The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

[rsvp42]

The game has its flaws, but this review picked out few of the actual ones. There was a lot more nit-picking about difficulty and complexity than anything else, and these are not inherently bad things. When you give a game like DA2, in which you can literally auto-attack your way through every encounter on normal, a perfect score, it's pretty obvious what your preferred level of sophistication in games is.

Then don't play DA2 on normal. There are two levels above that and it's adjustable at any time.

 

[Baneat]

I had the same issues with the games, even posted on this forum and got dismissed as rtfml2pconsolescrub

People are unerringly blind to things if they choose to be.

But, cheers for the spoiler in the middle of the video!

But you basically are doing the same.

I'm blind? No! I just play games that challenging their audience much more than the Witcher 2. The castlevanias games for example (not the last one). You can acuse the developers to make nostalgics choices but call everyone that can play without problem blind?!

People that say that the problem doesn't exist are blind. People that force themselves past it anyway are people like me.

LOL.I probably invented this "Castlevania" thing in my process of deny. Such a crazy name anyway

The real problem is that the elements reintroduced are in there for the wrong reasons. Rose tinted glasses make you think that everything from earlier games was a good thing, and you bring back the good, with the utter shit. Lives are shit. cryptic quests are shit (We had to walk up and down ironforge with just one Alterac Cheese AND WE WERE THANKFUL), unfair difficulty is shit. Poor explanation is shit.

They brought it with all the good elements, when there was no reason for it.

 

[bob1052]

The game has its flaws, but this review picked out few of the actual ones. There was a lot more nit-picking about difficulty and complexity than anything else, and these are not inherently bad things. When you give a game like DA2, in which you can literally auto-attack your way through every encounter on normal, a perfect score, it's pretty obvious what your preferred level of sophistication in games is.

Then don't play DA2 on normal. There are two levels above that and it's adjustable at any time.

Then don't complain about difficulty of TW2 on hard. There are two levels below that and it's adjustable at any time.

 

[sunburst]

The fans of this series are way too defensive. Tons of people are all having the same problems but it can't possibly be an issue with the game. Nope, they must all be thickies who don't know how to read and probably couldn't tie their own shoes without a 2-hour tutorial.

Granted, I'd rather get thrown into battle without a clue than get stuck with the training wheels for 20 hours but that doesn't make it good design. The Witcher 2 is a great game despite its terrible decisions, not because the detractors are too stupid to understand the awesomeness.

And it's definitely better than Dragon Age 2 but that's hardly an accomplishment. DA2 is just bad.

 

[ThaBenMan]

So, you're pretty much saying - just read the books?

 

[Mangue Surfer]

Just saying. People complain about difficult, refuse to read manuals and now we have 20 hours tutorials, 20 HOURS! We have 4 hours games that crabs your hand for 40 minutes. For me, this is frustrating.

TWENTY HOURS!!!

20 hoooooouuuurssssssss!!!!!

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

just for the soundtrack i love The Witcher 2 !

 

[rsvp42]

The game has its flaws, but this review picked out few of the actual ones. There was a lot more nit-picking about difficulty and complexity than anything else, and these are not inherently bad things. When you give a game like DA2, in which you can literally auto-attack your way through every encounter on normal, a perfect score, it's pretty obvious what your preferred level of sophistication in games is.

Then don't play DA2 on normal. There are two levels above that and it's adjustable at any time.

Then don't complain about difficulty of TW2 on hard. There are two levels below that and it's adjustable at any time.

Touche. However, that means we can't assume how sophisticated someone likes their games based on that. The two simply have different definitions of "normal."

That being said, normal in TW2 isn't hard, but those first scenarios were the hardest normal I think I've ever played. You can't take many hits and the flow of combat should have been introduced in a better way. Heck, even a short separate tutorial would have been nice, something to explain the signs at least. I realize that figuring out fight mechanics isn't that hard, but many games do a great job of teaching how to play them by integrating it into an easier intro. This is a mixed criticism for me because on the one hand I like figuring out these things, but on the other I feel like I could have been prepared better and saved myself some time. No matter how you slice it, it's a tough intro for someone like me coming into the series fresh.

 

[Canadish]

Dragon Age 2 - 5 Stars
The Witcher 2 - 3 1/2 Stars?

Yeah okay, cool story bro.

Mr. Tito is obviously a VERY different kind of gamer then myself.

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

The game has its flaws, but this review picked out few of the actual ones. There was a lot more nit-picking about difficulty and complexity than anything else, and these are not inherently bad things. When you give a game like DA2, in which you can literally auto-attack your way through every encounter on normal, a perfect score, it's pretty obvious what your preferred level of sophistication in games is.

Then don't play DA2 on normal. There are two levels above that and it's adjustable at any time.

Then don't complain about difficulty of TW2 on hard. There are two levels below that and it's adjustable at any time.

Touche. However, that means we can't assume how sophisticated someone likes their games based on that. The two simply have different definitions of "normal."

That being said, normal in TW2 isn't hard, but those first scenarios were the hardest normal I think I've ever played. You can't take many hits and the flow of combat should have been introduced in a better way. Heck, even a short separate tutorial would have been nice, something to explain the signs at least. I realize that figuring out fight mechanics isn't that hard, but many games do a great job of teaching how to play them by integrating it into an easier intro. This is a mixed criticism for me because on the one hand I like figuring out these things, but on the other I feel like I could have been prepared better and saved myself some time. No matter how you slice it, it's a tough intro for someone like me coming into the series fresh.

Someone pointed out that it would be out of character for this badass Warmaster to have to go through a "and here's how you block" tutorial, so I was thinking - wouldn't it be cool if you started the game as some sort of neophyte recruit who was being GIVEN a lesson by *the* Geralt himself? That'd preserve Geralt as a wise experienced warrior while still introduce newbies to the game.

And then maybe the recruit gets killed and Geralt takes over, providing the player with an immediate emotional attachment to the game. I think it would have been a cool idea.

 

[tetron]

I pretty much agree with what he said about it. The game is really good and fun but combat is so painfully annoying. Overall the controls are clunky, you're likely to set off a trap by accidentally walking onto it when trying to disarm it. Not to mention that guarding and spells pulling from the same resource makes guarding all but useless, especially when fighting groups of enemies because you can't afford to just stand there. I've heard riposte is good but I went magic so idk.

The ability to lock on to an enemy would have improved the combat drastically, because it's really annoying to roll away from an attack and then try to turn and strike back only to have your character leap towards the guy at the back of a cluster of enemies, pretty much autodeath unless you do same fancy rolling.

That said the actual battles only get hard when some mechanic screws me over, such as I hit someone with the aard and it sends them flying towards me instead of away and once they collide with me they immediately start swinging. That said, fighting a group of enemies is the hardest part about this game, and it's mostly just kiting around hitting them with aard and one shotting whoever gets stunned, your flavor may differ since you can use bombs and stuff but still lots of kiting. 1on1 boss fights, that don't have something special you have to do, are as simple as spamming throwing daggers.

Overall the game has a weird difficulty. I can sense that it's trying to do it so you have to actually be tactical and fight like someone who isn't god of all creation, but the combat system just doesn't have the fluidity and precision to accommodate that.

That's not to say the game isn't amazing, and to me it's only a lock-on system and some combat balancing away from being perfect. Contrary to what this reviewer says, everyone seems to be more badass than Geralt. They just don't have spells and potions.

Edit: I guess I should note that I play this game with a 360 controller. Idk how targeting goes with mouse/keyboard but it shouldn't matter since it has in game support for the gamepad.

 

[bob1052]

The game has its flaws, but this review picked out few of the actual ones. There was a lot more nit-picking about difficulty and complexity than anything else, and these are not inherently bad things. When you give a game like DA2, in which you can literally auto-attack your way through every encounter on normal, a perfect score, it's pretty obvious what your preferred level of sophistication in games is.

Then don't play DA2 on normal. There are two levels above that and it's adjustable at any time.

Then don't complain about difficulty of TW2 on hard. There are two levels below that and it's adjustable at any time.

Touche. However, that means we can't assume how sophisticated someone likes their games based on that. The two simply have different definitions of "normal."

That being said, normal in TW2 isn't hard, but those first scenarios were the hardest normal I think I've ever played. You can't take many hits and the flow of combat should have been introduced in a better way. Heck, even a short separate tutorial would have been nice, something to explain the signs at least. I realize that figuring out fight mechanics isn't that hard, but many games do a great job of teaching how to play them by integrating it into an easier intro. This is a mixed criticism for me because on the one hand I like figuring out these things, but on the other I feel like I could have been prepared better and saved myself some time. No matter how you slice it, it's a tough intro for someone like me coming into the series fresh.

If you look at the four dialog options at the very start of the game you get:

"The morning, the king summoned me."
"The assault."
"What ultimately happened to the dragon?"
"We split up at the monastery."

If you look at them it is immediately obvious that the first one starts at the beginning, and the next three all refer to things you have no idea about.

What assault is happening? What dragon is involved? When did we go to a monastery?

Choosing the morning, which part of the impossible to see through deception is listed as the first option, defines the assault and provides tidbits on the dragon, leaving you at the top of a siege tower awaiting the assault to begin.

That leads you to the next logical, chronological, and amazingly, the second choice on the list: "The assault". The first battle you get in is a skirmish in which you walk around with no enemies swinging at you, instead they are all preoccupied with other combatants and you, along with the tool tips that, according to the review you die if you even glance at them, but really you have as long as you need with them in this no danger situation, can practice all you want chopping enemies down from behind. You then go through progressively increased difficulty fights, starting with two enemies as soon as you drop off the wall. Then you face an knight in full plate and a guard with a shield and eventually you reach the so man in charge.

Spoiler

Although you don't need to kill him depending on your choices, he is still a good challenge. Combat training if you choose, or the first real opportunity to let loose the dialog choice option in full

After completing the assault you have the few tidbits about the dragon you picked up earlier, but no clue about any monastery, so the next logical choice appears to be the dragon. This ends at the monastery and guess which choice you have left.

The idea that this prologue is cryptic and in need of Dan Brown (note: he doesn't actually write good mysteries, he just makes them so incoherent and twisting needlessly and endlessly but still) to properly decode and that it doesn't serve as a proper tutorial is bullocks.

 

[Mr. Socky]

I honestly thought thought that The Witcher 2 was an amazing, but incredibly flawed title. The story was amazing, but the ending was possibly the worst I've ever seen in any form of media with a story. The preparation before combat was a cool idea, but the crafting and alchemy systems were... iffy, at best. The combat was great, but a lot of the complexity isn't explained to you towards the start of the game, and towards the end you're so powerful it doesn't matter even on hard. On the other hand, there's something that The Witcher 2 just gets right. Even if the combat ranges from ridiculously hard to insanely easy, it remains reasonably fun throughout. And the atmosphere is amazing.
I'll admit, I love both Dragon Age games as well. Dragon Age 2 was a good game that had some serious, serious problems. The Witcher 2 is similar in this respect, in my opinion. It has a lot of brilliant points, and some terrible ones. However, I would also say that the Witcher 2's main issues could probably be patched out with a bunch of balance tweaks and making sure that crafting items don't have weight or something to fix inventory space problems.

That's not to say the game isn't amazing, and to me it's only a lock-on system and some combat balancing away from being perfect. Contrary to what this reviewer says, everyone seems to be more badass than Geralt. They just don't have spells and potions.

The lock on is left Alt. It's pretty buggy, but hopefully that helps. I believe they do tell you that in-game, but it's another one of the tutorial messages that pops up in the middle of a fight. It's surprisingly hard to read and swordfight at the same time.

 

[bob1052]

Someone pointed out that it would be out of character for this badass Warmaster to have to go through a "and here's how you block" tutorial, so I was thinking - wouldn't it be cool if you started the game as some sort of neophyte recruit who was being GIVEN a lesson by *the* Geralt himself? That'd preserve Geralt as a wise experienced warrior while still introduce newbies to the game.

And then maybe the recruit gets killed and Geralt takes over, providing the player with an immediate emotional attachment to the game. I think it would have been a cool idea.

Based off the ending of the first, and Geralt's current situation in the second, that really isn't possible.

Spoiler: The first hour, unimportant but still a spoiler so I won't force you to read this

He helped King Foltest many, many times. Saving his daughter from the curse of the Striga in the intro cinematic to the first game, helping him many times throughout the first game, and at the start of the second Geralt is essentially Foltest's personal body guard. Geralt even says that Foltest thinks him his "good luck charm".

He doesn't really have any time to be training a recruit

 

[NLS]

Haven't tried the game and not sure if I'll ever have the time and money to get my hands on it, but DAMN those combat animations looked nice!

 

[rsvp42]

Someone pointed out that it would be out of character for this badass Warmaster to have to go through a "and here's how you block" tutorial, so I was thinking - wouldn't it be cool if you started the game as some sort of neophyte recruit who was being GIVEN a lesson by *the* Geralt himself? That'd preserve Geralt as a wise experienced warrior while still introduce newbies to the game.

And then maybe the recruit gets killed and Geralt takes over, providing the player with an immediate emotional attachment to the game. I think it would have been a cool idea.

That's why I figure it should be optional if it were just a regular tutorial. And if not that, then just scale the fight difficulty down in the beginning. It's just getting easier so far and I know it's simply because I didn't know how to fight in the beginning. To me, the idea that some badass Witcher is getting killed over and can barely handle a few hits is worse than the prospect of a tutorial. I just wanted to get up to speed without having to see that damn 'load from last save' screen so many times.

 

[DannibalG36]

Let me say this: the Witcher 2 was this year's juicy bone thrown to hardcore RPG enthusiasts. Some Escapists might call me an elitist, but I am glad that this game does not pull any punches with difficulty.

Perhaps I should also note that the portion of the game after the prologue isn't easier than the prologue itself - it just seems that way because the prologue really, really unforgiving. The difficulty curve isn't fucked - it just sets the bar really high to begin with.

Also, I now think that Tito is a wuss.

 

[rsvp42]

snip

I did play them in that order, but there's no reason to be able to do them out of order except for the token sense of choice it gives, which is ultimately meaningless. Why did we need choice there? But since I was never told what the signs did or what their significance was in a fight and I knew they shared vigor with blocking, I never did the solo fights properly. The very first solo fight against the guys at the ballista was really tough because I was just using Igni and Aard. It was possible to get attacked by way more guys than I knew how to handle at once (and no those first fights at the wall teach you nothing but how to right and left click). Now I feel stupid for not using other signs, but I had to learn all that through sheer attrition. It wasn't until I was being killed repeatedly by Scoia'tel during that one quest outside Flotsam that I finally learned how to handle 3-4 attackers at once.

It's not a game-ruiner in the slightest, but it could have been balanced a lot better. The problem was not the difficulty level, it was that I didn't know what to do.

Here's something DA2 did really well, actually. The idea of giving a short tutorial in the beginning and making it part of Varric's exaggerated storytelling was a really clever way to handle introducing the combat.

 

[Akihiko]

Oh the joys of the wars over witcher 2's difficulty. Never gets tiring.

My problem with the game wasn't the lack of tutorial really, as Demon's Souls also threw you in without much to go on. I think what annoyed me most was, unlike Demon's Souls(Which I really enjoyed the combat for, by the way, so it isn't about not liking difficulty), roll and guard feel so unresponsive at the start of the game. Admittedly they do improve with talents, but it wasn't necessary to nerf roll and guard so much for the beginning so that talents could improve it. Demon's Souls managed to be genuinly challenging with a working roll and guard.

Other than that I'm genuinly enjoying the game so far. Don't mind the UI, other than the fact it's awfully slow, though todays patch did improve it slightly. That said todays patch also broke the analog sticks slightly, now they can't be used in menu's. Just hope thats fixed in the next patch. The story and characters are interesting, the locations are amazing, and overall I'm loving it, despite the minor annoyance at the start of the game.