My biggest problem with this review is that if he played on easy then the majority of his criticism would've been elminated.

Also... You don't have to alt tab to a manual or walkthrough to finish a sidequest. Press C, find 'Nekker' after you research them and it tells you how to kill them, how to destroy their nests, and what with. I prefer a game that encourages an in depth understanding of the dangerous monsters that inhabit it and mandates preperation and forethought...

I mean seriously, you can't expect a professional monster slayer to NOT think things through in advance and come prepared with the right tools for the job. And the whole point about having to FIND the nests (or corpses, or other variant found in the sidequests) instead of having them shown to you would entirely remove the demand of hiring a monster hunter TO FIND AND KILL THESE MONSTERS!

HellenicWarrior:

I mean seriously, you can't expect a professional monster slayer to NOT think things through in advance and come prepared with the right tools for the job.

This has always been the redeeming factor in Witcher combat for me. It's clunky in both installments, but in terms of capturing the feel and depth of their world it rocks. It rewards you for careful planning and strategy to a degree that few games do.

Abriael:

Using one's brain has to do with understanding the (quite intuitive in the end) combat system *without* the manual. You're getting hit everywhere? There must be a way to dodge and defend. Oh there it is!
You're not managing to drop that shielded knight's defense? There must be a way to stun him. Oh there it is! And so forth

Otherwise, you can just read the manual. Easy, peasy. It's part of the purchase of a reason.
I'm amazed at the sense of entitlement some people feel nowadays.

Hey, I got the hang of it eventually, you're preaching to the choir on that. But it was a very brutal trial and error period. I can't personally fault the game for that, but I can see why another player might.

Abriael:

My point is that turning the difficulty down isn't a good solution when the issue is an inordinate spike in difficulty that breaks the flow of the game. Again, it's not unmanageable, it's just a pain and it stands out in an otherwise phenomenal game.

Are difficulty spikes really a problem? Who ever said that difficulty should be a regular curve, which means completely predictable? A game that can surprise the gamer should be praised, not bashed.

That's a good question. I think difficulty spikes to the degree I've experienced in this game so far are... troublesome to say the least. they're not bad per se, but inasmuch as they disrupt the flow of the game that had previously been going swimmingly, they are bad. Honestly, I need to play more (which I will do immediately after hitting "post" here). The fight I'm referring to was supposed to be hard from a story standpoint, but it's also unwinnable from a story standpoint (you still have to "win" in game terms, but you don't win in the story), so I'm conflicted on if it should have been as hard as it was compared to all the other fights on Normal. Once I get further in the game, I'll have a better idea of how the game is handling the difficulty curve overall.

Abriael:

But here's my advice: if you don't like Mr. Tito as a reviewer, don't follow his reviews. There's some movie reviewers I typically ignore because I disagree with almost all of their opinions and find their methods sloppy. If that's how you feel about Greg Tito, just ignore him. I don't think it's right to ask him to be ashamed because his views don't exactly line up with the majority. Obviously I can't stop people from complaining (these 12 pages can attest to that), but I don't agree that he should be prevented from reviewing or given a time out in the Wii games bin.

The problem is that a site like metacritic (and the fact that they aren't selective as they should be), allows disreputable writers (that are either trolling, gratuitously bashing, or simply execising their ignorance) to actually have a detrimental effect on the hard work of developers that, in this case, delivered something quite great that the gaming market and us all are benefitting from.
Ignoring a poor excuse of a review like this one would be a poor service to less informed gamers, as they need to be warned that the actual game is quite a lot better than described, and the poor light this writer tries to cast on it is nothing else than a misguided fruit of his lack of qualification for the task.

The reality is that this happens all the time. Rotten Tomatoes lets downright reprehensible reviews (much worse than what you perceive this to be) get a spotlight. I remember once a reviewer bashed Cloudy With a chance of Meatballs by childishly insulting its character designs instead of saying anything substantial. Basically, there's no way around it. You say that gamers "need to be warned," yet there are many glowing reviews for the game easily accessible for the curious consumer. Good games will always--and have always, to my knowledge--outshined even the most flawed of reviews. Looking at the Metacritic page, I see a phenomenal level of support and praise for this game. The one extra "mixed" review will not change people's opinions much. I think it's worth letting it go on this one.

I mean, imagine me seeing all the hate DA2 got when it came out. I'm sitting there playing it, enjoying it for the most part, liking the characters, enjoying the pace compared to the previous installment, generally feeling pretty good about it, yet I see so much rage and undeserved zeros flying about. I was frustrated because I knew people were exaggerating to make a point, yet I couldn't say much because I knew the game had some flaws, despite my enjoyment. But now we have The Witcher 2 getting glowing reviews from both press and users, an extremely solid 89% average, and that's not enough? Even if a few sites "don't get it" like these four, is it really worth getting worked up about?

Much as I'd like to have enjoyed the first one I really disliked the timing-based combat mechanic. So far everything I've seen about the sequel suggests its back with a vengeance...sigh, another one I can refrain from buying until about 3 years from now when its on sale for $5 at GOG right before The Witcher 3 comes out...

EDIT: still gonna try to finish the first one, though, so I can consider doing the second one. With this much praise, the game has to be worth the effort, I figure, even if I find the combat mechanics tedious...maybe the sequel improves on them?

rsvp42:

The reality is that this happens all the time. Rotten Tomatoes lets downright reprehensible reviews (much worse than what you perceive this to be) get a spotlight. I remember once a reviewer bashed Cloudy With a chance of Meatballs by childishly insulting its character designs instead of saying anything substantial. Basically, there's no way around it. You say that gamers "need to be warned," yet there are many glowing reviews for the game easily accessible for the curious consumer. Good games will always--and have always, to my knowledge--outshined even the most flawed of reviews. Looking at the Metacritic page, I see a phenomenal level of support and praise for this game. The one extra "mixed" review will not change people's opinions much. I think it's worth letting it go on this one.

I mean, imagine me seeing all the hate DA2 got when it came out. I'm sitting there playing it, enjoying it for the most part, liking the characters, enjoying the pace compared to the previous installment, generally feeling pretty good about it, yet I see so much rage and undeserved zeros flying about. I was frustrated because I knew people were exaggerating to make a point, yet I couldn't say much because I knew the game had some flaws, despite my enjoyment. But now we have The Witcher 2 getting glowing reviews from both press and users, an extremely solid 89% average, and that's not enough? Even if a few sites "don't get it" like these four, is it really worth getting worked up about?

Oh sure, I know it happens all the time. This doesn't mean that it's ok to leave it be, or that obviously bad "journalism" (quotes intended and mandatory) should be left alone and shouldn't be criticized and exposed.

It offers an obvious disservice to the readers, and as such it should be branded, so that the less informed readers don't find themselves paying the price for an editor in chief not being able to handle his writer or for a writer not being qualified to do his job.

You're very fre to let it go. This doesn't mean other will or should, isn't it?
As I said before, it's a good learning process for a critic to find himself on the receiving end of harsh criticism. He'll learn to respect other people's hard work (and his readers' time) more.

camazotz:
Much as I'd like to have enjoyed the first one I really disliked the timing-based combat mechanic. So far everything I've seen about the sequel suggests its back with a vengeance...sigh, another one I can refrain from buying until about 3 years from now when its on sale for $5 at GOG right before The Witcher 3 comes out...

Combat in Witcher 2 has really nothing to do with the first game. Your combos won't be interrupted if you don't press your mouse button exactly at the right time.

camazotz:
Much as I'd like to have enjoyed the first one I really disliked the timing-based combat mechanic. So far everything I've seen about the sequel suggests its back with a vengeance...sigh, another one I can refrain from buying until about 3 years from now when its on sale for $5 at GOG right before The Witcher 3 comes out...

EDIT: still gonna try to finish the first one, though, so I can consider doing the second one. With this much praise, the game has to be worth the effort, I figure, even if I find the combat mechanics tedious...maybe the sequel improves on them?

The combat mechanics are pretty different in Witcher 2. Basically they're closer to what you'd find in your standard hack-and-slash - you alternate light swings, heavy swings, and blocks. Like in the first, you have a lot of ways to mix it up with spells, bombs, traps, throwing knives, ripostes, etc. The annoying timing mechanic is completely gone :)

The people who have an issue with Witcher 2 combat mostly do because it's pretty unforgiving at anything above easy - despite the big sword, Geralt's more of a fragile caster/swordsman than a dedicated melee-type, and you get pounded into the dirt if you stay in close combat against multiple opponents or a tough opponent. So you've got to stay mobile, use spells potions and devices as equalizers, and adopt a more hit-and-run style of combat. The system's a little clunky (especially the autotargeting) but it definitely rewards strategy and planning.

What a damn moron Greg is.. If i see him in real life i will give a tight smack on his face. I would have him FIRED for giving out dumb review such as this.

What a fucking stupid reviewing site giving Dragon Fail 2 a high score and a masterpiece a low score.

You should be ashamed of yourself Greg. There's a difference in doing a job and doing a great job. If you are reviewing just for the sake because it's your job, then you might as well quit your job as you have no passion and put no effort in your job. You should rot and became a beggar and no company would want to hire you.

IF a company FAILED in employing the RIGHT staff to do the right job, then not only the EMPLOYEE failed, the company failed as well.

I take what I previously said.This review doesn't do the combat system justice.Yes it's merciless to new comers,yes the targetting is a bit glitchy and unresponsive.What you didn't mention that it's deeply rewarding for an experienced gamer.You can handle stuff that you didn't even imagine previously even on high difficulties with sub par gear just by grasping the mechanics.

Basically it rewards replays rather than dumbing as you get better and turning the game into an item hunt.If you can't play on normal then put it on easy.You also found the QTE fist fights hard.This review doesn't do the game any favors and for the time you had to review it you could've sank at least 2 playthroughs.That's what I would've done.Giving a mediocre review in the midst of a lot of excellent ones doesn't give you credibility...

Isn't this the same reviewer who gave dragon age 2 5 stars or something.

Bit hard to take him seriously anymore after this.

@sindremaster
You say his points are subjewctive yet to ignore mine. I am interested in what you can say against them.

@sindremaster: subjectivity will bring you only so far when taking the responsibility to professionally review a game. Reviews (good ones) are opinion pieces only in part. And not even the biggest part.

Author is useless, should quit his job as it's clear he sucks at playing games. Try reviewing TV series maybe? Lowered difficulty there, as you only need to 'absorb' stuff that is thrown at you without any active process (apart form keeping eyelids open...).

Games are supposed to be some kind of a challenge and here we see someone trying to make a review while not being able to put some effort into playing the game. Horribad.

Nice review Greg. It's refreshing to see an honest opinion that doesn't get in the way of presenting the game. What I mean is that usually critics bash or praise the game throughout most of the review, while here you honestly say that the game is probably one of the best RPGs this year, but it just doesn't work for you personally. I respect that.

rsvp42:
I mean, imagine me seeing all the hate DA2 got when it came out. I'm sitting there playing it, enjoying it for the most part, liking the characters, enjoying the pace compared to the previous installment, generally feeling pretty good about it, yet I see so much rage and undeserved zeros flying about. I was frustrated because I knew people were exaggerating to make a point, yet I couldn't say much because I knew the game had some flaws, despite my enjoyment. But now we have The Witcher 2 getting glowing reviews from both press and users, an extremely solid 89% average, and that's not enough? Even if a few sites "don't get it" like these four, is it really worth getting worked up about?

I just want to say I read every one of the comments here (All 13 pages) and I really appreciate your balanced comments. I feel similarly. I personally love the Witcher 2 and it being made is a force for good in gaming. Giving Bioware some real competition is good. Free DLC and lack of DRM is good! But the game is not perfect and I would not give it a perfect score.

Greg was likely to get flack from giving DA2 a 5/5 in comparison but that does not excuse some of the comments we have seen. There is no good reason to criticize someone personally. It is unnecessary and only detracts from your points. Thank you RSVP42 for putting in the time to call them on it so thoroughly and thoughtfully as well as making some good points of your own.

Rorschach_pln:
Nice review Greg. It's refreshing to see an honest opinion that doesn't get in the way of presenting the game. What I mean is that usually critics bash or praise the game throughout most of the review, while here you honestly say that the game is probably one of the best RPGs this year, but it just doesn't work for you personally. I respect that.

The relevant detail you missed is that reviews aren't and shouldn't be just a personal affair. A reviewer is not writing for himself, but for his readers, and needs to give a fair assessment of the quality of a game (which for the most part isn't a matter of opinion), which is something Greg set aside, preferring to give most of the space to his personal rant.

That's the difference between a reviewer and a random guy with a blog.

Sartan0:

Greg was likely to get flack from giving DA2 a 5/5 in comparison but that does not excuse some of the comments we have seen. There is no good reason to criticize someone personally.

If someone quite evidently lacks the qualification to perform a job, there's no good reason not to say it.
It's funny how some people seem to think that "journalists" have all the right to express all the opinions they want (no matter how preposterous), but no one else has the right to express their opinions on them.

sindremaster:

Your subjective opinion, not a fact

Always hated this argument. If one can even call this cop-out an argument.

It can be used to defend literally any movie, book, or game. I could say "Empire Strikes Back is so -obviously- a better film than Episode I.", and what is the last, desperate argument a monkey could throw at me to counter the obvious?

"Well, that's just -your- opinion!"

Well, yes, of course how good art is is largely subjective, but sometimes the gap in quality is so blatantly obvious that one is -clearly- better than the other, as in the example of Empire Strikes Back (Or Witcher 2 vs. Dragon Age 2).

Pandabearparade:

sindremaster:

Your subjective opinion, not a fact

Always hated this argument. If one can even call this cop-out an argument.

It can be used to defend literally any movie, book, or game. I could say "Empire Strikes Back is so -obviously- a better film than Episode I.", and what is the last, desperate argument a monkey could throw at me to counter the obvious?

"Well, that's just -your- opinion!"

Well, yes, of course how good art is is largely subjective, but sometimes the gap in quality is so blatantly obvious that one is -clearly- better than the other, as in the example of Empire Strikes Back (Or Witcher 2 vs. Dragon Age 2).

Exactly, whenever I hear someone say that the first thing that comes to mind is that they're doing it because they're not confident in their ability to support it.

People also seem to have this idea that an opinion sits in this untouchable grey area where you can't be right or wrong, which is untrue. Let's say for example Jeffery Dahmer says that he thinks it's ok to kill people, which would appear to be true to him. To which you reply "No it's not" and is countered by him with "well that's your opinion". Is he still wrong? yes.

In hindsight that's an extreme example, but you could get what I mean.

In short, opinions are only as good as your ability to support them.

Abriael:

Sartan0:

Greg was likely to get flack from giving DA2 a 5/5 in comparison but that does not excuse some of the comments we have seen. There is no good reason to criticize someone personally.

If someone quite evidently lacks the qualification to perform a job, there's no good reason not to say it.
It's funny how some people seem to think that "journalists" have all the right to express all the opinions they want (no matter how preposterous), but no one else has the right to express their opinions on them.

I am not saying your can't attack their premise or call them on things. I am saying why get personal? Win your fights through better points better made not cheap shots. (Not that I am saying that is what you in particularly did. Frankly I am not rereading the 13 pages to check)

WaaghPowa:

Pandabearparade:

sindremaster:

Your subjective opinion, not a fact

Always hated this argument. If one can even call this cop-out an argument.

It can be used to defend literally any movie, book, or game. I could say "Empire Strikes Back is so -obviously- a better film than Episode I.", and what is the last, desperate argument a monkey could throw at me to counter the obvious?

"Well, that's just -your- opinion!"

Well, yes, of course how good art is is largely subjective, but sometimes the gap in quality is so blatantly obvious that one is -clearly- better than the other, as in the example of Empire Strikes Back (Or Witcher 2 vs. Dragon Age 2).

Exactly, whenever I hear someone say that the first thing that comes to mind is that they're doing it because they're not confident in their ability to support it.

People also seem to have this idea that an opinion sits in this untouchable grey area where you can't be right or wrong, which is untrue. Let's say for example Jeffery Dahmer says that he thinks it's ok to kill people, which would appear to be true to him. To which you reply "No it's not" and is countered by him with "well that's your opinion". Is he still wrong? yes.

In hindsight that's an extreme example, but you could get what I mean.

In short, opinions are only as good as your ability to support them.

The point is, someone is attacking a man and his article which is based on HIS opinion with opinions of their own and stating that his opinion of the game is wrong, because their opinion is right.
Simply reminding someone that it's their opinion isn't a bad point (although I agree that it's not an argument, your opinion should be supported and just point out opinions doesn't add to a discussion).
If I said (as an example, this isn't my real opinion as I've never played Witcher 2) I love Dragon Age 2 because it was accessible and didn't require extra reading unlike Witcher 2 which I disliked because all that extra effort. I just like to put a game in and play.

That doesn't make my opinion wrong because someone else's subjective opinion makes them think that there's an objective look at quality overall making The Witcher better no matter what.
Explaining why W2 is better than ME2 objectively can only be done by looking at the objective parts not the game as a whole. But one aspect (or even several) do not make an entire game objectively better, because there will always be people who would rather put a game in and just play and there will always be people who would rather spend time immersing themselves in the game (to mention specific examples that relate to this discussion).

Example (remember, this is not a real opinion as I still haven't played Witcher 2): The Witcher 2 uses individual and unique locations rarely repeating any art asset, while ME2 uses the same three or four locations for multiple different locations with very little variation. Ergo, The Witcher 2's locations are much better as they varied and interesting throughout the entire game.
It's a very clear statement and based on fact not opinion.

When you get down to it, there aren't many features of a game that can be considered objective. I mean technological aspects are the main thing with very few other things that can be looked at objectively (which is the same for any other medium as well). Entertainment (and art) are very silly things when it comes down to it. It can easily be drivel to one person and one of the funnest experiences to another.

All opinion, stated as fact but not meant to be looked at as fact. xD
Nothing is meant to be patronizing, but I can see how the examples might read as that. Just trying to back up my point.

EDIT: I also think the original goal of the person who pointed out the opinions was to show that people need to support their arguments against this man's review specifically. Not just by saying that the Wither 2 is somehow factually '200% better' than DA2 and that the game is simply 'amazing' for the sake of amazing.

I just love the Facebook comments- are any of them not ripping on Greg? Seriously, I bet they're using FB to avoid a forum-based repercussion.

sindremaster:
None of us are more right than the other because it's just an opinion.

Contrary to popular belief, not all opinions are equal.

sindremaster:

Pandabearparade:

sindremaster:

Your subjective opinion, not a fact

Always hated this argument. If one can even call this cop-out an argument.

It can be used to defend literally any movie, book, or game. I could say "Empire Strikes Back is so -obviously- a better film than Episode I.", and what is the last, desperate argument a monkey could throw at me to counter the obvious?

"Well, that's just -your- opinion!"

Well, yes, of course how good art is is largely subjective, but sometimes the gap in quality is so blatantly obvious that one is -clearly- better than the other, as in the example of Empire Strikes Back (Or Witcher 2 vs. Dragon Age 2).

I like Dragon Age 2 more than I like The Witcher 2, that is my opinion. You like The Witcher 2 more, that's your opinion. None of us are more right than the other because it's just an opinion.
Dragon Age 2 is better than Whe Witcher 2 in some things, and The Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2 in other things. It depends on what is more important to you in a game,

Again, it's not his opinion that is the problem here - I think hardly anyone cares whether Tito likes the game or whether he likes ice cream, he is not exactly important person in our lives, so the emotional aspect (eg. yay, he likes!) is irrelevant. The problem is that this opinion is hardly supported and without consistency (someone pointed out blaming W2 for things never even mentioned in DA2 review). And that's the thing you can't counter with "opinion excuse".

The moment you write about "None of us are more right than the other because it's just an opinion." you choose to ignore the fact plenty of posts above are not about "just an opinion" - responding to them in this manner is pretty much like arguing with someone else.

And writing "It depends on what is more important to you in a game" means surrendering - that very phrase divides user reviews from professional reviews. Those professional ones should focus on things useful for every reader - not for "I want to see what Tito likes" group - and do this in consistent, diligent and honest manner.

I've seen different accusations so far: EA payroll, incompetence, consolitis - all are easy to counter, but that piece about reviewer being RPG vet and D&D player made me think about way easier solution. Laziness - either intelectual or plain, old-school laziness. The very reason people even dare to hide behind "I like! My opinion!" in the first place.

Keava:
*cough*

Greg Tito:

This review is based on the Xbox 360 version of the game.

How..where... It doesn't even exist!

"The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a role-playing video game and a sequel to The Witcher, developed by Polish studio CD Projekt RED for Microsoft Windows and Xbox 360". (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_2:_Assassins_of_Kings) So...yeah, it is on Xbox 360 apparently.

Grevensher:

Greg Tito:
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

Geralt of Rivia is one badass motherf'er.

Read Full Article

Let me get this straight, actually having to craft spells breaks your immersion? Having to tactically utilize your potions breaks your immersion? The complex combat system breaks your immersion? I'm sorry this isn't Dragon Age 2. Go and pop that in for another ride if all you want is hours of mindless button mashing.

He did not once assert that such things broke immersion. Indeed, I would gather from his review that he has the same fundamental problem I have with the game: that, mechanically at least, this game is simply poorly made. This by no stretch makes it a bad game. I love the game, but it is in spite of mechanics that are openly hostile to the player.

The developer created a game that is difficult because the governing mechanics are, in many ways, faulty - a problem exacerbated by an utter refusal to tell the player what they need to know in order to play the game. On the rare occasion information is offered, it is presented in obtuse a fashion as is possible. They delivered a game that was a disaster mechanically, a game that has schizophrenic pacing, a game that often seems to be actively demanding that I simply stop playing thanks to any of a dozen unforgivable sins and yet I played to the end and enjoyed it. It was a triumph of world building, it was a game that actually made choice matter (at least from time to time) and was one of the few games where I genuinely cared about the fake people that populated the world.

The Witcher 2 is that rare example of a game with terrible mechanics yet possesses a narrative so strong that it dragged me through all the unpleasant bits kicking and screaming.

That said, I am increasingly amused by all the people crawling out of the woodwork in order to defend design choices that are simply bad. I tend to think the cause of championing this game is better served not by lying and saying these problems do not exist but rather pointing out those things that were so good they made us overlook the frustrating and broken bits.

Infernai:

"The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a role-playing video game and a sequel to The Witcher, developed by Polish studio CD Projekt RED for Microsoft Windows and Xbox 360". (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_2:_Assassins_of_Kings) So...yeah, it is on Xbox 360 apparently.

Because Wikipedia, internet resource edited by users, is never wrong right? While there most likely is a port in the works, it's not out, it's not finished, and possibly will be announced either on 2nd June at CDPR conference or during E3.

Abriael:

It's funny how some people seem to think that "journalists" have all the right to express all the opinions they want (no matter how preposterous), but no one else has the right to express their opinions on them.

I think I'll just point out that you do your cause no justice when you attack Greg's argument by asserting he is unqualified and then offering no evidence to back such a claim or indicating how it's relevant to you initial argument. Rhetorical fallacy will rarely sway anyone to your side.

Keava:

Infernai:

"The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a role-playing video game and a sequel to The Witcher, developed by Polish studio CD Projekt RED for Microsoft Windows and Xbox 360". (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_2:_Assassins_of_Kings) So...yeah, it is on Xbox 360 apparently.

Because Wikipedia, internet resource edited by users, is never wrong right? While there most likely is a port in the works, it's not out, it's not finished, and possibly will be announced either on 2nd June at CDPR conference or during E3.

Yeah, remember the keyword of my previous post was "Apparently", so it's possible it isn't 100% full-proof. But, you wanted to know why someone would think it's on Xbox 360 and i just gave you the answer. Regardless, likely guess is that it probably is the case that it will be revealed on 2nd of June or something. I'm not much of a witcher fan so i haven't been following it to closely (Don't hate it or anything, just isn't my thing is all).

Eclectic Dreck:

That said, I am increasingly amused by all the people crawling out of the woodwork in order to defend design choices that are simply bad. I tend to think the cause of championing this game is better served not by lying and saying these problems do not exist but rather pointing out those things that were so good they made us overlook the frustrating and broken bits.

Hey, that tactic certainly worked well in Dragon Age 2 review, eh?

Then again... I do not recall reading about some of such "design choices" in that game at all.

The developer created a game that is difficult because the governing mechanics are, in many ways, faulty - a problem exacerbated by an utter refusal to tell the player what they need to know in order to play the game.

Did you even bother to check the journal? All the information is there, 1 key press away.
And I'm really curious what exactly are you referring to when you say many mechanics are faulty.

@sindremaster

Then can we agree formulating an opinion about a game in professional review, based on the fact reviewer eg. likes party-based combat more than solo version and then using that opinion as a basis for final verdict is a mockery of a purpose of professional review?

Especially when at the same time objective flaws (already mentioned by other posters) both games (W2 & DA2) have are treated differently?

@abija

Oh, there are some annoying design holes out there, although I wouldn't say they are combat-related. More like causing aggravation when you make a mistake you cannot easily fix.

Eg. using mutagens and THEN realising upgrading specific skill gives mutagens a significant boost - but only to those mutagens you use AFTER getting that skill.

Or realising you need to carry a recipe for swallow to be able to craft more of such elixirs - after you sold that thing and it disappeared due to advancing in the story. Or being stuck without storage.

Then again - I survived without mutagen bonuses and still had one swallow left during epilogue. Not to mention these things can be easily fixed without a major overhaul to the game. Complaining abut them too much would mean making a big deal out of lower performance for SLI/Crossfire - already patched.

But seriously, combat mechanics?

Someone said it's better to show than to force poor gamer to read. Ok.

In the very beginning of the game you meet several opponents at once.
- you let yourself be surrounded, they kill you in few seconds
- game just showed you what happens when you fight multiple enemies without positioning
- death count: 1

Right after game lets you fight an opponent with a shield.
- opponent blocks your hit then sends you flying with shield swipe; one blow is not enough to kill you
- game just showed you hitting a soldier with a shield in frontal assault is a bad choice
- death count: still 1

A bit later game suggests you meditate and use elixirs because the difficult fight is coming
- you select random elixirs not knowing how they are working (hard to judge how useful is "regeneration +1")
- you use some signs during the fight (either La Valette or that crowd during "open the gates" phase), suffering from being uneducated how useful and efficient they are without upgrades
- game is showing you that axii is not always helpful, yrden reduces number of enemies, aard can lead to instakill or to respite from one of enemies, etc.
- death count: 1 + any number, depending on your previous choices - low if you chose to learn from your mistakes, high if you chose to spamclick through encounter and had some luck without exploring better options.

There are harder fights later on, there are easier ones (yay! no mindless level scaling!), but such basic truths stay the same. Boss fights are a different cup of tea, not sure if there is a need to elaborate. That's why I find it hard to feel compassion for everyone complaining too much.

Greg Tito:
I began to wonder if I was just an idiot

Greg Tito:
Game does not tell You to stay away from fire

<joke>Greg, I might have some bad news for You</joke> :P