Pop

I suppose that's a more comforting thought than the alternative.

Now, I do understand that yahtzee has some kind of childhood syndrome that prevents him from enjoying an RPG, but complaining that there are quests in a game genre that usually includes them is kind of strange. I actually found that there were very little running in the game, unless you have som kind of Obsessive-compulsive disorder that forces you to do only one thing at a time. I understand that RPG gamers have some kind of childhood syndrome that causes them to accept (nay, demand) ****ty quest design and gameplay. You must have been playing a different game, because the fedex quests were many and there was a ****-ton of running around in the Witcher. Valid complaint, and one I've made about the game, especially considering that it's an action-rpg, which I'm guessing is supposed to have proper combat. This is not a refutation of the point. Yes. If you totally ignore the focus on actual roleplaying. This statement is meaningless. How? If I remember correctly then there are 'meetings' with the baddies at the end of every chapter. So how he can forget the plot at the start of a chapter, which funnily comes right after an end with a baddie 'meeting', is beyond me. The chapters are as long as an old man's balls. In a way, The Witcher is much like a pen & paper D&D game, in that it starts off with some sort of plot but the players become more interested in banging chicks and killing things until the DM has to throw them a reminder that there's some reason they're playing. Until the next chapter starts and we get back to banging chicks and killing things. The purpose of Yahtzee is to be funny and review games without regard for their pretensions, which is exactly what he's doing. And Yahtzee is painfully correct in that the Witcher is padded so hard it makes Neverwinter Nights 2 look like ****ing Portal.

I don't think I received a manual. However, Yahtzee is pointing out the inherent Eastern European-ness of the game, in that everything is needlessly complex. Saying "I don't mind that" isn't really a refutation of the point. This might have been because I've been desenticized by games such as JA2 and similar games with horrible interfaces, but I actually don't see his point. Case in point. If I were a game designer then I would probably have told him that this isn't a case of amnesia, but is instead a case of Geralt not knowing how to remove something, like a skull, without damaging its alchemical properties. Oh and balancing too of course. Yahtzee is pointing out the ridiculousness of it. It doesn't matter how it "balances" the game, it's still goddamned stupid. Like how in the first Commandos only one person on your team knew how to drive a car, and only one knew how to row a boat. You could make up bull**** excuses like "durr, the alchemical process requires educated removal", but that's functionally the same as saying "Durr, it's that way because I said so." It's a rationalization, not a refutation, of the point. Yahtzee has no reason to care about the grand vision of a game designer. He plays games. He is a gamer. The role of a gamer isn't to appreciate the vision of the designer, it's to have fun. I'll give him this one as much of The Witcher's writing were quite bad, especially when you quite after a few hours, totally missing the good parts which come afterwards. Contrary to popular belief, a badass ending doesn't really justify a ****ty beginning. Yahtzee is not wrong in walking away from an unsatisfactory game when it demands that he eat **** today to get a hamburger on Tuesday. I'm about 10 hours in and the game is fundamentally the same as it was before. I'm taking a break, but it looks like I'm not actually going to ever actually finish this game. I keep waiting for it to justify itself, and it never does.

A BLOO BLA BLOO As per the norm, Yahtzee obviously has a distaste for what he's playing, but he also has a myriad of valid and sound points to back up his foul language. In fact, dare I say that he was even more right than usual this time.

The ending's different if you harvest just one little sister. As far as I'm aware, harvesting all of them just makes the epilogue music more ominous.

The Jews, who have total control of the renal system, finally cut him off.

I got into Fallout when I was 10, and it had nothing to do with the character creation or turn-based combat systems. What makes you say that? Last time I checked, the BoS paladins didn't swear. They seemed actively against the concept of foul language. And people were angry about it not being gratuitous enough.

Hmm, well, if Eidos goes under, they might end up auctioning off the Deus Ex IP. And maybe Spector can reach out with the Iron Hand of Disney and grab it.

Which one?

The only good co-op game ever made was Toejam & Earl. Fact.

http://www.mediafire.com/?bmzsdumbbge

The waters aren't a container or a door. It didn't highlight when I pressed z in my (unpatched) game.

It's an anaesthetic to the pain of wafer-thin gameplay, sure. It's still there, you just don't feel it. People eat **** when they're allowed to invite their friends.

Looks well enough. Could do with a good CRPG, if Atari hadn't just reaffirmed its stranglehold on the property. We might not see a D&D game until Atari is put in the ground.

People who moved their characters around with the keyboard seemed to have trouble with the mask pieces. If you don't move your mouse around to navigate the PC, the waters of the Well of Lurue are particularly easy to overlook.

Well, you have 9 or so people to assassinate. Every time you assassinate someone, you get a new weapon or a new ability, and things are supposed to get a little more difficult. The problem is there are only 5 or so really useful weapons / abilities, and the rest are expansions of ranged weapon stack size and the like. But it only really gets repetitive when you get to the point at which the only way the devs could think to make the game harder was to double or triple the number of people you have to fight every time you're spotted. The combat's okay when you're fighting 4 or 5 people, but when you have to fight 10+ you start to get annoyed, because 1. the AI dumbs down with the addition of more and more enemies to accommodate "fair" combat and 2. you have to resort to counter-killing everybody, which looks cool but is rather boring over time. The combination of 1 and 2 means you have 10 dudes circling around you and you have to wait 10-15 seconds for the AI to choose an enemy to attack you, and the formerly fast-paced combat slows to a crawl.

Welcome! We do hope you enjoy your stay here in 3 Months Ago. Have you heard about this coming December's crop of movies? Sounds great!

They don't use the term "bling bling" anymore. It's been co-opted by old white people.

It's pretty funny that you'd classify the Witcher as not meant for the twelve to sixteen year old demographic. Indeed, it panders to that group more than any game I've played in the last 10 years.

He's just an obsessive fan who asks you if you can make him a spectre too. Provided you've invested in convo skills, you can talk sense into him.

And even more who are more than willing to accept it if it would just put on a mask!

There's no way to skip dialogues. If there was, there wouldn't be any point in providing an Achievement ("Conversationalist") for having patience.

In crowded areas, this technique works. Out in the middle of the country, it also works. Holding your hands together and moving slowly is a switch that turns off suspicion, even with the selection of weapons you don't even try to conceal.

No it didn't. The "stealth" system in AC, if you can call it that (I wouldn't) was terrible.