Zero Punctuation: The Witcher

[laikenf]

Silverookami

I don't think people object to him reviewing or the game, but he hardly delved into it and it's not really enough to put the disclaimer 'first impressions' on the review and think that gives a license to rip into it at length. The disappointment for those of us who have played the game through is that in our eyes he's missing a treat, because the game delivers the very sort of game play experiences he was bemoaning weren't in Fable, or Mass Effect (choices...that actually matter). Sure, The Witcher isn't perfect, but the picture painted is more than unfair, and the fact is that lots of people are going to be put off of buying the game, simply because the guy dismissed it so thoroughly. It's unfair to the developers and unfair to the viewers.

I feel the same way too man. First impressions? and then he trashes it like if he already knows the game? For the record Iv'e yet to play the Witcher so I don't know how good or bad it actually is, but that's beyond the point. My point is and will remain being that to honestly review a game you must play AT LEAST 85% of it, otherwise you will not have a clue if the game is repetitive, long, short, boring, fun; you won't have a clue of how the game progresses (game progression is an essential trait on any RPG), you won't know if the game is rewarding or not, you won't know how good or bad the pacing is, see where I'm getting? I take Yahtzee's reviews by what they are: they are not reviews (or at least not the one for the Witcher) they are jokes, it's like M.A.D. magazine, even the advertising is not really advertising, just plain jokes. But that's where the problem lies; I said it before and I will say it again: a lot of people go to review sites to get an idea if a game they want to purchase is worth it or not, and whether some of you guys agree with me or not the fact is that Mr. Yahtzee could be quite misleading sometimes. I must admit that I've had my share of laughs with Yahtzee, but while laughing I can't help but notice all of the above, I mean he is funny indeed, but that doesn't mean that his "reviews" are always spot on, to the contrary, I often find that he could be as wrong as other reviewrs on the net. Reviews always come down to two things: personal preferences, and the publishers agenda.

 

[deadly.by.design]

Blah. He obviously doesn't like games with "WORDS". (see: RPGs, be them western or otherwise)

The Witcher has some real flaws, but it didn't deserve this. If anything, the fact that he didn't mention that truly awful load times is an indication of where he wanted to go with the review. Yes, the language and sexuality are overplayed and detract from the experience. (IMO) The fact remains that the storyline is actually pretty good, the combat not nearly so dull as he indicates, and the overall complexity really isn't so hard a concept to grasp.

Not perfect, by any means, but a good showing in the recent dearth of CRPG titles.

 

[Silverookami]

So what if he didn't get far into the game? Okay, it might skew the review slightly, I can agree on that, but it's still about his personal experience.
I agree with his basic sentiment. If I'm sitting there in front of a game and realizing that I am literally wasting precious moments of my life I could better use to do something useful or at least entertaining, I'm not about to shrug and say "well gee, another couple hours wasted pointlessly being bored sounds like a capital idea!" in reality at that point I turn the computer/console off and run off to hock the game at EBGames. If you're not in any way enjoying yourself why continue to move ponderously forward? I don't think it's too much to ask a game to deliver some form of fun or entertainment within the first few hours, it is after all a GAME, and by definition meant to be FUN.
Would you rather he lie about his experience with the game? I'd much rather an honest opinion on the game, even if it happens to be a bad one.

 

[laikenf]

So what if he didn't get far into the game? Okay, it might skew the review slightly, I can agree on that, but it's still about his personal experience.
I agree with his basic sentiment. If I'm sitting there in front of a game and realizing that I am literally wasting precious moments of my life I could better use to do something useful or at least entertaining, I'm not about to shrug and say "well gee, another couple hours wasted pointlessly being bored sounds like a capital idea!" in reality at that point I turn the computer/console off and run off to hock the game at EBGames. If you're not in any way enjoying yourself why continue to move ponderously forward? I don't think it's too much to ask a game to deliver some form of fun or entertainment within the first few hours, it is after all a GAME, and by definition meant to be FUN.
Would you rather he lie about his experience with the game? I'd much rather an honest opinion on the game, even if it happens to be a bad one.

Yeah but he's supposedly a professional reviewer, you know, he does it for a living. So yeah, I do expect reviewers (him) to PLAY the game (it's his job, not a bad one if you asked me). So now these reviewers are supposed to see a movie, walk out 30 mins. in and then trash it? Don't review it then.

 

[Vaupell]

yep its crap. agreed

thank god i got a lausy collecters edition WTF!!! argggggg

just as crappy as Two worlds, collectors edition i got a
letter opener with it, its more like a daggert. jezz.

 

[Darkvalor]

The most ridiculous thing I find is the comments on "One-click combat." if you want to get advanced, click it again? Did you even play it past the intro video or what? Thats not how the combat works at all. It may be simple, and doesn't really involve any more than some clicking, but if you only click once, or dare try to be advanced and click two times. You will stand there and get beat down like the fool you are.
Of course the game has its flaws, don't they all. Its fun to pick on them even to those who may enjoy a game. You seem to think now that your fame in this is all you need and you can do these without even any actual idea of what you're talking about?
And seriously come on... Regardless of how thick the instruction manual is, you don't have to flip it open. I had no difficulty picking the game up as it went along, on the normal difficulty, and I'm certainly no genius.

This wasn't even a first impression, you can't review a game, in humour or not by occasionally looking over someone's shoulder as they play it.

 

[entropy3ko]

The most ridiculous thing I find is the comments on "One-click combat." if you want to get advanced, click it again? Did you even play it past the intro video or what? Thats not how the combat works at all. It may be simple, and doesn't really involve any more than some clicking, but if you only click once, or dare try to be advanced and click two times. You will stand there and get beat down like the fool you are.
Of course the game has its flaws, don't they all. Its fun to pick on them even to those who may enjoy a game. You seem to think now that your fame in this is all you need and you can do these without even any actual idea of what you're talking about?
And seriously come on... Regardless of how thick the instruction manual is, you don't have to flip it open. I had no difficulty picking the game up as it went along, on the normal difficulty, and I'm certainly no genius.

This wasn't even a first impression, you can't review a game, in humour or not by occasionally looking over someone's shoulder as they play it.

Man you take so personal. It's a game, not mommy dearest. Perhaps the game is just boring, like Dungeon Siege 2 (which I find uncredibly boring to play...). From different reviews (even the ones that praise the game) there are clearly big flaws in it... I saw some trilers and some youtube movies and the dialogue seemed right out a bad porn flick.

Actually here The Witcher was sold out in 3 different stores I visited. So it might have some good or perhaps the sexual content is the big thing for frustrated nerds...

In any case I am curious enough to buy the Witcher, after all I am a little masochistic. I might like it... perhaps... or maybe I'll cast it down to the flaming pits of Hell together with Dungeon Siege 2.

And in the end... he HAS to trash the game (by law!). That's the fun of it! I do not watch the review to decide which game to buy next, but to have fun.

Like Jessica Rabbit would say: "He makes me laugh"

 

[broadband]

i didnt laughed much butthe twists were good, like this is a mmorpg! and the last part: so stop watching my reviews dad

 

[Poptart Fairy]

So what if he didn't get far into the game? Okay, it might skew the review slightly, I can agree on that, but it's still about his personal experience.
I agree with his basic sentiment. If I'm sitting there in front of a game and realizing that I am literally wasting precious moments of my life I could better use to do something useful or at least entertaining, I'm not about to shrug and say "well gee, another couple hours wasted pointlessly being bored sounds like a capital idea!" in reality at that point I turn the computer/console off and run off to hock the game at EBGames. If you're not in any way enjoying yourself why continue to move ponderously forward? I don't think it's too much to ask a game to deliver some form of fun or entertainment within the first few hours, it is after all a GAME, and by definition meant to be FUN.
Would you rather he lie about his experience with the game? I'd much rather an honest opinion on the game, even if it happens to be a bad one.

Yeah but he's supposedly a professional reviewer, you know, he does it for a living. So yeah, I do expect reviewers (him) to PLAY the game (it's his job, not a bad one if you asked me). So now these reviewers are supposed to see a movie, walk out 30 mins. in and then trash it? Don't review it then.

If a reviewer was giving their first impressions, then they'd certainly be justified in commenting on those first thirty minutes.

 

[WW]

Ok, listen you band of numbskulls who didn't play The Witcher:

1. The combat it "time-click" - don't know what it is? Your fault.
1a. The control/combat is clunky? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Morons.
2. The dialoges are cut in the english version - the work by Atari.
3. "First Impression"? Then why the hell does he call it a review? Where?
At 3:30, where he says that "you might have a better time if you're incredibly boring and haven't had a sexual encounter in decades". And then he says that if that is the case, his dad should stop watching his reviews!
4. THIS IS, IN NOW WAY A MMORPG. In the game there are the quests in the: main plot, side quests and side quests #2. He apperently played the last because does are the "go there/ kill xxx of xxx".
5. Why am I so pissed? Because Witcher is buggy and has it flaws BUT what Yahtzee mentions is partly made up.

The same as Two Worlds? Jesus Christ...

 

[Poptart Fairy]

The combat is click-time. You click once, click again when the sword flurry occurs (or when the icon lights up depending on your difficulty) and charge up finishing moves if you have them. Signs and potions are also there of course, but also one-click actions.

Dialogue is a flaw though, even if it is "cut". Heck, that could actually count against the game further (a lot of jarring examples where responses are said in a completely different tone to the rest of a speech, or even in a totally different voice).

He calls it a review once as part of a jokey comment, yet the article itself is a first impression. Do you also believe he puts his genitals in other peoples' salads?

He said it was like an MMORPG, and he's right. That's the same feel I got: a lot of the side-quests have that feel to them, as do the respawning enemies and so forth.

Finally, you sound pissed because you're taking things too seriously, not because Yahtzee is making things up. His comments were entirely accurate, based on the length of time he played for. Personally I absolutely loved the Witcher, but I can definitely see where Yahtzee is coming from with his remarks about the game.

 

[TrevWolf]

I loved the painkiller redub; it would be fun to see a few more of those from the early age of PC gaming. Well not the early-early age. The one slightly after FMV and right before they were able to make decent 3D sequences. Sort of a middle bit there, with Diablo and Starcraft and whatnots.

 

[entropy3ko]

Ok, listen you band of numbskulls who didn't play The Witcher:

1. The combat it "time-click" - don't know what it is? Your fault.
1a. The control/combat is clunky? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Morons.
2. The dialoges are cut in the english version - the work by Atari.
3. "First Impression"? Then why the hell does he call it a review? Where?
At 3:30, where he says that "you might have a better time if you're incredibly boring and haven't had a sexual encounter in decades". And then he says that if that is the case, his dad should stop watching his reviews!
4. THIS IS, IN NOW WAY A MMORPG. In the game there are the quests in the: main plot, side quests and side quests #2. He apperently played the last because does are the "go there/ kill xxx of xxx".
5. Why am I so pissed? Because Witcher is buggy and has it flaws BUT what Yahtzee mentions is partly made up.

The same as Two Worlds? Jesus Christ...

1- Are you sure you are not having a seizure?
2- From what I have seen adding more profanities and sexual content would only made the dialog more like a cheese porn movie
3- So what's the point of this comment?! He made a joke, a funny joke. And with all the sexual innuendo and depiction in the game I think it's obvious that the horny nerds are going to buy it only for that.
4- Why a MMORPG does not have quests, side-quests, plots, storylines? LOL
5- So you admit the Witcher is buggy! Your honor the defendand confesses XDDD

I do not really see what is the commotion is. A good review does not mean a good game and vice versa. (I could go back to Dungeon Siege 2 again but better not think about it ... meh)

The REAL review in the end is what gamers think about it, not reviewers. A review is only an opinion by one or two persons. As an example: Oblivion also had great scores and was proclaimed 'game of the year'etc etc... yet it disapponted me greatly. I still like the game a lot, but the absence of real depth in the quests and some changes in the gameplay really prevented him to be divine game. It was actually less fun than Morrowind.

In any case Yahtzee review of The Witcher certainly won't stop me to buy the game or to love the game (if it's worth it). At worst I'll hate it and join our Charismatic Stallion in his rantings LOL

 

[WW]

The combat is click-time. You click once, click again when the sword flurry occurs (or when the icon lights up depending on your difficulty) and charge up finishing moves if you have them. Signs and potions are also there of course, but also one-click actions.

Dialogue is a flaw though, even if it is "cut". Heck, that could actually count against the game further (a lot of jarring examples where responses are said in a completely different tone to the rest of a speech, or even in a totally different voice).

He calls it a review once as part of a jokey comment, yet the article itself is a first impression. Do you also believe he puts his genitals in other peoples' salads?

He said it was like an MMORPG, and he's right. That's the same feel I got: a lot of the side-quests have that feel to them, as do the respawning enemies and so forth.

Finally, you sound pissed because you're taking things too seriously, not because Yahtzee is making things up. His comments were entirely accurate, based on the length of time he played for. Personally I absolutely loved the Witcher, but I can definitely see where Yahtzee is coming from with his remarks about the game.

Everything was good until the "genitals in other peoples salads" part.

He said it was like an MMORPG, and he's right. That's the same feel I got: a lot of the side-quests have that feel to them, as do the respawning enemies and so forth.

Well hell, do you get the same feeling when playing Fallout, Torment or any other classic RPG? Answer me this.

Finally, you sound pissed because you're taking things too seriously, not because Yahtzee is making things up. His comments were entirely accurate, based on the length of time he played for. Personally I absolutely loved the Witcher, but I can definitely see where Yahtzee is coming from with his remarks about the game.

The time he played it was something between 5 min and the half of the first Act - It's very easy to prove for someone who played it.
And what about the manual comment? "Kill a goat"? - seriously if that isn't made up then I don't know.

Dialogue is a flaw though, even if it is "cut". Heck, that could actually count against the game further (a lot of jarring examples where responses are said in a completely different tone to the rest of a speech, or even in a totally different voice).

Are you trying to imply that the Polish ver. is WORSE then the English???

 

[WW]

Ok, listen you band of numbskulls who didn't play The Witcher:

1. The combat it "time-click" - don't know what it is? Your fault.
1a. The control/combat is clunky? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Morons.
2. The dialoges are cut in the english version - the work by Atari.
3. "First Impression"? Then why the hell does he call it a review? Where?
At 3:30, where he says that "you might have a better time if you're incredibly boring and haven't had a sexual encounter in decades". And then he says that if that is the case, his dad should stop watching his reviews!
4. THIS IS, IN NOW WAY A MMORPG. In the game there are the quests in the: main plot, side quests and side quests #2. He apperently played the last because does are the "go there/ kill xxx of xxx".
5. Why am I so pissed? Because Witcher is buggy and has it flaws BUT what Yahtzee mentions is partly made up.

The same as Two Worlds? Jesus Christ...

1- Are you sure you are not having a seizure?
2- From what I have seen adding more profanities and sexual content would only made the dialog more like a cheese porn movie
3- So what's the point of this comment?! He made a joke, a funny joke. And with all the sexual innuendo and depiction in the game I think it's obvious that the horny nerds are going to buy it only for that.
4- Why a MMORPG does not have quests, side-quests, plots, storylines? LOL
5- So you admit the Witcher is buggy! Your honor the defendand confesses XDDD

I do not really see what is the commotion is. A good review does not mean a good game and vice versa. (I could go back to Dungeon Siege 2 again but better not think about it ... meh)

The REAL review in the end is what gamers think about it, not reviewers. A review is only an opinion by one or two persons. As an example: Oblivion also had great scores and was proclaimed 'game of the year'etc etc... yet it disapponted me greatly. I still like the game a lot, but the absence of real depth in the quests and some changes in the gameplay really prevented him to be divine game. It was actually less fun than Morrowind.

In any case Yahtzee review of The Witcher certainly won't stop me to buy the game or to love the game (if it's worth it). At worst I'll hate it and join our Charismatic Stallion in his rantings LOL

1. No comment.
2. Can you tell me what kind of a mysterious connection does the dialogue have with the cards?
3. You have made a good point, the people who will buy this are:
- Horny Nerds
- Kiddies (does will play for 5 minutes the leave it because it’s stupid –“I hate RPG’s&#8221
- RPG fans
(I don’t care for the first two but if more copies will sell then the better)
4. Only and especially for you I will explain it, there are:
- main plot quests (thanks to them you advanced in the plot)
- side quests (you get them from people, similar to the “main plot quests” – but you already know that)
- side quests #2 a.k.a. Monster Contracts a.k.a. Board Quests (does are the “Fetch that…” quests that you do to get exp. points, I didn’t do them because I didn’t have the time to fuck around)
5. Your honor, the public prosecutor is trying to butt rape me (and I assume you know a game that doesn’t have flaws).

I do not really see what is the commotion is. A good review does not mean a good game and vice versa. (I could go back to Dungeon Siege 2 again but better not think about it ... meh)

And this is exactly what the commotion is about (at least 1/3 of it) ”A good REVIWE and vice versa…”.

The REAL review in the end is what gamers think about it, not reviewers. A review is only an opinion by one or two persons. As an example: Oblivion also had great scores and was proclaimed 'game of the year'etc etc... yet it disapponted me greatly. I still like the game a lot, but the absence of real depth in the quests and some changes in the gameplay really prevented him to be divine game. It was actually less fun than Morrowind.

In any case Yahtzee review of The Witcher certainly won't stop me to buy the game or to love the game (if it's worth it). At worst I'll hate it and join our Charismatic Stallion in his rantings LOL

I hope you didn’t only add this to sound smart.

And the commotion is about 3 things:
- Many think this is a review
- Many Kiddies believe this “first impression” to the letter
- Many things are made up by Yahtzee because he hadn’t have the patients to look for the really “mean” parts in this game that made a lot of people pissed

 

[Darkvalor]

Don't get me wrong, I found it humourous to watch, regardless. I just think that if you're going to come up with this thing about a certain subject, in this case video games, you should in fact actually have some solid knowledge on it even for a, "first impression."
The Escapist certainly has the gift of humour, but when you are calling something a "review" or "impression," anything along those lines really you still need to work with actual facts. I don't have a problem with you bashing the Witcher, be it because you didn't like it, or its just got some things that are fun to pick at. Just keep in mind next time, "It's funny because it's true."

 

[Poptart Fairy]

Everything was good until the "genitals in other peoples salads" part.

It was a fair comment, wasn't it? If Yahtzee's line about reviews made this one a review, then his comments about putting his genitals in someone's salad should also be taken seriously.

Well hell, do you get the same feeling when playing Fallout, Torment or any other classic RPG? Answer me this.

I don't, because I can't recall those games being heavy on the "kill ten of [enemy] then come to [NPC] for [reward]". There's nothing inherently bad with those types of quests, but the Witcher handled them in an unashamedly open way. It was rather jarring to be caught up in an epic political plot, but still having to fetch six Ghoul Toes for someone.

The time he played it was something between 5 min and the half of the first Act - It's very easy to prove for someone who played it.

Which, again, makes his comments accurate. The first chapter is perhaps the dreariest and most poorly made. There's very little, if any, of the moral ambiguity in later chapters and the combat seems unbalanced at that point (I'm looking at you, Dog Boss). It's a good game, but a terrible opening.

And what about the manual comment? "Kill a goat"? - seriously if that isn't made up then I don't know.

It's called hyperbole - something he's using for dramatic effect and humour. Like his comments about putting his genitals in someone's salad.

Are you trying to imply that the Polish ver. is WORSE then the English???

No, I just got the idea you were trying to excuse the English voice acting because the Polish one is better? I'm not sure what you were saying initially though; if you clarify I'll answer again.

 

[laikenf]

So what if he didn't get far into the game? Okay, it might skew the review slightly, I can agree on that, but it's still about his personal experience.
I agree with his basic sentiment. If I'm sitting there in front of a game and realizing that I am literally wasting precious moments of my life I could better use to do something useful or at least entertaining, I'm not about to shrug and say "well gee, another couple hours wasted pointlessly being bored sounds like a capital idea!" in reality at that point I turn the computer/console off and run off to hock the game at EBGames. If you're not in any way enjoying yourself why continue to move ponderously forward? I don't think it's too much to ask a game to deliver some form of fun or entertainment within the first few hours, it is after all a GAME, and by definition meant to be FUN.
Would you rather he lie about his experience with the game? I'd much rather an honest opinion on the game, even if it happens to be a bad one.

Yeah but he's supposedly a professional reviewer, you know, he does it for a living. So yeah, I do expect reviewers (him) to PLAY the game (it's his job, not a bad one if you asked me). So now these reviewers are supposed to see a movie, walk out 30 mins. in and then trash it? Don't review it then.

If a reviewer was giving their first impressions, then they'd certainly be justified in commenting on those first thirty minutes.

Which brings me back to my point; it's VERY missleading... Pretty good discussion we're having here eh?

 

[Poptart Fairy]

Which brings me back to my point; it's VERY missleading... Pretty good discussion we're having here eh?

How is it mis-leading? He clearly states he only played for a couple of hours. If he said he played it all the way through in two hours, then yes he would be misleading. But he didn't, so he isn't.

 

[Gollon]

I like when Geralt is holding up his +69 Staff of Penetration and it appears he has three hands (or little circles) which makes me think he could easily play EXPERT songs on Guitar Hero 3.