Recommend
15 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

The Witcher Adventure Game» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Everything that sucks about... The Witcher Adventure Game rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christian Heckmann
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Everything that sucks about...



The Witcher Adventure Game



To read up on the concept of and motivation behind this review series, check up on the first review I posted under the „Everything that sucks about...“-banner.


What is it about?

„The Witcher Adventure Game“ is an adventure game (duh) based on the books by Andrzej Sapkowski and the series of role playing video games by CD Projekt Red. It plays two to four players, takes about two or more hours and incorporates mechanics like set collection and pick-up and deliver.


Everything that sucks about it:

- „The Witcher Adventure Game“ (from now on simply „The Witcher“) is harsh. Yes, it is set in a dark fantasy universe and the video games weren't that joyful either, but if you want to take a stab at playing this game, you'll have to endure a lot of punishment. And I'm not only talking about monsters beating you to a pulp on a regular basis (although this might also contribute to this). Foul fate is the name of the game and this is such a huge factor that it deserves to be spread out over two paragraphs. At least. I won't promise anything.

- So foul fate, yeah? You'll get to draw these cards all the time. If you are unlucky during an investigation (and you'll be unlucky quite a lot), if you want to perform an action that has been foul-fated, if you travel too fast, simply if you end your turn in an area that has a foul fate marker on it. Which is something like every area always. So you draw one and if you're lucky, nothing will happen. Great. If you're unlucky, you'll lose whatever you've been gathering for the last few turns, lose your next action , get run over by a carriage or simply lose some of your hard earned victory points. Sounds like fun, right? And as said, there's almost nothing you can do about it (yes, Triss for example may acquire a development to at least ward off the end-of-turn hazards...). No saving throw, no choices, except for sometimes one between the devil and the deep blue sea... The game will destroy you on a regular basis.

- And you know what, that could have been okay, if it would destroy all players equally or if the game would have been cooperative. But as it is, I draw a foul fate card and lose two victory points or something like that. You draw a foul fate card and nothing happens. Or even worse, one that announces with grandiose flavour text what dreadful things take place and then those don't happen in the area you are in, but in one next to yours. Where I happen to be at the moment. So yeah, if it weren't bad enough that the foul fate cards I draw are crippling to me, but now the ones you draw are after me, too... And that's just by pure dumb luck.

- Also, monsters. Don't kill them. Just walk around, defending against their attacks whenever possible and let them live. The rewards are hardly worth it and as long as they are around, you're protected against the devastating foul fate cards.

- So okay, those were three (and a half) paragraphs about the foul fate cards and the gist seems to be "They are too random and occur too often", right? So what about the rest of the cards you get to draw during the game? Developments and quests are okay, you get to draw two and can choose between those. Investigations on the other hand... Yeah, there are three distinct decks for three distinct types of investigations. You're free to decide from which one to draw and can strategize a bit, because those decks tend to hand out different rewards. But not necessarily. Draw a red card, get a blue clue. Draw a magenta card, get battered by an angry mob. There's no way to know what is coming. In „Eldritch Horror“ for example, you get an idea what tends to happen in a given city. Here, it's completely immaterial where you are located on the map. You just draw a card and some random stuff happens.

- The fact that there are no different card decks for different places deals a huge blow to the theme of the game, because everything that happens during an investigation action is very vague, the flavor text short and rather dull. But it doesn't stop there. The compulsory clue you gather whenever you enter a new location inspires no emotion whatsoever. What does it represent? Why are you taking it? What is your character witnessing? Dunno, here, take a clue. Choose which color you'd like. It wasn't that different in „Arkham Horror“ back then (before „Eldritch Horror“ introduced the awesome clue-deck) but at least in that game, a clue was something useful and something special. In „The Witcher“ they are everywhere and mean nothing, except being a step closer to finishing your quest.

- Which might also be quite boring. Yes, there's a bit of flavor to each quest, but it's short, not written that well, and whatever you are doing usually isn't that interesting. I'm trying to turn a humanized siren back into her original form. Cool. How am I doing this? Gather three blue and five magenta, go to Jaruga, poof, done, victory points, next quest, whatever. There's no real feel for what you are actually doing, there's no progression, no raising of the stakes. Once anyone has finished their third quest, bam, game over, someone won because he plodded around the kingdom, being miserable and doing some mundane stuff faster than the other guys. Also aren't those characters friends? Why am I so afraid of you helping me on my quest? Because you'll get six victory points for it and I get three, that's why, but where's the thematic justification?

- So yeah, the locations don't differ, except for which clues you can get there. So what did I do in my last game when I was Triss and had to find some thieves to bring back something they had stolen? Well, I walked around in circles between Mahakam and Rivia for a few turns, picking up red clues left and right, preparing my spells with the spare actions, because I dreaded what the investigation decks could do to me. I won by a huge margin. You want to be efficient in this game? It will be boring, trust me.

- The development cards are also rather strange. It is kind of cool how you are able to acquire them. Not that thematic, but unlike the constant harassment you'll have to endure from the foul fate cards (you didn't think I was done with them yet, did you?), you yourself can freely choose when to get them and all of them are nice. Yet some of them are clearly better than others. There's one for Triss, the wall of fire, I think, that gives you one sword and one shield in combat. Cool. Then there's her hailstorm. Two swords and two shields, no drawback. Eh... come again? That's just twice as good. And it's not like the developments are such a huge deck filled with different cards that you won't see the same one in two games. There's fifteen cards. You draw two per action. Eight actions and you had the opportunity to take every single one of those. Fifteen actions and all of them are yours.

- Game length can be excruciating. Even if you're just pursuing the main quests of each of your quest cards, the game will take quite a while. For three quests with three players, you can't expect to finish this game in under two hours. And if you're unlucky - and you will be - the game can drag on for far longer than this. A friend of mine said, reducing the number of quests wouldn't be a good idea, because with more than one quest, you can prepare for future quests. But you don't know what you'll draw, so yeah... I'd advise you to play to one finished quest. At most.

- The rulebook is rather hit-and-miss. The separation of rules and reference guide that was popularized by „Eldritch Horror“ is a neat idea, but it doesn't really work here. Core concepts are mentioned in the rules but then the only thing those tell you about is to look it up in the reference. Vice versa, there's a few things which aren't made very clear in the reference guide, but only clarified in the rules, instead. As it is, you're neither able to learn the game, nor clarify any obscurities during gameplay with a single one of those booklets, which renders their separation unnecessary.

- And finally a bit of a nitpick here. The game is beautiful. Nice board, good components, very cool miniatures. The development cards and quests are a bit bland, though. And the artwork on the foul fate and investigation cards... It's a rather mixed bag. It's not that any of it is really bad, but there's several different artstyles at work here that don't fit together that well. Also some of the illustrations are downright weird. In our last game, Dandelion drew a foul fate card that had him ambushed. The illustration showed Geralt and Triss in battle stance. Did we ambush him?


Things that especially suck not:

- I don't know, there's really nothing that outstanding in the game. But I have to say, it does flow pretty well. Your turn comes up, you take your two actions, have an encounter and bam, done. That's... okay, I guess.


What I think:

Oh man. Oh man. I was prepared for everything. I had heard enough rather negative voices concerning „The Witcher“, so I went in with almost no expectations. And I have to say, for the first few turns, I was pleasantly surprised. You start the game, have that beautiful board and those cool minis to look at, you get your quests, pick up a few developments and you're basically free to roam wherever you like to, explore stuff, power up, but the quests give you focus. The turn structure is simple, everything makes kind of sense (although the lack of flavor is apparent right from the start) and it flows well. But it doesn't work. Soon enough, the game will start to beat you down every single turn. People get into a very narrow groove because taking any chances is discouraged by the harsh repercussions a bad card draw might have. And then, two hours later (if you're lucky), the game will be over, without a story, without an arc, someone will have won just because he did some quests. There's no grandiose feel of adventure in here. You'll be constantly miserable, picking up mechanical clues and hoping to keep them long enough to turn them into victory points. The game is a long slog, a slow race with roadblocks abound and with so many problems that the nice parts of it lose their glamor long before the game is finished. Not something I'm keen on playing again, because of everything that sucks about it.


If you liked what you read, check out and subscribe to my „Everything that sucks“-geeklist to be notified about new reviews.
28 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Royal
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, this game looks so beautiful, and the potential seems so great, and then a few plays of it, and my entire gaming group went "This game came from Ignacy? On purpose?" They won't touch it with a ten foot pole now.

Total dud for me. Which is sad. Because on the shelf it sets next to Robinson Crusoe and Imperial Settlers, which are epic wins from the same designer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bryden
United States
Stow
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I must be playing a different game or maybe I have a different frame of reference.

I feel that in The Witcher I have control over my progress where other games of similar ilk feel more random even though they are 'dripping' or at least giving the impression of being more thematic.

Arkham seems so over wrought, Eldritch seems to rein things in a bit, Talisman is random squared and Relic falls between The Witcher and Talisman. Based on my impressions Eldrich may be the best but the dice rolling just kills it for me. Do this roll dice, do that roll dice ...

You roll dice in the Witcher but it gives a different feel (IMO) and you don't have to roll for everything.

Based on everything that has been posted I am in the minority.

The luckiest player certainly does not win as I can sadly contest to. My son has won every game he has played by taking risks, losing battles etc. He has the ability to look perceived random in the face and push through the other side. How many games has he won in a row? 6.

This to me more than anything else is a witness to the game design.

Game length: 2 players / 90 minutes and 3 players / 120 minutes

Totally reasonable to me and thematic to boot. Too bad there may never be additional material. There is plenty of design space to work with.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hammel
United States
Los Angeles
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NoDicePlease wrote:
Based on everything that has been posted I am in the minority.


No, the game is fine for what it is. I blame groupthink.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Royal
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheGreatHamEl wrote:
NoDicePlease wrote:
Based on everything that has been posted I am in the minority.


No, the game is fine for what it is. I blame groupthink.


Group think has no bearing on whether he's in the minority or not. Further, being in the minority or not has no bearing on whether he should be compelled to like or dislike the game, or to suggest others be compelled in like manner.

Glad you like the game, bryden. It's not for me, or others, but it's great that you are enjoying it.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mfl134
United States
Havertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
My words literally betray me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Auzette wrote:
TheGreatHamEl wrote:
NoDicePlease wrote:
Based on everything that has been posted I am in the minority.


No, the game is fine for what it is. I blame groupthink.


Group think has no bearing on whether he's in the minority or not. Further, being in the minority or not has no bearing on whether he should be compelled to like or dislike the game, or to suggest others be compelled in like manner.

Glad you like the game, bryden. It's not for me, or others, but it's great that you are enjoying it.


Wait, you don't think groupthink has any bearing on why some people like games and don't like games?

I think many people will say a game is bad because others say so and many people will say a game is good though others say so. People don't like to stray for the popular opinion and it makes reviews more polarized.

(Obviously if a game is actually really good or really bad this would be a good reason many people feel the same way.)

For this particular game many people complain about balance without taking the time to actually see if the game is balanced as you don't just approach each character the same way.

(Though perhaps groupthink is just the wrong word if you don't consider piggybacking on opinions of games group think. He could also be blaming groupthink within a game where everyone gets convince that one characters is better than the rest.)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Cook
United States
Denton
Texas
flag msg tools
*beep*
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a fan of the Witcher games/books, I think the theme is the best part of the game. The length of the game seems pretty horrific though for what it is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Royal
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfl134 wrote:
Auzette wrote:
TheGreatHamEl wrote:
NoDicePlease wrote:
Based on everything that has been posted I am in the minority.


No, the game is fine for what it is. I blame groupthink.


Group think has no bearing on whether he's in the minority or not. Further, being in the minority or not has no bearing on whether he should be compelled to like or dislike the game, or to suggest others be compelled in like manner.

Glad you like the game, bryden. It's not for me, or others, but it's great that you are enjoying it.


Wait, you don't think groupthink has any bearing on why some people like games and don't like games?

I think many people will say a game is bad because others say so and many people will say a game is good though others say so. People don't like to stray for the popular opinion and it makes reviews more polarized.

(Obviously if a game is actually really good or really bad this would be a good reason many people feel the same way.)

For this particular game many people complain about balance without taking the time to actually see if the game is balanced as you don't just approach each character the same way.

(Though perhaps groupthink is just the wrong word if you don't consider piggybacking on opinions of games group think. He could also be blaming groupthink within a game where everyone gets convince that one characters is better than the rest.)


Groupthink exists, of course. I was more addressing the connection between the poster and his feeling of being in the minority (and that I'm not convinced it could be attributed to groupthink in his case); not really questioning the concept of groupthink in general.

Plenty of people like this game, and I'm not certain that I can say with verifiable facts that groupthink plays a direct part in swaying peoples opinions of this game. I think the game itself does the heavy lifting on that front.

I'm sincere when I say I'm glad people like the game. It's futile and pointless to wish on people that they didn't. It just didn't work for us.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pas L
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Nothing will come of nothing.
badge
Speak again.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Unless we're all in the same gaming group, or you think people decide their views on something due to reviews rather than their own experiences, then how is it "groupthink?"

Sure, after a while an older game with a lot of crossover plays between groups could have this issue, but it's not very likely for a new one.

A majority of people not liking something can just be because they don't like it.

The absolute worst thing about BGG is that it has a lot of people that can't seem to let others dislike something they enjoy without having to tell the world about it.

If you like something be happy you like it an enjoy it for that, you don't have to tell everyone else who doesn't that they're doing it wrong.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bryden
United States
Stow
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Auzette wrote:
TheGreatHamEl wrote:
NoDicePlease wrote:
Based on everything that has been posted I am in the minority.


No, the game is fine for what it is. I blame groupthink.


Group think has no bearing on whether he's in the minority or not. Further, being in the minority or not has no bearing on whether he should be compelled to like or dislike the game, or to suggest others be compelled in like manner.

Glad you like the game, bryden. It's not for me, or others, but it's great that you are enjoying it.

I think the group think that he is referring to are gamers who 'rate' a game based on their future perceived experience with the game. The OP stated that he came in with low expectations as a result, as an example.

Those who are prone to this have a tendency to be very skeptical about the game value (even rate low) and call it a bad game etc (not implying the OP did this). Unfortunately I have run into this many times at cons and in game groups. Additionally, it becomes their reality as they are not interested in the game thus validating their position when they play it all of once.

Every now and then I talk myself out of games due to my perceived biases against the game due to reviews, play throughs etc. In rare circumstances the game has been one that I purchase later as I find out that the game was more than it was presented to be. CO2 and Suburbia would be two examples for me among a few others.

Many it seems do not give the game a real chance (not talking about multiple plays but a quality first play). This is not to say that Ignacy/FFG are exempt from creating/producing a game that is not quite what it should be.

These are general statements and should not imply that any responder in this thread fall into this group.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Heckmann
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I absolutely agree with everything you said, bryden. That's a kind of human behavior I have also witnessed all too often. I won't claim to be completely free from this kind of thinking, after all, I think it is only natural that we tend to try to prove our prejudices and feel gratified when something that we thought beforehand turns out to be true (or is perceived to be true), because we feel pretty clever, because we knew beforehand and stuff. But I try and work hard not to give into this. After all, what's a better deal for me, having short-term-gratification because it turned out I was right about thinking a game would be bad? Or having fun in the long run because I like the game and can play it over and over? So perhaps I didn't like "The Witcher" because I thought it'd be bad beforehand, but then again, as I said, I was pleasantly surprised by the first few turns. And I don't think the game is completely devoid of merit. In fact, I'm thinking about purchasing the Android-app-version, because I think that's a format in which I could live with the game, as was the fact with the "Talisman"-app. Nothing I'd ever want to get to the table, but playable in far less time (the friend I cited above told me today that a game with AI turned to speed 5 and to one solved quest lasted five minutes for him) with far less involvement and without having to endure other peoples' turns... I think it could be fun.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Krista Donnelly
United States
Beltsville
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Harblnger wrote:

- The development cards are also rather strange. It is kind of cool how you are able to acquire them. Not that thematic, but unlike the constant harassment you'll have to endure from the foul fate cards (you didn't think I was done with them yet, did you?), you yourself can freely choose when to get them and all of them are nice. Yet some of them are clearly better than others. There's one for Triss, the wall of fire, I think, that gives you one sword and one shield in combat. Cool. Then there's her hailstorm. Two swords and two shields, no drawback. Eh... come again? That's just twice as good. And it's not like the developments are such a huge deck filled with different cards that you won't see the same one in two games. There's fifteen cards. You draw two per action. Eight actions and you had the opportunity to take every single one of those. Fifteen actions and all of them are yours.


I just got this game and have been looking it over. After reading your review, I thought that would have been an odd choice to have one card that was just simply better than another one. When I looked at the cards, I saw that that was not the case. Wall of Flame is half as good, but it also costs half as much: you only spend 1 common action while to cast Hailstorm you have to spend a ritual in addition to a common action. All the development cards were like that - different costs for different effects.

Not having played yet, I think it would be a strong strategy to spend actions early in the game to get out lots of developments so you have choices and options, particularly when you face monsters. But since almost all of them have costs (except for Geralt's witcher signs which instead are limited to once per battle use), it's not like you then have everything at your fingertips. You have to choose which to prep for use by spending your special actions on them.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Heckmann
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kldonnelly wrote:
I just got this game and have been looking it over. After reading your review, I thought that would have been an odd choice to have one card that was just simply better than another one. When I looked at the cards, I saw that that was not the case. Wall of Flame is half as good, but it also costs half as much: you only spend 1 common action while to cast Hailstorm you have to spend a ritual in addition to a common action. All the development cards were like that - different costs for different effects.

I didn't have the cards at hand to double-check that when I wrote the review, because I don't own the game myself, so yes, basically you're right, there are more "costs" associated with "Hailstorm" than there are with "Wall of Flame". In practice, it never mattered while I was playing the game, since, well, producing rituals is almost everything Triss' die does (and if perchance it doesn't, there's ways to mitigate this). So yes, okay, I admit that "Hailstorm" isn't just a better version of "Wall of Flame", but I still argue that it simply is a stronger card in almost every situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Renwick
Australia
Avalon
New South Wales
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Having played a few games, the question that I keep asking while I'm playing is 'why am I doing this?' When I'm playing Talisman, I know that ultimately I'm trying to gain mastery over the other players. There's a point to the game.

When I'm playing Witcher, I'm sort of wandering about, collected colour things that'll help me finish some random-feeling quest.

It's not a bad game. It just feels like it should have more of a point.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Bosmans
Belgium
Mechelen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lots of truth in these answers to the OP.

1. Group think is strong on BGG and often it hypes games and kills things without much facts.

2. The OP doesn't own a copy which mostly means "I played it once or twice (without counting the learning session)" and so that is simply not sufficient enough to evaluate things.

I steer away of making long threads about games I dot not own and at least played it 4 or even more times (without counting the learning sessions).


There are 2 reasons this game got some terrible comments at launch: the boardgame was evaluated on the software version which launched at the same time and which was full of bugs AND had a terrible AI.

FFG learned their lesson now: never launch a new boardgame with the same software version. It kills the boardgame, good or bad.

The other reason is that the game is a competitor to Talisman, not to Eldritch Horror. It is a light game with a competition as an extra motivator.

A kind of Euro with a strong fantasy game with a touch of miniatures thrown in.

To those with an open mind and not following the hordes of disbelief:

Download the PC/tablet version these days : the game and the AI have been patched from the ground up and you will see the game is far better than the trash talk says.

Actually it is a rather strong game now, but the loudest group hardly played/tried it.

It is even a game you can go to many times, since it stays strong even if played multiple (many) times on computer and ... believe me not many boardgames stand this test of repeated computer play.

With the current AI, it is one of the best board translations actually.

The boardgame components are great too btw. Overall I played it 15 times and I don't think I will sell this one (or erase it on my Surface4).

I gave the game a 8+ which puts it in the upper half of my game collection. It is not an epic master piece, but quite good for what it is supposed to do.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Heckmann
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ben_Bos wrote:
I steer away of making long threads about games I dot not own and at least played it 4 or even more times (without counting the learning sessions).

Well, that's good for you. As Tom Vasel usually tends to say: I judge games after I have played them enough times to be able to. And if I don't like a game, I won't force myself to play it another umpteenth times to be able to accurately judge that I still don't like it, because my game time is valuable to me and I'd rather spend it with things that I like and enjoy and stuff. I personally think it is a rather glaring misconception that people need to play something X times to be able to judge it, because if people don't like something, then they won't play it X times and if we "forbid" people from judging anything if they lack the "necessary experience", then we'll be stuck with all positive reviews all the way, because the only people who acquire this "level of experience" are those who like a game and want to play it repeatedly. And at this point, the whole concept of reviews turns moot. So you disagree with my assessment of the game. That's fine, I disagree with yours and both of us can respect that, because both of us played the game, both of us made up our minds and both of us don't need to rely on the other guy's approval of our oppinion. Cause that's all we're doing here, sharing our oppinions, without any need to herald those as universal truths to which everybody needs to abide.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas King
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ben_Bos wrote:

2. The OP doesn't own a copy which mostly means "I played it once or twice (without counting the learning session)" and so that is simply not sufficient enough to evaluate things.

Strongly disagree. Many games do have a learning curve, and it takes time to get the hang of it, but if some one isn't enjoying the process and doesn't want to make the effort to have fun, that's fine. Games should endeavor to be fun and engaging as soon as the game begins, not by game #4.

Personally, I think Witcher hits its stride maybe half way through your first game. Once you get into the rhythm of moving, developing, comboing cards to defeat enemies and complete your first few objectives, the pacing moves a lot smoother. But the end of the game, players should have a pretty good idea if they will like it or not. It's not a heavy or complicated game, just a bit abstract in some areas.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Bosmans
Belgium
Mechelen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Harblnger wrote:
Ben_Bos wrote:
I steer away of making long threads about games I dot not own and at least played it 4 or even more times (without counting the learning sessions).

Well, that's good for you. As Tom Vasel usually tends to say: I judge games after I have played them enough times to be able to. And if I don't like a game, I won't force myself to play it another umpteenth times to be able to accurately judge that I still don't like it, because my game time is valuable to me and I'd rather spend it with things that I like and enjoy and stuff. I personally think it is a rather glaring misconception that people need to play something X times to be able to judge it, because if people don't like something, then they won't play it X times and if we "forbid" people from judging anything if they lack the "necessary experience", then we'll be stuck with all positive reviews all the way, because the only people who acquire this "level of experience" are those who like a game and want to play it repeatedly. And at this point, the whole concept of reviews turns moot. So you disagree with my assessment of the game. That's fine, I disagree with yours and both of us can respect that, because both of us played the game, both of us made up our minds and both of us don't need to rely on the other guy's approval of our oppinion. Cause that's all we're doing here, sharing our oppinions, without any need to herald those as universal truths to which everybody needs to abide.


I am not against the fact you have an opinion on a game you don't own and only have played a couple of times.

I am pleased you have an opinion.

But as I said I don't make long evaluations on games I didn't play at least 4 or 5 times AND do not own.

You may rate a game without even playing it, but I think this site tries to help people whether they could like a game and if it could be interesting for them.

So I expect a player's review with at least 10+ hours experience with a game before publishing thoughts on it and go FAR BEYOND a simple rating, like you did.

----

It is also NOT related to knowing the rules or mechanics. Every decent game has a deeper strategy the more you play it.

It is like looking at football or chess or poker the first 3 times you watched or played it.

In the case of The Witcher, I am even convinced many players did not even play the boardgame and just joined the anti bandwagon.

Easy to proof too: download the present day digital version. You will be surprised how good it is compared to even blockbusters in that genre.


FFG simply marketed/launched the game in a wrong way. It is far better than mostly perceived and everyone can see it if they would make the effort to download the present day version.

Play the newest software version and you will be surprised how this boardgame and its mechanics was a clear example of negative group thinking.





1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Heckmann
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ben_Bos wrote:
I am not against the fact you have an opinion on a game you don't own and only have played a couple of times.

I am pleased you have an opinion.

But as I said I don't make long evaluations on games I didn't play at least 4 or 5 times AND do not own.

You may rate a game without even playing it, but I think this site tries to help people whether they could like a game and if it could be interesting for them.

So I expect a player's review with at least 10+ hours experience with a game before publishing thoughts on it and go FAR BEYOND a simple rating, like you did.

Ten hours? For every game? So you say for example that one would have to play at least 30 games of "Love Letter" to be entitled to form an "experienced opinion"? 20 games of "Lost Cities"? And... like one game of "Twilight Imperium"? Or is something like an opinion hardly quantifiable?
And what about the other thing I said, that you completely ignored in your riposte, that we wouldn't have a lot of negative reviews out there, if everyone only expressed their views after 10+ hours? Do you think such regulations would enrich the world of board game reviews? I personally think that if people would adopt this train of thought, we'd live in a world where reviews were completely unreliable, because we'd be flooded with positive ones for the worst games out there due to the fact that all of the people who didn't like them gave up on them after one or two plays and never bothered writing a review, because they couldn't bear to subject themselves to bad games for the whole mandatory ten hours. Is this what you want?
Quote:
It is also NOT related to knowing the rules or mechanics. Every decent game has a deeper strategy the more you play it.

It is like looking at football or chess or poker the first 3 times you watched or played it.

In the case of The Witcher, I am even convinced many players did not even play the boardgame and just joined the anti bandwagon.

Easy to proof too: download the present day digital version. You will be surprised how good it is compared to even blockbusters in that genre.


FFG simply marketed/launched the game in a wrong way. It is far better than mostly perceived and everyone can see it if they would make the effort to download the present day version.

Play the newest software version and you will be surprised how this boardgame and its mechanics was a clear example of negative group thinking.

...or pherpahs not. What you express up there is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and perhaps it holds some truth. Perhaps not. We'll never know. The thing is, I don't get the outcry. At the moment of writing, "The Witcher" holds a score of 6.55 which is pretty darn impressive for a game that has ostensibly been completely slaughtered by the hate-bandwagon. Personally, I wouldn't award the game a six out of ten, perhaps not even a five, so my personal opinion is hardly representativ, due to the fact, that the average rating of 923 people is way higher than mine. So apparently, people like the game. I don't, but that's okay. I'm not sure you need to persuade people to give the game a chance, a lot of people already did and a lot of them liked it. So what's the big deal?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Bosmans
Belgium
Mechelen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All I can say is:

Just look at the "very positive" evaluatons of The Witcher the boardgame on Steam...

And about the only negative ones are the "early adapters" which were CORRECT because at launch the AI of the electronic version was bad.

Now that that version was upgraded, you can still explore how this game plays and frankly you should and I am quite convinced your harsh opinions will change.

As to the 10 hours argument, I think that's the LEAST of time you need to spend on a single game before getting a feeling about its tactics.

Of course I am referring to a certain kind of depth in more complex games, but The Witcher certainly belongs in this category if not for its complete different characters involved and how they play in very different ways.

Friendly greetings as I see I struck a nerve somewhere.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Heckmann
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ben_Bos wrote:
Now that that version was upgraded, you can still explore how this game plays and frankly you should and I am quite convinced your harsh opinions will change.

I'm not exactly sure what you're aiming at with such assumptions. Why should I play the digital version to reaffirm my notions about the original board version, which I played and played "correctly" and didn't like very much? How is it gonna change my opinion on the game?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel James
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You know, sometimes I think people just want to post a nice juicy negative subject line with a long protracted hate list aimed at a game/designer/theme/mechanic just for the hell of it. This is one of those posts.

The Witcher is nowhere near as bad as you want to portray it and has been well received by my gaming group, it has replaced Talisman which was our go to beer and pretzel game.

When you start your review with 'Everything that sucks about...' you will forgive me if I come back at you swinging in defense of a much maligned game.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel James
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Montag451 wrote:
Ben_Bos wrote:

2. The OP doesn't own a copy which mostly means "I played it once or twice (without counting the learning session)" and so that is simply not sufficient enough to evaluate things.

Strongly disagree. Many games do have a learning curve, and it takes time to get the hang of it, but if some one isn't enjoying the process and doesn't want to make the effort to have fun, that's fine. Games should endeavor to be fun and engaging as soon as the game begins, not by game #4.

Personally, I think Witcher hits its stride maybe half way through your first game. Once you get into the rhythm of moving, developing, comboing cards to defeat enemies and complete your first few objectives, the pacing moves a lot smoother. But the end of the game, players should have a pretty good idea if they will like it or not. It's not a heavy or complicated game, just a bit abstract in some areas.


Erm... So how much fun were you having the first time you moved a chess pawn? I don't think I started to 'enjoy' Chess until I'd played for about two years.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas King
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chess is secretly a terrible game devoid of fun to begin with

Seriously though, there is a difference between learning the rules to a game, and learning to play a game. But I don't think it takes 2 years to have fun with a game, or learn it. Do you think others would flock to a game because you said you had fun with it only after playing for 2 years? No, they'd tell you the game was garbage, and you were crazy for putting that much time into a game that wasn't fun.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Heckmann
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland Pfalz
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Captain Murdercasket wrote:
The Witcher is nowhere near as bad as you want to portray it and has been well received by my gaming group, it has replaced Talisman which was our go to beer and pretzel game.

Oh yes, oh yes yes yes, how I love it when people come around with the "Over/underrated"/"It's not as good/bad as you say it is"-argument, because they are always, always wrong See, "The Witcher" is exactly as bad, as people say, for the average person. Unless some people are lying to themselves and are secretly in love with the game while proclaiming to hate it or vice versa, the average rating here on BGG represents the quality of the game for the average person. And you know what that means for you and me? Absolutely nothing. You can love the game all you want and I can abhor it at the same time and there's nothing wrong about that. None of us is wrong. We are only of differing opinions which can coexist peacefully. So you like the game? Great, more power to you. But that doesn't mean that it's not exactly as bad as I make it out to be. Because it really is that bad. For me.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.