The Witcher

[brikis98]

So, after reading tons of positive reviews, a buddy of mine got the Witcher this past week.

I was at his house while he played and a few hours in we both looked at each other in astonishment: what the hell is this crap?

The graphics were average at best (1920*1080, everything on high), the sound was nothing special, the story (for the few hours we played) was generic as hell, and the gameplay... oh my, what a load of crap.

You run around with the arrow keys, so at first you think this will be a cool 3rd person fighting game, but once combat begins, you realize your only role is to click on the enemy every now and then and watch your character do his thing. The typical fight is: left click... wait... left click... wait... left click... enemy dies. you can cast the occasional spell too, but that's as run of the mill as it gets.

There are a TON of cut scenes, most of which run on way too long and are completely unnecessary. As the animations are fairly jerky and the voice acting nothing impressive, these will slowly drive you nuts. Add to that overly frequent load times (which can be annoyingly long), and you have yourself one of the most disappointing games i've seen in a while.

how the HELL did this get such high reviews?



PS. my buddy is now frantically trying to sell the game on ebay while he can still get some of his money back for it...

 

[quackerww]

I played the Demo and was not impressed... To each his own tho.

 

[dighn]

Not an RPG fan eh? The game play sounds fairly typical for an RPG; in fact from what I've seen in the demo, they actually tried to put some "action" into it.

Graphics and sound looked fairly good. They aren't the most important aspects of an RPG anyway. Story I can't say. Though having lots of cut scenes sounds promising.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: dighn
Not an RPG fan eh? The game play sounds fairly typical for an RPG; in fact from what I've seen in the demo, they actually tried to put some "action" into it.

Graphics and sound looked fairly good. They aren't the most important aspects of an RPG anyway. Story I can't say. Though having lots of cut scenes sounds promising.

I typically steer clear of "traditional" RPG's because, IMO, they lack "fun" gameplay. I enjoy the character building aspect of RPG's, but I just can't devote time to a game where 99% of my interaction is the occasional click on the screen. I need to be doing something - whether that be fighting, solving puzzles, developing strategies - and not just collecting trinkets. There are exceptions of course, and judging by the reviews and screenshots, I thought the witcher might be one. I was wrong.

RPG's I liked: KOTOR I and II, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion,
RPG's I didn't like: Diablo I and II, Baldur's Gate, The Witcher

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: brikis98

I typically steer clear of "traditional" RPG's because, IMO, they lack "fun" gameplay. I enjoy the character building aspect of RPG's, but I just can't devote time to a game where 99% of my interaction is the occasional click on the screen. I need to be doing something - whether that be fighting, solving puzzles, developing strategies - and not just collecting trinkets. There are exceptions of course, and judging by the reviews and screenshots, I thought the witcher might be one. I was wrong.

RPG's I liked: KOTOR I and II, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion,
RPG's I didn't like: Diablo I and II, Baldur's Gate, The Witcher

Hmm yes... I was under the impression that Witcher had a non-traditional RPG gameplay style as well. I can't say whether or not I like it yet because I've only played a very small part of the demo.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: brikis98
I typically steer clear of "traditional" RPG's because...

RPG's I didn't like: Diablo I and II, Baldur's Gate, The Witcher

If you don't like traditional RPGs, then you certainly picked the wrong game didn't you.

Next time read the description, not just the scores.

BTW, Baldur's Gate was one of the best games every made.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: dighn
Not an RPG fan eh? The game play sounds fairly typical for an RPG; in fact from what I've seen in the demo, they actually tried to put some "action" into it.

Graphics and sound looked fairly good. They aren't the most important aspects of an RPG anyway. Story I can't say. Though having lots of cut scenes sounds promising.

I typically steer clear of "traditional" RPG's because, IMO, they lack "fun" gameplay. I enjoy the character building aspect of RPG's, but I just can't devote time to a game where 99% of my interaction is the occasional click on the screen. I need to be doing something - whether that be fighting, solving puzzles, developing strategies - and not just collecting trinkets. There are exceptions of course, and judging by the reviews and screenshots, I thought the witcher might be one. I was wrong.

RPG's I liked: KOTOR I and II, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion,
RPG's I didn't like: Diablo I and II, Baldur's Gate, The Witcher

If you liked TES IV and didn't care for Baldur's Gate, then yes, you do not like traditional RPGs. However, Diablo I and II aren't traditional either, and very action orientated, so maybe you just don't like certain things? You just selects attack and watch your characters do there things, only broken by an occasional spell or ability usage.

You complain about not having to do something, but in Diablo if you aren't doing something, then you must be a poor player. Also, isn't KoTOR play out almost exactly like you described the witcher?

 

[StinkyPinky]

I'm confused...you say you don't like point and click combat and then use KOTOR as an example of a game you liked.

BTW, I'm playing The Witcher as we speak and I actually agree somewhat. I've put about 20 hrs into it, and while I'm mostly enjoying it, I don't think it's as shit hot as people make it out to be. Many of the quests are the really lame "kill 5 generic fantasy monsters for x gold" crap which I hate. And the graphics, while okay, are really depressing. Everything is brown. Also there *are* too many cut scenes...half of them dont even make sense. And the main quest thus far is hard to follow and seems jumbled.

Probably give it a 7/10.

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
I'm confused...you say you don't like point and click combat and then use KOTOR as an example of a game you liked.

BTW, I'm playing The Witcher as we speak and I actually agree somewhat. I've put about 20 hrs into it, and while I'm mostly enjoying it, I don't think it's as shit hot as people make it out to be. Many of the quests are the really lame "kill 5 generic fantasy monsters for x gold" crap which I hate. And the graphics, while okay, are really depressing. Everything is brown. Also there *are* too many cut scenes...half of them dont even make sense. And the main quest thus far is hard to follow and seems jumbled.

Probably give it a 7/10.

I think he means that he doesn't enjoy click-fests (although The Witcher's combat was designed to stray away from becoming a click-fest ala Diablo)

 

[MTDEW]

WOW...I loved both KOTOR games and Oblivion and i loved the Witcher too.

All i can add is the game/story starts off slow. (as with most rpgs.)
And of course it gets better once it gets going. (as with most rpgs)

And I thought the writing and voice acting were top notch.

As was already said, to each his own i guess.

But man, I honestly liked The Witcher better than Crysis, Bioshock and COD4.
And I usually favor fps's!
But not this year.

The Witcher gets my vote for GOTY. :thumbsup:

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

I got a good laugh out of the demo and uninstalled it. The combat is the worst thing, closely followed by the ridiculously frequent interruptions for YACS.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: brikis98
So, after reading tons of positive reviews, a buddy of mine got the Witcher this past week.

I was at his house while he played and a few hours in we both looked at each other in astonishment: what the hell is this crap?

The graphics were average at best (1920*1080, everything on high), the sound was nothing special, the story (for the few hours we played) was generic as hell, and the gameplay... oh my, what a load of crap.

You run around with the arrow keys, so at first you think this will be a cool 3rd person fighting game, but once combat begins, you realize your only role is to click on the enemy every now and then and watch your character do his thing. The typical fight is: left click... wait... left click... wait... left click... enemy dies. you can cast the occasional spell too, but that's as run of the mill as it gets.

There are a TON of cut scenes, most of which run on way too long and are completely unnecessary. As the animations are fairly jerky and the voice acting nothing impressive, these will slowly drive you nuts. Add to that overly frequent load times (which can be annoyingly long), and you have yourself one of the most disappointing games i've seen in a while.

how the HELL did this get such high reviews?



PS. my buddy is now frantically trying to sell the game on ebay while he can still get some of his money back for it...

Not a RPG fan for sure?..now go and play Bioshock and tell me how that game gets 10/10 from a lot of review sites,which IMHO has a poor boring storyline and a game you can finish in 15 hours or less and about as exciting as watching paint dry.

As was already said, to each his own i guess.

But man, I honestly liked The Witcher better than Crysis, Bioshock and COD4.
And I usually favor fps's!
But not this year.

The Witcher gets my vote for GOTY.

Agreed!..especially from chapter 2 .

 

[MarcVenice]

Try installing the latest patch like a good boy, and you'll no longer be bothered with the ridiculous long loading/saving times. As for the graphics, I think they are actually pretty good, not sure what you were expecting, but I wish more games looked as the Witcher. Maybe the style doesn't do it for you, but that doesn't necesarily make the graphics bad. And the story does start of slow but does get quite compelling later on. With plenty of quests and stuff to do. The game can easily take 40 hours to finish.

 

[silvano]

I just did a small review of the game, minus the 1.2 patch on my blog. The cut scenes are cool, but a little too many to begin with imo. Check out the review @ http://silvanov.com/blog/

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Mem


Not a RPG fan for sure?..now go and play Bioshock and tell me how that game gets 10/10 from a lot of review sites,which IMHO has a poor boring storyline and a game you can finish in 15 hours or less and about as exciting as watching paint dry.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Mem


Not a RPG fan for sure?..now go and play Bioshock and tell me how that game gets 10/10 from a lot of review sites,which IMHO has a poor boring storyline and a game you can finish in 15 hours or less and about as exciting as watching paint dry.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

I'm entitled to my opinion ,just like you and brikis98 are entitled to yours,end of the day I call it as I see it and have played the game.

Btw I hope you was not being rude,because I have not been rude to anybody in this thread and there's no need to go in that direction.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: dighn
Not an RPG fan eh? The game play sounds fairly typical for an RPG; in fact from what I've seen in the demo, they actually tried to put some "action" into it.

Graphics and sound looked fairly good. They aren't the most important aspects of an RPG anyway. Story I can't say. Though having lots of cut scenes sounds promising.

I typically steer clear of "traditional" RPG's because, IMO, they lack "fun" gameplay. I enjoy the character building aspect of RPG's, but I just can't devote time to a game where 99% of my interaction is the occasional click on the screen. I need to be doing something - whether that be fighting, solving puzzles, developing strategies - and not just collecting trinkets. There are exceptions of course, and judging by the reviews and screenshots, I thought the witcher might be one. I was wrong.

RPG's I liked: KOTOR I and II, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion,
RPG's I didn't like: Diablo I and II, Baldur's Gate, The Witcher

If you liked TES IV and didn't care for Baldur's Gate, then yes, you do not like traditional RPGs. However, Diablo I and II aren't traditional either, and very action orientated, so maybe you just don't like certain things? You just selects attack and watch your characters do there things, only broken by an occasional spell or ability usage.

You complain about not having to do something, but in Diablo if you aren't doing something, then you must be a poor player. Also, isn't KoTOR play out almost exactly like you described the witcher?

The only difference in "action" between Diablo and the Witcher is that in Diablo you quick (very very) quickly and in the Witcher, you click less often. To me, click-whoring does not constitute meaningful interaction nor interesting combat.

As for KOTOR, combat was still one of it's weaker points, but even there you had more depth. You could pick from a variety of different attacks (which you develop as part of the RPG), you controlled multiple characters (each of which, again, has different attacks) and the whole mechanic had a much more exciting and strategic feel to it. On top of that, KOTOR was backed by an amazing story, meaningful choices, and tricky quests.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Mem

Not a RPG fan for sure?..now go and play Bioshock and tell me how that game gets 10/10 from a lot of review sites,which IMHO has a poor boring storyline and a game you can finish in 15 hours or less and about as exciting as watching paint dry.

I actually never finished bioshock... got about 7 hours in, was horribly bored and just haven't touched it since. I should finish the game, but at this point, I don't see what all the commotion was about.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Try installing the latest patch like a good boy, and you'll no longer be bothered with the ridiculous long loading/saving times.

Too late, game is uninstalled and sold... but I guess that is worth knowing.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
As for the graphics, I think they are actually pretty good, not sure what you were expecting, but I wish more games looked as the Witcher. Maybe the style doesn't do it for you, but that doesn't necesarily make the graphics bad.

I had just finished my second play through of Call of Duty 4 (my vote for GoTY) and both from a technical and artistic perspective, the Witcher isn't even on the same level. My machine can't play crysis at high enough levels, but from what I've read/seen, that game looks even better.

Granted, this is an RPG game with (supposedly) large, open environments so it's acceptable if the graphics aren't absolutely top of the line (even though all the reviews seemed to praise the graphics). However, this thing doesn't look any better than Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, which is a year older. In fact, with the proper mods, I think Oblivion looks much better. And oblivion managed to have FAR more open game worlds, with significantly fewer and shorter load times. Hell, when not in a cave, you could run almost non stop across the Oblivion game world while enjoying the incredibly scenery.

As I said originally, the graphics are not BAD, they just aren't anything special. Add to that a somewhat boring art style and again, I just don't see what people were so impressed by.

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
And the story does start of slow but does get quite compelling later on. With plenty of quests and stuff to do. The game can easily take 40 hours to finish.

For me, it's quality over quantity. I'd rather play CoD 4 or Portals for 4 hours, enjoying every second, then play 40 hours of crap.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

I'm still working at the Witcher. I played for a bit when I first got it and it didn't pull me, so now I make myself play it every couple of days hopefully I will get somewhere too. I mind completely controlling with the mouse as it means I can sit back and relax. So far it hasn't grasped my attention enough to play it full time hopefully it will though because I payed $50 for it!

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: brikis98

The only difference in "action" between Diablo and the Witcher is that in Diablo you quick (very very) quickly and in the Witcher, you click less often. To me, click-whoring does not constitute meaningful interaction nor interesting combat.

As for KOTOR, combat was still one of it's weaker points, but even there you had more depth. You could pick from a variety of different attacks (which you develop as part of the RPG), you controlled multiple characters (each of which, again, has different attacks) and the whole mechanic had a much more exciting and strategic feel to it. On top of that, KOTOR was backed by an amazing story, meaningful choices, and tricky quests.

Although Diablo I and II didn't really have choices, they did have great quests and a phenomenal story. I find the stories of the Diablo games to be superior to that of KotOR, and far better than that of KoTOR II, which had a crap ass story. As for a variety of attacks, Diablo II had so many classes and skills that I don't see how one could want more. 3 tiers per class chock full of skills with 8 (I believe) classes was enough to get me to replay the game a few times.

But yes, Diablo I and II are a click fest, but at least you move you own character in combat. I thought the game required more strategy than KoTOR, which was a pretty damn easy game. I still think of KoTOR exactly how you describe the Witcher, click-whoring where you click less often.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Simple Question: How far did you get into the game?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

The combat system kinda sucks, but the story seems decent. And I like the whole atmosphere of the game. Lots of mysterious stuff going on.

 

[ITPaladin]

You don't play this game for the combat.
You play it for the story and other development.

Geralt's moves from clicking properly get more involved as you spend
points on the various combat skills.

I decapitated 2-3 guys at once in a fight. I was like...what the hell...they died fast.

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: ITPaladin
You don't play this game for the combat.
You play it for the story and other development.

Geralt's moves from clicking properly get more involved as you spend
points on the various combat skills.

I decapitated 2-3 guys at once in a fight. I was like...what the hell...they died fast.

Yep.

At first...I too thought "WTF is this?" and put it on the shelf for a bit. Then I gave it another go and realized the combat system is kinda cool actually.

You have to change your combat style and weapon depending upon which mob you fight. And depending upon how you allocate your skills, you can easily insta-kill mobs depending upon the situation [invest heavily into group attacks for both types of swords]

In addition, if you don't click at the right time [when the glowing sword icon appears], then you miss out on the better combat moves.

Plus, you're not limited to just left click... wait for the glowing sword icon...then click... and repeat until the mob are dead. You can also use bombs for various effects and potions [health pots, regen pots, etc].

But yeah.. this is an RPG...not some mindless hack-n-slash adventure.