The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 16 NEXT
 

i don't see why people seem so bent out of shape over this review. he is absolutely correct in saying that while the game shines in a great many ways, there are some truly glaring and unforgivable problems.

and while i agree that a 7 out of 10 is a bit low (i reviewed the game at a 9 out of 10), his problems with the game are spot on.

Hristo Tzonkov:

Mangue Surfer:

Hristo Tzonkov:

But LOTR is a frivolous Fairy Tail.It doesn't even hold a candle for The Witcher or the Game of Thrones series.LOTR is just another overblown thing that I'll never understand.

Is hard to compare. LOTR was written in an age that husband and wife make sex with their pajamas in a totally dark room. Things were innocent because they had to be. Thinking, The Mists of Avalon is a much more visceral reading than the A Song of Ice and Fire(still very good). BUT, because of the time in it was written and because was wrote by a woman, its never got the deserved credit.

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

It's not that.In LOTR there are no shades of grey.There are no changes of heart apart some things that were caused by corruption of evil.There's a stark contrast between the warring factions.It's a lot more akin to a fairy tail.There's good guys with a clear goal and the book just describes reaching it,while bad guys try to foil everything.While it may have sparked the whole genre when compared to the Witcher it really is a fairy tail.

...and everybody with dark skin is automatically evil, I know, I know. It's exactly what I'm saying. To the standards of the time LOTR do a pretty good job. Obvious, things evolve but I just think it's not fair to make comparisons with books that couldn't be written at the time.

Calibretto:

rsvp42:

Calibretto:

I see so in front of the court and jury are you going to say W2 is worse then DA2?

What? No, I think I've said multiple times that I like TW2. It looks a lot nicer than DA2 and feels better crafted overall. I do like the companions in DA2 better though, so far. But I like them both. What part of my post said that TW2 was worse and why am I in a court metaphor?

So can you understand peoples problems with DA2 getting 5/5 and W2 getting 3.5?

Of course I understand. It's a bunch of fans putting way too much stock into one guy's arbitrary review score and then giving him crap for it, They can make up whatever they want about "journalistic integrity" or whatever makes them feel better about complaining, but that's what it boils down to: a guy who reviews games didn't conform to their tastes and preferences and now he's getting attacked for it.

It's not that I think DA2 was better (I don't) or that TW2 deserves a 3.5 (it deserves at least a 4), I just think that people shouldn't care what one reviewer thinks if they don't agree with it and it upsets them.

Mangue Surfer:

Hristo Tzonkov:

Mangue Surfer:

Is hard to compare. LOTR was written in an age that husband and wife make sex with their pajamas in a totally dark room. Things were innocent because they had to be. Thinking, The Mists of Avalon is a much more visceral reading than the A Song of Ice and Fire(still very good). BUT, because of the time in it was written and because was wrote by a woman, its never got the deserved credit.

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

It's not that.In LOTR there are no shades of grey.There are no changes of heart apart some things that were caused by corruption of evil.There's a stark contrast between the warring factions.It's a lot more akin to a fairy tail.There's good guys with a clear goal and the book just describes reaching it,while bad guys try to foil everything.While it may have sparked the whole genre when compared to the Witcher it really is a fairy tail.

...and everybody with dark skin is automatically evil, I know, I know. It's exactly what I'm saying. To the standards of the time LOTR do a pretty good job. Obvious, things evolve but I just think it's not fair to make comparisons with books that couldn't be written at the time.

But it's okay to make fun of right?I mean I take Geralt's joke as a sign the genre's grown.

The review is pretty spot on. Its a great damn game, but it suffers from many flaws.

The fact that they put the difficulty curve on backwards for some reason. The complete lack of any sort of worthwhile tutorial. The fact combat isn't as responsive as it should be. The fact that maxing out your Quen rune pretty much breaks the game's balance (note: the abilities are pretty much at the beginning of the Rune ability tree). The fact that the UI is worse than even ME1's - I mean seriously no sort? No junk tab? Don't get me started on the alchemy - if you want to switch out ingredients so you don't end up using the troll's tongue (which you only get one of, and is needed for a quest, yet can still be used up in alchemy for some stupid reason) as soon as you make one potion it switches back to whatever ingredient it was originally defaulting to instead of keeping whatever you wanted to use in the slot you keep having to swap it out - so you have to keep swapping them, very tedious if you're trying to make a batch of 10 Swallows.

And people - the game isn't hard its just hard to figure out how to play it. Once you know what you're doing the actual execution part really isn't that difficult - really the main thing is to not let yourself get surrounded, and keep Quen up if you're fighting multiple enemies.

Anyone deluding themselves into thinking that the game doesn't have serious design flaws need a healthy dose of Extra Credits

Savber:

Theotherguy:
I read the whole review, than said to myself without checking the mark: "This is a 7 from a lotr/dragon age fanboy". And than I smiled.

Yes the ui is kinda bad, but the rest of the stuff like "I died there, I died here" is just funny. I can understand Dragon Age 2 dragging ou by the hand with it's pathetic difficulty level, but come on! How lazy can You get?

And You didn't mention so many things in the review, which are good sides of The Witcher 2. Dude, being objective is a must for a reviever, the game is a 9 not a 7.

Lol, I find it hilarious how you say that a reviewer must be objective before offering your 'subjective' belief that the game should be objectively rated a 9.

It's an opinion, reviews are always going to be subjective, and everyone is different.

This exactly. You don't like this person's opinion? Tough. You don't have to agree with it.

Dexter111:

To make matters worse, after I finally made it past that section of the prologue - on normal difficulty, damn you, I'm nothing if not stubborn - the game brought me back to the first four dialogue choices. Clicking a different one sent me to the first part of the prologue, which calmly introduced that Geralt has amnesia and has thrown in his lot with the King of Temeria in a little civil war. It's not necessary to have played the first game because this section deftly explains the opening plot without the constant threat of death. Why on Earth would CD Projekt allow me to play the prologue out of order?

Guess they wanted to trap all these people: image

I usually start reading a book from the beginning :P

It's a good thing the landscape looks so awesome, because you will be wandering around those woods for a long time. Finding quest-specific locations is usually easy, but simple navigation is tough because there is no indication of which direction is north. The map looks pretty, but uses the Cyrillic alphabet so that kind of sucks for us Anglos. Plus, finding some of the objectives of the side-quests is nearly impossible because they blend in with the background. The main quests also have you going back and forth to the same location often which made me wonder why they spent so much time building the rest of the place.

From your DA2 review:

Like many people, I moved to a new place after college. I didn't know a soul in New York City or how to get around, and just buying groceries was an impossible task. By the time I left ten years later, I knew that town like nobody's business. I wasn't anyone special, but if you dropped me anywhere in the five boroughs, I could tell you a memory, which corner to avoid, and where to get a slice - the kind of familiarity you only get after exploring a location until it feels like home. That's what Kirkwall will feel like after playing Dragon Age II.

So, basically wandering around through "beautiful, lush woods" = bad; but wandering through a rather ugly realized excuse of a city till it "feels like home" = good?
image image image image image

image image image image image

By this time, the combat feels like a snap as long as you've drunk the right potions and stopped spamming the Igni sign (fireball.) Effective fighting involves creative use of the Control menu, which slows time and allows you to switch signs and secondary weapons like bombs and throwing daggers. Parrying attacks and countering can feel a lot like dueling and that's when the combat of The Witcher really sings. But there is sometimes a terrible lag between pressing a button and witnessing Geralt respond, which encourages a weird constant tapping of the keys to make sure the command goes through. For combat whose fun depends on flow, this is a monstrous error.

There's nothing "clunky" about the combat and it reacts perfectly fine, here for instance is a video of someone playing one part of the Prologue on the "Hard" difficulty without getting hit even once by effectively using all possibilities and understanding the mechanics:


The most likely reason why some button might not have responded might be that you didn't get a specific game mechanic... like Parrying blows using Vigor or similar.
I guess you're just a friend of the "Button --> Awesome" mechanic:

The party-based combat is frenetic, with no auto-attack making you feel in the thick of it with constant button-pressing. I enjoyed taking a more active role and not being forced to pause after every spell or special move goes off to give more orders - although you can micro-manage the tactics if you're OCD about it.

Bottom Line: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.

Giving Dragon Age 2 5 stars and Witcher 2 3 1/2 when the world of DA2 is a bland cesspit thrown together in one and a half years of development time for the entire game, devoid of any life, change over a time span of 10 years or character and the story especially in Act1 amounts to "Collect as much money as you can doing MMO-quests" (which as every single quest in the entire game end with your group killing other groups of enemies spawning 5 meters in the air) is a travesty and an insult to the RPG genre in general.

The Witcher 2 might have its flaws and I don't want to deny that but it just oozes developer love throughout every single crevice it has, love towards the game, love towards the players, love towards the lore and reviews like this really do the inherent qualities of the game (I regard as highly as what Batman: Arkham Asylum did) a disservice. It literally is the best RPG I have played in the last 5 or so years and outshines the likes of DA:O, not to speak of Dragon Age 2 again...

Hristo Tzonkov:

Mangue Surfer:

Hristo Tzonkov:

But LOTR is a frivolous Fairy Tail.It doesn't even hold a candle for The Witcher or the Game of Thrones series.LOTR is just another overblown thing that I'll never understand.

Is hard to compare. LOTR was written in an age that husband and wife make sex with their pajamas in a totally dark room. Things were innocent because they had to be. Thinking, The Mists of Avalon is a much more visceral reading than the A Song of Ice and Fire(still very good). BUT, because of the time in it was written and because was wrote by a woman, its never got the deserved credit.

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

It's not that.In LOTR there are no shades of grey.There are no changes of heart apart some things that were caused by corruption of evil.There's a stark contrast between the warring factions.It's a lot more akin to a fairy tail.There's good guys with a clear goal and the book just describes reaching it,while bad guys try to foil everything.While it may have sparked the whole genre when compared to the Witcher it really is a fairy tail.

lord of the rings is tad more subtle than what you describe here. There are a lot of dark & abstract themes, it's just that it doesn't hit you in the face like a 2 by 4. Lord of the rings may not really deal with good guy bad guy ambiguities but it deals with much more abstract choices, like free will and fate, or death & immortality.

Hristo Tzonkov:

Mangue Surfer:

Hristo Tzonkov:

But LOTR is a frivolous Fairy Tail.It doesn't even hold a candle for The Witcher or the Game of Thrones series.LOTR is just another overblown thing that I'll never understand.

Is hard to compare. LOTR was written in an age that husband and wife make sex with their pajamas in a totally dark room. Things were innocent because they had to be. Thinking, The Mists of Avalon is a much more visceral reading than the A Song of Ice and Fire(still very good). BUT, because of the time in it was written and because was wrote by a woman, its never got the deserved credit.

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

It's not that.In LOTR there are no shades of grey.There are no changes of heart apart some things that were caused by corruption of evil.There's a stark contrast between the warring factions.It's a lot more akin to a fairy tail.There's good guys with a clear goal and the book just describes reaching it,while bad guys try to foil everything.While it may have sparked the whole genre when compared to the Witcher it really is a fairy tail.

So Faramir at first wanting to take the ring to his father but then later in the book decides to let Frodo go free isn't change of heart?
How about how for a large portion of the series, Aragorn did not want to become the King of Gondor but ultimately decides that he must wield the blade that was broken?
And as for no one becoming evil without corruption, how else do you turn evil? No one wakes up one morning after being a good character for the whole series and just decides: "I think today, I'm going to slaughter a few children." Something needs to corrupt them, whether it's an idea (Boromir believes that the only way to save his people is to get the ring) or the ring itself (Smeagol) or even fear/desire for power (Saruman fears that he will be destroyed if he does not side with Sauron and he also sees how he might be able to rule with Sauron).
I just really don't understand how any of these are not changes of heart...

Pfft, that review was just a long list of petty complaints. Really doesn't do the game justice.

Then again i only come to this site for Yahtzee.

sunburst313:
So yeah, your complaints are just pathetic whining until you can explain why the review is bad beyond, "DA2 sucks and Greg is bad at games!"

See, that's funny, because pathetic whining is exactly what i can sum up this review as.

It's like going to Ozzfest and then complaining that it was too hot, that there was no place to sit, no vegetarian food joint, the water was overpriced and that someone spilled his beer onto you.

I could be wrong, but isn't this CDPR's second game? It seems a little harsh to judge a game created by a fledgling company by the same standards as an established one. Everyone learns from making mistakes - The Witcher 1 was a total mess when it first came out but they fixed it (mostly) after listening to criticism - and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more common niggles in W2 get sorted in a patch. (My personal niggle is having to go back to the game screen every time when leaving a sub-menu rather than going back to the root menu.)
Any objective gamer would never say that this game is devoid of flaws, but none of them are game breakers; the inventory can be frustrating, but does it's job; the combat isn't stiff, just fussy (not a game for button mashers); and the crafting is laborious, but functional; the world map can sometimes feel like orienteering (could definately use a manual waypoint system)
If this was a Bioware or Valve product I think 3.5 would be a fair score as they should know better than to make a game this "impenetrable", but considering the very short track record CDPR has, I think The Witcher 2 is a fucking masterpiece.
If their next game has the same level of improvement they're going to have to mark out of six next time.

CatmanStu:
I could be wrong, but isn't this CDPR's second game? It seems a little harsh to judge a game created by a fledgling company by the same standards as an established one. Everyone learns from making mistakes - The Witcher 1 was a total mess when it first came out but they fixed it (mostly) after listening to criticism - and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more common niggles in W2 get sorted in a patch. (My personal niggle is having to go back to the game screen every time when leaving a sub-menu rather than going back to the root menu.)
Any objective gamer would never say that this game is devoid of flaws, but none of them are game breakers; the inventory can be frustrating, but does it's job; the combat isn't stiff, just fussy (not a game for button mashers); and the crafting is laborious, but functional; the world map can sometimes feel like orienteering (could definately use a manual waypoint system)
If this was a Bioware or Valve product I think 3.5 would be a fair score as they should know better than to make a game this "impenetrable", but considering the very short track record CDPR has, I think The Witcher 2 is a fucking masterpiece.
If their next game has the same level of improvement they're going to have to mark out of six next time.

Add to the fact that the game had about 8 million dollar budget, while productions like ME2 went over 40 million. The question is tho how to fairly judge a game that strives to be of high quality, does a good attempt at it, is marketed like AAA title but still includes some 'rookie' mistakes in terms of design decisions. To consider it 'indie' production and thus give excuse for flaws, or point out the flaws hoping that the developers will make good use of the complaints?

Keava:

CatmanStu:
I could be wrong, but isn't this CDPR's second game? It seems a little harsh to judge a game created by a fledgling company by the same standards as an established one. Everyone learns from making mistakes - The Witcher 1 was a total mess when it first came out but they fixed it (mostly) after listening to criticism - and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more common niggles in W2 get sorted in a patch. (My personal niggle is having to go back to the game screen every time when leaving a sub-menu rather than going back to the root menu.)
Any objective gamer would never say that this game is devoid of flaws, but none of them are game breakers; the inventory can be frustrating, but does it's job; the combat isn't stiff, just fussy (not a game for button mashers); and the crafting is laborious, but functional; the world map can sometimes feel like orienteering (could definately use a manual waypoint system)
If this was a Bioware or Valve product I think 3.5 would be a fair score as they should know better than to make a game this "impenetrable", but considering the very short track record CDPR has, I think The Witcher 2 is a fucking masterpiece.
If their next game has the same level of improvement they're going to have to mark out of six next time.

Add to the fact that the game had about 8 million dollar budget, while productions like ME2 went over 40 million. The question is tho how to fairly judge a game that strives to be of high quality, does a good attempt at it, is marketed like AAA title but still includes some 'rookie' mistakes in terms of design decisions. To consider it 'indie' production and thus give excuse for flaws, or point out the flaws hoping that the developers will make good use of the complaints?

This is very true. What can I say, I'm an idealist. I judge things on effort as well as merit. This is much more of an achievement than the phoned in Portal 2 imo, so I would mark it up accordingly.
Probably why I'm not a reviewer.

linwolf:
On the short list of new games that doesn't tread me like an idiot.

You get treaded like an idiot often?
:-P

Wakikifudge:

Hristo Tzonkov:

Mangue Surfer:

Is hard to compare. LOTR was written in an age that husband and wife make sex with their pajamas in a totally dark room. Things were innocent because they had to be. Thinking, The Mists of Avalon is a much more visceral reading than the A Song of Ice and Fire(still very good). BUT, because of the time in it was written and because was wrote by a woman, its never got the deserved credit.

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

It's not that.In LOTR there are no shades of grey.There are no changes of heart apart some things that were caused by corruption of evil.There's a stark contrast between the warring factions.It's a lot more akin to a fairy tail.There's good guys with a clear goal and the book just describes reaching it,while bad guys try to foil everything.While it may have sparked the whole genre when compared to the Witcher it really is a fairy tail.

So Faramir at first wanting to take the ring to his father but then later in the book decides to let Frodo go free isn't change of heart?
How about how for a large portion of the series, Aragorn did not want to become the King of Gondor but ultimately decides that he must wield the blade that was broken?
And as for no one becoming evil without corruption, how else do you turn evil? No one wakes up one morning after being a good character for the whole series and just decides: "I think today, I'm going to slaughter a few children." Something needs to corrupt them, whether it's an idea (Boromir believes that the only way to save his people is to get the ring) or the ring itself (Smeagol) or even fear/desire for power (Saruman fears that he will be destroyed if he does not side with Sauron and he also sees how he might be able to rule with Sauron).
I just really don't understand how any of these are not changes of heart...

Most of this is duty.Not change of heart.There's no battle with internal desires of greed,vengeance etc.There's just should I do my duty,or I should not.Boromir is driven by the same duty.Saruman is more interesting he's a lot more human than all the other characters in the book.He cares for himself and what an alliance with Sauron can bring him.Apparently that's also a bad thing because siding with Sauron is eeeevuuuuuul.Which is what I don't like about the book.There's a predefined good and evil like in any fairy tail.Real life doesn't work like that.

Think I've derailed enough.But the point is in the Witcher there's a lot more complex morality.So Geralt is allowed to look back at LOTR and snicker, cause he'd rather throw a ring in a volcano barefooted any day of the week rather than do what he does usually.

JerrytheBullfrog:
Seriously, PC RPG fanboys are some of the most irritating people in the world. They were like this with Risen, too. A game may be the deepest in the world, but if half the people who pick it up cannot penetrate it far enough to get into any of that depth, it's a failure of a game.

Around 20% of the world's population aren't literate, does that mean that every book has to be a picture book now or does that mean that they should learn or leave it be?

JohnnyDelRay:
The other issue I had with it was inventory, but only because there wasn't a box storage system. I wouldn't care actually, I'm not one for lugging and hoarding stuff anyways, but it's a little difficult to tell what will be crucial later and what won't be, so I just kinda sell "common" stuff and hold onto the "rare".

There's a Mod for that if it bothers you that much, welcome to PC gaming xD
http://www.gog.com/en/forum/the_witcher_2/full_list_of_mods/page1
http://www.witchernexus.com/

Mr. Omega:
Good God, if the fanboys are getting this butthurt over this review, calling it and claiming it was nitpicking, nonprofessional, I can't wait until when Yahtzee reviews it, where the entire point is nitpicking and all pretense of professionalism is thrown out the window...

I'm kind of thinking that Yahtzee might end up liking it, he doesn't seem to be the "biggest fan" of RPGs in general to put it mildly and seems rather put off by lengthy conversations and certain systems but at least I respect his opinion and think he is intelligent enough to distinguish between a game that "The developers thought it would be a lovely thing for everyone to play" and those that were made because "The developers thought it would be a good idea to add another ball-room to their golden money-palace" as he so aptly put it during his Dragon Age 2 Critique. (seeing as he is the reason I signed up here in the first place and CDProjekt could apparently think of a subtitle, although he didn't like Demon's Souls at all and plays PC games on a laptop so there's that... :P). Also he doesn't give scores.

sravankb:
I've said this once, and I'll say it again. This review was his opinion of the game, not an "unfair judgement". You're not gonna change his view, and you're not gonna change the view of people who dislike it. Especially with that attitude. And please stop painting yourself as some sort of defender of logic and integrity. It sounds really odd.

Btw. another "gaming reviewer's" take on "opinions" that I actually respect even if I don't always agree: http://www.g4tv.com/videos/53060/sesslers-soapbox-la-noire-got-it-right-you-got-it-wrong/?quality=hd (after 3:30)

dantoddd:
there are lot of people who talk about tactical combat in this game. I'm finding it very difficult to engage in any tactical combat, besides rolling around like 'rolly polly'. I don't consider running around in circles, tactical combat. The biggest problem is the aiming mechanic. It's pretty much broken if you ask me, especially in the hard setting. Basically what happens is that you get swamped by multiple opponents and it is really difficult switching opponents properly. and sometimes when you manage to maneuverer yourself into an advantageous position the auto aiming mechanic miraculously manages to switch targets to someone else. at which Geralt goes leaping into a crowd of enemies who will slaughter him mercilessly.

Left Alt / LB if you are playing with a controller locks individual targets, again Read the Manual/Journal.

PopcornAvenger:
I never experienced this delay, however I've a pretty stout box to run games on. Nor is this problem noted - at all - by anyone on the GoG forums. It sounds to me like a FPS issue; you might want to look at that and the games configuration, as well as your graphics driver. This "monstrous error" seems isolated to your game.

It sounds more like the "E, E E E I'm holding E, I'm pressing it oh my god" problem described and documented here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG1kBrrvPpA#t=3m20s

CatmanStu:
If this was a Bioware or Valve product I think 3.5 would be a fair score as they should know better than to make a game this "impenetrable", but considering the very short track record CDPR has, I think The Witcher 2 is a fucking masterpiece.

Except that DA2 was by Bioware and *did* get a "5/5" on this site, while this "fucking masterpiece" did not xD

Hristo Tzonkov:

Wakikifudge:

Hristo Tzonkov:

It's not that.In LOTR there are no shades of grey.There are no changes of heart apart some things that were caused by corruption of evil.There's a stark contrast between the warring factions.It's a lot more akin to a fairy tail.There's good guys with a clear goal and the book just describes reaching it,while bad guys try to foil everything.While it may have sparked the whole genre when compared to the Witcher it really is a fairy tail.

So Faramir at first wanting to take the ring to his father but then later in the book decides to let Frodo go free isn't change of heart?
How about how for a large portion of the series, Aragorn did not want to become the King of Gondor but ultimately decides that he must wield the blade that was broken?
And as for no one becoming evil without corruption, how else do you turn evil? No one wakes up one morning after being a good character for the whole series and just decides: "I think today, I'm going to slaughter a few children." Something needs to corrupt them, whether it's an idea (Boromir believes that the only way to save his people is to get the ring) or the ring itself (Smeagol) or even fear/desire for power (Saruman fears that he will be destroyed if he does not side with Sauron and he also sees how he might be able to rule with Sauron).
I just really don't understand how any of these are not changes of heart...

Most of this is duty.Not change of heart.There's no battle with internal desires of greed,vengeance etc.There's just should I do my duty,or I should not.Boromir is driven by the same duty.Saruman is more interesting he's a lot more human than all the other characters in the book.He cares for himself and what an alliance with Sauron can bring him.Apparently that's also a bad thing because siding with Sauron is eeeevuuuuuul.Which is what I don't like about the book.There's a predefined good and evil like in any fairy tail.Real life doesn't work like that.

Think I've derailed enough.But the point is in the Witcher there's a lot more complex morality.So Geralt is allowed to look back at LOTR and snicker, cause he'd rather throw a ring in a volcano barefooted any day of the week rather than do what he does usually.

that's a silly way to look at things. Firstly lord of the rings doesn't look at morality the way you want to because it tackles the issue of free will. While throwing the ring into the volcano maybe the obvious thing to do. can we do it, more importantly what does it take to do it. In the end Gollum had to bite the finger off.

The reviewer might have saved himself and us a lot of time by saying "I don't like it because it never held my hand!". The end.

Every line in the whole article was more or less saying the above over and over! And it shows how much dumbed down console games have dumbed down gamers, like this reviewer, when he says "the game didn't even tell me not to run into fire!" That isn't even hand-holding, that's like paying the $50 to get someone else to play it while you watch!

Oh and talking of $50, notice how not a single reviewer/gaming site is talking about the free DLC, when they spend so much time talking about paid-for DLC?! Or what about all the contents you get in the standard edition, like the map, strategy guide and soundtrack DVD - all for 20% less than other PC titles that generally go for $60?! In fact all this content in L.A. Noire would have made it an $90 Collector's Edition!!!

Either you are a PC gamer, or your not. This guy isn't. They never liked the first one either on this site, so generally don't come here when it's a PC only title!

maybe try at easy level at first, learn the game and then start on hard ?

anyways, no the interface is not "difficult" ... it just requires you to memorize up to 5 words at once, I understand that it might be complicated for a reviewer who doesn't read manuals at all.

TW 2 is awesome, challenging, brilliant and really fits well into the fantasy universe it's based on.

I wouldn't cry so much, potions are a very important part of the game.

I would actually check this out if I I wasn't currently using a weak laptop. Oh wells. Can't play them all, after all.

Bravo Waagh Powa.
And this deserves quoting:

uk_john:
It shows how much dumbed down console games have dumbed down gamers, like this reviewer, when he says "the game didn't even tell me not to run into fire!" !

Looks like there's an RPG waiting for me out there once I make it to Masters League in SC2.

Wow, a good 10 pages of hate over a simple opinion from a person that happened to enjoy a game that many did not like. Gamers really are very sad and petty people sometimes...

OT: I was rather surprised you gave it the score you did. You had too know you would get a lot of flak for this (especially after giving DA2 such a good score). I salute you and your bravery! Good on you!

dantoddd:

Hristo Tzonkov:

Wakikifudge:

So Faramir at first wanting to take the ring to his father but then later in the book decides to let Frodo go free isn't change of heart?
How about how for a large portion of the series, Aragorn did not want to become the King of Gondor but ultimately decides that he must wield the blade that was broken?
And as for no one becoming evil without corruption, how else do you turn evil? No one wakes up one morning after being a good character for the whole series and just decides: "I think today, I'm going to slaughter a few children." Something needs to corrupt them, whether it's an idea (Boromir believes that the only way to save his people is to get the ring) or the ring itself (Smeagol) or even fear/desire for power (Saruman fears that he will be destroyed if he does not side with Sauron and he also sees how he might be able to rule with Sauron).
I just really don't understand how any of these are not changes of heart...

Most of this is duty.Not change of heart.There's no battle with internal desires of greed,vengeance etc.There's just should I do my duty,or I should not.Boromir is driven by the same duty.Saruman is more interesting he's a lot more human than all the other characters in the book.He cares for himself and what an alliance with Sauron can bring him.Apparently that's also a bad thing because siding with Sauron is eeeevuuuuuul.Which is what I don't like about the book.There's a predefined good and evil like in any fairy tail.Real life doesn't work like that.

Think I've derailed enough.But the point is in the Witcher there's a lot more complex morality.So Geralt is allowed to look back at LOTR and snicker, cause he'd rather throw a ring in a volcano barefooted any day of the week rather than do what he does usually.

that's a silly way to look at things. Firstly lord of the rings doesn't look at morality the way you want to because it tackles the issue of free will. While throwing the ring into the volcano maybe the obvious thing to do. can we do it, more importantly what does it take to do it. In the end Gollum had to bite the finger off.

So it doesn't tackle morality in any way,just the willpower of a person.

CatmanStu:
I could be wrong, but isn't this CDPR's second game? It seems a little harsh to judge a game created by a fledgling company by the same standards as an established one. Everyone learns from making mistakes - The Witcher 1 was a total mess when it first came out but they fixed it (mostly) after listening to criticism - and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more common niggles in W2 get sorted in a patch. (My personal niggle is having to go back to the game screen every time when leaving a sub-menu rather than going back to the root menu.)

While this is true this doesn't suddenly make them immune to criticism - I mean how do you expect things to ever get better if everyone just gives them a pass? Its not like he said he didn't think it was a good game, I mean the first sentence of the review is:

"I will begin by saying that I love this game."

And so do I. There really is a lot to like about it, but the fact that CDPR is a relatively inexperienced developer really shows through. There are design decisions that just don't make sense. The fact that the hardest part of the game by far is the beginning is proof enough of this. It seems it me to would be doing the game and the series an even greater disservice to simply ignore the obvious flaws and give it a glowing review because "It's really good for a second try".

That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the hell out of the game, but pretending there aren't problems where there obviously are does no one any good.

Also since when is 3.5 stars bad? Trying to equate it to a "7" is just plain stupid. The ratings simply don't mean the same thing - the fact that Metacritic equates the two is entirely disingenuous, and why the site should be taken with a grain of salt.

Dexter111:

Guess they wanted to trap all these people: image

I usually start reading a book from the beginning :P

I like having more options, but at least back up your arguments with valid points, instead of misleading images.

If you want to say "RPGs used to have more options" be my guest. They did. But please try not to make it difficult to read what you say as serious points.

I have a question, and an honest one. A lot of people complain about the ruthless intro sequence. Why don't you just lower the difficulty? Is it a knock on a game when there is an option to make a scene easier but you have to injure your pride to pass it?

While i can see where your coming from in this review, and no doubt in ten pages this has been said, there are two issues with your review that are player related and not the game. One, the tutorial messages all happen when you do something for the first time, so it is the player fault for not trying everything, and the messages can all be read again from the journal. Though it could have been a bit better.

Secondly, the side quests like the nekkars (? spelling) nests, if you were paying attention to your quest log, all tell you what you need to know. IE: The nekkar quest message says you need to read a book on nekkars first, then the book you read specifically says to take them out with a particular bomb. If you did not read that, then it is your fault for not using the information available and not the game.

I can see where the hate is coming from.

Personally, being an RPG fan, I loved DA2, and right now I can't stop playing TW2, liking it just as much, and I'm glad in certain aspects it is Waay above DA2.

Every one who enjoys RPGs should be happy they got the chance to play two games as good as these; also I'm aware of the hard work required to come up with a product of this value, and that no game will ever be perfect - each has a flaw here and there.

I closed my eyes to some flaws DA2 had and enjoyed the game, and I'm doing the same for TW2.

The best thing that (I think) can come out of this competition we have now between RPG making studios, keeping in consideration BioWare's engine is THE LEAST to say outdated and CDProjekt's is spectacular, is that TW2's release will push BioWare forward, and overall in the long run we'll have only better games to expect on the horizon. After all, as gamers, that's what we all should want and strive to achieve.

This is, of course, if TW2 sells well and these guys can continue doing the amazing job they did up until now. I really hope it will.

edit: also, since both games have their fair share of flaws, ranking one as 5/5 and another as 3/5 is kind of a low blow :) For shame, Greg!

I must admit that I am a fan of the Witcher series and have been hyped up for the sequel ever since I finished the first game back in 2007.

I have watched and read the review thoroughly and I can say that I am a bit disappointed with the result.I won't go more into the same argument with the scores and difference between DA2 and Witcher 2.It really goes to show where the "alliegences" lie.

Now,onto the game itself.I have been playing it for the past few days and I can say that I'm very happy with the combat changes.The learning curve was set high compared to other RPG's I've played,but I was grateful with a refreshing challenge for once in a long time.The controls seemed a bit "consolized",but it didn't matter much and got used to them on the fly.

There's no more need to say how good the game looks(all the reviewers have repeated it over and over).

The story and the consequences of your actions are the key elements that made me love this game even more.No good/evil sides.You shape "you're own Geralt" how you see fit.Chapter 3 felt a bit rushed out.I think they rushed it because of the deadline or perhaps they want us wanting more through Dlc's/expansions.

Regarding the potions and not being clairvoyant to know when to use them.It becomes rather obvious that if you go into the wilderness/caves/catacombs you will need to use potions preemptively.There is absolutely no need to chuck potions during combat.

Important: this is a game for the hardcore RPG'ers who are looking for a challenge and not a hand-holding cake walk.There are so many arguments regarding that the combat is too difficult or the normal difficulty is harder than other games.

They might have lost a lot of money because the game doesn't cater casual players due to it's difficulty curve.

Conclusion: the most profound RPG I have played in years.Something that has satisfied my thirst of RPG's,until the next big release(Deus Ex,Skyrim).The game has some flaws,which can and will be fixed through patches.I have faith in CDPR that they will fix this game completely to satisfy everybody(perhaps an Enhanced edition in a year? :P).They have done it once for Witcher 1 and I have no doubt that they will do it again if it is needed.

If you are a big fan of RPG's I highly recommend you do yourself a favor and purchase this game.You will not be disappointed.If the combat is too difficult and you'd rather enjoy the story instead,switch to easy.It has a lot of replay value due to it's 16 endings.I highly recommend trying/playing to get a save from the first installment to experience fully this fantastic game.

PS: Looking forward to see Yahtzee ZP on this.

cynicalsaint1:

Also since when is 3.5 stars bad? Trying to equate it to a "7" is just plain stupid. The ratings simply don't mean the same thing - the fact that Metacritic equates the two is entirely disingenuous, and why the site should be taken with a grain of salt.

As far as the point system goes, i always considered it flawed due to false point of reference. Numerical values are comparable, that's one of basics of mathematics so when game A gets 10/10 and game B gets 7/10 it indicates that the game A was in every aspect better than game B.

Another problem is that 3 month's later game C may come out and happen to actually be in every aspect better than game A, how will you show it with a score? 12/10? At some point you will have to set a limit to not get into situation where you have to rate a slightly worse game at 8/10 and vastly superior at 37/10.

I really think reviews would be much better off without the whole rating part and instead just offered as complete as possible list of pros and cons at the end, maybe even second opinions from other reviewers (some webzines actually do that). I know - more work but also better quality over all.

BreakfastMan:

OT: I was rather surprised you gave it the score you did. You had too know you would get a lot of flak for this (especially after giving DA2 such a good score). I salute you and your bravery! Good on you!

Bravery? That's an interesting take on this. More like trolling. The butthurt on the 10 pages is about Greg abandoning all pretense that his dream job is with EA marketing. If he has such high standards, then why 5/5 for Dragon Age 2, a game so controversial and so obviously flawed and rushed, that yesterday the lead designer on the bioware forums had to admit that there are things about DA2 that "must" be improved. Why was Greg blind to these things that obviously "must" be improved when he reviewed DA2? Still 100% perfect, eh? Nothing to improve? Then why the hard stick now all of a sudden (relative) to the Witcher 2?

The other reason for the butthurt is that Dragon Age 2 is a dumbed down "baby first" game, whereas the Witcher 2 puts you through your paces. It's surely bad when reviewers punish a game simply for being challenging.

Anyway, that's all with me and this site - I've seen what I need. I loved TW2 and loathed DA2. Last post and removing bookmarks. This site has ZERO credibility now. Nothing useful for my tastes any more.

Grevensher:

sindremaster:

Grevensher:
The complex combat system

This made me laugh, thank you

Its more complex than any recent RPG to be released.

DA2 is far mor complex.

chainguns:

BreakfastMan:

OT: I was rather surprised you gave it the score you did. You had too know you would get a lot of flak for this (especially after giving DA2 such a good score). I salute you and your bravery! Good on you!

Bravery? That's an interesting take on this. More like trolling. The butthurt on the 10 pages is about Greg abandoning all pretense that his dream job is with EA marketing. If he has such high standards, then why 5/5 for Dragon Age 2, a game so controversial and so obviously flawed and rushed, that yesterday the lead designer on the bioware forums had to admit that there are things about DA2 that "must" be improved. Why was Greg blind to these things that obviously "must" be improved when he reviewed DA2? Still 100% perfect, eh? Nothing to improve? Then why the hard stick now all of a sudden (relative) to the Witcher 2?

The other reason for the butthurt is that Dragon Age 2 is a dumbed down "baby first" game, whereas the Witcher 2 puts you through your paces. It's surely bad when reviewers punish a game simply for being challenging.

Anyway, that's all with me and this site - I've seen what I need. I loved TW2 and loathed DA2. Last post and removing bookmarks. This site has ZERO credibility now. Nothing useful for my tastes any more.

Why the frak are you so "butthurt" over one man's opinion? Seriously, why does it frakking matter to you that he liked a game you did not, and did not like a game you did? Is there something wrong with that? And why does someone who works for the site having differing opinions from yourself suddenly give the site zero credibility? It just does not make any sense from my point of view how out of shape you and others seem to be bent over this.

Have you people considered that maybe a game having a difficulty curve like running headlong into a brick wall might actually be a bad thing? Isn't the early stage of a game -supposed- to be fairly easy to get you used to the controls, and gradually ramp up the difficulty? Now the incline of the curve can differ depending on the setting, but a game should never start out horrifyingly difficult and then get -easier-.

And for those of you who are comparing it to the Classics like Baldur's Gate, recall that the first fights in Baldur's Gate are -very- simple and the combat system at the early levels is basically 'point, click, and watch.' RPGs having deep, complex combat systems is a fairly new thing. I cannot -think- of a classic RPG that had a really deep combat system. Certainly not the Isle Trinity of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape Torment. Certainly not Arcanum, much as I love her. Deus Ex's combat was difficult, but not complex. Complexity is not inherently good.

Allow me to make a blanket statement from my own personal perspective.

'Hard to learn, harder to master' is not something that should be a goal. The goal is 'Easy to learn, hard to master.' Someone earlier in the thread commented about how Tito should complain about how Chess should set up it's strategies for him. Would you care to explain how exactly that makes any sense? Chess does not have an arcane system, it has a -very- simple system, and from it's simplicity comes great depth.

Metacritic is bullshit, by the way. Most game review sites operate on the Four Point Scale between 7 and 10. Thus, their ratings mean nothing. Escapist doesn't do that, thank God.

Tito is just as entitled to his opinion as you are. Cut the BS and the personal attacks. His dislike of Witcher 2 isn't going to hurt your enjoyment of the game at all, is it? Or is your great and abiding love of the game so much that you people can't even tolerate the presence of dissent?

Let me explain how reviews -actually- work, since some of you actually think your anger is justified - you're being stupid, by the way - A reviewer plays a game and -reports his feelings-. Now, you're wondering what the purpose of these reviews are, I suspect. Now what you should do is go through prior reviews and study his opinion until you get a basic understanding of his likes and dislikes - you should especially pay attention to games you have played that he or she has reviewed. If your opinions regularly coincide, you should probably pay attention to the reviewer. If -not-, you can pretty safely ignore the reviewer, because you clearly have different taste in games from that reviewer.

To summarize, stop whining, Tito's entitled to his opinion, given that most of the Witcher 2 fanboys hate Dragon Age 2 you should -know- you're not going to agree with Tito, and having a complicated system does not make it a good system.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here