Zero Punctuation: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

ezeroast

New member
Jan 25, 2009
767
0
0
The in game tutorial needed a LOT of work, I hate alt tabbing to a pdf to check things which could be explained in a short sentence that didn't just flash on the screen for a split second. During a battle I might add.
 

bob1052

New member
Oct 12, 2010
774
0
0
ezeroast said:
The in game tutorial needed a LOT of work, I hate alt tabbing to a pdf to check things which could be explained in a short sentence that didn't just flash on the screen for a split second. During a battle I might add.
Upward of ten seconds is a pretty long split second. And considering every single one of them prompts you to hit J you could've just hit J and not had to alt tab to get the information. Despite what a lot of people are saying, the manual is not at all necessary.
 

ezeroast

New member
Jan 25, 2009
767
0
0
bob1052 said:
ezeroast said:
The in game tutorial needed a LOT of work, I hate alt tabbing to a pdf to check things which could be explained in a short sentence that didn't just flash on the screen for a split second. During a battle I might add.
Upward of ten seconds is a pretty long split second. And considering every single one of them prompts you to hit J you could've just hit J and not had to alt tab to get the information. Despite what a lot of people are saying, the manual is not at all necessary.
way less than 10 seconds, at least it seemed that way to me.
 

Fullmetalfox

New member
Apr 5, 2011
42
0
0
predatorpulse7 said:
Fullmetalfox said:
The difference would be that most console gamers wouldn't try to defend it because they have higher standards than PC elitists who just want every design aspect except graphics to stay stuck in the late 90s. Isn't that the reason most of you people piss on Bioshock while infinitely praising System Shock 2? lol
LMAO at console gamers have "highest standards". Consoles and most of the games made for them are made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which isn't bad since they are making lots of money, but they aren't exactly re-inventing the wheel here.

A mediocre game gets exposed on PC, however pretty the graphics are. In fact I think it's quite the opposite, a game can succeed on PC on mechanics and story alone since a lot of PC's won't be able to play latest games on high settings and such.

Halo is absolutely huge amongst the console fanboys but the PC versions that I've played seemed like mediocre shooters(when compared to a serious sam or painkiller) and nothing more. The Fable series were pretty big on consoles yet any decent PC RPG from the last years on PC kills it, pisses on it and sets its corpse on fire.

Bioshock is a great game on any platform but the reason people are downgrading it when it comes to a comparison with SS2 isn't because of the platform per se, but because SS2 is a better game and the developers of Bioshock would know since they ripped it off massively.

Perfect example of a PC Elitist. You think there isn't any shitware on the PC either? You can find a ton of crap on steam alone. The PC has as much shitware as consoles do. The point is, when Final Fantasy XIII came out (one of the most beloved franchises to console gamers) everyone said it was shit. It was really hard to find someone online defending that piece of crap. While PC gamers get a shit game or a game with a shitty combat system and they claim its great (The Witcher 2, Fallout 3, NV).

So what if there's people playing Halo? There's plenty more people playing Counter Strike and Counter Strike Source and those games are mediocre at best.

Btw, how can Developers rip off their own work? Bioshock and System Shock 2 were made by the same people under a different name. They changed their name back to Irrational after Bioshock became such a hit. The main complaint I've heard from PC elitists is that the game isn't enough like system shock 2, they complain about a lack of inventory and point the finger at Console gamers claiming the inventory is not there because they are too stupid to manage one (Lol). They also claim the game lacks depth because its too accessible which is just retarded.

Accessibility and depth are not mutually exclusive. And this is where a good tutorial comes in. Teaching the gamer how to play your game so that he is ready to face the challenges you set for him is not the same as making the game easy. Its just good design. Throwing the gamer into a battle before you tell him how to block is not challenging, its retarded.
 

Trogdor1138

New member
May 28, 2010
1,116
0
0
This made me laugh a lot, moreso than normal for some reason. All his poking fun at PC players and their "sophisticated gameplay" maybe?

Can't wait for his E3 and Duke Nukem reviews.
 

Ishiro32

New member
Mar 28, 2011
48
0
0
Fullmetalfox said:
predatorpulse7 said:
Fullmetalfox said:
You didn't play the witcher 2 did you?
BTW Most PC gamers downgrade Fallout 3 and NV. When you compare them to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 they are just poorer. (They are not bad though). If you want to know a game that PC gamers praise and make big fuss even though it is buggy as hell and mechanics are pretty bad?... VtM:Bloodlines.

And when you compare CS to Halo you forget about one thing... CS was a mod, it wasn't never full game. At it's hearth it was just bare mechanics + some multi maps. And it was gold in 1999. Also it were the times of lan parties, and CS was Fun in those. A lot of weapons, cash for kills, clear UI, fast, 3 modes, sprays etc. When it came, it was the best multiplayer shooter out there (also it was kinda fresh idea). So you may think that NOW it is mediocre... But that's normal when you go try compare games from diffrent centuries -.-''. BTW a lot of competetive shooters copied from CS.
For your information i'm not a big fan of CS, i think it was fun but i don't play. (i'm more RTS/RPG person) But trying to downgrade one of the milestones of gaming community is plain stupid. CS and Starcraft made e-sport what it is now so if you don't know anything about older games just don't talk. You may not like it, but don't present your opinions as facts.

And about Bioshock... Great game, you "pc elitist" friends just nitpick, most players love bioshock as it is.
 

gring

New member
Sep 14, 2010
115
0
0
inkbot007 said:
-rage-

LOL you are the only one who's bitter here.

Do you want the game to tell you that if you hit things with your sword they die? Sorry it is too deep for you.

You know what, go do it right now, go stand inside a wooden structure and let it burn on top of you, then come back and tell me how it goes.

Also, that is a dumb complaint.

SIGH!

Jesus Christ, you are seriously dumb.

Get it now? It is not that hard, seriously.

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, MORON!

I hope one day you catch on fire on real life.
So who here is the bitter one? Get real.

You're not even worth my time child, because everything you said is just... so damn crazy and false. And then you say I'm lying? That I'm complaining that its "too hard"? Ha, okay. Just keep telling yourself that. Read my posts again, without all the rage this time. I could even report you, but I won't.

edit: Meh, I take that last part back.
 

predatorpulse7

New member
Jun 9, 2011
160
0
0
Fullmetalfox said:
The point is, when Final Fantasy XIII came out (one of the most beloved franchises to console gamers) everyone said it was shit. It was really hard to find someone online defending that piece of crap. While PC gamers get a shit game or a game with a shitty combat system and they claim its great (The Witcher 2, Fallout 3, NV).
FF 13 was a piece of shit and everybody agreed, it didn't matter if it was on consoles or pc, don't make console gamers great judges of quality when stuff like halo or fable are at the top of best selling games of all time on major consoles. Witcher 2, the game with "shitty combat" has a AVERAGE score of 8.8 at fan reviews and so far there about 1400 reviews. If you think all of these people are deluding themselves into thinking TW 2 is a great game just cause it's on PC then I don't know what to tell you. I didn't have high expectations for this just cause it was a sequel but the quality of it blew me away.
Not to mention the fact that selling 300.000 units in the first week(without online sales) while being a small eastern european developer without a huge brand name behind it(don't tell me that the witcher name has anything in selling potential like other well known brands)

Fullmetalfox said:
So what if there's people playing Halo? There's plenty more people playing Counter Strike and Counter Strike Source and those games are mediocre at best.
I agree, the pc community isn't without its dummies. Counter Strike as a phenomenon was one of the dumbest things I've seen. All of the tards at my highschool, when I was growing up, played that s**t. It's not like my group of friends played "intelectual" games(one of my fav games at the time was serious sam with all its campiness) but when you looked at the people that played Counterstrike(at least the ones I've met and I've met plenty) the phrase dumbass comes to mind, not just cause they played that game but as persons in general.

Fullmetalfox said:
Btw, how can Developers rip off their own work? Bioshock and System Shock 2 were made by the same people under a different name. They changed their name back to Irrational after Bioshock became such a hit. The main complaint I've heard from PC elitists is that the game isn't enough like system shock 2, they complain about a lack of inventory and point the finger at Console gamers claiming the inventory is not there because they are too stupid to manage one (Lol). They also claim the game lacks depth because its too accessible which is just retarded.
Bioshock is still a solid 8.5-9 game and great fun but SS2 is better, not because it's on the pc, but because it was way more scary and wasn't as easy. Oh and the atmosphere was heavier. Ask most people both in the industry and regular fans which one is better and at least 60-70% of the people that played both will say SS2. Just the fact that Bioshock was modeled after SS2 should tell you which one is better.

Fullmetalfox said:
Accessibility and depth are not mutually exclusive. And this is where a good tutorial comes in. Teaching the gamer how to play your game so that he is ready to face the challenges you set for him is not the same as making the game easy. Its just good design. Throwing the gamer into a battle before you tell him how to block is not challenging, its retarded.
If you don't know that there is a key for block in your key bindings, which you can easily find, then I don't know what to tell you. Not everything has to be explained on screen and if I'm not mistaken the block(parry) move is explained at some point in the tutorial.

It's truly disconcerning for me, a freaking average pc gamer(well mostly, I play on consoles as well as one of my friends owns a 360), to see how many people find this game "too difficult" or having a "weird difficulty curve". This game is NOT hard nor does it have broken combat. Can be a bit clunky at times but then again I've yet to find a RPG with perfect combat. I look at all these people complaining about minor issues in one of the best RPG's out of the last 10 years and I think to myself "am I some kind of freaking genius that I only died a couple of times during this game(tutorial + boss fights mostly) on normal difficulty". No, I am not(look how many people online are already on their second playthrough), but I am not some lazy guy that can't tell the difference between signs cause he hasn't read his journal or that can't learn to parry or dodge cause he doesn't know the key bindings for each of them.
 

predatorpulse7

New member
Jun 9, 2011
160
0
0
Ishiro32 said:
Fullmetalfox said:
predatorpulse7 said:
Fullmetalfox said:
You didn't play the witcher 2 did you?
BTW Most PC gamers downgrade Fallout 3 and NV. When you compare them to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 they are just poorer. (They are not bad though). If you want to know a game that PC gamers praise and make big fuss even though it is buggy as hell and mechanics are pretty bad?... VtM:Bloodlines.

And when you compare CS to Halo you forget about one thing... CS was a mod, it wasn't never full game. At it's hearth it was just bare mechanics + some multi maps. And it was gold in 1999. Also it were the times of lan parties, and CS was Fun in those. A lot of weapons, cash for kills, clear UI, fast, 3 modes, sprays etc. When it came, it was the best multiplayer shooter out there (also it was kinda fresh idea). So you may think that NOW it is mediocre... But that's normal when you go try compare games from diffrent centuries -.-''. BTW a lot of competetive shooters copied from CS.
For your information i'm not a big fan of CS, i think it was fun but i don't play. (i'm more RTS/RPG person) But trying to downgrade one of the milestones of gaming community is plain stupid. CS and Starcraft made e-sport what it is now so if you don't know anything about older games just don't talk. You may not like it, but don't present your opinions as facts.

And about Bioshock... Great game, you "pc elitist" friends just nitpick, most players love bioshock as it is.
People who downgrade Fallout 3 don't know what they are talking about IMO. Fallout 2(only other fallout I've played) is a bit better overall but fallout 3 is still very immersive and that's big plus with me.

VTM was way overhyped by SOME. One friend recommended it to me at the time like it was the greatest thing on earth and it only seemed above average for me after playing it for a couple of hours.
If you ask most of the pc community(not just the rpg crowd) most will give you mixed reviews of the VTM games.

Meanwhile something like TW 2 has gained universal acclaim. When you have 8.8 average score from 1400 user reviews, you must be doing something right other than just being a pc title.

I thought CS was mediocre at THE TIME and most people around me that played it were major dumbasses but perhaps that was just bad luck on my part and it skewed my perception of the game. I played it but I didn't see what the big fuss was all about.
 

predatorpulse7

New member
Jun 9, 2011
160
0
0
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Ixal said:
Lizmichi said:
Oh yes yes burn Yahtzee for disliking something. It's not his job to like a game, it's his job to tell you what the game did wrong and why he didn't like it. He hated the Witcher so I'm not surprised he hated the Witcher 2. I honestly didn't like the Witcher at all so I guess I need to hang.

Guys it's ok for someone to dislike something you like. Why should what others think of something matter if you like it. That's fine really it is. I don't go after others for liking the Witcher or hating Dragon Age 2. I love Dragon Age 2 and I know that allot of people don't agree with me and that's fine. My point is let Yahtzee think what he thinks, you can disagree with him but god please people calm down.
He is free to dislike it from the start, but then he should either not review the game at all, especially when he doesn't even have the hardware for it, or be professional enough to complain about the real weak points of the game instead of just making things up (cutscene skipping) or not even bothering to actually play the game (sign names, etc.)

I do not like DA2, but if I were like Yathzee, I would complain about "How should I know that cunning makes you crit harder"? And "No one told me what those icons above the enemies heads mean when I hit them with certain attacks" (Status effects that can be used to set up combos) or "Potions have cooldowns? That is dumb!".
And people wonder why they get called elitists. Let me summarise your post: 'no one should have an opinion about this game unless they can afford the kind of monolith that runs it comfortably and they only talk about the 'real weak points', of which there are none, therefore every review will be a shining 10/10.'

You don't need a monolith to run this, you need a monolith to run it at high-ultra.

I have a freaking NVIDIA 9600 GT on my system(4 gigs ram, 2.9 Ghz intel processor), which is basically from the pleystocene era of graphic cards, and it runs fine on low to medium settings, at 25-30 fps with patch 1.2. I have the GOG version, I don't know if it differs from the others.

You can easily find on the net articles which tell you what graphical options you should turn off if you don't have a high end machine

Update your graphic drivers, adjust the options and it should play fine. The Witcher on low settings beats most PC games in graphics gorgeousness.

If you wanna talk about bad optimization, let's talk witcher 1. I had a great rig at the time it came out and it still took like five minutes to load a freaking save game. I couldnt't take and I bailed on it. When the enhanced edition came out it was like godsend since they resolved most of the optimization problems and bugs. The game ran very smoothly after that.
 

abija

New member
Sep 7, 2008
66
0
0
Fullmetalfox said:
So what if there's people playing Halo? There's plenty more people playing Counter Strike and Counter Strike Source and those games are mediocre at best.
Too bad MLG doesn't keep a CS tournament, so you see the farce that competitive cod and halo on consoles are near a proper shooter.
If you didn't play organized 5v5 in CS refrain from commenting on it. It's the equivalent of SC for team based shooters, there's nothing that even comes close to it.
 

predatorpulse7

New member
Jun 9, 2011
160
0
0
bob1052 said:
ezeroast said:
The in game tutorial needed a LOT of work, I hate alt tabbing to a pdf to check things which could be explained in a short sentence that didn't just flash on the screen for a split second. During a battle I might add.
Upward of ten seconds is a pretty long split second. And considering every single one of them prompts you to hit J you could've just hit J and not had to alt tab to get the information. Despite what a lot of people are saying, the manual is not at all necessary.
True, I never checked the manual for this game and I am on my second playthrough.

Considering how many people here write that they have problems with certain things I might consider myself some sort of genius for not consulting the manual j/k.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
predatorpulse7 said:
You don't need a monolith to run this, you need a monolith to run it at high-ultra.

I have a freaking NVIDIA 9600 GT on my system(4 gigs ram, 2.9 Ghz intel processor), which is basically from the pleystocene era of graphic cards, and it runs fine on low to medium settings, at 25-30 fps with patch 1.2. I have the GOG version, I don't know if it differs from the others.

You can easily find on the net articles which tell you what graphical options you should turn off if you don't have a high end machine

Update your graphic drivers, adjust the options and it should play fine. The Witcher on low settings beats most PC games in graphics gorgeousness.
I'm sorry, what? You called out Yahtzee for not having a decent enough computer to review the game on, when all he said was he had to turn the graphics down to low. Now you're saying that low graphics is perfectly fine, nay, beautiful?
 

Ixal

New member
Mar 19, 2008
173
0
0
Shamanic Rhythm said:
predatorpulse7 said:
You don't need a monolith to run this, you need a monolith to run it at high-ultra.

I have a freaking NVIDIA 9600 GT on my system(4 gigs ram, 2.9 Ghz intel processor), which is basically from the pleystocene era of graphic cards, and it runs fine on low to medium settings, at 25-30 fps with patch 1.2. I have the GOG version, I don't know if it differs from the others.

You can easily find on the net articles which tell you what graphical options you should turn off if you don't have a high end machine

Update your graphic drivers, adjust the options and it should play fine. The Witcher on low settings beats most PC games in graphics gorgeousness.
I'm sorry, what? You called out Yahtzee for not having a decent enough computer to review the game on, when all he said was he had to turn the graphics down to low. Now you're saying that low graphics is perfectly fine, nay, beautiful?
Learn to read.
Yathzee gets paid to review games, so its only logical that he has the tools to do his job. If he doesn't then it is his fault and not the games.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
Ixal said:
Shamanic Rhythm said:
predatorpulse7 said:
You don't need a monolith to run this, you need a monolith to run it at high-ultra.

I have a freaking NVIDIA 9600 GT on my system(4 gigs ram, 2.9 Ghz intel processor), which is basically from the pleystocene era of graphic cards, and it runs fine on low to medium settings, at 25-30 fps with patch 1.2. I have the GOG version, I don't know if it differs from the others.

You can easily find on the net articles which tell you what graphical options you should turn off if you don't have a high end machine

Update your graphic drivers, adjust the options and it should play fine. The Witcher on low settings beats most PC games in graphics gorgeousness.
I'm sorry, what? You called out Yahtzee for not having a decent enough computer to review the game on, when all he said was he had to turn the graphics down to low. Now you're saying that low graphics is perfectly fine, nay, beautiful?
Learn to read.
Yathzee gets paid to review games, so its only logical that he has the tools to do his job. If he doesn't then it is his fault and not the games.
You know, a lot of people who like to play games don't have the money to own and constantly upgrade a computer that can run new PC games at high graphics. Those people might want to know how a game is going to run on a lower-end system, so there's plenty of reason for him to review it on the system he has.
 

Ixal

New member
Mar 19, 2008
173
0
0
Shamanic Rhythm said:
Ixal said:
Shamanic Rhythm said:
predatorpulse7 said:
You don't need a monolith to run this, you need a monolith to run it at high-ultra.

I have a freaking NVIDIA 9600 GT on my system(4 gigs ram, 2.9 Ghz intel processor), which is basically from the pleystocene era of graphic cards, and it runs fine on low to medium settings, at 25-30 fps with patch 1.2. I have the GOG version, I don't know if it differs from the others.

You can easily find on the net articles which tell you what graphical options you should turn off if you don't have a high end machine

Update your graphic drivers, adjust the options and it should play fine. The Witcher on low settings beats most PC games in graphics gorgeousness.
I'm sorry, what? You called out Yahtzee for not having a decent enough computer to review the game on, when all he said was he had to turn the graphics down to low. Now you're saying that low graphics is perfectly fine, nay, beautiful?
Learn to read.
Yathzee gets paid to review games, so its only logical that he has the tools to do his job. If he doesn't then it is his fault and not the games.
You know, a lot of people who like to play games don't have the money to own and constantly upgrade a computer that can run new PC games at high graphics. Those people might want to know how a game is going to run on a lower-end system, so there's plenty of reason for him to review it on the system he has.
Do you know the specs of his Laptop? No? Then Yathzee did nothing to help you to decide if the game would run on your system or not. All he did was "I can't run game very well. Game bad!!1!1! Dur dur"

Do you think it is valid when he would say "Call of Duty looks horrible on my 30 year old CRT TV. The game is obviously bad.