Review Moron Daily reviews The Witcher

[JarlFrank]

You know, the face of this retard really reminds me of Pete Hines.

 

[aweigh]

I'm not disputing he is a retard, but there's no way he looks like the abomination that is Hines' face. Hines is so ugly his momma used to fed him with a slingshot.

 

[DraQ]

Indeed. Hines has these... things crawling under his skin.

(Does anyone have that photo with Hines and Todd where Hines' face went all wonky and unnatural?)

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

 

[DraQ]

Yes, this one, thank you.


...so unnatural...

 

[JarlFrank]

Yes, this one, thank you.


...so unnatural...

This picture indeed reveals the monster that lies beneath this face.

 

[bozia2012]

This is not true about broken quests after Act1 - for example I didn't finish the burial quest before the shit hit the fan (I still had to get the reward from Declan) and I got my journal updated that I should look for him in Vyzima.

This is one of the "awesomest" thing in TW - most of the quests are tied somehow to themselves and they update each other (I didn't manage to brake any quest).

 

[DarkSign]

You think all those extra muscles around Pete's mouth are from how much he sucks?

 

[Claw]

Maybe we should use "Lame" for all of them .

You mean like.. the lamestream media?

 

[cardtrick]

This is not true about broken quests after Act1 - for example I didn't finish the burial quest before the shit hit the fan (I still had to get the reward from Declan) and I got my journal updated that I should look for him in Vyzima.

This is one of the "awesomest" thing in TW - most of the quests are tied somehow to themselves and they update each other (I didn't manage to brake any quest).

Yeah, but it's easy to think you've broken a quest, if you're a moron. Prime example: just outside the sewers at the beginning of Act II, some dude asks you to retrieve a ring for him, and tells you that he'll be at that spot looking for you every morning. It turns out, he's only there from 6-8am, roughly. You have countless idiots complaining on various forums that the quest is "bugged" because, after finding the ring, the (optional) quest marker points toward where the guy told you to meet (since your character has no idea where else he might be). When the Gamespotheads follow the quest marker in the middle of the night or in late afternoon and the guy isn't there, they naturally figure the game is fucked up, and complain loudly about bugs. Dumbasses.

 

[Morbus]

All you do is kick a ball around, trying to get it into a stupid net. Sometimes it's hard to tell which net you need to put it into and the teams all have stupid names like "Charlton Athletic" rather than awesome ones like in basketball. There's no dragons or lasers - 5/10"

Indeed

 

[elander_]

Gamers have made justice to this pathetic game reviewer. Just look at the feedback the guy got.

at the beginning of Act II, some dude asks you to retrieve a ring for him, and tells you that he'll be at that spot looking for you every morning. It turns out, he's only there from 6-8am, roughly.

That's morning? I thought morning was between 12h-13h. You shouldn't assume everyone has the same idea of what morning is.

 

[Virtz]

Gamers have made justice to this pathetic game reviewer. Just look at the feedback the guy got.

at the beginning of Act II, some dude asks you to retrieve a ring for him, and tells you that he'll be at that spot looking for you every morning. It turns out, he's only there from 6-8am, roughly.

That's morning? I thought morning was between 12h-13h. You shouldn't assume everyone has the same idea of what morning is.

There's a pre-defined time for "morning" in the meditation menu. It's just a matter of using it and then going to the spot.

EDIT: Or was it called "dawn"? Either way, it gives the appropriate daytimes for right-time quests. It has dawn, noon, dusk and midnight and as far as I can recall, most things are based on those 4 times.

 

[WalterKinde]

The sad thing about this is that all the buying public will see is the score and probably not take the time to read and see how ridiculous and stupid this review is.
Lets face you are an individual on the go and up pops a review that gives such low a score (keeping in mind that these days and average game is given 8/10) you will pass on it.
With computer parts thats what i do, i skip the review text with the graphs/pie charts etc and just go to the conclusion and score.This is only for when i am browsing if i am buying or looking to buy then i usually visit several different sites and check the reviews out in full detail but most people in today's gaming public are not going to do that.

 

[Brother None]

How the fuck do people like this get to write reviews? Are they all cousins of the editor?

Don't diss the editor or else...

Huh. Check out page 3. They read Kotaku's critique of gaming journalism and decided Kotaku is wrong because HEY SHUT UP. I mean, ehr, because games are fun?

 

[Lingwe]

From their Oblivion review:

There are a thousand different directions and hundreds of places to go, and in this game's case (and to use a terrible cliche), the sky's the limit. If you come face to face with a series of snow-capped mountains you can climb to their very tops. It may take you thirty minutes and there's no telling what abominations you'll discover on your journey, but in Oblivion, it's possible to ascend the highest peak

From the Witcher review:

Geralt seems like a guy just looking for something to do. He spends an inordinate amount of time wandering around, looking for random encounters.

It's from different reviewers but you get the feeling that the guy who did the Witcher review would say something very similar about Oblivion as the first guy. Apparently spending heaps of time wandering around is great if the game is Oblivion but bad if it is the Witcher. Oookay.

The idea behind The Witcher, where the player takes on the role of a gritty monster-hunter, sounds more fun that it actually is. Whether it's the broken dialogue, the characters' expressionless faces or the annoying and monotonous combat system, The Witcher just doesn't get off the ground. The game provides a decent alternative to average hack'n-slash role-playing games, but it doesn't take long before it becomes tiresome and boring.

Moron Daily - where the most important part of the game is facial expression.

 

[Ladonna]

There are a thousand different directions and hundreds of places to go, and in this game's case (and to use a terrible cliche), the sky's the limit. If you come face to face with a series of snow-capped mountains you can climb to their very tops. It may take you thirty minutes and there's no telling what abominations you'll discover on your journey, but in Oblivion, it's possible to ascend the highest peak

Isn't the game capped to the characters level? Wouldn't it then be fair to say that you won't find anything that you haven't seen before at the top of the 'Snow capped mountain'?

Perhaps a generic dungeon (It had these as well didn't it?)?

Or a chest of random loot?

How does the Witcher do loot (If at all).

 

[cardtrick]

How does the Witcher do loot (If at all).

No phat lewt, really. Enemies drop their weapons, but you can't carry more than your 2 swords, one extra large weapon, and one extra small weapon, so you won't be hauling arms around. Other than that, most human enemies have a few coins and some food or alcohol with them. There are lots of barrels, chests, wardrobes, and whatnot scattered about, but they mostly contain food, alchohol, flints, etc. Basically, there's a lot of stuff around that you could grab, but it's mostly not worth it. Nothing is scaled to your level, and nothing important is random. You will (rarely) find nice, named weapons, but these mostly are obtained from stores or as plot points. Really, the things you will obtain most frequently and be most excited about are alchemical components, which can be harvested from creatures and plants if you have the skills and knowledge.

 

[Ladonna]

No phat lewt, really. Enemies drop their weapons, but you can't carry more than your 2 swords, one extra large weapon, and one extra small weapon, so you won't be hauling arms around. Other than that, most human enemies have a few coins and some food or alcohol with them. There are lots of barrels, chests, wardrobes, and whatnot scattered about, but they mostly contain food, alchohol, flints, etc. Basically, there's a lot of stuff around that you could grab, but it's mostly not worth it. Nothing is scaled to your level, and nothing important is random. You will (rarely) find nice, named weapons, but these mostly are obtained from stores or as plot points. Really, the things you will obtain most frequently and be most excited about are alchemical components, which can be harvested from creatures and plants if you have the skills and knowledge.

Finally some effort. I was getting sick of lazy devs randomising everything.

 

[bozia2012]

No phat lewt, really. Enemies drop their weapons, but you can't carry more than your 2 swords, one extra large weapon, and one extra small weapon, so you won't be hauling arms around.

Finally some effort. I was getting sick of lazy devs randomising everything.

I just finished ActIII and I still can't afford to buy a new armor. The silver sword I have is the one you get in ActII and I've found myself a unique steel one on a not-random corpse (accidentaly). Again - no phat lewt.

 

[kingcomrade]

A game where you don't go through equipment like a woman through excuses?

 

[Jeff Graw]

In my experience so far, I'd say you go through less equipment in The Witcher than you did in Gothic.

The weapon limit is very well done. Doesn't make sense having some guy carrying a dozen swords around everywhere, does it? I hope this feature finds it's way into more RPGs.

It's a shame the rest of the inventory system is so badly mishandled though.

 

[caliban]

It's a shame the rest of the inventory system is so badly mishandled though.

Aye, this is one of the first things i thought when I took a look at the inventory screen - "Damn, this game needs some autosorting. Badly."

 

[Risine]

Interesting thing about this review, the final note :
Our Final Score : 6
Mediocre

So 6 is mediocre, what interesting !!! That means that 5 out of 10 is crap. Then what about 0 to 5 scores ?!?

Score reviews notations today :
5 : crap.
6 : mediocre.
7 : buy it at your own risk.
8 : interesting but not hyped.
9 : big hype product OR excellent not hyped game done by a relatively small developer or publisher.
9.xxx : big multi million hyped PR-ized project but with so many flaws impossible to miss that it cannot be set to 10.
10 : big multi million hyped PR-ized project.

 

[Jasede]

Here is how it used to be in an old Amiga magazine, I forgot the name. They got flak for using this system though:

0-10%: Utter crap
10 -20%: Really awful, but might be good "for the lulz"
20%-30%: Has a few things it doesn't do wrong, but they are of no consequence as a whole
30%-40%: Very bad execution but might be worth if if you're desperate
40-50%: Okay game. Not good, but damnit, if you like the genre and franchise and can deal with the flaws, why not.
50-60%: Good game. Not special by any means, but it does what it wants to do pretty okay.
60-70%: Very good. Good idea/execution with many neat things about it, though also a few shortcomings.
70-80%: fucking amazing game, recommended even if you don't like the genre
80-90%: holy shit, awesome game. It doesn't get any better than this
90-100%: if there was a game this good there would be no need to play any other games.