Why are The Witcher 2 fans so defensive?

[Worgen]

because its the type of game that alot of gamers have been waiting for along time to have again, thats why there was so much bile directed at da2, its because there havent really been many hardcore fantasy games in along time, da was kind of one and so is the witcher series and anything that someone else does to try and dismiss games like that, possibly back to them not making them again is seen as a threat

 

[DustyDrB]

I feel like this is just part of a larger issue. PC Gamers seem more on edge this year. I'm not saying they don't have their reasons, but there's just been a lot more hostility between console gamers and PC gamers than ever in my memory. I think of myself as a generally even-keeled and reasonable guy, but I've found myself growing tired (and a bit angry) of this childish back and forth.

The Witcher 2, even though its coming to the Xbox 360 later this year, seems to be a title that many PC gamers and more old school RPG enthusiasts (even though The Witcher 2 isn't all that old school) are standing behind as an example against games like Dragon Age II (which is seen as overly simplified and consolified by many). Notice how any discussion of The Witcher 2 will turn into at least a small scale bashing of Dragon Age II.

I can understand PC gamers some, having only recently tried to play Baldur's Gate and seeing the complexity of it and also realizing that the Dragon Age series was promoted as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. I get that many people feel jilted and lied to. But it's really getting hard for me to care, or to sympathize with them. Against my better instincts, the constant belittling of many of the more militant PC gamers has jaded me against them.

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.

It played nothing like a hack and slash. Have you ever even played a hack and slash game? There are legitimate criticisms of Dragon Age II[footnote]Enemies in waves. Over recycled environments. A shitty ending (the fantasy Nazis are right!) and an extremely awkward and forced end to the second act (with Leandra, not the Qunari). Ignoring some potential player choices from Origins. And Fenris. Just...Fenris.[/footnote], but this one is just wrong.

 

[linwolf]

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.

But it do work, it work well and give the game a bigger sense off immersion.

And really silver against monsters makes sense but silver against human not so must so it isn't really that hard to get you head around.

 

[LordRoyal]

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.

None taken. I am qualified as a gamer, and a baseball fan. I love the White Sox, so I am constantly defending that team. However, there-in lies the difference. "Team." It's a competitive sport, not just some thing that someone likes. I don't think I can compare Witcher 2 to the Yankees. You don't go to stadiums to watch a video game actively compete against another video game.

You do see the developers attempt to outsell each other. It is still a competition, just in sales

 

[Kecunk]

I think its that PC gamers tried to make the witcher 2 into the poster game for PC > Console. So if it turns out that it is not the greatest game ever made they kind of take it as a blow to the ego.

 

[Lizmichi]

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.

and why doesn't Legolas have a machine gun ! he could kill way more Orcs if he had a machine gun !

.................. Because it doesn't fit with the Lord of the Rings. You can have one sword and it would fit in the Witcher.

 

[Xanadu84]

I think it's because while streamlining is one of the best things to happen to games, complex systems should not be completely tossed out the window. If it occurs to you that you like Pizza slightly better then you like Chinese, it would be foolish to dismiss the idea of ever eating Chinese again, and eating Pizza 7 nights a week. So people who like these meaty, complex games feel the need to defend there preference for fear of losing something they love forever. Shortcomings, particularly shortcomings that framed within the confines of, "Too confusing", look like an attempt to kill the complex games they love. And I hate to say it, but there fear isn't entirely unfounded. Who is going to argue both for a continuation of more complex games, and at the same time, say that one of the few games that sticks to complexity has problems with being confusing?

 

[Lizmichi]

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?

In DA2 you don't have to switch between swords to kill a human and say a darkspawn. It breaks flow for me. Now I don't call this whining at all. I can not stand the Witcher, I was bored, that's what bothers me the most. I can dislike something and not be whining. I have many things I dislike about the Witcher and I'm not going after you for disliking the Witcher. Please give me the same.

 

[Kair]

It's the only appealing hardcore RPG out there at the moment. I liked The Witcher 1 so much, I was happy to see that The Witcher 2 was so similar. It is very hard though, a lot harder than the first one.

 

[Zeriu]

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 do 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!

You cared enough to write a whole wall of text, so your bravado doesn't impress me.
A game these days is more than just a game. Games are capable of being an artform as valid as music or movies. We like certain games not just because we like how they play. That's just like watching movies for the explosions or fight scenes. Sure we like them, but sometimes you need to feel something else from experiencing games, music or movies besides simple fun.
P.S. I like the game too.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

This isn't the first time I've noticed this, but for The Witcher 2 it seemed like fans are strongly and condescendingly arguing down people who didn't like it, whereas the usual defensive fans are easier to ignore.

I guess that's the difference between a PC elitist and a mindless fanboy.

 

[Korolev]

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.

I agree! Football fans, video game fans.... it's all the same: Tribalism. Emphasizing petty little differences because they need to form an identity. People have done this throughout the ages.

It's stupid regardless of how it manifests itself. It's stupid when people make such a fuss over silly things like Skin Colour, Football Clubs, Video games, or music genres. There are many serious things in life, and many silly little inconsequential things in life. Caring about the serious stuff is hard and difficult. Making a fuss over the silly things is easy and allows them to latch onto a pop culture phenomenon in order to craft a pseudo-identity because their own lives are dreadfully hollow.

Let me be even blunter than I was: If you really think which football club you support matters AT ALL in the grand scheme of things, you haven't really ever lived. If you think that just because some guy on the web makes fun of a game you like or gives it a bad score is something to get legitimately upset over, then your world view is pitifully small.

There are people being shelled by tanks in Syria. In Libya, soldiers are, by order, raping dissidents and opponents of Gaddafi. There are hundreds of thousands of people dying ever year around the world because they can't get an easily produced vaccine. Gays have been BURIED UP TILL THEIR WAISTS AND STONED TO DEATH IN IRAN. Soldiers and Afghan civilians are being killed every day in Afghanistan.

If you choose to channel your rage and angst and emotions into a discussion on what score a reviewer gave to a video game.... what kind of a life are you living? Can it be called a life? Think about that for a second. Really.

This world is so vast. CERN, Thermodynamics, Protein biology, Cosmology, Roman History, Chinese History, Music, Paintings, The Barrier Reef, the huge existence of this world, the sheer breathtaking wonder of the vastness of the galaxy and the cosmos and the weight of human history and human suffering and happiness, of human triumph and despair.... and you choose to push your anger and angst into a bad score for a video game you like? How old are you? How mature are you?

Being angry about the suppression of your legal rights is okay. Being angry, literally ANGRY over a negative score for a video game that you play for a week of your life in your leisure time? You're gonna be upset over that?

This world is so, so, so much bigger than video games. And it's right outside your door, or it can be found in any manner of books you can get free from your library.

I'll tell you this. In fact, I'll make a bet: I'll bet that if you read one of two of these books: "Humanity" by Jonathan Glover or "A problem from Hell" by Samantha Power, you will realize how silly it is to get angry over a few bad reviews about a video game.

 

[LordRoyal]

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.

and why doesn't Legolas have a machine gun ! he could kill way more Orcs if he had a machine gun !

.................. Because it doesn't fit with the Lord of the Rings. You can have one sword and it would fit in the Witcher.

In the novels one of the first short stories has it explain that Witchers carry 2 swords.

Already having one sword wouldn't fit with the witcher's lore unless they retconned everything or made you only kill monsters/humans.

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?

In DA2 you don't have to switch between swords to kill a human and say a darkspawn. It breaks flow for me. Now I don't call this whining at all. I can not stand the Witcher, I was bored, that's what bothers me the most. I can dislike something and not be whining. I have many things I dislike about the Witcher and I'm not going after you for disliking the Witcher. Please give me the same.

So random NPCs dropping in out of nowhere and having the same environment copied and pasted a hundred times, no broken flow, a character drawing a sword in combat he selects automatically, breaks flow.

 

[Lizmichi]

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.

That's fine. I don't have an issue with your dislike of DA2. I will agree that DA:O was so much better but it doesn't mean I can't enjoy DA2. Hell we don't know what will be in DA3.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

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.

None taken. I am qualified as a gamer, and a baseball fan. I love the White Sox, so I am constantly defending that team. However, there-in lies the difference. "Team." It's a competitive sport, not just some thing that someone likes. I don't think I can compare Witcher 2 to the Yankees. You don't go to stadiums to watch a video game actively compete against another video game.

True but I would argue that there is no real point in loving the White Sox. Its not like you had any say in its creation or team calls. The world doesnt change one way or another if white sox win or lose expect to those who care. But you would defend your "team" if I called it horrible becuase its something you like/love. I believe the same could be said about any hobby includeing video gaming.
O and how can you like the white sox with the cubs right thier!

 

[RanD00M]

I could ask the same thing of Bioware fans. Hell from what I've seen people defending DA 2 are even worse[footnote]I am not comparing the games to each other, if anyone was daft enough to think that.[/footnote]. I could also as the same question about Bethesda defenders. Hell any fanboy will defend the thing they are a fan of to no ends, no matter what it is.

 

[Lizmichi]

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.

and why doesn't Legolas have a machine gun ! he could kill way more Orcs if he had a machine gun !

.................. Because it doesn't fit with the Lord of the Rings. You can have one sword and it would fit in the Witcher.

In the novels one of the first short stories has it explain that Witchers carry 2 swords.

Already having one sword wouldn't fit with the witcher's lore unless they retconned everything or made you only kill monsters/humans.

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?

In DA2 you don't have to switch between swords to kill a human and say a darkspawn. It breaks flow for me. Now I don't call this whining at all. I can not stand the Witcher, I was bored, that's what bothers me the most. I can dislike something and not be whining. I have many things I dislike about the Witcher and I'm not going after you for disliking the Witcher. Please give me the same.

So random NPCs dropping in out of nowhere and having the same environment copied and pasted a hundred times, no broken flow, a character drawing a sword in combat he selects automatically, breaks flow.

Point still stands that I hate The Witcher and love DA2. Reading a book to better understand a game is poor design. Also as I said again I'm respecting you're feelings some please respect mine.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

Because they cant stand to realize its a bad game like witcher 1 was before it received its game sized patch that took a year to develop.

 

[Merkavar]

They're fans.... it's what they do.

pretty much this. its the same for DA2 and just about any other game out there that has more than 1 fan.

I am still in chapter 1 game rift stopping me from playing the witcher. just from the little i have played it looks to be a great game with minor issues. the biggest issue i have found so far is the weight of items+the carry limit+no storage chest like in witcher 1+not being sure if an item is super rare or super common= always being near 250 limit.

anyone know which crafting items are the ones i should keep. cause i have like 20 iron etc will i ever need that much.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Based on the response to this week's ZP and Greg Tito's review (in which he said that he liked the game but pointed out his frustrations with it), fans of The Witcher 2 seem to be really defensive about the game.

I have two questions surrounding this turn of events. The first is more complex and dissects the nature of the way game experiences are presented. The second is more along the lines of your basic "why?" question. Pick your poison, or poisons, and "A" or "B" before your responses so we can see what you're responding to.

Question A:

Spoiler

I haven't played the game myself and I likely won't, but from what I understand, frustrations with the game are born out of the lack of a tutorial, i.e. "I kept dying because I didn't know how to effectively use the controls."

In response, TW2 fans say, "Why don't you read the journal? Why don't you look it up? Do you need your hand held all the time?"

It reminds me of the release of Final Fantasy XIII. Yes, I know I'm inviting flames by drawing a comparison between these two games, but bear with me.

I hate Final Fantasy XIII. My biggest gripe with the game is that the story makes little sense. FFXIII fans usually try to refute this by saying, "It TOTALLY makes sense if you read the Datalog." (the Datalog is a collection of plot summaries, backstories, bios, etc; similar to the Codex in Dragon Age)

In previous Final Fantasy games, the story was self-contained and could be appreciated just by playing through the game normally. In Dragon Age, which also had a "Datalog," reading the Codex would give a deeper understanding of the world of Dragon Age, but it was not required to understand the main plot and characterization. With previous Final Fantasy games as precedence and alternative experiences like Dragon Age, I argue that I'm justified in saying...

...I should not have to turn to other source material to enjoy Final Fantasy XIII.

How is this different from people playing The Witcher 2 and getting frustrated because they feel they shouldn't have to "look stuff up" to have a basic enjoyment for the game?

Question B:

Spoiler

So, people were frustrated with the game in ways that perhaps you weren't. Why is this so bothersome?

I'm a fan of Witcher 2, but I don't really see a problem with people not liking it. It's easily one of the best games I've played, but also has some definite flaws. It's kind of like Prince of Persia: SoT - great writing, great atmosphere, and mostly good mechanics that still have some major issues that need to be sorted out. I wouldn't be annoyed if someone told me they didn't like either game.

Question A: I think the two things that distinguish the journal in Witcher 2 from journals in other games is A) it's kind of a mechanic, and B) it's actually fun to read*. B) is a value judgment on my part, so I'll just leave it there For A), it's not just a list of your quests and an explanation of how the game works - it's where you keep your info on monsters, hints for where to go next on quests, and stuff about the characters/world that people who read the books and played the first game might know, but that someone who started with the second game might not. So not reading the journal is like not reading the movelist for Mortal Kombat or the footnotes in Infinite Jest. But honestly if people don't want to read stuff in a video game that's totally their prerogative - they just might not enjoy Witcher 2 as much as people who are fine reading the journal.

*the other thing like this I actually liked was the Datalinks in Alpha Centauri.

Question B: It isn't to me. I like picking apart games/movies/books, even ones I really like. I think people just get defensive because of the whole tribal (PC vs. console, or DA vs. TW) thing.