Zero Punctuation: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 21 NEXT



The Ultimate 2:
This is precisely why I'm a console gamer, console games don't take all day and I don't have to reduce the graphics to 1st grader quality to actually play. Good review Yahtzee you faustian king amongst us mere mortal squishies. Just remember to have fun with Brink He he he.

Nope console games comes pre-factored at lowest grade quality.

Thats a lie and you know it.

exactly what it takes to run this game at it's maximum settings with
uber-sampling + ssao is just brutal on any hardware, and no console can support it, they don't have the memory, bandwidth or processing power what you require to run that is
THREE ( yah, really ) gtx480 or higher to run this game smoothly maxed out with an i7 or xeon @4ghz or so and a good helping of ram, 4gb +
two cards might manage it with some pretty hefty over-clocking but you'll still get drops below optimal

so, let's take a look at what's inside a console shall we?
( sony gets so much bad press these days i feel sorry for them, so ill abuse Microsoft for today )
here's a 360 broken down ( and this is microsoft's own list )

Custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU
Three symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each
Two hardware threads per core; six hardware threads total
VMX-128 vector unit per core; three total
128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread
1 MB L2 cache
CPU Game Math Performance
9 billion dot product operations per second
Custom ATI Graphics Processor
500MHz processor
10 MB of embedded DRAM
48-way parallel floating-point dynamically scheduled shader pipelines
Unified shader architecture
Polygon Performance
500 million triangles per second
Pixel Fill Rate
16 gigasamples per second fill rate using 4x MSAA
Shader Performance
48 billion shader operations per second
512 MB of GDDR3 RAM
700 MHz of DDR
Unified memory architecture
Memory Bandwidth 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
21.6 GB/s front-side bus
Overall System Floating-Point Performance
1 teraflop
pretty hot stuff for 2005 ama right?

for funsies, that's half the memory bandwidth of Intel's extreme processors / memory kits
1 terraflop total system performance?
you can pull those kind of numbers from a single 200 graphics card, let alone a whole gaming system these days ( nearly 6 years later guys, yah, that long!! )
( however we are mixing programable and non programmable ALUs, the flops of these two different architectures should NOT be compared due to hardware multiply / add differences, so the total system performance of the device may well be lower or higher overall )

but if Microsoft feel they can mix them so will i.

Read more:

now, i'm not saying the game even looks a whole lot better just that the max settings guzzle resources like a sumo wrestler downs sushi
and you don't need most of these effects for great visuals anyway
which is why the game designers fine tune titles for the hardware they know console gamers have and they still look great because they do a good job of optimising the game to the hardware
which is what people mean when they rather uncharitably say
'console games ship with low graphical settings'
which is technically true, but it makes little difference!
the whole point of optimising for the hardware is you don't notice the differences
that's why crytek made an unusable game, then crysis 2 that would run on anything that had a screen and an input method

consoles are always good when they launch, and vastly outstrip a gaming pc of the same price range, but this long after launch they cant hold a candle to the new, high end hardware
i wish people on both sides of this bizzare pc / console war would just understand this and let it lay

-sigh- Yet another "Demons' Souls" type, "this game is hard and therefore is for experts only" kinda deal.

I really don't understand the concept of designers intentionally and trying real hard to make your games hate the players. I mean, ok, it works for simple action games like "Hard Corps: Uprising", because the entirety of action needed to be taken by the players are simple: run, jump, shoot, don't get shot and killed. With RPGs, there are TONS of menu navigation and subtle mechanics that the player simply needs to know to run through their games and have an enjoyable experience they can look back upon, and you can't have that without a proper tutorial.

Was it poor design decisions? Last minute rush neglect? Things they were supposed to fix, but couldn't get around to due to the deadline? Hell, I dunno. All I know is this is exactly like tossing your normal average seventh grader into a Calculus class without ensuring that he went through Pre-Calculus first or ensuring he has the brains to take it on: either way, he is NOT going to make it.


Except The Witcher 2 is widely regarded as good - Yahtzee, for instance, seemed to like the writing, and ripped into it a lot less than he ripped into (for instance) Dragon Age: Origins or the original Witcher. It's buggy, but a lot less than, say, something by Bethesada. I think a better comparison would be something like Game of Thrones - fantasy featuring good writing, political machinations, and "mature" elements. Also, like Game of Thrones, it's not the highest budget in its genre, and definitely not for everyone.

Personally, I like it, but agree with a lot of the issues people have with it. It's the same sort of thing as Prince of Persia for me: good writing + good atmosphere + some good gameplay elements overrides some bad gameplay elements in my mind. But I can totally respect someone else having a different opinion.

The Ultimate 2:
This is precisely why I'm a console gamer, console games don't take all day and I don't have to reduce the graphics to 1st grader quality to actually play. Good review Yahtzee you faustian king amongst us mere mortal squishies. Just remember to have fun with Brink He he he.

I think you're doing it wrong. I've been through 3 different computers over the years and I have never had to drop the settings on any of them past medium on any game and they weren't even gaming computers.


Just because you can and have played/watched/read through something, it doesn't mean that thing is good, it just means you found an enjoyment from it that wasn't due to its quality. The Room is not good by any means, but it can be enjoyed. My Immortal is not good, but it can be enjoyed, presumably The Witcher is not good, but it can be enjoyed

Although in the case of The Witcher 2, it really is a genuinely good game. It has flaws, it doesn't explain things as well as it should, and it has a fairly punishing default difficulty, at least until you learn how to fight well in it, but it is nevertheless a quality game. It's not something just to be enjoyed ironically.

The Witcher is eastern European bargain bin tripe similar to Stalker. The original was crap, so I'm not sure why anyone was expecting this to be good.

Witcher two has many practical things wrong with it but that good out weights the bad for me by far, i did expect more sex tho

Good funny review, though I agree with little of it. I thought the Witcher 2 was brilliant, but each to his or her own.
And for all the people who seem to think Yahtzee was trolling PC/PS3, I think his point was that at the end of the day there can be complaints against all platforms. PC is games not working, PS3 is PSN network getting hacked, Xbox 360 is red ring of death and Wii is Overused Franchise + ????? = PROFIT!!!

Worst ZP in a while. Can essentially be summed up as "I think PC gamers suck and I don't posses basic cognitive functions or an atention span longer than 5 seconds". I know ZP isn't supposed to be taken seriously, but this one just rubbed me the wrong way...

I wonder why.

People feeling smug because their console is somehow "better" than the others, needs to be castrated and removed from the gene pool


The Witcher 2 wasn't that hard. Poorly written, unimmersive and outright lying about half it's features yes, but not that hard to figure out.

Interesting. Let's talk about it. I want to hurt myself. Compare it to Dragon age 2. Mostly because I want to hear what make TW2 so poorly made and, as said by you, it seem, Dragon Age 2 the messia of the videogame.

Why am I doing this to me=

DA2 could claim that title, if it took two more years to develop, and was free of attempts to please the BG-crowd.

As for the differences in writing - DA2's writing wasn't hermetic for one thing, where the Witcher 2 is, even with the help of the journal and wikipedia, nigh impenetrable for the first few hours.
For another, DA2 didn't have to blatantly steal half it's conflicts.
It also didn't have to use a main character, that follows a completely different plot, and set of motives, then the game he's in. (Which is my biggest gripe with the writing really - if they had not fucked that up so horribly, the horrible combat, and habit of not telling the player anything would have been forgiveable, maybe even the blatant lies about having choice)

But hey, at least both games ran out of money or time, before the third act was done.

The Lugz:

And yet, people who buy consoles act like they just want to play games and enjoy them the way they are. The bastards

Yahtzee = petty troll. If he's not bashing PC gaming or Western RPGs, he's making factually incorrect statements and superficial complaints about characters' eyelashes.

Move along, nothing to see here.

As an aside, I'm not even sure how people here can claim Dragon Age II has better writing than The Witcher II. The Witcher II definitely suffers from "must have played the last game/read the books" syndrome, but at least it has characters that talk like actual human beings, have complex motives and personalities, and whose entire character arcs aren't obvious within five seconds of them opening their goddamn melodramatic mouths. There is an intelligence, subtlety and nuance that a thousand brick-wall Nathan Drakes, Lara Crofts, Alistairs and Talis can never come close to touching. BioWare's writers are some of the biggest hacks in the games industry, able to only produce rare flashes of quality amidst near-endless mediocrity. The Witcher II, even if not perfect as far as writing and dialogue go, makes a game like Dragon Age look like a goddamn soap opera - which is fitting, since that's exactly what it is.

Oh, and as for the journal - it's written by Dandelion, which becomes apparent if you actually took the time to, you know, actually pay attention to the game. His own entry is especially embellished, keeping very well with his character. Seriously, is it too much of gamers to expect them to be able to read and not have their eyes fucking gloss over?


As for the differences in writing - DA2's writing wasn't hermetic for one thing, where the Witcher 2 is, even with the help of the journal and wikipedia, nigh impenetrable for the first few hours.

The journal is part of the writing. It frequently gives you hints as to where to go in the game. Think the Civipedia. It's also, incidentally, the only in-game journal I can think of that isn't painful to read. I personally didn't find the game impenetrable - it just expects its readers to keep up haha.


For another, DA2 didn't have to blatantly steal half it's conflicts.



It also didn't have to use a main character, that follows a completely different plot, and set of motives, then the game he's in.

This doesn't really make sense either. Could you elaborate?

Yahtzee = petty troll. If he's not bashing PC gaming or Western RPGs, he's making factually incorrect statements and superficial complaints about characters' eyelashes.

Move along, nothing to see here.

I don't agree with this at all. He makes legitimate critiques - the problems he has with this game, for instance, are absolutely problems with the game.

never liked fantasy games. so i never bothered to play the witcher. tried once dragon age, played if for a week and asked for my money back because it was just not my kind of game. but cant complain about the controls besides the crappy battle system.

lol, he is having problems to play on a pc. i guess you have to be a pc gamer to enjoy a game more or less. thats the beauty of the pc. you have more buttons to choose from which makes things easier. if you choose the buttons in a comfortable way, you will have no problems.

I;m sure this has been mentioned before but the cut scenes are skippable



If I was to start watching Bimbos BC, or Son of the Mask, or The Room, I would find within the first fifteen minutes that the acting was terrible, the budget nonexistant, the effects awful, the script beyond help, etc. Do I really need to keep watching? The movies are awful, and if a movie is provably awful for several reasons within 15 minutes, then why is continuing to watch the following hour going to prove anything? What is it that watching 99 minutes of The Room proves that watching 15 doesn't? I'll finally know the conclusion of a story I don't care about? I'll have proven I have a great attention span and apparently far too much free time on my hands?

Just having a good attention span means nothing when it comes to entertainment and hobbies. I have a good enough attention span to write for three hours in an English exam, does that mean that I'd rather write a three hour English exam every day than play Fallout 3 for three hours? Fuck no. During my A Levels I had nine hours of exams in one day, and I finished them all, my attention held and my concentration good enough to get me some good grades. So does my ability to sit through nine hours of near constant writing somehow translate to the exams being the most fun I've ever had in my life? Again, no.

The problem here is that Yahtzee has been over this point so many times that anything I could say would just be repeating him. The defence of FFXIII 'it gets good twenty hours in' is simply 'leave your hand on a stove for twenty hours and you'll stop feeling the pain as well.' Your ability to endure something does not make it good, or you a superior person for liking it.

Is The Room somehow atranscendant example of neo-noir filmmaking because I watched the whole thing? No, it's still a turgid pile of rancid shit. Is the Witcher 2 the second coming of Christ because you were able to play it all the way through? No. I won't add a qualification here because I have no intention of actually playing this game, but from what I can see it's the sort of game that appelas to a very specific sort of demographic, so actually there was very little point to the last few paragraphs, but if I have taken up even a little amount of your life by making you read this, then apparently I am the next Stephen king because your attention span was apparently great enough to get you through this rant, so my writing must therefore be good, right?

I think both of you are thinking this over too much. What I think Continuity really means is simply that The Witcher 2 gets better, and pays off after a while. Which I'll agree with, because being a fan of the books and the first game, I was actually very disappointed with the intro to the Witcher 2. Now if people want to know about a game, I doubt they only want to know about the prologue, but the bulk of the game: does it get better? Is it worth my time and patience? The people who don't have the patience will know not to bother with the game, yet the people who DO will know that they will be rewarded with a great story, and abilities in combat that turn the tables completely.

Because quite frankly, I found the difficulty spike in the combat was mainly due to user control. Sure the AI seems cheap, but halfway through Act 1, I was flowing through enemies with ease, using different strategies and combos. Just watch YouTube videos of people who have figured the game out. It's not as hard as it seems if you just experiment, bit of trial and error, you know how games (esp RPGs) are supposed to be like (can you remember any game that told you exactly what you were up against, what were its resistances and abilities, and exactly which spell/potion/skill/item you were s'posed to use?)

And the game was in fact designed for consoles, just ask anyone who's bothered to try the game with a controller, all the target locking problems and inventory management problems disappear or get much easier.

The game's not without its flaws, the story in the prologue is boring as shit (to me, compared to Witcher 1), the controls could use some polish, and the lack of a storage box was almost a game breaker. But I'll tell anyone out there who *wants* to give the game a chance, to stick with it, because it'll reward you with an unfolding story and RPG elements that you just don't find in other games.


The Lugz:

And yet, people who buy consoles act like they just want to play games and enjoy them the way they are. The bastards

I know, it's shocking isn't it! it should be illegal!

honestly, it's a shame that isn't the truth.. people feel obliged to justify their purchases otherwise they think people might mock them, or.. whatever they think might happen otherwise when really they should just say
'screw you i'm having fun'

it's the same argument as apple vs Ms
or what brand of smartphone you have, or.. lord anything these days
what can ya do eh

at-least witcher looks nice no-matter the platform :P
well-done cd proj.


Yahtzee = petty troll. If he's not bashing PC gaming or Western RPGs, he's making factually incorrect statements and superficial complaints about characters' eyelashes.

Move along, nothing to see here.

I don't agree with this at all. He makes legitimate critiques - the problems he has with this game, for instance, are absolutely problems with the game.

He's right about this:
-Piss-poor player training
-Inventory is a mess
-Upgrades and mutagens are not intuitive

He's wrong about this:
-All cut scenes are skippable
-Combat unfair against groups (once you upgrade Quen and Whirl, you hardly have to do anything but button mash. And then you get group finishers, so yeah.)

Preparing before battle being a pain and the game being too long are just opinions which is entirely fair, as is the game not being fun. Everybody's entitled to these.

Oh, and Geralt has 2 swords because of the lore, silver for monsters and steel for humans. The game doesn't laugh at you if you pull out the wrong one, once you get powerful enough you can use a freaking broom if you want.

I don't agree with this at all. He makes legitimate critiques - the problems he has with this game, for instance, are absolutely problems with the game.

Let's review these complaints, shall we?

1) Yahtzee claims early on that the game requires patching and updating when playing. This is not true. If he bought a retail copy, he would have had to activate the game using SecuROM, otherwise there is no activation and no mandatory patching. The patch that was available on day one took approximately ten seconds for me to download, and was fully optional.

2) Player training isn't handled well. This is kind of true, but I think people overstate it and confuse "learning curve" with "difficulty" and "bad training." The game spams you with pop-ups early on, and that's definitely not the best way of handling things. On the other hand, it takes about 3 seconds to figure out the controls, and the first battle where you're supposed to fight "dozens" of enemies actually requires you to do absolutely nothing, as you'll have just as many allies on your side during that very battle, who are glad to do the heavy lifting and let you figure things out in the background. But then, I guess I can't blame someone for assuming they're going to be Fucking Badass Incarnate at level 1 and ruin all the enemies by diving onto their swords, right?

In truth, I would have added a sparring practice or something to the king's war camp to let players get the basics down, but it still took me all of five minutes to become comfortable with the game's combat.

3) Kind of ties in with the above, but blocking. This is what we call "RTFM", kids. Blocking requires vigor so that you can't just sit there blocking endlessly. If you have no vigor, your block won't work because Geralt is fatigued. While it's a legitimate complaint that the game doesn't do the best job telling you this stuff, it's clearly in the manual as well as in the tutorials found in the journal - and the game makes it quite clear that you should read them the first time through without outright forcing them to. And then if they were forced, people would complain about that!

4) Yahtzee complains about not being able to dodge properly. I... don't know what to say here. I guess he must suck at the game, because Geralt always dodges in the direction I tell him to, and instantly, unless he's been hit. But yeah, sure, let's just bitch about the game not playing itself, how about that?

5) Spell names? Not completely obvious upon looking at them? Have to read the manual? Oh gnoes! How dare my fantasy game not be absolutely 100% generic as shit! Why isn't my game playing itself yet?!

6) Complaining about the different sword types? Really? First off, it's a pretty damn standard component of the lore. Second, it's explained pretty clearly in the game that silver swords have magical properties, and as such are used to fight monsters since they're more sensitive to the metal. Of course, silver is also a weak metal and not useful against armoured human opponents. Complaining about this is about as fucking stupid as complaining that ammunition designed for dealing with soft targets is less effective against armoured ones. Well, at least the game automatically chooses the right sword depending on what type of enemy I'm facing, so I guess it wins points for playing itself a little bit!

7) Drinking potions before combat rather than during it is a pretty obvious design choice and basically comes down to encouraging smart preparation rather than chugging potions while enemies wail on you. It's also more true to the lore, since potions take time to take effect and most of them are useless instantly upon imbibing. But I want my Quik-Heal(TM) button dammit, and nobody better take it away from me!

8) Interface for meditation is hard to understand? Uh? If Yahtzee is confused by four labels written in clear text (Meditate, Character, Drink Potion and Alchemy) then I guess there really is no hope for him. That, or I guess I missed the point where PC mind-reading devices were released and obsoleted all user interfaces. God dammit, why is this game not playing itself?!

9) Tying in with the last, how do you know when battles are going to happen? Gee, how about intuition and common sense? If you were wandering out in the wilderness and saw monsters in the distance, I'd take that as a pretty clear indication of impeding danger, hm? Foreboding-looking cave with strange sounds coming from it? Perfectly normal! Obviously telegraphed pivotal plot point? Now why would I ever expect violence to come out of that? And more importantly, why is my game not playing itself yet? We're nine points in and I'm still waiting!

10) I agree about the interface, in part. It's clearly been designed as a compromise for gamepads, but I didn't find it impacted the usability of things too much. It's easy to figure out how to use weapon upgrades (drag and drop), and while I agree mutagens should have been explained better, that's the only major problem I can really think of interface-wise.

11) See what I said above about writing, but suffice is to say Yahtzee is pretty much ignoring the game's quality on the basis of genre. Which, as we all know, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Silent Hill 2? Well, it's one of them survival horrors, right? I played one of those, it sucked, ergo, all survival horror games suck. Fall before my flawless logic!

12) On combat: learn to dodge, learn to use crowd control, learn to use bombs, learn to use spells/signs. Oh, right, almost forgot it's supposed to be playing itself! Whew, lucky I caught myself there!

13) On autosaves: I actually agree, more autosaves would have been nice to have before major quest events. Apparently these have been and are being patched in, but I still don't see why Yahtzee seems to look on quicksaving with some sort of disdain.

14) On unskippable cutscenes: that cutscene is skippable, and I don't think he's actually talking about the cutscene right before the fight, but rather, the one prior to that, because the one immediately before facing the boss is very quick. Either way, point invalidated.

So yeah, out of the 14 major complaints Yahtzee addressed here, we've got about 1.5, maybe 2 that are actually legitimate in any way. The rest are either petty and superficial, come as a result of not taking the time to actually learn to play the game or read the manual, or are simple bad logic if not outright hypocritical when put next to things he's previously said. But hey, don't take my word for it, I work at the dick-sucking factory, right Yahtzee? Har har, fuck you too.

Hmm... something about this review seemed different to me. I've been waiting for this review since I am a Witcher and ZP fan, and I loved his review of TW. But this... seemed... so, strange to me. Yeah, I have a lot of problems out the gate with pacing and other bugs (fucking never selects the spell or throwable weapon I want is a big one) and yeah it's a beast to run. But this ZP didn't even seem thought through.

It's fun if you like morbid depressing settings, which I do. I think the richness of the game and the fact I grew up on games from a less forgiving, rather uncompromising generation makes it seem far more enjoyable to me. I played through Baldur's Gate as a mage after-all, I can do anything!


Hey, I agree with you on 90% of these - I'm about halfway through the game now, and I think it's one of the best I've ever played. But look at the big picture of what he was saying - Yahtzee isn't alone in finding the game unintuitive or hard to get into. A lot of people (Penny Arcade, notably) had the same problems with getting into it. And the combat is a little weird, although a lot of that was sorted out in patch 1.2. But it's not like these are deal-breakers, and Yahtzee doesn't seem to think they are either. He didn't attack this game as much as he attacks 90% of games haha.


I agree with basically all of this, too.

Come to think of it, I think that some of the things some people find weird - silver and iron swords, no potions in combat, dying against groups, the swearing - are examples of Of course people in the middle ages used different weapons against different targets (and silver is soft enough to get wrecked against any kind of armor), of course it's hard to drink something while someone's trying to cut your head off, of course it's basically instant death in a swordfight to get surrounded, and of course people in the middle ages used profanity. But they don't jive with the way stuff like this is usually portrayed in fiction, so they throw people off haha.

Oh well, to a lot of people figuring out how to play a game is part of the fun.
That is why I stopped playing Dwarf Fortress once I got to know all the key bindings.

I guess it is just a different approach to what makes a game challenging.

I stopped playing once my fortress's fps went below 10. Ah, the joys and sorrows of PC gaming.

Yahtzee at his finest! Brilliant review.

In-ven-tory. In-ven-tory. Not in-Ven-tree.

First things first, I have never, at any time until now, disagreed with yahztee's reviews.
sure, some of his points are relevant, most of them have been fixed in the second patch which makes this review a moot point.

but my response to some of the complaints raised are;

There is so much hatred aimed at this game..
Couldn't figure out how to play? Read the damned Manual,
Couldn't understand the spells? well thats because you Never played the first game properly, Or read the manual.

Had difficulty with combat, this i understand, it was very slow to respond but i got through it by using Traps, Spells, Bombs. all the weapons at my finger tips to win, Now with the new patch gameplay is much more responsive to the point i'm playing through a second time, and having even more of a blast.

the game was a nice change of pace, something that presented a bit of a challenge rather than being completely cake.

very biased, very bad review, and hopefuly i'll never have to say that about a ZP again.

I agree with Yahtzee to an extent. I never finished The Witcher as it just became to bog down with to many useless crap and also seeing clones of everybody all the time, also the cvoice acting sucked. Otherwise it was a cool game with much potential, but was just not polished enough.

The Witcher 2 is not an option seeing as my wife might not take kindly to me having degital sex with an evil elf, also a game that makes it dificult to use basic functions that you are expected to use often is just plain stupid.

In-ven-tory. In-ven-tory. Not in-Ven-tree.

no its in-ven-tree or in ven tory
ot:Nice review and mods you better lock this thread since its been derailed

Somehow, this sounded like a positive review.

Lots of misinformation in this video. You can skip the Kayran boss fight cutscene, the combat is not that difficult (people are beating it on Insane mode as we speak), the game isn't PC snobbish (it's built from the ground up for consoles), and it's also not any longer than most RPGs.

Sorry Yahtzee, but this video didn't really make me laugh, so all that's left is a poor review of a game that actually tried to do something different in a genre that's growing rapidly dumber with each release.

Hey, lookie! Yahtzee knows nothing about gaming, and he doesn't feel good if he doesn't remind us every week :D

Mildly entertaining as usual, inaccurate, unfair and simply an insult to human intelligence as usual.

Yahtzee, mate, you're doing a lot of whinging lately. Decided to activate your racials ?

Why does Yahtzee mention the 'mouse and keyboard' bit?
I've been playing mostly with the XBox360 Controller.

IMO some people on The Witcher's production team have a direct line to the "Awe-striking" chord of those of us who held the 486 as the 8th Wonder of the Universe when our 15yr-old minds got sucked into the worlds of the original Prince of Persia, King's Quest, and Golden Axe.

Combat is about making use of the space when outnumbered. I started off literally running around like a pussy to stretch my opponents and not let myself get swarmed. Got better as I started to recall the 'timing' aspect of the gameplay. (CD Projekt, pretty please do not dumb the game down)

Some of the things Yahtzee said were mildly true, but nowhere near gamebreaking. Most complains though, were ridiculous, arbitrary, and superficial. I wouldn't mind in the least about his gripes if he had actually finished the game, or got to one of the best parts (where you first meet Letho and have to make a extremely important game-changing choice; it happens almost immediately after that boss) but he didn't. It's not that he's simply exaggerating for comedic effect, he clearly did not enjoy the game for reasons are amazingly laughable and downright pathetic.


Definitely one of the best and most detailed comment given so far. It's obvious that you put more thought into this response than Yahtzee could have. Unfortunately these days a lot of gamers seem under the impression that they're junior game developers moonlighting as critics and will take any opportunity to judge a game as objectively as possible on technical design merits.

The Witcher 2 has actually ruined future RPGs for me because of how high it's set the bar in so many areas.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

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