Support NeoGAF

[SilentRob]

Oh sure there's always going to be some personal bias. But a good reviewer in any medium will seek to temper it and aim to bring their general appreciation of the medium into play.

It's just particularly obvious when you get a situation with a couple of extremely against the grain reviews as the very fact they're so out of alignment renders them suspicious. Of course equally you need to be wary of the opposite: glowing reviews for big franchises that seem to be given as a matter of course vs a smaller number of less hype infested critical reviews.

On the whole though I think with respect to The Witness it's pretty obvious it's a pretty fantastic puzzle game that is very well made technically hence reviews should be good to great. Anything less is likely more than a taste based "I didn't like it". For that kind of review you're better simply looking at average spread of user reviews instead.

If a critic doesn't have much fun with a game, they should make that clear and explain their reasons. If the game is generally critically acclaimed or not shouldn't have any impact on their opinion and, more importantly, doesn't make it any less valid. As long as the review/critique is well explained it absolutely does not matter.

I know many, many people who would absolutely hate The Witness and consider it a bad game, because it misses pretty much everything they are looking for in video games. If everyone would be praising the game, they and a huge numbers of gamers would simply be left out of the discussion.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

I don't agree that those puzzles have a strong correspondence, which is why I didn't mind one of them. It's fine if you liked the desert puzzles and it's also fine if I or others didn't. I didn't say the game doesn't give you the proper tools to figure that area out, I just don't think it's something that is satisfying to figure out.

This is a good post. The joy I found in the game was figuring out the rules and how they were implemented. I also enjoy how the world fits in with the puzzles. I can see how that wouldn't appeal to someone and I can see valid arguments against it. However I do think some have ignored that in their criticism of the game.

 

[EGM1966]

If a critic doesn't have much fun with a game, they should make that clear and explain their reasons. If the game is generally critically acclaimed or not shouldn't have any impact on their opinion and, more importantly, doesn't make it any less valid. As long as the review/critique is well explained it absolutely does not matter.

I know many, many people who would absolutely hate The Witness and consider it a bad game, because it misses pretty much everything they are looking for in video games. If everyone would be praising the game, they and a huge numbers of gamers would simply be left out of the discussion.

Very, very feq videogame critics are capable of that and generally I'd disagree anyway. That's like asking a film critic to give Barry Lyndon 2 out of 10 because they don't like films set in the past and didn't enjoy it accordingly. If you understand a medium and you're a professional critic (with emphasis on professional) your job is to inform as broad a number of people as to how well the work achieves its ends. The consumer should know their own taste enough to then determine their interest. Not everyone will like anything and it renders critical reviews essentially useless if they're merely a range of did/didn't like it.

They should ditch numbers and stars while they're at it. You read the content, you find out the game is a well made puzzle game and you should know yourself if you like puzzle games or not. If not then no matter how well made it's not for you.

The internet is full of useless uninformed opinions so there's no need to switch professional criticism to merely being another batch of similarly useless opinions.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

I don't agree that those puzzles have a strong correspondence, which is why I didn't mind one of them. It's fine if you liked the desert puzzles and it's also fine if I or others didn't. I didn't say the game doesn't give you the proper tools to figure that area out, I just don't think it's something that is satisfying to figure out.

Of course you are free to like or dislike anything. I was simply pointing out that the game does, in fact, prepare you for all types of puzzles. I guess you agree with that (it didn't seem like you did before, but maybe I misinterpreted what you were trying to say).

I mean, if you think certain puzzles aren't satisfying, that's obviously your opinion and I don't have an issue with it.

 

[Robiin]

Reviewing this game is probably the hardest thing you can do, especially if you plan to score and recommend/not recommend it. It is not only about highly logical puzzle solving - something not everyone is into or even good at - it is also about interpretation and very subjective views. Not only that, but it apparently has multiple ending states, all of which haven't even been explored or interpreted yet.

I would just give it a 10/10 for doing something games rarely do - it actually made me a smarter person.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Ain't touching this game till PSVR releases. I can't wait.

 

[Durante]

Ain't touching this game till PSVR releases. I can't wait.

Have you seen this thread and simply don't believe it or haven't you seen it?

 

[Speschal K]

Ain't touching this game till PSVR releases. I can't wait.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1175030

edit: beaten

 

[Ansatz]

I simply think that playing and solving the actual puzzles is inherently more fun and rewarding than learning the rules of a game.

Blow designed the game so that almost every time you encounter a panel, you don't know what you're supposed to do. You may have an idea, but there's some new twist on the following panel that makes you question things.

The puzzle is figuring out what it is you need to be doing, the actual doing part is uninteresting in The Witness. I mean you could take some of the panel mechanics and turn them into a game I'm sure but in the game they're just there to make sure you've grasped a concept. Once you do they no longer serve a purpose, so you move on to the next thing.

Meaning when you have mastered the tetris blocks and you have full understanding of their properties, then the game will stop giving you tetris based panels. It's not like "oh now I know, now the fun part begins" -- no. He considers it filler when you're doing something that doesn't include learning a new rule/mechanic.

Take for example Nintendo's Picross games. In the games there is a small tutorial that takes about 5 minutes to go through, after that you know everything there is about the game so it comes down to applying the algorithm over and over until the puzzle is clear. Think about The Witness as the tutorial part of Picross, only he made a 30 hour game out of it instead of 5 minutes. And after those 30 hours the game game ends. So it's basically one massive tutorial with no game after it.

 

[Raitaro]

At ~18 hours in and about 300 solved puzzles, I'm done with this game I think.

I like puzzle games, but this doesn't really do it for me. The game throws in a few neat tricks and moments of realization, but after a certain point it just becomes frustration. Sure, there's many ways to make a line puzzle... But they're still just line puzzles (for the most part anyway). To be honest I don't really know if I enjoyed all that much of it, aside from how good looking the island is. The Talos Principal had (in one way or another) a similar simplicity to it, but it did a much better job of keeping my interest.

I understand that I've done less than half of the puzzles, but I do regret buying it. I had hoped that there would be more depth to it than what I experienced.

Quickly popping in here to mention that you pretty much describe why I have been hesitant to buy this game (for full price at least) up till now, even after nearly convincing myself I should buy it because of the Giant Bomb Quick Look.

While the island does look incredibly gorgeous and inviting, I remain unsure whether I could stomach line puzzle after line puzzle that - apart from opening doors etc - do not seem to be integrated fully into this actual environment (or at least the majority of them don't seem to). I also fear I will inevitably run into a puzzle I won't be able to solve, thereby limiting my ability to explore further.

I'm not sure what to do Gaf! People either seem to love it for how the puzzles and island are connected or hate it because it's a bunch of puzzles with an island backdrop. Which perspective is right? Both? This is one of those games for which a demo would have been very welcome as well by the way.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Have you seen this thread and simply don't believe it or haven't you seen it?

Woah, haven't seen it. Guess I'll be building an Occulus / Vibe rig sooner than I thought.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Quickly popping in here to mention that you pretty much describe why I have been hesitant to buy this game (for full price at least) up till now, even after nearly convincing myself I should buy it because of the Giant Bomb Quick Look.

While the island does look incredibly gorgeous and inviting, I remain unsure whether I could stomach line puzzle after line puzzle that - apart from opening doors etc - do not seem to be integrated fully into this actual environment (or at least the majority of them don't seem to). I also fear I will inevitably run into a puzzle I won't be able to solve, thereby limiting my ability to explore further.

I'm not sure what to do Gaf! People either seem to love it for how the puzzles and island are connected or hate it because it's a bunch of puzzles with an island backdrop. Which perspective is right? Both? This is one of those games for which a demo would have been very welcome as well by the way.

This won't happen, at least not until the endgame (I haven't finished the game yet, so I could be wrong about this as well). The game is non-linear and you always have a bunch of places to explore and different puzzles to tackle.

 

[Ansatz]

Quickly popping in here to mention that you pretty much describe why I have been hesitant to buy this game (for full price at least) up till now, even after nearly convincing myself I should buy it because of the Giant Bomb Quick Look.

While the island does look incredibly gorgeous and inviting, I remain unsure whether I could stomach line puzzle after line puzzle that - apart from opening doors etc - do not seem to be integrated fully into this actual environment (or at least the majority of them don't seem to). I also fear I will inevitably run into a puzzle I won't be able to solve, thereby limiting my ability to explore further.

I'm not sure what to do Gaf! People either seem to love it for how the puzzles and island are connected or hate it because it's a bunch of puzzles with an island backdrop. Which perspective is right? Both? This is one of those games for which a demo would have been very welcome as well by the way.

It's fairly easy to know if you'll like The Witness. Did you play Braid? It's the same thing but instead of using Super Mario Bros. as the template you have line puzzles.

 

[Belgian Dude]

I think there are negatives in positive reviews that can be used as the breaking point for some that would otherwise like the game - it's not like negatives can't be there, stat: I love the game, but if the game was only about one puzzle in one of the areas, even with the same structure, I'd be able to see the positive reviews and say, despite all that, 'that's not for me'.

And that's fine: but it's also that - your personal problems/taste should come along the review, not be the driving force behind it (because I agree that a review without subjectivity is borderline impossible). In the end it's back to the number vs. content format: some people said some of the reasons they liked the game were the same reasons the Tom review was negative, and that's fine, different strokes from different folks, but a score doesn't usually represent everything that there is to know for everyone, and I don't fault those who went into the game thinking one thing based on overall score / summaries and were disappointed that it just wasn't for them, because I did that too with other games and it's a real easy mistake to make. Some stuff will bother some less, others more, but "not for everyone" should never bring a game score down.

 

[collige]

Quickly popping in here to mention that you pretty much describe why I have been hesitant to buy this game (for full price at least) up till now, even after nearly convincing myself I should buy it because of the Giant Bomb Quick Look.

While the island does look incredibly gorgeous and inviting, I remain unsure whether I could stomach line puzzle after line puzzle that - apart from opening doors etc - do not seem to be integrated fully into this actual environment (or at least the majority of them don't seem to). I also fear I will inevitably run into a puzzle I won't be able to solve, thereby limiting my ability to explore further.

I'm not sure what to do Gaf! People either seem to love it for how the puzzles and island are connected or hate it because it's a bunch of puzzles with an island backdrop. Which perspective is right? Both? This is one of those games for which a demo would have been very welcome as well by the way.

Both. The game is a bunch of puzzles with an island backdrop, but the island backdrop is a puzzle as well (literally). Plus, a lot of the puzzle terminals are only solves via environmental interaction.

 

[RPGam3r]

It's fairly easy to know if you'll like The Witness. Did you play Braid? It's the same thing but instead of using Super Mario Bros. as the template you have line puzzles.

I don't think these are similar in the slightest. Braid has an obvious narrative even if made more complex by the end. Braid is also a linear platformer with a much more gamey feel. Witness is none those things. Just having puzzles isn't enough to say they're the same thing.

 

[Raitaro]

This won't happen, at least not until the endgame (I haven't finished the game yet, so I could be wrong about this as well). The game is non-linear and you always have a bunch of places to explore and different puzzles to tackle.

I see, well that is big plus at least.

Both. The game is a bunch of puzzles with an island backdrop, but the island backdrop is a puzzle as well (literally). Plus, a lot of the puzzle terminals are only solves via environmental interaction.

Interesting. The game's value probably depends on how heavily these elements weigh for a player then I guess, the exploration side and the puzzles I mean, though it is good to know that the backdrop is also part of the puzzle equation itself. I do love me some environmental style puzzles by the way, like those found in Metroid Prime etc. Not saying The Witness' puzzles should be on that level though as having any of these kind of puzzles at all is a plus in my book.

It's fairly easy to know if you'll like The Witness. Did you play Braid? It's the same thing but instead of using Super Mario Bros. as the template you have line puzzles.

I don't think these are similar in the slightest. Braid has an obvious narrative even if made more complex by the end. Braid is also a linear platformer with a much more gamey feel. Witness is none those things. Just having puzzles isn't enough to say they're the same thing.

I think I have seen others make this comparison as well, a comparison I had some trouble seeing to be honest apart from the creator and perhaps from (to me unknown but suspected) story integration and twists. Tonally there might also be similarities I guess. In terms of gameplay I think I have to agree with RPGam3r though that they seem quite different. Cheers for your input though, Ansatz.

Cheers guys; I'll think about it some more and perhaps watch a bit of a let' splay just to be sure.