Why are The Witcher 2 fans so defensive?

Recommended Videos

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
Lizmichi said:
LordRoyal said:
PrinceOfShapeir said:
The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.
It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.
Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.
The first game also had the same "Humans - Steel, Monsters - Silver" plus it included characters, settings, monsters, etc from the novels. All of which expanded upon things seen in the novels...

Really the first game is for fans of the novels and anyone who likes good RPGs. If they want to stay true to them I don't understand why they should suddenly forsake lore for simplicity. I didn't mind the Silver sword vs the Steel sword thing as it has been mentioned it is ridiculously easy to switch weapons.
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
synobal said:
Lizmichi said:
LordRoyal said:
PrinceOfShapeir said:
The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.
It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.
Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.
Actually it was exactly like that in the first game.
Yeah... the first game had both. Also they do allude to it in tW2 at least a couple times that his silver sword can take care of monsters, or that this or that monster is vulnerable to silver.

But put that aside, because it doesn't even matter when Geralt automatically pulls out the proper sword in combat.
 

Lizmichi

Detective Prince
Jul 2, 2009
4,809
0
0
synobal said:
Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.
The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
mikozero said:
"The sex thing makes the game look immature." well maybe if your the kind of person that giggles with their hand over their mouth at sex but in most countries bar the US it's an 18 rated game and besides which you can easily play all the way through it without even coming close to having sex....or y'know, blow all your money on hookers...either way.
I still miss the sex cards from the first game, added a sort of style to the game.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,188
0
0
Wolfram01 said:
synobal said:
Lizmichi said:
LordRoyal said:
PrinceOfShapeir said:
The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.
It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.
Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.
Actually it was exactly like that in the first game.
Yeah... the first game had both. Also they do allude to it at least a couple times that his silver sword can take care of monsters, or that this or that monster is vulnerable to steel.

But put that aside, because it doesn't even matter when Geralt automatically pulls out the proper sword in combat.
He does the same thing for me in the Witcher 2, the only time I run into combat with the wrong sword is when I already have the wrong sword out. Like coming from beating some bandits to going to fight Nekkers. So it's exactly like the Witcher 1 in that respect
 

The_ModeRazor

New member
Jul 29, 2009
2,835
0
0
Because the game is actually shit, and instead of accepting it, they do everything in their power to delude themselves. As such, they must fiercely hate anyone who points it out to them.

I played it until Henselt dude was murdered and I went to some important place. It ain't no fun. Characterisation and story are acceptable, but the gameplay is pure shit. Nice graphics tho.

And now, to prove that I am correct and everyone who disagrees is wrong, I will list a couple artsy and great games that I played and loved so I must obviously be an expert. Like Psychonauts which I never played or whatever. Blarghity blargh blargh. Burn.
 

Lizmichi

Detective Prince
Jul 2, 2009
4,809
0
0
synobal said:
Lizmichi said:
LordRoyal said:
PrinceOfShapeir said:
The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.
It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.
Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.
Actually it was exactly like that in the first game.
Then the game is poorly ported over to a video game. It's a fan game for fans of a book in a world of video game fans.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,852
0
0
First of all, I like the Witcher 2. So now that that's out of the way, I'll continue:

1)If someone doesn't like a game you like, realize that THEIR opinion doesn't actually detract from YOUR enjoyment of it. You really don't need a whole group of people agreeing with you that something is great for you to enjoy it. You CAN enjoy things that other people (or even MOST PEOPLE) don't like! Yeah! And here's something that you might find SHOCKING: Other people can dislike things that you like! I know that's a bit much to handle all at once, but it's the truth! Really!

2) Believe it or not, some people might not like the same things you like for legitimate reasons.

3) There will always be negative reviews of games. No game has ever received 100% positive reviews. If a game is good, then you don't have to be "worried" about bad reviews "destroying" it.

4) At the end of the day.... it is just a game.

Young people (10~25, and I'm in that range), especially these days, haven't experienced much of life. We are sheltered, for the most part. Those who have the money to afford video games have a pampered, privileged existence (I count myself in that category). To be blunt: we're emotionally and intellectually immature, for the most part, trying to form identities for ourselves.

Most people, rather than looking within for an identity, choose to look outside themselves, at pop culture. They latch on to certain genres, console platforms, developers, etc, and they start to identify strongly with those products. Rather than see these products as.... just entertainment products (which is what they are, just products), they see them as a critical part of their identity and lifestyle. When they see or hear someone attack a product that they have incorporated within their identity, they feel as if they are being attacked as well.

It's a childish reaction. You are not a game. Criticism of the game is not criticism of you. If you enjoyed it, and someone else didn't, please realize that they are speaking negatively about the game, not you, and that their negative experience doesn't somehow invalidate your positive experience. It's psychology 101, people - you need to realize the faulty emotions that go on within your brain, so that you can control those emotions and fight them.

Then there are those people for which Video Games are their entire life. They have few (or no) friends, they have no other hobbies, they don't really do anything except play games, think about playing games and earning money to play games. Usually these are the younger folks, still in school, who don't have to worry about jobs and stuff. These games make up a big part of their life. Trust me, I've been down this dark path. They derive such satisfaction and emotional wellbeing from the game (because they don't get it from anywhere else) that they start to almost worship the game as a source of happiness. When someone comes along and says that they don't like it, it's almost like they are being told that their "religion" or "lifestyle" or "life philosophy" is wrong, and they react very negatively to it.

To sum up: Defensiveness comes from two things:

1) Emotionally immature gamers who invest WAAAAAAAYYYYY too much emotion into the franchise because they don't have anything else to care about (like careers, family members, spouses, high-ideals or, in general, life)
2) From people who incorporate the game/developer/product has part of their identity. Attack the product/developer/game, and they feel as if you are attacking them and their choices. It's tribalism 101.

Reflect on your emotions - you know what I've said is true. I like games. I play games. But I have a career, an education and a life outside games. I have a proper perspective. Games are ONE part of my life, but they are NOT my entire life. If someone criticizes a game I like (and I like the Witcher 2), you know what I do? I do the mature thing: I simply don't care!
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
Lizmichi said:
synobal said:
Lizmichi said:
LordRoyal said:
PrinceOfShapeir said:
The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.
It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.
Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.
Actually it was exactly like that in the first game.
Then the game is poorly ported over to a video game. It's a fan game for fans of a book in a world of video game fans.
So including detail from the lore in their game automatically makes it "poorly ported"? How would you have gone past the whole "Silver is for monsters" thing that has been in fantasy lore since werewolf myths that was explained pretty clearly in the novels besides dumbing down everything?

Bare in mind that the Witcher 1 wasn't an AAA list release, it ran on an outdated engine for the time with it's relatively low budget shining through at several points. Alienating your fans is the wrong thing to do in this circumstance.

Lizmichi said:
synobal said:
Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.
The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.
The problem being is that Dragon Age 2 played more like a Hack and Slash with badly placed RPG elements. Origins pulled off being an RPG relatively well but Dragon Age 2 immediately showed how much of a cashout it was pretty early on.

Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.
 

Lizmichi

Detective Prince
Jul 2, 2009
4,809
0
0
LordRoyal said:
Lizmichi said:
LordRoyal said:
PrinceOfShapeir said:
The Silver Sword/Steel Sword thing was pointless. It wasn't like there was ever a question as to which would be effective in a given situation. Humans & Humanlikes - Steel, Monsters - Silver. It didn't add tactical depth, it was just annoying.
It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.
Yea but how many have read the books? The context is gone from the game if you haven't read the books. It wasn't like that in the first game so why add it now? What works with books might not work with a game.
The first game also had the same "Humans - Steel, Monsters - Silver" plus it included characters, settings, monsters, etc from the novels. All of which expanded upon things seen in the novels...

Really the first game is for fans of the novels and anyone who likes good RPGs. If they want to stay true to them I don't understand why they should suddenly forsake lore for simplicity. I didn't mind the Silver sword vs the Steel sword thing as it has been mentioned it is ridiculously easy to switch weapons.
Yes but people also need to have context of why it is that way. I don't want to have to read a book to understand a game. That's ridiculous and what works in a book may not work in a game.
 

Luthir Fontaine

New member
Oct 16, 2010
323
0
0
GreatTeacherCAW said:
I think the better question is: "Why are gamers so defensive?" I've noticed that most gamers are extremely annoying and whine about pretty much everything they can think of when it comes to something they hate, then go into ultimate rage when someone doesn't like what they like. For a sect that wants to be taken seriously, it is rather hilarious how childish and retarded they can be.
No offense but its not just "Gamers" go talk to a yankees fan or Heat fan they well piss in your ear for hours on end how great thier team is and deny to the grave anything bad. Hell football hooligans well kill you for saying something bad about thier teams.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,188
0
0
Lizmichi said:
synobal said:
Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.
The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.
I compared DA 2 to it's predecessor DA:O and it fell so far short in my eyes. I know a lot of people liked DA 2, had it been released prior to DA:0 or simply been it's own title and not as a dragon age title or something that said 'hey are aren't even expanding on DA:O' I would of been less critical on it.
 

LostAlone

New member
Sep 3, 2010
281
0
0
Luthir Fontaine said:
I can kind of see why.....Witcher 2 requires thought and trail/error not to many games like that anymore...
Trial and error essentially equates to bad game design. Or at least it is a symptom.

When trial and error means 'It takes a few times to find the perfect strategy for defeating this one enemy/area/boss, but brute force works ok too if your willing to utterly deplete your healing resources' then its not a big deal.

If trial and error means 'The only way to move forward to die over and over while trying things essentially at random until something sticks' then the designers should be ashamed of themselves.

I get the impression that The Witcher is of the ilk that continually puts you in situations where you need to have already done something specific before you get there, but there's no reasonable way to know that before you get there. If that's not true, then I apologies but that's the impression I get.

Save scumming (ie quick saving every ten seconds) is not something that a game should expect you to do in this day and age. That kind of game play is just not fun. Its barely even a game at that point. You never actually 'play' for more than a few moments, and you don't succeed because you are any good, its just pure persistence. When you are playing that way, there is no aspect of timing or skill or ability. There is no way you can fail, there is just time. The best you get is perfecting the game, and thats not fun to me.
 

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
Out of habit, I always read the manual, even when it's a damn pamphlet. Sometimes it's necessary, but my true console moron friends will ask me how to do basic things on games we both own and I'll just tell them to read the manual. They normally say, "Very funny. Now how do I throw grenades?"(or something else similarly easy)

Personally, I think it's got less to do with wanting your hand held and more a case of couldn't be arsed to actually read a few pages.

EDIT: Though my friends may be a particularly stupid and/or lazy bunch.
 

Lizmichi

Detective Prince
Jul 2, 2009
4,809
0
0
LordRoyal said:
Lizmichi said:
synobal said:
Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.
The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.
The problem being is that Dragon Age 2 played more like a Hack and Slash with badly placed RPG elements. Origins pulled off being an RPG relatively well but Dragon Age 2 immediately showed how much of a cashout it was pretty early on.

Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.
And I didn't mind that at all. I still enjoyed DA2 and I know the issues with DA2 but it's not stopping me from liking it. All that matters to me is if I enjoy it and I did.
 

Luthir Fontaine

New member
Oct 16, 2010
323
0
0
mikozero said:
"The sex thing makes the game look immature." well maybe if your the kind of person that giggles with their hand over their mouth at sex but in most countries bar the US it's an 18 rated game and besides which you can easily play all the way through it without even coming close to having sex....or y'know, blow all your money on hookers...either way.
People like that annoy the hell out of me. Yes its sex, Yes people have sex, grow up.

See some one get burnt alive = yawn seen it before

See a couple having sex = alert Fox News!
 

Lordpils

New member
Aug 3, 2009
411
0
0
Blend said:
The Witcher 2 fans aren't defensive. FANS are defensive. It's bizarre to me how you are just noticing this with respect to this one game. I'd guess this is the first time you are on the opposite side of the argument.

Fans are always defensive of what they love with the level/insanity of the defensiveness inversely related to mainstream opinions.

Sorry I couldn't read all of A, probably a B person but was just responding to the general premise of the thread anyway.
I am a fan of Okami, but you don't see me telling someone they are retarded lunatics for not enjoying it. Some fanbases tend to be more rabid then others (though there are always fans within one group or another who tend to be more or less reasonable then the average) some fans will politely disagree with your position or will say that they believe the good outweighs the bad, others will tell you that you should be crusified for daring to insult their perfect game even if all you said was it wasn't your cup of tea.
The issue is with people who either don't understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity or are insecure in their love of the game.
 

LordRoyal

New member
May 13, 2011
403
0
0
Lizmichi said:
LordRoyal said:
Lizmichi said:
synobal said:
Well the ZP review was inaccurate and whiny. Mostly though I defend it because I think it's a genuinely good game and doesn't suffer from most the afflictions that are coming to the RPG genre lately. Just take a look at DA2 to see what I mean.
The thing is I love DA2 and I'm not correcting people on how they feel about the game. He has a right to feel what he feels on the game. Just because something was good in an old RPG doesn't mean it works now. Now some old game elements might now work and it's not just because games are being dumbed down. I grew up playing RPGs and I like the new RPGs a bit more then the old games.
The problem being is that Dragon Age 2 played more like a Hack and Slash with badly placed RPG elements. Origins pulled off being an RPG relatively well but Dragon Age 2 immediately showed how much of a cashout it was pretty early on.

Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.
And I didn't mind that at all. I still enjoyed DA2 and I know the issues with DA2 but it's not stopping me from liking it. All that matters to me is if I enjoy it and I did.
And yet your willing to look over the glaring large problems of DA2 and yet whine incessantly that the Witcher 2 gives you two different kinds of swords your player character selects automatically in combat?
 

Jeffrey Rodriguez

New member
Apr 17, 2011
32
0
0
It's fanboys what do you expect they can whine about pretty much anything. Especially PC fanboys an overly aggressive bunch since they don't have allot to embrace in today's market. people should learn to just be regular fans, enjoy what they like and let other people criticize any game they like even if they don't agree.
 

Luthir Fontaine

New member
Oct 16, 2010
323
0
0
LostAlone said:
Luthir Fontaine said:
I can kind of see why.....Witcher 2 requires thought and trail/error not to many games like that anymore...
Trial and error essentially equates to bad game design. Or at least it is a symptom.

When trial and error means 'It takes a few times to find the perfect strategy for defeating this one enemy/area/boss, but brute force works ok too if your willing to utterly deplete your healing resources' then its not a big deal.

If trial and error means 'The only way to move forward to die over and over while trying things essentially at random until something sticks' then the designers should be ashamed of themselves.

I get the impression that The Witcher is of the ilk that continually puts you in situations where you need to have already done something specific before you get there, but there's no reasonable way to know that before you get there. If that's not true, then I apologies but that's the impression I get.

Save scumming (ie quick saving every ten seconds) is not something that a game should expect you to do in this day and age. That kind of game play is just not fun. Its barely even a game at that point. You never actually 'play' for more than a few moments, and you don't succeed because you are any good, its just pure persistence. When you are playing that way, there is no aspect of timing or skill or ability. There is no way you can fail, there is just time. The best you get is perfecting the game, and thats not fun to me.
No offense but it sounds like you have never played it so its hard to describe what is great/crap about it to you