Review The Witcher 2 Review

[aries202]

I played Witcher 1 on easy, because I wanted to experience the stoiry; I also have very poorly hand-eye coordination, due to an incident from my childhood. It has gotten better with training, but qte's in games; I have trouble with e.g. the handwaving for real in the Harry Potter games for example (youll actually need to use the mouse to emulate the spell you're learning - took me forever...)

And even though I liked and loved the Lego - Star Wars games, I just couldn't click fast enough to do anything i.e. jumping etc.

 

[curry]

Potatos gonna butthurt.

 

[Licaon_Kter]

Potatos gonna butthurt.

BTW, who is handling the official RPGCodex Magazine TW2 review?

 

[OSK]

Potatos gonna butthurt.

BTW, who is handling the official RPGCodex Magazine TW2 review?

Does it matter? We already know what the result will be.

Potato-eater: 11/10 bestest gaem eva!!!!!11!!
Anyone else: 5/10 meh.

 

[Excidium]

My concise review of Witcher (1, haven't played 2)

 

[L233]

The story of TW2 is a convoluted mess that deliberately complicates a simplicistic basic storyline by the obnoxious name dropping of kings, places and battles that mean nothing to me, whereas TW1 started with a mystery that had additonal layers of complexity added to it as you went on through the game. It starts with an assassination, it ends with Geralt confronting the assassin in an utterly anti-climactic ending and between that you have a bunch of convenient roadblocks placed in your way (sea monster, cursed battlefield), that add little to the actual storyline. Oh, and the ending sucks.

The game handles choice and consequence better than just about any other, but the story itself isn't very good, poorly paced (with chapter 2 seemingly dragging on forever while the final chapter 3 ends in the blink of an eye without any sort of satisfying conclusion) and poorly told. The game leaves you more or less in the dark all the way to the very last encounter, and so the designers took the easy way out and simply used the boss like a Witcher II Wiki page to fill you in on all the blanks.

I don't care how cliché the story in Dragon Age: Orgins was, at least it managed to get me emotionally invested in the story and the characters. I cared about these characters and I cared about what was happening to them. In TW2, on the other hand, I simply didn't give a shit about any of these assholes or about the shit they were constantly yapping about, kings and places and events I've never seen and didn't know anything about. The player is supposed to care about that shit because he is told to and not because the game successfully manages to make it relevant to the player.

TW2 - what a disappointment. I liked TW1 a lot but TW2 is a game with great graphics (though I'd rather have the more varied locations in TW1, to be honest), but with shitty combat and a shitty story. It's still fun to a certain extend but that can be said about a lot of things.

 

[Mrowak]

Potatos gonna butthurt.

BTW, who is handling the official RPGCodex Magazine TW2 review?

Does it matter? We already know what the result will be.

Potato-eater: 11/10 bestest gaem eva!!!!!11!!
Anyone else: 5/10 meh.

You know, the funny thing is none of us Polacks, ever expressed that sentiment. None of us stated that the game is flawless or that it is a good RPG. All that those of us who liked the game did was saying that it was pretty enjoyable, does a bunch of stuff right, while missing the mark in a few other places. Overal a quality product, though you are free to argue with me.

The only people who said anything like you are claiming were Cryway's wannabes who, in trying to be "witty" and "ironic", desperately whore themselves for attention. You could come up with some consistent argumentation, but I guess it puts too much stress on your kind. Blasted circlejerkers.

I fucking love these boards and its atmosphere, but the constant hateboism towards everything and everyone is really tiresome. Bunch of 20-something toddlers fighting for a shovel in a sandbox while calling themselves and everyone around names so that their mummies can find out they pooed their nappies. The fact that mods started partaining in this comedy is the true mark of

In before "buthurt detected", "pwned", "r00fles" etc., etc. At least be creative next time, ok?

 

[ArcturusXIV]

Game reviewer lacks common sense. People that want to play this kind of game, want to play this kind of game. Obviously, he is not a classic RPG fan, or this would have made sense.

I understand annoyance at delay/dodging in combat. I also understand his comments of "cliche," as I'm sick of standard races such as dwarves, elves, et cetera anyway. Well-represented, they are fine, but EVERY BLOODY GAME has to have them in generic fantasy worlds, and even switching their roles, so that elves are underclass citizens does not change the fact that you've just reversed roles (linear logic) as opposed to creating something new (lateral logic). Developers need to start goldmining the tomes of history for different concepts, racially, different mythologies from European fare, even something Norse or Arabic would be more interesting than standard European "There be Dragons!" derp.

And just reversing elves role from upper-class to lower-class does not prove you're original, it is like a Christian becoming an atheist because HIS God is incorrect, instead of examining lateral philosophies like Zen Buddhism and Confucianism. Indian Mythology... So on.

There are plenty of possibilities to create "fantasy" that diverges from cardboard cliche...

But it is not done by warping a concept into something evolutionary, or reversing a role--it is done by creating something revolutionary--creating a new role, new mythology, new idea, and generally new concept, that doesn't fit into a common archetype or genre role.

You would be right in the vast majority of cases: I for one would like someone come up with something kinda original, and a lame example are the Draenei from WoW (lore-fucking and far-fetched, but they make an nteresting concept for a race). Yet, it is not fair to criticize TW2 for not coming up with something original, as the game is based on pre-existing books, and the books, written ages ago, featured the "classic" fantasy races, althought slightly churned up in their roles. It'd be like criticizing a LOTR game for having banal, trite and stereotyped races...

You are right, Sir. And it is hardly a criticism of Witcher 2, which appears well-made from what I've read, that they draw on fantasy mythology and deliver good gameplay concepts.

It is more a criticism of standard fantasy authors, that seem intent on ripping off Tolkien directly, rather than drawing back into vast tomes of mythology that populate the universe (of which there are plenty) to gather new concepts, just as Tolkien did. For every great artist, there are imitators. Tolkien did his homework, the rest seem like lame imitators to anyone interested in classical mythology or bar-breaking literature.

 

[Rivmusique]

I am generally a fan of games that challenge me as opposed to holding my hand, but Witcher 2 was one of the few games where I simply got too aggravated to continue on the Normal setting.

This is why we cant have nice things...

Witcher 2 was not that hard, it's difficulty is certainly not a reason to rate it down. Bah game journalists, always the same.

 

[RK47]

I think nobody cares at this point whether Witcher is good or bad. Save the rage for Skyrim, Codex. The initial sales and awards already went to Witcher 2. No amount of negative review would make a dent on its sale now.

 

[commie]

I think nobody cares at this point whether Witcher is good or bad. Save the rage for Skyrim, Codex. The initial sales and awards already went to Witcher 2. No amount of negative review would make a dent on its sale now.

Hence the suspicion that the 'review' is just for trolling and edginess purposes. Waiting 2 months before giving your own 'expert' opinion after the vast majority have beaten off over TW2?

 

[torpid]

So when is Roxor writing his review?

 

[Jools]

bla

bla+1

bla+1+1

That is true. Although Tolkien himself helped himself vastly from quite a few epic saga and mythologies, there's so many out there that it's ridiculous to see every new game just bring up the same old shit. And after the LOTR movies, developers have even started to rip off the fucking visual design. Most orcs now looks like the ones from those bloody movies!

Back to out "originality" issue, I have to say that JRPG often cater some interesting concepts, which are taken from all sorts of Far-Eastern mythologies, and which kinda seem original to us Westerners because we're not-so-familiar with them. Also, because we've been force fed orcs, elves and dwarves, in all sort of sauces, for the last 50 years. And skeletons, plus the whole plethora of undead shit. And rats.

But, alas, it is really rare to find a game that'd come up with something -really- original. For one, I'd like a game where the majority of foes are human. Plain humans. And maybe the occasional rabid dog or whatever.

Thinking of it, the Gothic series might not excel at originality, but at least it didn't come across as trite and ripped off, not too much, at least (those dinosaur-like stuff, those funny "molerats", the seekers... and then of course bandits and skeletons).

 

[Angthoron]

bla

bla+1

bla+1+1

bla bla

I should like to point out that Witcher setting/stories as such are fairly creative as fantasy goes - yes, it does use many of the cliché features of the genre, but part of the process of good writing is using the clichés well - sometimes, it is to establish a setting/character/scene faster, sometimes, it's to turn the cliché on its head, or to lead the reader to wrong conclusions. Unfortunately, this is what fantasy writers nearly never get right. Evil is diabolical, wearing black, is mal-formed, randomly and senselessly malicious and, hell, it will even smell bad and have BLACK FUCKING BLOOD.

Witcher setting actually avoids all of the worst stereotypes and uses many of the common clichés and stories as a base to rewrite the situation and it brings something new to the table, that is, East European mythology, which is actually quite rich and brutal, very fitting to the setting's world. It could use more work, and I actually in a way liked Witcher 1 approach to mythology more than Witcher 2.

Sorry about being slightly jumbled in my writing, I'm posting from work.

 

[Storyfag]

For one, I'd like a game where the majority of foes are human. Plain humans. And maybe the occasional rabid dog or whatever.

Play either of The Witcher games then?

 

[Jools]

For one, I'd like a game where the majority of foes are human. Plain humans. And maybe the occasional rabid dog or whatever.

Play either of The Witcher games then?

Yes, loved the games, but there are loads of ghouls, barghests, cockatrickes, and all sort of "fantasy" creatures in there.

 

[Mrowak]

For one, I'd like a game where the majority of foes are human. Plain humans. And maybe the occasional rabid dog or whatever.

Play either of The Witcher games then?

Yes, loved the games, but there are loads of ghouls, barghests, cockatrickes, and all sort of "fantasy" creatures in there.

Well, if you can stomach specific japanese sense of humour aesthetics, I recommend The Way of the Samurai. The game actually has more C&C than two TWitcher games put together, yet no one claims it's an RPG...



We have a good-but-abandoned LP of it on the 'Dex by Genma:TheDestroyer

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52660/

 

[Storyfag]

For one, I'd like a game where the majority of foes are human. Plain humans. And maybe the occasional rabid dog or whatever.

Play either of The Witcher games then?

Yes, loved the games, but there are loads of ghouls, barghests, cockatrickes, and all sort of "fantasy" creatures in there.

True that, but the primary antagonists are always human or close to human and seldom utilize monstrous minions

 

[trojan pony]

The derp is strong with this reviewer but he makes some fair points about the combat and it's definitely a valid target for some scorn.

They tried to ape Ass Creed and Arkham Asylum but totally failed to capture the responsiveness and fluidity that made the combat in those games so fun. Protracted and uninterruptible animations snatch a lot of the control from the user and when combined with pretty shoddy physics that leave you weightless upon contact with NPCs and them as rigid as pillars the feedback from the game for your input is unsatisfying. While ass creed and batman both had "press button and awesome shit happens" going on they did a much better job of making them context sensitive and timing based. Here a lot of the time a press on the LMB is a gamble and you don't know how Geralt will react. Will he make the conservative slash you want or is he going to do one of those flashy leaps that throw him forward and into the centre of the crowd of guards you've just been manouvering so they're all to your front?

While the combat doesn't fundamentally improve, Geralt getting better combined with less restrictive combat areas meant it was never as much of an issue as in those opening stages. It's not so much about difficulty but about a crappy combat system that fails at copying its inspiration leaving parts of the game frustrating and unenjoyable rather than hard.

 

[Jools]

For one, I'd like a game where the majority of foes are human. Plain humans. And maybe the occasional rabid dog or whatever.

Play either of The Witcher games then?

Yes, loved the games, but there are loads of ghouls, barghests, cockatrickes, and all sort of "fantasy" creatures in there.

Well, if you can stomach specific japanese sense of humour aesthetics, I recommend The Way of the Samurai. The game actually has more C&C than two TWitcher games put together, yet no one claims it's an RPG...



We have a good-but-abandoned LP of it on the 'Dex by Genma:TheDestroyer

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52660/

Oh, PS2 stuff. Coincidentally, the only console I own. Is the sequel worth it, too?

 

[Mrowak]

For one, I'd like a game where the majority of foes are human. Plain humans. And maybe the occasional rabid dog or whatever.

Play either of The Witcher games then?

Yes, loved the games, but there are loads of ghouls, barghests, cockatrickes, and all sort of "fantasy" creatures in there.

Well, if you can stomach specific japanese sense of humour aesthetics, I recommend The Way of the Samurai. The game actually has more C&C than two TWitcher games put together, yet no one claims it's an RPG...



We have a good-but-abandoned LP of it on the 'Dex by Genma:TheDestroyer

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52660/

Oh, PS2 stuff. Coincidentally, the only console I own. Is the sequel worth it, too?

By all accounts, yes. I still haven't played it myself, still looking for a legit copy (A strange quirk of mine - I simply must own legal copy of game series I like) in this part of the world.

If you thought TW2 controls to be cluncky, brace yourself for rage. Once you get the hang of them, though, you should enjoy hella lot of both games. Just remember - it's not Devil May Cry, so you won't find any flashy kewl moves here - it seems to kill all the enjoyment for certain Cryways on these boards in action games.

 

[Regdar]

I see reviewing TWitcher 2 is like talking about a dead person, in that you have to wait 40 days before you can write a negative review about it. Anyway, I guess it's a good thing Poland isn't armed with nukes. With their PM gifting a video game to a president of a foreign country (an act both unprecedented and patriotic), you know any criticism is going to inflict either denial or acute ass pain to anyone who feels any level of involvement with the game's success/failure. Which is to say, a whole fuckin' country.

 

[Gragt]

Tolkienesque? I'd take anything from The Witcher over the bloated mediocrity Tolkien wrote.

 

[RK47]

. Will he make the conservative slash you want or is he going to do one of those flashy leaps that throw him forward and into the centre of the crowd of guards you've just been manouvering so they're all to your front?

Will the player hold certain directional key while pressing the attack button and blame the game?

This is why we can't have nice, challenging games anymore.

 

[Oriebam]

I played Witcher 1 on easy, because I wanted to experience the stoiry; I also have very poorly hand-eye coordination, due to an incident from my childhood. It has gotten better with training, but qte's in games; I have trouble with e.g. the handwaving for real in the Harry Potter games for example (youll actually need to use the mouse to emulate the spell you're learning - took me forever...)

And even though I liked and loved the Lego - Star Wars games, I just couldn't click fast enough to do anything i.e. jumping etc.

tell us more