Review The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Review

Click here and disable ads!

But isn't the Witcher 2 basically an action/adventure game with some stats? Arrghh

Good review brother none, it sums up my feelings on the game as well and better than i could in english.
I dont understand t why the sudden bashing of witcher 2, about its linearity.Of course its not freeroaming but its nothing worse than gothics, or bloodline , its a damn computer game everything is scripted. I only see new vegas doing better recently . Else we must go back in the 2000 and 90's even there you can count them on one hand.
What would you choose as best rpg of 2011 instead ?

Are we talking "best RPG in a game" or "best game labelled RPG", though?
W2 may qualify for the latter, in spite its glaring flaws. But the only one I'd give any credit to is the former and there's just nothing there I can think of for 2011 (Something on the indie horizon I'm not aware of, perhaps? Is AoD coming out some Thursday, this year?).

In fact (and I'm not addressing you specifically, Mortmal), what's so horrifying about not having an RPG of the year, every year, that everyone feels the irresistible urge in their bowels to stick that label on anything that floats? It's a bloody marketing shill you'd think at least the Codex wouldn't give into.
Best RPG of 2011? None. There, I said it. See? Wasn't that painful.

What makes a game an RPG?

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying

Being able to romance anyone you want.

Nope. But as far as I know, quotation marks indicate a quote or, well, sarcasm, which you should know everything about For some reason that didn't carry over well, my bad.

I'm not taking it personally, I just don't see the point. No one is pretending reviews is a science, it seems pretty clear that it's personal opinions.

Well, Gothic is better at freeroaming, and Bloodlines at writing. The point stands though. It's not a freeroaming game, but it's not the worst linear game ever either.

Yeah. There's a couple of NPCs CDP was determined to keep alive. Triss, Dandelion, Zoltan, Roche and Iorveth. That's ok to some extent, in narrative-heavy RPGs some NPCs will always be unkillable, especially if it's an ongoing series.

But my question to CDP is then: why do you include them in choices so much? Triss is unkillable, so why do I even bump into "save Triss" missions? If I stop and think for a moment, I know she'll survive. Even if I don't, I'll find out about it later when trying the alternative. That kind of takes the impact out of the missions where your choice really should have more impact on the other NPCs, including Triss, Roche and Iorveth. It's not ideal design.

Unless we have no RPGs at all in a year, don't we have a "best" RPG by definition? "Best" isn't an absolute valuation.

BN taking it easy and abiding. I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that, knowin' he's out there. BN. Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners. Shoosh. I sure hope he makes the finals.

Ah ! you cant argue against that! look what i found, now tell me witcher 2 dont qualify!



"This was not just set by Gary Gygax the Creator of the First Roleplay Gaming System and Founder of Roleplay Gaming. This was also set and determined by all of the True Roleplay Gamers throughout the world millions on millions people who actually truly understand the concept of what is and what is not a roleplay game . Yes there is roleplaying which is not the same . When it comes to the term in this context they are refered to as Interactive storytelling NOT RPG's. Gary the Founder of Roleplay Gaming clearly defined the difference between the two .

Most of us true gamers those who dedicated a lifetime to creating and promoting rpgs find it highly offensive to see this sites who call themselves RPG's . When they are nothing more then a collection of Interactive storytellings . I am not trying to be mean or rude to anyone , but I am trying to get people to understand the difference between the two . There are not different types of difinitions of RPG's . There is only one definition of it, and if something lacks the key basic elements of an rpg. It is not an rpg . It is an acting site or interactive storytelling system. Not and RPG.

The Basic Most Key Elements of an RPG:
________________________________

1. A character sheets with clearly defined stats

2.dice or percentage generators in the case of WoW etc. An Outside neutral source that creates randomness. Randomness can not be created by the players.

3.Clearly defined by points or dice strength and weaknesses of a character. Level progression through experience points or gained points through quests etc. These Quests must be ran by a Game Master a neutral party. A Player can not decide what happens and does not happen to his character. The Player can only make choices in the quest like go left , right try to unlock a chest etc. They Game Master tells them what is before them , and if they try attempt to unlock a locked cheast etc. There is a dice roll , or percentage for success in the case of WoW or other online games .

4.In an RPG if a character get eating by say a dragon. The player has no control over that. he made a choice getting himself into that situation. He got eaten by the dragon. Since there is no body left the even attempt a ressurection they character is dead. Dragons etc need not the permission of the creator of a character to eat them or kill them. That is the monsters function in the rpg to try to kill the adventurers .

I post this due to my high respect for the Memory of Gary Gygax and all of those Game Creators that have followed. I hope that this helps people understand the difference between Roleplay Gaming and Interactive storytelling. As I said I am not being rude nor offensive. I am just trying to get people to understand the difference between the two. I myself have dedicated 28 plus years of my life to Roleplay Gaming I have become sort of an Expert on the Term. As I said Roleplay Gaming is an Extreme passion for me. It is part of who i am , and a hope that I have helped some people understand the difference .


There is nothing wrong with Interactive storytelling. However it is Not an RPG ."

Very well written review BN , but your Bethesduh fanboism is getting tiring.

Where is this great writing in Bloodlines that people here keep talking about?

No idea. There's nothing "great" about it, the plot was specially bad and full of inconsistencies.

Could be because not everyone (like 'few ever') read what that Hunted guy said, but I'm just guessing.
Anyway, I'm dropping this.

Well, to be on a serious side, a lot of people expect "reviews" to be at least somewhat objective. It may not be a completely reasonable expectation, but that's how they take it. It isn't literary value people look for in "reviews" (at least, the non-lulzy ones), but well layed-out solid info to make a decision.
It's not the most sound arrangement, but I doubt this is news to you.

Hence, the "to make them sound more like they're talking out of their asses when they actually do". In other words, to lose perceived credence when there's none to be had. Because, really, the assumption that everyone knows "reviews" to be nothing more than personal opinions is pretty much a lie of omission on the part of the reviewer. Sure, we do, more or less, but you wouldn't want to remind the trusting ones of that all the time - it just wouldn't be smart.

I'm a strong believer that for one to be "best" at something, they have to be at least "good" at it. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a farce.
And if you absolutely have to have some kind of special olympics, then why not make it "Worst ... of the Year". "Least Bad" is also sort of an option.

I've always thought that game reviews have both an objective and subjective component. A review should contain all the information that the reader would like to know about the game (setting, story, game mechanics, changes if it's part of a series, the technical aspect, performance issues), which is the objective part, as well as an opinion on how all these elements are implemented and if they gel together to form a quality game (the subjective part).

In this case you can read a review and get all the necessary information to make an informed decision, even if you disagree with the subjective part.

The description: "Brother None shortly after hearing about the discontinuation of the Prisoner of Ice LP."

Really? Do point them out, I'm curious. Also, characters.

Sure.

First of all, the whole plot follows an horribly boring theme, a good VTM story follows sect politics and fight for territory, instead the writers went with this supernatural wild goose chase.

Unless of course, you count working for Lacroix no matter what is your allegiange as 'sect politics' (can't even join the Sabbat, which is retarded as a plot involving antediluvians would be much more interesting on their side). And then you're forced to look around for that damn coffin, and then find the key for the megalomaniacal prince. All this for no reason other than the game forcing you in that direction.

Even if you expose the prince as a the maniacal diablerist he is, you're still forced to work for him. Why? Because the writers demand it, just that.

Why doesn't he send his sheriff to do this crap? What kind of prince would trust a newly embraced dude that is still building his allegiances with such an important mission that will decide his fate?

And that brings us to another inconsistency: How does our character manage to beat the whole Sabbat in his first few nights of unlife?

If that wasn't enough you destroy the Kuei Jin too. All the LA kindred couldn't kick them out, yet you go there by yourself and beat everyone in half an hour. I have zero knowledge about the Kuei Jin, do they have some incredible weakness to high gen vampires?

You'd think that going through all that bullshit you could at least diablerize the torpid dude you went through so much shit to get and crown yourself Prince by force, but no...

Basically the biggest inconsistence is how the story treats you as a shitty subordinate scum, while the game itself treats you as a demigod.

My sentiments exactly.

I struggled with the game. I tried to play it as an RPG and it was driving me nuts. It took me awhile to figure out what the problem was. It's an adventure game with some (poorly balanced) combat. Despite the choices you never feel in control. You're always the passenger, never the driver. The game forces some events on you, then gives a choice, then forces another event, etc.

Considering that neither Alpha Protocol nor Dragon Age 2 were well received, despite offering more choices than most games before them, I'd say that the reason the choices failed to make a difference is because in both games (much like in Witcher 2) you were never free to make decisions, unlike in games like Fallout and Arcanum. Without the freedom to decide what to do next, choices offered at certain story points don't really do much.

Still, Witcher 2 is a pretty good adventure game. The choices definitely work on that level.
:good for what it is:

Did I say that? It was a random example illustrating effects on gameplay.

Yes, the story would have been different without the dwarf but isn't that the fucking point? And I'm not saying kill the fucker. I'm saying put his life in danger and give Geralt a chance to save him or fail to do so. Should MY geralt be an exact fucking replica of the book's geralt and have exactly the same friends? That's why it's an adventure game.

If you have to ask this, it means that no discussion is possible on this topic. We can agree to disagree and move on.

I've just started the second play-through and stopped. The game interface is simply an abomination born by a sick mind. QTEs and all other shit are just the topping. So, right now I cannot defend this game.

Was the designed-for-gamepad interface and QTE's only added on the second playthrough? I had them in my first as well!

This feel was given to me mostly by the dialogue. I choose like 4-6 words for Geralt and he talks out a damn paragraph of random shit, than after the person replies he responds with more things I had no idea I told him to say. Paraphrasing!

Agreed on many of the points, but to be fair, it's stated a few times that the Prince is specifically sending you on these suicide missions in the hopes that you'll get killed. It works out for him either way; if you succeed in his crazy missions, you advance his interests, if you die, he's removed a thorn from his side. Also, it's implied that you are a neonate of very potent blood a few times by various characters. It's paper-thin, and it certainly needed to be fleshed out more, but at least it's something.

Totally agreed on the Sabbat though. When I was playing through it the first time, I had no knowledge of WoD lore at the time, and when I met Andrei in Hollywood all I could think was "what if this guy is right?" and the fact that I wanted revenge on that faggot Prince. I was disappointed to find out I had to fight Andrei anyways despite hating the Prince. The fact that you can't join the Sabbat is confusing considering that you can ally yourself with the Kuei-jin of all people, who are waaaayyyy less interesting. Bloodlines had a troubled development period, I know, but I still find this pretty incomprehensible.

Speaking of LaCroix, I would have liked some background as to how the fuck he became Prince in LA. There's not a single person in the city who seems to respect him, yet he's the most powerful man in the city. Sure, he's got the Sheriff, but that's just one guy - and even the Tremere and Nos primogen don't have any respect for him. I'm not saying it isn't an unrealistic scenario, complete losers come to positions of power all the time and the game did a good job of displaying that, but at least tell me how it happened. If he's such an uncharismatic and pathetic individual lacking in leadership skills, then why the fuck did the Inner Circle send him to take LA from the Anarchs in the first place?

Amen. LaCroix can Dominate you on several occasions, then right at the end, he can't? Pretty silly.

They painted themselves into a corner with these import save game ideas.

DA2 is badly received largely because it is a terrible game. The choices or lack thereof become immaterial in the face of such concentrated terribad.

This.

Honestly, VD, I respect your opinions and insight in RPG design but you're clearly overestimating importance of C&C, especially in respect to commercial success of the game. Lesi is right in saying that DA2 and Alph Protocol failing was much due to the godawful design decisions in them.

True, splendidly done C&C may save the grace of a title, but that doesn't mean they themselves can make "the bad" go away. As much as you love Arcanum, you must agree that it wasn't big success. If I was to say why I'd dare claim that it was all due to numerous things the game did pretty bad: from broken combat system, endless pointless dungeons of boredom rather uninspired storyline to tonnes of bugs.

I would also like to point out that Arcanum offered a number of fake C&C with the ring you are given on the crash-site being the most stark one. If I were nitpicky, I could easily point out a number of such moments where C&C amounted to what you called "flavour".

Lastly, I cannot help but be puzzled at the whole "semantical" discussion. Is TW2 an RPG or not? I don't know. Why should I care? So long as the game doesn't appeal to solely to the lowest functions of my brain, tries to play on the convention, and generally at least attempts to do something outside the box I am fine with that. By the same token Dragon Age: Origins may be the best RPG of 2009 for having some C&C, but that doesn't change the fact that it is steaming pile of boring turd even if somewhere out in the mountain of shit there are a few noteworthy ideas (which got removed in the sequel). Clearly C&C in DA wasn't good enough to outweight the cons and justify playing it.