The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

[beastrn]

If there were valid critisisms or eye-opening game design perception there wouldn't be an issue and the game could get 7/10'd everywhere for all I care.

Problem is the only reason these people can come up with is "it's too hard" or "my hand wasn't held enough" - the reason for this is because they are bad at games and have been raised on 30-hour tutorials and don't know anything about video games.

Surely, even an unreasonable person, can understand why that rubs logical people the wrong way.

 

[John Funk]

If there were valid critisisms or eye-opening game design perception there wouldn't be an issue and the game could get 7/10'd everywhere for all I care.

Problem is the only reason these people can come up with is "it's too hard" or "my hand wasn't held enough" - the reason for this is because they are bad at games and have been raised on 30-hour tutorials and don't know anything about video games.

Surely, even an unreasonable person, can understand why that rubs logical people the wrong way.

Right now, you are doing anything but being logical. And with that sort of attitude and tone you will not last very long on these forums. Just an FYI.

 

[Grey_Focks]

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.

Hmm, something to ponder over indeed. Personally, I think that a professional reviewer SHOULD keep their personal bias in their review. Not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye with the general opinion on most things, and games like DA2 and TW2 are perfect examples of this. Every review really shouldn't just be a copy-pasta of all the others for everything out there, which is really what they would be if everyone were to just remove their feelings from said reviews. Having someone actually put their personal opinions and preferences for a game into their review, I think, is really quite important, because undoubtedly there will be some people who like the same types of games as that reviewer, and some who don't share their preferences at all.

"That's the point of user reviews! Professional reviews should be just that, professional!"

Indeed they should, but being professional doesn't mean keeping your own opinions out of the review, if anything, it should mean the opposite, just doing it well. It should mean being able to criticize something without just bashing it or insulting it, but instead pointing out individual problems, and what they should've done instead. It means being able to point out what the game does right, without just mindlessly praising it.

Really, I think professional reviews should be a balance of giving the reviewers actual opinion on a game/movie/book/whatever, while still being able to look at it from someone else's viewpoint. Every critic just giving one uniform score across the board really doesn't help anyone, since we all have varying tastes, and if they truly removed their own opinions from them, there really would be no point. To help, I think all reviewers should have some sort of article/page listing what their preferences are, so that way we know if their tastes are similar to our own, then we can judge whether the review is for us accordingly, which is actually kinda what The Escapist does (why they all have unique GOTY lists and whatnot), so I say they just keep doing what they're doing, and I actually hope more sites follow suit...and for all I know they do, since I really don't go on any other "game news" site, other than occasionally kotaku, and even then I never really read the reviews.

Forgive me if this makes little sense or if I rambled a bit, it's been a veeeeery long day/evening of work.

 

[rsvp42]

No, resvp42, you're wrong. Banter is a cheap alternative to anything actually substantial.

Also in DA2 due to terrible design, most of the time the banter is cancled due to scripted events, fights, or simply because there are loading screens every 5 seconds.

Not opinion, fact. Thus your opinion is wrong. Thus we can make judgments on the quality of your opinion.

Banter is characters talking to each other and you'll notice in the game that the banter actually progresses and is changed by in-game events. BioWare does banter very well. Character development isn't just about major plot points or cutscenes, it's about how characters relate to each other and idle conversation is an important part of that.

You can judge my opinion on character development, but don't call it wrong because you disagree. You are no expert on the subject, I presume.

 

[rsvp42]

What I am saying is that maybe someone ELSE should of reviwed this game.
I mean its not fair on Greg to be thrown into the big boys pool when he hasn't learnt to swim.

You know, there are a lot of really glowing reviews out there for the Witcher 2. You can always read those and get some good vibes. This one wasn't really a bad review, he was just calling it out on some things that frustrated him. Doesn't mean he didn't like it or couldn't play out of incompetence. I don't know why everyone expects all reviews to be the same.

 

[beastrn]

No, resvp42, you're wrong. Banter is a cheap alternative to anything actually substantial.

Also in DA2 due to terrible design, most of the time the banter is cancled due to scripted events, fights, or simply because there are loading screens every 5 seconds.

Not opinion, fact. Thus your opinion is wrong. Thus we can make judgments on the quality of your opinion.

Banter is characters talking to each other and you'll notice in the game that the banter actually progresses and is changed by in-game events. BioWare does banter very well. Character development isn't just about major plot points or cutscenes, it's about how characters relate to each other and idle conversation is an important part of that.

You can judge my opinion on character development, but don't call it wrong because you disagree. You are no expert on the subject, I presume.

You're right to some degree. Bioware DID do banter well. They don't anymore, however. This is proven in Dragon Age 2 and most of Dragon Age.

I also agree with you that character development isn't just about major plot points. However, in Dragon Age 2 Bioware completely relied on the "banter" for all forms of character progression. It failed miserably. Poorly delivered. Random interjections. No character whatsoever.

Banter is meant to be the icing on the cake, not the entire cake.

Oh, an, I am an expert. Probably the most expertious player on the entire internet.

 

[Omnific One]

Ah the Escapist... Bioware fanboys to the end... even the editors.

Dragon Age II- Escapist: 100% Metacritic: 79%
Witcher 2- Escapist: 70% Metacritic: 89%

Jesus Christ, you guys really need to get those freaking nostalgia glasses off.

As Skyrim isn't made by BW, I'm calling the Escapist giving it between a 60 and 80%.

The Rasmussen of RPG reviews. Congrats on the title.

Metacritic can be trusted. Also witcher 2 has less than 1/2 the reviews that dragon age 2 does. I disagree with Tito too, the game is perfect and just isn't for the casuals. PC is the bestest of all the consoles EVAR! It has no bugs, it doesn't re-use anything, and the inventory is easy to manage if you're not a noob. That light attack, heavy attack sword system is too deep for people.

Did I say it was perfect? No.

Did I make any reference as to my personal opinion, beyond stating that the Escapist favors Bioware? No. You are extrapolating, and poorly at that.

All I noted was the massive discrepancy, nothing more.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

This review was done professionally, it stated its opinion, and it did not attack anyone.

If you want a reason to get mad at somebody, look at this video.

 

[danhere]

Clunky interface? Poor pacing?

I thought they'd learn from the first game. :|

I guess I'll have to see. If I can get through the first game (still never have even though I bought it a good 3 years ago!), I'll get this one. Otherwise, meh.

 

[tautologico]

So much fanboy rage...

Funny fact that surely no one cares about: what convinced me to buy The Witcher was the Zero Punctuation review. It trashed the game, but at that point in time I already knew Yahtzee's biases, so I expected to really like it, by what I saw in the video.

I guess I don't really care if a reviewer or critic gives a low score for a game I like. People have different opinions, who knew?

 

[infohippie]

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.

Now that sounds like an excellent idea!
I'm a huge fan of The Witcher - both games and Sapkowski's writing - but I do agree at least in part with this review. There should have been better explanation given for some things.
I also have a couple of gripes of my own. Don't think I'm hating on the game, though. I loved it, it's easily one of the best games I've played in recent years. I just think it could have been even better.

Firstly, it's too short. Three chapters, with the third chapter being considerably shorter than the first two? I would have liked it to be at least five chapters, all of them at least as long as the first. Maybe CDPR will address this with expansions, as long as they're done better than the "bonus missions" from the first game's Enhanced Edition.

Second, I wasn't all that keen on the storyline. (Although I haven't finished chapter three yet, so I don't know how things will end up with Yennefer, Triss and the Wild Hunt.) I don't like seeing Geralt get so mixed up in politics. I'd rather a game where he traveled from town to town doing witcher's work. Kill some spriggans that have moved into an abandoned mineshaft, investigate the disappearance of local fishermen at night and eliminate the drowners that turn out to be responsible. Perhaps a village suffers from some supernatural manifestation like the Barghests in the first game and you need to investigate firstly what is happening, then why it's happening, followed by who might be responsible and if they're even aware of it before even starting to figure out what to do about it. Maybe this needs some kind of twist so it doesn't get boring, but I'd rather play Geralt being a witcher than him getting involved in the follies of monarchs. Some investigative work could be really interesting if implemented right. I thought the first game had a much better overall plot, with the exception of chapter five's fighting in Vizima.

Third, and most important to my own enjoyment, I thought the alchemy had been far too simplified. I know it's not really a big part of the original lore but I thought it worked very well in the first game, and I miss that. There are no longer secondary effects possible and you don't have to find alcohol of various purities to use as a potion base. You can't just experiment to come up with potions you may not have researched yet and you can't just drink unidentified potions to see what they do. Potions and the associated toxicity also last far too short a time. I would have preferred to see alchemy made much more complex for the second game, rather than simplifying it as it was.

 

[drisky]

It seems to me that a lot of people here are just complaining about the number differences between the reviews. Witcher 2 lost points because the it is not for every one, they are letting people know that the system is complicated and under-explained. You know your self weather or not that is a deal breaker, so if the flaws pointed out aren't things you consider flaws, then you ignore that part of the review. Don't just look at the score, look at the positives and negatives presented to you and decide for your self if they are what you want/can deal with.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Hard to take a review seriously from the guy that gave Dragon Age 2 a perfect score.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Good God, if the fanboys are getting this butthurt over this review, calling it and claiming it was nitpicking, nonprofessional, I can't wait until when Yahtzee reviews it, where the entire point is nitpicking and all pretense of professionalism is thrown out the window...

I mean damn, I've never seen fanboys get so absolutely butthurt as a result of a review, insulting the reviewer, saying that someone else should have done it, blaming another game, blaming gaming in general... damn.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Ah the Escapist... Bioware fanboys to the end... even the editors.

Dragon Age II- Escapist: 100% Metacritic: 79%
Witcher 2- Escapist: 70% Metacritic: 89%

Jesus Christ, you guys really need to get those freaking nostalgia glasses off.

As Skyrim isn't made by BW, I'm calling the Escapist giving it between a 60 and 80%.

The Rasmussen of RPG reviews. Congrats on the title.

Metacritic can be trusted. Also witcher 2 has less than 1/2 the reviews that dragon age 2 does. I disagree with Tito too, the game is perfect and just isn't for the casuals. PC is the bestest of all the consoles EVAR! It has no bugs, it doesn't re-use anything, and the inventory is easy to manage if you're not a noob. That light attack, heavy attack sword system is too deep for people.

Did I say it was perfect? No.

Did I make any reference as to my personal opinion, beyond stating that the Escapist favors Bioware? No. You are extrapolating, and poorly at that.

All I noted was the massive discrepancy, nothing more.

Did I say you did make a reference to your personal opinion? No. You are extrapolating, and poorly at that.

All I noted was that other commentors, not having to be you as you were not mentioned, didn't like the game. Nothing more.