Felix Arturo Macias Ibarra said:
You mean you didnt see the flashing 'push the right mouse button to duck' Key?
I died there 3 times myself but its not hard to left click run right click and run some more.
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
You mean you didnt see the flashing 'push the right mouse button to duck' Key?
I died there 3 times myself but its not hard to left click run right click and run some more.
I was playing on Normal and had a lot of trouble at first. This was because I'm used to games at least explaining their combat system. It doesn't have to be mandatory. I would have loved an optional tutorial for players like myself who didn't play the first one.maddhatter190 said:
I sided with:bob1052 said:
The damaged humans, and the ass hole spy = P. I thought I could do more help while working within the system. A messenger guy shows up before you leave saying that he's a jerk, but he's patriotic. Plus, my game got messed up and I saw that Iorveth immediately says he won't help you find triss after you defeat letho, or something to that affect. I'm trying to break the curse while working with the king. I don't think Iorveth is doing that, he was on the other side of the place where the wind is.
Soviet Heavy said:
If all a review is is someone's opinion of a game then Little Big Planet and Heavy Rain, Halo and Starcraft are 1 out of 10.True they some people get hot headed when they see a game they know themselfs as being good get a low score.So if this said reviewer did have trouble with the game he could very well give it a shit score cause of that.I mean wouldn't you cry foul if someone give Batman Arkam Asylum a 2 out of 5?
As soon as I saw this review was by Greg Tito I thought, "Uh oh, incoming shitstorm of people berating him for giving Dragon Age 2 five stars".
I may not think 5 stars is a fair assessment of DA2, but the kind of elitism used to defend The Witcher 2 against reviews that are actually quite positive (3.5 on a 5 point scale is not a bad game, for christ's sake) is just astonishing. "This game was clearly made for hardcore masochists like myself and that makes it perfect."
Barbara Cartland novels may be designed for bored housewives, but if you're going to use that argument to call them perfect I'm going to have to laugh myself to death.
I may not think 5 stars is a fair assessment of DA2, but the kind of elitism used to defend The Witcher 2 against reviews that are actually quite positive (3.5 on a 5 point scale is not a bad game, for christ's sake) is just astonishing. "This game was clearly made for hardcore masochists like myself and that makes it perfect."
Barbara Cartland novels may be designed for bored housewives, but if you're going to use that argument to call them perfect I'm going to have to laugh myself to death.
rsvp42 said:
The combat is totally different in wither 1.Its basically just chain clicking on a target wile switching stances.The Witcher 2s combat was shown off many times in trailers.There is also the manual for the game.Or do people even read those anymore.Even the digital version got one just have to download it.
DA2 was a POS deal with it... Witcher 2 is superior in MANY ways. You actually have to figure out things yourself, not like most of today's games that are for a wider audience. That said, I can't care less about that review, as it's his own personal opinion, and I respect it. As for me, it's one of the best RPGs I've ever played.sravankb said:
It's interesting to see how this review panned out and it's even more interesting to see people's responses to this.
I think most of all what this does is make us question the nature of so-called 'professional' (paid, journalistic, critical) reviews. Someone earlier in the thread plugged Jim Sterling and his Jimquisition on reviewer bias. Jim puts forward a convincing argument in that shouldn't be subject to abuse just because his ideas are not in line with metacritic and that his subjective view goes against the 'objective agreement'. The reason i say reviews like this (and indeed, reviewers like Sterling) question the nature of professional reviewing is whether or not such things should be entirely objective or entirely subjective.
Here in this review, Greg gave the game a 3.5 / 5 because it wasn't really his thing, he wasn't comfortable with the combat. But he liked the world and the story. Similarly, Jim Sterling also gave The Witcher a low 6 / 10 because of issues he had with the game. Yet the general consensus from Metacritic and other 'professional' review sites is one of high praise, around the 9 / 10 mark. Because they are in the majority we can assume (rightly or wrongly) that they make up the objective opinion. Does this mean reviewers like Greg Tito and Jim Sterling should be trashed for stating outright that something wasn't their cup of tea, that it's not something they personally enjoy? After all, if they say they don't enjoy it and mark it down severely because of that, it's giving people a false impression that the game won't be fun for everyone - not just the reviewer. However, i can respect the integrity of reviewers like Greg and Jim for stating their opinion and going against the general agreed consensus by saying that they didn't like it and it wasn't for them. However, part of me feels like it is the professional reviewer's responsibility to be as objective as possible and not include any subjective opinion as that is generally all that separates the professionals from the public. Without objectivity professional reviews here will be no different from the user reviews, and at that point i have to question the validity of said professional reviews and whether they are even necessary in the first place and what qualifies them to be regarded as professional.
It's a conundrum and one well worth philosophising over. It might even make for an interesting poll. Just two options and a question asking whether you value subjectivity or objectivity in professionalism.
I think most of all what this does is make us question the nature of so-called 'professional' (paid, journalistic, critical) reviews. Someone earlier in the thread plugged Jim Sterling and his Jimquisition on reviewer bias. Jim puts forward a convincing argument in that shouldn't be subject to abuse just because his ideas are not in line with metacritic and that his subjective view goes against the 'objective agreement'. The reason i say reviews like this (and indeed, reviewers like Sterling) question the nature of professional reviewing is whether or not such things should be entirely objective or entirely subjective.
Here in this review, Greg gave the game a 3.5 / 5 because it wasn't really his thing, he wasn't comfortable with the combat. But he liked the world and the story. Similarly, Jim Sterling also gave The Witcher a low 6 / 10 because of issues he had with the game. Yet the general consensus from Metacritic and other 'professional' review sites is one of high praise, around the 9 / 10 mark. Because they are in the majority we can assume (rightly or wrongly) that they make up the objective opinion. Does this mean reviewers like Greg Tito and Jim Sterling should be trashed for stating outright that something wasn't their cup of tea, that it's not something they personally enjoy? After all, if they say they don't enjoy it and mark it down severely because of that, it's giving people a false impression that the game won't be fun for everyone - not just the reviewer. However, i can respect the integrity of reviewers like Greg and Jim for stating their opinion and going against the general agreed consensus by saying that they didn't like it and it wasn't for them. However, part of me feels like it is the professional reviewer's responsibility to be as objective as possible and not include any subjective opinion as that is generally all that separates the professionals from the public. Without objectivity professional reviews here will be no different from the user reviews, and at that point i have to question the validity of said professional reviews and whether they are even necessary in the first place and what qualifies them to be regarded as professional.
It's a conundrum and one well worth philosophising over. It might even make for an interesting poll. Just two options and a question asking whether you value subjectivity or objectivity in professionalism.
I honestly wouldn't care if they did. That's their choice, and if they don't want to play a game because they feel it is shit, then more power to them. Am I going to suddenly start attacking you because you don't like Halo while I do? No, because I don't have any more right to tell you what to like than the person I was quoting.IamGamer41 said:
You can disagree without needing to attack somebody's integrity for having a different opinion. If Tito didn't enjoy the gameplay, well there isn't much anyone can do about that but him. That isn't a basis to say he is an ignorant fuckwit who is an idiot for not seeing things the same way.
Right right.that part I pretty much bum rushed to the end.One one thing I didnt like was with all the commotion I didn't here the dialog from the characters.
He likes Mount and Blade [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/events/summerpicks2010/7828-The-Escapist-Staffs-Summer-Picks-Greg]. That alone invalidates all of your little whining.beastrn said:
Gaming *has* moved forward. I grew up on old-school PC gaming, but a lot of those choices that we've ditched? They actually kind of sucked, looking back at it.
But if I gave reasons for why I didn't enjoy a game, such as a clunky interface or unoptimized controls, would me stating those reasons be met with the same reaction?Gralian said:
If I said that Halo felt too floaty and loose in the controls department, would I still be ignored by merit of me not being a professional critic? This review stated that he had troubles with the interface, and that he did not find the controls intuitive. Yet like the Halo example, it is purely subjective. Whereas some might find the controls just right, others might not feel the same way.
The story is what it is. Because you didn't enjoy it doesn't make it not a story. And actually, interesting banter IS interesting characters. How characters interact with each other is 80% of what makes up their personality. Anyone with a general understanding of writing, acting, or character design knows that.sta697 said: