Actually... yes it does. You & the rest of the internet hipsters may not want to see it that way, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. The dude sells more records than anybody & as such is the measuring stick for which young singers should (& do) set themselves.

This brings a little discussion that wrestling "Legend" Al Snow had with some of his students to mind.

Al Snow- Who had the best match at Wrestlemania III?
A Student of His- Steamboat & Savage. (A typical internet smark answer)
Al Snow- No they didn't! Goddammit!
Student- Hogan & Andre?
Al Snow- Why did Hogan & Andre have the best match? 93,000 payed to see Hogan & Andre. 93,000 did not pay to see Savage & Steamboat. That was what was used to judge... that was the measuring stick.


*& before you question it... no I am not a Justin Beiber fan. I just have common sense*

eh. nope it does not. Sales are NEVER indicator whether something is good or not.
the same way da vinci code or left behind series are not a good literature even tough they sold millions of copies. it all comes to hype, MARKETING (which really plays much bigger role than quality unless the game/movie/book is really shit), product awareness (which of course is tied to marketing), reviewers being paid to give good scores (which happens a lot)

which of course does not mean that something which sold bazillions of copies is actually bad. Skyrim might be the greatest game. I don't know that tough.


why are you so butthurt for skyrim? You like it and don't like TW2. Fine. you made your suggestion to OP so why do you keep arguing with people? is it your life goal to convince people to change their opinion on the game that you kinda new to attack random person who didn't even give a fuck about your opinion?

Let me ask you a few questions.... who is the greatest pop singer of the 80s? The answer that comes to basically everyone's mind is Michael Jackson. Who is the greatest Rock & Roll Singer of the 50? Once again the answer that comes to mind is more than Likely Elvis Presley. How about the greatest boxer to ever set foot in the ring? Mohammed Ali perhaps? The greatest baseball player of the 20s? Babe Ruth is it? How about the Greatest basketball player of the 90s? MIchael Jordan you say?

No matter how much you try to market a piece of shit, it will always be a piece of shit... it may eventually move up to being a decent fertilizer for blooming flowers... but it will still be a piece of shit at the end of the day. The fact is that there is a reason that the things that are marketed as highly as they are, are in fact marketed as highly & are as well received & remembered by fans of them as they are. THEY ARE DAMN GOOD.

That also doesn't mean something that sold twenty copies is a piece of shit. One of my favorite games is Enslaved: Odyssey to the West. It sold like shit but is a phenomenal game.

You obviously can't grasp the point I am making here so let me spell it out for you. When you are on the forum owned by a group of people who make the game in question, while asking if you should get their lesser known game or a major release, it is to be expected that the people on said site are going to rally for their game & condemn the other. I am trying to give a counter balance to all of that & speaking my thought process on a topic that is basically a DEBATE on which game should be purchased. See in a debate people argue why there side is right... which is exactly what I am doing... much as how everybody else is arguing how Bethesda is a heartless corporation & as such should have there game boycotted in favor of good & wholesome CD Projekt's. Futhermore if you consider this an attack then you quite obviously haven't set foot into the real world much... people will come at you much harder than this is in an office setting... or hell even something as low & meaningless as a fast food job for that matter.

On one final note... if you don't give a fuck about what I am saying, then why respond? Just because I respond to you does not automatically mean that you have to respond to me.

The site isn't 'owned' by the people who made The Witcher series. Both GOG and CDPR studio are assets of the same company, CDP, which is not exactly the same thing.

One person put forward Beth's lawsuit as a reason to pick TW2 and then others chimed in on the lawsuit business without giving any opinon on which game to pick. I can't speak for the others, but i commented on the lawsuit business because i don't appreciate users that only come around here every once in a while almost exclusively to advance a 'my platform of choice' agenda acting like they can speak for the rest of the world on subject X or Y and actively triyng to summarily dismiss issues that don't fit with their politics. Fred's comment on the two games, however, was pretty much spot on, they are very different beasts.

While one can give a recommendation on which game to get (or wich game to get first), the games are different games meant to provide different experiences. In my case i would pick The Witcher 2 over Skyrim any day and twice on Sunday. Why ? Mainly because even though I appreciate an open ended game world as much as the next fellow what i always look for in an RPG (actually, almost any genre) above everything else is a solid story, plentiful lore and deep characterization and The Witcher 2 has all of those, while Skyrim probably has newly introduced lore, but story and characterization wise is likely to be as 'shallow' as the other TES games - which is not a criticism but merely stating the obvious, the TES games were never about those aspects, their strenght lies elsewhere. On the same grounds i would recommend a whole miriade of other games, which are in no way, shape or form related to gog or cdpr, over Skyrim.

Fact is, Robert, that there are many objective reasons as to why one would pick one game over the other and none of them have anything to do with the 'fanboysm' you always seem so keen to assign to the community here to try to discredit the views/opinions that don't match your own or as some silly form of pay back for whatever.

You are free to decide your purchases, and make recommendations of your own, based on nothing but (or mostly on) a dollars_to_hours ratio just like others are free not to give a shit about that ratio and consider instead if whether or not their coin will be buying them what they deem to be a worthwhile experience. I know i don't give a shit about that ratio, unless off course the ratio is so bad that inspite of everything else it becomes a blatant rip off .

Maybe what made the decision for the OP was the hype we are all subjected to (and succumb to on ocasion) combined with the antecipation of a 'fresh experience' that a newly released game (in principle) provides. After all, it's a bit different to play a game on release when lots of other folks, including your friends, are playing it and talking about it and when there's still lots of discoveries to be made and playing it 3 months later when every single discovery is already documented, every single aspect of the game was already talked about ad nauseum on the tubes and a large number of folks have finished and shelfed the game and moved on to something else. In all honestly, to me, the OP came across as someone who had already fallen prey to the glitter of a newly released shinie and all it entails right off the bat - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, we've all Ben there - , it's just that he/she hadn't realised it yet ;)

All of them build the respect over decades. not over a single song or a single album (or you know. equilvent of that with basketball player and boxer etc) yet we are not talking about piece of shit are we?
so your point falls.
Cause if you have two products one is very good and one is just good.... the product with better marketing, greater hype generated will sell better. we are not talking about some extremes. yep. that's why sales are completely irrelevant as argument whether something is good or not. Sure. can be mentioned of course but saying that because something said lots of copies is good is not true. I am fine with your counter balance. I am fine with you preferring skyrim over TW2
I am NOT fine with you implying that people who follows suggestion of gog members and buy TW2 are stupid
I am not fine that you call people who prefer TW2 fanoboys.
You make a one of the arguments much more important than it really was
I don't like your attitude. I get your point alright. You are butthurt about skyrim and bethesda for what reasons I don't know nor care. you despise TW2 and that creates a conflict with the general attitude to the game of this forum. Those two things apparently prevent you from creating a reasonable polite response to other people without being offensive. That's true. I should have ignore rude, useless comments. I shall do that in the future.

Heh, yeah, that's precisely what I'm doing now: Beating damn Morrowind :D I played a year of it (I kid you not!) and I have never even finished any of the main quests, not Morrowind's, not any of the expansions. That game world is not even that big and it still feels huge in comparison with Oblivion :D

Eh, anyway, basically: Witcher 2 is ROUGHLY 40 or 50 hours for first playtrough if you decide to search everything. Still, 2 paths to finish the game - that's 2 important paths of the main quest. There are still more or less important things to do that combined influence the main quest in some manner, and even in a major way if they pile up. I think if you want to see as much of the game as you can, you should finish it at least 3 times. Just elaborating.

What I was getting at and failed horribly during the process: TES and The Witcher are two totally different experiences. You can compare them as games via gameplay and stuff, sure, but saying that one will give you more fun than the other because it's longer is just not fair - Witcher never aimed to offer crazy long playtime in the first place, it's still worth the money thou.

I find it somewhat ironic that the only defense that lukas has is that I am a butthurt Bethesda fan. I have clearly stated that I am not even a fan of the series anymore & really have no desire to play Skyrim as such. I am stating from my experiences with the series & why that I feel that Skyrim would be the better choice. If you don't agree then fine... I'm not going to force you too. I am just simply stating that there is a reason why MASSIVE games (Kinda like The Elder Scrolls V * which is in a series that has built respect over decades BTW*), musicians, Athletes, etc... are as huge & are marketed as being as huge as they are & why it is idiotic to dismiss them as anything other than such.

My response was never directed at the people who said things like Namur said. It was directed at people who constantly stated that you shouldn't buy it because of a lawsuit or that you should wait for GOTY (which was also clearly stated). If you find me disrespectful... then fine... I am a disrespectful prick.... but I am a disrespectful prick who speaks the truth.... & people really hate that now don't they?

But I... I just said it's unfair to judge it based on lenght! ... Well ... Yeah I also said that I'm finishing Morrowind and that Witcher 2 is actually longer. I've never even said any of that!

While that is true... the point I am making is that you also said that they are both good in there own ways & did not condemn either game for something as stupid as the developer is suing a poor defenseless indie developer (whose story I still doubt) or that there will be a version with the DLC bundled with the game that (as far as I know) doesn't even have DLC announced at the moment in a year & a half (at its earliest).
At first I thought you thought I was the one who was trolling... now I see that it is you in reality who is the one who is trolling. You are putting words into my mouth that were never there. I never once stated that anybody in the thread was an idiot... I did say that people are being fanboys & I openly admit it (& its kinda hard not to see that actually... just look at the first page. It is blatantly obvious). You have stated that I am rude, that I am butthurt & that I am offensive. Yet what is more offensive? Stating why you feel that people shouldn't write off Skyrim or calling someone a rude, butthurt individual for doing so? The closest thing that I said to you that could be considered an insult was that writing of something popular as bad (such as Justin Beiber's music) when it has clearly sold incredibly well is what a hipster does. You want to pick a personal argument... then fine... but do it through PM. This is a place for discussing which game is the way to go.

So this conversation as shifted a lot.

Here is my input:

I have not played The Witcher 2 but have watched my roomate play it and enjoyed looking. The voice acting is great, the art direction is top notch and it looks like it has a solid gameplay platform with the rune systems. I have noticed that you feel very empowered and important, at the center of the action and you feel like every decision you make has a great effect on the story. I also have a lot of respect for the way the game was put on the market and the vision and values of the developpers.

I bought Skyrim Friday afternoon and racked up 30 hours of gameplay so far and loved every second of it. I have noticed that they really increased the quality of faction quests, like the thieves guild quests in Skyrim vs Oblivion is day and night.

I say both games are worth your trouble: Skyrim will give you more game time, while The Witcher will be more fun but lower replay value.

I didin't find you disrespectul Robert, i guess i just think you'd have a much better time around here if you were to let go of foums going ons that all things considered aren't worth a damn and shouldn't have such a heavy say on how you sometimes tend to interact with people here, or on the opinion you sometimes tend to expresss of the community as a whole, but i could off course be wrong, and in any case, how you handle all of that is your own business and nodody else's.

quote:
Maybe its because he is intelligent enough to see the intense fanboyism going on in the forums of a website owned by the people who made The Witcher series.

basically. he is intelligent for choosing skyrim over tw2. therefore. people who did not do that are stupid
and only judas said don't buy Skyrim cause beths are bad people. One person. Everyone else said that it is kinda of big deal. they did not said not to buy skyrim. they only said that they care what publisher do. you are overblowing that. what do you mean by write-off? I know the accounting term but it doesnt make sense in context (failed at google search)
and i called you that because you criticized my reasoning (that sales don't equal quality as well quantity does not equal quality) by calling me hipster, without actually properly addressing the issue. you just repeated the argument that "what sales more is better because it is how quality is measured".

and how is it offensive to call someone rude?

anyhow. silly thread is silly. OP made his choice, hopefully he will enjoy it.

What part do you not understand about "If you want a personal argument take it to PM"? You are taking what I am saying & spinning it to how you want to make it look to try to make me look like some bad guy who is intent on causing trouble in this thread, when you know damn well that that is not the way it was meant. What was meant is what has been said for the last 3 or 4 posts that I have made. That saying to pick up Witcher 2 because Bethesda are pricks, that there games are bug ridden messes (like Witcher II isn't... a quick search of Witcher II glitches proves otherwise) & that a GOTY version is coming so he should wait for it (when, like I said multiple times already, there isn't even DLC confirmed yet so God knows when it is coming out) is fanboyish.

It doesn't matter how many people said it... the fact that it was stated is all that matters. You conveniently look over what else was said by me & continually focus on this... I have made extra emphasis on the GOTY edition posts while mentioning this in passing on almost every post... yet you latch on to this of all things. You are the one making a big (& rather public) deal out of this.


How do you even respond to something like this? Its an extremely common phrase... it means to completely dismiss something.


Which is the absolute truth... people wouldn't buy something if it sucked. You also miss the point in the fact that I have stated that a lesser selling thing can be good as well. Regardless the highest selling thing is always what will be the best because it was capable of actually selling a large sum, which means PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANTED IT ENOUGH TO PAY FOR IT. You may think that sales don't equal quality, but that doesn't mean it is not fact.

How is it offensive to say that a statement someone is making is something a hipster would say? Its not cool unless its underground right?

As do I

you responded correctly by explaining what it means. I didn't quit understand what you meant therefore I asked... wasn't I clear enough?