The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 16 NEXT
 

zsec:
I guess this guy just likes to teleport through a map with recycled zones for THREE acts, and make people explode with swings of his swords.

Hello, Mr. Straw McStrawman of Strawmanville.

Don't you kids make me turn this internet around.

So Greg Tito gave The Witcher 2 a less that stellar rating? So fucking what? Go read the reviews elsewhere that get down on their knees and wrap their lips around the game instead, if it means that much to you.

I personally think The Witcher 2 is a flawed gem, but then I like Obisidian Entertainment games so I'm obviously mad.

Greg shouldn't be burnt at the stake for having a differing opinion...

... writing a D&D 4e supplement, OTOH. ;)

beastrn:

Shamanic Rhythm:

beastrn:
Do you know that The Witcher 2 was brought below 90/100 because of this review? So because of this uneducated opinion, because of this reviewers incompetency and inability to learn something for himself, the developers get to show their stock holders and dependants a below 90/100 game when clearly it is not.

So in other words, you're angry because the game's rating on metacritic has fallen below 90, and you've made this your own personal little crusade.

'When it clearly is not'. Explain this to me. Along what standards are you judging it? Before you answer, let me point out that whatever you answer will be YOUR criteria for judging a good game. Others may have different criteria. That's what we call 'subjectivity'. No one can objectively state that The Witcher 2 is worth 90/100. What they can say is that according to a subjective critical consensus, it has reached a certain standard. That's all metacritic is, that's all it should be interpreted as. If you think that CP Project's stockholders may view a lesser score as a reason to pull support from the company, then the problem lies with them, not with Greg Tito expressing his subjective opinion of the game.

No. Only just realized it went below 90 during my last post here.

Only reason I'm here is to add my voice to the dissent this review has riled. It's an unjust review backed up by someone that thinks Dragon Age 2 is a good game.

Also, read my other posts to learn why "subjective" is not an excuse for "bad at games and should have played on Easy"

How can you even begin to make an assumption that he is 'bad' at games without a) having witnessed his playthrough of The Witcher 2 and b) witnessed his playthroughs of different games as a control? You are literally talking out of your ass here.

How can I begin? Er, I dunno, at the part where he played The Witcher 2 on Normal and complained it was too hard? Or the part where he said Dragon Age 2 had challenging combat?

Like the Journal in this game - all the information you need is right there.

If I went and played D&D with Greg (an apparently decade-experienced D&D player) and said "Greg, D&D actually isn't good. Why are we rolling dice, anyway? I've got a sword. I want to hit you with it. Just tell me how much damage it does so we can actually have FUN playing this game. It's a GAME. Why isn't it intuitive, Greg? Where are the tutorials Greg? No, no. Don't give me a huge book of rules. I can't be bothered reading that shite! I just want to have FUN Greg! I give D&D a five out of ten."

Do you think he would let me be entitled to my "opinion"?

Don't give me a bullshit answer. Think about it.

Grey_Focks:
"That's the point of user reviews! Professional reviews should be just that, professional!"

Indeed they should, but being professional doesn't mean keeping your own opinions out of the review, if anything, it should mean the opposite, just doing it well. It should mean being able to criticize something without just bashing it or insulting it, but instead pointing out individual problems, and what they should've done instead. It means being able to point out what the game does right, without just mindlessly praising it.

Really, I think professional reviews should be a balance of giving the reviewers actual opinion on a game/movie/book/whatever, while still being able to look at it from someone else's viewpoint. Every critic just giving one uniform score across the board really doesn't help anyone, since we all have varying tastes, and if they truly removed their own opinions from them, there really would be no point.

I think this sort of thinking is whats hurting the game industry and isn't helping the case for games being considered "Legitimate" art. You're saying that every profesional review having the same opinion on something is a bad thing, but if you look at the various mediums (music, film etc), you'll see that 90% of the time they agree. This is because personal preference makes up less then 10% of a review. The rest is based on its artistic merit analysing and judging the individual areas. For example, a film review will be based on the narrative/screenplay, acting, directing and cinematography with the reviewers own opinion only coming in at the end. For computer games, too high a percentage of a review/score is determined by the feelings of the reviewer.

Back OT: Its hard for me to judge as I only managed to get this yesterday (stupid Royal Mail) and only got to play about 1/2hr of it, but it really shows a lot of promise. Yes its hard and makes you read the manual (had nothing else to do while installing anyway), but considering how much people complain about games dumbing down and being too easy, isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about a game that IS tough? In my 1/2hr, I died 5 times, 3 times in fights where I got overconfident and twice to the fire (which is when I saved and quit as was 1:30am).

I really love the combat. Started on hard difficulty since I played the first game, which was far too easy, even on highest difficulty. First fight sent me tumbling cause the controls were a bit unfamiliar, but I think you can get used to it pretty quick if you played a few other direct-control RPGs or action adventures before. First death hit me when I had a bad start in the dragon chase scene.

Witcher is not a casual game, neither the first, nor the second installment of the series. The combat can be rough, but then so it was in Severance, Demon Souls or the preview versions of PoP: Warrior Within. I personally never immersed into a game in which I simply had to click on the enemy and went out to make coffee to return once my all-mighty party vanquished every last foe on the screen. Witcher 2 aims for at least some realism and two things reality teaches you pretty quick is:
a) swords WILL hurt you - especially if they hit you in the back or unguarded
b) no one will wait till you swallow that elixir in the middle of the fun

The atmosphere in the game would be ruined immediately if Geralt would turn out to suck in more sword slashes than the house high kraken boss monster he's supposed to slay. And the game DOES warn you about the difficulty - and the consequences of your choices. So, first choice you make turns out to be the difficulty. It clearly says there in the menu that alchemy is necessary for survival on normal mode and you will die quickly. So why not start on easy if you're new to the series? As in real life, pride can be restored but try that when your arm has been cut off.

Still, I don't know why they changed the alchemy system. I really liked the system in the first game; the drink-only-three rule in Witcher 2 seems to miss strategic depth. However, I'm not through yet, so maybe it gets better later on.
So far, the game has been really unique in terms of gameplay (which really means something in the days of streamlined RPGs) and it offers the deepest experience I found in games since the release of its predecessor. Only thing I didn't like were the quick time events. They're well executed but still a bit cheap compared to the rest.

Guess Yahtzee will still beat the shit out of this one next week.

i love the tribalism of witcher fans.

I am absolutely certain that the majority of witcher fans, especially the chaps who are ranting on the internet, were convinced that TW2 deserved 95+ on game ratings even before the game came out.

Soviet Heavy:

If you want a reason to get mad at somebody, look at this video.

omg I'm laughing so hard at this XD

Seriously I had to replay that--god I don't remember how many times. That's exactly how I felt too, except I don't think the game is designed poorly or is untested, I just think those fights were way too ridiculous for the beginning of a game. I realize it's hardcore, "Normal" is not normal Normal, blah de blah, I get it... but shit got [u[way[/u] easier after that prologue so far.

I am truly amazed by people's lack of reading comprehension skills in some cases. Some of you even go so far as compare it to Jim's review. Want to know the difference? Well i'll tell you anyway. Jim, in each and every paragraph, as usual, tried to prove his initial point bit too hard - that the game just isn't good often bending facts to support his thesis, Greg on the other hand focused on explaining why he thinks the game could use some more polish from the purely technical side of things. Still don't see a difference?

While i do not agree with every point brought up, it's ok, it's beautiful that people can disagree, that's the while point of human interaction. To disagree and consider each other's point of view.
Some of the design choices were based on the novels itself, like the potion drinking prior to fights, some i consider balancing choices like the drawbacks of many of the potions. The combat in this game is constructed in such way you don't need maximum stats to win, with bit of luck and well timed use of available tools you can one hit almost any non-boss opponent with coup de grace moves.

Same time however, anyone remaining blind to obvious shortcomings of the UI is just acting childish in my eyes. There are things that just took way too much time to perform from user's perspective. The crafting system could have been better, without forcing a player to talk to crafting NPC several times because you lack one of ingredients. Some of the talent's have really vague descriptions not exactly matching the effects in game or are simply misleading (like the mutagen boosting skill from Alchemy tree, it won't work on existing mutagens, only the ones you put after obtaining the skill).
Personally, for me, such things are minor issues because i tend to play games for all the different reasons than the ominous 'majority', whatever it means, but i do recognize those flaws and i know they might annoy people. It's called not being ignorant.

The only way to improve games is to point out even slightest annoyances to the developers that read those reviews, so they can take notes and if they feel that the outcry was justified they can react in their next production.
CDPR is young company when it get's to making games, it's their second game ever, they went through the effort of designing their own engine for it and they did good job at the visual and story sides of the game, they created interesting combat, but they do lack experience in ironing out all the small bits which is, for me, perfectly understandable. It doesn't mean i should just pat them on the head as if they were suffering from retardation - they aren't and the best way they can improve is if they get constructive feedback.

Sales wise they are doing so far with it, i think vgchartz showed over 200k retail copies sold in first week, which is quite impressive for PC only title from a minor company and singleplayer RPG genre.

End Of Rant.

Ohhh my god Soviet, I want to punch DSP in the face twenty times.

"This game could learn from Assassin's Creed - that game lets you fight crowds of people"

UGGHHHHHHHHHHH YEAH FIGHTING MULTIPLE PEOPLE SHOULD BE EASY

beastrn:
How can I begin? Er, I dunno, at the part where he played The Witcher 2 on Normal and complained it was too hard? Or the part where he said Dragon Age 2 had challenging combat?

Like the Journal in this game - all the information you need is right there.

Do you think he would let me be entitled to my "opinion"?

Don't give me a bullshit answer. Think about it.

How about the part where he explained that it's the system he's got a problem with and therefore lowering the difficulty is absolutely irrelevant. He even says that the only thing that makes it challenging is that he's out of touch with the controls.

You were already explain how a tutorial is better than a manual, because showing is always better than telling.

Could you maybe stop being a broken record parroting the same shit that has already been addressed? Did someone die because if this review, because you sound like you were raped or something.

If I went and played D&D with Greg (an apparently decade-experienced D&D player) and said "Greg, D&D actually isn't good. Why are we rolling dice, anyway? I've got a sword. I want to hit you with it. Just tell me how much damage it does so we can actually have FUN playing this game. It's a GAME. Why isn't it intuitive, Greg? Where are the tutorials Greg? No, no. Don't give me a huge book of rules. I can't be bothered reading that shite! I just want to have FUN Greg! I give D&D a five out of ten."

Are you seriously comparing intuitiveness, with getting a rulebook in text for a pen and paper experience, with getting a rulebook in text for a virtual audio/visual experience. How would it not be more intuitive to get the info audio/visually in a game primarily portrayed in such a way?

rsvp42:

beastrn:
How can I begin? Er, I dunno, at the part where he played The Witcher 2 on Normal and complained it was too hard? Or the part where he said Dragon Age 2 had challenging combat?

Like the Journal in this game - all the information you need is right there.

If I went and played D&D with Greg (an apparently decade-experienced D&D player) and said "Greg, D&D actually isn't good. Why are we rolling dice, anyway? I've got a sword. I want to hit you with it. Just tell me how much damage it does so we can actually have FUN playing this game. It's a GAME. Why isn't it intuitive, Greg? Where are the tutorials Greg? No, no. Don't give me a huge book of rules. I can't be bothered reading that shite! I just want to have FUN Greg! I give D&D a five out of ten."

Do you think he would let me be entitled to my "opinion"?

Don't give me a bullshit answer. Think about it.

This is making you so mad. Your indignation is palpable, bro.

Which is ironic, since your indignation is obvious from miles away. Trolling trolls just makes trolls.

Most of the complaints regarding the tutorial can be argued with "well, they didn't include a 60+ page manual for nothing." CD Projekt is very much in the old school of doing things (e.g. only having to pay for Actual Expansion Packs that are probably large enough to get a individual retail release, getting rid of the DRM in the first bloody patch), so the mantra of RTFM should be expected.

rsvp42:

beastrn:
How can I begin? Er, I dunno, at the part where he played The Witcher 2 on Normal and complained it was too hard? Or the part where he said Dragon Age 2 had challenging combat?

Like the Journal in this game - all the information you need is right there.

If I went and played D&D with Greg (an apparently decade-experienced D&D player) and said "Greg, D&D actually isn't good. Why are we rolling dice, anyway? I've got a sword. I want to hit you with it. Just tell me how much damage it does so we can actually have FUN playing this game. It's a GAME. Why isn't it intuitive, Greg? Where are the tutorials Greg? No, no. Don't give me a huge book of rules. I can't be bothered reading that shite! I just want to have FUN Greg! I give D&D a five out of ten."

Do you think he would let me be entitled to my "opinion"?

Don't give me a bullshit answer. Think about it.

This is making you so mad. Your indignation is palpable, bro.

But he's clearly correct. Bottom line is that not all gamers are created equal. People who have actually enjoyed traditional RPGs in the past will like the Witcher 2, whereas people who are looking for an interactive movie/action game will enjoy DA2 more. I don't think it's too much to ask to have one reviewer in your employ for each genre. The genre which they enjoy most and have played most. I mean, that's what? Five, six people at most? For one thing, it would lighten the workload. For another, it allows the reviewer to have a better frame of reference for their scoring/reviewing method. They would know whether or not fans of the genre would enjoy the game, and have a good idea as to how people experiencing the genre for the first time might perceive it. Because game reviewing has indeed become a business, you should score it based on the former and write a separate summary at the end based on the latter. Not complicate things by mixing the two.

I don't think it's fair to base scores off the assumption that everybody will be playing a game in a given genre for the first time. Or that everybody will be playing any given game as their first introduction to gaming as a whole. Which is exactly what this review seemed to do. At least in part.

i actually liked that the game didn't treat me like lobotomized idiot. And reading the manual is not that hard, it's like 30 pages, half of which are full of disclaimers, install instructions and detailed tables of the talents(which you won't need anyway since those are more or less locked during the beginning. And regarding Alt-tapping out of the game: your fucking phone probably reads the manual.

Well this is most likely something that will be fixed with the enhanced edition and possibly the console versions, including some kind of tutorial that packs you up all nice in foam so you won't hurt yourself, the only thing they really need to tell you is this: When in doubt use the Quen sign. Although including a dragon in your very fist dialog option and putting possible the hardest section of the game behind that is a dick move.

oh and regarding the potions: you can easily brew enough swallow and rook potions to poison vizima, so just pop on whenever you go somewhere you expect combat. And if you are not buffed just be defensive and use the Quen sign.

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.

Sorry, but again, DA2 5/5, this 3,5/5...

I think it's borderline ridiculous.

So much fanboy rage, it's hilarious to watch. Bravo to the reviewers who don't change their shit to suit the masses.

Looks like the same design problems the first witcher had. Also the motion blur and bloom graphics are kind of annoying (if not over-exaggerated). Other than that, I love the setting and environment, and difficulty was never a problem for me, I like a challenge.

Look, I like the Witcher 2. But no game is perfect. Witcher 2 fans are too sensitive - you do realize that people might have legitimate greivances with the game, right? It's not perfect. No game is perfect.

The Witcher 2's tutorial and interface is awful. You might say "Oh it's just complex" - there's a difference between being complex and being unwieldly and obtuse. The Witcher 2 COULD easily explain itself, but it doesn't. Hell, the First Witcher had a better tutorial. What was the point in only explaining the spells AFTER you've used them? Could it have really been THAT hard for the developers to pause the game during the tutorial and have a pop-up box explain what is happening and what you should do? Couldn't they have put a decent map in the game?

I'm sorry - I really do like the Witcher 2. And like many others, I agree, it is better in my opinion, than Dragon Age 2 (a game I also like), but why should that matter? They are two different games! Stop trying to use the failings of DA2 to excuse away the failings of The Witcher 2! It's illogical! All games have problems. You people need to stop feeling so defensive. You are not the game, if someone doesn't like a game, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE INSULTING YOU OR YOUR CHOICE!

The Witcher 2 has its shining moments and its flaws. For some people, like me, the shining moments very clearly outshine the flaws. For others, the flaws are more noticeable and more painful to bear. Everyone is different, everyone has different tastes and different tolerances. If they don't like a game, please don't descend into paranoiac, delusion thinking. Please, stop throwing on the cloak of victimhood to create your very own "persecution complex". It's just a game. Just.... a game.

Eri:
So much fanboy rage, it's hilarious to watch. Bravo to the reviewers who don't change their shit to suit the masses.

Who says he didn't "change his shit?" He may have given it a five before seeing all the other sites give it a five and then changed it just to be different or garner attention for the site. Never know.

I ironically had the opposite issue with the game, while I found the gameplay to be superb(Despite the learning curve.If you're confused, read the manual, and set the game on easy until you get a handle on things. It's annoying, but not game breaking), I felt that the story and characters were interesting, but not fully realized enough. It all seems very good, but you don't ever learn much about the characters other then what's immediately apparent, and the plot lacks flow and never ultimately drives a point home. Throughout the bulk of the game, I didn't feel like I was getting much closer to my ultimate goal, and when I finally reached it, it didn't seem to mean much. Neither I, nor the characters seemed to have learned anything of emotional or intellectual substance(With the exception of the main character, Garelt, but it still came off as too understated)

The games also a bit short for an RPG, clocking in at about 30 hours, and I suspect this is why the story was missing some much needed time to catch it's breath and explore it's subtleties more thoroughly, as the game actually has two other chapters you won't see in the same playthrough. Another sad part is that the game ends right when it starts to get really good, which I assume will be the basis for the sequel. It feels like a very good preview of what looks to be a great game.

The game is still really good, as I said, most of the minute to minute gameplay is superb(Despite the bullshit side quests(Just ignore most of them) and steep learning curve), and this is some of the best combat I've seen in an RPG. The choices you make have genuine consequences, and the story and characters aren't earth shattering in the way you'd expect from games like Mass Effect, but they're still interesting enough to keep you involved and immersed. If you like RPG's, this will still probably be on the high end of games you'll play this year, just don't expect it to blow you away.

Xzi:

But he's clearly correct. Bottom line is that not all gamers are created equal. People who have actually enjoyed traditional RPGs in the past will like the Witcher 2, whereas people who are looking for an interactive movie/action game will enjoy DA2 more.

Are you saying that W2 gives a similar experience to a turnbased partybased openworld rpg, where combat is controlled by dice rolls, and my character is someone I make myself, because that would make it enjoyable to someone who enjoyed a traditional rpg. Are you also saying that despite Greg having been a PC rpg and tabletop player for decades, in addition to having written DnD suplements, that he must not enjoy traditional rpgs, because he had a problem with the way the witcher 2 communicates information to the player?

I don't think it's too much to ask to have one reviewer in your employ for each genre. The genre which they enjoy most and have played most. I mean, that's what? Five, six people at most? For one thing, it would lighten the workload. For another, it allows the reviewer to have a better frame of reference for their scoring/reviewing method. They would know whether or not fans of the genre would enjoy the game, and have a good idea as to how people experiencing the genre for the first time might perceive it. Because game reviewing has indeed become a business, you should score it based on the former and write a separate summary at the end based on the latter. Not complicate things by mixing the two.

See greg tito. Veteran Rpg player. I think what you are looking for is a game reviewer who just tells you what you want to hear, instead of what he thinks himself.

Korolev:
Look, I like the Witcher 2. But no game is perfect. Witcher 2 fans are too sensitive - you do realize that people might have legitimate greivances with the game, right? It's not perfect. No game is perfect.

LIES! Dragon Age 2 is PERFECT! A shining example of its genre greater than any other!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8701-Dragon-Age-II-Review.2

DayDark:

Xzi:

But he's clearly correct. Bottom line is that not all gamers are created equal. People who have actually enjoyed traditional RPGs in the past will like the Witcher 2, whereas people who are looking for an interactive movie/action game will enjoy DA2 more.

Are you saying that W2 gives a similar experience to a turnbased partybased openworld rpg, where combat is controlled by dice rolls, and my character is someone I make myself, because that would make enjoyable to someone who enjoyed a traditional rpg. Since Greg has been a PC rpg and tabletop player for decades, in addition to having written DnD suplements, that he must not enjoy traditional rpgs, because he had a problem with the way the witcher 2 communicates information to the player?

See greg tito. Veteran Rpg player. I think what you are looking for is a game reviewer who just tells you what you want to hear, instead of what he thinks himself.

Wow, has he ever fallen from grace if that is truly the case. Any veteran RPG player can see that Dragon Age 2 is about as much an RPG as Dwarfs?! is an RTS. Honestly, I don't care that he gave the Witcher 2 a 3.5. I do care that it got outscored by Dragon Age 2. That's playing entirely on blatant fanboyism in regards to Bioware, and not giving credit where it's due, to a budding developer that has gone out of their way to appease the PC RPG player in all of us to its fullest extent.

And god forbid you ask a long-time DND player to read a little. All the information you need to play the game is in the manual AND in-game journal.

But hey, you said it. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and everyone thinks that everyone else's stinks.

I think this is the first review where I've agreed with every single word. I like the story, the settings and the characters..but the gameplay is too frustrating for me to play more than an hour at a time. (and the prologue is the hardest part of the game. Doesn't these guys beta test their games?)

Wow, the response from this video was pretty much what I was expecting. Can't talk about TW2 without mentioning DA2, I wonder if there would be this much anger if TW2 scored higher. But I'm waiting for the console port anyway so whatever.

Xzi:
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and everyone thinks that everyone else's stinks.

I believe I may found my new life's motto!

OT: The one problem I had with the review is the amount of criticism while still giving it 3.5/5. Although I suppose that is still 30% down from full marks, so I guess it's consistent. While I'm not that much into this sort of action RPG (played one, played them all in my opinion. I know that isn't the case, but it saves me quite a bit of money), at least I know this is a decent choice if I ever finish DA:O (Not likely. I got the GotY edition and I'm 30+ hours and no nearer the end, I feel, and that only counts the full game, not Awakenings or the extra missions)

ImmortalMan:
Wow, the response from this video was pretty much what I was expecting. Can't talk about TW2 without mentioning DA2, I wonder if there would be this much anger if TW2 scored higher. But I'm waiting for the console port anyway so whatever.

it'll be good on the console, in fact probably better than on PC. the whole conbat system was designed and optimized for a controller

I loved this game to death...I loved it's obscure combat system.I loved everything.And then it's weird that I completely agree with the review.The game was merciless to me and in the end I thank it for that.

lol it's been a while since a game made casuals cry. The last one was DA:O where those who understood how it worked just breezed through the game and the casuals would cry on the forums till Bioware patched the difficulty of the game.

TW2 is not hard, it just punishes those who refuse to learn how it works. Although it may look like a hack&slash game it is far from it. If the first thing you do is button mashing hoping to roll over the enemies than you're doing it wrong and of course you'll die.
The combat have rhythm, maybe is not as obvious as in the first game but is still there. Abusing your left click is not the way to go, you have to time the attacks. You target the one that is in front of you so you can quickly change targets to keep the combat flow and combined with the rhythm and fast/heavy attacks you end up doing some pretty crazy combos.

Of course one with a short attention span will never figure it out

As for alchemy, in this game is a must not an afterthough. In case you missed it the game gives you a crapton of ingredients and that's because it expects from you to make use of it with traps, bombs and potions.

Yeah I know some casuals may quote me saying that I just want to play the game and don't care about all that complicated mumbo jumbo. Well the game was not made for you. Devs never said that they will "streamline" the game for the masses so even my granma could play it. Love it or hate it, I'm glad these guys didn't make a game that you can finish with just one awesome button.

Delusibeta:

Which is ironic, since your indignation is obvious from miles away. Trolling trolls just makes trolls.

Most of the complaints regarding the tutorial can be argued with "well, they didn't include a 60+ page manual for nothing." CD Projekt is very much in the old school of doing things (e.g. only having to pay for Actual Expansion Packs that are probably large enough to get a individual retail release, getting rid of the DRM in the first bloody patch), so the mantra of RTFM should be expected.

I'd look up the definition of "indignation" and perhaps "irony" as well, since maybe you meant I was being hypocritical? Pot calling the kettle black or some such. Anyway, I'm not indignant because I sense no injustice, just a lot of people complaining about one. If anything, I'm just annoyed by people who think all reviews should conform to their personal tastes.

The problem with RTFM these days is that almost no games require it anymore. Either they include in-game tutorials or they ease you into the action by keeping the difficulty lower in the earlier encounters. The Witcher 2 does neither of these. That's not to say it's a bad game, far from it, but it could definitely stand to make the prologue a little easier. No one's asking to have their hands held, we just want a difficulty curve that makes a little more sense.

Xzi:

But he's clearly correct. Bottom line is that not all gamers are created equal. People who have actually enjoyed traditional RPGs in the past will like the Witcher 2, whereas people who are looking for an interactive movie/action game will enjoy DA2 more. I don't think it's too much to ask to have one reviewer in your employ for each genre. The genre which they enjoy most and have played most. I mean, that's what? Five, six people at most? For one thing, it would lighten the workload. For another, it allows the reviewer to have a better frame of reference for their scoring/reviewing method. They would know whether or not fans of the genre would enjoy the game, and have a good idea as to how people experiencing the genre for the first time might perceive it. Because game reviewing has indeed become a business, you should score it based on the former and write a separate summary at the end based on the latter. Not complicate things by mixing the two.

I don't think it's fair to base scores off the assumption that everybody will be playing a game in a given genre for the first time. Or that everybody will be playing any given game as their first introduction to gaming as a whole. Which is exactly what this review seemed to do. At least in part.

People need to stop treating this like a zero sum game. Our gaming isn't binary. One can play both DA2 and TW2 and like both. Or hate both. Or kinda like one and love the other, or only kinda like both. Whatever.

As for your point that reviewers should be fans of the genre, clearly Mr. Funk has reiterated Mr. Tito's RPG experience. This is not an issue of how much of a fan he is. This is an issue of one guy who didn't like it quite as much as every other reviewer (by just a little), then getting shit for it from people like you or skippy up there. If you only want to read reviews that you agree with and you want every professional that plays your favorite games to be some kind of yes-man, that's your deal. But realize that the world doesn't work that way. All of this is a case of fans getting mad, then coming up with justification for why their anger is more than just fan-rage. You can try to justify it, but you know you've read reviews your whole life and that this is how it works. Difference is that now it's a game you love so it's somehow personal.

Another thing is that I just got into a battle not 30 minutes ago that was kicking my ass on Normal. I switched down to Easy and it became an utter cakewalk. No blocks or anything. I just laid into him by clicking LMB over an over and there was literally no challenge. I still really like this game, but stuff like that tells me it could definitely be balanced a little better. I mean every game has that kind of thing from time to time, I'm not singling TW2 out, but you get why it could be frustrating, right?

rsvp42:
snip

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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 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