The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Author is useless, should quit his job as it's clear he sucks at playing games. Try reviewing TV series maybe? Lowered difficulty there, as you only need to 'absorb' stuff that is thrown at you without any active process (apart form keeping eyelids open...).
Games are supposed to be some kind of a challenge and here we see someone trying to make a review while not being able to put some effort into playing the game. Horribad.
Games are supposed to be some kind of a challenge and here we see someone trying to make a review while not being able to put some effort into playing the game. Horribad.
Nice review Greg. It's refreshing to see an honest opinion that doesn't get in the way of presenting the game. What I mean is that usually critics bash or praise the game throughout most of the review, while here you honestly say that the game is probably one of the best RPGs this year, but it just doesn't work for you personally. I respect that.
I just want to say I read every one of the comments here (All 13 pages) and I really appreciate your balanced comments. I feel similarly. I personally love the Witcher 2 and it being made is a force for good in gaming. Giving Bioware some real competition is good. Free DLC and lack of DRM is good! But the game is not perfect and I would not give it a perfect score.rsvp42 said:
Greg was likely to get flack from giving DA2 a 5/5 in comparison but that does not excuse some of the comments we have seen. There is no good reason to criticize someone personally. It is unnecessary and only detracts from your points. Thank you RSVP42 for putting in the time to call them on it so thoroughly and thoughtfully as well as making some good points of your own.
The relevant detail you missed is that reviews aren't and shouldn't be just a personal affair. A reviewer is not writing for himself, but for his readers, and needs to give a fair assessment of the quality of a game (which for the most part isn't a matter of opinion), which is something Greg set aside, preferring to give most of the space to his personal rant.Rorschach_pln said:
That's the difference between a reviewer and a random guy with a blog.
If someone quite evidently lacks the qualification to perform a job, there's no good reason not to say it.Sartan0 said:
It's funny how some people seem to think that "journalists" have all the right to express all the opinions they want (no matter how preposterous), but no one else has the right to express their opinions on them.
Always hated this argument. If one can even call this cop-out an argument.sindremaster said:
It can be used to defend literally any movie, book, or game. I could say "Empire Strikes Back is so -obviously- a better film than Episode I.", and what is the last, desperate argument a monkey could throw at me to counter the obvious?
"Well, that's just -your- opinion!"
Well, yes, of course how good art is is largely subjective, but sometimes the gap in quality is so blatantly obvious that one is -clearly- better than the other, as in the example of Empire Strikes Back (Or Witcher 2 vs. Dragon Age 2).
Exactly, whenever I hear someone say that the first thing that comes to mind is that they're doing it because they're not confident in their ability to support it.Pandabearparade said:
People also seem to have this idea that an opinion sits in this untouchable grey area where you can't be right or wrong, which is untrue. Let's say for example Jeffery Dahmer says that he thinks it's ok to kill people, which would appear to be true to him. To which you reply "No it's not" and is countered by him with "well that's your opinion". Is he still wrong? yes.
In hindsight that's an extreme example, but you could get what I mean.
In short, opinions are only as good as your ability to support them.
I am not saying your can't attack their premise or call them on things. I am saying why get personal? Win your fights through better points better made not cheap shots. (Not that I am saying that is what you in particularly did. Frankly I am not rereading the 13 pages to check)Abriael said:
The point is, someone is attacking a man and his article which is based on HIS opinion with opinions of their own and stating that his opinion of the game is wrong, because their opinion is right.WaaghPowa said:
Simply reminding someone that it's their opinion isn't a bad point (although I agree that it's not an argument, your opinion should be supported and just point out opinions doesn't add to a discussion).
If I said (as an example, this isn't my real opinion as I've never played Witcher 2) I love Dragon Age 2 because it was accessible and didn't require extra reading unlike Witcher 2 which I disliked because all that extra effort. I just like to put a game in and play.
That doesn't make my opinion wrong because someone else's subjective opinion makes them think that there's an objective look at quality overall making The Witcher better no matter what.
Explaining why W2 is better than ME2 objectively can only be done by looking at the objective parts not the game as a whole. But one aspect (or even several) do not make an entire game objectively better, because there will always be people who would rather put a game in and just play and there will always be people who would rather spend time immersing themselves in the game (to mention specific examples that relate to this discussion).
Example (remember, this is not a real opinion as I still haven't played Witcher 2): The Witcher 2 uses individual and unique locations rarely repeating any art asset, while ME2 uses the same three or four locations for multiple different locations with very little variation. Ergo, The Witcher 2's locations are much better as they varied and interesting throughout the entire game.
It's a very clear statement and based on fact not opinion.
When you get down to it, there aren't many features of a game that can be considered objective. I mean technological aspects are the main thing with very few other things that can be looked at objectively (which is the same for any other medium as well). Entertainment (and art) are very silly things when it comes down to it. It can easily be drivel to one person and one of the funnest experiences to another.
All opinion, stated as fact but not meant to be looked at as fact. xD
Nothing is meant to be patronizing, but I can see how the examples might read as that. Just trying to back up my point.
EDIT: I also think the original goal of the person who pointed out the opinions was to show that people need to support their arguments against this man's review specifically. Not just by saying that the Wither 2 is somehow factually '200% better' than DA2 and that the game is simply 'amazing' for the sake of amazing.
I like Dragon Age 2 more than I like The Witcher 2, that is my opinion. You like The Witcher 2 more, that's your opinion. None of us are more right than the other because it's just an opinion.Pandabearparade said:
Dragon Age 2 is better than Whe Witcher 2 in some things, and The Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2 in other things. It depends on what is more important to you in a game,
Again, it's not his opinion that is the problem here - I think hardly anyone cares whether Tito likes the game or whether he likes ice cream, he is not exactly important person in our lives, so the emotional aspect (eg. yay, he likes!) is irrelevant. The problem is that this opinion is hardly supported and without consistency (someone pointed out blaming W2 for things never even mentioned in DA2 review). And that's the thing you can't counter with "opinion excuse".sindremaster said:
The moment you write about "None of us are more right than the other because it's just an opinion." you choose to ignore the fact plenty of posts above are not about "just an opinion" - responding to them in this manner is pretty much like arguing with someone else.
And writing "It depends on what is more important to you in a game" means surrendering - that very phrase divides user reviews from professional reviews. Those professional ones should focus on things useful for every reader - not for "I want to see what Tito likes" group - and do this in consistent, diligent and honest manner.
I've seen different accusations so far: EA payroll, incompetence, consolitis - all are easy to counter, but that piece about reviewer being RPG vet and D&D player made me think about way easier solution. Laziness - either intelectual or plain, old-school laziness. The very reason people even dare to hide behind "I like! My opinion!" in the first place.
"The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a role-playing video game and a sequel to The Witcher, developed by Polish studio CD Projekt RED for Microsoft Windows and Xbox 360". (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_2:_Assassins_of_Kings) So...yeah, it is on Xbox 360 apparently.Keava said:
He did not once assert that such things broke immersion. Indeed, I would gather from his review that he has the same fundamental problem I have with the game: that, mechanically at least, this game is simply poorly made. This by no stretch makes it a bad game. I love the game, but it is in spite of mechanics that are openly hostile to the player.Grevensher said:
The developer created a game that is difficult because the governing mechanics are, in many ways, faulty - a problem exacerbated by an utter refusal to tell the player what they need to know in order to play the game. On the rare occasion information is offered, it is presented in obtuse a fashion as is possible. They delivered a game that was a disaster mechanically, a game that has schizophrenic pacing, a game that often seems to be actively demanding that I simply stop playing thanks to any of a dozen unforgivable sins and yet I played to the end and enjoyed it. It was a triumph of world building, it was a game that actually made choice matter (at least from time to time) and was one of the few games where I genuinely cared about the fake people that populated the world.
The Witcher 2 is that rare example of a game with terrible mechanics yet possesses a narrative so strong that it dragged me through all the unpleasant bits kicking and screaming.
That said, I am increasingly amused by all the people crawling out of the woodwork in order to defend design choices that are simply bad. I tend to think the cause of championing this game is better served not by lying and saying these problems do not exist but rather pointing out those things that were so good they made us overlook the frustrating and broken bits.
I think I'll just point out that you do your cause no justice when you attack Greg's argument by asserting he is unqualified and then offering no evidence to back such a claim or indicating how it's relevant to you initial argument. <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>Rhetorical fallacy will rarely sway anyone to your side.Abriael said:
Yeah, remember the keyword of my previous post was "Apparently", so it's possible it isn't 100% full-proof. But, you wanted to know why someone would think it's on Xbox 360 and i just gave you the answer. Regardless, likely guess is that it probably is the case that it will be revealed on 2nd of June or something. I'm not much of a witcher fan so i haven't been following it to closely (Don't hate it or anything, just isn't my thing is all).Keava said: