Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review Of Monsters, Men and BROche

el Supremo

Augur
Patron
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
548
Location
City 13
Tormented Seph said:
Anyway, I think that the motives behind the actions of the Elves are fairly shared in the context of the world of The Witcher...a cruel and mature low fantasy world...
What would you do in their social and political situation?
The thing is, they cannot win. Elves are in no position to exterminate humans, and klling random peasants is not going influence the rulers. This is not that kind of world. Even Iorveth finally seems to see it.




I meant to say that Geralt and Triss start the game into bed without a real motivation (Geralt like to fuck, sure, but not to use a friend like Triss, I mean) , without someone has explained the real reason, or why Shani seems to no longer exist in that context (I imported a savegame that contains a romance with Shani)...
Me too. Imported savegame with Shani, that is. And I did not even bat an eyelid seeing Geralt with Triss... Use Triss? Seriously? It is not like he seduced a virgin. They just had some fun together.
On the other hand, the thought that Geralt would join Scioa'tael seems absurd to me.
I guess we are just seeing certain things, like terrorism, or random sex, differently. :lol:
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
Vault Dweller said:
Character system - poorly designed, disconnected from the combat system, can play the game without it
Combat - poor man's action game
Quests - probably the weakest aspect of the game, very poor design
Alchemy & Crafting - mediocre
Items distribution - godawful
Dialogue skills - max at 3, completely optional, don't affect anything
Effect of skills (what skills?) on gameplay - zero
Choices & consequences - linear, most choices are meaningless, very few choices have affect on gameplay, very DA2, never in control, zero freedom.
Setting & characters - very good to excellent
Graphics - superb

In my mind, this is a pretty accurate description of The Witcher 2's features and their flaws/merits. I'm still a bit miffed though. I mean, the comparison between TW2 and DA2 is pretty much fucking spot on IF, and only IF you accept that each of the above listed features in, or parts of, the game, can be analyzed seperately. But while VD and VoD claim the game has a strong similarity to DA2, the review also claims that TW2 is more than the sum of its parts. Hell, VD even said it himself in the comment-thread of BN's review:

Vault Dweller said:
Black_Willow said:
Shame that for VD picking different rewards for completing quests (weapons, skills etc) are the only gameplay affecting C&Cs.
And where exactly did I say that?

You want an example of a gameplay affecting choice in the Witcher's context? How about:

If you trigger the pogrom, your dwarven buddy will die unless you manage to save him. There. Not some meaningless no-name non-human scum, but a key-fucking-character with whom you have a relationship

If I may be so bold as to re-phrase the point VD makes here, it is that context determines the weight and import of C&C (at least in this instance). I.e. dwarf we care about > than dwarf we don't care about, to which it follows that light consequences to content we care about are better than light consequences to content we DO NOT care about. And if we agree that the setting and characters of TW2 are, in VD's own words, "very good to excellent" compared to DA2's very bad to mediocre (those are my words, mind), then the fact that your choices impact (lightly or no) "very good to excellent" stuff in and of itself raises the C&C above that of DA2. I.e. while the consequences in TW2 might be as light as those in DA2, they are still better when you take context into consideration. Unless of course, VD holds that DA2's setting and characters are 'very good to excellent'. I'm sure he'll correct me if he does, but for the purposes of argument I'll continue as if he doesn't. Summa summarum, TW2 is better than DA2, because its strong points makes its weak points stronger than DA2's weak points.

So here is my question: Why is VD (and if he agrees with VD in this, VoD too) so hellbent on the DA2 comparison? I loathe DA2, but thought TW2 was a good game which had some major defuncts. Why is my opinion important to this argument? Because I agree with VD and VoD in everything in their line of arguments - I just don't seem to come to the same conclusion for some reason. If I interpret VD's comments correctly I'm having a hard time figuring out how exactly TW2 is so similar to DA2. The majority of its parts might be - but its sum is not at all. Or, put differently, I agree with VD's analysis of the parts of TW2, but I'm not sure we find common ground as for the sum.

Conclusion: The fact that this question even jumps to mind makes me think of the review thusly: though it is fucking hilarious and, in my mind, very accurate in describing the parts of the game it explores, it fails to confer to the reader the opinion of its authors completely and without question. Even after reading ten pages of discussion on the subject I have no idea what our lovely duo of game-reviewers (who are among the truest of bros - no mistake there!) actually think of the fucking game.

That is all.

PS. The above is pretty much my single criticism of the review. No matter what, it's a fuckton better than average game-journalism and, as I said, it is pretty accurate and thoughrough in describing the flaws of the game.
 

CappenVarra

phase-based phantasmist
Patron
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
2,912
Location
Ardamai
Since there is now one and a half version of the review, perhaps it could use a fork at the end of the first chapter. A sort of "choose your own review" gimmick, with the middle part being either the original one or the "new" one. They would both wrap back to the original conclusion, of course. That way codex could claim merit for an important evolution of the review genre - and nobody could possibly find any faults with the review, right?
 

Rivmusique

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
3,489
Location
Kangarooland
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
CappenVarra said:
Since there is now one and a half version of the review, perhaps it could use a fork at the end of the first chapter. A sort of "choose your own review" gimmick, with the middle part being either the original one or the "new" one. They would both wrap back to the original conclusion, of course. That way codex could claim merit for an important evolution of the review genre - and nobody could possibly find any faults with the review, right?

Oh no he didn't!

Haven't you heard bro, there are 16 different endings :smug:
......
......
......
:lol:
 

Jools

Eater of Apples
Patron
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
10,652
Location
Mêlée Island
Codex 2014 Make the Codex Great Again! Insert Title Here Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
CappenVarra said:
Since there is now one and a half version of the review, perhaps it could use a fork at the end of the first chapter. A sort of "choose your own review" gimmick, with the middle part being either the original one or the "new" one. They would both wrap back to the original conclusion, of course.

If they wrap up to the same conclusion, where's C&C then? Computer says no.

:D
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
So C&C is ending slides? Come on. Though actually, the ending changes significantly based on your choices, so if there's one million dollar question we can answer, it's that one. TW2 isn't some shining beacon of light of C&C, but it's better than any newer RPG I can think of...

It's funny how discussion on the 'dex always has to be light vs. dark, black vs. white. The fanboys force this with their attitude of defending every aspect of the game, and the Skyway-crowd force it by the opposite. You have to either align with the fanboys, or the haters. There is no middle-ground, motherfuckers.
 

PrzeSzkoda

Augur
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
632
Location
Zork - Poland
Project: Eternity
Grunker said:
Vault Dweller said:
If you trigger the pogrom, your dwarven buddy will die unless you manage to save him. There. Not some meaningless no-name non-human scum, but a key-fucking-character with whom you have a relationship

If I may be so bold as to re-phrase the point VD makes here, it is that context determines the weight and import of C&C (at least in this instance). I.e. dwarf we care about > than dwarf we don't care about, to which it follows that light consequences to content we care about are better than light consequences to content we DO NOT care about.

Grunker, bro, you do realise that the dwarven friend example VD is talking 'bout there is of his own devising, as in it is NOT in the actual game? He came up with it as an example of how the C&C could be actually made more meaningful than it is (IIRC it refers to Zoltan Chivay, and the dude remains alive no matter what).
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Grunker said:
If I may be so bold as to re-phrase the point VD makes here, it is that context determines the weight and import of C&C (at least in this instance). I.e. dwarf we care about > than dwarf we don't care about, to which it follows that light consequences to content we care about are better than light consequences to content we DO NOT care about.
To a certain degree. In the end it's the effect on gameplay (not on your emotions) that counts. I used the dwarf in my example not because he's your (well, Geralt's) friend, but because he plays a key role in several quests, and should he die, you'd have to seek alternative solutions, whereas death of some no-name dwarves doesn't affect gameplay at all.

And if we agree that the setting and characters of TW2 are, in VD's own words, "very good to excellent" compared to DA2's very bad to mediocre (those are my words, mind), then the fact that your choices impact (lightly or no) "very good to excellent" stuff in and of itself raises the C&C above that of DA2.
It does, but not by much. Do you care who helps you escape in prologue, the knight or his mother?

So here is my question: Why is VD (and if he agrees with VD in this, VoD too) so hellbent on the DA2 comparison?
To hep the reader understand and relate. TW2 has many choices and some consequences. Sadly, they are of the DA2 variety. Pointing at DA2 is the fastest way to explain what's wrong with most choices and why you're never in control.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
I certainly care more about the nameless dwarves because I care about the conflict they're in more than I care about the mages in DA2 because I couldn't give two fucks about their plot-convinient paper-thin conflict. And that's my point exactly; we don't disagree that more impacting C&C would be better. We disagree that context is so unimportant that calling TW2 a game like DA2 is a fair statement. The games are similar in nature, but not in quality.

My last question also stands, btw. Did you enjoy The Witcher 2 a lot, not at all, or..?
 

Mrowak

Arcane
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
3,947
Project: Eternity
Grunker said:
I certainly care more about the nameless dwarves because I care about the conflict they're in more than I care about the mages in DA2 because I couldn't give two fucks about their plot-convinient paper-thin conflict. And that's my point exactly; we don't disagree that more impacting C&C would be better. We disagree that context is so unimportant that calling TW2 a game like DA2 is a fair statement. The games are similar in nature, but not in quality.

My last question also stands, btw. Did you enjoy The Witcher 2 a lot, not at all, or..?

I am with Grunker on this. While certainly, you could always wish there were more C&C and those available could branch in more different ways the fact remains that those that were actually given to you were bestowed with great "contextualisation".

The major point that we seem to differ is the fact the "meaningfulness" of choices. Certainly the sheer plentitude of consequences makes the choices more impacting - one cannot deny that. However, the context for these choices is also very important. In other words "does the choice make sense?" from the perspective of the world and the characters populating it, and in BaK, P:T and TW2 the standpoint of the main protagonist.

It seems evident VD, that your are not in favour of story-heavy approach. I can certainly see how it can hurt the gameplay. As you observed on numerous occassions, oftentimes it happens that in the crucial moment, when you think you should be offered choice it is taken away from you. Unfortunately, TW2 suffers from this malady - no contest there. Frankly, I too felt cheated when the game refused to let me use e.g. "Intimidation" or "Diplomacy" skills where I delt that they could meaningfully change the course of the game.

However, when TW2 shines, as far is C&C is concerned is giving good reason behind the choices that ARE given to you. When you are offered one, the writers, the plot the gameworld do their utmost to create a sense of weight to it. Some would call it "dramatizing". I call it providing solid context. This is, as Grunker noticed, the very thing that differentiates TW2 from DA2 - the fact that you actually can feel the weight of the choices, that they seem reasonable and mature. For once I appreciate when, the game does not treat me like an angsty idiot, the way KOTOR, DA and Fallout 3 seem to do. For once I can see the "consistency" of your actions and of the gameworld itself, rather than being exposed to childish drivel, and set of pulp fiction motifs. Honestly, that alone makes TW2 better effort than the best of the best C&C you can have in a badly written, creatively barren copypasta.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Grunker said:
I certainly care more about the nameless dwarves because I care about the conflict they're in more than I care about the mages in DA2 because I couldn't give two fucks about their plot-convinient paper-thin conflict.
And the human-non-human conflict in TW2 makes a lot of sense to you?

Regardless, neither the conflict nor the "pogrom" really affects anything in the game. Without consequences, it's meaningless.

We disagree that context is so unimportant that calling TW2 a game like DA2 is a fair statement. The games are similar in nature, but not in quality.
TW2 is a better game. The choices (with the exception of fairly unique Big Choice) are of a similar quality though.

My last question also stands, btw. Did you enjoy The Witcher 2 a lot, not at all, or..?
I struggled with the game. When I reached chapter 2 and looked around/did some quests, I've lost my interest. I don't need quality C&C to enjoy a game, but I do need at least one strong aspect. Like a decent character system and combat. Or skill-based dialogues. Or multiple quest solutions and different builds' support. I guess my biggest disappointment is that skills don't play any role in the game. That's a gameplay killer for me.

Anyway, I forced myself (never a good thing) to play more, but the progress was slow, as I've never felt that urge to get back into the game and play a bit more. I would have left it alone but VoD asked me to write a review. So, overall, I would not recommend the game to anyone who wants an RPG. Like I said before, I enjoyed the graphics, the setting, and the characters. The game would have been a lot better (imo), if it was a pure adventure game with stronger, proper dialogues (without that gay Mass Effect style crap).
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Mrowak said:
However, the context for these choices is also very important. In other words "does the choice make sense?" from the perspective of the world and the characters populating it...
Not enough, as proven by AP and DA2. The choices in these games fit the world, the characters, and the context, but fail to make gameplay memorable and interesting.

It seems evident VD, that your are not in favour of story-heavy approach.
I wouldn't say that. PST is one of my favorite games, even though it's linear as fuck.

This is, as Grunker noticed, the very thing that differentiates TW2 from DA2 - the fact that you actually can feel the weight of the choices, that they seem reasonable and mature. For once I appreciate when, the game does not treat me like an angsty idiot, the way KOTOR, DA and Fallout 3 seem to do. For once I can see the "consistency" of your actions and of the gameworld itself, rather than being exposed to childish drivel, and set of pulp fiction motifs. Honestly, that alone makes TW2 better effort than the best of the best C&C you can have in a badly written, creatively barren copypasta.
Well, I wouldn't call the Witcher's world very original. Many of the stories are twists on old fairy tales like Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, etc. I'd say the Witcher's world would have been far better without elves and dwarves but with different human races. What makes the story somewhat interesting is the fight for power, which doesn't require elves and dwarves.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
It seems we agree completely on everything then, except that the setting and characters were so strong they were enough to hold the game together for me, and patch up the weak spots, but that's a personal preference. I.e. I don't think that the C&C is a weak point - the context the C&C is put into is good enough for me to enjoy every choice I'm given, frankly, even choosing between a knight and his mother. However, I, like you, would recommend the game strongly to immense storyfags (i.e. me, not that I'm not a huge combatfag too), but recommend everyone else to stay away.

Maybe I misread you again. It's becoming something of a staple.

Vault Dweller said:
What makes the story somewhat interesting is the fight for power, which doesn't require elves and dwarves.

Besides the fact that the Monster vs. Man and Neutrality vs. Acting are also central and very enjoyable themes, I completely agree with you on this. The setting is still vastly surperior to your average fantasy world, as well as that of DA, though.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom