11 times . I want my cookie!

I agree with your comments about the witcher 2, I am a fairly regular gamer and I don't have too much trouble with the vast majority of games that I play, but that one is really difficult.

I am playing the game on medium for the majority, but a little bit further in from where you are is a boss fight where I couldn't even take more than 1mm of his life bar before dying. I had to switch it to easy mode and even then it was really tough.

I agree with Witcher 2. I sensed it would be a total fiasco the moment I saw the presentation -- they were so proud of the graphics (which were ugly btw), but little was spoken of the combat and gameplay. I bought it just to see what the hype is all about -- now it just dusts on my shelf...

If you have so little time to play, you are bound to get frustrated all the time with any kind of game, I think. To me it seems like you are forcing yourself to play, for an unknown reason, and that kind of defeats the purpose of play. I admit to being a person who likes to run around a level for hours, but even if you want to speed rush, you can't expect the game to go easy on you. If you can't draw, don't be mad at the person who invented the pencil or paper or art alltogether. Gamers evolve, and the majority of the market demands the level of challenge you find "too much" in some genres.

Play the games by Jeff Vogel, see spiderweb games. That should give you lots of fun. Or the Eschalon Book games, see Basilisk Games. They are old school, turn based CRPGs, and very well done.

I found The Witcher frustrating, too, because the boss fights are just too hard, all of a sudden. Didn't buy Witcher 2 because of this.

Nice article!

It's not a RPG of any kind but the same retarded design decisions have just driven me insane whilst playing PixelJunk Shooter 2. It's a really fun little game... until you meet one of the "bosses"... at which point the gameplay completely changes, they have new weapons you've never seen, you even get switch from free flying around too a bullet-hell fixed game. AAAARGH! It's horrific, I love the game but then the designers must have decided to just take a huge dump on the player

I'm so frustrated by it but since I'm unemployed I reckon I'll just have to beat it somehow ;)

I can relate to calling a game unfair if gameplay is nearly impossible and offering criticism where it is due, but why is it the developer's problem that you aren't good at gaming and have a tight schedule?

[quote][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Then comes [b]DA:O[/b]. If you play the whole game in "Easy" difficulty (or whatever it's named), then the whole game will be quite kind with you (you will die a few time - the challenge does not disapear) - that is, until you get to the final part of the game. Then you'll have to start and start again (and again, and again, and again) the same stupid fights because suddenly the game difficulty changed drastically. After 6 hours full of restarting again and again the same fight, I uninstalled the game with the following verdict: "that was a good game, too bad the game designers went kind of stupid at the end".[/quote][/size][/color]

If you spent 6 hours on the same fight, then apparently you can "afford to lose 30 minutes here and there" pretty often!

Anyway, I think I went through that fight three times before winning, and I agree that it was difficult. However, given the length of the game and the variety of situations you worked through before, I think it is safe for the developers to assume you got better at the game over time. There is nothing stupid about assuming that people become gain experience through repetition.

Here is something to consider: When you play a game on Easy difficulty, your character quickly gets better at surviving in the game world, but you, as a human being, don't continue gaining experience with the same activities forever. You don't get buff from lifting only ten pound weights. I get the feeling that if you played DA:O on Hard and died several times, the final boss on Easy difficulty would have been a snap for you.

Any Unreal Tournament buff who can take on a Goliath Tank with an Assault Rifle (and win) will back me on this: When the difficulty of a game increases and you don't expect it to, your character will die because you don't have as much experience as your character does.

I know you said you lacked experience, and I'm not shaming you for that, but being inexperienced at a game is hardly an excuse to dismiss the game or the people who slaved over it as "silly". This is especially true when you might be getting better with practice! However, if you are NOT getting better with practice, then you have started to expect games to remain easy. You have no one to blame for that but yourself, sorry to say.

One last thought: Imagine you designed a game, and you put genuine effort into making it fun and challenging, yet "beatable". Suddenly some guy starts saying you "got stupid" because he had trouble at one part of your game while others did O.K. Why would you think this complaint was important enough to change the way you design games?

When I play a CRPG, I tend to follow a simple pattern. I play on the standard, normal level of difficulty, and face every situation (combat or otherwise) that comes my way, and both my character and my skill at the game progress at a consistent rate such that there are few moments where I am "stuck" at any given spot (short of trying to go streight to killing some bad-ass enemy that I should know I'm not ready for). So, I have to agree with Zyrolasting in saying that you probably aren't doing yourself any favors by playing the game on the easy setting.

The other thing that you're doing that's handicapping yourself is playing games that were designed to be played with a controller on your keyboard. If you were playing a game where you had to pay attention to sound cues, you wouldn't play without speakers. If possible, invest in a controller.

That being said, there certainly are occasions where developers think they're being clever and add an element to a game that makes a situation more difficult than it needs to be or otherwise completely negates your ability to play. It happens. I think it happens a lot less frequently than it used to. I think the last game I purchased and hit a wall like that was Wizardry 8. It was a game where developers decided to level monsters as your party gets stronger which is a very stupid game element to add if you ask me. What's the point of leveling up if you're never stronger than the creatures you originally fought? So, I don't play games with that particular feature any more.

If you're consistently coming across situations that makes it impossible to continue playing games that you buy, consider trying a different approach or even games other than CRPG (especially if your time is limited).

[quote]If you have so little time to play, you are bound to get frustrated all the time with any kind of game, I think. To me it seems like you are forcing yourself to play, for an unknown reason, and that kind of defeats the purpose of play. [/quote]
Be assured that I don't force myself to play I enjoy these moments - as I said, I like the CRPG narrative and story.

My time being limited doesn't mean I should stop playing because of the frustration. I'm an old guy (35 years) with a good gaming story. I'm this kind of guy that makes the backbone of the digital generation. I was lucky enough to grow up with computers (I started programming at 8 ; how could you be more lucky? ) and I've been playing video games for more than 25 years. From a usability point of view, I believe they evolve in the right direction - although from time to time a particular game got this wrong. Most of the time, this is a game deign error that could have been avoided (you cannot ask a keyboard player to be as efficient with keypress as a pad player ; so don't ask him to do the same thing).

[quote]I can relate to calling a game unfair if gameplay is nearly impossible and offering criticism where it is due, but why is it the developer's problem that you aren't good at gaming and have a tight schedule?[/quote]
Given my age and my background, I believe I'm kind of representative of an important part of the gamer's demographics. I guess many gamers of my age either turned hardcore (and have no life ; ok, that's a bit stretchy ) or turned casual as I did. Casual gamers (for the lack of a better word; here, I mean "gamers that really enjoy games but don't have the possibility to play as much as they want") tend to have a tight schedule (by definition) and since they don't play often, lack some gamers skills. Now, if the developper wants to sell their game, we also tend to have a high purchasing power. Equation is quite easy to get right

[quote]I know you said you lacked experience, and I'm not shaming you for that, but being inexperienced at a game is hardly an excuse to dismiss the game or the people who slaved over it as "silly".[/quote]
I bet it is: it's the whole point of the usability studies which are a very hot topic in the game development industry. It's silly (and the developpers are, by extension) for at least two reasons:

[list]
[*] first, because it puts unecessary restriction on the ability level of your customers. People with disabilities are forbidden to play any AAA game - and that's a shame for the industry.
[*] from a business point of view, it makes no sense to make games difficult ; it reduces the game audience which is never a good thing (the core gamer audience is not big enough to make the industry viable by itself ; you have to extend the audience if you want a correct return on investment). The game can be easy to play yet still being challenging. As you said earlier, the developpers expect you to become better as you progress through the game (that's a normal evolution: you know the game patterns, thus you can defeat more challenging opponents). Progressive difficulty is hard to get right, but it's the only solution if you don't want to get your players frustrated. Given the fact that an AAA game's budget is in the 10-30 million euros, you [i]can[/i] spend a fraction of that sum to ensure that the game is playable even by less experienced gamers. Eitehr you do that, or you are bound to make the game industry a niche industry that will be taken by Zynga-like creatures.
[/list]

Now I admit that I've been a bit harsh in this journal entry I was kind of frustrated.

[quote]One last thought: Imagine you designed a game, and you put genuine effort into making it fun and challenging, yet "beatable". Suddenly some guy starts saying you "got stupid" because he had trouble at one part of your game while others did O.K. Why would you think this complaint was important enough to change the way you design games?[/quote]

If he is able to support his claim with valid arguments, then I might listen to him. Maybe I did wrong. Just because nearly nobody saw an obvious usability big doesn't mean that the bug does not exist.

[quote]The other thing that you're doing that's handicapping yourself is playing games that were designed to be played with a controller on your keyboard. If you were playing a game where you had to pay attention to sound cues, you wouldn't play without speakers. If possible, invest in a controller.[/quote]
I have one. It used to be functionnal XB360 game pad (fun to use in a program) - I mean, right before baby put some nasty liquid on it. Do you know that these beasts are nearly impossible to crack open? you cannot clean them easily...

But the real point is: what's the point of allowing a sub-optimal input system in a game? If it's designed to be played with a controller, then forbid the use of a keyboard. Tell me that and it will save me a few euros. Please, developpers of the world, be honnest with your customer - you need them to trust you.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309891396']
If you're consistently coming across situations that makes it impossible to continue playing games that you buy, consider trying a different approach or even games other than CRPG (especially if your time is limited).[/quote]

Problem is that I really dislike many game genres - FPS-ish games tends to frustrate me even more. I play some fancy indy games from time to time (last one was Gish ; very fun and entertaining).

I want to add something to supplement my post: CRPGs are supposed to be character-oriented, not game-oriented (that's the purpose of this large list of stats); the gamer is supposed to make choice for the character, but it's the character who fights. What's the point of having stats that defy normality if you are responsible for every move of your character? In The Witcher 2, when fighting these guards, I'm pretty sure the real Geralt de Riv would bow their skulls away with one hand in the pocket. Yet I am forced into a fight I cannot win because I (as a player) don't have the necessary skills.

Either you do a CRPG - meaning that you understand what's a CRPG is and why you give the character some stats - or you don't - and in this case, don't call the game a CRPG, so I'm not lured into buying it

[quote][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Given my age and my background, I believe I'm kind of representative of an important part of the gamer's demographics.[/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"][/quote][/size][/color]

[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]When did we appoint you to represent us? [/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I'm a casual gamer too, and I like a challenge.[/size][/color]

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]From an economic perspective: If you like a game enough to beat it in spite of six man-hours on one battle, you got your money's worth. Asking designers to change their product at this point is like asking to change your order at a restaurant after you already ate your meal. Well, I guess they will hear you out if you said the chef "got stupid" in the end.[/size][/color]

Some of the things you may not like are in a game because other people demanded it. It is possible enough people had said "Games are too easy. I want them to challenge me more", and people like those in Bethesda obliged with Oblivion's monster leveling system. [color="#1c2837"][size="2"][size="2"]I cannot see why your argument is not along the lines of: "I didn't like the product, but I consumed it, and designers need to change it to suit my lifestyle".[/size][/size][/color] [size="2"][size="2"][color="#1c2837"]What about the people who happen to like what you didn't?[/color][/size][/size]

[size="2"][color="#1c2837"][quote][/color][/size][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]People with disabilities are forbidden to play any AAA game - and that's a shame for the industry.[/quote][/size][/color]

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I'd love to see a [/size][/color][size="2"][color="#1C2837"]blind man with Parkinson's play Waka-Laka on DDR, but I'd love to see the look on shareholders' faces even more.[/color][/size] [size="2"][color="#1c2837"]But seriously, how do you think things would play out if the disabled were allowed to interact with systems that can hurt them?
[/color][/size]
[size="2"][color="#1c2837"][quote][/color][/size][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]If he is able to support his claim with valid arguments, then I might listen to him. Maybe I did wrong. Just because nearly nobody saw an obvious usability big doesn't mean that the bug does not exist.[/quote][/size][/color]

[color="#1c2837"][size="2"]You were talking about not liking games being hard, not bugs.[/size][/color]

Please, tone down. If you don't want to see my point I won't force you to do so, and you have the right to express yourself in other places. You are obviously overreacting to my prose. Are you a Red Projeckt designer? If yes, then you shall explain me why those design choices were made. If not, why so serious?

A few years ago I read a novel where the main protagonist was banned from some kind of heaven because he hit someone in the face. The reason why he did so is that the someone insulted him. That ddidn't minor his crime because:
[list]
[*] if the insult was valid i.e. if the protagonist really deserves it, then he has no right to hit the second men, who was just stating the truth.
[*] in the other case, the insult should not have triggered any reaction since it was obviously wrong.
[/list]
This parabole is just here to explain you that overraction is not a normal reaction, and it is certainly uncalled for. You can think what you want, but you have to limit your expression to what you can argument. This is how humanity have debated for thousands of years.

Now, you can say that I might have overreacted in my original post. It's more or less true. There are evidences to supports your claims (if you make such a claim): derogatory words ("stupid" has been coined 11 times, as weasalmongler pointed out). I can counterbalance that with the fact that I present factual arguments, mainly how the village scene in the Witcher 2 is implemented. You might choose to disregard my report, that doesn't change much with respect to its existence. This partitcular part of W2 is filled with stupid design errors. These errors have been pointed out by many respected game designers during the past 20 years, which means that they should not show up in recent, AAA games. If they do, then someone did an obvious mistake. Since the mistake in question has been known for years, it's therefore borderline stupid.

I might be a bit harsh - I cannot deny this. The discourse might not be adapted to the audience (or to you). But still, there is a design error, and this design error produces frustration.

[quote]When did we appoint you to represent us? I'm a casual gamer too, and I like a challenge.[/quote]
Well, you are also representative of another kind of casual gamer. And I do love challenge too. What I don't like is biased difficulty that comes from design errors or usability bugs - the kind of difficulty The Witcher 2 exhibits.

And to answer your question, noone appointed me. It's just that I have a good knowledge of the players demographic and when I say "I [i]believe[/i] I'm [i]kind of[/i] representative" (did you read "I'm sure I'm really and totally representative"? If you did, you missed something, so I added the emphasis) I mean it, given the knowledge I have of this particular point - knowledge I gathered during industry conferences and reading bits here and there. Now, I can be wrong. Maybe I'm just the sole guy in the world who have this kind of issue. I'm not sure it makes my words less important (just like repeating aloud what millions thinks doesn't make words more importants).

[quote]I'd love to see a blind man with Parkinson's play Waka-Laka on DDR, but I'd love to see the look on shareholders' faces even more. But seriously, how do you think things would play out if the disabled were allowed to interact with systems that can hurt them?[/quote]
Last time I checked, games were a medium that would allow someone to experience danger without putting himself in a dangerous situation. It's quite rare to see a video game hurting the player.

There are disabilities that prevent playing any video game - blindness is one of them. Being deaf is also a disability, and having games that rely on hearing sounds (that's so good for the atmosphere) is just yet anotehr annoying thing for them. Now, you also have minor disabilities - for example, the difficulty to move some fingers of your right hand after an accident. Don't these people deserve the right to play the game they want? Sure, they will probably be unable to perfectly handle the pad, but that doesn't mean they should not play at all.

If you allow me to give you free tips, I would warn you to avoid logical falacies when you argument online. That doesn't work well. Going to the extreme and showing they can't match does not provide a good base for an logical argument.

[quote]You were talking about not liking games being hard, not bugs.[/quote]
A game which is [i]needlessly[/i] hard [i]because of the way it handles user input[/i] exhibits a usability bug. You might disagree with this, that doesn't mean it's not a truism (take care: emphasis is important. You shown an habit in misreading what I wrote, so take the time to really get this sentence right before you answer (if you answer)).

Best regards anyway

[quote]There are disabilities that prevent playing any video game - blindness is one of them. Being deaf is also a disability, and having games that rely on hearing sounds (that's so good for the atmosphere) is just yet another annoying thing for them. Now, you also have minor disabilities - for example, the difficulty to move some fingers of your right hand after an accident. Don't these people deserve the right to play the game they want? Sure, they will probably be unable to perfectly handle the pad, but that doesn't mean they should not play at all.[/quote]

I'd be inclined to agree with you here and support your argument and say that the cause of making games more accessible to players with disabilities is one worth valiantly pursuing. Except that as far as I know you don't have a disability and using a keyboard to play games is a choice of preference not one of physical disability. If I'm wrong about this then I apologize profusely. If I'm right about this then perhaps you could make it clear if you are trying to rally support for cause. But from my current perspective it looks like you're trying to use a worthy cause to excuse poor game performance due to a personal choice.

[quote]A game which is needlessly hard because of the way it handles user input exhibits a usability bug. You might disagree with this, that doesn't mean it's not a truism (take care: emphasis is important.[/quote]

I disagree both with the statement itself and the opinion the statement is a truism. Taken to the ridiculous, I could opt to personally generate the digital signal through an input wire instead of allowing a peripheral to perform that action for me. If I do decide to use that input technique, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the game to account for my slower data input or the errors that I will make as I attempt that input. Yes, that example is ridiculous but I'm trying to highlight that a game like any software has optimal specifications. Choosing to ignore those specifications and expecting equal performance is not reasonable.

Also, not to nitpick on choice of words but I also take a bit of an exception to referring to it as a "bug". "Bug" implies a certain amount of negligence on the part of the programmer. A decision that a game's primary input device will be a controller or a mouse is not a bug. It may certainly cause a "Usability Issue" for those that don't have access to the expected hardware, but it is not a bug.

I do sympathize a little bit in that I use a trackball mouse that only has two buttons. When I come across a game that expects me to have a mouse wheel, I have on occasion been completely unable to play the game as effectively as others with a mouse-wheel. However given that a mouse with a mouse-wheel is more likely to be thought of as standard equipment than my personally favored trackball, I suck it up and either go find a suitable mouse to use, limp through the best I can, or play a different game.

[quote]Now, you can say that I might have overreacted in my original post. It's more or less true. There are evidences to supports your claims (if you make such a claim): derogatory words ("stupid" has been coined 11 times, as weasalmongler pointed out). I can counterbalance that with the fact that I present factual arguments, mainly how the village scene in the Witcher 2 is implemented. You might choose to disregard my report, that doesn't change much with respect to its existence. This partitcular part of W2 is filled with stupid design errors. These errors have been pointed out by many respected game designers during the past 20 years, which means that they should not show up in recent, AAA games. If they do, then someone did an obvious mistake. Since the mistake in question has been known for years, it's therefore borderline stupid. [/quote]

Your OP took a posture in which you were very assertively challenging the game industry for not sufficiently supporting your preferred input device and not accommodating your expectations regarding difficulty level. It should not be surprising that an equally assertive reply was received.

I haven't played The Witcher 2. But on the surface, your "factual arguments" seem to me to be more an opinion that is biased by the fact that you choose to play the game using a particular piece of equipment that did not perform up to your expectations. It's difficult to tell by your post whether the elements that you're talking about would appear equally "stupid" if the game was played with another piece of equipment. Especially since you point out that the performance of the equipment that you choose to use was what you believed to be the root cause of your frustration.

The only other thing I can say is that I'd recommend to either buy a new controller (in which case I'd be curious to know if your opinion remains unchanged) or to investigate the game's requirements a little better before you purchase it to determine if it'll be suitable for your preferred equipment.

[quote][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Please, tone down. If you don't want to see my point I won't force you to do so, and you have the right to express yourself in other places. You are obviously overreacting to my prose. Are you a Red Projeckt designer? If yes, then you shall explain me why those design choices were made. If not, why so serious?[/quote][/size][/color]

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I'm not sure what you mean. I'm fine, and am not affiliated with Red Projeckt. [/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I do see your points, but as[/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"] kseh pointed out, conversation is a feedback system where you can expect to get responses similar to your message in some way, whether they agree with your statements or not. For example, w[/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]hen it comes to being "serious", I tend to actually become [i]less[/i][/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"] serious and tactful when addressing clearly opinionated conclusions that seem more like insults than criticisms.[/size][/color]
[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Believe me, I'm a nice guy if you get to know me, and am almost always willing to have open discussion. I'll try to watch my tact in the future if you really thought it was that bad, but I never intend to attack anyone... Just arguments![/size][/color]

[color="#1C2837"][size="2"][quote][/size][/color][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]Well, you are also representative of another kind of casual gamer. And I do love challenge too. What I don't like is biased difficulty that comes from design errors or usability bugs - the kind of difficulty The Witcher 2 exhibits. [/quote][/size][/color]

[size="2"][color="#1c2837"]Again, the tone of your entry drew more focus on your subjective interpretation of an ideal gaming experience instead of actual design flaws. If there were actual mistakes a game exhibits, I won't deny they are there.[/color][/size]

[s]Hopefully, when I'll hit the "Add comment" button, everything should be OK (wrt the layout). Otherwise, I'll edit the message.
[/s]
[s]Woop. I'm probably missing something obvious. It seems I cannot get the layout rigth... :/ After multiple verification, it seems there is the right number of tags, but if you see a mistake, please drop a word. Thanks in advance, and sorry for the inconvenience. [/s]

It seems the message was just too long. I splitted it in 3 posts. Sorry for this inconvenience as well.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
[quote]
There are disabilities that prevent playing any video game - blindness is one of them. Being deaf is also a disability, and having games that rely on hearing sounds (that's so good for the atmosphere) is just yet another annoying thing for them. Now, you also have minor disabilities - for example, the difficulty to move some fingers of your right hand after an accident. Don't these people deserve the right to play the game they want? Sure, they will probably be unable to perfectly handle the pad, but that doesn't mean they should not play at all.
[/quote]
I'd be inclined to agree with you here and support your argument and say that the cause of making games more accessible to players with disabilities is one worth valiantly pursuing. Except that as far as I know you don't have a disability and using a keyboard to play games is a choice of preference not one of physical disability. If I'm wrong about this then I apologize profusely
[/quote]

You're not wrong, but I believe I was answering something which was only loosely related to the issues I mention. I never mention that I had any kind of disabilities, and my side argument was that if a person like me, with no particular disability, experiences difficult and frustrating moments related to usability, then a person with disability is very likely to experience even more difficulties.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
If I'm right about this then perhaps you could make it clear if you are trying to rally support for cause. But from my current perspective it looks like you're trying to use a worthy cause to excuse poor game performance due to a personal choice.
[/quote]
I don't have to excuse any poor game's performance. Do I?

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
[quote]
A game which is needlessly hard because of the way it handles user input exhibits a usability bug. You might disagree with this, that doesn't mean it's not a truism (take care: emphasis is important.
[/quote]
I disagree both with the statement itself and the opinion the statement is a truism.
[/quote]
If you disagree with that, it's going to be very difficult to get my point. If a game implements user input handling in a way that makes the game artificially difficult (providing that the whole point of the game is not getting using input right ; it can happen: I've seen game where you goal is to master a recalcitrant mouse) then something went wrong. This is especially true if you have two input systems that supposedly offers you the same experience (more on that later): if one of them is notably more difficult to use than the other, then you have a problem, and the problem lies on your (I mean: the developper, not you ) side, not on the player side.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
Taken to the ridiculous, I could opt to personally generate the digital signal through an input wire instead of allowing a peripheral to perform that action for me. If I do decide to use that input technique, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the game to account for my slower data input or the errors that I will make as I attempt that input. Yes, that example is ridiculous but I'm trying to highlight that a game like any software has optimal specifications. Choosing to ignore those specifications and expecting equal performance is not reasonable.
[/quote]
That's hardly an argument. Of course there are optimal specifications, as well as minimal one. Minimal specifications are here to tell what configuration is required to play the game. Optimal specification is supposed to offer an optimal experience, not to offer the legitimate, reasonable experience everyone is supposed to have while playing the game.

If an input mechanism is required to have a legitimate game experience, it makes no sense to propose another input mechanism. If you offer another input mechanism, you have to make sure this input mechanism is correctly supported. This is programming 101: a software that only barely work is not a functionnal software. Since we are lurking a game development forum, I can assume that you understand this.

Regarding optimal specification, do you expect every game marked with the NVIDIA logo to not play on an ATI? I'm pretty sure you don't. What you could expect is a better quality, or a faster rendering, not an inadequate rendering. If you notice any flaw, you'll rightly describe them as rendering bug.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
Also, not to nitpick on choice of words but I also take a bit of an exception to referring to it as a "bug". "Bug" implies a certain amount of negligence on the part of the programmer.
A decision that a game's primary input device will be a controller or a mouse is not a bug.
[/quote]
But then, how would you call the negligence that lead to badly supported hardware when you claim you support it - even if you say it isn't the prefered hardware? If you make a program, caliming suport for (let's say) IPv6, but chose to not spend too much effort in supporting (say) multicasting, then your IPv6 support is likely to be tagged as "don't work' by your customer, and you (as the software developper) will agree on that.

I don't fully agree on your definition of a bug. There are bug situation you can't avoid unless you master your chain tool and your OS, and this is a wet dream scenario. Id doesn't matter if your software crash because of someone else - your software isn't supposed to crash, point. But that's really a side comment that adds nothing to the discussion, so let's forget about it.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
It may certainly cause a "Usability Issue" for those that don't have access to the expected hardware, but it is not a bug.
[/quote]
No offense intended but I have some difficulties to understand that.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
I do sympathize a little bit in that I use a trackball mouse that only has two buttons. When I come across a game that expects me to have a mouse wheel, I have on occasion been completely unable to play the game as effectively as others with a mouse-wheel. However given that a mouse with a mouse-wheel is more likely to be thought of as standard equipment than my personally favored trackball, I suck it up and either go find a suitable mouse to use, limp through the best I can, or play a different game.
[/quote]
If a 3 mouse button is part of the official requirement set, you have no choice but using a 3 mouse button. If it's not but not having one make the game difficult, then someone, somewhere, has overlooked the issue.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
[quote]
Now, you can say that I might have overreacted in my original post. It's more or less true. There are evidences to supports your claims (if you make such a claim): derogatory words ("stupid" has been coined 11 times, as weasalmongler pointed out). I can counterbalance that with the fact that I present factual arguments, mainly how the village scene in the Witcher 2 is implemented. You might choose to disregard my report, that doesn't change much with respect to its existence. This partitcular part of W2 is filled with stupid design errors. These errors have been pointed out by many respected game designers during the past 20 years, which means that they should not show up in recent, AAA games. If they do, then someone did an obvious mistake. Since the mistake in question has been known for years, it's therefore borderline stupid.
[/quote]
Your OP took a posture in which you were very assertively challenging the game industry for not sufficiently supporting your preferred input device and not accommodating your expectations regarding difficulty level.
[/quote]
No. I was asserting that some recent games I played exhibits game design errors that have been specifically labeled as game design errors for the best part of the 20 last years. I did it with some kind of rage and frustration because of the direct experience I had for a game I bought 50 €.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
It should not be surprising that an equally assertive reply was received.
[/quote]
And yet I am, because it doesn't make sense to blindly support a third party in which you have no interest. Even if you are an aspiring game developer, and I believe that's a good goal to pursue, it doesn't make sense. It's not like I was attacking someone you know, or someone who was not able to answer to my diatribe. I don't understand the subjective reasons (and I don't even speak of objective reasons) that would have moved your inner self enough to make you reply in an equally assertive way. I mean, I was the guy who was frustrated - what about you? I would have understood "an eye for an eye" but in our situation I don't see how this could apply.

Again, I'm not trying to provoque you or to diminuish the merit of your answers. It's just that I really don't get this one.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
I haven't played The Witcher 2.
[/quote]
I'm really trying to not offense anyone - except perhaps the RP developpers, and even that is not true - but you must admit that there is something illogical in saying that my arguments are more or less invalid without having played the game.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
But on the surface, your "factual arguments" seem to me to be more an opinion that is biased by the fact that you choose to play the game using a particular piece of equipment that did not perform up to your expectations.
[/quote]
Yes, it is an opinion, backed with arguments that are based upon verifiable facts. Play the game, and in that particular zone, try to use the keyboard, and you'll see that it's not adapted to the situation.

The fact that the keyboard does not fit the situation may not sound serious, and yet nothing, nowhere told me that I had to use a pad instead of the keyboard to play the game. Sure, with a pad, it would have been easier (I finally decided to give it a second try, and succeeded - but not without much trouble). The optimal configuration says:

[quote]
Recommended requirements:

Processor: Quad Core Intel or AMD
RAM: 3 GB Windows XP, 4 GB Windows Vista/7
Graphics: GeForce 260 1 GB or (HD4850 1 GB)
HDD Space: 16 GB
[/quote]

This is directly taken from http://thewitcher.com/support/index.html as my computer refuses to C-c/C-v my game box. Nothing in this description says that a gamepad is even recommended. Nothing in the game tells you that you'd better use a gamepad - no readme, no warning on the interface, and so on. It either means that the keyboard is a perfectly legitimate input controller, in which case the fact that it is not well suited for this particular part of the game is a usability issue (if you don't like the term "bug" ; but you'll have to tell me the difference. To me, a bug is something that either prevent the program to function normally, or that prevent the user to use the program as it was intended. I beleive we're right in this second case). If the keyboard is not suitable for the game then it's a documentation issue (and I remind you that Microsoft consider these as documentation bugs : a failure to properly document a requirement). In either case, there is a problem, and this problem exists because someone overlooked something which is important.

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
It's difficult to tell by your post whether the elements that you're talking about would appear equally "stupid" if the game was played with another piece of equipment. Especially since you point out that the performance of the equipment that you choose to use was what you believed to be the root cause of your frustration.
[/quote]
I (kind of?) answer to the first sentence later.

It's not the performance of the keyboard which is quiestionable, it's its suitability to the task. I'm pretty sure one of the requirement of the game developpers was : "on PC, support keyboard + mouse input" - for the simple reason that it's unreasonable to ask for every player to buy another controller: that would nearly double the game price, not to mention that some PC players are perfectly able to successfully play with the keyboard (I have no double that skillfull player will do a lot better than me and won't even be slightly annoyed by the issues I experience ; but skillfull players are less frequent that one might think).

[quote name='kseh' timestamp='1309994215']
The only other thing I can say is that I'd recommend to either buy a new controller (in which case I'd be curious to know if your opinion remains unchanged) or to investigate the game's requirements a little better before you purchase it to determine if it'll be suitable for your preferred equipment.
[/quote]
Up to very recently, CRPG on PC were not made for gamepad. Those who were (Oblivion for example) proposed a clean interface that allowed a user to play with their keyboard+mouse with no difficulties. So this is definitely possible. Since the W2 requirements does not even mention the prefered controller, one would be right to assume that new CRPG are still playable with a keyboard. If it's no longer true, it's not the fault of the player, but a mistake of the developpers. Saying that I have some kind of obligation to surf the internet for further, more precise information is a bit unreasonable: I'm not buying a car, I'm buying a video game. A piori, I should not have to spend my time searching for this kind of information (a posteriori, it seems I should have; but if you consider that it's a normal behavior then you must ask yourself why).

Now, if I play this part with a pad, I will of course have a different experience. I may be more confortable to crash the skulls of my opponents. This is quite logical and this is due to the topology of a gamepad (the buttons that I would have used are available under the right thumb which is one of our most agile finger - provided that you are right handed; on the keyboard, you would play the sequence with ASDW, meaning that you would use 4 left hand fingers for the same task. This is definitely disfunctionnal: you can't have the same agility than with the right thumb, yet the designer asks you to perform the same action in the same timing. I don't believe I'm exagerating when I say it cannot work well).

Before I go for the other part of my answer, I must say that I don't dislike or dismiss anything you say. There are valuable, thought provoking arguments that I'm considering carefully. I have not written these replies to blindly assert a questionable position: yes, my thoughts were provoked by frustration, but that doesn't mean the resulting argumentation is flawed and I certainly don't believe it is. You've already admitted that you never played this game. You should give it a try, and use the keyboard in the village (it's part of the main quest so you'll have to pass through this). You'll see by yourself that in this case, and despite the fact that its an otherwise perfectly legitimate input system, the keyboard is very difficult to use and is in fact ruining the game experience.

[quote name='zyrolasting' timestamp='1310002863']
[quote]
Please, tone down. If you don't want to see my point I won't force you to do so, and you have the right to express yourself in other places. You are obviously overreacting to my prose. Are you a Red Projeckt designer? If yes, then you shall explain me why those design choices were made. If not, why so serious?
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm fine, and am not affiliated with Red Projeckt. I do see your points, but as kseh pointed out, conversation is a feedback system where you can expect to get responses similar to your message in some way, whether they agree with your statements or not. For example, when it comes to being "serious", I tend to actually become [i]less[/i] serious and tactful when addressing clearly opinionated conclusions that seem more like insults than criticisms.
[/quote]
Point taken. I used derogatory words induced by frustration. Yet, as I said earlier in the message, I don't understand why one would answer using the same or a similar tone: it's not like I said something that directly or indirectly impacted you yet it appears that I did - in which case it's completely unvoluntary. I was hoping to provoke reaction (I wouldn't have posted anything otherwise) but I was expected either "I agree" or "I disagree", and I certainly didn't want to start some kind of ember war (I cannot decently call this discussion a flame war, yet there is a distinct agrressive tone here and there).

[quote name='zyrolasting' timestamp='1310002863']
Believe me, I'm a nice guy if you get to know me, and am almost always willing to have open discussion. I'll try to watch my tact in the future if you really thought it was that bad, but I never intend to attack anyone... Just arguments!
[/quote]
An I believe you certainly are, otherwise I wouldn't have replied at all

[quote name='zyrolasting' timestamp='1310002863']
[quote]
Well, you are also representative of another kind of casual gamer. And I do love challenge too. What I don't like is biased difficulty that comes from design errors or usability bugs - the kind of difficulty The Witcher 2 exhibits.
[/quote]
Again, the tone of your entry drew more focus on your subjective interpretation of an ideal gaming experience instead of actual design flaws. If there were actual mistakes a game exhibits, I won't deny they are there.
[/quote]
If you're really reacting to the tone of my post, then please, accept my apologies.

Otehrwise, I thought I made quite clear that the hand fighting system is flawed when using a keyboard. I'm not stating something else. Of course, as kseh hinted, I could have used another input system (provided that I had a functional one, which is not the case). The assumtpion that I can buy another one is flawed (I believe putting 50€ in a game is largely sufficient; I won't add another 40€ to buy a controller unless I'm sure I'll be able to use it on other games - something which is not yet the case, as many PC games usually don't expect or need them at all; it may change in the future but it's still not the case. Remember I bought the first one no to play with it, but to experience programming with XNA ; at that time, I was single, without child, and with plenty time to do this kind of thing).

I could have bought another game - it's a bit too late. As I pointed out, nothing in the official communication says that the game requires a gamepad - or that the game experience is better with a gamepad. Surfing the net to get this kind of information is not something I would do naturally, and prior experience of games that were designed for a gamepad (again, Oblivion) showed me that they were equally usable with a keyboard. It is therefore perfectly normal and not unreasonnable to believe that keyboard+mouse are suitable controllers for W2. I insist on this because it's way to easy to dismiss this claim by saying "you should have done something else". I don't think I did something wrong in this particular case, yet the game punishes me for not using s controller which is definitely not advertised as the prefered method of play.

I spent a wooping couple of hours redacting this comment. I hope I made myself clearer, and I hope I was civil enough.

Best regards,

-E.