze]

The Witcher - Sucks:
Because CDProjekt didn't give us gifts!

 

[Micmu]

Someone buy this retard Final Fucktasy or NWN2

 

[Azarkon]

So, if I'm getting you correctly, Serious Business, this is what you're saying:

If professional reviewers sell out, then they're just aping the opinions of the general public.

If they don't, then they get ignored by the general public.

...

Sounds like a dead end. If I wanted to hear about what Joe Casual thinks, I'll ask my friends, go read a forum, or just go read the zounds of player reviews you find everywhere on the web. I don't need to go read a sell-out reviewer's "10++!"

In fact, there's no reason, at all, for me to read a professional review that 1) doesn't come out until the game comes out and 2) just reflects what the average gamer already knows from hype & marketing.

The film critics have got it right: there's no shortage of opinions among the masses, and the average movie-goer is too easily seduced by marketing and hype that he doesn't care abut what critics think, anyhow; so, why not just say it like it is? Being an elitist asshole that only movie geeks care about is better than being a sell-out that no one cares about, after all.

 

[Bradylama]

There are also a much larger segment of moviegoers that have taste than gamers.

I remember when I was a kid I'd maybe get a new game once every four months, so I'd replay the shit out of everything. A game with a lot of replayability was a godsend.

Maybe the problem is kids have too much purchasing power these days.

 

[MetalCraze]

that's seems it. because back in the days much less people were able to afford buying PC. And using PC also required some knowledge. So pc gamers were much mature and not so spoiled with overflow of games I think. So devs really tried to please them because of high demands.

Now that PCs are so much cheaper and easier to understand - kids, for whom tits are the best feature in the game ever, will be happy with any mediocre shit out there.
Plus now in order to make something popular all you need to do is just write in some "respected" source how it rocks. And kids will buy it because it's cool.

 

[mikee3]

Want to read worst review ever? Its at Gamedaily:

http://www.gamedaily.com/games/the-witc ... 3106/1830/

And dont forget to look on comments.

 

[scypior]

Witchers are actually just the usual monster killers and hero-types, so why they’re called Witchers and not just monster hunters I don’t know.

Yeah. Why Witcher? Monster hunter is faaar more original.

"Monster hunter". Hello mr. "Monster hunter"...

Read the book!!!

 

[Deleted member 7219]

They're probably disappoint you didn't get to shoot cool gunz instead of swing swords.