Review Of Monsters, Men and BROche

[Vault Dweller]

First, the option to say no simply ends the quest early. It doesn't change anything

I find the two statements mutually exclusive

Yet they are not.

And it changes more. It allows you to avoid the whole ambush thing, thus changing the gameplay

It only matters if:

a) you can play a non-combat character, which Geralt isn't.
b) combat is challenging and avoiding some fights greatly increases your survival chances.
c) you can avoid combat entirely making it a viable path for non-combat characters.

While I liked the Iorveth path's quests more, I cannot imagine why Geralt would folow a bunch of murderous elves all of the sudden.

Because Geralt aka the player is never in control. CD Projekt is.

As for the review, VD once prised the unplayable turd that Gothic 3 is.

Because it was perfectly playable on my computer?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It's no different than FO3's habit of letting you choose certain dialogue option to bypass huge chunks of quests (or even entire quests), which no one accepted as "alternative solutions".

Moira: Hey, can you explore these places for me?

Player: Sure.

*steps outside for a minute*

[Lie] Okay, I'm done.

 

[Dantus12]

The strange part is that the humor of the article is unable to hide the nearly condescending view, seriously the game is not even good for what it is.

People were bitching about the "condescending view" since the very first review was posted. "So, you like NWN and think it's the greatest game ever? Well, let me tell what I think about this piece of shit..."

It nearly gets hit harder than DA2, not even a benefit of a doubt, and console mantras to no end.
This probably wasn't the intention, but the outsiders that are unaware of the Codexian approach will consider the game complete and utter shit.

Why? Didn't we mention how pretty the game is?

So many negatives pointed out, and the positives intentionally dragged down to irrelevance, what again makes them negatives.

That's one way of looking at it. The other would be that the game isn't too heavy on the positives. But it's very, very pretty. Breathtakingly gorgeous.

There is way of criticizing when it feels that the reviewer dislikes something,and present's it as bad, because He dislikes it, not because it's really bad.

The Witcher games are games that are very mispercieved for various reasons, often minor things that are features not flaws.
Things like:
Where is Shani?
The supposed lore-rape.
The gap between Geralt and the player, and that one is glaring.
The console factor is something that I always considered a hilarious debate.
They built a console friendly Engine, sure -so did Obsidian, they just failed at porting Neverwinter Nights 2, for financial reasons.
When I reflect on the first game the differences are created by people that usually said the following things on the forums:
"That combat is shitty -twitch based shit, I want moar impact, moar control, the game should reward me, provide the sense of accomplishment -Instantly."
"I failed the Alchemy system-cant kill Hound."

The unfortunate part is that the UI, the changes on things that people liked in the first game are now gone because now everywhere, everyone is in awe by the new combat.
That's the real reason behind the gothic like combat, and limited camera view.The Engine is absolutely capable of zooming even more than many other Engines perceived as PC Engines.

I digress, this not related to the discussion, but the irony even about the visuals only underlines the condescending part-sorry about this, but what, the game is for graphic whoring console turds, or PC dumb asses that are now butt-hurt that the game has a radial menu and scrolling list?
Confused now, so the graphics are good -but nothing else?

Fine I guess, good thing that some are able to deduce the difference between graphics, art style, art direction etc, and have different perceptions about idiot treatments in games.

I'm able to deal with the console idiot treatment to a certain extent, I'm not willing to deal with a blind console idiot treatment, and there are games outhere that are way bigger offenders than the Witcher games could ever be, no-one sees them as such unfortunately- so they get away way easier than the Witcher games.

PS.
I'm butthurt.
I'm also a Newfag, my English sucks and I'm not trying to annoy anyone. The reason is the feeling that the usual :"Fighting the good fight," gets reduced because of minor things.

Seriously even the" lag" or delay is a part of the game, so it's a game mechanic and may or may not be liked.
CD Project is looking in to this.
------------------------

 

[drunkpriest]

please take down this fake review or edit out the unimportant stuff

the witcher 2 is prolly at least 9.1/10, this is why we dont get developer interviews

let commie write a unbiased review

 

[Elwro]

And fighting on the walls of the Verden, I, as a witcher, felt being really out of place. There shoud be an option to say "It is not my fight, bye, I'll be on my way".

Well, can't you skip the majority of the fight by proceding straight to the house of the two ladies? You can rescure the elf but it's not mandatory in any way.

 

[el Supremo]

And fighting on the walls of the Verden, I, as a witcher, felt being really out of place. There shoud be an option to say "It is not my fight, bye, I'll be on my way".

Well, can't you skip the majority of the fight by proceding straight to the house of the two ladies? You can rescure the elf but it's not mandatory in any way.

I was speaking (writing) about Iorveth's path. Have you tried it?

Spoiler

you have to fend off Henselt's invasion. Singlehandedly, I may add. Without you, they surely would got overrun...

 

[Mastermind]

It's no different than FO3's habit of letting you choose certain dialogue option to bypass huge chunks of quests (or even entire quests), which no one accepted as "alternative solutions".

Moira: Hey, can you explore these places for me?

Player: Sure.

*steps outside for a minute*

[Lie] Okay, I'm done.

You miss out on some rewards by doing that though.

 

[Pablosdog]

Eh, I liked the game.

Still a pretty funny article though.

 

[Elwro]

I was speaking (writing) about Iorveth's path. Have you tried it?

Spoiler

you have to fend off Henselt's invasion. Singlehandedly, I may add. Without you, they surely would got overrun...

Whoa, OK, sorry. I only played Roche's path.

 

[Mastermind]

Finally got around to finishishing the whole thing (the review that is, I'm not picking up the game until it's in the bargain bin). I am pleased at the butthurt it has caused, but don't really see the reason for it. I never played Witcher 2, and my experience with 1 was limited to the demo (which I never finished either), so I don't care either way. The review tried to be funny but it really wasn't. The only line that made me laugh was the last line:

"While business is business, we can only hope that CD Projekt will go back to making RPGs and will pick more appropriate inspirations for the third game than Heavy Rain and Goddamn Batman."

Sarcasm is easy. Funny sarcasm, not so much, and this review utterly fails to deliver on that front. If I was a twitcher fan I would spend less time getting mad at VD and spend more time pitying him for wasting so much of his time desperately trying to be funny.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I am pleased at the butthurt it has caused, but don't really see the reason for it.

They just wanted to do it that way. I didn't play the game, but I thought it was very informative. A serious tone saying the same things wouldn't make it better or worse (it would make it more or less enjoyable, but that depends on the reader being from Poland or not, so it's irrelevant).

 

[mondblut]

The most satirical part was presuming CDP had the hardcore audience and used to make RPGs to go back to. I laughed to tears.

 

[CrunchyHemorrhoids]

Will AOD try to be intentionally funny?

 

[Tormented Seph]

7 --- Why the Iorveth Path is more coherent (with the "Witcher's Code") than the Roche Path?

This I find an interesting statement, as my own feelings were exactly opposite. While I liked the Iorveth path's quests more, I cannot imagine why Geralt would folow a bunch of murderous elves all of the sudden. And fighting on the walls of the Verden, I, as a witcher, felt being really out of place. There shoud be an option to say "It is not my fight, bye, I'll be on my way".

Because the Scoiatels apparently seem to be a "bunch of murderers", but the truth is different...
They represent the idea of "diverse" (racism) and Iorveth has an ideal to fulfill...
Their methods are violent because they have suffered many wrongs, and not coincidentally Geralt points out that the Wild Hunt is made by a race of Elves who did not suffer the same wrongs (If you read the books know that this is a group of Elves called Aen Elle, who comes from a parallel dimension, where no racism exists for Elves)...

So what's wrong with the "Code"?
The problem is that Geralt like to support the "weakest", not the "strongest" (King, Noble, ecc)...so in that context who is the weak one? King Foltest? King Hanselt? The Lodge?
Or the poor people of Vergen and the Scoiatel?

Geralt, in the books, hates to support King and Noble.....it happens sometimes that he does it, but for two specific reason: make money and survive.

The plot of The Witcher 2 presents two path:

--- the first where we have to support a the "strongest", King Henselt, indulge his will, along with his lackeys (Dethmold?), all for cleaning up our tarnished name, finding Triss and finding Letho.

--- the second where we have to support the "weakest", a group of Rebels with ideals, a group of poor people who fight for indipendence, a probably future Queen who could unite all the North Regions under one flag against the Emperor, all for the same motivation (cleaning up our name, finding Triss/Letho)

Normally Geralt get out of this political events, but there's another strong motivation to continue: his lost memories...
He understands that only Letho can help him to remember some events, so he continues his hunting for this reason in particular...

Everything is justified, but I think it is justified more in the Iorveth Path, than Roche Path...

Because Geralt aka the player is never in control. CD Projekt is.

There is way of criticizing when it feels that the reviewer dislikes something,and present's it as bad, because He dislikes it, not because it's really bad.

The Witcher games are games that are very mispercieved for various reasons, often minor things that are features not flaws.
Things like:
Where is Shani?

Is this point not important for you?
Why Geralt start in love with Triss? Where's the real reason? Never explained...and why the imported savegame has no effect on this event? Never explained...

So there's a problem, I think...especially if the developers announce before the launch: "You can import your savegames and something awesome will happen! FuckYeah!"...

The supposed lore-rape.

It' not about "lore-raped"....it's about "coherency" with the Geralt in the Sapkowsky's Books...

 

[Mangoose]

Finally got around to finishishing the whole thing (the review that is, I'm not picking up the game until it's in the bargain bin). I am pleased at the butthurt it has caused, but don't really see the reason for it. I never played Witcher 2, and my experience with 1 was limited to the demo (which I never finished either), so I don't care either way. The review tried to be funny but it really wasn't. The only line that made me laugh was the last line:

"While business is business, we can only hope that CD Projekt will go back to making RPGs and will pick more appropriate inspirations for the third game than Heavy Rain and Goddamn Batman."

Sarcasm is easy. Funny sarcasm, not so much, and this review utterly fails to deliver on that front. If I was a twitcher fan I would spend less time getting mad at VD and spend more time pitying him for wasting so much of his time desperately trying to be funny.

Speaks much of your sense of humor when you quote the only line in the article that's not funny.

 

[Dantus12]

There is way of criticizing when it feels that the reviewer dislikes something,and present's it as bad, because He dislikes it, not because it's really bad.

The Witcher games are games that are very mispercieved for various reasons, often minor things that are features not flaws.
Things like:
Where is Shani?

Is this point not important for you?
Why Geralt start in love with Triss? Where's the real reason? Never explained...and why the imported savegame has no effect on this event? Never explained...

So there's a problem, I think...especially if the developers announce before the launch: "You can import your savegames and something awesome will happen! FuckYeah!"...

The supposed lore-rape.

It' not about "lore-raped"....it's about "coherency" with the Geralt in the Sapkowsky's Books...

[/quote]


Geralt in the books hates to support anyone, He' s a Witcher, Witchers don't meddle anywhere unless forced.
About Shani :
I understand where You are coming from.
The assumption that the player could ever be Geralt of Rivia is the one that creates these kind of problems.
It's absolutely consistent with the books, it's not consistent with players decisions.
The choices added in the game are there to create replay value , otherwise this wouldn't be a game but a book, or movie , it couldn't be influenced.

What was Shani for me?

A generic fling No. 567.
The difference between Her and another girl, maybe Blue Eyes is Her ability to use bandages-nothing more.
She would never follow Geralt, what would She do in the scene when Triss cast's lightning?
Throw bandages at Him?
The ability to kill a Dragon-Hmm, looking forward to the trolling from Cd Project in the Witcher 3.

The Geralt in the books would never:

Spoiler

Choose the Order, kill Vinsent or Ada,choose Shani, kill Blue Eyes,

for example , yet the player get's this option for the sake of non-linearity,replay value and c&c system.
There are things that are created outside of the lore, this doesn't make them relevant or canon however.
But clearly the players desire for impact on the game is perfectly normal.
---------------

 

[commie]

Can't wait to post a Codexian review of AoD full of hearty lols about the shitty Mortal Combat finishing moves(something suitably snarky about being able to lift a guy over your head on a spear etc.). I'll have to make sure to also direct VoD to all the 'this game sucks' reviews from internet non-entities so he posts them as news.

No, please, not AoD. It will just hurt too much. I'll change, I promise. I... I take everything back. The Witcher 2 is an amazing game. And Dragon Age 2 wasn't as bad as I made it sound to be. I was just jealous that they've actually released something...

Well behave then. A review of mine in the vein of yours would knock 5-10 sales from your projections, effectively halving your potential revenue.


Nice try to link DA2 to me though as if I liked it or something. Funny thing is that the crude 3D and shit brown palette of DA2 is a lot closer to the art style of AoD than it is to TW2. Lots of 'awesum' death animations in both games too.

If the game [AoD] is only 1/10th of what it promises to be I'll still buy it, making it the first indie title I've ever owned.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=61479

Well I never said that AoD is something without promise. I'm also not butthurt about VD's pseudo-review about TW2 so as to shit on his game out of spite. The Mortal Kombat kills are fucking derpy though and I'm certain there will be lots of other shitty things with AoD notwitstanding the army of bugs it will have as well. Even so I'll most probably enjoy the game, being able to overlook the shit. What I take umbrage at is the Codexian ability to focus on a shitty aspect of a game, ANY game, and then just rage about it for the next 100 years, regardless of other merit.
I bet if IGN or Gamespot or Game Critics(haters of TW2)gave AoD 4/10(assuming they would 'lower' themselves to review it), citing the bugs or lack of AAA polish, even if the rest of the game was top notch then VD would be suitably pissed off regardless of his projections to the contrary.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The Mortal Kombat kills are fucking derpy

Your face is fucking derpy.

 

[CrunchyHemorrhoids]

I expected a horde of butthurt polish TW2 fanboys all over this but so far it seems that half the people complaining about the shitty humor didn't even like TW2.

 

[Vault Dweller]

@ commie:

First of all, I wouldn't care. I don't expect everyone to like it and I've read so much "what the fuck is this shit?" criticism over the years, that reading more won't make a difference. I honestly can't even imagine why someone would take such criticism personally. Did they expect for their entire world to fall in love with it? I sure as fuck don't.

Second, you assume that TW2 is loaded with merits, but we've just focused on the negatives and overlooked the awesomeness.

Character system - poorly designed, disconnected from the combat system, can play the game without it
Combat - poor man's action game
Quests - probably the weakest aspect of the game, very poor design
Alchemy & Crafting - mediocre
Items distribution - godawful
Dialogue skills - max at 3, completely optional, don't affect anything
Effect of skills (what skills?) on gameplay - zero
Choices & consequences - linear, most choices are meaningless, very few choices have affect on gameplay, very DA2, never in control, zero freedom.
Setting & characters - very good to excellent
Graphics - superb

I tried to like it. I really did. I wanted to like it, but it just wasn't interesting enough and the lack of skills and poor quest design killed it for me as a "proper" RPG, while the poor character system killed and the lack of challenge killed it for me as an action RPG.

 

[Sergiu64]

Quests - probably the weakest aspect of the game, very poor design

At least some of the quests didn't have the quest arrow for their steps though. I thought that was kinda incline a bit.

 

[Black_Willow]

@ commie:

First of all, I wouldn't care. I don't expect everyone to like it and I've read so much "what the fuck is this shit?" criticism over the years, that reading more won't make a difference. I honestly can't even imagine why someone would take such criticism personally. Did they expect for their entire world to fall in love with it? I sure as fuck don't.

Second, you assume that TW2 is loaded with merits, but we've just focused on the negatives and overlooked the awesomeness.

Character system - poorly designed, disconnected from the combat system, can play the game without it
Combat - poor man's action game
Quests - probably the weakest aspect of the game, very poor design
Alchemy & Crafting - mediocre
Items distribution - godawful
Dialogue skills - max at 3, completely optional, don't affect anything
Effect of skills (what skills?) on gameplay - zero
Choices & consequences - linear, most choices are meaningless, very few choices have affect on gameplay, very DA2, never in control, zero freedom.
Setting & characters - very good to excellent
Graphics - superb

I tried to like it. I really did. I wanted to like it, but it just wasn't interesting enough and the lack of skills and poor quest design killed it for me as a "proper" RPG, while the poor character system killed and the lack of challenge killed it for me as an action RPG.

See, you haven't forgotten how to write a review after all. It's quite short but, oh well, at least it's informative.

 

[Mangoose]

@ commie:

First of all, I wouldn't care. I don't expect everyone to like it and I've read so much "what the fuck is this shit?" criticism over the years, that reading more won't make a difference. I honestly can't even imagine why someone would take such criticism personally. Did they expect for their entire world to fall in love with it? I sure as fuck don't.

Second, you assume that TW2 is loaded with merits, but we've just focused on the negatives and overlooked the awesomeness.

Character system - poorly designed, disconnected from the combat system, can play the game without it
Combat - poor man's action game
Quests - probably the weakest aspect of the game, very poor design
Alchemy & Crafting - mediocre
Items distribution - godawful
Dialogue skills - max at 3, completely optional, don't affect anything
Effect of skills (what skills?) on gameplay - zero
Choices & consequences - linear, most choices are meaningless, very few choices have affect on gameplay, very DA2, never in control, zero freedom.
Setting & characters - very good to excellent
Graphics - superb

I tried to like it. I really did. I wanted to like it, but it just wasn't interesting enough and the lack of skills and poor quest design killed it for me as a "proper" RPG, while the poor character system killed and the lack of challenge killed it for me as an action RPG.

See, you haven't forgotten how to write a review after all. It's quite short but, oh well, at least it's informative.

Yeah like none of that was in the original review.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Had VD & VoD done this with, say, Oblivion, the butthurt wouldn't have been anywhere near as strong and the same people claming that this wasn't a 'review' would be lauding their literary skills to the heavens.

Would be more interesting if the review was done in the same way, but the other way around. That is, if it was a 'positive' review whining all the time about lack of streamlining and non-accesibility.

 

[Sceptic]

Could be that "reviews" usually try to be more direct in their statements than the subtlety sarcasm provides. Leaves a reader with an uncertainty about whether this was serious/true.
Even though I very much liked it the way it is, I'm thinking the sarcasm overload and the resulting butthurt will prevent it from sinking in for those who actually need to take a more critical look at the game and where CDPR is taking what they claim to be their target genre.

This, but strikethrough mine. I have no subjective interest whatsoever in CDP or Witcher, beyond trying to decide whether I want to get the game or not.

Exactly. I don't get why people think this is not a review. It goes over every aspect of the game quite specifically.

I don't expect reviews to just "go over" every aspect of the game. I expect to reach the end of the review and, due to the information presented in the review, regardless of whether I agree that a particular point is a positive or a negative, to be able to form my own opinion about whether I should get this game or not. If I can't do that because I'm laughing at the dry wit then trying to figure out what was sarcasm and what was serious, then it's not a good review, irrespective of whether it's a masterful piece of writing or not. If it exists alongside a more traditional/serious review then great, I firmly believe in variety and in this case the different styles eliminates any redundancy.

VD's very familiar with exactly what makes a good review. I had no interest in MOW until I read his review of it. Based on everything he wrote about it, I decided to get it. This is one purchase I will never regret, and I can safely say the bulk of the decision was based on this singular review. Now, after reading the TW2 review, I am left in exactly the same position as before reading it.

We just wanted to do something fresh, instead of dryly analyze the game

That's great. I'm glad you did, and I had a lot of fun reading it. Still, see above.