Review The Escapist bitch-slaps The Witcher

[KazikluBey]

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

It says on the reviewer's blog that the Witcher was his first paid review.

 

[JarlFrank]

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.

Hahahahaha

Giving women presents is a bad thing! If you give a woman a present you show her that she is only a worthless sex-object, because, of course, men don't just give presents to women if they don't think that the woman will give them an instant blowjob for that!

 

[Elwro]

Editor's Pride

I guess our definitions of reviews differ, is all. I look at them as a person's opinion about what he likes. I'm not sure to what standard you hold reviews, but getting semantic about how we choose to categorize something isn't the best argument to take, mostly because I don't think your opinion of the article would change if we called it anything else.

Overall, I don't see the problem. Corvus wrote his opinion, admitted to not getting all the way through the game (trust me, many reviewers don't finish games and don't bother mentioning it) and explained why he stopped playing. You may disagree, but at the very least it's honest. Beats giving it an 8.5 because they bought ads and a lot of other people seem to like it, don't you think?

I don't have time to go there... It's hopeless anyway. Still, kudos to Brother None for his efforts!

 

[Jasede]

...!
Holy -shit-.

I'll become a full-time internet game reviewer. BRB.

 

[Gosling]

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.

Games can only have sexual intercourse if there's a 10-hour 1000-page romance storyline preceding it because that's what real roleplaying is about. Lesbian romances are also a must because they counterbalance the male chauvinistic side.

 

[MasPingon]

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.

First of all, who said 10 first hours of TW sucks??Well, besides Escapist? Yeah, prolog sucks a big time, but it's about an hour.

 

[Herbert West]

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.

Hahahahaha

Giving women presents is a bad thing! If you give a woman a present you show her that she is only a worthless sex-object, because, of course, men don't just give presents to women if they don't think that the woman will give them an instant blowjob for that!

Oh dear me... I'm such a filthy pig. Do compliments count too? I should propably be put to death then.

Leaving b00bs for a second, I'd just like to add that a good review is a review that describes as many vices and virtues of a game as possible, because I, as a reader am trusting the author to provide me with information. Information that will influence how i spend my hard-earned money. Describing 20% of a game does not give me anywhere near enough info. This is a very bad review, period!

 

[errorcode]

sorry, i'm with Corvus on this one.

The Witcher just wasn't that impressive. Maybe it's because i tried it with all the hype and bullshit that i've been reading on here in my head. But it was clunky, the voice acting did suck (not all of it, but enough to be noticeably annoying when it happened), the translation was piss-poor and made any desire i had to follow the story wither on the vine, and the combat mechanics were thoroughly 'Meh'.

I didn't need 10 hours for me to realize that A) It was a decent premise fucked by poor translation and spotty execution B) This game wasn't worth the masturbatory postings it's been getting on here.

Did it have cool parts? sure. Were those cool parts enough to warrant investing my time in the game? Not for me.

 

[Herbert West]

sorry, i'm with Corvus on this one.

The Witcher just wasn't that impressive. Maybe it's because i tried it with all the hype and bullshit that i've been reading on here in my head. But it was clunky, the voice acting did suck (not all of it, but enough to be noticeably annoying when it happened), the translation was piss-poor and made any desire i had to follow the story wither on the vine, and the combat mechanics were thoroughly 'Meh'.

I didn't need 10 hours for me to realize that A) It was a decent premise fucked by poor translation and spotty execution B) This game wasn't worth the masturbatory postings it's been getting on here.

Did it have cool parts? sure. Were those cool parts enough to warrant investing my time in the game? Not for me.

I somewhat agree with you- I found the translation and some writing to be bad, but I'm very demanding in this department. Also execution was someties shabby, but I blame that on lack of developer experience. Those things should knock some points of this game's score. All in all however the game was very satisying for me.
Do those obvious shortcomings justify the reviewer screwing up the job he got paid for? Hell, no!

 

[Gosling]

I think one of the reasons the reviewer did not speak about C&C in the game is because this feature is not obvious. There are no big hints that point at the possible dramatic branching of the main story. In fact the game seems quite linear and the choices - cosmetic, until you bother to replay it in a different manner or just read the forums to learn how different were the other gamers' experiences.
Naturally a journalist should "know" about one of the game's most advertised selling points or at least notice it by looking up some additional info before writing the review. But apparently a guy who thinks it perfectly viable to scribble a review based on 10 hours of gameplay didn't bother doing any research.

 

[Texas Red]

Lets ignore the realities. When making an RPG set in the 18th century America, we should include businesswomen and female generals, while niggers running for the parlamanents. Rich elite should also go around adressing blacks as "African Americans". TW is based on some of the aspects of medieval European world, dont expect it to be a happy Disney land of the American Dream.

Such reviewers piss me off. How many loyal readers watch for daily updates on the Escapist, discover that some game is apparently not worth playing, and agree without taking any further interest in it? The contrast of opinions regarding TW from average gamers and the journalist is a clear indication that theyre fucking idiots.

Also: The voice acting in TW cant possibly be any better. Its superb.

 

[One-guy]

So it's childish to criticize those boobie cards? And according to you they are added to portray a "mature" and "serious" world? Yeah, the teenagers drooling over their keyboards are experiencing a grim and brutal world for sure.

.

Ok, i said that before, but i'll repeat. Those "sexcards" maybe are retarded, but all sexuality implanted to the game was a part of Sapkowski's novel. Maybe this guy is a pervert, i dont know, but dont say that all this stuff was put there to increasing saling, CUZ ITS JUST A BULLSHIT!!! It was implanted only, becouse sexual elements were clearly seen in novels.

errorcode: You dont have to sorry for that. This is game kinda "love it or hate it". If you played it and you didnt like it...i dont see nothing wrong [more retarded, if you didnt play and criticise it]

 

[vrok]

Did it have cool parts? sure. Were those cool parts enough to warrant investing my time in the game? Not for me.

Did you write a review? No. Then what's your point? Oh, you didn't have one.

 

[Elwro]

What's wrong with errorcode expressing his opinion?

 

[Herbert West]

Oh, the drama. This thread is showing much unexpected promise, since it started as another bash-a-journalist one (albet mostly justified).

 

[Crolug]

I just can't understand why first 10 hours of TW sucks? I saw this opinion quite often and I don't agree with it at all. There must be something really, really bad going on in translation/voice acting department because I play original, Polish version and I can't understand what's wrong with first 10 hours! There ARE flaws, sure, but dialogs and some of the voice acting are just brilliant. The humor also was great, although I laughed mostly in Acts 2 and 3, first 10 hours also got its moments. So please, all English version owners speak up and tell me more about first 10 hours, where's the 'suckness' over there?

50% of Daikatana? Dude, you're comparing reviewing FPS to RPG? C'mon. I can say FPS is nothing new after playing the demo, I won't be able to tell so with RPG. What about c&c, character development, sudden plot changes, hell, maybe some nice quests on the way too?

I won't say the reviewer sucks nor do the site but the review itself is pile of ballocks. There's a difference with expressing your opinion, like Corvus was justifying himself, and writing a decent review imo. There's something more to reviewing than saying 'this game sucks dick'. There's a place in the boards for that not in the review. Correct me if my understanding of the word 'review' is bad, but this text should cover as much aspects of the game as possible.

Yes, I do think reviewer should watch all the movie, read all the book and play all the game to review it goddamit. At least it's the way I was taught over the years reading Polish game magazines... Maybe it's just us over here?

And the objectifying of women aspect just knocks me off my feet. As I can agree that those cards are not necessary but the rest of the issue is right in place. So what? Being racist in-game or just bad motherfucker is right, but scoring some women is not? Why? Because sexism is hot topic in USA right now and you want to show the world how modern and political correct are you? Fuck you with your hypocrisy. The Witcher world is a game, an imaginary, computer based place of several unsolved issues ffs. And besides, Geralt itself is objectified and fucked up by several groups of power there as much as he objectifies and fucks women so I suggest just ban the goddamn game because it seems it's all about fucking, that way or another...

 

[Brother None]

It's like a beautiful dance

There's a growing trend in games to hold the word "journalism" up to some unrealistic standard like "Jedi Knight" or "Moderate Republican," which I find utterly ridiculous. At a time when practically anyone can create a blog and share their opinions and experiences, it's incomprehensible to me why some people find it necessary to engage in debate over what's journalism and who qualifies for that title.

Either it's all journalism or it isn't. A journalist is nothing more or less than someone who opens oneself to an experience and then shares it. We'd be doing ourselves a grave disservice to ascribe any more meaning to the word than that, and disqualifying many of the world's greatest writers in the process.

That's not to say one shouldn't have standards about what content one chooses to digest, but attempting to invalidate the opinion of others by questioning their "lack of journalism" is disingenuous, pointless and lame. It's akin to employing the phrase "uh-uh" in a debate, and I tend not to listen to such attacks when they are levied against me.

I LOL'd.

 

[Otingocni]

CorvusE, let me say this plainly: Fuck you, you sanctimonious ass.

I know you are reading this, I always thought you were, tracing the comments back to RPGCodex is no mean feat after all. At any point you are free to enter the conversation, so it is hardly behind your back is it? If you dare defend yourself someplace where you do not have control over the conversation is another matter. So continue with your one-sided comments on The Escapist, after all, anyone who responds in kind will be banned. Nice to know The Escapist editors do not bother applying the forum rules evenly.

If you want to speak down to me, cocksucker, do it some place where I get banned for the exact same behaviors you get away freely with. Consider this an open invitation to enter the conversation, unless a few naughty words are too much for a pretty literary guy like yourself. You can invite that waste of space Russ Pitts as well.

 

[Elwro]

@BN: A dance with a shovel, digging a grave for a once good site with every successive post.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

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.

First of all, who said 10 first hours of TW sucks??Well, besides Escapist? Yeah, prolog sucks a big time, but it's about an hour.

Act 1 isn't horrible, but it's mostly "go here, talk to the guy, kill the monster" quests until the end of Act 1.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

CorvusE, let me say this plainly: Fuck you, you sanctimonious ass.

I know you are reading this, I always thought you were, tracing the comments back to RPGCodex is no mean feat after all. At any point you are free to enter the conversation, so it is hardly behind your back is it? If you dare defend yourself someplace where you do not have control over the conversation is another matter. So continue with your one-sided comments on The Escapist, after all, anyone who responds in kind will be banned. Nice to know The Escapist editors do not bother applying the forum rules evenly.

If you want to speak down to me, cocksucker, do it some place where I get banned for the exact same behaviors you get away freely with. Consider this an open invitation to enter the conversation, unless a few naughty words are too much for a pretty literary guy like yourself. You can invite that waste of space Russ Pitts as well.

INTERNET DRAMA!

I agree with you, though.

 

[Herbert West]

There's a growing trend in games to hold the word "journalism" up to some unrealistic standard like "Jedi Knight" or "Moderate Republican," which I find utterly ridiculous. At a time when practically anyone can create a blog and share their opinions and experiences, it's incomprehensible to me why some people find it necessary to engage in debate over what's journalism and who qualifies for that title.

Either it's all journalism or it isn't.

Well, it's really simple. It's your choice wheter you want to be shit or you aim higher. The logic "there's so much shit arround that being shit isn't really bad" speaks a lot about that guy's ambitions and his self-respect.

 

[Brother None]

Huh, I'm banned, "again". I don't actually remember a first time, but just might be my slippy memory. (though amusingly, if I were banned before, that was actually due to criticising Pitts' own Fallout 3 preview, which was really quite bad)

Or perhaps I ignore questions of my journalistic integrity because I'm confident enough in my qualifications and abilities to not need reassurance from the peanut gallery that I'm doing the right thing.

Either way you're banned. Again. Because I'm also confident in my ability to detect a forum troll, and you're it. You're a very clever troll, but a troll nonetheless and like I said the last time I banned you, we just don't need that around here.

Go figure. I'm actually a paid journalist with more academic qualifications than most, yet I'm a part of "the peanut gallery".

And this confirms it, since I haven't actually been accused of trolling since, like, 1999, except on the Bethesda forums: criticising the Escapist is now trolling.

A shame. I really liked that site before this nonsense and the nonsense surrounding Fallout 3.

Oh well, I'll just stick to Zero Punctuation. Still a brilliant feature to have

 

[Gosling]

Shit, Russ Pits has just banned Brother None. This drama is getting fucking epic.

EDIT: too late with my comments, again.

 

[vrok]

I can't blame Corvus for being just another clueless reviewer, but that Russ Pitts guy... He seems to be evil (stupid) gaming journalism personified. That he even compares the Escapist to blogs is hilarious to say the least, though I guess that clarifies his expectations when it comes to writing material.