But are these games real? Do they exist or they are hypotetic?

(I am just curious about examples)

Fair enough, I actually tend to use the same language as he does of complexity versus depth but I see your point. But I think even complexity (i.e. which does indeed add true depth) is not always beneficial. Sometimes one has to balance how much depth it adds versus how much annoying obtuseness it adds - i.e. a mechanic often adds both depth and obtuseness and balancing its inclusion is hard. That balance is different for every genre and even within a genre everyone has their own opinion about where that balance should lie. What balance one chooses often then determines the target audience.

Couldn't agree more. Few games accomplish it and it is always noteworthy when they do.

As orcishgamer stated, I think calling the article a review is a bit of a stretch. I agree that playing a game for only 6 hours (which is only a tenth of the entire game probably - though I forget exactly how long my first play through of W2 lasted) is not enough to create a real "review." But in reading another of Tom Bissell's reviews (on Mass Effect 3) it seems that his style is less actual "review" (he didn't mention the story, characters, or ending in any meaningful way in the ME3 review) and more impressions and general feelings. Which turn into talking about the genre of the game as a whole, rather than the specific game itself.

This is very true in the W2 review, I feel. I felt that the article was much more of a complaint about the genre of fantasy-video games than anything specific about the Witcher 2. Yes, it was complaining directed at W2, but it was really about the faults of the genre, as Bissell sees them.

In addition, the stuff about W2 seemed very much an attempt to be contrarian, and counterbalance the incredibly positive reviews the game received when it came out on PC (that he linked to). And so the whole point of the article seemed to be to provide a counter point, which was focused on the negative, rather than a focus on the positive of the game.

I'm someone that thinks the Witcher 2 is one of the greatest role playing games of all time, and even I agree with some of his points. I found the inventory screen to be unnecessarily complicated before I spent a few hours with the game and became accustomed to it. There are a few hackneyed moments in the storytelling, though I overall find it impressive.

I think this is a matter of reviewing a game for not meeting some idealized standard versus reviewing a game in terms of how well it performs in comparison to its peers. I think The Witcher 2 stands well far above most other videogames; however, I think videogames as a whole still have a lot of growing up to do. That doesn't stop The Witcher 2 from being one of the best examples of an RPG though, in my mind.

Are you drunk, TW2 the greatest RPG of all time?

I can't even be bothered to reply fully, but the basic requirement for role-playing is the ability to play a role. You have no choice in TW of who you are, you are always that grey-haired asshole Geralt, you can't name him differently, you can't be another race, you can't customize your appearance.

The decisions you make don't even change the actual personality of your character, they just change the route of the story, so TW is less an RPG and more like an interactive Choose Your Own Adventure novel, it's less like role-playing a character and more like acting the established one, in this case Geralt.

As for the combat, it's just button mashing.

In some degree they are hypothetical but only because in my mind it is a gradation and everyone will have their own and different cutoffs. Some games which have the reputation of being easy to learn but tough to master: Starcraft (Blizzard RTS in general), Braid, and I'm sure more but my brain isn't functioning. Now not everyone is going to agree with any list of such games - even ones that represent the general consensus (as general consensus is not unanimity). But yes I think there are games which have a surprising depth of gameplay for their level of obtuseness.

Even for games which have a lot of "obtuseness" can still be praised for their depth relative to that obtuseness. Functional minimalism is difficult to achieve (without losing depth of course). Again, everyone will have their own optimum and it is different for every genre so it is hard to come up with a concrete list of such games everyone will agree reached the zenith.
Which Witcher 2 are we talking about? Some enemies it's true can be approached button-mash style, but trying that against most enemies will get you into serious trouble (i.e. very dead) even late game.

I can understand the complaints that it isn't role-playing because it is a set character, though I didn't mind that myself and thought there was still a large amount of character customization allowed in skills & attributes which greatly changed how one approached the gameplay - however I freely admit that I am not a connoisseur of the RPG genre. But I'd have to take strong issue with this statement about combat in The Witcher 2.

Ooh, I sense a genre argument coming on, should I make popcorn?

Hmmm ... breakfast for me please :)

Yyyeah. You should have stopped right there and then you should have pressed 'Cancel.'

Sausage and eggs will do? And of course Italian Roast coffee?

Sounds perfect - though you can skip the coffee since I don't drink it :)

:)

Actually I think I am off to make myself some sausage and eggs now!

So it's not proper role playing unless you can play as a lizardman?

Many RPGs give you customization options, but do nothing to provide a sense that your decisions actually matter to the storyline. The Witcher 2's story allows for even your smaller decisions to have consequences to the storyline beyond obvious good-evil distinctions. Choose to drink too much? Well then, you might wake up on the riverside without any clothes on and the majority of your inventory stolen. Don't want to read the books on conducting autopsies? That's your decision, but don't expect to come to the correct decision when you actually conduct one. To me, that's much more important for roleplaying than having a choice between barbarian, valkyrie, and mage. Yes, I'm only playing the role of Geralt, but I'm playing him my way. I make choices in interactions that affect how I'm perceived by others. I decide if I want to focus on magic, alchemy, or swordsmanship.

And the combat is only button mashing if you played it on easy. Try going in unprepared on the hard modes and you'll wish you had a better grasp on parrying, blocking, dodging, and proper alchemic preparation.

I read this, and got the distinct impression Bissel was the kind of kid that didn't get enough attention in grade school. Other problems:

-don't make sweeping generalizations after 6 hrs of play. I hate GTA4 with a passion, but it took me 30 hrs to understand why. I gave the game a chance.

-'his status as a console only gamer has been reaffirmed'. Well good for him, this honestly made me laugh. A truly biased and insipid thing to say when you are trying to make a valid point.

-his generalization about Eastern Europe made him sound like an ignorant jackass.

-he wants to see tropes go away, but fantasy is FAR from the only offender here. Furthermore, because he only played a few hours, he didn't understand that TW2 not only introduces fresh material, but it avoids many fantasy tropes and turns others on their head.

-it's mean spirited. Normally I'm all for strong opinions, but he comes across as truly injured and just wants to vent. Furthermore, don't get apologetic after a snarky tirade, and then end it by basically saying you wish their creation never got made.


In the end, he sounds more than a little frustrated at all the positive critical attention of a game he doesn't understand. I categorize him somewhere between a contrarian and a troll. If he wants to write any more books on games he should consider broadening his outlook.