You cared enough to write a whole wall of text, so your bravado doesn't impress me.Korolev said: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!
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.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 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.Luthir Fontaine said: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.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.
In the novels one of the first short stories has it explain that Witchers carry 2 swords.Lizmichi said:.................. Because it doesn't fit with the Lord of the Rings. You can have one sword and it would fit in the Witcher.mikozero said:and why doesn't Legolas have a machine gun ! he could kill way more Orcs if he had a machine gun !Lizmichi said: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.synobal said:Actually it was exactly like that in the first game.Lizmichi said: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.LordRoyal said:It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.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.
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 said: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.LordRoyal said: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?Lizmichi said: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.LordRoyal said: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.Lizmichi said: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.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.
Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.
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.synobal said: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.Lizmichi said: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.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.
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.GreatTeacherCAW said: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.Luthir Fontaine said: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.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.
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.LordRoyal said:In the novels one of the first short stories has it explain that Witchers carry 2 swords.Lizmichi said:.................. Because it doesn't fit with the Lord of the Rings. You can have one sword and it would fit in the Witcher.mikozero said:and why doesn't Legolas have a machine gun ! he could kill way more Orcs if he had a machine gun !Lizmichi said: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.synobal said:Actually it was exactly like that in the first game.Lizmichi said: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.LordRoyal said:It was lore from the novels. In the novels monsters are damaged properly with silver and humans with steel.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.
Already having one sword wouldn't fit with the witcher's lore unless they retconned everything or made you only kill monsters/humans.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 said: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.LordRoyal said: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?Lizmichi said: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.LordRoyal said: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.Lizmichi said: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.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.
Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.
pretty much this. its the same for DA2 and just about any other game out there that has more than 1 fan.vrbtny said:They're fans.... it's what they do.
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.remnant_phoenix said: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:
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:
So, people were frustrated with the game in ways that perhaps you weren't. Why is this so bothersome?
lets just say it DA2 has the heart of a strategic roleplaying game (baldurs gate) but everything else tries to be the second comming of The force unleashed 2. I deduce that an accurate description of its current state.DustyDrB said: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.LordRoyal said: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.Lizmichi said: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.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.
Enemies in waves and repetative hack and slashing completely contradicted the semi strategic combat from Origins.
It have nothing to do with consoles, TW2 is being released on the 360.Kecunk said: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.
Quoted for truth.Korolev said: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.