Review The Escapist bitch-slaps The Witcher

[bezimek]

As a storyteller with nearly 20 years of tabletop roleplaying experience, I...

...fail to realise one must present actual arguments and evidence in a review, rather than trot out the 'I am teh rollplayer'.

.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: good one :!:

 

[Otingocni]

Now, now, I am sure Corvus is some poor mentally disadvantaged boy brought to us by an enlightened equal opportunity policy of The Escapist. Why, just read his latest defense, if the review was not enough to conclude Corvus must not have full control of his mental facilities:

What is comes down to is this: This article is my opinion. I clearly expressed that my opinion was formed without completing the game. I provided some context as to my background so people could make up their own minds.

Why all the furor?

..and for the record? I loved Ultima VII, Fallout and Gothic. I have spent more time playing each of those games than just about any other single player PC game (excepting Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss which I replay about once a year). I only mentioned them in this context to give you an idea that I domt automatically discard a game because of one or two issues. Evidently I wasnt clear enough about that. Perhaps this would help?

OMG. Fallout FTW!!

/smack

And the ever charming Associate Editor Russ Pitts has weighed in, perhaps Brother None could enlighten him on work ethic. The Escapist is in such a hole that they have a fucking editor defending playing only 10% of a game for one of their reviews.

I dont care how long a game is, 10 hours is a significant investment of time, and a threshold by which any sane human being should be able to determine whether or not theyre enjoying the experience.

Is it possible that a person who plays a game for only 10 hours might miss some astronomically awesome part of the experience? Absolutely. But any developer saving their best effort for levels 11 hours in should probably reevaluate their priorities. I dont know about some of you, but if Im not feeling it after 10 hours, (4 or 5 most times), Im moving on. Lifes too short.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Yet another review of the Prologue and Act I.

 

[Brother None]

And the ever charming Associate Editor Russ Pitts has weighed in, perhaps Brother None could enlighten him on work ethic

'k.

That does reflect poorly on the Escapist.

You sir, are most worthy of respect

I shouldn't be. Or rather, it shouldn't be anything special that I feel the need to invest the proper time in a game before giving my opinion. It's a simple matter of professionalism, nothing more or less.

 

[Jasede]

Yet another review of the Prologue and Act I.

Look, if a game sucks in the first 10 hours then there's no point to continue playing it, even if Act 2 and 3 were pure gold. It's the game designer's fault for not drawing the player in with the best bits first.

 

[Brother None]

Look, if a game sucks in the first 10 hours then there's no point to continue playing it, even if Act 2 and 3 were pure gold. It's the game designer's fault for not drawing the player in with the best bits first.

Nobody is contesting that.

The game reviewer's job then becomes to play the entire game and note that "the first 10 hours kind of sucked, but it picks up after that." He should criticise the game's developers for how badly the game opens once he finishes the entire game, or at least a significant section of it. That's his job, it's not his job to give up on a game and fail to give a full picture.

 

[KazikluBey]

So if a game's last 10 hours suck it's alright, 'cause, the beginning was awesome? Coincidentally, The Witcher's first act hardly sucked. The prologue pretty much did though, mostly due to its tutorialness.

Still though, we're not talking about some player giving up on a game if he hates the first 10 hours, that would be perfectly understandable. We're talking about someone who was paid to review a fully playable game (this is not Big Rigs we're talking about) and quits after 10 hours. That is unprofessional, not to mention ridiculous if it is actually published at a site that pretends to be "serious".

 

[Otingocni]

Thanks Brother None, the fact that they are defending/rationalizing only playing a tenth of a game for a review is disgusting. Though Pitts history indicates that he thinks that he has to defend every bad decision made by anyone involving in The Escapist.

By the way, his blog is fun too, what a self-centered little slimeball:

I think CD Projekt should be glad that I’m talking about their game at all. Who knows? All the brouhaha I’ve kicked up might sell an extra copy or two.

 

[Jasede]

I do not agree. Would you, if you were a reviewer, also play Daikatana even though the first 50% are really bad, just to confirm that the last 50% are better or worse?

I do not think you would. You would write "This game was so bad I couldn't go on after Episode 2. I can not confirm it to 100%, but if the first parts are any guide, then this game will not become better."

Unless, that is, you're some sort of super-reviewer, though you would be the first I meet, be it on the internet or in the gaming magazine business.


Besides, if you really want to fault anyone, fault the person who checks the review submissions before having them published, the chief editor; fault him either for hiring a sloppy person or for having low standards. He's supposed to control the quality, after all, and if he does not, the reviewer will only continue to review like this.

Not that I find anything objectionable in the review, aside from what Twinfalls already pointed out.

Edit: wait a second, he gets paid for writing reviews on the internet?? Confirm/deny?

 

[vrok]

Look, if a game sucks in the first 10 hours then there's no point to continue playing it, even if Act 2 and 3 were pure gold. It's the game designer's fault for not drawing the player in with the best bits first.

Are you trying to be a retard or does it come naturally? As a reviewer it's then his job to play the entire game and point out in his review that act 1 was bad but the rest of the game was great and maybe even made up for it, or not, so the player can make the choice himself to put up with it, or not. That's the entire fucking point.

Edit: Beaten by Brother None.

 

[Brother None]

I do not agree. Would you, if you were a reviewer, also play Daikatana even though the first 50% are really bad, just to confirm that the last 50% are better or worse?

I think it's unfair to demand every reviewer reviews every game 100%. The time constraints make this possible, as do deadlines.

But 10 hours of the Witcher is not even 50%. If you don't have the time to play at least the majority of a game's total playing time, let's say at least 2/3rd, then no, you really have no business writing a review. If you don't have that time, your editor should say "well, sorry, but we'll simply have to drop the article" or possible "well, ok, we'll have to publish it as an opinion piece". He shouldn't go "great review, ace, it's got my seal of approval!"

 

[Jasede]

No, it's not. What kind of reviewer would play through a whole game if the first part sucks and the game seems to show no inclination to improve?

If I made a game that plays like Big Rigs the first 33% and like Fallout the other 66%, I, too, would not fault the reviewer for not contiuing to play. I think you're just being Polish nationalists.

Edit: that said, I am just pointing it out, is all. I do agree with Brother None in that if you already do something as lousy as writing reviews on the internet, you might as well do it right.

 

[pkt-zer0]

I do not agree. Would you, if you were a reviewer, also play Daikatana even though the first 50% are really bad, just to confirm that the last 50% are better or worse?

Coincidentally, the one review I've read of Daikatana basically stated that the first world was pretty horrid, but the rest of them were good.

Yes, some game journalists actually doing a proper job. Shocking, I know.

 

[Jasede]

Well, that review is obviously not very credible since all worlds of Daikatana are horrible and playing the game makes you physically ill.

What kind of job is "game journalist", anyway. Stay in school.

 

[vrok]

No, it's not. What kind of reviewer would play through a whole game if the first part sucks and the game seems to show no inclination to improve?

If I made a game that plays like Big Rigs the first 33% and like Fallout the other 66%, I, too, would not fault the reviewer for not contiuing to play. I think you're just being Polish nationalists.

A real reviewer would.

Why are you defending poor gaming journalism? Is it part of your "troll the Codex until it dies, because they kicked VD out"-campaign? Or maybe you're just trying to win the get ignored list?

 

[Jasede]

Definitely. Whenever I get a new ignore I get a big erection and fap onto my keyboard. The keys are icky and sticky as we speak. The faint scent of sea water tickles my nostrils.

Dude, vrok, I was never defending gaming journalism, I was just saying that you can not expect any reviewer, if he thinks the first 10 hours sick and the game won't get better, to waste more time on the game. You say it's his job to suffer through; I humbly disagree. There, end of story. Now go back to masturbating into your Witcher DVD case.

 

[Brother None]

I think you're just being Polish nationalists.

I'm not even Polish.

I'm "just being" someone with proper journalist standards. There's a reason gaming journalism is such a shitty job, and I don't blame you for spitting on it, but that's mostly because the standards of the industry suck ass.

 

[vrok]

Actually you are defending it, you're just too far up your own ass to see it. And I don't own a Witcher DVD case.

Edit: I don't even own a DVD reader. At all.

 

[Jasede]

Fair enough. Again, I do not think a good reviewer has to play a game for more than 10 hours if the thinks the first 10 suck, even if we disagree with that.

That said, it's still an uninformative review, and despite all my Witcher-suspicions, I can not imagine it's -that- bad, and will hence disregard this waste of hosting space.

Edit: lol @ vrok; redding = teh hard

 

[Volourn]

"We're talking about someone who was paid to review a fully playable game (this is not Big Rigs we're talking about) and quits after 10 hours. That is unprofessional, not to mention ridiculous if it is actually published at a site that pretends to be "serious"."

Nonsense. He's paid to do what his boss wants him to do. It seems his boss (the editor) is quite happy with his work. The guys is professional because he is doing his work in a way approved by his boss. Period.

As for the sexism of the Witcher... Well... Geralt seems like a piece of shit. That is all.

But, I love b00bies so it's all good for me; but it certainly isn't mature.

 

[HerbBoyOfBirkenau]

Definitely. Whenever I get a new ignore I get a big erection and fap onto my keyboard. The keys are icky and sticky as we speak. The faint scent of sea water tickles my nostrils.

Dude, vrok, I was never defending gaming journalism, I was just saying that you can not expect any reviewer, if he thinks the first 10 hours sick and the game won't get better, to waste more time on the game. You say it's his job to suffer through; I humbly disagree. There, end of story. Now go back to masturbating into your Witcher DVD case.

Yea vrok, a journalists only job is to review games he thinks are great, and If any part of it isn't perfect he has every right to stop playing 20% of the way through and write the game off as shit. /facepalm

 

[Brother None]

Nonsense. He's paid to do what his boss wants him to do. It seems his boss (the editor) is quite happy with his work. The guys is professional because he is doing his work in a way approved by his boss. Period.

That's a good point, we should rag on Corvus less and the Escapist more

 

[Jasede]

Yes, that's exactly what I said, HBBOB!

 

[Elwro]

I'm still amazed at the level of retardedness of the review.

While I don't object to sexual content in games, I don't enjoy the objectification of women. The Witcher sends a pretty clear and unflattering message about the role of women in the world and in the hero's life. 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.

So what, he'd prefer to play a gay Witcher giving dresses as presents to other men?
I'd also say the game features some strong female characters, definitely not giving the impression that women have to have everything given to them.

 

[vrok]

What's the point? We already know the Escapist is full of shit. Rather beat some sense into the new guy to make him reconsider what he's getting himself into.