It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
avatar
Germanicanus: Everyone is entitled to their opinions. No need to take it personally or accuse them of being pro-BioWare or Bethesda fanboys. Furthermore, even the best assets of W2 (plot, choices, graphics) have their flaws. In my opinion, TW2 suffers from being perceived as overhyped , so I can understand why some critics can be particularly harsh with this game, as well some disappointed gamers, who thought TW2 is a second coming of cRPGs. As long as their criticism is valid and isn't about bashing for the sake of bashing, it's okay.
Yes I would say everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion but if you are a professional reviewer you should be fair and at the very least be competent enough to finish the game.
I don't think this DIck Naik likes fantasy settings.

The Tolkein-esque comment is baffling. For one, TW2's setting isn't very derivative of major fantasy media in lore or tone. For another, if this guy is hypersensitive to derivative universes he still loves Mass Effect 2...

He doesn't like the way the game asks the player to plan ahead and drink some potions before battle. I'm not crazy about the alchemical changes implemented in TW2, but one of the *good* things about the new system is the restrictions on mid-battle drinking...
i consider the reviewer a fool. not because of the score, but because of the points he used to justify it.

just so many things stupid and wrong about his reasoning. he's either a professional contrarian or an idiot, i'm gonna go with the latter since the implications are much funnier.
The guys at GameCritics have always been biased towards JRPGs and shooters. Doesn't matter how bad the JRPG is, it will get 7/10+

Western RPGs would be lucky to get a 6. Typical range is 2/10 to 5/10.

They also have a periodic podcast you can listen to. They REALLY don't like having choices in games, they feel like they are missing out of something large if they make the wrong choice. They like games where you are railroaded on a consistent path.
Post edited July 08, 2011 by astrallite
avatar
astrallite: The guys at GameCritics have always been biased towards JRPGs and shooters. Doesn't matter how bad the JRPG is, it will get 7/10+

Western RPGs would be lucky to get a 6. Typical range is 2/10 to 5/10.

They also have a periodic podcast you can listen to. They REALLY don't like having choices in games, they feel like they are missing out of something large if they make the wrong choice. They like games where you are railroaded on a consistent path.
Oh! That makes sense now, they are just retarded. Now I understand everything.
IGN and eurogamer both gave the game 9+/10 they are the only 2 sites that matter. gamespot sold out few years ago when they fired a reviewer for giving a correct review on a bad game. most other sites don't really matter. gamespot is worrying since it is a big site that is tied to gfaqs that gets alot of traffic.
avatar
Mad-E-Fact: Well now you've heard of them, and the only reason is that they gave TW2 55%.
This ^ 9000.

People need to learn that amonst many serious video game sites there are some bad sheep who give insane ratings - mostly of bad nature - to "stand out" and be discussed about.

Just like with trolls - ignore them. It's even easier with shitty sites like this GameC.... what was it again?
Let me summarized what Nair had to say:
1. Non-informative tutorial, leading to unnecessary deaths and leaving a bad first impression
- I agree with this, the tips in the prologue are sometimes given at the worst timing and some might miss out on the J for Journal tip which leads to major confusion.
- Although to be fair, if you have reviewed the keyboard control (I always do for every game I play, just to see what's out there you know) or read the manual (I don't do that often, since most of the other games have done a pretty good job with their in-game tutorials / help section), this is less of an issue.

2. Bad/shaky camera
- It can be pretty frustrating especially when you are engage in combat within tight quarters.
- But for the most part, I didn't feel it was a major issue.
- Shaky camera messes up your orientation, true, but it is a reasonable part of the challenge - not necessarily means that the camera is "bad" per se.

3. Hack 'n slash
- When you turn down the difficulty (to easy), enemies don't block anymore, hence it actually aggravates the hack 'n slash aspect.

4. Battle preparation
- Hey, Richard, you did use the word "preparation", so are you expecting to do all those things during a battle.
- Given that he recognizes the "try and die" aspect as well as the availability of bombs, I'm surprised he didn't try to stock up on bombs before battle.
- Also given that alchemy ingredients are weightless and available in large amounts, you can theoretically keep potion running all the time - although it can be a pain in the ass watching the 10-second animation again and again.

5. Sluggish action
- Kind of agree with this. I have documented (non-rigorously) some input lag, especially when you're trying to move (WASD) after every action (except after dodging).

6. Difficulty spikes and kiting
- Agree that when you are faced with a group of enemies things get messy pretty quick.
- There are a few ways around this though: bombs (he mentioned this), LMB to attack someone far away, using obstacles to split up larger groups, Axii, upgraded signs, etc.
- Admittedly, there is some kind of dodging around, but given that the reviewer enjoys "challenge", I'm surprised that he finds Geralt being unable to face multiple enemies straight on to be "nasty" and a failure of combat mechanics.

7. Problematic auto-targetting
- There's no defending this alright. Half the time I died because the target changed in a split second as I was about to LMB click on an enemy, leading Geralt to leap into the midst of a merry company of monsters.

8. Shades of gray and unique handling of player's choice
- Full agree with this. In other games, I feel like an asshole choosing an obviously "evil" path, but I don't feel so when making choices in TW2.

9. Bad narrative
- "Tolkien-esque fantasy slog": this is a very vague description. Does the reviewer mean:
a) You are flooded with so much details that can be overwhelming?
b) There are dwarves and elves like in LoTR?
c) The plot is similar to the plot of LoTR? First of all, there are so many things happening in LoTR (journeying through wastelands, defending against castle siege, fighting against an overwhelming powerful evil presence, turn of tides) it's hard to even say something is Tolkien-esque. Plus, TW2 focuses more on political intrigue than LoTR and has a different approach to the plots.
- "Assume... familiarity... regarding its details" - this is true in the beginning but as the game progresses most of the plot is self-contained, the part about Wild Hunt / Yen is supposed to be a cliffhanger - a hint of more to come, although one can also accuse it as being a "gap in exposition".

In conclusion, I disagree with the reviewers main negative criticisms. He seems to be unable to appreciate the challenge in the combat system as well as "the player doesn't know all" narrative approach of the game. Or, he understands those but are blowing the issues out of proportion.
Im disappointed in the review. I like gamecritics site and enjoy the podcasts but I will say that generally they are a pro console and pro anime style crowd. They arent into reading manuals, getting engrossed in the lore and all the paraphernalia of pc gaming- modding, overclocking, patching , basically they want to sit down press one button and play something fun.
avatar
brownybrown: Im disappointed in the review. I like gamecritics site and enjoy the podcasts but I will say that generally they are a pro console and pro anime style crowd. They arent into reading manuals, getting engrossed in the lore and all the paraphernalia of pc gaming- modding, overclocking, patching , basically they want to sit down press one button and play something fun.
they should stick with handhelds then. console games require alot of patching now too :P
Sounds to me like this guy would have a lot more fun playing Saviors of Queens.
avatar
Piluso: He's the same guy that gave the Witcher 1 a bad review and had not even finished it.
Hmm... he did indeed review TW1. His main argument that TW1 is a bad game is: a) you can't jump (!!!?); b) you can't choose everything in the conversation tree (?!??); and c) it's a generic, boring fantasy story (??!!). Now I don't mind scathing reviews if they make good arguments, but if those are his arguments it does cast a doubt on his credibility as a reviewer.

I'm just surprised the site allowed him to review TW2. You would've thought to get someone new to review it, to get a fresh perspective like.
After this review metacritic dropped to 87 :|
I'm with vAddicated....and honestly 55% would be a true score at release. I won't bother reading the article because I think that after the first two patches, that score should be somewhere around 80%, but be realistic, on day 1 of the launch would you have recommended the game to a friend with all the issues experienced. If you bought it day 1, how could you not be disappointed, whether it was overhype, lack of customizable controls, crashes. Based on day 1 release, the game although graphically beautiful was bad mechanically, I was upset and I was able to actually start it and run it for awhile before it crashed.

The fact is, review numbers like that should be given to any game that a company markets releases it before its done. Maybe that will change the behavior that production companies have of premature birthing of games, or company heads pushing out a game before release to avoid some financial hit for falling behind schedule. Analogy time, again if the company promises you a car that can go from 0 to 60mph in 4seconds, and delivers one that can do it in 15, can you honestly say you received what you paid for?

After a week of playing, I reviewed the game as a beautiful piece of work that doesn't work right and that until the major issues were addressed I couldn't recommend it to a friend. 1.2 gets me to the point I will recommend it, but I'd tell them to wait for 1.3 to come out. Just because you like the game or I don't like the game, its an objective view. Do I expect you to say just because I take this stance that you should as well? That would be ludicrous.

If the reviewer attempted to play the game 40 times over a week period and had 35 CTD, during his review process, no amount of beautiful graphics or sex scenes could make up for frustration caused by lost progress. Imagine doing the kayran 20 times, finally beat it, and when the cutscene comes, it crashes during the autosave and your stuck doing it all over and it might have been a fluke you beat it. That happened to me, the game had an extremely high learning curve at launch. The lag in controls keeps me from trying insane. No amount of practice is going to help when blocking an attack happens 6 second after you hit the key, and 4 seconds after you've already died. The problem here is that the mobs don't have to deal with the lag, and the lag isn't always there so its not just about adjusting timing as timing varies for each and every fight. Sometimes I'll have a load screen pop up during a fight only to drop and see the notice that I died during a load screen in the middle of a fight.

I won't defend what someone thinks is a preference or bias toward a style of game or specific companies, or what the reviewers beliefs on the story, but sometimes I wondered if the game was supposed to have a serious story or whether it was made to poke fun at the mainstream games. LotR, played heavily in the names and the mocking. Durins Bane was the reason the dwarves in Vergen closed their mine, there were quite a few swipes at the competition. Assassins Creed in the prologue, I'd have to go back through and make notes to find other game references, but they are there.

The problem with reviews and reviewers, there is no standard on how a game is rated. It's the reviewer's likes and dislikes and how the game appeals to him or her. Opinions are like a#%^oles, everyones got one, and they are usually full of $#it anyway.
When reviewers/commentators mention the sex scenes they nigh invariably use the term 'soft-core porn.'

Is that criticism or description?

Would they rather it be hard-core porn?

Do they not like sex scenes in games at all?

Or prefer fade to blacks with Enya music like in DA?

<confused>
Post edited July 09, 2011 by Szoreny