The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

[Jamanticus]

snip

Dexter, I just want to say that I fully agree with you. Good posts, all that.

Now I wanna replay Assassins of Kings and then maybe Baldur's Gate!

 

[Zolwiol]

Hmm I've just noticed that every review that gives this game an average score focuses on the game's very beginning being too hard and that you apparently need to be psychic to know when to drink potions.

But the reviews that praise the game focus on story/setting and great dialogue. They admit the combat is hard to jump into but once you read up your tutorials in the journal and start using your tools game rewards your effort tenfold.


Now for some of my thoughts.

Having to be psychic to know when to drink a potion has to be some kind of joke right? Going into monster infested forest? A cave? Should I drink a potion or two then? Naaaaah surely there won't be any hard fights in there. I need to save up those potions for REALLY hard fights, doesn't matter if I haul literally hundred pounds worth of alchemy ingredients and ALL the potions are made by me and not unique at all. Traps are recyclable as well so you need only few of them, just FYI.


Now for a challenge for everyone who claims there's no way to know how to do something or how does something work I'll post a page from the game's manual that explains it. Not to mention your journal has it all.

 

[RRRrrr]

The Witcher 2 did much more than anyone gave it credit for.

The way I see it, everyone should support the game. Not because of the gameplay qualities (which I find great, this isn't important right now) but because this game is trying to push the video game industry forward.

By attacking this game you also attack DRM-free games, free DLCs, SUPERB choice&consequences (I am yet to see a game that handles them better, truly). Also making ERSB rating more adequate (the industry has gone a long way from covering every single nipple to creating tasteful and adequate erotic scenes)
Even if you dislike the gameplay, even if you dislike the universe, or the story, or whatever one might dislike in this great game, you should at least support the progress in the gaming industry. Or you would rather get ridiculous DRM, expensive item packs or 1-hour dlcs like in ME or DA. Regarding RPGs-would you rather have a bad illusion of choice and no real c&c? Because the industry delivers what people like. CDP made a bold move and it is up to us to support them.
Both Dragon Age 2 and The Witcher 2 were experiments. Dragon Age 2 was trying to determine how little content and work can be put in a game without damaging the sales, just to milk a great franchise. The Witcher 2 did exactly the opposite-it has an enormous amount of content (though this isn't apparent on your first, even on your second playthrough), it doesn't underestimate the player's intelligence, it is DRM-free, it has free DLCs. DA2 experiment failed. I only hope that The Witcher 2 won't.
I thought escapist was created to move the industry forward by giving proper criticism. Giving The Witcher 2 the lowest possible score that could be (poorly) justified is just wrong...very wrong.

 

[Abriael]

No, but seriously, there's no need to resort to ad hominem attacks like that when you already have a perfectly defensible position. Make your case, but don't insult the reviewer. No need to make yourself sound hurt or petty.

Eh i know,i know, when one bashes people's hard work for a living, it's hard to be on the receiving end
It's actually a good thing for a reviewer to learn how it feels, once in a while, especially when he pulls out a stunt like this one.

As to your point, there ARE other excuses for not understanding the combat, particularly that the game doesn't explain them outside of a few tips that pop up when you get around to using them. I hadn't played the Witcher before. I didn't know what a "Sign" was or how I should use it in combat. I'm not used to a system where blocking uses the same energy as other abilities. I wasn't expecting to be thrown into combat with 3+ enemies, one armored and one with a shield where you take a few hits and you're dead. This game diverges heavily from expected difficulty curves and it can be surprising and frustrating to new players. This is not about a player's mental capacity or education (I completed HS with an International Baccalaureate diploma and now hold a BFA if you must know). This is about how the game introduces its mechanics. Now again, I personally don't mind this because I don't mind learning through trial and error, but I can definitely say that teaching the mechanics was not this game's strong suit. Do I think that's worth marking it down as much as Greg did? No, but again that's just my opinion and I'm not going to attack his because of it.

Aside from the ridiculous statement by the reviewer that chalked the manual as being inconsequential, as for some laughable reason people should expect every single game nowadays not to require reading any kind of documentation (why? who decided that?).
Is diverging from the "expected" something bad? Considering how damn *boring* the gaming market is, nowadays, I would say it's something entirely good.

No matter how it's spinned. The game doesn't spoon-feed you, but the tools are *ALL* there. They just require you *by intentional design* to use your brain.
Someone doesn't like using his brain? Great for him. This just means that he isn't part of this game's target, not that the game is bad.
In any case a game's tutorial should never, ever be the primary judging meter for the quality of a game. What's this, the Escapist or the Dimwitted?
It's not even a matter of opinion. The review is of "The Witcher 2: Assassins of King" not of "The Witcher 2: the Tutorial".

And as I mentioned before, switching down to easy is not a solution to the weird difficulty curve. I did that in one of the fights later in the game that was being ridiculous and it removed every bit of the challenge. That's not a fun solution.

you know that (another quite rare option nowadays) you can dynamically switch the difficulty up and down at your leisure?

Funny because I heard a lot of those were just troll accounts made by haters to make BioWare fans look bad. Users who had only recently signed up to right ridiculous praise for DA2 and then turn around and bash TW2. Then again, DA2 got a lot of ridiculously low user scores made by people who hadn't played it as well.

I guess the point is that you can't trust user reviews when people are clearly being bitter and petty in the extreme. And being concerned about them affecting purchasing decisions to any significant degree is like being worried about YouTube comments driving away fans of your favorite band. In other words, it won't and it's better to just chill.

People take this shit too personally. It's like everyone wants to get caught up in childish drama over who's favorite studio is the bestest ever. Just play games and ignore stuff like this review if it upsets you.

Considering that i've been a Bioware fan since when Bioware has been around, and having played Dragon Age 2, I doubt that the abysmal user score it received is to be chalked for more than a 10% to trolls. Dragon Age 2 is simply a poor product, watered down to the extreme to appease a dimwitted target and chocked full of simply nonsensical design choices and quality issues, following a downward spiral that's lately turning into a nose dive in Bioware's products. Dragon Age: Origin seemed to be a swan song, and even as a swan song, there are still quite a few people that can't play it properly due to several gamebreaking issues that have never been patched.

You can't trust user scores? Maybe, but even the vasy majority of critic reviews shows Dragon Age 2 as mediocre at best. When that happens to a game that has a publisher as weighty as EA to back it, there's no need for trolls to understand that it's poor.
That lone drooling and fanboyish 100 right on top of them all to insult everyone's intelligence is something Greg should feel ashamed for, just as much as this 70. The combination of both is a clear indication of someone that shouldn't be made to review, at the very least, this genre. He quite obviously doesn't qualify.

It's not even just Greg's fault. This case throws a shadow over the whole editorial line of the site (if giving work to Jim Sterling wasn't enough...).
Whoever decides who reviews what should have taken the enormous hint from the Dragon Age 2 review debacle, and give him some Wii games to work on (those are easy, you don't even need a tutorial, perfect match), while letting to someone that actually qualifies the task to review other games from this genre, Witcher 2 included. Maybe (hopefully) NOW he'll take the hint. Errare Humanum Est, Perseverare autem Diabolicum.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

you know what i don't really understand, its the fact that i have seen dozens of posts from escapist staff, contributers and forumites decrying the demise of the manuals of old. Nice thick booklets full of both the controls and backstory etc, and then Greg starts complaining about having to RTFM. It boggles the mind.

There are a ton of posts in this thread pointing out the many many flaws with this 'review' and i thoroughly suggest to you Greg that you read through and look at them. And i really hated the way you ignore everything that makes the game great to focus on a few (relatively minor if you ask me) flaws in the UI. And you let those flaws impact the review far far too much. You even say that you enjoyed the game and that you will play it again, but you never tell the readers of your review why. It was just a terrible review and i think you need to give it another crack.

This is a game that has been brilliantly executed, by a dev with the best attitude towards its customers of any dev out there and is well worth paying full price for.

 

[rsvp42]

Aside from the ridiculous statement by the reviewer that chalked the manual as being inconsequential, as for some laughable reason people should expect every single game nowadays not to require reading any kind of documentation (why? who decided that?).
Is diverging from the "expected" something bad? Considering how damn *boring* the gaming market is, nowadays, I would say it's something entirely good.

No matter how it's spinned. The game doesn't spoon-feed you, but the tools are *ALL* there. They just require you *by intentional design* to use your brain.
Someone doesn't like using his brain? Great for him. This just means that he isn't part of this game's target, not that the game is bad.
In any case a game's tutorial should never, ever be the primary judging meter for the quality of a game. What's this, the Escapist or the Dimwitted?
It's not even a matter of opinion. The review is of "The Witcher 2: Assassins of King" not of "The Witcher 2: the Tutorial".

Fair enough. I still don't think it has anything to do with using one's brain. Reading a manual was standard procedure 10 years ago or more, but these days we've had a great many games (good ones, mind you) that incorporate tutorials smoothly into the first stages of the game. This is not dumb design or hand-holding unless it's done poorly. Reading a manual doesn't take much more comprehension skills than understanding a tutorial, it's just not common anymore. I can however accept that TW2 does not need to have a comprehensive tutorial and in the sense that this issue diminishes rather soon after completing the beginning of the game, it shouldn't have played a big role in the scoring process.

And as I mentioned before, switching down to easy is not a solution to the weird difficulty curve. I did that in one of the fights later in the game that was being ridiculous and it removed every bit of the challenge. That's not a fun solution.

you know that (another quite rare option nowadays) you can dynamically switch the difficulty up and down at your leisure?

You can do that in DA2 as well trollololol-- just kidding, I'm kidding (but you can)

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

Considering that i've been a Bioware fan since when Bioware has been around, and having played Dragon Age 2, I doubt that the abysmal user score it received is to be chalked for more than a 10% to trolls. Dragon Age 2 is simply a poor product, watered down to the extreme to appease a dimwitted target and chocked full of simply nonsensical design choices and quality issues, following a downward spiral that's lately turning into a nose dive in Bioware's products. Dragon Age: Origin seemed to be a swan song, and even as a swan song, there are still quite a few people that can't play it properly due to several gamebreaking issues that have never been patched.

You can't trust user scores? Maybe, but even the vasy majority of critic reviews shows Dragon Age 2 as mediocre at best. When that happens to a game that has a publisher as weighty as EA to back it, there's no need for trolls to understand that it's poor.
That lone drooling and fanboyish 100 right on top of them all to insult everyone's intelligence is something Greg should feel ashamed for, just as much as this 70. The combination of both is a clear indication of someone that shouldn't be made to review, at the very least, this genre. He quite obviously doesn't qualify.

It's not even just Greg's fault. This case throws a shadow over the whole editorial line of the site (if giving work to Jim Sterling wasn't enough...).
Whoever decides who reviews what should have taken the enormous hint from the Dragon Age 2 review debacle, and give him some Wii games to work on (those are easy, you don't even need a tutorial, perfect match), while letting to someone that actually qualifies the task to review other games from this genre, Witcher 2 included. Maybe (hopefully) NOW he'll take the hint. Errare Humanum Est, Perseverare autem Diabolicum.

I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 for what it was. I won't say it's among the best RPGs, but it doesn't deserve all the zeros it got from overreacting users. A zero should be a game like... I dunno Evony or that E.T. game that everyone hated, but I guess knee-jerk emotional reviews never consider shades of gray. I think DA2 should get a 5-ish at the low end and like a 7 or 7.5 if you're fan but you're being honest (TW2 deserves a 9 I think. Maybe 8.5 if I get to the end and have a different opinion). But whatever, that's just me.

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

 

[rsvp42]

Maybe its a case of business.
The witcher 2 did not pay for advertisement on the website like Dragon age 2 did.
Lets ignore the fact that its not a rich company and its made an amazing game... No $$ no good review.
Lets ignore the fact that it comes from a country struggling economically... No $$ no good review.
Lets ignore the fact it literally is 200% better then DA2.... No $$ No good review.
Lets ignore all those facts that you mentioned in your post.... NO $$ No good review.
I just thought that the escapist was not so capitalist driven.
Maybe the giving nature of the company with free DLC NO DRM etc is an afront to all their values and beliefs.
I just cant figure it out... I recently looked at metacritic and The Escapist is in the bottom 4 reviews at 70%... And this was my favourite website.

In all fairness, there have been (and still are) Witcher 2 ads here. I don't think it has anything to do with payment (which seems to be the go-to accusation lobbed at any reviewer that goes against the grain a little).

Don't worry, the Escapist has done things in the past that I didn't like too. I even got into a spat with one of the mods over it and others agreed with me. Sometimes you just gotta let it go and if the site stops lining up with your tastes after a while, there's no harm in taking a break. Something about the Escapist is that it's very individualistic. They don't over-edit things and filter out every instance of bias. For the most part, it makes the stories and discussion more interesting than on other sites, but it can also lead to confrontation when something rubs the community the wrong way.

 

[lacktheknack]

I love the rage and tears a few people are mustering for this. Sure, he didn't like it. If his "bad points" sound appealing to you, then clearly it's an amazing game! No need to tell him how much he sucks.

 

[Abriael]

Fair enough. I still don't think it has anything to do with using one's brain. Reading a manual was standard procedure 10 years ago or more, but these days we've had a great many games (good ones, mind you) that incorporate tutorials smoothly into the first stages of the game. This is not dumb design or hand-holding unless it's done poorly. Reading a manual doesn't take much more comprehension skills than understanding a tutorial, it's just not common anymore. I can however accept that TW2 does not need to have a comprehensive tutorial and in the sense that this issue diminishes rather soon after completing the beginning of the game, it shouldn't have played a big role in the scoring process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HellenicWarrior]

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

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

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

 

[Kahunaburger]

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

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

 

[rsvp42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[camazotz]

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

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

 

[Abriael]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kahunaburger]

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

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

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

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

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

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

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

 

[sindremaster]

Lets ignore the fact that its not a rich company

Yes you should ignore the fact, because it has nothing to do with the quality of the game

and its made an amazing game...

Your subjective opinion, not a fact

Lets ignore the fact that it comes from a country struggling economically...

nothing to do with the quality of the game

Lets ignore the fact it literally is 200% better then DA2...

Your subjective opinion, not a fact

 

[seraphy]

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

Bit hard to take him seriously anymore after this.