A Fly in the Ointment

While The Witcher takes place in a deep, interesting game world and provides a lengthy gaming experience — the box states 80 hours or more, which pretty much matches my experience — not all is perfect. In fact, at launch things weren't even remotely close to perfect. My first encounter with the game came in early December, and while I was very interested in continuing play I encountered so many stability problems and the level load times were so long that I probably wouldn't have finished. Late December brought about the 1.2 patch, which dramatically improved the situation. Load times were cut down by a factor of around five, and the same goes for save times. On the one hand that sounds impressive, but the fact that they were even able to make such an improvement points towards a rushed release. Wait — a game being rushed out just prior to the holiday shopping season? Say it isn't so! Needless to say, considering the number of transitions you have to make between areas — wandering in and out of houses and other buildings is a common occurrence — waiting for 60 seconds or more for an area to load quickly becomes tiresome. 5-12 seconds is much more palatable, though it's a shame that even with 4GB of RAM you have to deal with relatively long transition times.

The other major issue I had with the game involves stability, or the lack of it. The Witcher would frequently crash after playing for anywhere between 30 and 120 minutes. I tried it on four different systems, with various graphics cards and driver versions, with and without the 1.2 patch. Three of the four systems invariably would crash to desktop after a while, so frequent saving was absolutely required. What about the fourth system? That's where things become interesting.

Two of the systems were running Windows Vista 32-bit, one with a Radeon X1950 XTX and one with a GeForce 8800 GTX. Both had 2GB of RAM. Neither system worked well past ~60 minutes of playing — sometimes more, sometimes less. Given that the support page explicitly mentions installing the virtual graphics memory hotfix for Vista, I thought that perhaps that was the problem, but the crashes continued. Even with the hotfix, Vista still requires more memory than XP, so my next test was on a Windows XP system, this time with a Radeon X1900 XT but still running 2GB of RAM. Once again, stability became a problem after an hour or so.

The fourth and final system was the Widow PC Sting 517D2, which just happened to be running Windows Vista 64-bit and 4GB of memory. I won't say that the game never crashed on this system — it did crash, a total of three times (compared to dozens on the other systems) — but it was much more stable than any of the other systems I tested on. Unfortunately, I only had that one system with 4GB of memory and Windows Vista 64-bit, so I can't say whether it was the extra memory or the 64-bit OS (or both) that more or less solved the stability problems. Here's hoping we see a 1.3 patch in the near future that addresses the remaining stability problems.


Task manager - my favorite Windows app!

Update: Thanks to the readers for suggesting the 3GB application memory space fix. It seems I incorrectly assumed that more than 2GB of physical RAM was required for that to make a difference. After running "BCDEDIT /set IncreaseUserVa 3072" on Windows Vista 32-bit, my stability problems have disappeared (at least in one extended play session). This of course raises the question of why this fix isn't specifically listed on the patch page, as well as why the game can't simply detect that it's allocating more memory than is normally allowed. The onus should be on the creators/publishers to provide support and fixes, and burying the information in the support forums is a less than ideal approach.

Performance is something of a concern as well. While The Witcher will run reasonably well on most recent gaming systems, you need a rather powerful system if you want to turn up all of the detail settings. You can see in the above image (Opteron 165 @ 2.4GHz with X1900 XT) that the game does make use of dual-core processors to a certain extent — or at least it uses most of one core and the graphics subsystem/drivers do some work on the second core — and large portions of the game are playable at higher resolutions even on slightly older graphics cards. However, there are other areas where even a GeForce 8800 GTX delivers poor performance, likely a side effect of the Aurora engine.


High detail setting


High detail with lighting and shadows turned down one notch


Medium detail


Low detail

Turning down the detail settings and/or resolution will typically solve any performance problems, but as you can see in the above images there's a pretty serious drop in image quality when you go from high to medium-high settings. Turning lighting quality to the maximum provides a noticeable improvement to the visuals, but the performance impact is similarly large. While the game only officially requires a Shader Model 2.0 graphics card to run, we would recommend a GeForce 7900 or Radeon X1900 at the very least. If you're looking to upgrade, the latest GeForce 8800 GT and Radeon HD 3850 are both reasonably affordable and are more than capable of running The Witcher at high detail settings and moderate resolutions (1440x900 or lower, perhaps 1680x1050 if you're not too demanding).

Technical problems aren't the only shortcoming of The Witcher. While I did find the gameplay enjoyable for the most part, combat does begin to wear a little thin. Click. Slash-swish-slash. Click. Swish-chop-slash. Click. Chop-hack-whack…. Sure, sometimes you have to change fighting styles, or double-tap a movement key to try to get out of the middle of a group of monsters putting the beat-down on you, but while the battles do look impressive they also become very repetitive. The boss monster battles at least keep things exciting, but there are only a handful of these throughout the game. On the bright side, you can run away from most fights, and your clicking finger won't get quite as tired as it does in games like Diablo.


Why can't I just click on a dot to go there!?

The other major gameplay complaint involves the constant running about. The game is divided into five chapters, plus prologue and epilogue. Once you leave a chapter, there's no returning, so make sure you complete all of the quests specific to that chapter before moving on. However, it's a good thing you can't backtrack through old areas, because it takes long enough to run back and forth across the three or four major maps that comprise each chapter. Chapter 3 does provide you with a teleport system, but even that doesn't prove to be particularly useful since you still have to run to and from the teleport rooms. What would have helped tremendously is some sort of quick travel system that would take you to any of the major locations that you've previously visited. Sure, that probably would have cut game time down to around 30 hours, and it would've eliminated half of the random monster encounters, but neither change would have been for the worse in my opinion.


Two seconds later, she jumped in bed with Geralt. (Honest!)

Then there are the mini-games: drinking, gambling, and womanizing. Okay, the last one doesn't really count as a "mini-game", but the presentation does make one wonder if the developers/writers behind The Witcher aren't a bunch of misogynistic — or at least sexually repressed — men. Maybe they're merely being true to the source material, but the way random women seem to throw themselves at you leaves much to be desired. There are two major "romantic interests" in the game, but neither one would qualify as anything remotely like a real relationship. Take the following sequence: "You don't spend enough time with Alvin!" [Walk downstairs and tell Alvin he'll get a dog someday.] "I'm glad you're spending so much time with Alvin!" Romeo and Juliet this is not.

The drinking "game" is even worse: a few times in the game you will have to get drunk with one of the NPCs. There's no skill or anything else involved: you just keep sharing drinks until you win, and once you learn the formula for the Wives' Tears potion (it removes all intoxication), drunkenness has no meaning. Out of the three, gambling is the best, but even here it's like playing a form of Yahtzee/poker against a half-wit; the computer opponents rarely make the best move, often throwing away a winning "hand" for no apparent reason. It makes winning money easier, but it's not really challenging or fun.

Before you start to wonder how I could say anything positive about this game after this page full of criticisms, remember that the overall impression is generally a lot more important than complaints about select areas. The mini-games are frankly a non-issue, totaling less than 5% of the gaming experience. The womanizing can be skipped, should you choose. The stability problems and lack of quick travel are both flaws, but while they might detract from the experience they don't turn a good game into a lousy game. This is a game that was potentially great, but it ends up being merely good. If you're a fan of the genre and of good storytelling, don't let any of the criticisms on this page keep you away from playing The Witcher. At the very least, download the demo and give it a try.

A Farewell to Packrats Witcher = Neutrality = Good?
Comments Locked

39 Comments

View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    I believe I covered that on page 6:

    [quote]Then there are the mini-games: drinking, gambling, and womanizing. Okay, the last one doesn't really count as a "mini-game", but the presentation does make one wonder if the developers/writers behind The Witcher aren't a bunch of misogynistic — or at least sexually repressed — men.[/quote]

    Amazingly enough, I don't encourage young children to play 17+ rated games, and I wouldn't suggest parents buy this game for their pre-teen kids.
  • Foxy1 - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    I’ll make myself clearer, as you missed the obvious intent of my question: In your opinion,

    1) Does The Witcher portray women as vile temptresses, witches and whores?

    2) Are women treated reprehensibly by all the male characters in The Witcher?

    3) Is the underlying theme of The Witcher the sexual conquest of women?

    4) As a father of a young daughter, were you offended by the objectification of women in The Witcher?

    And regarding your comment: “I wouldn’t suggest parents buy this game for their pre-teen kids.” – what about teenagers (ages 13-17)?
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    1) Yes. It also portrays men as depraved, evil, murdering jerks; other women are nurses, concerned mothers, peasants, old women, etc.
    2) Hardly.
    3) If you're hard up, maybe? I can think of better ways to get my jollies than playing an 80 hour game just so I can see a few PG-13 rated scenes and cards.
    4) Nope, because it didn't exist any more than it does in the real world. There are women that have sex for money, sex for pleasure, or hate men - all of these are present in The Witcher.

    Perhaps you should notify people like Jack Thompson about this game; at least he would care enough to be outraged.
  • chizow - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    Lighten up guy, you're 700 years early on the topic of suffrage and equal rights in a fantasy world. Its a video game, squarely marketed towards the 18-35 male demographic that dominates the industry (and most others too). The game is rated 17-18+ in Europe and M (18+) in the US, so be a good parent and don't buy it for your 13-17 year old kids if you don't want them playing it.
  • homercles337 - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    Why was there no time spent discussing the flawed DRM? Many people with this game have serious, game stopping issues with the DRM--FOR NO REASON. There is a 20 page thread at The Witcher Forums discussing this with no resolution.

    Overall though, i was happy to see a Witcher review right here at AT. :)
  • nHeat - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    Without a doubt, that was the most idiotic introduction ever written on a Witcher review. Anyone else agree?
  • vijay333 - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/edit...">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article...tion/283...
  • JarredWalton - Friday, January 25, 2008 - link

    You might notice that this link is already in the article, on the last page. Thanks for reading. ;)
  • chizow - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    Nice review Jarred, I certainly agree with many of the points you've covered. I also wanted to give a BIG thumbs-up on incorporating some of the hardware/performance aspects of the game into the review to give it that techy edge. HardOCP has also done some featured game/patch performance reviews. I'd like to see more reviews of this type that bridge the gap between game reviews and bar graphs and help the end-user understand how they can improve their gaming experience.

    As for the game itself, I also found it very enjoyable. There's certainly some annoyances, many of which you covered in your review. My main gripe is with looting, how you can't loot while aggro'd and even something as simple as a "Loot All" bind key or making it closer to the center of the screen would cut down on the annoyance that is looting corpses. Some things I'd add to help new players or potential players is:

    1) Books: Always buy Monster books for Bestiary entries ASAP. This will help advance some secondary/bounty quests and cut down on some of the running back and forth or frustrations with limited spawn monsters. Look for the Antiquary or Book vendors in new areas first.
    2) Looting corpses: for Junk mobs, don't bother looting all of them all the time. Best way is to just find 1 readily available alchemy ingredient for each component and stick to only looting that (6 items). For advanced players, you can do this for each sub component too (18-24 items).
    3) Gathering Herbs: same as above, only focus on the ones you need for specific alchemical values, ignore the rest. When buying books buy monster books first, then Plants if you have the extra scratch.
    4) Sell everything unless you're sure you'll need it (meteorite, runes, potion alcohol, key alchemy ingredients), you can usually buy it back later and anything essential goes to quest items.
    5) Food is pretty much useless, sell it off and keep only 1-2 stacks to help free up inventory.

    Interesting comments about performance, glad you were able to compare on multiple systems. I ran the game with Vista 64 and 8GB from the start and found it very stable even before the 1.2 patch, but saw many others complaining about crashes in the forums. At first I wasn't sure if the game was /largeaddressaware but as soon as I got to Chapter 2/3 I saw the game would certainly take advantage of extra RAM and a 64-bit OS with all the zoning and transitioning. I've seen Witcher commit hit 2.85GB (~4GB system total) with another 4GB cached in Vista 64 but I'm sure they can improve load times even more.

    I also found the game to be very CPU intensive. On a C2D E6400 @ 3.1GHz, the system would use 80-85% with CPU 0 pegged at 100% and CPU 1 fluctuating between 60-80%. Didn't really seem to impact performance until I ran FRAPs, at which point both cores would be pegged at 100% (similar experience with other games with FRAPs in Vista) and I would see a negative impact on performance with choppy gameplay. Upgrading to a C2Q @ 3.5GHz smoothed things out a bit, especially with FRAPs running. Only 25-30% (max 80% on Core 0) instead of 80% on a slower C2D. With FRAPs recording utilization hits 50-60% and gameplay is noticeably smoother with the Quad core. The Quad didn't address the brief slowdown I experience when zoning from indoor to outdoor in Chapter 3 (Trade Quarters) during the day. Figured this was a memory management issue and part of the reason transitions took so long, as the game is loading up all of the dynamic objects and NPCs.

    Oh btw, when are we going to see that Vista 64 vs Vista 32/XP comparison? I know Derek was out sick for awhile so maybe that slowed things down, but we're starting to see more and more games that perform better/worst on 32 or 64-bit even if it doesn't show up on an FPS graph.
  • ghoti - Thursday, January 24, 2008 - link

    Thanks for the comprehensive game review, Jarred.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now