Zero Punctuation: The Witcher
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
lol, well since Yahtzee's Crysis review and his hatred towards RPG's I wasn't gonna take this one seriously, and I ALREADY knew he was gonna hate it, and everything after these reviews cuz apparently no one actually does like it when he enjoys himself, but man Yahtzee.....
you made a HUGE MISTAKE PUTTING THE PAINKILLER THING IN, NOW WE'RE GONNA WANT MORE!! THAT WAS FUNNIER THEN THE ACTUAL REVIEW.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, song choice at the beggining = bloody brilliant!
you made a HUGE MISTAKE PUTTING THE PAINKILLER THING IN, NOW WE'RE GONNA WANT MORE!! THAT WAS FUNNIER THEN THE ACTUAL REVIEW.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, song choice at the beggining = bloody brilliant!
he should really stay away from RPGs,he says that some games are too lineal and stupid, but when there is a little bit of depth and complexity its just boring crap for elitist pricks
they gave him a game, and he have to complete it in a week... you can't like a deep and complex non-linear RPG if you play it with a time limit like if you were in a race and having a review in mind all the time
the review was fun, but most of the things he saw as flaws, most gamers see them as cool features that they are looking for, he just hates RPG, thats all, I respect it, but what I don't respect is the people that write stuf like "this game is shit because yahtzee didn't like it"
to those: nice decision to not buy the game, because if you can't think for yourself, and base your opinions completely on someone else's, then The Witcher is NOT your game anyway.
they gave him a game, and he have to complete it in a week... you can't like a deep and complex non-linear RPG if you play it with a time limit like if you were in a race and having a review in mind all the time
the review was fun, but most of the things he saw as flaws, most gamers see them as cool features that they are looking for, he just hates RPG, thats all, I respect it, but what I don't respect is the people that write stuf like "this game is shit because yahtzee didn't like it"
to those: nice decision to not buy the game, because if you can't think for yourself, and base your opinions completely on someone else's, then The Witcher is NOT your game anyway.
This continues to assume that he is obligated to run through the game, exhaustively chronicling every design flaw. He is not. His impression is a valid one, because it quite clearly describes some very simple problems that a certain segment of the gaming population might have with it at the very start of their The Witcher experience.Um...TE said:
This is a serious review. It's a real review. It just doesn't do justice to the good qualities of the game, presumably, because its written from the perspective of a person who saw too much bad too quickly to continue. If the first 100 pages of a novel has you bored to tears, you should feel no obligation to continue, even if you're reviewing it. I could shout in praise about it, desperate to convince you that The Great Gatsby is an important work of art (it is, and I would), but that won't change your personal experience at all. The thing is, your review would not be for people like me at all. Unless it was funny, that is. That's why I enjoy ZP reviews so much - even when I disagree (Super Paper Mario, Super Mario Galaxy, Bioshock to some degree), I still have a good time, and I get a perspective I otherwise wouldn't have had access to, or would have otherwise dismissed because of the style of delivery.
Um...TE made some very good points.
This was probably the least funny Zero Punctuation for me so far. Obviously I don't expect a highly professional, objective review of a game, but as Trevor Griffiths so rightly pointed out in his play 'Comedians': 'Comedy is truth'. The biggest reason why I find Yahtzee's reviews so hilarious, is because I've played the games, and he picks up on the flaws that exist within them, and shines a great big amusing light on them for all the world to see. The biggest problem I had with this review, was the fact that instead of bending, or extending reality for his own comical purposes, he said things which simply weren't true; for example, 'Clicking once on an enemy once, or twice if your advanced'. Unless you can kill an enemy in one hit (which is possible, but not frequent), you never click on an enemy once. In fact you have to click several times, at the right times, to build a combination. He also made the alchemy and general GUI seem complex, when it tends towards the scale of a console game as opposed to a PC one. I never read game manuals, and I, as could everyone else by my reasoning, could work out the game nuances absolutely fine; so yes I would have to call Yahtzee 'Retard McSpackypants'.
Yahtzee could have made incredibly amusing points on the list of things Um...TE made, but instead he focused on things with little relevance or things which weren't true. Personally, I thought The Witcher was one of the best RPGs to come out in a long time, and reminded me how things used to be with games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate. It had a fantastic story, which brought up contemporary issues without patronising the player (e.g. the Fisstech drug trade and the damage it dealt to its users; the persecution of foreigners; the political militancy of the elves, very reminiscient of modern terrorist doctrine). Also as many have pointed out this game /lives/ in the grey area, along with baby eating Mother Theresas. It has none of the black and white Yahtzee usually complains about.
Obviously the above is just my opinion of the game, much in the same way Yahtzee's review is his; it just seems like he was destroying this game for the sake of destroying it. I certainly admit there are issues with the game, many of which would have made for hilarious exposure (I can't believe he didn't mention the loading times), but he didn't seem to focus on them. Instead he looked at it from a very high level and picked things off without much accuracy. That's not to say it was bad... It was just shallower than one might expect from a Zero Punctuation review.
This was probably the least funny Zero Punctuation for me so far. Obviously I don't expect a highly professional, objective review of a game, but as Trevor Griffiths so rightly pointed out in his play 'Comedians': 'Comedy is truth'. The biggest reason why I find Yahtzee's reviews so hilarious, is because I've played the games, and he picks up on the flaws that exist within them, and shines a great big amusing light on them for all the world to see. The biggest problem I had with this review, was the fact that instead of bending, or extending reality for his own comical purposes, he said things which simply weren't true; for example, 'Clicking once on an enemy once, or twice if your advanced'. Unless you can kill an enemy in one hit (which is possible, but not frequent), you never click on an enemy once. In fact you have to click several times, at the right times, to build a combination. He also made the alchemy and general GUI seem complex, when it tends towards the scale of a console game as opposed to a PC one. I never read game manuals, and I, as could everyone else by my reasoning, could work out the game nuances absolutely fine; so yes I would have to call Yahtzee 'Retard McSpackypants'.
Yahtzee could have made incredibly amusing points on the list of things Um...TE made, but instead he focused on things with little relevance or things which weren't true. Personally, I thought The Witcher was one of the best RPGs to come out in a long time, and reminded me how things used to be with games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate. It had a fantastic story, which brought up contemporary issues without patronising the player (e.g. the Fisstech drug trade and the damage it dealt to its users; the persecution of foreigners; the political militancy of the elves, very reminiscient of modern terrorist doctrine). Also as many have pointed out this game /lives/ in the grey area, along with baby eating Mother Theresas. It has none of the black and white Yahtzee usually complains about.
Obviously the above is just my opinion of the game, much in the same way Yahtzee's review is his; it just seems like he was destroying this game for the sake of destroying it. I certainly admit there are issues with the game, many of which would have made for hilarious exposure (I can't believe he didn't mention the loading times), but he didn't seem to focus on them. Instead he looked at it from a very high level and picked things off without much accuracy. That's not to say it was bad... It was just shallower than one might expect from a Zero Punctuation review.
I'm not saying he's obliged (I don't have his contract in front of me) - I just said he didn't do it.fugori said:
He called it "First Impressions" precisely because it's not a real review. Playing the first 10% of a game, or reading 10% of a novel, or watching 10% of a movie, or eating 10% of a meal may be enough to form an opinion (especially for personal tastes), but it's not enough to produce an informed opinion (for a general audience).fugori said:
And that's okay. He comes right out, up front, and says that he didn't get very far. That's fair. I've read some game "reviews" that are passed off as such where it becomes painfully clear that the reviewer doesn't know what he's talking about because he didn't play the damn game. This week's video wasn't that. It certainly wasn't a review, either. It was, ahem, a first impression.
The picture, though, is funnier than the line. Give props to razor for the picture.Chis said:
Well, I laughed all the way through this, especially at 'THIS IS A MUMORPUGER!" Such outrage!
If something bores you enough you can't even finish it, you obviously can't give a fair and balanced review, but you can say 'I couldn't finish this, here's why.' It's like me with Wuthering Heights and The DaVinci Code.
(Confession: The only game I've played out of any of the games Yahtzee has reviewed is 'Silent Hill Origins'. I haven't watched that review yet because I'm still hugely in love with SHO and I know I would get butthurt about criticism. Perhaps you guys, knowing as you do that Yahtzee hates everything, could do the same?)
If something bores you enough you can't even finish it, you obviously can't give a fair and balanced review, but you can say 'I couldn't finish this, here's why.' It's like me with Wuthering Heights and The DaVinci Code.
(Confession: The only game I've played out of any of the games Yahtzee has reviewed is 'Silent Hill Origins'. I haven't watched that review yet because I'm still hugely in love with SHO and I know I would get butthurt about criticism. Perhaps you guys, knowing as you do that Yahtzee hates everything, could do the same?)
Yay, a review of The Witcher!! And I only barely hardly pitched the game several times for several weeks 
.
I loved the review, as it (a) has the usual generous helpings of black acidic humour (b)reminded me that I have indeed generously "overlooked" some badly executed features while playing the game (curse that inventory system for one!), simply because the story kept me hooked. It's fully understandable that if Planescape: Torment isn't one's thing then The Witcher probably won't be either.
Also, I have to concur with the points made by Um... Te, Rabbitdynamite, alzxul, and others. I really enjoyed The Witcher, played it from start to finish, and the negatives mentioned in this review do not appear to reflect the true negatives of this game.
Then again, these were Yahtzee's first impressions, so perhaps the negatives he talked about are the ones apparent during first impressions without having had the chance to be replaced with the real negatives after the game sunk in. I can't really tell, since I was having far too much fun deciding whether or not to let the Witch live, or to kick the priest's... fence.
By the way, Yahtzee, if you think Planescape: Torment is boring then - should I find the time - I just might be able to show you a different look at the game in the coming future.
.I loved the review, as it (a) has the usual generous helpings of black acidic humour (b)reminded me that I have indeed generously "overlooked" some badly executed features while playing the game (curse that inventory system for one!), simply because the story kept me hooked. It's fully understandable that if Planescape: Torment isn't one's thing then The Witcher probably won't be either.
Also, I have to concur with the points made by Um... Te, Rabbitdynamite, alzxul, and others. I really enjoyed The Witcher, played it from start to finish, and the negatives mentioned in this review do not appear to reflect the true negatives of this game.
Then again, these were Yahtzee's first impressions, so perhaps the negatives he talked about are the ones apparent during first impressions without having had the chance to be replaced with the real negatives after the game sunk in. I can't really tell, since I was having far too much fun deciding whether or not to let the Witch live, or to kick the priest's... fence.
By the way, Yahtzee, if you think Planescape: Torment is boring then - should I find the time - I just might be able to show you a different look at the game in the coming future
.Most of you people are kissing his ass, don't know for what reason. I admit he's got style, but before you give any opinion, finish the damn game first. Cause it was boring at first to me to, hell...a lot of good games were boring at first, but you have to give a chance to everything. What i'm saying, is finish it and i'm pretty sure you won't pe dissapointed.
QFT^2. Excellent points. The Witcher isn't anywhere near complicated. Oh, I dunno, it took me all of 10 minutes (less, actually) to figure the mechanics out, including alchemy and the journal, without ever looking at the manual.Um...TE said:
I found The Witcher to have overly simplistic gameplay, actually, a la Jade Empire and Mass Effect. The inventory/alchemy layout was a bit cumbersome, but nothing deadly.
The Witcher is a decent to good game IMO, depending upon my mood, but not great. It feels more like a console RPG than an old-school PC RPG like Ultima 7, PS:T, or Baldur's Gate, so I don't know where the 'PC elitist' crap is coming from.
Care to name some?escapist007 said:
I can't think of any games that were boring at first and didn't stay boring, or at the very least suffer from regular bouts of boring when they returned to whatever game style made them boring in the first place (like Folklore, where the poor translation and shocking narrative style make pretty much every conversation an exercise in frustration and leaves you pressing X rapidly so that you can get back to wandering around smacking things in the face).
Several aren't real flaws though.
Intended feature - you aren't meant to be a loot monger in this game. Instead you are meant to pick and choose while travelling fairly light.
Actually each level in the combat styles talents unlocked a particular attack or feature in the combat chain sequence. So pick talents in slashy three, say, and until you chain three blows together then those talents won't do anything for you. The manual even tells you this...
This was pretty much the only mis-step like this they made though. (I am currently in chapter four.) I agree it was a mistake but it happens once in eighty hours. Crying shame it is the first boss fight though as it does tend to put people off.
You don't have to put points into the signs and by the time you gain the other signs, mid chapter II if you have searched thoroughly, there is still plenty of time. Besides there is such a plethora of Bronze talents that generally you have all the first and second stage talents acquired anyway. It is the Silver and Gold talents that take the thought and you don't get those till chapter III.
They are called side-games for a reason. Unlike Bioshock's flow puzzle which was pretty much essential to the game and simply couldn't be avoided.
But also very rare. I think I have had it happen three times thus far.
You always have signs ready to go. If you really need time to prevent being jumped (which given the view distances meant only giant centipedes and Echinopse plants actually can surprise you) then simply always have Quen the protection sign chosen. Then you can dally preparing while people wail on the protection barrier first. Or just use Aard and Igni to knock them back and then draw your sword.
Never found the drowner repellent talisman, huh? You can get it mid-chapter II by purchasing it and are given it as a side-quest item in Chapter IV. Seems like somebody might not be doing side-quests or checking merchants too often. This might well be a side-effect of the small icons issue you mentioned.
It did this once and once only to date. Kikimore Queen? Lots of foreshadowing that it was going to be a tough fight because of what you are doing to then reach her. Dagon fight? Plenty of warning - hell the games beastiary warns you it is a god and you deliberately summon it. Fight with the Professor and Azar Javed, both are explicitly marked as being dangerous foes and your first major battle with them in the Swamp is very clearly foreshadowed by the whole murder investigation quest which you cannot skip.
While yahtze's review is funny it doesn't rate highly for me simply because the game he played and gave impressions of is evidently from Bizarro World as it doesn't match what I played. I much prefer his reviews where he does nail real flaws in the game, like Crysis or Bioshock, and still has fun poking valid exaggerated criticism at them. This one just misses the mark.
I really enjoyed The Witcher. Fantastic stories, brilliant protagonist, very interesting (and many quite unclichéd) NPCs, gorgeous graphics, and stunning combat animations. Happily spent a full week over the Christmas holidays doing nothing but playing this game.
I genuinely don't see what's so hard and off-putting about it! Shifting between combat stances was as easy as pressing a single key, and it made a real difference which one you chose to use. Alchemy could often make an impossible fight winnable, and once you read almanacs and/or have conversations with locals about herb lore you can easily brew potions because you know what herbs do what. I liked the way the game information was organised between lots of different screens, because it meant I knew exactly where to go when I wanted to look at anything. Every single bit of info you learn goes into your journal, but with all the subject divisions (alchemy, formulae, people, monsters, etc.) it never got confusing.
Really, I find Zero Punctuation hilarious normally. But this one just left me puzzled.
However, the brief movie at the end was side-splittingly funny, as if to make up for the review.
I genuinely don't see what's so hard and off-putting about it! Shifting between combat stances was as easy as pressing a single key, and it made a real difference which one you chose to use. Alchemy could often make an impossible fight winnable, and once you read almanacs and/or have conversations with locals about herb lore you can easily brew potions because you know what herbs do what. I liked the way the game information was organised between lots of different screens, because it meant I knew exactly where to go when I wanted to look at anything. Every single bit of info you learn goes into your journal, but with all the subject divisions (alchemy, formulae, people, monsters, etc.) it never got confusing.
Really, I find Zero Punctuation hilarious normally. But this one just left me puzzled.
However, the brief movie at the end was side-splittingly funny, as if to make up for the review.