Interview The Witcher 2 Interview with Tomasz Gop

[Excidium]

: x

 

[CrimsonAngel]

I registered here just to comment on this awful interview, which I saw linked on another forum.

You could have asked every single one of those questions without coming off as an immature prick.

You negatively framed almost every question, stating your opinion as if it were fact. Furthermore, your petty little rants added absolutely nothing to your questions and, most likely, proved detrimental to getting answers with any substance. You weren't asking 'hard' questions, you were just being a dick.

If you ever get the chance to interview a developer again--and I hope you don't--try growing up a bit and throwing your personal biases to the side for the duration of the interview. You might even get the answers you want without coming off as an aggressive mouth-breathing basement-dweller.

How the fuck are you and why should we give a shit.

 

[CrimsonAngel]

bla bla bla i suck cock for money

So her we have a interview with a a guy who has to deal with a ton of COCK suckers every day and instead of being a strong fair interview you went the route of the hipster douche interview.

THIS THING SUCKED HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIX IT
AND THIS THING ALSO SUCKED
OH AND THIS WAS ASS WHY ARE YOU ALL ASS
YOU WOULD NOT GET IT, BUT THIS THING SUCKED...

Look at me i am Codexer i am non-conformist.

The issue is that you did nothing other then act like a dick.
A way to do this is to alternate between good and bad to create the idea that you are not hating on the game, but actually interested in hearing about what is improved.

Always use somewhat neutral langue because you came of as a cunt more then a person actually interested in any thing.
This is the kind of thing you see all the fucking time for some Angry Joe like internet review when they get a indie game to see.

We are the Codex we need to have some class when it comes to things like this.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

THIS THING SUCKED HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIX IT
AND THIS THING ALSO SUCKED
OH AND THIS WAS ASS WHY ARE YOU ALL ASS
YOU WOULD NOT GET IT, BUT THIS THING SUCKED...

well he was just honest
its fucking difficult to find one single thing that did not suck in twicher 1

before enhanced version i cant think of one element that was properly done in that game...fuuuck they even had to replace trisss tits

 

[Ptosio]

I registered here just to comment on this awful interview, which I saw linked on another forum.

You could have asked every single one of those questions without coming off as an immature prick.

You negatively framed almost every question, stating your opinion as if it were fact. Furthermore, your petty little rants added absolutely nothing to your questions and, most likely, proved detrimental to getting answers with any substance. You weren't asking 'hard' questions, you were just being a dick.

If you ever get the chance to interview a developer again--and I hope you don't--try growing up a bit and throwing your personal biases to the side for the duration of the interview. You might even get the answers you want without coming off as an aggressive mouth-breathing basement-dweller.

Welcome to the codex where they eat...oh, wait.

The interview was poor, but that's because he failed to obtain any new info from Gop. Maybe he stated the wrong question and maybe Gop was just unwilling/unable to answer. Either way, his tone had nothing to do with it.

 

[Severian Silk]

The game sounds like somewhat of an improvement in most areas (that count). But I wouldn't expect the series to diverge much further if there is a third title. I think they've reached their limit in terms of the level of "complexity" they are willing to support. Too bad they automatically equate anything more than a dozen or so endings based on (probably) trivial end-game choices as "sandbox-y".

Unless of course they decide they want to add RTS elements. *shudder*

 

[Lexx]

Wait, the interview questions have been rude? Didn't noticed it until now.

 

[Elwro]

a dozen or so endings based on (probably) trivial end-game choices

Don't we already know there will be variants of whole acts depending on your choices?

 

[Blind Eye]

Jesus Christ, some of you people really disappoint me on a daily basis.

VOD, how very pedestrian.

 

[Tycn]

Fuck "politeness" and "political correctness". If it's true it's true. There's nothing wrong with being critical or even aggressive at times. You think the "people" who run the world give a fuck about politeness?

I think the people who want to see more interviews do.

 

[Azrael the cat]

I'm going to speak up in support of the interviewer here. The only reason why anyone is calling this an aggressive interview is because of how absurdly sycophantic game journalism is compared to any credulous journalism.

Readers in Australia - flick on the 7:30 report, our premier political interview program. Or even flick on Denton's interview program for more of a pop interview show. This so-called 'aggressive' codex interview looks like pure cocksucking compared to that.

Aggressive interviews (and this is NOT an aggressive interview by normal standards) actually help the person being interviewed. Because whether the interviewee likes it or not, there are people out there thinking the same thing, and the interview gives the interviewee a chance to respond.

As in: 'people X,Y,Z, etc think 'The Witcher's [stuff] was shit because [stuff]'. Interviewer asks 'Do you agree that [stuff] was shit? Was it because [stuff]?' Interviewee gets the opportunity to say: 'Actually, I disagree because [reasons], or yes it was crap but we're fixing [stuff] this time in this way'.

A non-aggressive interview does nothing to help the interviewee because persons X,Y,Z haven't had their concerns addressed.

That's how normal journalism proceeds. Watch a good interviewer - fuck, even a CNN interview will do, so long as it isn't a fluff interview. It's utterly incredulous that gaming journalism is so flaccid, so pathetic, so used to being used as promotion instead of rigourous critical examination, that what is essentially a mildly snarky fluff piece, one with nice easy slow-ball deliveries that the developer can gently send over the fence ('will you make combat good this time', developer: 'hmm, what's the right answer for that again...yes?'), can be taken by so many to be an attack piece.

My only complaint is that it wasn't better researched. A critical interview should come armed and worded in a manner that forces substantive answers (or makes clear that the developer is shirking giving a solid answer), whereas this had too many attempted critical questions that were in actuality able to be dispatched with a simple 'we're doing it good this time'.

 

[BelisariuS.F]

During the 'GOG Q&A Session' Gop was looking at the questions and suddenly laughed and said "thank you for sharing your thoughts with us that the axes and daggers sucked in the Witcher 1". So I think that Gop has no problems with taking criticism in the form of "this feature sucked".

 

[odrzut]

I for one think that witchers should be best with the swords, after all they were training with swords since childhood. It makes sense for witchers to suck at using axes.

What sucked in the Witcher was - combat system, invisible walls, loading times.

Small inventory and useless non-witcher weapons are not flaws, these are design decisions, and I can understand why they did that.

 

[Darth Roxor]

It was a good interview, and I think that Gop's answers are all the proof needed to see that he wasn't offended by them in the least, so no harm done, in other words.

Also, this thread is full of gigantic butthurt fanboy faggots M:

 

[DraQ]

I for one think that witchers should be best with the swords, after all they were training with swords since childhood. It makes sense for witchers to suck at using axes.

In such case they shouldn't be even pickable.

Nope, it doesn't really work as an excuse - sure, swords should be your main weapon and the only weapon witchers really shine with, but if other weapons are to be wieldable, there should be a reason for that - maybe make them scenario-centric for a situation when Geralt is deprived of his swords or make them narrow-purpose weapons that may cbe useful in certain situations despite being inferior in general.

Small inventory and useless non-witcher weapons are not flaws, these are design decisions, and I can understand why they did that.

I wholeheartedly agree with small inventory and inferiority of other weapons, but not their uselessness.

 

[Achilles]

I thought the questions were fine. This is the Codex after all, it's supposed to be a bit edgy. The interview was consistent in tone to the news posts, the articles and pretty much everything else.

 

[Surf Solar]

Wait, the interview questions have been rude? Didn't noticed it until now.

Just wanted to ask the same. What the fuck is wrong with you people? The interview was a good and honest one, not "hostile"..

 

[GarfunkeL]

I registered here just to comment on this awful interview, which I saw linked on another forum.

You could have asked every single one of those questions without coming off as an immature prick.

You negatively framed almost every question, stating your opinion as if it were fact. Furthermore, your petty little rants added absolutely nothing to your questions and, most likely, proved detrimental to getting answers with any substance. You weren't asking 'hard' questions, you were just being a dick.

If you ever get the chance to interview a developer again--and I hope you don't--try growing up a bit and throwing your personal biases to the side for the duration of the interview. You might even get the answers you want without coming off as an aggressive mouth-breathing basement-dweller.

DOESN'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN? THE CHILDREN! THINK OF THEM!

 

[DraQ]

If I was TG I would feel insulted by the fact that so many codexers thought I would get butthurt after relatively normal interview.

 

[ironyuri]

If I was TG I would feel insulted by the fact that so many codexers thought I would get butthurt after relatively normal interview.

TG: CODEX THINK I AM SOFT LIKE OVER RIPE POTATO I WILL SHOW CODEX HOW HARD GOP CAN BE : x

 

[made]

More liek:

VoD:

Gop: lul, Codex trying hard to be edgy again. Ah well, where my list of canned PR responses?
Codex: HURRRRR! TRIUMPH OF CODEX JOURNALISM TAKE THAT BUTTHURT FANBOYS!

 

[odrzut]

In such case they shouldn't be even pickable.

Nope, it doesn't really work as an excuse - sure, swords should be your main weapon and the only weapon witchers really shine with, but if other weapons are to be wieldable, there should be a reason for that - maybe make them scenario-centric for a situation when Geralt is deprived of his swords or make them narrow-purpose weapons that may cbe useful in certain situations despite being inferior in general.

In real world when you see sniper rifle left on the street there is nothing that prevents you from picking it up, even if you don't know how to use it - you just won't be able to do much with it in a fight. Message "you are a witcher and you are not able to pick this weapon up" will be stupid and more importantly it will break immersion for me.

CDPR could make it so, that there are no weapons in items left by killed oponent, but that would be weird also (but probably nobody will notice, as we already accept that animals apparently carry money, and killed people are all naked - I've rarely seen cloths in loot).

I wholeheartedly agree with small inventory and inferiority of other weapons, but not their uselessness.

And these weapons are not useless theoreticaly - you can fight with them, you just don't want to, if you have sword available. That's The Right Way IMHO.

 

[1eyedking]

More liek:

VoD:

Gop: lul, Codex trying hard to be edgy again. Ah well, where my list of canned PR responses?
Codex: HURRRRR! TRIUMPH OF CODEX JOURNALISM TAKE THAT BUTTHURT FANBOYS!

 

[Forest Dweller]

I agree with everything that Azrael said.

And what's this bullshit about an interview needing to be unbiased? Every interviewer brings his own baggage and personal opinions to the table. As a Codex interview, it SHOULD give Codex opinions and it SHOULD let the interviewee know our perspective. A Codex interview should have the aim of informing us CODEXERS information on the game that other interviewers either don't have the balls or are too stupid to ask. And there's no way to do that without letting them know where we are coming from (if they don't know already). And besides, what are we supposed to do: instead of saying "this feature sucked" say "there were some people who didn't like that feature," when if the interviewee is at all knowledgable about this site, he knows full well that by "some people" we actually mean US? How absurd is that?

Let's leave the completely neutral, room-to-wiggle-around-in interviews to all the other sites out there. We're the Codex so ours should be different. If there's nothing new to bring to the table then we shouldn't do an interview in the first place. And that actually is what's wrong with this interview: it doesn't really give us anything new. If anything the questions could have been worded with more opinions and in a way to give less wiggle room. I'm not sure what I would have asked though; in my opinion they've pretty much already answered any questions I might have had. Regardless, VOD, I'd be interested to see the responses to Gop's answers that you sent him, if you still have them.

 

[DraQ]

In real world when you see sniper rifle left on the street there is nothing that prevents you from picking it up, even if you don't know how to use it - you just won't be able to do much with it in a fight.

The point is that The Witcher is already a story driven game with predefined protagonist and as such it already limits our options greatly - see the number of fucktards complaining about being unable to kill Alvin*.

Spoiler

Apart from endgame, that is .

So-called "storyfag RPGs" have naturally limited scope, and some things simply lie beyond it.

Message "you are a witcher and you are not able to pick this weapon up" will be stupid and more importantly it will break immersion for me.

Why even have a message? Just don't make dropped weapons of other types pickups - halberds dropped by guards already work this way IIRC, though there is no actual reason why Geralt shouldn't be able to pick up.

OR, which would be preferable route, make other weapons highly useful in very specific situations despite not being Geralt's weapons of choice - I think CDPR tried to follow this route - for example torch was actually useful against echinopses in the first game, but it could still use some work, as I don't recall, for example, using axes, even against enemies with shields.

(but probably nobody will notice, as we already accept that animals apparently carry money, and killed people are all naked - I've rarely seen cloths in loot).

Well, if you want wide array of options, including stripping dead of their garments, you have Morrowind - an open, sandbox-like RPG. As for the money most good games thankfully taylor drops to the creatures - for example, in Morrowind you generally don't find anything unexpected on any corpse (barring certain bear belching fireballs at you in Bloodmoon, which turns out to have eaten some adventurer with a ring of fireballs - you can find both the ring and remains in bear's stomach), in Witcher money can only be found on humans and certain ex-human monsters (like drowners), and so on - makes the fact that animals started dropping gold and lockpicks in oblivious all the more lulzy and inexplicable.

I wholeheartedly agree with small inventory and inferiority of other weapons, but not their uselessness.

And these weapons are not useless theoreticaly - you can fight with them, you just don't want to, if you have sword available. That's The Right Way IMHO.

That's not the right way since you always have a sword available, and they barely serve any purpose. Right way would be either discarding them altogether as they fall outside the scope of the game, or give them specific purposes, like CDPR already did with the torch.