Witcher Disappoints, Now Skeptical of Reviews

[darkswordsman17]

lol...i didn't notice that.

Yeah Skyrim story sucks if you follow the main quest line but the depth when you dig into the books, journals, history of various locations and factions. It's pretty good there anyway.

Most of the lore is predefined and not anything special to Skyrim.

A lot of the books are just books from Morrowind and Oblivion either alone or combined.

Skyrim is a weak RPG, but that's not really the appeal. I guess it is, as I think it does a better job in immersing you into its world better than most games, although I think that's dependent on you playing in first person view. You play yourself in that world, not another character though. I think it could be a lot better RPG (in a lot of ways) but I think its an enjoyable experience still, and I thought they finally really started to nail the execution of the overall experience more with Skyrim. Unfortunately that did come at the expense of some of the quirky stuff that made Morrowind good, but they did also kinda improve on some of the annoying aspects (the leveling, although the character development still needs a lot of work).

 

[darkswordsman17]

Game reviews are a joke and really have been for a long time, but I've also found plenty of user feedback to be even worse. Its really subjective which is why its a shame that rentals are basically becoming a thing of the past (until say OnLive becomes feasible to enjoy games that way). Steam sales thankfully make it not unbearable to be able to try games you might not otherwise at full or "reduced" $30+.

You just have to kinda find what stuff you know will bug you and decipher all the feedback. Even then it can be a crapshoot. There are games I put off thinking there'd be stuff that would make me not like it, and then I eventually do play it and end up liking it. But then there are games where I can tell beforehand just are not going to be my style of game and so I should pass. Even then, sometimes I'll go against my better judgement and then wish I hadn't.

Hmm i really cannot believe that you mentioned Skyrim as having an immersive story and good character development. That is just utter rubbish. And the game has a very adult theme, hence te nudity. By your saying, Game of Thrones should also appeal to horny teenagers and degenerates eh?

I totally agree that the first Witcher had the worst combat. SO bad in fact that i could not even clear the first fight scene. I remember restarting the game over and over again only to clear the first fight, and got so frustrated that i quit. But then, i restarted the game and went through with it somehow and thank God I did. The story is amongst the best in games of all time.

And btw, please don't rant about the first Witcher cos it is very very old.There is a much much improved sequel out there.

I don't think he did say that, he just said he enjoyed Skyrim.

Well, yes, Game of Thrones does appeal to teenagers and degenerates, but its also, in my opinion, much better than the Witcher so I don't really get your comparison. I do think the OP does seem to enjoy a different type of storytelling. Honestly, while I do enjoy a more mature one, I also don't blame him, games generally do not handle stuff like sex and other adult themes well (to be honest, there's plenty of books, movies, and TV that doesn't either, but games just about never have, which didn't bug me as much when I was 13 but can be grating now). The Witcher isn't anywhere close to the worst (or in my opinion even, really, terrible) about handling the mature stuff but it does get over the top ridiculous at times, so I can't fault him over not liking that. I do think his issues can be overlooked on the whole and is the weakest part of his problem with the game, but he also made it clear that it was more than that (and like you said it had really bad combat, sometimes something like that can cause a player to feel like other issues are highlighted).

There were enough other problems with the game that I could see someone strongly disliking it, and it was just the sum total that cause him to wonder what people were thinking. I've had games like that (Metal Gear...:whiste. I can't even count the number of times a movie has made me feel that way, where I can see some of the appeal, but overall I'm just left wondering how people can ignore all the, to me, glaring faults.

 

[smackababy]

Well, yes, Game of Thrones does appeal to teenagers and degenerates, but its also, in my opinion, much better than the Witcher so I don't really get your comparison.

What? The Song of Fire and Ice series is way too long to appeal to teenagers. The HBO show, I can see appealing more to teenagers.

 

[rivethead]

I'll just throw out (for those of you contemplating playing The Witcher) that there are some really good mods out there to make the game more beautiful.

There are several hi-res textutre mods enhancing the graphics (which I found were pretty good to begin with). And there is a blood mod that makes the combat sequences much cooler IMHO (if you don't mind gashes, blood, and blood squiriting).

 

[byteman99]

I never trust any of the major website reviews for the most part. Though I gotta say I enjoyed The Witcher and consider it one of the best rpgs released in the past 5 years. I can say lots of good things about it but I feel that this review from Gamebanshee does a really good job at reviewing the game.
http://www.gamebanshee.com/reviews/29355-the-witcher.html

But just to go over your points

1. I don’t know what the complaint about combat is here? Will someone please tell me what was so bad about it? I thought it was fun, it was simple and it worked. It was also pretty unique.
2. You wanted drama? That’s not who Geralt is. He is a monster slayer, not a soap opera actor. His voice actor did a good job.
3. Story is great. I really like the more mature themes you don’t see in many other rpgs. Maybe you just dont like the mature theme?
4. I agree with this one. Best looking rpg released at that time.
5. Yes, Geralt is a man whore. Not too much of a big deal here.
6. I will also agree with you here, and the review I linked does mention this. The fetch quests in this game are annoying. But there were also plenty of other great quests.

 

[thespyder]

As far as the combat was concerned, it just seemed VERY wonkie. Watching your character sway around waving that sword two handed over his head just was very strange and unintuitive. And not very realistic to my mind. Plus some of the jumping around didn't seem necessary or appropriate to the combat style. Granted, didn't get vary far into the game before quitting, so maybe it changes and gets better?

As for it being a great RPG, my personal problem with it is that you don't get to play "your" character. You play Geralt (sp?). No Gender choices. No Race choices. You can't name him/her. Nor change the way the main avatar looks. These may be small things in most people's book, but I personally equate role playing not with "Here, play this role." but more of a "Create a character and play that role in this scenario". It's a style choice on my part.

 

[darkewaffle]

My favorite Witcher review

 

[MetalMat]

When I built my pc back in 2008 I got the first one with the graphics card I bought. It was fun for a while but I quit playing around a quarter of the way through because I got bored with it. Not saying it was a bad game, just was not for me. I have no real desire to play the second one.

 

[byteman99]

So it is more about the way it looks then? Not much changes with the look of the combat as you progress. You still have your 3 different sword styles, though you get to develop further as the game goes along. You also get to learn alchemy and some spells that also make combat more interesting. Like I said before, it was a unique combat system, not too overly complex, and it worked without much issue. Pretty fluid for the most part.

It's been a while since I played the game but I don't think that any other race can be a witcher. Or any other sex for that matter. Someone correct me if i'm wrong. Even in the game theres only like 3 other witchers. Besides I think you do get to play your character. The game has many situations where your actions have an effect in the game world. Lots of shades of gray in the story. Sure you don't make your character from scratch but not many other rpgs put you in the type pf situations the witcher did.

I will also admit this, the first part of the game is boring. So boring that it made me quit the game for six months. At least the devs corrected this mistake in the second game. Still I came back to it decided to give it another try and the game turned out to be one of my favorites in the genre. And this is coming from someone that likes the first two Fallout's, Arcanum, Planescape Torment, and Vampire: TMB.

 

[thespyder]

Again, my preferences are my personal ones and not (intended to be) representative of all RPG gamers. But to me, The Best RPGs are ones where you create your character and go into the world.

Not saying that RPGs that don't do that aren't good. Merely they aren't AS good as ones that do. I thoroughly enjoyed ME2, where you had to play Sheppard instead of your own nameless captain. And even KoTor 2 where you ...Ahem (in case the one person on the planet who hasn't played it yet is reading)...

Spoiler

play a Specific character in the end.

had more variety.

My top 5 RPGs include BG Series. NWN 1/2, Fallout series (including FO3 &NV), DA:O , KoTOR. Throw in Ultima, ToEE, Tes games and quite a few others for good measure.

But they are different than what The Witcher offers.

and as for the combat system, it may 'Work' well, but it just looks goofy. And unnecessarily so. Sorry, just not buying that someone would be able to fight that way with a sword in real life.

Again, not saying The Witcher isn't a fine game. Just not "MY" type of game. At least not enough to qualify as 'Among the best'.

 

[Dumac]

As far as the combat was concerned, it just seemed VERY wonkie. Watching your character sway around waving that sword two handed over his head just was very strange and unintuitive. And not very realistic to my mind.

and as for the combat system, it may 'Work' well, but it just looks goofy. And unnecessarily so. Sorry, just not buying that someone would be able to fight that way with a sword in real life.

I find this funny. The Witcher combat animations are derived directly from actual medieval sword-fighting techniques.

Maybe you are just used to nonsensical fighting like KotOR?

 

[thespyder]

I find this funny. The Witcher combat animations are derived directly from actual medieval sword-fighting techniques.

Maybe you are just used to nonsensical fighting like KotOR?

Or maybe I wasn't alive in Medieval times? (ok, maybe I was, but still) Or have witnessed significantly more effective combat styles using a sword?

 

[shurato]

I liked that I was playing Geralt and not a custom character personally. He has an incredible lore and backstory that permeates to Witcher 2 as well. The storytelling is crucial to the series and there also Polish books based on him.

Now mmorpgs and some other rpgs yeah I prefer to customize my character. Just my opinion as well. Witcher 2 is absolute badassery.... I feel like its a totally different gameplay style so don't be turned off to trying it out even if you dont like the first one.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dumac]

Or maybe I wasn't alive in Medieval times? (ok, maybe I was, but still) Or have witnessed significantly more effective combat styles using a sword?

In what, DA:O? KotOR? NWN? Where they just run up and hack away like robots?

I think your complaint is unjustified, considering Witcher's combat is MORE accurate than the games you listed.

The actual combat mechanics themselves are lame, sure. That is why TW2 completely overhauled the fighting. But complaining about the combat animation seems strange.

 

[thespyder]

In what, DA:O? KotOR? NWN? Where they just run up and hack away like robots?

In real life actually. I have a friend (several actually) who study various forms of sword play as a hobby. And then go to Renascence fairs and make fun of the jousting and mock combat.

I think your complaint is unjustified, considering Witcher's combat is MORE accurate than the games you listed.

My comment that subjectively I thought the look of the combat was wonky was unjustified? Hmm. Please look up the words subjective and unjustified in Websters.com and get back to me on this.

The actual combat mechanics themselves are lame, sure. That is why TW2 completely overhauled the fighting. But complaining about the combat animation seems strange.

they were lame by your own admission, yet you think that I am unjustified in having the opinion that they were lame? Thanks for clarifying things. Ever thought of going into advertising?

 

[Dumac]

In real life actually. I have a friend (several actually) who study various forms of sword play as a hobby. And then go to Renascence fairs and make fun of the jousting and mock combat.

If he actually studied sword play, then he would recognize the animations. They are well known techniques.

My comment that subjectively I thought the look of the combat was wonky was unjustified? Hmm. Please look up the words subjective and unjustified in Websters.com and get back to me on this.

You said the combat animation was "not very realistic" and you are "just not buying that someone would be able to fight that way with a sword in real life." The animations are factually realistic, so you are unjustified in your comments. There isn't anything subjective about it.

they were lame by your own admission, yet you think that I am unjustified in having the opinion that they were lame? Thanks for clarifying things. Ever thought of going into advertising?

I said the combat MECHANICS were lame (i.e. timed clicks), yet I said the combat animation itself is good. I explicitly noted the difference between combat mechanics (which is how the player controls the combat) and combat animation. Your complaints were with the latter, and that is what I was arguing with. Did you read the whole sentence?

Either way, this is going on too long and hogging the thread. You can respond if you wish, but I won't. I think all the points have been made.

 

[thespyder]

If he actually studied sword play, then he would recognize the animations. They are well known techniques.

I don't know what all he studied. I just know that when he practices, it looks MUCH different. And he laughed at the way it looked in game.

You said the combat animation was "not very realistic" and you are "just not buying that someone would be able to fight that way with a sword in real life." The animations are factually realistic, so you are unjustified in your comments. There isn't anything subjective about it.

Again, my preferences are my personal ones and not (intended to be) representative of all RPG gamers.

...


and as for the combat system, it may 'Work' well, but it just looks goofy. And unnecessarily so. Sorry, just not buying that someone would be able to fight that way with a sword in real life.

so, out of context much?

I said the combat MECHANICS were lame (i.e. timed clicks), yet I said the combat animation itself is good. I explicitly noted the difference between combat mechanics (which is how the player controls the combat) and combat animation. Your complaints were with the latter, and that is what I was arguing with. Did you read the whole sentence?

Either way, this is going on too long and hogging the thread. You can respond if you wish, but I won't. I think all the points have been made.

Perhaps you could have been clearer? You said mechanics, which was what I was talking about. You said nothing about the clicks, which was where your initial posts looked schizo to me. But looks like merely a communication error.

Anyway, I guess we agree to disagree.

 

[diesbudt]

I don't know what all he studied. I just know that when he practices, it looks MUCH different. And he laughed at the way it looked in game.

Sounds more like he studied the artform of swordplay, and not actual sword-fighting.

Most sword-fighting in its day wasn't about stances or smooth blows or even about fluidity of attacks. Unless one was able to make a sneak attack and get someone unexpected, most sword masters would end up just testing out their opponent blow for blow (matching swords in midair) waiting for them to make a mistake to try and take advantage of. The fluid swordfighting we see in games, movies and such were never a reality. In some very chance-like instance in which someone would be able to do such sword fighting that allowed for fluidity between killing blows and/or attacks without being "wrong" in the swing, this wouldn't have been in the medievel times, or even from a knight/peasent that would have been weilding said sword. (Knights sword swings were also not as fast because of the burden armor and/or shield they carried.)

So short version, I believe he wasn't studying swordfighting in the medievel times, but swordplay / artform of sword fighting, which looks much better/more fluid but wasn't how sword fighting actually took place.

 

[smackababy]

Perhaps you could have been clearer? You said mechanics, which was what I was talking about. You said nothing about the clicks, which was where your initial posts looked schizo to me. But looks like merely a communication error.

Anyway, I guess we agree to disagree.

His post was clear. You said the fighting looked wonky. He said the fighting was extremely accurate for the time period. How much more clearer do you need?

 

[ibex333]

I have lost my faith in gaming review sites. The Witcher turned out to be, atleast for me, The most disappointing game I have played in a while. Now I am skeptical of gaming reviews so much now that I am unwilling to risk the cash and time trying another recent Rpg title. Rather than get lengthy into why i don't like the Witcher, let me condense my views on a smaller list:

1. Combat- self explanatory
2. Acting- worst acting ever.. monotone main character and void of any drama.
3. Story- premise was good, but events in the game felt cheesy and gave me no real feel of immersion or drive to play further.
4. Graphics were pretty good especially for the engine and original release date(only plus)
5. Romances- Too many sluts which in turn makes the game not as believable.. (whether you like sluts or not..the amount in this game is unrealistic even for a fantasy)probably this aspect appeals to horny teenagers and degenerates.
6. quests repetitive pattern- go back and forth places for 2 to 4 subquests which unlocks the final part of the main quest. Many of the quests are go-fetch errand quests.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way. Here are some Rpgs that I love.

1. Terranigma (snes)
2. Secret of Mana (snes)
3. Orcarina of Time (N64)
4. Fallout 3
5. Kotor
6. Mass effect
7. Skyrim
8. Kingdom Hearts (ps2)

I want a story that puts me to tears
I want a story that opens your mind and resonates with you
I want an epic story with dynamic characters.
I want to be immersed I want the story to suspend disbelief if at all possible.
I want a wonderful musical score to be played during the story and battle

Any suggestions? I have never played Dragon Age or Dark Souls.
are there any others? Anything in particular that is freaking epic... sad...chills down the spine amazing?

I completely disagree with all the points you made. In fact I am offended, because you called me a teenage degenerate. Hell, at least I am a 30 year old, teenage degenerate, not a kid who plays kiddie BS like Kingdom Hearts.

I thought Witcher's story and production values were awesome, and the sex was just right, without being overkill. It appealed to the perv inside me, yes, but it just added that "adult" flavor to the game which is so rare today, without being dirty or nasty.

Combat - self explanatory? No. It is not. Why don't you explain it to me please? I didn't see anything wrong with it. Acting was good. If you think this is bad, you haven't seen truly bad acting.

Sluts? -- There can never be too many sluts dude. So STFU (jk)

Repetitive quests? -- You wanna see repetitive quests? Go play Guild Wars. Come back to me after.


Out of the games on your list I totally agree about Fallout 3 and Mass Effect. The rest while classics, cant be played right now for same level of enjoyment. I tried Ocarina of Time on an emulator, and thought the graphics were unbearably horrendous. Same for KoTOR. Look, I am all for game-play over graphics, but when they are that bad, I just cannot take it. Although I was a huge fan of SEGA and SNES back in the day, I completely skipped that intermittent period when 3d was just starting to appear. I hated N64, PSX, and all that garbage. I thought they were horrible consoles with horrible games. I wanted SEGA Genesis back. Then when PS2 appeared that all changed. I actually took some interest in 3d games on consoles but never bought a PS2.

 

[Cerb]

1. I don’t know what the complaint about combat is here? Will someone please tell me what was so bad about it? I thought it was fun, it was simple and it worked. It was also pretty unique.

Without Flash's mod, I, like others, never could figure out how you are supposed to time attacks so that it is possible to get past the opening sequence. W/o the mod, it would not have been a game I could finish, unless maybe someone were to put up a detailed tutorial on timing the clicks.

But, for me, that was the one major flaw, and otherwise, it was a great game.

 

[Martimus]

The Witcher 1 got poor reviews when it was released due to the bugs and the horribly long load times between common area changes. That was the reason I didn't get it for a long time after it was released. When the Enhanced Edition was released that fixed most of those problems, I picked it up and found it an OK RPG. It wasn't special other than it didn't treat you with kid gloves which I greatly appreciated.

The Witcher 2 however was so much better than the original that it is probably my favorite game of all time. It had its own problems, but they were minor enough that the game as a whole was still fantastic.

Edit: about the acting, you should remember that the game was made in Polish, so the english dialog was translated and dubbed. The enhanced edition redid the translation so that it was less obvious. I found it no worse than the SNES games you mentioned that were translated from Japanese.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

I remember I tried The Witcher 1 when it was released in 2007. Didn't like it at all. Then I bought The Witcher Enhanced Edition on Steam a few months ago. Turned out I had to hit F3 or something to get the same camera angle as The Witcher 2.

After this I really liked The Witcher 1. Really nice game. The Witcher 2 is also a pretty neat game, but I like the first one better.

 

[thespyder]

Sounds more like he studied the artform of swordplay, and not actual sword-fighting.

Most sword-fighting in its day wasn't about stances or smooth blows or even about fluidity of attacks. Unless one was able to make a sneak attack and get someone unexpected, most sword masters would end up just testing out their opponent blow for blow (matching swords in midair) waiting for them to make a mistake to try and take advantage of. The fluid swordfighting we see in games, movies and such were never a reality. In some very chance-like instance in which someone would be able to do such sword fighting that allowed for fluidity between killing blows and/or attacks without being "wrong" in the swing, this wouldn't have been in the medievel times, or even from a knight/peasent that would have been weilding said sword. (Knights sword swings were also not as fast because of the burden armor and/or shield they carried.)

So short version, I believe he wasn't studying swordfighting in the medievel times, but swordplay / artform of sword fighting, which looks much better/more fluid but wasn't how sword fighting actually took place.

At the end of the day, I stand by my original assessment. The combat looked wonky. And I didn't like it at all. Maybe I am used to 'Fake' sword fighting. You know, like fencing? But that is what I wanted and expected. And didn't get from The Witcher.

But no one has to agree with me in order for my opinion to be valid to me.

 

[rivethead]

Without Flash's mod, I, like others, never could figure out how you are supposed to time attacks so that it is possible to get past the opening sequence. W/o the mod, it would not have been a game I could finish, unless maybe someone were to put up a detailed tutorial on timing the clicks.

But, for me, that was the one major flaw, and otherwise, it was a great game.

1) point cursor at bad guy
2) click right mouse button
3) watch Geralt do a swordplay animation for the 1st attack sequence
4) wait for "fiery sword" icon to show up on the screen
5) once it does, click the right mouse button
6) watch Geralt do a swordplay animation for the 2nd attack sequence
7) repeat #4 to #6 (up to six times...5 attack sequences and the final)