The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

[Keava]

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

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

 

[CatmanStu]

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

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

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

 

[Nifarious]

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

You get treaded like an idiot often?

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

"One particular moment stuck out: when Geralt openly mocks the plot of The Lord of the Rings as a frivolous fairy tale, it feels like such parody is beneath the integrity the game achieves the rest of the time."

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

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

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

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

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

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

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

 

[dantoddd]

"One particular moment stuck out: when Geralt openly mocks the plot of The Lord of the Rings as a frivolous fairy tale, it feels like such parody is beneath the integrity the game achieves the rest of the time."

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

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

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[uk_john]

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

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

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

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

 

[ciasteczkowyp]

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

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

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

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

 

[BehattedWanderer]

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

 

[Nifarious]

Bravo Waagh Powa.
And this deserves quoting:

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

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

 

[BreakfastMan]

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

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

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

"One particular moment stuck out: when Geralt openly mocks the plot of The Lord of the Rings as a frivolous fairy tale, it feels like such parody is beneath the integrity the game achieves the rest of the time."

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

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

Just wanna say that you can't decontextualize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cynicalsaint1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Saibh]

Guess they wanted to trap all these people:

I usually start reading a book from the beginning

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

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

 

[Rabidkitten]

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

 

[theshadowcult]

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

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

 

[Karinnare]

I can see where the hate is coming from.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DarkhoIlow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS: Looking forward to see Yahtzee ZP on this.

 

[Keava]

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

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

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

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

 

[chainguns]

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

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

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

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